UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION
Served November 28, 2009

CAROL ANN DAVIS

V. 4:03-CV-02395
Judge Ewing Werlein Jr.

CITY OF JERSEY VILLAGE ET AL and

LONNIE RAY DAVIS, in his individual capacity

CAROL ANN DAVIS MEMORANDUM IN

SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS

Against Dept of Justice Lawyers

William C. Haman & Kevin Donnelly

Plaintiff, pro se Carol Ann Davis asks the court to impose sanctions against attorneys
William C. Haman and Kevin Donnelly for an unspecified amount for playing games and
for frivolous and harassing communications in violation of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11(b) and to punish themselves for playing a game in a court case that they
authorized. .

A. Introduction

1. Plaintiff is Carol Ann Davis; defendant is the City of Jersey Village et al

2. Plaintiff sued defendant for false arrest.

3. Pending is Plaintiff Rule 60 ( b) 6) motion to vacate.

4. Pending is Plaintiff request for sanctions against Ramon Viada et al.

5. Pending is Plaintiff request for Declaratory Relief.

6. Pending is a request for this Court to take total control of the O’Quinn Probate
and remove Judge Woods from the detail of the same.

1
 7. Pending is a request to enter the land of John M. O’Quinn and video tape the
same.

The Officer Defendants NUMBER 15 WITNESS (at usca 5 p2701, attorney Charles
Soechting, and his of Counsel Gerald T. Treece with John M. O’Quinn hired Don Clark
the FBI Agent that investigated Plaintiff Davis false arrest just happen not request or
notice that he did not have the Jersey Village Police Department “booking documents”
( decedent) because it is rigged at the FBI Office with Special Agent Al Tribble not to
ask for the “booking documents”, just like it was rigged by “Andrew Duffin” to leak her
cooperation with federal agents to the state to exact RETALIATION – because that is
was occurred 1. The leak by Andrew Duffin, 2. The Retaliation Lindy suffered.

(A separate request for sanctions on Ramon Viada has been filed with the Court,
requesting an Order for Ramon Viada to appear in person. Mr. Viada has been served
with a proper subpoena and the witness fee is paid.)

4. This is a separate request for sanctions and permission to sue William C. Haman
and Kevin Donnelly. This request for sanctions is served by facsimile on Saturday
November 28, 2009 for misrepresentations in litigation and for the reason outlined to Mr.
Haman and Mr. Donnelly by Plaintiff November 28, 2009 in a letter memorandum also
attached as a brief in support and an EXHIBIT; faxed to the USA Office at 713-718-
3300 and to United State Attorney Julia Stern at facsimile for retired Special Agent Ron
Stern. Plaintiff pro se Davis serves this motion on attorney William D. Haman and Kevin
Donnelly for a return phone call from FBI Special ‘Duty Agent’ Rick Veterinarian on
November 23, 2009 who made unsolicited, unauthorized, harassing and frivolous
comments and requested Plaintiff Davis 1. See a doctor 2. Take medicine. (See
Attachments). Ken Wall by facsimile on November 28, 2009, Barry Abrams at 713- 228-
6605 for Ramon Viada . The Texas Attorney General at 512- 495-9139 and 21 days
before filing the motion with the court, and filed with this court “out of an abundance of
caution “and as a precautionary matter Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c) (1) (A).

As of this date the Texas Attorney General Attorney David Talbot Jr. has not
withdrawn or modified his posture, and requested is the court take the testimony of
attorney Jerry S. Payne about the fact that he did not sue the Texas Department of Public
Safety, and the Texas Attorney General has been given 21 day notice that sanction will be
sought if they do not stop the prohibited conduct. (See Letter written to DAVID
TALBOT JR., November 20, 2009 filed as an exhibit and under a separate cover).

