PATRICIA A. POTTS

1

Cause No. 2012-24678

PATRICIA ANN POTTS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

Plaintiff, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS vs. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, OFFICE OF HARRIS COUNTY ATTORNEY, And OFFICE OF HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY 257TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Defendants

1ST AMENDED PETITION FOR BILL OF REVIEW, MANDAMUS, and DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

COMES NOW PATRICIA POTTS, Pro Se Plaintiff, and files this 1st Amended Petition for Bill

of Review complaining of Respondents Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

(TDFPS), Office of Harris County District Clerk (CLERK), Office of Attorney General of Texas

(OAG), Office of Harris County Attorney (COUNTY ATTORNEY), and Office of Harris County

District Attorney (DA), (collectively referred to as “RESPONDENTS”) and their 12-year ongoing

mental and physical assault and conspiracy against employment and housing Rights

perpetrated against me and my minor daughter, and of recently discovered default judgments

unlawfully obtained by Respondents TDFPS and County Attorney thru “extrinsic fraud” and

fraudulently concealed for almost ten (10) year by all Respondents of this Bill of Review. And

when I complained about Respondents’ assault thru formal administrative complaints and pro

se civil lawsuits, Respondents tampered with me and obstructed my complaints and lawsuits

thru retaliation and ongoing published false defamation that I am mentally ill and/or

Filed 12 May 9 P1:40Chris Daniel- District ClerkHarris CountyED101J016870838By: Wanda Oakley

2

incompetent, and by subjecting me to repeated fraudulent malicious prosecutions, and abuses

of process, including fraudulent involuntary commitments for unnecessary and unwarranted

mental healthcare. And Respondent OAG further abused me by causing the recent

repossession of my family’s vehicle, forcing me to have to walk “all over town” to perform

necessary errands to provide for my minor daughter and myself. When I submitted formal

complaint of the violation of my open record rights due to District Clerk and County Attorney’s

denials of access to underlying suit and judgments, Respondent OAG retaliated and withheld

my OAG-enforced child support payments from my family for over two months, causing

repossession of my vehicle due to non-payment of auto loan.

Respondents concealed suit and judgments : (1) by TDFPS & Clerk improperly filing

judgments and underlying “suit for protection of a child in an emergency” under case number

of my closed 1996 Divorce Lawsuit, (2) by TDFPS & Clerk failing to serve me with service of

process or notices of hearings and judgments obtained, (3) thru Clerk & County Attorney

denials of access to Clerk’s File Docket sheet and other public information regarding suit and

judgments, (4) thru County Attorney, District Attorney, and OAG refusals to perform ministerial

duty to enforce my open record right of access to public record of suit and judgments, (5) by

removing judgments from Clerk’s File Record and unlawfully keeping them separately from

record, (6) and thru unlawful “altering” of government (case file) record of suit and judgments.

The Original petition contains jurisdictional defect and is improperly filed as a “motion”, while

Family Code 262 requires cause of action to be filed as an original lawsuit with an original

petition. And suit is a fraudulent and malicious prosecution to retaliate against me for my

report of Respondents’ law violations, and to deprive me of my parental rights without “due

3

process”. Complained of default judgments are presently entered in underlying cause number

1996-50567. “Original petition” is titled “original motion to modify conservatorship, for

termination, and suit affecting parent-child relationship and order setting hearing" styled “In

the Interest of Ally Marie William” and filed in the 257th Family Court of Harris County District

Courts. I was denied due process in that I was not properly served with process or notice, and

was not provided with an opportunity to be heard. I have no adequate remedy at law. And I

ask this court to grant this Bill of Review. In support, I will respectfully show:

Discovery

1. I, pro se Plaintiff, assert that discovery in this proceeding should be conducted

under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.3 (Level II).

Parties

2. I, Plaintiff Patricia Potts (“POTTS”), am an individual and resident of Harris

County, Texas.

