Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Saturday
Plaintiff Davis has no objection if you want to produce the ‘duty agent’ i.e.
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
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|Page
Werlein Jr. that Plaintiff Davis is requesting sanctions i.e. Rule 11 motions and
a hearing.
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
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
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
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|Page
and YOU continue to punish Plaintiff Davis due to Judge Sim Lake “FILE A
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
source clearly not proper and ‘advising’ Plaintiff “Go to the doctor, “for
medication” presumably to medicate her for delusions about O’Quinn and the
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
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
3|Page
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
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
with governmental data base computers but, Plaintiff Davis still not
under the Federal Torts Claim Act (“FTCA”) for abuse of process, malicious
prosecution, concealing the physical assaults of February 18, 2001, and Special
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
4|Page
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
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)
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|Page
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
anything of value to any public official . . . with intent (A) to influence any
committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the
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”;
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
are in dispute, the issue of probable cause is a mixed question of law and fact to be
6|Page
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
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|Page
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
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
8|Page
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
shielded from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate
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|Page
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
us that the majority can conclude . . . that [§ 1346] reflects a clear statement of a
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,
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
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
1. Government Agents
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
Lamagno , 515 U.S. 417, 420 (1995). This procedure is not challenged
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
softly for public corruption crime and YOU know Plaintiff Davis is
justified
2. Private Defendants
The district court will not dismiss Plaintiff Davis state law
clause. While this Court has not addressed the issue of whether the
United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), the Supreme Court
14 | P a g e
conflict between federal policy and the operation of state law. See
what would have been illegal acts under state law at the direction and
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
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
fraud and abuse now under investigation at Texas State Auditor John
Keel’s Office pursuant to and in that order. Similarly, this Court has
Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 343 F.2d 150, 156-57 (5th Cir.
1965). See also Connecticut v. Marra, 528 F. Supp. 381 (D. Conn.
law action. In this case, the private defendants, in good faith, did not
16 | P a g e
ample evidence that the private defendants acted maliciously or
defendants had ample reason to believe that their actions were illegal
Plaintiff Davis state law claims against the private defendants are not
You are not authorized to argue that the district court erred in
finding that Plaintiff Davis FTCA causes of action and Bivens claims
are not barred by the statute of limitations. The district court will
not err in holding that Plaintiff Davis Bivens claims are not time
barred, and you nevertheless affirm the those claims on the basis of
17 | P a g e
1. FTCA Claims
of action accrues, under federal law, “when the plaintiff knows or has
reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.” See
existence of the injury; and (2) the connection between the injury and
512, 516 (5th Cir. 1995). After carefully reviewing the veterinarian
first one, Jerry S. Payne filed the second one, Plaintiff Davis sued
O’Quinn and that is the Forth one, Beverly Thompson and Plaintiff
have sought Declaratory Relief and that is the fifth one , and this is the
Sixth one, and that Plaintiff Davis et al claims for assault, false
Stern and Plaintiff Davis, and have been presented more than two-
18 | P a g e
years after the events giving rise to the ongoing and continued
and Judge Hitter is not correct for trying to dismiss Plaintiff Davis
claims.
