Friday, December 6, 2013

A Synopsis of Paul Bailey's issues after Defending his Home and Property, Gun Rights, Second Amendment

Mr. Bailey's Issues in a Nutshell (It could happen to anyone!)
    Bear with me, I'll be posting more links and pictures so that you can take a walk through the evidence. Please take note of small details, we believe that these tactics are used daily against thousands of people all across our country.
  1. Mr. Bailey's drug-addicted son wanted Dad out of the house so he could rob him (he had already set up a car deal in Oklahoma and just needed a few documents and cash to finalize it).   Dad had just thrown him out of the house a day or so prior.  Here's a link to his rap sheet (give it time, it is large).

    http://friscopaul.blogspot.com/search/label/Grand%20Jury%20Packets

  2. His son made a bogus 911 call, asking them to check on his “suicidal dad” (that was totally made up!)
  3. The 911 operator failed to detect inconsistencies in the caller's story. That should have been the first hint to the operator that the call might be bogus and might justify further inquiry to prevent wasting taxpayer dollars. He lied about his location to the 911 operator who should have easily noticed that it  did not jive with his actual location. At this point, that should have been a “red flag” that other details about this call should also be questioned.

  4. Once Police were dispatched, Officer Greer violated Proper Police Protocols and went to the door without backup (that was another error/omission!)

  5. Officer Greer had been watching Mr. Bailey through the window and stated in his official report that he was “watching TV and drinking a beer”. That should have been the SECOND RED FLAG that the 911 call was bogus and Mr. Bailey was not suicidal!

  6. Officer Greer, violated protocols that would have protected everyone involved. Specifically he did not    

A.) wait for backup,

B) park his car in front of the house so it could be seen,

C) have his vehicle lights on, nor did he
D) identify himself when banging on the door with the butt of his flashlight.



Here are links to short excerpts.




  1. By not following proper procedures, the Police had allowed themselves and an innocent citizen to be set up by the son who had been threatening his father for nearly a week (as attested to by Jodie Mow in her affidavit) and had also stolen money and property from him that week. Consequently, Mr. Bailey fully expected to be robbed again and perhaps killed because of his son's threats (who also had terribly long rap sheet).. In actuality, the banging on his door in the middle of the night was a policeman that contributed to the confusion by not following protocols.
  2. Unbeknownst to Mr. Bailey, the person who banged on his door was not his son, but a Policeman. This “dark comedy of errors and omissions” resulted in Mr. Bailey yelling “Get out of Here Rick!”, and firing a warning shot. He then went to bed, thinking his son was now gone and he had nothing to worry about. A few hours later, he awoke to the sound of something thrown through his window and a “hostage negotiator” telling him he would be killed if he didn't come outside. (These tapes were not provided to Mr. Bailey in violation of the Attorney General's instructions to Frisco PD).

  3. Having no idea what the problem was, he initially refused to come out. That was all the “testosterone vigilantes” needed to get more amped up!

  4. Ultimately, Mr. Bailey came out, but only after insisting that the Police not let his son in the house. They agreed, but after Mr. Bailey is arrested — the police then INVITE the son into the house (while police officers were still in Mr. Bailey's home) who promptly proceeded to take what he needed including credit cards, wallet, and other items that were “hockable” to complete his planned purchase of a vehicle using his fathers stolen identity (see affidavit of neighbor who saw him leaving with property). In reality, the POLICE helped the son commit the exact crime the father was worried about! Last I heard, his son was still in prison for this very crime, but he was not transported to be a witness for his father, even though he was willing to do so and since being in prison, he had been clean and sober for awhile and was willing to try to make restitution for what he had set in motion.

  5. Once arrested, Mr. Bailey is held and interrogated without counsel for hours under the Patriot Act, even after requesting counsel numerous times as reflected in the jailer's log. At trial, Officer Sartain claimed there was no such log. During the interrogation, however, Policewoman Stansell asked “Mr Bailey, who did you think was at your door? Did you think it was your son?”.

This is not great quality but here's links:




  1. The next day his friend, Jodie Mow speaks to the Policewoman in charge, Deborah Stansell, about Mr. Bailey's missing wallet, who seems alarmed and surprised that anything has gone missing (listen to  audio).


  1. Once released he fired up his blog after he was charged with assault with a deadly weapon because he felt his story was not being told. It irritated the powers that be and then his world REALLY BEGAN TO UNRAVEL. Remember one thing: once you are accused of shooting at someone (even though it was a warning shot for who he thought was his son), his financing dried up, he lost hope of getting a job, and then the mortgage modification for which he had applied (and they had cashed his checks, securing the modification) got mysteriously pulled (and the bank started returning his uncashed checks to him claiming it was he who was causing the problem) and they have attempted foreclosure numerous times.

