PATRICIA A. POTTS

Local Rule Notice of and Assignmentof Related Case in Original Proceedings

As required by the Local Rules Relating to Assignment of Related Cases to and Transfers of Related Cases between the First and Fourteenth Courts of Appeals, I certify that the following related appeal or original proceeding has been previously filed in either the First or Fourteenth Court of Appeals:

Caption: Patricia Potts vs. Crosby ISD; IN RE Patricia Potts Trial court

case number: #2006-65380 Appellate court

case number: 14-06-01051 and 14-07-00065-CV

AND

Caption: PATRICIA POTTS vs. JIMMY WAYNE NEWCOMB;IN RE PATRICIA POTTS

Trial court case number: 942,996 and 2011-51275

Appellate court case number: 14-09-00875-CV and 14-11-00947-CV

________/s/_Patricia A. Potts_______________[Signature of certifying attorney or pro se party]

_________February 20, 2011_______________[Date]

CAUSE NO.___________

_____________________________________

IN THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE STATE OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION_____________________________________

________________________________________

IN RE PATRICIA ANN POTTS

________________________________________

Submitted by:

Patricia A. Potts, pro seP.O. Box 3453

Crosby, Texas 77532(281)386-2187

Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus Pg. 20

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

RELATORPATRICIA A POTTS, pro seP.O. Box 3453Crosby, Texas 77532Ph. (281)386-2187

RESPONDENTHON. KEN WISE, Local Administrative JudgeAdministrative Office of the District Courts 1201 Franklin, Room 7040Houston, Texas 77002Ph. (713) 755-6575Fax (713) 755-8973(Relator is not aware of counsel for Judge Wise)

REAL PARTY IN INTEREST:

A. W., minor child of Relator and Real Party in Interest.

Counsel for Minor Real Party in Interest: Patricia A. Potts, pro se(Parent/Legal Guardian)P.O. Box 3453Crosby, Texas 77532(281)386-2187

REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST: (State and County Agencies and Employees)

GREG ABBOTTOffice of the Attorney General of the State of TexasPO Box 12548Austin, Texas 78711-2548(Relator is not aware of counsel for Attorney General Abbott)


REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST: (State and County Agencies and Employees)(cont.)

CHRIS DANIELOffice of Harris County District Clerk201 Caroline Houston, Texas 77002(Relator is not aware of counsel for District Clerk Daniels)

VINCE RYANOffice of the Harris County Attorney1019 Congress St Floor 15Houston, Texas 77002-1799(Relator is not aware of counsel for County Attorney Ryan)

PATRICIA LYKOSOffice of the Harris County District Attorney1201 Franklin Street, Suite 600Houston, Texas 77002-1923(Relator is not aware of counsel for District Attorney Lykos)

CROSBY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT (Former Employer of Relator)Superintendent, Dr. Keith Moore706 Runneburg RoadCrosby, Texas 77532(Relator is not aware of counsel for Mr. William)


REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST (Defendants of Underlying Lawsuit)

MARK LEHMAN, Phd (CONTRACTED STATE EMPLOYEE and Defendant of Lawsuit)Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Martin, P.C.Steven J. Knight, Attorney for Mark Lehman, Phd1200 Smith Street, Suite 1400Houston, Texas 77002Ph. (713) 658-1818Fx. (713)658-2553

DEBRA HARVEY, MD De La Rosa & ChaumetteOscar L. De La Rosa, Attorney for Debra Harvey, MD1330 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 2250Houston, Texas 77046Ph. (832) 485-5901FX. (713)3950995

PATRICIA JANKI, MDEdwards & AssociatesJim Edwards, Attorney for Patricia Janki, MD12603 Southwest Freeway, Suite 200Stafford, Texas 77477Ph. (281)277-4940Fx. (281)277-4974

Avinash Parti, MDLorance & Thompson P.C.Larry D. Thompson, Attorney for Avinash Parti, MD2900 North Loop West, Ste. 500Houston, Texas 77092Ph. (713)868-5560Fx. (713)864-4671


REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST (Defendants of Underlying Lawsuit) (cont.)

Krishna Bhat, MDSprott, Rigby, Newsom, Robbins, Lunceford & Bell, PCJoel Randal Sprott, Attorney for Krishna Bhat, MD2211 Norfolk, Suite 1150Houston, Texas 77098Ph. (713)523-8338Fx. (713)523-9422

Peter Stanfield, MDPeter Stanfield, pro seOccupational Healthcare610 South Main StreetHighland, Texas 77562(281) 843-2441

Vatsala Bhaskaran, PhdFranklin, Cardwell & JonesSusan K. Cardwell, Attorney for Vatsala Bhaskaran, MD1001 McKinney Street, 18th FloorHouston, Texas 77002-6417Ph. (713)222-6025Fx. (713)222-0938

Kingwood Pines HospitalTribble Ross & WagnerRyan Lee Clement, Attorney for Kingwood Pines Hospital3355 W. Alabama, Suite 1200Houston, Texas 77098Ph. (713)622-0444Fx. (713)622-0555


REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST (Defendants of Underlying Lawsuit) (cont.)

