UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION
CAROL ANN DAVIS,

Plaintiff

v. CASE NO. 2010-CV-HO- ______

TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE (TML) & THE INTERGOVERMENTAL RISK

POOL
MARVIN TOWNSEND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ATTORNEY LORI
GILLESPIE,
CITY OF AUSTIN & CITY OF AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT
OFFICER JOHNSON, Officer JOHN DOE &
SARGEANT JOANNE CASEY
Defendants

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

– Excessive Force, 42 U.S.C. §1983

COMES NOW, CAROL ANN DAVIS, PLAINTIFF AND COMPLAINS

OF Excessive Force, 42 U.S.C. §1983 AND OTHER VIOLATIONS OF

STATE AND FEDERAL LAW and shows;

A. Parties and Service; 1. Carol Ann Davis is Plaintiff;

resides at 25311 Sugar Valley Lane, Spring, Texas 77373. 1

1
 2. Texas Municipal League- Intergovernmental Risk Pool

is am entity Defendant, and may be served at 1821 Rutherford Lane,

Austin TX 78754 (512) 491-2300. At all relevant times this entity

bankrolled the proceedings in a previous federal court case where a

substantial part of the events and omissions occurred in this Houston

Southern District barring the June 18, 2008 illegal search and seizure of

Plaintiff in Austin, Texas under the color of law. At all times relevant

the entity defendant, the city defendant, attorney defendant and the

officers defendants reached an agreement to discredit punish and seek

revenge against Plaintiff Carol Ann Davis that includes among other

things inducing plaintiff into settlement deliberations, soliciting a sum

of money for copies (for public records) and then attempting to arrest

Plaintiff on false charges when Plaintiff is traveling on the highways of

Texas and sponsoring the event to kidnapping plaintiff, other overt

acts under the color of law and should have prevented the commission

of overt acts and other violations under the color of law and therefore

actionable under the law for the continuous activity to destroy Plaintiff

because her claim is meritorious. The defendants are directly

responsible and have acted in a pattern of racketeering activity and to

physically prevent Plaintiff from access to the courts and redress

armed with false misleading general denials to defend in this case

while the damages continue to accumulate in furtherance of the

common scheme to defraud and Marvin Townsend is its Executive

2
Director Texas Municipal League (TML) Intergovernmental Risk Pool

1821 Rutherford Lane, Austin TX 78754 (512) 491-2300

TMLRiskPool@tmlirp.orgi

3. Attorney Lori Gillespie is a Defendant attorney; Ms. Gillespie is

a lawyer paid by the Texas Municipal League (TML) Intergovernmental

Risk Pool, located at 1821 Rutherford Lane, Austin TX 78754 (512) 491-

2300. Defendant attorney is an individual who represents she has the

legal authority to settle the claims within the authority of the

provisions of the ‘policy’ and prevent the filing of yet another federal

civil rights lawsuit but attorney defendant Gillespie clearly has acted,

beyond reason and is abusing her position to further the fraudulent

scheme perpetrated and advanced by ‘Mr. Davis’. ‘Mr. Davis’ is a FAKE

client and the 1997 (Travis County Judge Elizabeth Earle) CAPIAS

attached to ‘his name’ is prima facia proof of an illegal dissemination

and tampering with government data bases. The matter of the CAPIAS;

an illegal dissemination of identifiers and tampering with government

data bases is under criminal investigation with John Keel Texas State

Auditor. Texas Intergovernmental Risk Pool Attorney Defendant Lori

Gillespie knew this was a situation of a Plaintiff with a legitimate civil

rights claim and that the Plaintiff was disadvantage because of lack of

funds and the illegal custom practice of the illegal insurance scheme of

which defendant attorney Lori Gillespie chooses to pay employee

/contract attorneys to engage in harassing litigation instead of paying

3
damages linked to the genesis claim and Plaintiff Davis false arrest of

February 18, 2001 in the City of Jersey Village and moreover protect

the sham of the FAKE client ‘Mr. Davis’ and the waste fraud and abuse

the City of Jersey Village participated in. Defendant attorney Gillespie

engaged in discrimination. In sum, attorney defendant Lori Gillespie

held back what she knew and her pay check is derived by criminal

activity and the evidence and this situation it is patently clear this is

one of those situations and the time for the games to end without the

necessity of filing another federal lawsuit so that Plaintiff can get on

with her life but defendant attorney Lori Gillespie has decided

otherwise for the membership where she earns money derived from

criminal activity. However because of the chain conspiracy to defraud

attorney defendant Lori Gillespie special accommodation is to be

named a defendant attorney for the court to learn Gillespie is also

complicit in the murder of a federal witness and the cover up

of the murder of a federal witness; the probable cause to dial 911

and file a false police report and use total police power to illegal seize

and search Plaintiff on June 18, 2008. Now included in the purpose of

Defendant Gillespie is a purpose of a cover up the same as the

pending ‘harassment’ charges filed in December 4, 2009 in Travis and

February 08, 2010 Montgomery County to protect the illegal

adjustment insurance scheme of ‘billable hours’. Put another way

Defendant entity, Defendant attorney Lori Gillespie, Defendant City ,

4
Defendant Austin Police Department, and the individual officer

defendants ( Johnson, Doe and Casey) have all assisted and facilitated

the wrongful illegal search and seizure of Plaintiff, and did not care

about controlling case law, including having engaged in a course of

conduct that has seriously harmed and may result in the

wrongful death of plaintiff, and had destroyed the legitimate

business of plaintiff. Plaintiff witnesses have sustained

unprecedented damages as a result of the fraud of the largest

municipal league in the country linked to a cover up of public

corruption, tampering with government databases but engage

knowing violations under the color of law and later cover up

the same with harassing litigation and other violations of state

and federal law where attorney Defendant Lori Gillespie is

intended to be sued in her individual capacity. ii

4. The City of Austin is a municipal member of the Texas Municipal

League and the City of Austin attorneys has been noticed of this

lawsuit June 17, 2010 by facsimile to Attorney Robin Sanders, City of Austin,

P.O. Box 1546, Austin, TX 78767-1546, (512) 974-2429 , Fax: 512/974-6490 ,

Email: robin.sanders@ci.austin.tx.us, and attorney Christopher J. Coppola ,

City of Austin, P.O. Box 1546 Austin, TX 78767, 512-974-2161, Fax: 512-974-

1311,Email:christopher.coppola@ci.austin.tx.us.

5
 5. The City of Austin Police Department is a Defendant, the City of

Austin and the City of Austin Police Department, is a member

of the Texas Municipal League and the police department is

located at 715 E 8th St, Austin, TX 78701(512) 974-5088, (512) 974-

5088 . The City of Austin Police Department, have all assisted and

facilitated the wrongful illegal search and seizure of Plaintiff, and did

not care about controlling case law, have engaged in a course of

conduct that has seriously harmed and may result in the wrongful

death of plaintiff, and had destroyed the legitimate business of plaintiff

and damage her witnesses under the color of law. The City of Austin

Police Dept. and David Douglas was notified of conference and

deliberations prior to this lawsuit.