  2. Now to make matters worse, what if I told you that Mr. Bailey's account could not be corroborated by Policewoman Stansell, because her question is not in the evidence presented to the court and she cannot do it herself because she has passed away, supposedly to “suicide” (we don't believe it) just a couple of weeks prior to Mr. Bailey's court date?
http://www.turrentinejacksonmorrow.com/component/tjmremembrancenter/debra-stansell-47154

  1. In Texas, the “Castle Law” doctrine gives Mr. Bailey every right to defend his home, his property, and himself. I have to question what is going on in Collin County when his court appointed “pretender” wouldn't raise this issue nor did he utilize it even after assuring Mr. Bailey in attorney-client conversations and agreed in the Court Transcripts that he “was taking this thing over” after Mr. Bailey insisted on the opportunity to speak with him to gain final assurance that his defense would be used during the trial.
Mr Bailey has written an editorial which mentions Castle Law at the link below.

http://friscopaul.blogspot.com/2013/08/collin-county-castle-law-texas-pernal.html
  1. Mr Bailey's court-appointed “attorney” should have recused himself from the case because he told Mr. Bailey that he was good-friends with Officer Stansell's husband and that he commented that (his words NOT MINE) “she was a bit**”

  2. In addition, the original indictment was altered retroactively. If your case was strong enough, would you need to resort to amending an indictment, cutting and pasting and altering a previously filed record?  What kind of Assistant DA (John Schomburger) would expose himself and everyone who worked on the case by doing such a thing? In the following indictment, take note of the fonts used in the middle of the page, then compare it to the font used in the form portion, notice the sloppy cut and paste, and  also make note of the date the order was "filed" on Sept 1, 2009. Now examine the next two documents and finally compare the body of the indictment to Attachment A. Then ask yourself, why would something that is identical, need to be amended retroactively?
http://friscopaul.blogspot.com/2013/11/more-irregularities-in-collin-county.html

18) Now as far as audio/video “evidence” is concerned. We noticed blank spots in the audio portion so we got curious especially when we realized that Mr. Bailey's shout to his son, was not on the tape! Two independent computer people were hired to analyze "certified" police audio and video from a municipality in North Texas and they both have told me in no uncertain terms that some of the audio has been "erased". This is what one of them sent me in an email

I took the Frisco-1.MP4 file that you uploaded to YouTube this morning and stripped out just the audio.
Then I opened my audio editor that shows me the audio in “waveform” format.  Even if you don’t know what that means you have probably watched enough CSI to figure it out.

Anyway, I took the two screen shots you see below of what this file looks like.  The first one is of the entire file.  The second one is ZOOMED in on the 1:20 minute mark (see the bottom of the screen shot).   Any first grade audio student can tell that the audio was erased.  Notice that it is a FLAT LINE.  There is no background noise as in the rest of the file.  Even when I increase the audio (which would also increase the baseline noise) that section does not increase.  The ONLY way you can get this result is by erasure.  Even if they turned the microphone on and off you would see a spike when that happened.

Here's a link to the photos


As a result of having the first section of video authenticated by a local person.  I decided it might be time to have all several hours of video tested for tampering.   Below is an image of the first test by the second authenticator.    His job was to review everything provided and determine if anything had been erased. It seems my gut feel that if one section was tampered with, another section might be as well, was sound. The second person sent me these comments, (bear in mind he is in another country and english is not his first language, I wanted to be positive that he was looking at the information, not concentrating on the verbiage used in the audio)

There are several thousand silenced bits in both tracks, the timing and duration of these correspond roughly to each other on "lapel1" and "car1" files. My findings suggest that these are all silenced intentionally, the purpose is to mask the erasure of the actual incriminating sections of audio and make it look like a machine malfunction/technical problem. These are the items that I will conclude my report with:

A) The huge number of silent bits, the technical reason for my opinion
that they were erased on purpose.
B) The 4 to 5 lengthy sections of silenced audio with start/end timestamps.
C) Around 1:20 minute mark, there is a gunshot sound that can be heard
on one of the tracks but not on the other.

22. Now, switching gears again, I finally returned to the first authenticator (that I hired) and let him validate what the second evaluator found regarding the 5 minute blanked out spot. He confirmed it and gave me an affidavit of findings and this photo of his results.  

He was able to do so and here is a link to the post



The timestamps referenced are shown in the videos below the large video that is playing at the time.

1)  Be sure and note when you watch the first one that you notice that the only light you see is the constant light of a street light.  There are no flashing lights to indicate a police car was out front.