Humana Insurance CompanySheey, Ware & PappasRaymond A. Neuer, Attorney for Humana Insurance Company909 Fannin Street, Suite 2500Houston, Texas 77010Ph. (713) 951-1000Fx. (713) 951-1199


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Identity of Parties and Counsel................................................................................ ii

Index of Authorities................................................................................................viii

Statement of the Case..............................................................................................ix

Statement of Jurisdiction..........................................................................................x

Issues Presented.......................................................................................................11. Order declaring Relator a “Vexatious Litigant” violates Relator’s

constitutional rights because Relator was not served motion or notice of

hearing for order, and Relator was prevented from attending Court and

defending against declaration due to fraud, false arrest, and false

imprisonment from Real Parties................................................................12

2. Real Parties have subjected Relator to blackballing, ongoing mental and

physical assault of free speech retaliation, false defamation of Relator being

mentally ill and/or incompetent, and repeated fraud upon court for over a

decade.......................................................................................................13

3. Respondent local administrative judge abused his discretion and erred in

denying Relator permission to file litigation against Real Parties. Local

administrative judge’s denial of permission for Relator to file litigation

against Real Parties infringes constitutional rights of Relator......................15

Statement of Facts....................................................................................................1

Argument................................................................................................................12

Prayer.....................................................................................................................16

Appendix.................................................................................................................20


INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CasesJohnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex.1985) (orig. proc.)12O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 96 (Tex.1992) (orig. proc.).....15Ross v. Natl Center for the Employ. of the Disabled, 201 S.W.3d 694 (Tex.2006)..12Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992) (orig. proceeding)..................12

US Code42 USC 1983............................................................................................................14

STATUTESTexas Family Code §102.001, 102.002, 102.003.....................................................14Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 32(a)................................................................13Texas Penal Code 37.10..........................................................................................14

PublicatonsDyer, Patrick J. "A Practical Guide to the Equitable Bill of Review. "Journal of Consumer & Commercial Law. 10.3 (Summer 2007): Print....................................13


STATEMENT OF THE CASE

(1) Concise Description of the Nature of the Underlying Proceeding.

This case arises from Respondent Judge’s denial of permission for Relator to file litigation against Real Parties for their ongoing retaliation and repeated fraud upon court perpetrated against Relator.

In addition, Real Parties unlawfully conspired to obtain Order declaring Relator a “Vexatious Litigant” thru fraud upon court and false imprisonment. And Real Parties fraudulently obtained Order prohibiting Relator from filing any litigation in the State of Texas without prior order from a local administrative judge at the same time.

Moreover, from 1999 to the present, Real Parties have blackballed Relator and subjected Relator to mental and physical assault of free speech retaliation, false defamation of mental illness, and employment & housing discrimination, in retaliation for Relator’s reports of their law violations. And Real Parties have caused Relator’s minor daughter to incur psychological injury from discrimination, loss of parent-child consortium, and repeated homelessness, etc.

(2) RESPONDENT:HON. KEN WISELocal Administrative District Judge, Administrative Office of the District Courts, Harris County, Houston, Texas

(3) Concise Description of the Respondent’s Action from Which the Relator Seeks Relief.

Respondent Local Administrative District Judge denied Relator permission to file litigation.

(4) If Writ of Habeas Corpus is Sought, a Statement Describing How and Where the Relator is Being Deprived of Liberty.N/A.


(5) If the Petition is Filed in the Supreme Court after a petition requesting the same relief was filed in the court of appeals.N/A.

(A) Date petition was filed in Court of Appeals.October 28, 2011.

(B) Court and Justices who participated in the decision.Justices FROST, Seymore, and Jamison.

(C) Author of any Opinion for the court of appeals, and the author of any separate opinion.Kem Thompson Frost.

(D) Citation to the court’s opinion.(Tex.App. Dist.14. 11/29/2011).

(E) Disposition of the case by court of appeals, and the date of court of appeals' orders.Dismissed and Denied on November 29, 2011.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTIONThis Court has jurisdiction over this original proceeding in accordance with Texas Government Code §22.221(b)(1), and Texas Constitution, art. 5, sec. 6.


ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Order declaring Relator a “Vexatious Litigant” violates Relator’s constitutional rights because Relator was not served motion or notice of hearing for order, and Relator was prevented from attending Court and defending against declaration due to fraud, false arrest, and false imprisonment from Real Parties.

2. Real Parties have subjected Relator to blackballing, ongoing mental and physical assault of free speech retaliation, false defamation of Relator being mentally ill and/or incompetent, and repeated fraud upon court for over a decade.

3. Respondent local administrative judge abused his discretion and erred in denying Relator permission to file litigation against Real Parties. Local administrative judge’s denial of permission for Relator to file litigation against Real Parties infringes constitutional rights of Relator.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This statement of facts is supported by the Affidavit of pro se Relator

(Patricia Potts) found in the Appendix. The following is a brief summary of the

facts germane to the mandamus.

Relator is a forty-nine year old African American woman and has been the

single parent of her 15-year old daughter since birth. From 1990 to 2008,

Relator’s parent and step-parent (Helen & Hayes Leonard) attempted fraud of

having Relator declared “mentally incompetent” for the purpose of gaining

control of Relator’s inheritance rights. During this time, the Leonards subjected

Relator to fraudulent involuntary commitments and almost twenty (20) years of


false defamation that Relator was mentally ill “like her brother”. (Relator has a

brother who has been diagnosed with Schizophrenia) After every fraudulent

involuntary commitment of Relator, Relator was released without diagnosis or

medication. And during her parent’s attempts at fraud, Relator attended college,

obtained continuing license from the State of Texas to practice Vocational

Nursing, engaged in full-time employment as a Staff Nurse, became married and

divorced, and lived independently from her parents with her child. In short, false

defamation concerning Relator supposedly having “Schizophrenia” was isolated to

Relator’s parents only, who considered it unnecessary to have the support of a

physician’s diagnosis. And Relator had never been diagnosed with Schizophrenia,

or any other serious mental illness.

After Relator’s divorce, Relator and minor daughter temporarily resided at

the Star of Hope(SOH) Homeless Shelter in 1998 during which Relator responsibly

attended school to become a Nurse and to support her child. While at the Star of

Hope Shelter, Relator gave report of corruption and law violations committed by a

Counselor-Facilitator (employed by SOH to facilitate government and charitable

funds and assistance) and corrupt government employees. Counselor-

Facilitator(M.E.) was previously a native of Nigeria, “the Corruption Capital of the

world”. After Relator’s reports of M.E.’s law violations, M.E. began using her


knowledge of Relator’s personal family history and her contacts with corrupt

government employees to blackball and retaliate against Relator, and to subject

Relator to additional false defamation that Relator was mentally ill. And M.E.

evicted Relator and child from SOH, after Relator refused to submit to repeated

psychological evaluations and to withdraw from Nursing School. At the time,

Relator was only four months away from graduation and Relator was warned by

the psychologist who had just evaluated Relator that M.E. had contacted him

(after results of evaluation) and had attempted to persuade him to diagnose

Relator with a mental illness.

And from 1999 to the present, M.E. and corrupt government employees

retaliated against Relator (and her child) for Relator’s report of their law

violations by discriminating against Relator within State Programs and by

publishing continuing false defaming that Relator was “mentally ill”. And Relator

has never been mentally ill.

From 1999 to the present, (Real Party) Office of the Attorney General

(“OAG”) retaliated against Relator and conspired with Relator’s ex-husband to

deny and withhold needed child support and State Child Support Program

services from Relator. On August 01, 2011, the OAG unfairly withheld lawful

determination of the violation of Relator’s open record rights against District


Clerk’s denials of access and tampering with government case file record of

Relator’s Divorce. Then OAG retaliated against Relator for this exercise of her first

amendment rights and purposely withheld Relator’s OAG enforced and collected

Child Support from Relator from July to October of 2011, causing the repossession

of Relator’s vehicle due to inability to make auto loan payments. When the OAG

finally gave Relator her Child Support over two months later, Relator was unable

to reclaim her vehicle because Relator could not afford repossession charges and

late fees. (See Exhibits A thru H)

In 2001, (Real Party) Crosby Independent School District (CISD) joined

conspiracy to retaliate against Relator. Relator worked as a part-time contract

employee of CISD from 2001 to 2007. In 2004, Relator was hired by CISD as a full-

time School Bus Driver. From 2001 to the present, CISD subjected Relator to

ongoing employment discrimination and a discriminatory employment

termination in 2004.

