Constable Ron Hickman:

On November 24, 2009 attorney Ramon Viada filed a false police report to harass

Plaintiff Davis. Viada summon the Montgomery Sheriff Office to harass plaintiff

Davis under the guise of a “well fare check” in violation of Texas Penal Code

37.08 (False Report of Police Officer) in response to Plaintiff Davis DEMAND for

payment of her damages related to Ramon Viada ‘s role in the MURDER of a

Federal Witness; Melinda “Lindy Harrison” Honerkamp. Mrs. Honerkamp is the

ex –wife of Texas Ethics Commissioner Attorney Warren “Tom “Harrison. Mr.

Harrison is the acting Commission appointed by Gov. Rick Perry, Harrison’s s

commission expires 2012 and Lindy Honerkamp e testified in Plaintiff Davis

Federal Court case about Public Corruption of the Harris County Courts and said,

that Judge Bill Elliot put her in jail so many times “Because Gus Mutscher is my

friend and his reason as stated on the trial record was “Mrs. Honerkamp and you

should have kept you nose out of Washington County Politics – when the activity

Judge Bill Elliot was complaining about that was civil contempt and incarcerated

Lindy for was “providing assistance to federal law enforcement officers assigned

to the prosecution of United States v. Gus D. Mutscher , er al numbered H-91-175

with the United States Ronald G. Woods is ‘protected ’ activity unless you are gus

Mutscher armed with the O’Quinn and the Right Hand Man ex Texas DPS trooper

Charles E. Soechting and the 1967 Plan to take over Texas with lawyers ‘coached’
by Professor Treece and committed to the 1967 Plan like Ramon Viada and

Stefanie Strayer Orr. In sum Harris County ‘Judge’ William M. “Bill” Elliot also

played a role in the MURDER of a Federal Witness by his vile acts of

RETALIATIION against Mrs. Honerkamp which are documented in the court ‘s

record. In addition, this is a response to Rick the duty Agent at the FBI Office in

Houston and Plaintiff Davis would ask the Federal Court to require Special Agent

Rick to answer to the Courts inquiry by a subpoena duces tecom. .

Attorney Ramon Viada is unprofessional, but moreover a vile man, and has

often demonstrated a pattern of corruption i.e. unable to show remorse or have

feeling for other people’s pain, in fact he enjoys being paid to exact emotional

distress by using words, filed in motions , where the Court requested that he settle

the case. Viada arrogance is delivered in spurts of passive aggressive statements

sometime disjointed from reality. For example Mr. Viada is delusional that Chief

Woody Mitchell at the Harris County Constable Office Prct. 4 Ron Hickman will

not file criminal charges connected to the FALSE POLICE REPORT CD-09-

1126624. Harris County Prct. 4 Woody Mitchell WILL testify on behalf of

Plaintiff Davis about s conversations with Plaintiff Davis , and that Plaintiff Davis

expressed harm , alarm due to attorney Ramon Viada ‘s illegal conduct, and that

HIS OFFICE was used to advance RETALIATION in a Federal Court case 4:03-

CV- HO-02395 and that the activity of attorney Ramon Viada is unauthorized and
has no basis in fact or law, and that based on the criminal evidence in the

possession of attorney Jerry S. Payne that Ramon Viada et al ( and his new wife ,

Stefanie Strayer Orr played a role in RETALIATION and murdered a federal

witness with harassing litigation oppressing Melinda Honerkamp , and her

testimony in a federal court civil rights case where Plaintiff Davis is NOT going to

stop until Ramon Viada is arrested and charged for the crimes he committed

against the citizens of the State of Texas and the United States. Evidenced is

attorney Ramon Viada has no power to settle the damages connected to Plaintiff

Davis false arrest of Feb. 18, 2001 et al for criminal evidence in the “vast

government conspiracy’ that John M. O’Quinn says in his court papers does not

exist but in reality the FAKE client described in the “CAPIAS” was launched by

John M. O’Quinn ability to tamper with government TCIC, NCIC, TLETS data

bases to harm Melinda Honerkamp.

Claim III: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for depriving Brown

of his rights to a fair trial and due process of

law;

Claim IV: 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1985(3) claims for

conspiracy to deprive Brown of his rights

because of racial animus;

Claim VII: State law claim for malicious prosecution;

Claim VIII: State law claim for intentional infliction of

emotional distress;

Claim X: State law claim for spoliation of evidence.