3. Respondent, Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“TDFPS”), is a

Texas State Agency which may be served through the Legal Department and General Counsel

for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services located at 701 W. 51st Street, Austin

Texas 78751.

4. Respondent, Office of Harris County District Clerk (“CLERK”), is a local

government entity which may be served by serving Chris Daniel, at 201 Caroline, Suite 420,

Houston Texas, 77002.

5. Respondent, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS (“OAG”), is a state

government entity which may be served by serving Greg Abbott at Office of the Attorney

4

General, 300 W. 15th Street, Austin Texas, 78701.

6. Respondent, OFFICE OF HARRIS COUNTY ATTORNEY (“COUNTY ATTORNEY”), is a

local government entity which may be served by serving Vince Ryan at Office of the Harris

County Attorney, 1019 Congress Street, Floor 15, Houston Texas, 77002.

7. Respondent, OFFICE OF HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY (“DISTRICT

ATTORNEY”), is a local government entity which may be served by serving Patricia R. Lykos, at

Office of the Harris County District Attorney, 1201 Franklin Street, Suite 600, Houston Texas,

77002.

SERVICE UPON DEFENDANTS IS REQUESTED AT THIS TIME.

Jurisdiction and Venue

8. This Court has jurisdiction and venue in as much as this suit is a Bill of Review

requesting that this Court set aside judgments entered in Cause Number 1996-50567, Patricia

Ann Potts vs. Vincent Duane William and in the Interest of Ally Marie William, filed in the 257th

Family Court.

Factual Background

9. From 1998 to the present, Respondents and others conspired to subject me and

my minor daughter to assault of free speech retaliation and conspiracy against our rights in

retaliation for my report of their law violations. Respondents unlawfully obstructed my civil

litigation against them for over (8) eight years, and caused me to be unfairly determined a

“vexatious litigant”. And Respondents conspired to subject me to continuous malicious

prosecutions and false defamation of my “supposedly” being mentally ill, and/or committing

child neglect, in order to aid their unlawful interference with my employment, housing, and

5

other rights. (See Exhibits A, B, and D)

10. From 1998 to the present, Respondent OAG conspired with my ex-husband to

discriminate against me and my minor daughter in state Child Support program. OAG

frequently denied me full participation in that program, interfered with my receipt of my OAG

Enforced Child Support funds, and defrauded me of the proper amount of state mandated child

support, from 1998 to 2004, by refusing to perform state mandated review and modification

(for increase) of my outdated 1996 Order for Child Support. Respondent OAG bought my ex-

husband’s silence & participation in conspiracy against me by excusing/decreasing his Child

Support responsibility for many of his children who were dependent upon state welfare. On or

about October 10, 2011, (during the time of my formal complaint to District Attorney & OAG of

violation of my open record rights from District Clerk’s denial of my access to the underlying

suit) Respondent OAG withheld my OAG enforced child support payments for over sixty (60)

days and caused the repossession of my automobile for non-payment of Auto Loan.

11. From December 24, 2002 to January 30, 2003, Respondent TDFPS harassed my

family and caused the loss of our housing and my employment during investigation of false and

fraudulent report that I was neglecting my minor daughter due to mental illness. After TDFPS

informed me that investigation of my “so-called” Child Neglect was finished and that I was

cleared of the charge, TDFPS caseworker Rochelle Davis continued to appear at my apartment

demanding interviews with me while I was supposed to be leaving to attend my full-time

employment. Ms. Davis repeatedly told me that I was in “Services”, but refused to give me any

explanation of my rights, or any written document or court order regarding “Services”. And

when I refused one such visit from Ms. Davis, she threatened that she and TDFPS would file suit

6

against me and take custody of my daughter from me.

12. Additionally, from October 28, 2002 to the present, Respondents TDFPS and

others, conspired to subject me to future and ongoing interference with my employment and

housing thru published fraudulent & false defamation during my background checks for my

employment and housing applications, etc., falsely stating that I am mentally ill and/or

incompetent, that I was a fugitive from investigation of Child Neglect, and that I was suspected

of Child Neglect and/or Child Abuse.