From October 2002 to January of 2003, (Real Party) Texas Department of

Family & Protective Services (“TDFPS”) harassed Relator after TDFPS accepted

false report of Child Neglect against Relator falsely reporting that Relator was

neglecting her minor daughter due to Relator had been diagnosed with

“Schizophrenia and was not taking medication. (And Relator had not been


diagnosed with Schizophrenia and was never prescribed any medication.) Case

worker purposely caused the loss of Relator’s employment by forcing Relator to

attend interviews with Caseworker when Relator was supposed to be attending

her employment. At the end of January, Caseworker informed Relator that Child

Neglect investigation was completed and that Relator was cleared of charge of

Neglect of her daughter. However, Caseworker continued to make appearances

at Relator’s apartment unannounced, demanding interviews with Relator when

Relator had to be leaving for her employment, and informing Relator that Relator

was under “TDFPS Services”. When Relator complained and asked for proof of

documentation or court order requiring Relator to participate in TDFPS Services,

Caseworker became angry and threatened to take custody of Relator’s daughter.

And on or about February 05, 2003, Relator (who had not received any

documentation or notice regarding her rights or responsibilities regarding any

“TDFPS Services”) refused to accommodate Caseworker and left to attend

Relator’s employment.

In February of 2003, Caseworker made good on her threats and (Real

Parties) TDFPS and Harris County Attorney (“County Attorney”) conspired to

defraud Relator of conservatorship of her minor daughter thru perjury and fraud

upon court. From February 07, 2003 to February 25, 2003, TDFPS and County


Attorney initiated and attended a series of Hearings regarding Relator in family

court without providing Relator with any notice or summons. TDFPS invited

Relator’s ex-husband and he did in fact attend these hearings. And during said

hearings, TDFPS committed fraud and perjury by unlawfully obtaining default

court orders for custody of Relator’s daughter, and for Relator to participate in

“Services”, thru not serving Relator any summons or notice to attend Hearings

while falsely informing Family Court Judge that Relator was unable to answer

summons because Relator was mentally incompetent with Schizophrenia. And

TDFPS and County Attorney falsely informed Judge that Relator’s daughter had

been picked up by TDFPS and was in custody of TDFPS. But Relator’s daughter

had not been picked up by TDFPS and was not in TDFPS custody. And Relator was

unaware of Hearings and had no reason to attend Hearings because Relator was

still in custody of her daughter and Relator had not received any notice to attend

any Hearings. And on February 18, 2003, Relator received Motion (to modify and

terminate her conservatorship and parental rights) and summons to attend

Hearing scheduled for March 11, 2003. But TDFPS and County Attorney

intentionally did not attach “Notice of February 25th Hearing” to Motion. On

February 25, 2003, TDFPS and County Attorney attempted their final fraud upon

court to obtain default order naming TDFPS sole managing conservator of


Relator’s daughter. Again, TDFPS and County Attorney purposely failed to serve

notice to Relator or to Relator’s attorney. Again, these Real Parties falsely

informed Judge that Relator had been served notice, but was unable to attend

Hearing because Relator was mentally incompetent. During this Hearing,

Relator’s parents (who only wanted Relator determined mentally incompetent,

and did not want Relator to lose custody of her daughter) interrupted proceeding

to inform Judge (who had just signed default order giving sole managing

conservatorship of Relator’s daughter to TDFPS) that Relator was not in

attendance of Hearing because Relator had received no notice to attend Hearing.

Thereafter, Judge canceled default order and denied “attachment” of Relator’s

daughter to TDFPS.

And when Relator and Relator’s Attorney appeared for March 11th Hearing,

257th Judge Motherall ordered psychological, psychiatric, and alcohol & drug

evaluation of Relator from healthcare providers chosen by Judge. And when

Relator submitted to evaluations and was not determined Incompetent (and/or

diagnosed with Schizophrenia or Addiction) TDFPS and County Attorney abruptly

abandoned suit and dismissed suit months later “without serving Relator any

notice”. (See Exhibits I thru O)


From 2004 to the present, Relator filed multiple pro se civil lawsuits

regarding ongoing retaliation from government employees because Relator could

not obtain or afford an Attorney. However, all Relator’s lawsuits were

unsuccessful due to continuing assault, obstruction, and tampering with Relator

from Real Parties and Defendants of Relator’s lawsuits.