2)  Note that when he bangs on the door with his flashlight, that he does NOT announce himself as required by standard police protocols.

3) Why can you hear the gunshot on the dash cam and NOT the lapel mic?

Below are the words typed out and the times on the lapel mic:

23:28:50-53 (notice the blanked out spot here) Now ask yourself, why would someone delete that 3 second spot in evidence? Wonder who had access to the tape to blank that out?     Mr. Bailey told me that he said "Get out of here Rick!" before he fired a warning shot, because his son had repeatedly tried to steal from him for several days prior.  

Right afterwards you hear Greer:  "Shots fired, shots fired".

23:29:31     Greer: "he pointed that f*cker at me!  He pointed that sh*t at me.
                   Someone else:  "He did?"
                   Greer:  "Yeah.   I don't think he could see me though."
23:30:48    Greer:  "Have Dispatch call the "RP" to call him and let him know it's the f*cken Police!"

Had I been a Jurer it would have been OVER after hearing this.

Not only did his “Attorney” not emphasize the two statements of Greer (which by his own admission at the time) that prove that Mr. Bailey did not commit the crime. Specifically,
  1. there is no way that Mr. Bailey had “intent” to harm anyone, if he couldn't see them,
  2. that Castle Law gives him the right to protect himself and his property (especially considering the circumstances, and
  3. he also failed to point out that Greer committed perjury on the stand.

      How? By not syncing the two audio files from the “Certified Video” and point out that after the 4 second blank spot on Greer's lapel mic, at 23:28:53 the audio comes back on but no gunshot is heard. In the car video (over 120 feet away), the gunshot is heard at 23:28:54. If both videos are time synced the gun shot should be heard on the lapel mic. IT IS NOT HEARD BECAUSE GREER WAS NOWHERE CLOSE TO THE DOOR (meaning he perjured himself) or it would have been recorded. The part that was tampered with and removed from the audio, was Mr Bailey's warning to his son, Rick, because it proved that he acted in accordance with Castle Law in Texas.


  1. Now it is interesting to note that only recently did we discover that I was still in possession of texts forwarded for me around 2 years ago from Mr. Bailey that the Original Court Appointed “Authenticator” had sent via email to Mr. Bailey's Court Appointed Attorney at the time (Raphael DeLagarza) which were then sent to Mr. Bailey who then forwarded them on to me. I had no idea they were important until recently, but once I knew that they were important, I promptly snapped screenshots and uploaded them to the web for posterity. Take a look and see how their initial opinion of tampered evidence abruptly changed. For what reason, I don't know, but I do know that additional experts disagree with his final “opinion” that nothing was wrong with the tapes.



21. These are just some of the issues that really disturb me about this specific case:

a) “Defense” wouldn't show Mr Bailey's recreated video which could have shown the jury somecontext. They also might have seen that he lives in a beautiful home and just might not be seen as much of a threat.

b) Why was the question that Officer Stansell asked Mr Bailey not shown in any notes or tapes? She asked him "Mr Bailey, who did you think was at the door? Did you believe it was your son?"  Were they, by this time, in so deep that they had to make the evidence allowed in court, fit the story by police who fell for a setup by a drug addict who wanted his father out of his way so he could rob him?

c) Why is the fact that Rick is now in prison for the very crime Mr Bailey sought to prevent, not in evidence?

d) Why was Rick allowed to mill around and take the items that he needed to commit those crimes (wallet etc), while the police were still at Mr Bailey's house (after his arrest) and why was the jury not notified of it?

e) Why would “Defense” Attorney Gibbs not recuse himself since there was an obvious conflict of interest since he claimed he was Stansell's husband's “good friend” and that (his words) she was a real bit**?   What about the lack of any sort of defense? What about him lying to the court and to his client that he would present Mr. Bailey's defense?

f) Why was a nearly 60 year old man with obvious health problems (two subsequent heart attacks after the arrest ordeal) held under the Patriot Act without counsel for several hours?

g) Why would Mr. Bailey's son Rick not be allowed to testify as to what happened that evening?

h) Since Castle law gives Mr Bailey the right to protect his property (remember police clearly did not follow protocol meaning there was no way Mr. Bailey could know it was police banging on his door instead of his son and rustling through his bushes in the middle of the night), “Defense” Attorney Gibbs had to make sure no defense occurred for Mr Bailey. I can come to no other conclusion than, this man's collusion, complacency, incompetence, fear of the Collin County “system” or laziness put Mr Bailey in jail.

i)Why did the Court Appointed Authenticator's initial reports vary so dramatically from the final report and why was there no spectral analysis done?

