November 28, 2009 Saturday Mr. William C. Haman & Mr. Kevin Donnelly Chief Division Counsel Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation 2500 T.C. Jester Blvd. Houston, Texas 77008 Re: Sanctions et al. Subject: Carol Ann Davis v. City of Jersey Village et al 4:03-CV-02395 Mr. Haman & Mr. Kevin Donnelly: Plaintiff Davis has no objection if you want to produce the ‘duty agent’ i.e. Special Agent Rick Veterinarian (fact witness) to disclose information relating to the disjointed and delusional information relayed to him about (retired)Special Agent Ron Stern in connection with USC SDTX 4:03-CV-Ho-02395 regarding complaint number 0-62, and 282-H-Ho-59712, under a Rule 60 (b) (6) when Agent Rick Veterinarian was trying to 1 | Page
62
Embed
Attorney Haman William November 27, 2009 About December 18 2008
Also Google - "Greg Abbott = Hypocrite" Actor Ben Plaut
Public Interest Document and Public Record of how a racketeer is attempting to perpetuate his criminal activity and enterprise under the guise of a foundation in his name to continue his corrupt vision for Texas and to advance the continued racket connected to his partners i.e former DPS trooper Charles Soechting who is harassing Charles O'Dell with a lawsuit when he is the 'stalwart" partner that is responsible for bringing down the O'Quinn Law Firm for the murder of a federal witness, Melinda "Lindy Harrison" Honerkamp (November 4, 1953- August 5, 2005) and that John O'Quinn and the O'Quinn Law Firm continued the RETALIATION and other related state and federal crimes documented in former United States Attorney Ron Woods letter of March 1992 and in a federal lawsuit numbered 4:03-cv-ho-02395 with an intended rule 60 (b) (6) motion percolating, and where the criminal evidence has been delivered to attorney Jerry S. Payne of Piney Point, Texas. Respectfully submitted, Carol Ann Davis , 25311 Sugar Valley Lane, Spring, Texas 77373, (281) 350-2943 ( 713) 560-5940
Texas Double Standard "Ramon Viada" for more information
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
November 28, 2009 Saturday
Mr. William C. Haman &Mr. Kevin Donnelly Chief Division Counsel Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation2500 T.C. Jester Blvd.Houston, Texas 77008
Re: Sanctions et al. Subject: Carol Ann Davis v. City of Jersey Village et al 4:03-CV-02395
Mr. Haman & Mr. Kevin Donnelly:
Plaintiff Davis has no objection if you want to produce the ‘duty agent’ i.e.
Special Agent Rick Veterinarian (fact witness) to disclose information relating to
the disjointed and delusional information relayed to him about (retired)Special
Agent Ron Stern in connection with USC SDTX 4:03-CV-Ho-02395 regarding
complaint number 0-62, and 282-H-Ho-59712, under a Rule 60 (b) (6) when Agent
Rick Veterinarian was trying to cover up for Special Agent Al Tribble not
requesting the “booking documents”, not to mention YOU COVERING IT UP
TOO. The statutory requirements have been clearly satisfied as it relates to the
agreement to present special agent Ron Stern and plaintiff limited inquiry. [See
usca 5 pages 3759 filed 10-30-08] to ensure you have a valid reason for not
granting my request, and “playing games” presently by copy of this letter to Judge
1 | P a g e
Werlein Jr. that Plaintiff Davis is requesting sanctions i.e. Rule 11 motions and
a hearing.
Plaintiff Davis is requesting the court to impose sanctions against you at
least in the amount for the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses incurred
to date including the loss of life, and your participation in re- directing the DOJ
investigation that was also involves former United States attorney Laurence
Finder., Judge Werlein Jr. is going to want to hear from the duty agent Rick who
practices veterinary medicine and law enforcement, and Plaintiff is seeking
unspecified damages from YOU and John M. O’Quinn is that delusional and
disjointed enough for you sir. This will include Special Agent Rick Veterinarians
medical diagnosis of Plaintiff Davis; his basis in medicine, fact and law about
disjointed and delusional information where Plaintiff is correcting by “connecting
the dots” to YOU, and Special Agent Al Tribble and appends the information to
Part I ( correction Number One) of the motion to vacate filed at 274 and 275
pursuant to Rule 60 (b) (6) filed in “Federal Court” and in Harris County Probate
Court No. 2 Judge Mike Woods presiding, armed with a verified request for
Declaratory Relief in a Section 1983, where the United States Department of
Justice, Albert N. Moskowitz on July 19, 2002 authorized a Section 1983 civil
lawsuit, 2002 documented in their letter to Plaintiff Davis that she file a civil
rights lawsuit against the City of Jersey Village et al for constitional deprivations,
2 | P a g e
and YOU continue to punish Plaintiff Davis due to Judge Sim Lake “FILE A
COMPLAINT ON THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY” knowing full well
Plaintiff Davis was not as sophisticated in government operations and the
complaint was misdirected and should have been aimed at YOU. Plaintiff Davis
was unaware it was you did not agree with Albert M. Moskowitz, Chief of the
Criminal Section of the United States Department of Justice and know if Plaintiff
Davis discovers “Federal Court” reporter Cher Barron removed that letter from the
“Federal Court” file there is not going to be enough ‘medicine’ to fix the delusion I
have planned for YOU and her in a Federal Court to disjoint both of your freedom
and profits from illegal activity.