6. Officer Johnson is a defendant officer and employed at the City

of Austin and the City of Austin Police Department, 715 E 8th St,

Austin, TX 78701(512) 974-5088 / (512) 974-5088. The Defendant

entity, Defendant attorney Lori Gillespie, Defendant City of Austin

Police Department, and the individual officer defendants have all

assisted and facilitated the wrongful illegal search and seizure of

Plaintiff, and did not care about controlling case law, have engaged in

a course of conduct that has seriously harmed and may result in the

wrongful death of plaintiff, and had destroyed the legitimate business

of plaintiff and continues to damage her witnesses. The City of Austin

6
Police Dept. and David Douglas was notified of conference and

deliberations prior to this lawsuit.

7. Officer John Doe is a defendant officer and employed at the City

of Austin Police Department, 715 E 8th St, Austin, TX 78701(512)

974-5088 / (512) 974-5088. The Defendant entity, Defendant attorney

Lori Gillespie, Defendant City of Austin Police Department, and the

individual officer defendants have both assisted and facilitated the

wrongful illegal search and seizure of Plaintiff, and did not care about

controlling case law, have engaged in a course of conduct that has

seriously harmed and may result in the wrongful death of plaintiff, and

had destroyed the legitimate business of plaintiff and continues to

damage her witnesses. The City of Austin Police Dept. and David

Douglas was notified of conference and deliberations prior to this

lawsuit and requested to furnish the name of the unknown male officer

in attendant with attorney Lori Gillespie and Officer Johnson.

8. Sergeant Joanne Casey is a defendant officer, and employed at

the City of Austin Police Department, 715 E 8th St, Austin, TX

78701(512) 974-5088 / (512) 974-5088. The Defendant entity,

Defendant attorney Lori Gillespie, Defendant City of Austin Police

Department, and the individual officer defendants have both assisted

and facilitated the wrongful illegal search and seizure of Plaintiff, and

she spoke freely that she did not care about controlling case law, have
7
engaged in a course of conduct that has seriously harmed and may

result in the wrongful death of plaintiff, and had destroyed the

legitimate business of plaintiff and continues to damage her witnesses.

The City of Austin Police Dept. and David Douglas was notified of

conference and deliberations prior to this lawsuit.

Jurisdiction

8. This court has jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the

Constitution, law or treaties of the 42 United States Constitution; Title

28 U.S C., § 1331 & 1343 (a) (1),(a) (2) (amended 1981, 1983 ,

1985(3) and 1986 and therefore present a federal question. The court

has jurisdiction because the defendants are public figures and on the

fact issue of actual malice the all civil actions arising under the

provision of RETALIATION are under the U.S.C. Title 28 because the

case is driven by aggressive government lawyers accused of serious

infractions including suppressing evidence, suborning perjury and

selective practice and because this is a case of fraud there is an act of

Congress which transfers such authority.

Venue

9. Venue is proper in the Houston Division of the Southern District

of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1891 (b). Standing exist when there

is injury in fact, the injury caused by the defendant, and the court can
8
redress the injury. Center for Individuals Freedom v Carmoucahe , 409

F 3d 655, 659 ( 5th Circuit 2006). An action arising under federal law

may be brought in a judicial district where any defendant resides in all

defendant resided in the same state or in a district where a

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim

occurred 28 U.S.C. 1332 § 1391 (b).

Due to the previous federal civil rights lawsuit filed against ‘member’

City of Jersey Village for excessive force and that the events which give

rise to the instant lawsuit are based on the actual words spoken by

Texas Municipal League attorney Lori Gillespie located in Austin Texas

who used a letter to summon Carol Ann Davis from Spring, Texas to

“submit “monies for public records but attorney Lori Gillespie had

visions of Plaintiff Davis wielding guns on June 18, 2008 much like City

of Jersey Village officer defendant had visions of Plaintiff Davis

wielding mace on February 18, 2001 . Selective visions of witnessing

criminal conduct of an injured party i.e. not wielding guns June 18,

2008 to cover up the crimes against the injured party of not wielding

mace on February 18, 2001 is becoming commonplace in the

insurance adjustment scheme and supports ‘probable cause’ to arrest

the injured party and increase her damages due to lack of

accountability and when that falls short file more false charges against

Plaintiff and falsely complain that she is ‘harassing’ you. Moreover

Carol Ann Davis brings this cause of action against each of the parties
9
and alleges the defendant parties concerted, coordinated act by these

parties , and all of Plaintiff, Carol Ann Davis causes of action arise from

the same operative facts concerning the illegal dissemination of ‘Mr.

Davis’ and her claims against the TML Risk Pool ETAL and the City of

Austin Police Department are substantially interdependent and

concerted misconduct by both the TML Risk Pool and the City of Austin

and its police officers where the causes of action against the defendant

parties and are inherently inseparable from the cause of action in the

Southern District of Texas where Carol Ann Davis, Plaintiff filed against

the City of Jersey Village ETAL in February 18, 2003. Judge Ewing

Werlein Jr. has extensive knowledge of the facts and the parties. (See

Brown v Anderson, 102 S.W. 3d 245, 250 Tex- app Beaumont 2003)

and moreover the self- dealing attorneys who use law enforcement to

protect money derived from an illegal practice.

D. Conditions Precedent

10. All conditions precedent has been performed or has occurred.

Preliminary Statement

11. Plaintiff is a federal information source for the United States

Department of Justice; Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent

10
Ron Stern. During the course of Ron Stern’s criminal investigation and

probe into the Harris County Courts, agent Stern solicited Plaintiff to

collect criminal evidence, requested that she sign a contract and

provided her a government tape recorder. Over the course of time the

parties have changed as well as the claims against the parties for the

discovery of substantial public corruption evidence. As explained

below, the actions of the Defendants have resulted in a series of

events where discovery should come to an end and Plaintiff get on with

her life. Plaintiff seeks immediate relief to obtain damages related to

the violations of law committed to cover up other violations of law in a

criminal chain conspiracy of a multi level illegitimate government

operations where the Texas Municipal League (TML) and its member

are engaged in violations on a grand scale of fraud against the citizens

in the State of Texas and corrupted court operations to accomplish the

obstructing of justice.

Defendants have worked together to wrongfully deprive Plaintiff

the right to travel to collect document for a life saving emergency legal

operations for redress and damages to a meritorious claim of federal

civil rights violations from 1995 to the present and behind the scenes

its city ‘members’ and its officers defendant ‘members’ have engaged

in a course of fraudulent representations in litigation in several

counties across the State of Texas moreover the super county of

11
Travis ( the Capitol Station of Texas) to destroy the business enterprise

that Plaintiff has a vested interest in; the collection of damages based

on well settled principals and as a matter of law.