2. Bivens Claims
class action claims) i.e. Bivens claims for due process and Fifth
Under Bivens, a person may sue a federal agent for money damages
Alford v. United States, 693 F.2d 498, 499 (5th Cir. 1982) (per
curiam). This Court, applying Texas law, has held that the statute of
19 | P a g e
States, 157 F.3d 984, 987 (5th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff Davis became
FBI agents revealed to her that she needed to see a doctor had been
Likewise, the pleadings herein allege that the FBI revealed the
Ramon Viada sent a police officer to kick in Plaintiff Davis front door
Werlein Jr., will find nothing in the record that establishes when
Plaintiff Davis was made privy to this information she did not act in
the government’s best interest because she always tells Judge Werlein
statute of limitations, but will find that you unable to argue the district
court not dismissing Al Tribble and Don Clark from Plaintiff Davis
20 | P a g e
precautionary matter and out of an abundance of caution” you best
dial up your ‘friends’ attorney Lori Gillespie and Ken Wall and
process Plaintiff Davis a check for policy limits, have the check for
3. Qualified immunity
Judge Werlein will order the briefs develop the analysis, it is obvious
economy, Judge Werlein Jr., will not dismiss Plaintiff Davis Bivens
claims on that alternative ground. See Gulf Island, IV, 940 F.2d at
U.S. 158, 166 (1992). Plaintiff Davis Bivens claims are not bottomed
21 | P a g e
5
constitutional due process rights. Judge Werlein court has not
seek to invade the privacy of those who violate the law.” The district
court will say use legal authority, that “[t]he constitutional structure of
our federal system does permit private litigants to police federal law
law enforcement agencies or their agents who play games with other
agents “federal information source.” The district court will not err in
this regard and you asked the wrong question and reached the wrong
22 | P a g e
compensation or assistance. Because the Fifth Amendment due
23, 2009 at 12:23 PM in this case to destroy the lives and businesses
24, 2009. Pretend you do not know “The touchstone of due process is
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) it is your job on the line
because you want to “play games” with Plaintiff Davis. The Due
23 | P a g e
from government officials See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331
care for pretrial detainees with serious medical needs. See Hare v.
City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc) and you said
Plaintiff Davis testified the best medicine for Section 1983 and other
See Daniels, 474 U.S. at 328. The Supreme Court recently provided a
process right to life. Lewis, 118 S. Ct. 1708, 1712. The Supreme Court
24 | P a g e
rejected the plaintiff’s contention that proof of deliberate indifference
balance on one hand the need to stop a suspect and show that flight
from the law is no way to freedom, and, on the other, the high-speed
on to quell a prison riot, the Supreme Court held that “‘[a] deliberate
at 1720, quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320 (1986). The
25 | P a g e
extended opportunities to do better are teamed with protracted failure
shock that implicates ‘the large concerns of the governors and the
requested that Judge Werlein Jr., get you some medicine too located
at the infirmary at the “Federal Court” detention center and that you
do not pass “Go” i.e. the Exit sign at the Federal Court House but go
activity in this case, Judge Werlein will conclude that the FBI made
decisions which harmed the Plaintiffs after ample opportunity for cool
the due process clause protects the Plaintiff Davis from any harm that
arose from the officers and Agent Al Tribble et al including you and
26 | P a g e
that level of federal agent culpability as Special Agent Ron Stern
but a windfall for the “probe’ attached to Special Agent Ron Stern
where Stern and Judge Werlein snag a bounty for the RICO Victims
and Texas; as it should be. Therefore Judge Werlein Jr., will hold
for the first time the parameters of due process protections afforded
Thompson, Joe Olson and the other RICO victims, now including
adult children ) and because the Supreme Court’s language that drives
say that the due process rights claimed by Plaintiff Davis ( and
were clearly established during 1992-94. See Lewis, 523 U.S. 833.
27 | P a g e
Judge Werlein will therefore affirm Plaintiff Davis Bivens claims on
Agent Ron Stern because Judge Werlein when I request it , will affirm
Plaintiff Davis and not dismiss her Section 1983 law suit.
know it was you. With the threats made on my life and false
28 | P a g e
little “game” detected with Mary Docherty et al and the
‘Dr.’ John Vernon Kin Ross Wright that “connects the dots” to
29 | P a g e
Charles Dean Huckabee “lawyers lie” is it you are her we will
60 (b) (6) and armed with Declaratory Relief request and you
want to play games . This motion i.e. ticket to the game is not
truth and justice explaining why Judge Sim Lake in court told
this Section 1983 court case a long time ago based on the false
30 | P a g e
police reports of officer Defendant Robert LaRouax, and the
prepared for voir dire and an inquiry why the ‘O’Quinn” Law
Wood subpoenaed Mr. Don Clark and all those favors Mr.