Special Agent Rick Veterinarian ‘handing’ Ron Sterns federal information
source clearly not proper and ‘advising’ Plaintiff “Go to the doctor, “for
medication” presumably to medicate her for delusions about O’Quinn and the
FAKE client documented in the “CAPIAS” that it is NOT an illegal dissemination
and an offer of proof of tampering with government data bases not pursuant to the
Texas Government Code , Subchapter F has not been presented, and to seek
‘medicine’ it is detected as a part of YOUR GAME. The medicine is the TML
policy limits and Declaratory Relief granted, and gets you FIRED, sir. The ‘duty
agent i.e. Rick Veterinarian has OBJECTED November 23, 2009 absent a medical
or a law license to Judge Werlein’s continued “Federal Court” jurisdiction,
3 | P a g e
claiming Plaintiff Davis is delusional ‘fanciful’, and “out of an abundance of
caution” the “Federal Court” is requested to set a hearing, and immediately hear
the EMERGENCY, OF THE DUTY AGENT and the PERIL of Plaintiff Davis
request for ‘medicine’ i.e. sanctions against you, Mr. William C. Haman to
explore your professional violations detected even if you occupy Plaintiff is
needing ‘medicine’ and not her legal right to payment for damages.
Plaintiff Davis made claims against the United States, through the Order of
Judge Sim Lake for the actions of the FBI, and other agents, connected to the
sentencing of Texas DPS Trooper Defendant Richard Rodriguez, for tampering
with governmental data base computers but, Plaintiff Davis still not
understanding the O’Quinn Law Firm ‘s role in ‘representing’ a FAKE client
under the Federal Torts Claim Act (“FTCA”) for abuse of process, malicious
prosecution, concealing the physical assaults of February 18, 2001, and Special
Agent Al Tribble not requesting the “booking documents”, intentional infliction
of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and invasion of privacy is DETECTED
as a part of the cover up.
The ‘duty agent’ so much as said, Plaintiff Davis filed a “Bivens” 1 claims
against FBI agents for due process and Fifth Amendment violations for alleged
violations of the federal Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18
4 | P a g e
U.S.C. § 1961-1968, by The O’Quinn Law Firm, and various employees of these
government operations i.e. State of Texas et al, court reporters, videographers and
interference with economic advantage and benefit, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, and fraud and deceit claims against all defendants connected to
the Department of Justice Special Agent Ron Stern contract that bears Plaintiff
Davis name to collect criminal evidence armed with the July 19, 2002 . While at
the time, Plaintiff was unaware that Judge Sim Lake was talking about you, Mr.
William C. Haman.
The FTCA applies state law to determine the government’s liability for torts
within the FTCA waiver of immunity. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2674. Under
Texas law, there are seven [7] elements for a malicious prosecution claim: (1)
commencement of a criminal prosecution against the plaintiff; (2) causation
(initiation or procurement) of the action by the defendant; (3) termination of the
prosecution in the plaintiff’s favor; (4) the plaintiff’s innocence; (5) the absence of
probable cause for the proceedings; (6) malice in filing the charge; and (7) damage
to the plaintiff. See Richey v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 952 S.W.2d 515, 517 (Tex.