Further, the Defendants have engaged in a pattern of racketeering

activity in the conduct of an enterprise that had deprived Plaintiff of

her rights of due process, property and has resulted in physical injury

and the imminent risk of death for failure to obtain emergency redress

for the damages related to the illegal dissemination of identifies, the

continued reckless abuse of Plaintiff identity, and other violations of

law as described below for the failure to obtain payment of the

damages connected to a previous lawsuit filed in the Southern District

of Texas where the entity Defendant and the attorney Defendant have

played a major role behind the scenes .

E. Facts

11. During the spring months of 2008, Plaintiff and defendant

attorney Lori Gillespie were involved in the settlement deliberations of

a federal civil rights lawsuit that had been filed by Plaintiff in February

18, 2003 and went to trial September 12, 13, 14, and 15, 2005.

Plaintiff lost that trial and Plaintiff had good cause to continue to seek

redress i.e. damages due to the fraud and violations of professional

conduct of attorneys engaged in criminal activity, lawyers, Barbara

12
Palmer, Ray Viada, Stefani Orr, Karen Matlock, Ben Plaut, Larry Mayo,

Leona Filis, James Supkis, Tom Christian Sanders and L.H. “Mike”

Decker, Tom Fillion, Jerry Graves among others lawyers linked to the

murder of a recognized federal information source Melinda “Lindy

Harrison” Honerkamp however clarified the state and federal crimes

exclude Plaintiff attorney Jerry S. Payne of Piney Point, Texas.

Attorney Lori Gillespie in settlement deliberations and telephone

conferences had advised that she [the City of Jersey Village ETAL)

would pay Carol Ann Davis damages if Carol Ann Davis “was

reasonable” about the damages Carol Ann Davis sustained connected

to a Section 1983 lawsuit filed by plaintiff February 18, 2003 case

number 4:03-CV- HO-02395 styled Carol Ann Davis v. City of Jersey

Village ETAL and Lonnie Ray Davis.

Attorney defendant Lori Gillespie had learned from Plaintiff that

employee and contract lawyers Ramon Viada, Stefani Orr, Karen

Matlock and Ben Plaut had engaged in Title 18 violations (obstruction

of justice) and other violations of state, federal and the Rule of

Professional Conduct connected to the proceedings in federal court

and moreover to gain a photo of the mace subpoenaed from Melinda

Honerkamp to advance the perjury of former City of Jersey Village

officer defendant David Mark Lawrenz. iii

Attorney Lori Gillespie had

learned from Plaintiff that employee and contract lawyers Ramon

13
Viada, Stefani Orr and Ben Plaut had aided and abetted in the

concealment of violations of the Texas Constitution and that the

assistant Texas Attorney General Karen Matlock had spent public

money improperly and had also engaged in Title 18 violations

(obstruction of justice) and other violations of state, federal and the

Rule of Professional Conduct connected to the proceedings in federal

court. Plaintiff alleges that at all times material attorney Lori Gillespie

had a duty to investigate and to take steps when she became aware of

the complaint, such as create an investigative file and conduct

investigative interviews and file a final report with the controlling legal

authority and or an advisory to the federal court judge who was in

charge of the proceedings. Attorney Lori Gillespie was aware these

Title 18 violations was not a mere rumor; Carol Ann Davis complaints,

grievances, demand letters, and lawsuits was sufficient that that “ No

complaint should be considered too trivial to act upon. “ When a

‘member’ of professional colleague ( especially an attorney) becomes

aware of an allegation of harassing, discriminatory, or retaliatory

conduct, the attorney ( Lori Gillespie) is on notice and has a duty to

investigate, regardless of whether it conforms to a particular format or

is made in writing. Even when Carol Ann Davis (Plaintiff) complainant

specifically asks the attorney Lori Gillespie to investigate, and Gillespie

as the employer of the legal service complained about must take the

necessary steps to prevent unlawful conduct from recurring again.

14
Defendant attorney Lori Gillespie had an employer’s duty to

investigate when there surface allegations of harassment by another

attorney that she is responsible in a supervisory position. Defendant

attorney Gillespie is the a supervisor, and or a third‐party brought

into contact with the actual complaint of Plaintiff related to harassing

litigation in defendant attorney Gillespie’s sphere of expertise.

Defendant attorney Gillespie is well aware as to any possibly relevant

documents. Defendant attorney Lori Gillespie is very familiar with the

‘Complaint Procedures’ and is responsible to investigate and or;

choose the Investigator, the In‐House Counsel, the Human Resource

Professional, the Police Departmentations,, develop the

investigative file, interview the complainant, the accused and all

necessary witnesses, gather all relevant evidence, prepare a final

report, all applicable personnel policy provisions, policy statements,

and notices that apply to internal complaints of employee misconduct,

including notes taken by the interviewer(s), any written complaints or

memos regarding, the complaint made by those interviewed, witness

statements, any corroborating documents such as time records, police

reports, calendars, e‐mails, phone records, etc. and file a final report to

determine the scope of the investigation . Defendant attorney Gillespie

is to strike a balance between the need to thoroughly investigate

allegations and the goal of not involving more people than is

reasonably necessary to determine the truth of those allegations and

15
what remedial measures might be necessary. In this case defendant

attorney Lori Gillespie has continued to employee the offending

lawyers and has continued the advancement of the offending

attorneys. Defendant attorney Gillespie documents the same by

assigning attorney Ramon Viada to a recent federal civil rights lawsuit

filed by the city dispatcher ( Tracy Martin also a fact witness disclosed

by Davis in the previous lawsuit) and defendant attorney Gillespie

decided for Plaintiff the absolute necessity to involve more people than

necessary including the federal court again with regards to Plaintiff the

filing of this lawsuit which indicates perhaps a chain conspiracy to deny

due process repeatedly for meritorious claims for the illegal insurance

adjustment scheme and the advancement of a few who derive money

from illegal actively and the concealment of illegal activity. iv

Defendant attorney Lori Gillespie is impervious to the truth and should

be sanctioned for harassing litigation and filing false police reports June

18, 2008 to cover up her employees ( lawyers ) aiding and abetting in

the filing of false police reports and lying to the FBI investigation 282-

A- HO- 59712.

June 18, 2008 Plaintiff suffered illegal search and seizure when

Texas Municipal League defendant attorney Lori Gillespie dialed 911

and filed a false police report leading to Austin Police Department

illegal search and seizure. Carol Ann Davis and her vehicle was

16
wrongfully seized and searched by the Defendants and documented in

part by the Austin Police Department.

12. Defendant attorney Gillespie ordered the Austin Police

Department to take Plaintiff’s property; the vehicle was seized by

Officer Johnson, Officer John Doe, and Sgt Joanne Casey with a tow

truck. Those defendant parties (the officer defendants, the attorney

defendant’s and the ‘insuring’ entity defendants) was acting within the

course and scope of his and her employment as described herein and

the police officers defendants and supervisor defendant (Joanne Casey)

for Austin Police Department; are sued for illegal search and seizure

and for the blatant excessive force violations of law is the Texas

Municipal League illegal custom pattern and practice.