On May 04, 2009, the Texas Board of Nursing (TBN) fraudulently obtained

Default Order revoking Relator’s License to practice Nursing. The TBN did not

request psychological examination of Relator. Instead, the TBN subjected Relator

to 4-year investigation (from 2005 to 2009) and then revoked Relator’s Nursing

License citing Relator’s inability to perform her job properly and “lack of fitness to

safely practice Vocational Nursing due to psychiatric impairment”. Continuing

retaliation from Real Parties had caused Relator’s job performance to suffer and

Relator was unable to attend March 5th Hearing or to appeal order obtained due

injury/impairment from Sleep Apnea and Sleep Deprivation (caused by Real

Parties’ assault) and to lack of transportation caused by repeated unlawful towing

of Relator’s automobile by Harris County Sheriffs and Constables. (See Exhibits P

thru Q)

From 2006 to 2009, (Real Parties) District Clerk and County Attorney

conspired to obstruct Relator’s lawsuits with unlawful contest of Relator’s


affidavits of indigence. And District Clerk began unlawfully altering government

(case file) records of Relator’s civil lawsuits, and of malicious prosecutions against

Relator, to cover-up unlawful retaliation against Relator from government

employees. (See Exhibits R thru S)

On or about November of 2009, Relator again filed several civil lawsuits

regarding ongoing retaliation against her from government employees. But from

December 04, 2009 to June 25, 2010, Real Parties conspired to obstruct Relator’s

lawsuits and to prevent Relator from filing any more lawsuits regarding retaliation

against Relator. Real Parties unfairly had Relator arrested for her attempts to

defend herself and minor daughter from retaliation and kept Relator in custody

and incarcerated for over six (6) months without giving Relator a Trial, while

Defendants of Relator’s lawsuits fraudulently obtained Orders declaring Relator a

“vexatious litigant” and prohibiting Relator from filing any more lawsuits in the

state of Texas without prior permission from a local administrative judge. Relator

was incorrectly and unlawfully charged with “shattering windshield of

(neighbor’s) auto”, however windshield was not shattered or even cracked when

Relator was apprehended and taken to Harris County Jail. Relator had no one to

bail her out, thus Relator remained incarcerated from December 2009 to June

2010. And to prevent discovery of ongoing retaliation against Relator thru a


public Trial, these Parties falsely diagnosed Relator with “Schizophrenia”,

involuntarily committed Relator (during incarceration), assaulted Relator with

forced administration of unwarranted and unneeded psychiatric medicine, and

repeatedly falsely determined that Relator was “Incompetent to Proceed to Trial”,

ultimately determining that Relator was “unlikely to be restored to mental

competency”. And on June 08, 2010, District Attorney dismissed criminal charge

against Relator, but kept Relator incarcerated an additional ten (10) days so that

County Attorney could involuntarily commit Relator a 2nd time. Thus, Real Parties

prevented Relator from appealing criminal and/or civil cases while Relator was

kept in criminal and probate custody and/or incapacitated by unneeded

psychiatric drugs. And Relator had never used any drugs (other than anti-

hypertensives and vitamins) for any purpose ever in her entire life. And on or

about June 25, 2010, County Attorney dismissed probate proceeding and released

Relator from final custody of involuntary commitment. (See Exhibits T thru Z and

Aa thru Gg)

And from June 25, 2010 to September 22, 2010, the Texas Department of

Public Safety and the Texas Department of State Health Services also unfairly

prevented Relator from being able to drive in the state of Texas and from

appealing “vexatious litigant” order. The state agencies revoked Relator’s driver


license and examined Relator for competency to drive, before determining that

Relator was competent to maintain her Commercial Passenger Driver License on

September 22, 2010. (See Exhibits Hh thru Kk)

And from June 25, 2010 to about April 15, 2011, Relator’s Telephone (Public

Utility) Provider conspired with retaliating government employees to unlawfully

refuse/deny Relator’s applications for residential phone service. Public Utility’s

denial of phone service to Relator contributed to Relator’s inability to appeal

criminal case and civil order declaring Relator a “vexatious litigant”.

On October 18, 2011, Relator submitted/filed complaint to the Texas

Workforce Commission regarding employment discrimination and conspiracy to

interfere with Relator’s employment rights from Real Parties and Relator’s former

Employer, Crosby Independent School District. Complaint is presently pending

completion of investigation by that agency. (See TWC complaint - Exhibit Ll)

And from September 01, 2011 to the present, no matter what meritorious

proof of Real Parties’ ongoing retaliation Relator presented to local administrative

judge, Respondent Judge unfairly denied Relator permission to file litigation.

Due to Real Parties complained of actions, Relator has suffered physical and

psychological injury from continuing assault, impairment from Sleep Deprivation

and Sleep Apnea, employment and housing discrimination and loss, repeated loss


of Relator’s automobiles, and repeated loss of Relator’s liberty and other

constitutional rights. And Relator’s minor daughter has received psychological

injury from discrimination, repeated homelessness, and loss of parental

consortium, etc.

ARGUMENT

1. Order declaring Relator a “Vexatious Litigant” violates Relator’s constitutional rights because Relator was not served motion or notice of hearing for order, and Relator was prevented from attending Court and defending against declaration due to fraud, false arrest, and false imprisonment from Real Parties.