To tell you his story gets even worse, would be an understatement.

22. Mr Bailey's problems GOT MUCH WORSE after he fired up his blog (at www.friscopaul.blogspot.com) telling his side of the story in Collin County. Once he does this, lo and behold, he is arrested for an issue previously declared a “civil matter” by a Detective in Dallas and which had subsequently been discharged in bankruptcy. Bear in mind, this matter was for vehicles purchased by people supposedly living in Africa, who, instead of accepting shipment for vehicles immediately (as is the norm) they went months without answering phone calls or emails. As attested by affidavit of the Business Manager and Bookkeeper at the time.

Another email that should have been used is from Detective Cox, himself. View the email between him and Mr. Bailey's bankruptcy attorney stating it was a civil matter. In addition, the letter from the plaintiff's attorney advising his clients that he was withdrawing from representing them due to non-cooperation and that once Mr. Bailey files bankruptcy, that he could not help them, further points, once again, to a civil matter I have called Detective Cox numerous times since November 2012, but he does not return my calls. I wanted to inform him that when Mr. Bailey wanted to subpeona him to testify the DA and his court appointed attorney and investigator told him he had long since retired). Unbeknownst to them, I had called his voice mail in November 2012 and the message on his voicemail at that time indicated that he was on vacation. So I immediately knew something was amiss when Mr. Bailey told me that they said Det Cox was unavailable for subpeona.

In the Dallas case, the issue of cars being sold in preparation for liquidation since the buyers had not arranged for receipt of cars left for months nor had they responded to emails or phone calls telling them they should do so (Mr. Bailey was not sure they were even alive as they were from Angola) was discharged in bankruptcy, so apparently the court did not have jurisdiction, but that didn't keep them from allowing a faulty indictment from being amended (despite a quash motion being filed), then right before the jury deliberated, prosecutors advised jury that they were to ignore first indictment as it was being “thrown out” (thereby acquitting him of it), and telling jury to deliberate on the second indictment (based on same faulty evidence)- thereby effectively committing double jeopardy in same trial!

23. Just recently, the Dallas Judge Teresa Hawthorne sent him a letter titled “Order Designating Issues” that said Attorney April E Smith is to be a fact-finder for the court after Mr. Bailey filed a writ of Habeas Corpus and a Rule to Show Cause requesting transcripts and evidence for the trial) and it specifically says that she is NOT to represent Mr. Bailey. This document IS NOT on the DOCKET. Upon closer inspection, we also note that the Judge's Order Designating Issues, has a stamp on the back that was “witnessed” the day PRIOR to the Judge ordering such on the 26th.

Interestingly, the Docket shows ANOTHER order signed within one day of the previous “Order Designating Issues”, appointing the same attorney to be his court appointed attorney. (Mr. Bailey was never sent a copy of this order, so unless someone pulled up the docket, he would not even know about it). Because the same attorney was assigned to two different roles, this amounts to a “Court Ordered Conflict of Interest”.

April E Smith knows about this conflict of interest since she has made no contact with Mr. Bailey even after he wrote her a letter making her aware that he knew about her appointment and asking for her to contact him. However, he believes this is just another attempt to stall justice and keep him incarcerated.

Documents and discussion are here



Furthermore, while attempting to obtain court records for him, now that he's indigent, Judge Hawthorne was terribly abusive when a friend went to the courthouse (at the request of his previous court-appointed attorney to meet him there and he'd help her get the transcripts Mr. Bailey needed since he claimed he had nothing in his files on Mr. Bailey's case) where Judge Hawthorne accused this individual of "practicing law without a license". This was apparently for the "crime" of attempting to obtain court transcripts so that Mr. Bailey could  have the case either appealed or overturned. Records that we are now told are supposed to be automatically provided to him as a pro se defendant. Judge Teresa Hawthorne has denied Mr. Bailey the transcripts for his case, even though she knows full well that he is indigent as her subsequent orders confirm by appointing him another court-appointed attorney (albeit with a conflict of interest as covered above). What is in those transcripts that she doesn't want him to know? We think we know, he appeared before the Judge and advised her that he needed to attend a previously scheduled Hearing for New Trial in Collin County. She said “Mr. Bailey, you're going nowhere!”.


24. In late November, Mr. Bailey filed a Writ of Mandamas which compels the Judge to rule on the Writ of Habeas and the Rule to Show Cause (ie: cough up the legally guaranteed transcripts that he is due) that he filed motions for months ago. Now today, he receives a letter whose envelope is dated December 2nd, with documents that demand his response within 20 days or so, but which are backdated to September! (ONCE AGAIN, THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT ON THE DOCKET). See the latest photo as of today, the Miscellaneous Correspondance listed at the top is the Writ of Mandamas just filed. Note that nothing was placed on the docket between June 25 and November 26.     As I've told him, this is the gang that can't shoot straight!