1997). Special Agent Al Tribble did not ask for the “booking documents “as
part of the setup to protect his friend former head of the Houston FBI Office Don
Clark (emphasis added). Attorney John M. O’Quinn hired Don Clark to protect
John O’Quinn and his empire built on corrupt activities with public officials;
5 | P a g e
racketeering the purpose of Ron Stern’s probe and the contract with Plaintiff Davis
. Your argument; Plaintiff Davis cannot meet the fifth criterion, absence of
probable cause, and blame Plaintiff for the absence of indictments related to the
targets for bribing a public official in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1)(A)& (C),
which provides: (b) Whoever (1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives . . .
anything of value to any public official . . . with intent (A) to influence any
official act; or (B) to induce such public official . . . to commit or aid in
committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the
commission of any fraud, on the United States; shall be [subject to criminal
liability] is not going to be received very well by Judge Werlein. You are aware
Judge Werlein is a stickler about the law; he expects to see a commitment to public
service. Protecting John M. O’Quinn and the FAKE client is not the commitment
that is authorized by the “Federal Court” where YOU joined in the “game”;
“Everyone agrees to lie” to the “Federal Court “and plaintiff Davis.
Probable cause is defined as “the existence of such facts and circumstances
as would excite belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the
knowledge of the prosecutor [complainant], that the person charged was guilty of
the crime for which he was prosecuted.” Richey, 952 S.W.2d at 517 (citation
omitted) (editing original). If the facts necessary to instigate a criminal prosecution
are in dispute, the issue of probable cause is a mixed question of law and fact to be
6 | P a g e
resolved by Judge Werlein Jr. Where the facts underlying the decision to
prosecute are not disputed, however, then the question of probable cause is a
question of law decided by the court. See Richey, 952 S.W.2d at 518. It is
undisputed that Al Tribble did not collect the “booking documents” and has
continued to PROFIT as a Special Agent for the FBI, and Al Tribble has defended
the employment of Don Clark when Clark was hired by John M. O’Quinn during a
federal investigation about public corruption i.e. Texas Attorney General Dan
Morales remember him? FBI Agent Robert Hightower remember him? The only
dispute concerns Tribble’s s mens rea – what Al Tribble knew or intended. “[T]he
complainant’s failure to make a further investigation into the suspect’s state of
mind does not constitute lack of probable cause if all objective elements of a crime
reasonably appear to have been completed, and the ‘duty agent’ wants Plaintiff
Davis medicated for delusion and disjointed thoughts. Even though the Plaintiff
Davis evidence might have been weak (delusional and or disjointed) and the
prospects of obtaining a conviction may not have been good, before receiving the
medical diagnosis of the Special Agent Veterinarian as a matter of law, the Davis
Plaintiff “ federal information source “ under Special Agent Ron Stern has
proffered proof of probable cause; and thus Plaintiff Davis has not failed to state
a claim for the denial of protection of her civil rights, when Al Tribble did not
collect the “booking documents” from Sgt. Robert “Body Armor” LaRouax
7 | P a g e
connected to investigation 282-A-HO-59712 where Plaintiff hand wrote about
John M. O’Quinn and his vast government conspiracy on February 18, 2001 and
when Al Tribble ‘investigates’ Don Clark gets a new job , and Plaintiff says
come on back Don it’s over because YOU know everything of John M. O’Quinn ‘s
is mine because if you do not Plaintiff Davis is going to prosecute you too Mr. Don
Clark; and by copy Don Clark is advised. (See Houston Chronicle Archive and the
United States Attorney Ronald G. Woods, and his professional opinion that Clark
working for O’Quinn was “problematic” and for $ 150.00., Plaintiff Davis can turn
“hearsay” in to testimony evidence against the O’Quinn, his billion dollar empire
where Plaintiff Davis says its mine (and the Harris County Rico Victims) – Judge
Werlein Jr. rules, while you too act “impervious to the truth”. 2. Abuse of
Process Under Texas law, there are three elements for an abuse of process claim:
“(1) that Al Tribble made an illegal, improper or perverted use of the process, a use
neither warranted nor authorized by the process; (2) that the Al Tribble et al had an
ulterior motive or purpose in exercising such illegal, perverted or improper use of
the process; and (3) that damage resulted to the plaintiff Davis as a result of such
illegal act.” Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. Cedar Point Oil Co. Inc., 73 F.3d
546, 577 (5th Cir. 1996). The ‘duty agent ‘allegations are fatally defective
because they fail to allege use of the process other than the mere institution of the
veterinarian, insult to injury, “playing games” i.e. obstruction of justice ,
8 | P a g e
trivializing Plaintiff Davis peril which was not improper. See In re Burzynski, 989
F.2d 733, 739 (5th Cir. 1993). Thus, as a matter of law, Plaintiff Davis has not
failed to state a claim for abuse of process upon which relief can be granted. C.