To prevail on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “a plaintiff must first

show a violation of the Constitution or of federal law, and then show

that the violation was committed by someone acting under color of

state law.” 7 The qualified immunity defense to such claims seeks to

shield from liability government officials performing discretionary

functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

have known.” 8 Courts must evaluate claims of qualified immunity in

a two step process: first, a court must determine whether the “facts

alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right”; if

the court finds a violation then it proceeds to the second step, which is

to determine whether “the right was clearly established . . . in light of

9
the specific context of the case.” “To be clearly established for

purposes of qualified immunity, the contours of the right must be

sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what

 10
he is doing violates that right.” There need not be “commanding

precedent” that holds that the “very action in question” is unlawful;

the unlawfulness need only be “readily apparent from relevant

precedent in sufficiently similar situations.” 11

Plaintiff Davis argues that Jersey Village officer defendant attorney

Ramon Viada is in contempt of court and has abused his role in a

Federal Court in initiating the filing of another FALSE POLICE

REPORT and Plaintiff Davis is justified in prosecution with words to

ascertain the TRUTH her method is within her rights under the law to

prosecute Ramon Viada in a racketeering investigation where Judge

Sim Lake told Plaintiff Davis to file a complaint on the United States

Attorney and Plaintiff Davis intends to present expert testimony.

Officer Andrew A. (Andy) Hunzicker and Chief Woody from

Constable Ron Hickman’s Office. United States v. Williams, 822 F.2d

512, 516 (5th Cir. 1987). As the Federal Court Judge Ewing Werlein

Jr., will concluded in attorney denying Ramon Viada’ ‘defense’ on

this point, any evidence regarding attorney Ramon Viada motive in

filing a false police reports for a “well fare check” on November 24,
2009 was NOT inconsequential in the face of the overwhelming direct

evidence of the;

Claim III: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for depriving Plaintiff

Davis of her rights to a fair trial and due process of law;

Claim IV: 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1985(3) claims for

conspiracy to deprive Davis of her rights because of assistance

to federal law enforcement ( FBI Agent Ron Stern) and an

animus to him and Federal Agent Justin Fox;

Claim VII: State law claim for malicious prosecution;

Claim VIII: State law claim for intentional infliction of

emotional distress;

Claim X: State law claim for spoliation of evidence and

lying in a FBI investigation 282-A- HO-59712 by withholding

the “booking documents”.

Viada is running out of options with respect to this issue. Viada

intends a offer a disjointed argument in the Federal Court that the

Judge Werlein Jr. abused its discretion by not allowing Viada to

present evidence of specific acts to show that a Ramon Viada as a

‘victim’ called as a defense witness, is credible because he is above

the law, like his ‘friends ‘ at the ‘foundation’ i.e. John M. O’Quinn’s.

The record is clear that attorney Ramon Viada is not a ‘victim’ and he

did not summon the Montogoemty County Sherrif for any other

reason than to RETALIATE, Ramon Viada made a FALSE POLICE

REPORT . P.C. 37.08 and Ramon Viada does NOT have a reputation

for being truthful. Viada will NOT be able to show that Plaintiff Davis

speech is evidence of specific acts requiring a “Well – fare check”

and this is simply cumulative of established facts, that Ramon Viada

engaged to further the conspiracy when he learned that Plaintiff Davis

in the “game’ has “called it” for Judge Werlein Jr. to “catch all” and

take over the 1967 Plan of John M. O’Quinn . See United States v.

Greer , 939 F.2d 1076, 1096-97 (5th Cir. 1991), related portion

reinstated , 968 F.2d 433, 434 (5th Cir. 1992) (en banc).

As a preliminary matter, the Plaintiff Davis i.e the government FBI

Agent Ron Stern (Plaintiff Davis) analysis is correct that Viada’s

history would have been inadmissible under Rule 609 of the Federal

Rules of Evidence. In certain circumstances, Rule 609 allows

evidence of a witness’s criminal conduct i.e. convictions to be

admitted in order to attack the witness’s credibility, 37 but Viada is not

actually convicted of any of the offenses listed above. Thus, they

38
would not be admissible under Rule 609. However, Rule 608(b)

gives district court discretion to allow questioning on a witness’s prior

bad acts, including those that did not result in a conviction, if they are

relevant to the witness’s character for truthfulness i.e. “Is the Video

altered?” and attorney Stefanie Strayer Orr false response “ No” .