B. Argument

5. The court may impose sanctions on an attorney or pro se party for presenting a
pleading, written motion, or other paper for an improper purpose, such as to harass or
cause unnecessary delay or expense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) (1). Additionally, the court
may impose sanctions on an attorney or pro se party for presenting a pleading, written
motion, or other paper that includes any of the following: (1) claims or defenses

2
unsupported by existing law or by a good-faith argument for a change in existing law; (2)
allegations that do not have, or are unlikely to have after a reasonable investigation,
evidentiary support; or (3) denials unwarranted by the evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2)-
(4).

6. Al Tribble is responsible for this court case and the condition of this court case
because he did not seek the “booking documents” on purpose and when his lawyers
advance harassment they are violating Rule 11 because;

(A) The duty agents are used for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to
cause an unnecessary delay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1); Mercury Air Group,
Inc. v. Mansour, 237 F.3d, 542, 548 (5th Cir. 2001); Sheets v. Yamaha
Motors Corp., 891 F.2d. 533, 538 (5th Cir. 1990). Requested is a hearing to
explore the elements and the purpose for harassment and ‘medicine’ and
for the lawyers that lied to the Federal Court Judge to explain how the
conduct of the duty agent Rick was not improper and how it is authorized
how conduct of a similar nature does not exact harm and or is
RETALIATION and its scares the RICO victims.

(B) The communications are harassing and that are not warranted by existing
law or by a good-faith argument for an extension or change in existing law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2); Truesdell v. Southern Cal. Permanente Med.
Group, 293 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2002); Zuk v. Eastern Pa. Psychiatric
Inst., 103 F.3d 294, 299 (3d Cir. 1996). Specifically, the Department of
Justice Counsel are adverse and the request by the ‘duty agent’ Rick was to
harm Plaintiff Davis further, and for no other reason. Additionally,
opposing counsel(s) does not make a good-faith argument for the anything
“Impervious to the truth (Please see Erik Ibarra litigation and Judge Hoyts
Order) of the existing law, and this court should know AL Tribble did not
find anything wrong in that case either – the question is did he request the
Ibarra Brother’s “booking documents” and every other citizen who files a
complaint for excessive force – the poor people suffer for the ‘fix’ i.e. its
rigged too by the O’Quinn, via Clark via Tribble.

(C) The court should sanction William C. Haman and Kevin Donnelly
because they like to advance further oppression and hurt actually innocent
citizens, i.e. other agents “Federal information sources”.

(D) The communications contains denials of factual contentions that are neither
warranted by the evidence nor based on a lack of information or belief. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(4). The court should sanction the agents and their
attorneys because of how the factual contentions are not factual and NOT
warranted by the evidence.

3
7. Before imposing sanctions, the court should determine whether the party or
the attorney made a reasonable inquiry into the facts or the law before signing and
presenting the offensive conduct and obstruction of justice and other related state and
federal crimes See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b); Lichenstein v. Consolidated Servs. Group, Inc.,
173 F.3d 17, 23 (1st Cir. 1999); Sheets v. Yamaha Motors Corp., 891 F.2d 533, 538 (5th
Cir. 1990).

8. The court should impose sanctions against the attorneys because they did not
make a reasonable inquiry into the facts or law before letting the agents abuse previously
‘coached ‘ by to promptly respond to requests, and concentrated is identifying main files
in the Central Records System at FBI Headquarters, ... "for the courts viewing, legally,
is an important bit of information because what is implied is that other files and/or
investigation data may exist elsewhere, perhaps at any given national field office and
simply had not been made a part of Mr. Hardy very specifically mentioned 'Central
Records System' at headquarters in another case, and by the looks on the Internet a
questionable for self- dealing; Where Mr. Hardy even capitalizes the phrase, "Central
Records System," to further isolate it and otherwise differentiate it from any of the other
types of records systems which may exist such as regionally specific, field office records
where Rick said he looked ‘files at the office’ before calling me back commenting about
information he knew he was ‘unauthorized’ 1. To harm plaintiff 2. Protect John M.
O’Quinn “vast government conspiracy” and the FAKE client violating Rule 11}.