13. Defendants used unreasonable, unnecessary, and

excessive force while kidnapping, detaining and illegally seizing the

plaintiff’s transportation vehicle June 18, 2008. Plaintiff was kidnapped

from another location in Austin and driven to the offices of the Texas

Municipal League. The amount of force used was excessive in light of

the custom pattern and practice of the TML and its ‘members’ who

initial and file false police reports. Kidnapping and the excessive

force used including the illegal seizure of the property is very

unreasonable in light of the circumstances and has become downright

abusive; Plaintiff Davis briefly addresses the recent false arrest of

17
January 14, 2010 and May 13, 2010 where criminal charges are

pending in Travis and Montgomery Counties alleging Plaintiff violated

the peace and dignity of the State of Texas and ‘harassed’ opposing

counsels Karen Matlock, Ramon Viada and Stefani Orr.

14. The injuries suffered by plaintiff were significant, substantial,

and severe; and related to injuries cover up by attorney Lori Gillespie

in a previous lawsuit for injuries filed in the Southern District of Texas

numbered 4:03-CV-HO-02395 CAROL ANN DAVIS V. CITY OF JERSEY

VILLAGE ET AL & LONNIE RAY DAVIS. The Jersey Village federal civil

right lawsuit Plaintiff filed February 18, 2003 is linked to a federal

investigation 282-A-HO-59712. This federal investigation was

conducted by FBI Special Agent Al Tribble where there appears an

agreement of “Do not ask for the

City of Jersey Village booking documents” about Texas DPS and

the state and federal crimes documented in those Carol Ann Davis

2001 booking documents supported by another hidden agreement by

the (now convicted JVPD officer Robert “Body armor” LaRouax of ‘Do

not tell about the booking documents’).

15. At the time of the arrest, the officer defendant was acting under

color of the laws and regulations of the State of Texas and the Austin

Police Department. The Austin Police Department had policy and

custom in place that enabled its agents and employees to act with
18
deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of individuals. The

Texas Municipal League is the largest Municipal League in the United

States and it has a policy of illegitimate government. This is a policy

and custom of the agency, not only, tolerating misconduct by its police

officers, encouraging misconduct by failing to adequately supervise,

discipline, or train but moreover where the police officer have TML and

other inside attorneys who assist in writing one report with what

happened and a second report altering the facts in the first report and

of what not happened is the core problem. Lying to the FBI just adds to

the confusion and state and federal violations of law. The defendant

parties played a role conspiring, state and federal violations of law in

retaliation against a federal informant, Plaintiff Carol Ann Davis,

threatening to cause and causing bodily injury to a federal informant

with the intent to retaliate, and advancing a cover up of the murder

of federal informant with the intent to retaliate. Plaintiff is the target

of a campaign by law enforcement officers from different agencies to

harass her and to implicate her in criminal activity. The allegations as

to the events and players are set out in several lawsuits since 1996

and these events of June 18, 2008 are part of a chain conspiracy to

deny due process. Moreover Plaintiff directs this court to Travis County

Attorney Officer David Escamilla and Bill Swain version of the

‘admissible’ evidence produced allegedly by the FAKE ‘victim’

opposing counsel Karen Matlock. Plaintiff Davis suggests the

19
‘evidence’ is altered for the ordinary “unknown reasons” and thus not

forthcoming as previously warranted by court appointed legal counsel

perhaps recognized for what it is if disseminated to Plaintiff Davis and

the federal court. Out of an abundance of caution a federal subpoena

is requested to collect the ‘evidence’ Karen Matlock has produced to

the super county of Travis linked to the Dec 2, 2009 email Karen

Matlock initiated in the continuance of conference and deliberations

connected to the federal court case where she knowingly used

misrepresentations in litigation to advance additional

misrepresentations in litigation and where identified attorney Karen

Matlock spent public money on a personal agenda and yet still earns

her money derived from illegal activity and her ability to corrupt

federal court operations as the ‘assistant’ Texas Attorney General.

ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY DEFENDANTS

16. Defendant Texas Municipal League, Lori Gillespie, Austin Police

Department, Officers Joanne Casey, Johnson and Doe intentionally,

knowingly and recklessly made contact with Plaintiff person and

threatened Plaintiff with imminent body injury with caused injury to

Plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered damages for which Plaintiff herein sues.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT BY DEFENDANTS

20
 17. Defendants willfully detained Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not consent

to the detention and the detention was without legal authority or

jurisdiction. Plaintiff at the time warranted this federal civil rights

lawsuit and her intent to hold state officials accountable for interfering

in every aspect of Plaintiff life and the murder of Melinda “Lindy

Harrison” Honerkamp; Plaintiff has suffered damages for which Plaintiff

herein sues.

INVASION OF PRIVACY BY ALL DEFENDANTS

18. Defendant’s publicized facts regarding Plaintiff private life

which were not legitimated public concerns. This publicity was highly

offensive to Plaintiff and would be highly offensive to a reasonable

person. Plaintiff was injured as a result of the conduct of the

Defendants. Plaintiff suffered damages and herein sues.

LIBEL BY ALL DEFENDANTS

19. Defendants without regard for the truth or falsity published

false statements of fact referring to Plaintiff which imputed a crime

against Plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered damages for which Plaintiff herein

sues.

MALICIOUS CRIMINAL PROSECUTION BY ALL DEFENDANTS

21
 20. Defendants initiated or have attempted a criminal prosecution

against Plaintiff and the ‘case’ is still under investigation in Travis and

Montgomery Counties . Plaintiff is actually innocent and did not wield

guns in the lobby or parking lot of the offices of the Texas

Municipal League; the vision and probable cause for defendant

attorney Lori Gillespie to dial 911 although she has written a

letter soliciting money for copies of public records to Plaintiff.

So far no criminal charges have been filed related to the incident of

June 18, 2008 but the false arrest of Carol Ann Davis by the State

Police on January 14, 2010 will be filed under a separate cover where

the Texas Assistant Attorney General Karen Matlock secured the

cooperation of Travis County Attorney to file criminal charges against

Carol Ann Davis for ‘harassment’ pursuant to Texas Penal Code 42.07.

The ‘PC’ appears to be a cooperative effort with others who are paid

with public money derived from criminal activity.

21. Defendants acted with malice and without probable cause in

initiating the illegal search and seizure of Plaintiff and Plaintiff were

injured as a result on June 18, 2008. Plaintiff suffered damages for

which Plaintiff herein sues.

22
 NEGLIGENCE BY ALL DEFENDANTS

22. Defendants owed a legal duty. Specifically the TML and Lori

Gillespie owed a legal duty connected the City of Jersey Village lawsuit

but Defendants breached this duty which proximate caused injury to

Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks all available damages for injuries caused by

Defendant’s negligence.

RETAILIATION BY ALL DEFENDANTS

23. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants and instituted a campaign of

retaliation. The retaliation was and is due to Plaintiff exercising her

rights by making or filing a continued charges against the City of Jersey

Village and Lonnie Ray Davis, filing criminal charges with the Texas

State Auditor John Keel, including and publishing the state and federal

crimes described herein on the Internet and activity where the

permission was sought from the FBI Houston Office. Evidence is the

absence of an objection and not filed by the Dept of Justice related to

the ‘harassment’ complained about in Travis County. Plaintiff suffered

damages for which Plaintiff sues.