Attorney Barry Abrams preserved the criminal evidence against

attorney Ramon Viada i.e. the un- cut version of the video Testimony

of Melinda Honerkamp. That evidence was forward to Plaintiff Davis

by attorney Barry Abrams and delivered to attorney Jerry Payne by

39
Beverly F. Thompson. The district court will conclud that it would

have “given very serious consideration” to allowing Davis to cross-

examine Viada on three of the charges – the FALSE POLICE

REPORTS , harassment, and INTERFERENCE charges -- “because

of the serious nature involved with regards to the witness credibility,

in Viada’s prior acts, however, only the FALSE POLICE REPORT

40
satisfies Rule 608(b)’s requirements. Since this charge implicates

truthfulness or untruthfulness, the district court would have acted

within its discretion by allowing Davis to cross- examine Viada on

this subject that Viada is offended that Plaintiff Davis has cited Viada,

Orr, Supkis, Matlock, Soechting , Treece , O’Quinn in a “vast

government conspiracy “ and that the document of the “CAPIAS” is

just an illusion of Plaintiff Davis bi-polar and delusional “beautiful

mind” and that FBI Special Agent Ron Stern is not credible and that

using FBI Agent Justin Fox name is not an issue before the court . but

that Plaintiff Davis has a fair trial and “photo art” DL No. 27 to

advance perjury of officer David M. Lawrenz is acceptable Texas

Municipal League insurance adjustment policy to minimize the

exposure of the claim. A district court’s discretion under Rule

608(b) is substantial. See United States v. Farias-Farias , 925 F.2d

805, 809 (5th Cir. 1991) (citing United States v. Mateos-Sanchez , 864

F.2d 232, 236 (1st Cir. 1988)).

Davis assets that admitting evidence of Viada of filing a FALSE

POLICE REPORT will not mislead the Federal Court (jury ) be unduly

prejudicial, or confuse the issues in violation of Rule 403. Viada, after

all, did file FALSE POLICE REPORT when he has more than an

adequate remedy with Judge Ewing Werlein Jr. under local Rule 7. 1. D

that even Viada himself point to in his INFAMOUS NUMBER 51

MOTION et al but instead filed a FALSE POLICE REPORT (Texas

Penal Code Pc 37.08) just days before his response is due in a Federal

Court Trial in case 4: 03- CV-HO-02395 where Viada ‘s own prior

alleged misconduct is the motivator and no other reason, did Ramon

Viada file a police report for Harris County Rick Hickman to ‘check on

the well fare of Plaintiff Davis. . In this case, by contrast, it is a Viada‘s

prior acts are in play. Judge Werlein Jr. will be admitting Viada‘s

FALSE POLICE REPORT. Rector , 120 F.3d at 558-59 (5th Cir.

1997). In fact, the evidence will show he even had a more sinister plan.

Section 1985(3) prohibits persons from conspiring “for the purpose

of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of

persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and

21
immunities under the laws . . . .” Davis alleged in her complaint

and reply that Viada overstated Plaintiff Davis ‘condition’ and

concealed exculpatory criminal evidence in furtherance of a

conspiracy with the other investigating police officers in order to

arrest and convict Davis because of her method and protected activity.

Chief Woody Mitchell is expected to testify that a call came from

Montgomery County Sherriff’s Office and the Montgomery County

received ‘information’ from a ‘source’ ( Ramon Viada) and that

Constable Hickman dispatched two police units to “check on Plaintiff

Davis well fare, a male police officer and a female police officer is the

expected testimony of Chief Woody Mitchell . John Newberry who

resides across the street from Plaintiff Davis is expected to testify that

he witnessed only one ‘officer’ and one police cruiser to reply in

brief Davis alleged specific facts that would either directly or

inferentially support her all of her claims, including: the Lawrenz was

physically attacked Plaintiff Davis and Plaintiff Davis was NOT was

wielding mace ; that a JV police officer wrote to Davis was “bi –

polar” and had been wielding mace in his face via DL No. 27 and that

Davis created a false and misleading testimony when she said she

wrote on the “booking documents” that Viada withheld from the FBI

investigation 282-A Ho- 5972 positively identifying Viada as playing

a large role as the rapist; that Viada suppressed exculpatory “booking

documents” ; and that Viada and the other officers were NOT

motivated by the fact that Plaintiff Davis had state officials under

subpoena for tampering with governmental data base i.e. the FAKE

client represented by the O’Quinn Law Firm against Plaintiff Davis

under the guise of representing Davis’s husband in an ‘unlicensed

investigations case’ where attorney Jerry S. Payne amended plaintiff

Davis claim carefully excluding the Texas Department of Public

Safety excluding them from the Federal Court law suit for legal

reasons and in his client’s best interest

By: Carol Ann Davis

DATE November 25, 2009