RICO Plaintiff claims and argues that Judge Werlein is going to err in dismissing
you from the prosecution of Plaintiff Davis RICO claims against the government
agents i.e. Al Tribble and private defendants on the basis of qualified immunity,
when it was Al Tribble deliberate act that gives Plaintiff Davis FIRST CHAIR,
based on the letter written by the Department of Justice, and YOU have NOT
earned the right to be a GOVERNMENT LAWYER and YOU have ABUSED
YOUR OFFICE . Government officials performing discretionary functions are
shielded from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate
‘clearly established’ statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person
would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) but Tribble
knew NOT to ask for the “booking documents” How ? Plaintiff Davis advises him
in a delusional and disjointed manner, and this is your chance to sell it to the
Judge – that you are innocent too. Plaintiff has been talking to this Judge since
2003 sometimes represented by counsel most of the time not. This Judge has
permitted his Plaintiff to file 27 post trial motions after a four day trial. This
Judge has commitment to public service and he is going to look at you and your
commitment to public service and this judge is going to make an inquiry in the
9 | P a g e
public interest due to his commitment to serve the United States of America and its
citizens a job that you are supposed to be interested in but you want to “play
games”. It is standard operating procedure to request the “booking documents”.
The district court will determine that Al Tribble is not entitled to qualified
immunity from the RICO claim because the Plaintiffs can show a violation of
statutory rights secured by RICO. Specifically, the district court WILL reasoned
that “[t]he FBI agent IS liable for RICO violations in the performance of their
duties BUT there can be no RICO claim against federal officials on account of
their alleged official misconduct,” citing McNeily v. United States , 6 F.3d 343,
350 (5th Cir. 1993). The holding in McNeily , which held that the FDIC cannot be
sued under the RICO statute because the FDIC, as a federal agency, is not
chargeable, indictable or punishable for violations of state and federal criminal
provisions. See id., relying on Berger v. Pierce, 933 F.2d 393, 397 (6th Cir. 1991).
Had the Plaintiffs named the FBI as a defendant to this suit, the district court
would have been on firm ground in dismissing RICO claims against that federal
agency based on McNeily. However, McNeily does not support the grant of
qualified immunity to the FBI agents or to the private individuals who acted at the
direction of John M. O’Quinn just like those ‘attorneys’ at the Texas Attorney
General Law Enforcement Division , David Talbot, Karen Matlock et al who
accepted the setup letter of attorneys Larry Mayo and Leona Filis working
10 | P a g e
together to achieve one single purpose ; protect O’Quinn and his billion dollar
empire. However, if the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on some
alternative ground, the district court’s may affirm a dismissal however doubtful
See Gulf Island IV, 940 F.2d at 952. In assessing a claim of qualified
immunity, Judge Werlein Jr. must determine whether: (1) the plaintiff Davis has
asserted a constitutional or statutory violation; (2) the law regarding the alleged
violation was clearly established at the time of the operative events; and (3) the
record shows that the violation occurred, or at least gives rise to “a genuine issue
of material fact as to whether the Al Tribble actually engaged in conduct that
violated the clearly- established law, by not requesting the “booking documents.”