SLANDER BY ALL DEFENDANTS

24. The June 18, 2008 Defendants orally made a false statement of

fact refereeing to Plaintiff which imputed a crime against Plaintiff to

assist the illegal insurance adjustment scheme and the cover up of

23
state and federal violation committed by public officials. This was

done without regard to the truth or falsity of the statements. Plaintiff

suffered damages for which Plaintiff herein sues.

F. Count 1 – Violation of Constitutional Rights

25. The exercise of this established policy and custom violated

plaintiff‘s clearly established rights under the United States

Constitution.

(A) against unreasonable seizure of her person.

(B) against the use of unreasonable, unnecessary, and excessive

force.

G. Count 2 – 42 U.S.C. §1983 against Individual Defendants

26. The officers acted willfully, deliberately, maliciously, or with

reckless disregard for plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional

rights. Texas Municipal League attorney Lori Gillespie acted willfully,

deliberately, maliciously, or with reckless disregard for plaintiff’s

clearly established constitutional rights.

H. Count 3 – State Law Claims

24
 27. Defendants are also charged herein and claims against

officer and the other Defendants, s under state law, for illegal search

and seizure illegal detainment.

I. Compliance with Notice Provisions

28. Plaintiff timely presented her claim to defendant as

required by and the same presentation and deliberation has resulted in

opposing counsel, Texas Assistant Attorney General Karen Matlock

filing criminal charges against Plaintiff December 04, 2010 after Karen

Matlock made the initial contact to Carol Ann Davis and was directed to

contact attorney Jerry S. Payne on December 02, 2002.

J. Damages

29. As a direct and proximate result of the officer’s use of

excessive force and the refusal to provide necessary attention to

Stowers violation in the initial lawsuit filed against the City of Jersey

Village and for other reasoning related to the murder of a federal

witness, Melinda “Lindy Harrison” Honerkamp. Carol Ann Davis,

plaintiff sustained the following damages as result of the actions and or

omissions of the Defendants described herein and above. Plaintiff

suffered the following injuries and damages:

25
 a. All reasonable and necessary Attorney fees incurred by or on

behalf of Plaintiff, including all fees necessary in the event of an appeal

of this cause to the court of appeals and the Supreme Court of the

United States, as the court deems equitable and just as provided by

the Texas Labor Code Section. 21. 259. All conditions precedent has

been performed or has occurred Medical expenses in the past and

future.

b. All reasonable and necessary cost incurred in the pursuit of this

lawsuit;

c. Emotional pain.

d. Expert fees and the Court deems appropriate;

e. Inconvenience;

f. Pre and Post judgment interest;

g. Loss of enjoyment of life;

h. Mental anguish in the past;

i. Mental anguish in the future;

j. Reasonable medical case and expenses in the past. These

expenses were incurred by Plaintiff and such charges are reasonable

26
and were usual and customary charges for such services in Harris

County, Texas;

k. Reasonable and necessary medical care and a expenses which

will in all reasonable probability be incurred in the future;

l. Loss of earnings in the past

m. Loss of earnings in which will in all probability be incurred in the

future.; Loss of earning capacity.

n. Loss of benefits.

o. Humiliation.

p. Lost of credit. .

q. Loss of time.

.r. Physical discomfort.

s. Physical injury;

t Physical pain of suffering in the past.

u. Physical pain of suffering in the future.

Physical impairment in the past;

27
 v. Physical impairment in the future and in all reasonable

probability will be suffered in the future;

w. Injury to reputation;

x. any and all other damages to which the allegations contained in

this petition entitle her; and

y. any further relief at-law or in- equity to which he may be justly

entitled.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

30. Plaintiff would further show that the acts and omissions of

Defendants complained of herein were committed with malice or

reckless indifference to the state protected rights of the Plaintiff. In

order to punish said Defendants for engaging in unlawful business

practices and to deter such actions and/ or omissions in the future.

Plaintiff also seeks recovery from Defendants for exemplary damages.

K. Attorney Fees

31. It was necessary for plaintiff to hire legal counsel and it

requested is a court appointed attorney to advance this meritorious

lawsuit in the event attorney Jerry S. Payne of Piney Point, Texas

cannot act as the undersigned’s legal counsel and or is an designated

28
legal expert. Upon judgment, plaintiff is entitled to an award of

attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. §1988(b).

L. Jury Fee

32. Plaintiff is not prepared to tender the jury fee today but

perhaps after the cost incurred next week linked to the false criminal

charges filed by opposing counsels. A jury is requested and the fees

are requested to be waived concomitantly with the filing or this lawsuit

described by the provisions to demand trial by jury upon final trial

thereof when the plaintiff lacks funds especially due to the oppression

of the Defendants who derive their money from criminal activity.

M. Prayer

33. For these reasons, plaintiff asks for judgment against defendant

for the following:

a. Actual damages of $ 100 million dollars and or more – the

absolute legal limits by law and based on the recent 8 million dollar

figure assigned by a Harris County Jury for 1 night in jail including the

losses linked to federal court case 4:03-CV-HO-02395.

b. Prejudgment and post judgment interest.

c. Costs of suit, including attorney fees.

29
 d. All other relief the court deems appropriate including the

request for a jury.

Plaintiff pray the Defendants be cited to appear and answer

herein and that upon final trial hereof, they have and recover judgment

of the defendants jointly and severally for an accounting and for their

actual damages, punitive damage and attorney fees all as set out forth

above. Plaintiff prays for pre- and post judgment interest, as allowed

by law and for cost of court expended. Plaintiffs pray for general relief

and that these damages fall with the jurisdictional limits of the court.

A pro se complaint ‘however artfully pled’ must be held to ‘less

stringent standards than formal pleading drafted by lawyers’. Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 S. Ct. 285, 292, 50 L.Ed. 2d 251 (1976) (quoting

Hanes v Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed 2d 652

(1972). The Supreme Court has pointed out on many occasions,

federal courts are empowered to fashion remedies, including the

issuance of injunctions, as are necessary to vindicate rights which have

been secured under the Constitution and law of the United States. See

U.S. v. Farrar, 414 f 2d 936-938 (5th Circuit) (citing Bell v. Hood, 327

U>S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L. Ed. 939 (1946). Also see controlling

Texas case Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W. 2d 833, 839-40 (1992). The

flow chart is simple; and so is the connection to ‘Mr. Davis'

(the fake one) to both the previous federal lawsuit and the
30
events linked to the cover up of the FAKE client, prima facia

proof of an illegal dissemination and tampering with

government data bases is only one (1) motive of the entity,

attorney and officer defendants; and only one (1) of the many

reasons the State Bar and Texas DPS’s Special Crimes agreed

to hide the many frauds of attorney Joe Jamail linked to Carla

Roberson Cummings lest the blatant expose’ of the rigged

grand juries in Texas- and thus the ‘secrecy’ of the Grand Jury

‘proceedings’. Plaintiff presents evidence and argues very well

that there exist a conspiracy agreement rather than conspiring with

persons names known and unknown while her damages continues to

accumulate holding the officials accountable. There is clear identified

agreement connected to 'Mr. Davis' and a common intent related to

"Mr. Davis' and the evidence is plenty sufficient. Facts are 'Mr.