  1. As a result of several documents being removed from the mail from Mr. Bailey to me to take care of things for him on his behalf, I had him institute a policy of logging every document enclosed in the envelope and the date of mailing as well as telling me what he is sending and when so that I can be on the lookout for the documents.

  2. This is the text of the letter that Mr. Bailey be requested typed up and sent to him for his signature. The Texas Information Act is basically an open records act. However, Frisco has previously denied a request for similar information, claiming that because he is incarcerated, they don't have to comply. Now bear in mind, Mr. Bailey is acting as his own attorney, so this clause that they are hiding behind should not apply. And it definitely didn't apply when the Attorney General told them to release all the evidence to Mr. Bailey and his then, court-appointed attorneys!


Dear Public Information Officer:

Pursuant to Section 552.221 of the Government Code of Texas, I respectfully request a certified copy of the following. Since I am Pro Se, I am acting as attorney for myself so I am not subject to the exemption 552.028.

  1. Certified Copies from the original recordings uploaded (and certification from Company or Municipality storing or servicing the recordings provided do not differ from the recordings stored) of all
    1. 911 calls or any other calls made with (both to and from) Paul Clarence Bailey or about Paul Clarence Bailey on 6/28/2009 to present day,
    2. lapel and car mics and video on every officer, employee, contractor that has ever been at the scene at any time from 6/28/2009 to present day.
    3. Recordings of “Hostage Negotiator” calls made with me, Paul Bailey, or about Paul Bailey on or since 6/28/2009.
    4. A list of every officer, employee, or contractor on the scene at the time on or since 6/28/2009.
    5. A list of every municipality or any other law enforcement agency or contractor involved at the scene at 6515 Winston Drive, Frisco, TX 75035 on or since 6/28/2009.
    6. A list of the names of female Police Officers working/assigned and on duty at the Frisco Police Department on June 6, 2011 and June 13, 2011.
    7. A list individuals and their positions (whether employee or contractor), who have had, are, or have ever been authorized to access or make changes to the data in the Flashback system on or since 6/28/2009.
I respectfully request, due to the fact that am indigent, that fees be waived. If you choose not to waive fees and the cost of copying exceeds $25, would you please tell me the actual costs before making the copies? Thank you. Please contact me via mail if there are any questions. Thank you for your attention to this request.

Sincerely,  


Paul Bailey



All along the way, Mr. Bailey has experienced multiple civil rights violations including the following:


1. withholding medical care and tampering with medications
      1. withholding or tampering with communications,
      2. being sent to the Psych facility as retailiation for filing grievances,
      3. denial of medical records,
      4. moving to various facilities,
      5. denial of deposits to inmate's trust fund,
      6. taking his legal documents, clothing, blood pressure medication, glasses, and dental appliances from him (a total of 8 weeks at a single time).
      7. Denial of access to law library.
      8. Being charged for postage to return Jailhouse Lawyers Manual chapters written by prominent civil rights attorneys when item was never returned to sender (fraudulent).
      9. Threatened with retaliation (by getting a “case” which would affect parole) for not taking a flu shot (when he is already immune compromised).
      10. Excessive charges for “medical care deductibles”.
      11. Tampering with medical records retroactively.
      12. Theft of several grievance receipts contained in the documents taken for the 8 week period.
      13. Theft of documents needed for 2nd level grievances with TDCJ.
      14. Theft of legal mail requiring Mr. Bailey's signature requesting documents/evidence previously withheld from him Frisco Police Department.  
      15. Most recently, Mr. Bailey was punished by refusing to sign a BLANK DOCUMENT. (THIS IS AFTER HE HAS ALREADY DISCOVERED AND INCLUDED PROOF THAT HIS MEDICAL RECORDS HAVE BEEN TAMPERED WITH).



      1.


        2nd Amendment Rights, Castle Law, Collin County,Collin County District Attorney, Evidence Tampering, Frisco Texas Police Department, Lindsey Byers Assistant District Attorney Collin County Texas, Greg Willis Collin County District Attorney, Malicious Prosecution, altered evidence, tampering with government records, Right to Bear Arms, Castle Law, Collin County Assistant District Attorney John Schomberger, False Arrest, Police Corruption and Abuse, Militant Militarized Police Force, Police-Assisted Theft in Collin County, Conspiracies and the Law, RICO, Color of Law, Civil Rights Abuses by Police, 

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)