13. On February 10, 2003, Respondents TDFPS, DISTRICT CLERK, and COUNTY

ATTORNEY conspired to file underlying suit against me to obtain default orders for custody of

my daughter and termination of my parental rights thru extrinsic fraud and failure to serve me

with process. Respondent DISTRICT CLERK filed underlying suit, and issued citation for such,

under case file number of my closed 1996 Divorce case. (See Exhibit A) But DISTRICT CLERK

served me with citation and process after complained of default judgments were already

obtained. TDFPS and COUNTY ATTORNEY falsely alleged that I abandoned my daughter and

that I neglected her due to my “supposedly” being diagnosed with Schizophrenia and not taking

prescribed medication for such. (See Exhibit B) TDFPS and COUNTY ATTORNEY falsely informed

Family Judge that TDFPS had removed my minor daughter from my custody pursuant to Family

Code 262, and placed her in TDFPS substituted custody. And TDFPS and COUNTY ATTORNEY

falsely testified that I was in Default of answering lawsuit because I was mentally incompetent

from Schizophrenia and was not willing or able to defend custody of my daughter by attending

February 25, 2003 Hearing. But in fact TDFPS and COUNTY ATTORNEY committed perjury,

because I have never been mentally ill from Schizophrenia, nor was I diagnosed with such. And

7

the reason I did not attend Hearing on February 25, 2003, was because my daughter had not

been removed from my custody and I had not been served with citation or service of process

for underlying lawsuit.

14. District Clerk records show that on February 11, 2003, Respondent TDFPS

obtained several court judgments without serving me process. TDFPS also failed to serve notice

of Hearings for these judgments. And District Clerk failed to serve me notice of these obtained

judgments.

15. On February 18, 2003, Respondent TDFPS served me with process and citation to

appear for Hearing held on March 11, 2003. A few days later, I retained Attorney Frank A.

Knight, III, to represent me in the suit. Attorney Knight had previously represented me in

retaliatory and discriminatory Eviction filed by my Apartment Landlord, who also gave false

report to Respondent TDFPS that I was neglecting my daughter due to, supposedly, “I had been

diagnosed with Schizophrenia and was not receiving medication or treatment for condition”.

16. Also according to District Clerk Records, another Hearing was held on February

25, 2003. But, neither I, nor my Attorney, attended Hearing because we did not receive Notice

of Hearing.

17. On or about March 11, 2003, Attorney Knight and I answered citation and

attended Court Hearing scheduled for that day. During hearing, Family Judge Motherall

ordered psychological evaluation, psychiatric evaluation, and alcohol & drug evaluation for me,

and scheduled subsequent hearing on or about April 30, 2003.

18. During Hearing on or about April 30th, underlying suit was dismissed after

evaluations resulted in my receiving two mis-diagnoses of “delusional disorder” based on false

8

belief of being persecuted by government employees.

19. After Hearing on or about April 30, 2003, I did not receive any other subsequent

notices of hearing or of final or other judgments obtained in underlying case.

20. But according to current District Clerk Record, additional hearings and judgments

unknown to me occurred, and also the record falsely states that case was dismissed on August

07, 2003.

21. From 2004 to the present, I filed formal administrative complaints and pro se

civil lawsuits regarding Respondents retaliation and conspiracy against my rights. But

Respondents obstructed these with additional employment and housing interference, abuses of

process, and malicious prosecutions, and conspired to deprive me of my right to file any other

lawsuits by unlawfully obtaining judgment determining me a “vexatious litigant” (in February

2010) thru extrinsic fraud from County Attorney and District Attorney. These Respondents

conspired to obstruct my then present civil lawsuits, to prevent discovery process, and to

obtain order determining me a “vexatious litigant by subjecting me to extrinsic fraud of false

arrest, false imprisonment, and fraudulent determination that I was “incompetent to stand

trial” for criminal case. Respondents County Attorney and District Attorney unfairly held me

incarcerated for over six (6) months, twice involuntarily committed me for unnecessary and

unwarranted mental healthcare (while I was incarcerated), then dismissed bogus criminal

charge against me after depriving me of my constitutional right to a Trial.