Davis' is the link between attorney Joe Jamail and several members of

the O'Quinn Law Firm; in order attorney Charles Soechting, attorney

professor Gerald T. Treece, attorney Stephen Walker and attorney

Jonathan Stoger and all of causes of action arise from the same

operative facts concerning the illegal dissemination of ‘Mr. Davis’ and

the reason TML attorney defendant Lori Gillespie spent $ 234, 587. 34

in ‘legal fees’ i.e. ‘billable hours’ instead of paying damages where the

claim is meritorious and justified. The many other Harris County RICO

Court Victim including Beverly F. Thompson, Maurquita Forrester, and

31
Mr. Al Johnson represented by attorney Valorie Davenport claims

against the attorneys parties are substantially interdependent and

concerted misconduct by both the attorney parties where the causes of

action against the defendant attorney parties ( See Beverly F.

Thompson as Client 3071, Plaintiff vs. the O’QUINN’S & the JAMAIL’S

numbered 99-219 Rusk County 4th Judicial District Court) and the TML

staff attorney defendant Lori Gillespie and contract defendant

attorneys ( Viada, Orr and Plaut ETAL ) parties and are inherently

inseparable from the cause of action against the TML who abused

Melinda Honerkamp, Beverly F. Thompson and other Plaintiff witnesses

in the City of Jersey Village ETAL lawsuit case and Karen Matlock

knowing of the oppressed class of federal informants linked to Harris

County court RICO victims attached to CAROL ANN DAVIS federal court

case and as the “Top cop” and acting for ‘law enforcement’ adopted a

posture behind the scenes where she acted under the color of law and

played perhaps the most significant role in the murder of a federal

witness; Melinda “Lindy Harrison” Honerkamp of Brenham, Texas

where the question turns on the FAKE client documented in the illegal

dissemination of “Mr. Davis’ is perhaps the motive of opposing counsel

feeling of ‘harassment’ and if so, why not bring the matter of

‘harassment’ to the attention of the federal court . In sum, Judge

Ewing Werlein Jr. has extensive knowledge of the facts and the parties

(See Brown v Anderson, 102 S.W. 3d 245, 250 Tex- app Beaumont
32
2003). Facts are 'Mr. Davis' is the link between the entity defendants

(TML) the attorney defendant Lori Gillespie, and the Austin Police

Department officer Defendants (and Joe Jamail and so on and so forth.)

Never has it been said or published in any venue or forum where the

CAROL ANN DAVIS, PUBLIC INTEREST CASE(s) has played that the

defendants ETAL and the defendant attorneys “were conspiring

together". Plaintiff would represent that attorney defendant, Lori

Gillespie was not in on ‘Mr. Davis’ ; clearly it was the employee

contract lawyers attorneys Viada, Orr and Ben Plaut who made

misrepresentations in litigation and recklessly abused the identity of

Plaintiff lied to the FBI, and engaged in combat litigation i.e. harassing

litigation and thus the illegal search and seizure June 18, 2008 in

Austin Texas to deter plaintiff Carol Ann Davis by again the

demonstration of total police power at none other than at the offices of

the Texas Municipal League. In sum the defendant’s

misrepresentations in litigation and recklessly abuse actually innocent

citizens to advance ‘Mr. Davis’ legal objective and since “Mr. Davis’ is a

FAKE so is ‘his’ legal objective. Plaintiff would evidence the

defendants routinely engage in monetary transactions derived from

unlawful activity and to cover up unlawful activity where the 'trust' of

the citizens was breached by the state and an illegal dissemination of

'Mr. Davis' which resulted in the murder of a federal witness;

Melinda “Lindy Harrison” Honerkamp. v

33
 This is a public interest case, and the evidence shows the false

arrest of June 18, 2008 was to protect the illegal activity and money

derived from illegal activity connected to 4:03-CV-HO-02395 Carol Ann

Davis v. City of Jersey Village ETAL. vi

Respectfully submitted,

BY: Carol Ann Davis

25311 Sugar Valley Lane
Spring, Texas 77373

Copied to:

Jerry S. Payne
11505 Memorial Drive
Piney Point, Texas 77024
713-785-0677
713-785-4874
jspayne1776@gmail.com
TBN 15658000

34
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CAROL ANN DAVIS, Plaintiff

v. CASE NO. 2010-CV-HO- ______

TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE,

LORI GILLESPIE,
CITY OF AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT
OFFICER JOHNSON, Officer John Doe AND
SARGEANT Joanne Casey, Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that I attempted to confer with opposing Counsel Lori

Gillespie of the Texas Municipal League on numerous occasions. Ms.
Gillespie advised me (and Beverly F. Thompson) that the TML would
pay me for the damages related to 4:03-CV-HO-02395 if I got
reasonable. Accordingly, I cannot represent to the court whether the
TML opposes or does not oppose this lawsuit against the City of Austin
and its police officers involved in the illegal seizure of June 18, 2008.
The TML, the City of Austin and its Police Dept (City of Jersey Village)
were providing a June 17, 2010 copy of this lawsuit which Plaintiff has
since modified with additional clarification.

_________________________
Carol Ann Davis

35
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

CAROL ANN DAVIS,

Plaintiff

v. CASE NO. 2010-CV-HO- ______

TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, LORI GILLESPIE,
CITY OF AUSTIN and the City of Austin POLICE DEPARTMENT
OFFICER JOHNSON, Officer John Doe AND SARGEANT Joanne Casey,
Defendant
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE

I acknowledge that I received a copy of the foregoing lawsuit and

the foregoing has been received by facsimile. On _______ , 2010

___________________( name) received a copy of the foregoing lawsuit.

_______________________(signature) and (circle one)

Texas Municipal League – Lori Gillespie- City of Austin Police

Department, Officer Johnson – Officer John Doe and Sgt. Joanne Casey.

36
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

CAROL ANN DAVIS, Plaintiff

v. CASE NO. 2010-CV-HO- ______

TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, LORI GILLESPIE, CITY OF AUSTIN and

the City of Austin POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER JOHNSON, Officer
John Doe AND SARGEANT Joanne Casey, Defendants.
VERIFICATION
On June 15, 2010 CAROL ANN DAVIS, appeared before me and said,

under oath pursuant to the penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and

correct and filed in good faith and that; on June 18, 2008 I appeared at

the TML office based on a letter sent to me by Lori Gillespie

summoning me to submit money for the purchase of the public record

documents. I did not have guns and the guns were not found in the

illegal search and seizure June 18, 2008. All of the above is submitted

in good faith.