Kerr v. Lyford, 171 F.3d 330, 338 (5th Cir. 1999). If Judge Werlein Jr. determines
that Al Tribble official’s conduct violated clearly established law, we address
whether that conduct was objectively reasonable. See Wren v. Towe, 130 F.3d
1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1997). The Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act
RICO imposes criminal and civil liability upon those who engage in “a pattern of
racketeering activity” defined as “any act or threat involving” specified state-law
crimes, acts indictable under various specified federal statutes, and other federal
offenses. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). Section 1964(c) allows a private party who has
been sustained damages from a RICO violation, to recover those damages. See 18
U.S.C. § 1964(c). And, you are aware even if you think it is delusional and
11 | P a g e
disjointed Plaintiff Davis herein alleges that the Government and private
defendants’ racketeering activities included mail and wire fraud, which are
included among the enumerated predicate acts or a RICO claim. See 18 U.S.C. §
1961(1). . In McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987), the Supreme Court
held that the mail fraud statute did not prohibit schemes that defrauded people of
their intangible rights to an honest and impartial government. Following McNally ,
Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1346, 2 which, in one sentence, provided that “[f]or
the purposes of this chapter, the term ‘scheme or artifice to defraud’ includes a
scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” In
1997, the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that, by enacting § 1346, Congress
intended to protect the intangible right of honest services from wire fraud schemes
by state actors. See United States v. Brumley, 116 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir. 1997)
(“fraud statutes cover the deprivation of intangible rights.”). However, prior to the
en banc resolution of Brumley, such rights were clearly established by the
enactment of § 1346. See id. At 736 (dissent) (“It is therefore incomprehensible to
us that the majority can conclude . . . that [§ 1346] reflects a clear statement of a
Congressional intention to protect the citizenry of a state from corrupt state
officials.”). Because the rights asserted by Plaintiff Davis are clearly established at
the time of defendants’ alleged acts, Judge Werlein Jr., will conclude and not err in
not dismissing Plaintiff Davis RICO claims. D. Supremacy Clause and State
12 | P a g e
Law Claims Plaintiff Davis has yet to bring state law claims for civil conspiracy,
invasion of privacy, interference with economic advantage and benefit, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, 3 and fraud and deceit. Plaintiff Davis contends she
is not on the ground that she is barred by the federal supremacy clause, even when
you argue Plaintiff Davis is delusional and makes disjointed comments, you make
consider that Judge Werlein understand the illusion of good government, the RICO
of John M. O’Quinn, and shares an understanding of his Plaintiff ‘disjointed ‘ from
Agent Ron Stern is YOUR FAULT, and know Plaintiff Davis is going to advise his
wife, United States Attorney Julia Stern, by facsimile, and she will have it by the
time you read this line. 4
1. Government Agents
The individual agents’ immunity from suit under Texas law is
the issue. The Attorney General has not certified under 28 U.S.C. §
2679(d)(1) that the agents acted within the scope of their employment
at the time of the events at issue, thereby substituting the United
States as defendant on those claims, see Gutierrez de Martinez v.
Lamagno , 515 U.S. 417, 420 (1995). This procedure is not challenged
but no doubt in “the game” the government is still working for
O’Quinn and you will and you have because you did not seek a
13 | P a g e
decision knowing the whole time Al Tribble did not request the
“booking documents” on purpose and you want to “play games” with
a former Special Agent in this case Ron Stern’s Federal Information
Source, where YOU waived YOUR rights to prosecute your friends
softly for public corruption crime and YOU know Plaintiff Davis is
requesting Judge Werlein to take it all, exclude you and – it is
justified
2. Private Defendants
The district court will not dismiss Plaintiff Davis state law
claims against the private defendants under the federal supremacy
clause. While this Court has not addressed the issue of whether the
supremacy clause preempts state law tort claims against private
defendants acting at the direction of the federal government, there is
some precedent to guide us and it is NOT disjointed. In Boyle v.
United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), the Supreme Court
considered the issue of whether the supremacy clause preempted state
law liability of independent contractors performing work for the
federal government. Under Boyle, state law may be preempted where:
(1) there is a uniquely federal interest and (2) there is a significant
14 | P a g e
conflict between federal policy and the operation of state law. See
Boyle, 487 U.S. at 504-05, 507.
The liability of private defendants for actions taken at the
direction of agents acting within their authority is a unique federal
interest. Private businesses and individuals provide invaluable
assistance as informants who provide evidence against law violators
or, as in this instance, lend credibility to FBI undercover operations.
If private businesses were not eligible for immunity from state law
claims arising from assisting undercover federal operations, this
would provide a major disincentive to assisting law enforcement and
would undermine the needs and interests of the federal government.
At issue then, is whether the federal policy conflicts with the
operation of state law. If the private defendants committed what
would have been illegal acts under state law at the direction and
control of agents acting within their authority, the operation of state
law would conflict with federal policy. In Hunter v. Wood, 209 U.S.
205 (1908), where state law conflicted with a federal court order, the
Court will not preclude a state law prosecution of a railroaded federal
information source who worked with another federal information
source both who worked with federal agents i.e. Ron Stern in this
15 | P a g e
case, and has made an offer of proof in the FAKE client documented
in the “CAPIAS” is not public corruption when the same ‘client’ was
used to high jack legal processes , government operations, waste,
fraud and abuse now under investigation at Texas State Auditor John
Keel’s Office pursuant to and in that order. Similarly, this Court has
suggested that federal immunity privilege should be extended to
preclude an action against a telephone company who assisted federal
law enforcement agents with wiretapping. See Fowler v. Southern Bell