22. From 2004 to 2008, Respondents District Clerk and County Attorney obstructed

my pro se civil lawsuits thru continuous coercion of my landlords to harass, assault, and evict

my family from our residences, and sustained unlawful contests of my pauper’s oaths

9

professing government entitlement income.

23. From August of 2003 to May of 2011, District Clerk denied my access to public

record of underlying suit and judgments by removing suit and judgments from case file record

of my Divorce and storing such documents separately from case file. Also during this time,

District Clerk refused my open record requests for access to public information regarding

underlying suit and judgments.

24. From June 01, 2011 to December 15, 2011, County Attorney denied my access to

public records regarding underlying suit and judgments by refusing my open record requests for

the same, and by refusing to comply with OAG determination that requested information is

public information and that County Attorney must provide me with access to information.

25. From August 2009 to December 2011, Respondents County Attorney, District

Attorney, and OAG refused my requests to perform their ministerial duties to enforce my open

record rights against denials of access to public records regarding underlying suit and

judgments.

26. And from July 2011 to October 2011, Respondent OAG withheld my OAG

enforced child support payments from my family for over two months and caused the

repossession of my automobile.

27. And from December 2011 to March 2011, the Administrative Office of the

District Courts and Local Administrative Judges refused my requests for permission to file

litigation (pursuant to Chapter 11 of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code for persons

previously determined vexatious litigants) against Respondents for denials of access to public

information regarding suit and judgments and for all of the above.

10

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

28. Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the pleadings and other

documents filed in the underlying suit, presently filed in Cause No. 1996-50567, styled In the

Matter of the Marriage of Patricia Ann Potts and Vincent Duane William and In the Interest of

Ally Marie William, in the 257th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, pursuant to Texas

Rules of Evidence, Rule 201. Relevant case file documents include the entire case file Record of

cause number 1996-50567.

IMPROPER/LACK OF SERVICE

29. Judgments were entered against me before I received service of process.

Respondent TDFPS obtained various judgments on February 11, 2003 and February 28, 2003,

and I received untimely and improper service on February 18, 2003. (See Exhibits C and D)

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure prohibit issuance of default judgments unless proof of service

shows service is accomplished at least 20 days before judgment. And the Court lacked personal

jurisdiction, thus judgments are null and void. Also, I received no notices of hearing, or Clerk

Rule 239 or 306 notices, for any other judgments obtained in this case. Accordingly, all

judgments entered from Respondent TDFPS were obtained through “extrinsic fraud”,

“improper service”, and “lack of service”.

MERITORIOUS DEFENSE/CLAIM

30. I have meritorious defense to all or part of Respondent’s claims, which I was

prevented from presenting due to “extrinsic fraud” and “fraudulent concealment” from

Respondents, and the inability to prevent entry of the default judgments was not due to any

fault or negligence from me.

11

a. I have never neglected or abandoned my daughter.

b. I was not mentally ill or diagnosed with Schizophrenia, nor prescribed any medicine for

such.

c. “Original Petition” is defective or unlawfully altered. Jurisdiction is lacking and

judgments are null and void.

d. Judgments were obtained through “extrinsic fraud”, and suit and judgments were

fraudulently concealed from me.

e. Respondent had a “legal duty” to disclose default judgments obtained before I was

served. But Respondent did not disclose judgments to me.

f. Respondent conspired to retaliate against me and to subject me to over 12-year

ongoing conspiracy and deprivation of my rights, “under color of law” as prohibited by

42 USC 1983 and 1985.

EXTRINSIC FRAUD & FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT

31. All Respondents conspired to fraudulently conceal suit and judgments from me

by failing to serve me with notices of hearings and obtained judgments, by unlawfully denying

my access to public record of suit and judgments, by improperly filing judgments and record of

suit within closed record of my 1996 Divorce Record, by altering record of underlying suit and

judgments, by removing judgments from case file record, and by denying me enforcement of

my open record right to have access to public information regarding record of suit and

judgments. I do not know how many other default judgments have been fraudulently created

or are unlawfully being kept separate from case file record.