John M. O’Quinn talks about under oath he does for the FBI, be
not to have looked at you and how you and the ‘duty agent’
31 | P a g e
where what Plaintiff Davis says it is YOU which is disjointed,
case, and the next thing I am going to ask you is how do you
In the end Plaintiff Davis decided to follow the Department of Justice letter
about filing a civil suit on the chance that she could be restored for something like
and his “vast government conspiracy” and you are aware Plaintiff Davis is
directed to follow protocol and speak with the Department of Justice veterinarian
i.e. duty agent and following the instruction directed to Plaintiff Davis that,
theoretically, could prevent me from bringing future suit against the agency, and
discover finally if agent Ron Stern, his wife, Julia Stern for playing a game with
32 | P a g e
civil suit against any federal agency, that judge first, before any discovery
processes or otherwise occurs, must deem whether the civil suit is worth pursuing;
if the judge finds the request frivolous, he or she can apply a variety of
and can also contain other specific directives solely at the discretion of the judge
such as banning the plaintiff from ever filing future suit against the agency in
question, but in this case the Department of Justice directed me to protect my legal
right and now you want to “play games”. Requested sanctions, and a disclosure of
your investigation connected to Plaintiff Davis where I have requested the former
FBI Agent Ron Stern to come to court in a Section 1983 civil lawsuit. Where,
when, what, why, and what role has supposed mental illness played, especially as a
tool employed by the investigation itself in its goal of discrediting Plaintiff Davis
attempts to gain information regarding the investigation and be paid damages. You
ignore the evidence of retired FBI Agent Justin Fox’s named in a reckless manner
and requested is you explain that too when you tender the TML policy limits and
do not come to court without my check to be paid for damages in your silly little
game to protect John M. O’Quinn and his FAKE client to exact harm i.e.
i
RETALIATE on Ron Sterns criminal investigation.
Respectfully submitted,
33 | P a g e
Carol Ann Davis
25311 Sugar Valley
Spring, Texas 77373
281-350-2943
34 | P a g e
1
i
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
2
403 U.S. 388 (1971). Added by Pub.L. 100-690, Title VII, § 7603(a),
3 Davis
Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4508. is bringing separate claims for
Texas state law are addressed here. The causes of action seeking relief
4
under the Federal Tort Claims Act are discussed above the game is over.
It is not clear from the record before Plaintiff Davis and the question need
not be reached whether Plaintiff Davis state law claims are governed by
the Texas two year statute of limitations, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
Ann. § 16.003 or the four year statute of limitations, Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Rem. Code Ann. § 16.004. See Williams v. Khalaf, 802 S.W.2d 651, 658
5
(Tex. 1990). Plaintiff Davis and Thompson et al are bringing
additional Bivens claims based on violations of their rights and the other
RICO victims and seek to consult with an attorney during their encounters
with agents. Thompson et al has made a clear allegation that she suffered
6
Davis & Thompson emphasize at the outset that the legitimacy of the
operation vis-a-vis those who violate the law, i.e. the targets of Ron Stern’s
PUBLIC CORRUPTION PROBE is a BIG issue in this law suit and the
request for Declaratory Relief and for Judge Werlein to “catch all “ of the
MONEY. Because it is a legitimate windfall for the Ron Stern probe- and
that IS HOW YOU ARE INTENDED TO PLAY THE GAME – SO THE
United States wins and the State of Texas wins – Davis and Thompson
about your ‘friends’ – Game over and Lindy told you repeatedly “Paybacks
are hell” and now that Al Johnson lived to tell Judge Werlein Jr. about the
Roberson Cummings the poster child of lying and the dots are connected to
the Right Hand Man ex-Texas DPS trooper attorney Charles Soechting Mr.
question is where because he does not have a chance in “Federal Court” and
its “Due Course” is set on him and Professor Treece the ‘applicant’ when
they “play games” with Judge Werlein Jr. knowing full well Judge Werlein
Jr. rules Judge Mike Wood of Probate No. 2 and that Judge Wood as a
to the federal court , we do things our own way here” is simply not in
compliance with the law; well settled law and the game of John M.
Jerry S. Payne who knows better). Mr. Haman you and me – we are done ,
GOOGLE “RAMON VIADA” & visit the website dedicated to the Texas
Double Standard that you have worked so hard to protect , and then you are
looking for