Mandamus relief is available only to correct a "clear abuse of discretion"

when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,

839 (Tex.1992) (orig.proceeding). "A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it

reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and

prejudicial error of law.’”, Id (citing Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700

S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex.1985) (orig.proceeding)). Relator never received notice of

Hearing or motion to declare Relator a “vexatious litigant”, therefore Relator had

no duty to appear for Hearing or to respond to motion. As determined in Ross v.

National Center for the Employment of the Disabled, 201 S.W.3d 694 (Tex.2006),

“A party who has not been properly served has no duty to act, diligently or

otherwise, and, therefore, cannot be negligent in failing to act.” “Only “extrinsic”


fraud may entitle the petitioner to relief thru bill of review”, Id (citing Dyer, 2007)

Extrinsic Fraud is defined as “keeping a party away from Court” and “failure to

serve a (party) without personal service in order to obtain a judgment against him

without actual notice. “ (citing Dyer, 2007) Motion was mailed to Relator’s home

address. And Relator was falsely imprisoned during Hearing and service of

“Motion declaring Patricia Potts a Vexatious Litigant”. (See Exhibits T thru Gg)

Therefore, Relator was never served. “Lack of Service violates constitutional due

process. And if the (party) proves no service at all, the (matter) is concluded, The

judgment must be set aside and a new trial Granted.”, Id (also citing Ross v.

National Center for the Employment of the Disabled, 201 S.W.3d 694 (Tex.2006).

2. Real Parties have subjected Relator to blackballing, ongoing mental and physical assault of free speech retaliation, false defamation of Relator being mentally ill and/or incompetent, and repeated fraud upon court for over a decade.

Real Party District Attorney violated Relator’s rights to a “Speedy Trial”

pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter 32(a). Chapter 32 (a) of

Code of Criminal Procedure states “the trial of a criminal action against a

defendant who is detained in jail pending trial of the action shall be given

preference over trials of other criminal actions.” District Attorney did not give

Relator’s case precedence and allowed innocent Relator to remain confined in


Harris County Jail for over six (6) months without ever receiving trial or being

convicted. Real Parties District Clerk and County Attorney obstructed Relator’s

whistleblower lawsuit by unlawfully contesting Relator’s affidavit attesting to

government entitlement. (See Exhibits R and S) And Real Parties County Attorney

and District Clerk unlawfully “tampered with government case file record” by

filing fraudulent “motion to modify conservatorship and to terminate” Relator’s

parental rights in record of Relator’s closed Divorce case. Texas Penal Code 37.10

designates this as a criminal offense. Fraudulent Motion states that it is brought

pursuant to Chapter 102 of Family Code. However, Chapter 102.001 and 102.002

of Family Code provide that a suit affecting parent child relationship may only be

initiated as “an original suit begun with an original petition” and not as a Motion.

(See Exhibit I and Chapter 102 of Family Code) And Real Party OAG purposely

caused the repossession of Relator’s vehicle by withholding Relator’s OAG-

enforced Child Support from Relator for two months. (See Exhibits D thru H)

Real Parties have retaliated against and falsely defamed Relator as being

mentally ill and mentally incompetent for over twelve (12) years. While, Relator’s

primary care physicians have only diagnosed Relator with physical injuries from

Real Parties’ retaliation. And Relator has never been mentally ill or incompetent.

Moreover, pursuant to 42 USC 1983, “Every person who, under color of any


statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the

District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United

States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any

rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be

liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper

proceeding for redress...”. Thus, Relator is entitled to her right to “petition for

redress of grievances”.

3. Respondent local administrative judge abused his discretion and erred in denying Relator permission to file litigation against Real Parties. Local administrative judge’s denial of permission for Relator to file litigation against Real Parties infringes constitutional rights of Relator.

Relator is entitled to her right to petition for redress of grievances

regarding Real Parties’ ongoing retaliation and violation of Relator’s rights.

Respondent Judge Wise had a legal duty to grant Relator permission to file

litigation regarding and/or against Real Parties. And Respondent Judge Wise has

denied Relator’s written request to file meritorious litigation. (See complained of

Order signed February 01, 2012) “Mandamus will issue when there is a legal duty

to perform a nondiscretionary act~, a demand for performance, and a refusal to

act. O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 96 (Tex.1992) (orig.

proceeding)


PRAYER

Relator seeks the following relief:

A. A writ of mandamus vacating “Order declaring Relator a Vexatious Litigant”.

B. A writ of mandamus compelling Respondent Judge Wise to issue Order vacating “Order declaring Relator a Vexatious Litigant”.

C. A writ of mandamus compelling Respondent Judge Wise to issue Order granting Relator permission to file Bill of Review to vacate “Order declaring Relator a Vexatious Litigant”.