12

TAMPERING WITH RECORD

32. Case File Record of cause #1996-50567 appears to have been unlawfully

“altered”. (See Exhibits A thru E) Unsigned and uncompleted fill-in-the-blank documents are

present. TDFPS is not listed as a party in style of suit. “Original Motion” contains nonspecific

claims. Original motion states that it seeks to modify conservatorship in prior divorce decree,

and to terminate parental rights of both parents. Judgments contain blank lines that fail to list

persons attending hearings. And fraudulent “order for participation in services” appears to

detail fictitious depiction of events which occurred during hearing on March 11, 2003. And my

Divorce decree has become unlawfully altered, since original decree ordered supervised child

visitation only for my ex-husband due to his acts of child neglect and family violence. And

temporary and permanent restraining orders against my ex-husband are missing from record.

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

33. There exists a genuine controversy between the parties herein that would be

terminated by the granting of declaratory judgment. I therefore request that declaratory

judgment be entered that I am not mentally ill or mentally incompetent, and that Respondents

have subjected me to unlawful false defamation, deprivation of my rights “under color of law”,

and conspiracy against my rights, as prohibited by Texas and US Constitutions and 42 USC 1983

and 42 USC 1985.

PERMANENT INJUNCTION

34. Further, I request that the Court enter a permanent injunction enjoining

Respondents to stop subjecting me to retaliation, malicious prosecutions, employment and

housing interference, fraudulent involuntary commitment, and publishing false and defamatory

13

information regarding my “supposedly” committing Child Abuse or Neglect, and/or my

“supposedly” being mentally ill, and/or my “supposedly” suffering from Schizophrenia. I also

request that the Court enter a permanent injunction enjoining Respondent TDFPS to remove all

published information regarding the above false defamation from all state and county registries

for persons suspected of Child Abuse or Neglect.

REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

35. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiff requests that Respondents

disclose, within 50 days of the service of t his request, the information or material described in

Rule 194.2.

JURY TRIAL

36. JURY TRIAL is hereby Requested.

Prayer

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, I pro se Plaintiff, PATRICIA POTTS, pray that

Respondents be cited to appear and answer, and that on the final trial, the court grant me the

following:

1. declaratory judgment that I am not mentally ill or mentally incompetent, and that

Respondents have subjected me to unlawful false defamation, deprivation of my

rights “under color of law”, and conspiracy against my rights, as prohibited by Texas

and US Constitutions and 42 USC 1983 and 42 USC 1985;

2. a permanent injunction enjoining Respondents to stop subjecting me to retaliation,

malicious prosecutions, employment and housing interference, fraudulent involuntary

15

INDEX OF EXHIBITS A thru E

A. File Copy of “Original Motion to Modify Conservatorship, for Termination, and Suit

Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship and Order Setting Hearing” file stamped with

District Clerk’s stamp, denoting “February 10, 2003”.

B. File Copy of Personal Affidavit of TDFPS caseworker Rochelle Davis attached to and

verifying original petition.

C. File Copy of “Order for Protection of a Child in an Emergency and Notice of Hearing” file

stamped with Clerk’s stamp, denoting “February 10, 2003”.

D. File Copy of “Order for Participation in Services” file stamped with Clerk’s stamp,

denoting “February 28, 2003”.

E. File Copy of “Motion for Non-Suit (Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory

Services – ONLY)” file stamped with Clerk’s stamp, denoting “August 07, 2003”.

PATRICIA A. POTTS

Documents

Transcript of PATRICIA A. POTTS