______________________________Carol Ann Davis – Affiant

______________________________ SEAL

Notary for the State of Texas

37
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CAROL ANN DAVIS,

Plaintiff

v. CASE NO. 2010-CV-HO- ______

TEXAS INTERGOVERMENTAL RISK POOL, MARVIN TOWNSEND

LORI GILLESPIE, CITY OF AUSTIN & CITY OF AUSTIN POLICE
DEPARTMENT
OFFICER JOHNSON, Officer JOHN DOE & SARGEANT JOANNE CASEY

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR

COSTS

I am a plaintiff in this case and declare that I am unable to pay the costs of these

proceedings and that I am entitled to the relief requested. In support of this application, I answer

the following questions under penalty of perjury: I am not employed and I reside with a friend,

my address is 25311 Sugar Valley Lane, Spring, Texas 77373. My telephone number is 281-350-

2943. I do not have any gross pay or wages and I do not have any other income. In the past 12

months, I have received a gift (loan) for attorney fees paid to Carolyn M. Barnes and Mike

McDougal related to opposing counsels false charges pending in Travis County and Montgomery

Counties in the past six months. I have not a business, or profession, or other self-employment

except for the legitimate business of law and meritorious litigation connected to the illegal

dissemination of ‘Mr. Davis’ and the federal civil rights claim to damages calculations based

on case law explaining the business of law to collect damages regardless of the discriminatory

and deceptive trade practices of opposing counsels and or the TML ETAL and other defendants

named and unnamed. I have not rent payments, interest, or dividends, Pension, annuity, or life
38
insurance payments, disability, or worker’s compensation payments, gifts, or inheritances or

income from any other source. The amount of money that I have in cash or in a checking

account is less than $ 150.00. I do not own a automobile, real estate, stock, bond, security,

trust, significant jewelry, art work, or other financial instrument or thing of value, including any

item of value held in someone else’s name. Any housing, transportation, utilities, or loan

payments, or other regular monthly expenses are paid by the friend where I reside until I am

restored by the collection and payment of my damages linked to the illegal dissemination and

where I am owed for a meritorious claim. No one is dependent on me for support; my

relationship with the friend is private. I do not contribute to the friends support. I have debts or

financial obligations which are past due and owing including medical bills still owed to doctor

James M. Rogers adopted improperly by Karen Matlock of the Texas Attorney General Office in

the previous lawsuit where she derived money and still derives money from illegal activity. I

declare under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and understand that a false

statement may result in a dismissal of my claims.

Date: June 18, 2010

____________________________________

Carol Ann Davis

39
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CAROL ANN DAVIS,

Plaintiff

v. CASE NO. 2010-CV-HO- ______

TEXAS INTERGOVERMENTAL RISK POOL

MARVIN TOWNSEND
LORI GILLESPIE,
CITY OF AUSTIN & CITY OF AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT
OFFICER JOHNSON, Officer JOHN DOE &
SARGEANT JOANNE CASEY

ORDER TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS

IT IS ORDERED:

The plaintiff’s application under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed without prepaying fees or

costs is: Granted:

The clerk is ordered to file the complaint and issue a summons. The United States

marshal is ordered to serve the summons with a copy of the complaint and this order on the

defendant(s). The United States will advance the costs of service. Prisoner plaintiffs are

responsible for full payment of the filing fee.

’ Granted Conditionally:

40
The clerk is ordered to file the complaint. Upon receipt of the completed summons and USM-285

form for each defendant, the clerk will issue a summons. If the completed summons and USM-

285 forms are not submitted as directed, the complaint may be dismissed. The United States

marshal is ordered to serve the completed summons with a copy of the complaint and this order

on the defendant(s). The United States will advance the costs of service. Prisoner plaintiffs are

responsible for full payment of the filing fee. ’

Denied

This application is denied for these reasons:

Date:

___________________________________

Judge’s signature

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISON

41
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CAROL ANN DAVIS, Plaintiff

v. CASE NO. 2010-CV-HO- ______

TEXAS INTERGOVERMENTAL RISK POOL, MARVIN TOWNSEND, LORI

GILLESPIE, CITY OF AUSTIN & CITY OF AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT ,

OFFICER JOHNSON, Officer JOHN DOE & SARGEANT JOANNE CASEY,

Defendants

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: TEXAS INTERGOVERMENTAL RISK POOL, MARVIN TOWNSEND, LORI

GILLESPIE, CITY OF AUSTIN & CITY OF AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT ,

OFFICER JOHNSON, Officer JOHN DOE & SARGEANT JOANNE CASEY, A

lawsuit has been filed against you. Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not

counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States

agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3)

— you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or

plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in

the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

42
i
This year the Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool celebrates its 34’Th year of service to the
local communities of Texas. The Pool has grown from 130 members in February 1974 to 2,617 by September
30, 2007. It has expanded coverage’s from its original Workers' Compensation program to include a wide range
of comprehensive Liability and Property coverage.

The Pool's mission is to provide Texas municipalities and other units of local government with a stable
source of risk financing and loss prevention services at the lowest cost consistent with sound business
practices. By spreading the risk of losses across the state of Texas and across a variety of local governments,
and by employing pro-active loss prevention measures, the Pool is able to provide a stable and long-term
risk financing system for its members.

The Pool has made a significant commitment to provide resources for its Loss Prevention program. It is the
Pool's belief that proper training and a commitment by the members to manage their work environments will
lower losses, and, as a result, the cost of coverage will be lower.

Loss Prevention works. In almost every area where the Pool has focused its Loss Prevention efforts, losses
have come down. More importantly, work environments and activities have become safer for local
government employees and their citizens. During 2006-2007, the Loss Prevention program provided more
than 605 classes, which provided training to 14,470 individuals representing 662 members. Loss Prevention
provides training in all areas of local government exposed to risk. Some of the more significant programs include
Police Emergency Driving, Excavation and Trenching Safety, Recognizing and Preventing Sexual Harassment,
Law Enforcement Liability, Back Injury Prevention, Public Works and Utility Safety, Confined Space Entry, and
Hands-on Fire Emergency Vehicle Response.

At September 30, 2007 the Pool provided workers' compensation for 127,000 employees and coverage for over
$17 billion worth of property.

One important means of member communications is on-site field service visits. In the year ending September
30, 2007 the Pool made 4,300 visits to its members. The purpose of these visits was to provide assistance,
answer questions, pass on information, and work with the member in filing or resolving claims.

ii
For the second year in a row, the Liability Fund has satisfied all criteria

necessary to trigger a return. Approximately 2,212 Liability Fund Members will

receive some portion of the $9.2 million equity return and 1,524 Members will

receive a distribution of at least 24% plus a credit for longevity and this is the

inventive to violate the law.

iii
Officer Lawrenz wife and daughter have died since he played a role to

obstruct justice in a federal court of law September 2005. Based on previous

conversations with Officer Lawrenz, officer defendant Lawrenz would prefer if the

City of Jersey Village ETAL would pay damages because he has stated that he

does not want to visit with Judge Werlein Jr. ever again and he barely made it

through that court case and his health his suffering. What is disturbing here is

Officer David Lawrenz does not have any remorse for the loss of life of the

witnesses ( Honerkamp) and feels justified to save his career, and the retirement

benefits, and other money derived from illegal activity at the expense of the

actually innocent plaintiff who sustained damages due to his violations under the

color of law. Put way zero accountability is responsible for Officer Lawrenz perjury

in federal court among other reasons where he was in agreement to improperly

protect Chief Wedemeyer who was covering up for Chief Mike Lindsey.