9. The court should impose the following sanctions in an unspecified amount for
fees and expenses for preparing the motion and attending the hearing}. Requested are
for sanctions is sufficient to deter repetition of the sanction able conduct against William
C. Haman and Kevin Donnelly in addition in this court requiring sworn response by
issuing an order to all of the lawyers. . Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c) (2); In re Sargent, 136 F.3d
349, 352 (4th Cir. 1998).

C. Conclusion

10. For these reasons, and many more too numerous to mention later supplemented
in oral argument Plaintiff Davis asks the court to award sanctions of requested from Rule
11(c)} against Mr. Haman and Mr. Donnelly and suspend them from the federal bar.

BY: CAROL ANN DAVIS, pro se

_________________________
Carol Ann Davis
25311 Sugar Valley Lane
Spring, Texas 77373

And approved to form and content/

And or witness or connected to the

4
Preparation of the same

BY: Beverly F. Thompson

For the RICO victims class to be protected
Seeking Counsel

________________________

5
 ORDER ON CAROL ANN DAVIS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

After considering Carol Ann Davis motion for sanctions and the response, after
receiving evidence, and after a hearing, the court

DENIES the motion.

FINDS that WILLIAM C. HAMAN & KEVIN DONNELLY violated Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 11 as described in the Plaintiff Motion for Sanctions and the conduct is
found having examining the evidence and the witness is a violation Rule 11(b)}. The
court therefore GRANTS CAROL ANN DAVIS motion and ORDERS

_____________________________that William C. Haman and Kevin Donnelly et al to

pay fees and expenses to Plaintiff, Carol Ann Davis.

SIGNED on _______________, 200__.

_________________________
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

APPROVED & ENTRY REQUESTED:

________________________________
Carol Ann Davis

6
 DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

STATE OF TEXAS §
HARRIS COUNTY §

“I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.”

“I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
that the foregoing is true and correct.”

EXECUTED on _______________, 200__.

_________________________
Carol Ann Davis

7
 VERIFICATION

STATE OF TEXAS §
HARRIS COUNTY §

On this day, CAROL ANN DAVIS appeared before me, the undersigned notary
public. After I administered an oath to her upon her oath, she said that she read the
Motion For Sanctions and that the facts stated in it are within her personal knowledge
and are true and correct.

_________________________
Carol Ann Davis

SWORN TO and SUBSCRIBED before me by Carol Ann Davis on __________,

2009.

_________________________
Notary Public in and for
the State of {__________}

8
 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Everyone is faxed on November 28, 2009 and or the following Monday morning.
Accordingly, I cannot represent to the court whether counsel opposes or does not oppose
the Motion for Sanctions.

_________________________
Carol Ann Davis

9
 NOTICE OF HEARING

The attached Motion for Sanctions has been filed with the court and is set for hearing
on ___________at __________.

10
 CAROL ANN DAVIS REQUEST FOR HEARING

1. Carol Ann Davis. Motion for Sanctions is set for submission on ____________
without a hearing.

2. Although a hearing for Sanctions is not for receipt of evidence, Plaintiff Davis
believes the issues are complex, and a hearing to allow the lawyers to argue their
respective positions would be helpful to the court except for the Texas Attorney General
Karen Matlock – Texas DPS was not sued and did not request her to represent expend
sums of public money.

2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ________ permits Carol Ann Davis to request a
hearing and present evidence on this motion.

3. Carol Ann Davis therefore asks the court to set this motion for hearing, to take
evidence or not take evidence and or check the status with the lawyers.

4. This request for a hearing complies with FRCP and is filed to please the e court
and to reach a resolution.

Carol Ann Davis

25311 Sugar Valley Lane
Spring, Texas 77373

11
 ORDER GRANTING CAROL ANN DAVIS ’S REQUEST FOR HEARING

After considering CAROL ANN DAVIS request for a hearing on Gillespie, Viada,
Orr, Mayo and Leona Filis the court

GRANTS Carol Ann Davis request for hearing and sets the {name of motion} for
hearing on _______________, 200__, at ________ a.m. /p.m.

SIGNED on _______________, 200__.

_________________________
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

APPROVED & ENTRY REQUESTED:

________________________________
Carol Ann Davis

12