D. A writ of mandamus compelling Respondent Judge Wise to issue Order granting Relator permission to file litigation for employment discrimination when authorized by Texas Workforce Commission.

E. And such other and further relief as is just.

Respectfully submitted,

__/s/ Patricia Potts__________Patricia A. Potts, pro seP. O. Box 3453Crosby, Texas 77532(281) 386-2187

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 28th day of February 2012, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS was served on the following by hand delivery, telefax, and/or certified mail, return receipt requested:

HON. KEN WISE, Local Administrative JudgeAdministrative Office of the District Courts 1201 Franklin, Room 7040Houston, Texas 77002


Ph. (713) 755-6575Fax (713) 755-8973

GREG ABBOTTAttorney General of the State of TexasPO Box 12548Austin, Texas 78711-2548

CHRIS DANIELHarris County District ClerkP.O. Box 4651Houston, Texas 77210-4651

VINCE RYANHarris County Attorney1019 Congress St Floor 15Houston, Texas 77002-1799Fx (713) 755-8924

PATRICIA LYKOSHarris County District Attorney1201 Franklin Street, Suite 600Houston, Texas 77002-1923

CROSBY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Superintendent, Dr. Keith Moore706 Runneburg RoadCrosby, Texas 77532Fx (281) 328-9208

MARK LEHMAN, Phd Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Martin, P.C.Steven J. Knight, Attorney for Mark Lehman, Phd1200 Smith Street, Suite 1400Houston, Texas 77002Ph. (713) 658-1818Fx. (713)658-2553


DEBRA HARVEY, MD De La Rosa & ChaumetteOscar L. De La Rosa, Attorney for Debra Harvey, MD1330 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 2250Houston, Texas 77046Ph. (832) 485-5901FX. (713)3950995

PATRICIA JANKI, MDEdwards & AssociatesJim Edwards, Attorney for Patricia Janki, MD12603 Southwest Freeway, Suite 200Stafford, Texas 77477Ph. (281)277-4940Fx. (281)277-4974

AVINASH, PARTI, MDLorance & Thompson P.C.Larry D. Thompson, Attorney for Avinash Parti, MD2900 North Loop West, Ste. 500Houston, Texas 77092Ph. (713)868-5560Fx. (713)864-4671

Krishna Bhat, MDSprott, Rigby, Newsom, Robbins, Lunceford & Bell, PCJoel Randal Sprott, Attorney for Krishna Bhat, MD2211 Norfolk, Suite 1150Houston, Texas 77098Ph. (713)523-8338Fx. (713)523-9422

Peter Stanfield, MDPeter Stanfield, pro seOccupational Healthcare610 South Main StreetHighland, Texas 77562


Vatsala Bhaskaran, PhdFranklin, Cardwell & JonesSusan K. Cardwell, Attorney for Vatsala Bhaskaran, MD1001 McKinney Street, 18th FloorHouston, Texas 77002-6417Ph. (713)222-6025Fx. (713)222-0938

Kingwood Pines HospitalTribble Ross & WagnerRyan Lee Clement, Attorney for Kingwood Pines Hospital3355 W. Alabama, Suite 1200Houston, Texas 77098Ph. (713)622-0444Fx. (713)622-0555

Humana Insurance CompanySheey, Ware & PappasRaymond A. Neuer, Attorney for Humana Insurance Company909 Fannin Street, Suite 2500Houston, Texas 77010Ph. (713) 951-1000Fx. (713) 951-1199

_____/S/ PATRICIA POTTS_________Patricia A. Potts

APPENDIX TO THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

1. Letter and Order denying Request to file litigation, dated February 01, 20122. “Order declaring Patricia Potts a Vexatious Litigant and Requesting Security or Dismissal for Failure to Post Security” signed February 16, 2010 Exhibits:A. Open Record Request to District Clerk, dated May 21, 2011B. Complaint to OAG re Clerk violation of the Public Info Act, dated July 19, 2011..