Lindsey ‘s (officers D.R. Smith and Mike Connors) are linked to the Panola County

unlicensed investigations case where Plaintiff Davis was convicted in Travis

County with the FAKE ‘Mr. Davis” in 480-735 ETAL after the 1997 Harris County

Grand Jury found “all the troopers and attorneys for the private security violations

are accomplices as a matter of law – unless the there is an illegal dissemination

and a client with a billionaire law firm to back it up and moreover a Travis County

Prosecutor linked to Karen Matlock that would act in the agreement to cover it up

or he did not act in agreement to cover it up and that is why the Travis County DA

letter from Ronnie Earle’s office disseminated the unsigned David Luna letter

about the state and federal crimes where they did not SEE a violation of law if it

disturbed the flow of money derived from illegal activity in addition to the letter is

inaccurate as to who was in attendance for example Rosemary Lehmberg is in

attendance but her name is omitted from the letter. Joseph Stell is in attendance
but his name is also omitted from the unsigned letter that David Luna did not

sign.

iv
Footnote: U.S. District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
(Houston) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:10-cv-02070

Martin v. City of Jersey Village

Assigned to: Judge Keith P Ellison

Case in other court:

80th JDC Harris County TX, 10-30763

Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 06/11/2010

Jury Demand: None

Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs

Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Tracy Martin represented byDavid James Manley

15201 Mason Rd.
Suite 1000-211
Cypress, TX 77433
281-687-6889 Fax: 713-481-6367
Email: dmanleylaw@aol.com

V.Defendant City of Jersey Village represented byRamon G. Viada , III

Viada,Strayer 17 Swallow Tail Court Ste 100
The Woodlands, TX 77381
281-419-6338 Fax: 281-419-8137
Email: rayviada@viadastrayer.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Date Filed#Docket Text06/14/20102 ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and
Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 11/5/2010 at 01:30 PM in Room
3716 before Judge Keith P Ellison.(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(mmapps, )
(Entered: 06/14/2010)06/11/20101 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 80th District Court of Harris County,
Texas, case number 2010-30763 (Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0541-6506713) filed by City of
Jersey Village. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Citation served on Defendant, City of Jersey Village, # 2
Exhibit Plaintiff's Original Petition, # 3 Exhibit Original Answer filed by Defendant, City of Jersey
Village, # 4 Exhibit Certified copy of docket sheet in state court action, # 5 Exhibit List of
Attorneys and Parties in State Court Action)(Viada, Ramon) (Entered: 06/11/2010)

v
Political Disputes- As attorneys, the TML will answer your general

questions regarding municipal law. Often TML get calls for "legal

assistance" when the caller is seeking the resolution to political

differences. These calls are awkward, and they cannot give you an

answer about who is right and who is wrong. Every town has

political disagreements; most cannot be solved by looking at a

statute and or a plan to violate the law with TML contract lawyers

such as in the case of Carol Ann Davis. Legal ethics will prevent us

from taking sides in your political disputes. TML's constitution

further prohibits us from answering questions that involve conflicts

or litigation between member cities but in the case of “Mr. Davis’

across the bar side taking due to a TML political dispute to control

the court proceedings is their idea of ‘loss prevention’ and if

someone is harassed to death it was to provide the as much

assistance as the TML can to their member officials and in this case

it was so Chief Wedemeyer could cover up the Panola County

Investigation for Chief Mike Lindsey, D.R. Smith and Mike Connors.

Chief Wedemeyer ETAL, Lindsey, Smith and Connors have all made

profits and gained government benefits paid from public money all
 derived from illegal activit and the case with Defendant attorney

Lori Gillepie when she dialed 911 and filed a false police report. The

mission of the Texas Municipal League Legal Services Department is

to provide as much assistance as they can to our member city

officials. The field of municipal law is very broad, so the TML

coordinates with other organizations and state agencies in order to

give the members the best assistance available even lying and

withholding in an FBI investigation. If something a member needs is

not available from us, we try to find the best person to whom to

refer you even to decorate the sidewalk in the middle of the night

with the only likely suspect i.e. law enforcement.

vi
Attorneys Soechting, Walker, and Stoger are the attorneys
O’QUINN LAW FIRM
who opposed the Ibarra Bros in Harris County representing Harris County; and at
all times material to the Carol Ann case those lawyers have touched the many
Carol Ann Davis cases at one time or another from the time of illegal
dissemination of ‘Mr. Davis’ to the present. Client 3071 and plaintiff, Carol Ann
Davis has a legal basis in fact and law to say that after Lindy Honerkamp
identified the pre - trial evidence about the frauds related to Carla Roberson
Cummings ( Joe Jamail and George “Buck” Cire) delivered to State Bar of Texas
no doubt led to 'Mr. Davis' and the Travis Co 480-735 case against Carol Ann
Davis for “Unlicensed Investigations” and all the other court cases connected to
‘Mr. Davis’ including Carol Ann Davis v. City of Jersey Village ETAL 4:03-CV-HO-02395
and not ‘Mr. Davis ‘but the genuine Lonnie Ray Davis born 2-06-1951.
Carol Ann Davis did not sue Texas DPS however ‘Mr. Davis' was instrumental
in other 'extra jobs' not just 'unlicensed investigations’. In fact, 'Mr. Davis'
contributed actually cutting not only client 3071 and Carol Ann Davis access to
the courts but also cut of the access to Maurquita Forrester, Al Johnson, Leo West
and other actually innocent citizens are also a victims of ‘Mr. Davis’, and the
illegitimate operations of the O’QUINN’S and the JAMAIL’s and moreover the State
of Texas and its bar of lawyers including the Commission for Lawyers Grievance
Committee, a division of the State Bar of Texas. These facts cannot be argued
out of existence where merely reciting history accompanied with government
documents clearly provide evidence and give the required proof of a series of
events where reached is the end of the racketeering of ‘Mr. Davis’; "Impervious to
the truth" is a finding of fact according to SDTX Houston Division Judge Kenneth
Hoyt regarding Harris County in Ibarra Bros case which includes the O’Quinn Law
Firm, Hayne and Boone i.e. attorneys Lynn Liberato and former United States
attorney Larry Finder. (See Houston Post Archives re Larry Finder and the Dept of
Justice probe into the Harris County Courts). Judge Ewing Werlein Jr, has
extensive knowledge of the parties, witnesses and the claims which have changed
over the course of time.