Well, the United States District Court, Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division has proceeded with Ferrara v. Wallace, et al (5:20-cv-01128)
The most recent component was an order by the Honorable United States Magistrate Judge Richard B. Farrer. He ordered the plaintiff to provide a “more definite statement.”
Judge Farrer also laid out some concerns of the initial filing by the Plaintiff. He mentioned items, potentially, being time-barred, heck-barred, and components of absolute immunity for prosecutors.
We do not believe, he (the Judge) would have expected the answer to his concerns, to require a little bit more contemplation to whether any of his concerns apply or limit the cause.
Specifically, the claim by the Plaintiff is not about a conviction, nor a criminal proceeding. It was just brought up, as a matter of form. It was information the Judge would need to know, but the concern was an arrest which occurred on Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas.
On or about January 9, 2019, the Plaintiff was arrested, by what many thought, was an arrest warrant. It turns out, there are concerns with such matter. The Plaintiff was also held on no bond, for the lowest level of arrest-able offenses in Texas; as Class B Misdemeanor.
After the arrest, the Plaintiff was required to be transported to Cameron County, Texas and saw a magistrate for an “in-view,” misdemeanor offense, which occurred on or about November 25, 2018.
It seems, a warrant was found later, but that would not change, the concept of a new agency, not the agency which claimed to have a warrant on January 9, 2019, with filing charges by submitting a completely different complaint and vastly different language within the complaint.
Essentially, the initial warrant was claimed by the Cameron County Sheriff’s office (CCSO); however, the new complaint was created by a Cameron County District Attorney Investigation Unit Employee.
This means, in practice, the previous complaint or warrant; should not be tied to the criminal proceedings. What is required, is an explanation from the new agency to explain why it did not use the previous complaint. We would call this an “answer,” which means the matter could be served for the purpose of obtaining the answer.
The Plaintiff believed this is a exemption to the “heck-bar.” The heck-bar is used when someone claims a constitutional violation (of conviction) for a matter which has yet to be overturned. In the case presented by the Plaintiff, the explanation of judgement, may not be needed. Such is the Plaintiff’s argument.
The Judge also had concerns about the matter related to the District Attorney’s Office being barred by absolute immunity of a prosecutor; however, the Plaintiff is not raising prosecutorial issues. Such lack of issue related to prosecutor duties in the court room, is a exemption from immunity. The Plaintiff is contending the prosecutors aided in the investigation or investigated the Plaintiff; which is a matter of exemption to immunity. Since a DA Investigator filed a new complaint, it would be unreasonable to state the DA did not assist in an investigative component.
The last item the Judge had concerns with was related to matters being time-barred; however, the Plaintiff has raised a conspiracy component which has yet to expire and the need for the prior history is vital to show the scheme which caused the articulable harm cased today.
The matter of history is not a matter of concern for the suit, but it is evidence to the scheme of conduct.
So, we believe the Plaintiff has provided, at the very least, an argument to have all the items presented in the complaint to proceed until it can firmly be decided if there is a bar.
Such items raised were specific to the matter of Terry Jay Wallace Senior and not the complete complaint or the matter which impacts Jeffrey Blake Barnett.
The Barnett component is as simple as proving a lie. We know it is a lie. We know Barnett knows the Plaintiff, who was the Plaintiff’s neighbor in 2009. Proving Barnett lied, proves deprivation of rights.
The concern is, why hasn’t the City of Kyle taken an interest to correct the injustice the Plaintiff has received?
The Plaintiff filed the cause because he felt he was the focus of a conspiracy to harm the Plaintiff, which ultimately violated his constitutional rights.
The Plaintiff believes the matter has occurred for an extensive amount of time and it was a complex web of conduct, leading to two false complaints by Police Chiefs.
That is correct, the Plaintiff knows the Police Chief (Wallace) which has the conviction held, lied to obtain an criminal cause against the Plaintiff. It is 100% fact, the Plaintiff knows that to be the truth. So, why the conviction? One may need to learn more about the Plaintiff’s background and his understanding of criminal conspiracies and the racketeering statues. In the end, the Plaintiff is highly confident he will have no convictions.
The second criminal complaint by the other Police Chief (Barnett) is also fabricated. It is 100% true, Barnett knew the Plaintiff and conducted a course of conduct to assist in the harming of the Plaintiff, since they were neighbors in Princeton, Texas.
The Plaintiff is more sure than “preponderance of the evidence.” The issue the Plaintiff was having, was the lack of interest by the government to perform its duties properly. The Plaintiff sees such resistance as a conspiracy component.
Anyone can visit the Federal Court website and follow along with the proceedings. The Plaintiff has already received confirmation there is a criminal investigation occurring too; as it relates to his concerns.
Anyone interested in reading the “definite statement,” submitted by the Plaintiff, can do so by clicking this link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gkgw2Q1Pe3aAsHX6RChwfrepzCCrDAnI/view?usp=