C. OAG response to PIA complaint, dated August 01, 2011............... D. Complaint to OAG re Child Support being withheld, dated September 24, 2011E. Webpage of blocked/closed Child Support Account, dated August 17, 2011...F. Child Support Account Statements for months of July thru October.G. Letter re Auto Repossession, dated September 09, 2011.H. Letter re Sale of Auto, dated November 18, 2011.................................I. “Motion to Modify Conserv., for Termination..”, filed February 10, 2003J. Affidavit attached to “Motion to Modify Conservatorship...” K. “Order for Protection of a Child in an Emergency and Notice of Hearing”,signed February 11, 2003.............................. L. “Order for Participation in Services”, signed February 28, 2003.......M. Motion and Order for Nonsuit, signed August 07, 2003................N. Printout of “Chronological Case History” of Case 1996-50567 O. Case File Docket of Case 1996-50567P. SOAH Proposal for Order Revoking Nursing License(Case 507-08-2706)Q. SOAH Order Revoking Nursing License of Relator, signed June 09, 2010..R. Affidavit of Indigence for Civil Case 2006-65380, filed October 02, 2006S. Order sustaining Contest to Pauper’s Oath, filed November 03, 2009....T. Original Petition for Lawsuit 2009-74161 filed November 17, 2009 U. Motion for Order declaring Relator a Vexatious Litigant” filed Jan. 25, 2010 V. “Order declaring Patricia Ann Potts a Vexatious Litigant” signed Feb. 16, 2010 W. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Post Security filed March 18, 2010X. Order Dismissing Lawsuit signed April 05, 2010Y. Complaint for misdemeanor charge of “Criminal Mischief” filed 12/04/2009Z. Case Reset Form for Cause 1645695 filed 12/11/2009Aa. Case Reset Form for Cause 1645695 filed 02/12/2010Bb. “Motion to Dismiss” for criminal cause 1645695Cc. Order for Dismissal and Commitment Proc., signed June 08, 2010Dd. Printout of Case Details for cause 1645695 from District Clerk websiteEe. Notice of Conspiracy, Atty Malpractice & Frivolous Action filed 12/29/09Ff. Harris County Jail Booking Record dated 12/04/2009Gg. Harris County Jail Booking Record dated 06/07/2010Hh. Medical History requested of DSHS Medical Advisory Board dated 07/21/10Ii. Medical Progress Notes dated 07/23/2010Jj. Medical Progress Notes dated 08/26/2010Kk. Texas DPS Letter of reinstatement of CDL License dated 09/22/2010Ll. TWC Employment Discrimination Charge signed and faxed 02/06/12


42 USC 1983Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

TEXAS FAMILY CODE, 102.001, 102.002 and 102.003Section 102.001. SUIT AUTHORIZED: SCOPE OF SUIT. (a) A suit may be filed as provided in this title.(b) One or more matters covered by this title may be determined in the suit. The court, on its own motion, may require the parties to replead in order that any issue affecting the parent-child relationship may be determined in the suit.

Section 102.002. COMMENCEMENT OF SUIT. An original suit begins by the filing of a petition as provided by this chapter.

Section 102.003. GENERAL STANDING TO FILE SUIT. (a) An original suit may be filed at any time by:(1) a parent of the child;(2) the child through a representative authorized by the court;(3) a custodian or person having the right of visitation with or access to the child appointed by an order of a court of another state or country;(4) a guardian of the person or of the estate of the child;(5) a governmental entity;(6) an authorized agency;(7) a licensed child placing agency;(8) a man alleging himself to be the father of a child filing in accordance with Chapter 160, subject to the limitations of that chapter, but not otherwise;


(9) a person, other than a foster parent, who has had actual care, control, and possession of the child for at least six months ending not more than 90 days preceding the date of the filing of the petition;(10) a person designated as the managing conservator in a revoked or unrevoked affidavit of relinquishment under Chapter 161 or to whom consent to adoption has been given in writing under Chapter 162;(11) a person with whom the child and the child's guardian, managing conservator, or parent have resided for at least six months ending not more than 90 days preceding the date of the filing of the petition if the child's guardian, managing conservator, or parent is deceased at the time of the filing of the petition;(12) a person who is the foster parent of a child placed by the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services in the person's home for at least 12 months ending not more than 90 days preceding the date of the filing of the petition;(13) a person who is a relative of the child within the third degree by consanguinity, as determined by Chapter 573, Government Code, if the child's parents are deceased at the time of the filing of the petition; or(14) a person who has been named as a prospective adoptive parent of a child by a pregnant woman or the parent of the child, in a verified written statement to confer standing executed under Section 102.0035, regardless of whether the child has been born.(b) In computing the time necessary for standing under Subsections (a)(9), (11), and (12), the court may not require that the time be continuous and uninterrupted but shall consider the child's principal residence during the relevant time preceding the date of commencement of the suit.(c) Notwithstanding the time requirements of Subsection (a)(12), a person who is the foster parent of a child may file a suit to adopt a child for whom the person is providing foster care at any time after the person has been approved to adopt the child. The standing to file suit under this subsection applies only to the adoption of a child who is eligible to be adopted.

TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURECHAPTER 32A. SPEEDY TRIAL

Art. 32A.01. TRIAL PRIORITIES. Insofar as is practicable, the trial of a criminal action shall be given preference over trials of civil cases, and the trial of a criminal


action against a defendant who is detained in jail pending trial of the action shall be given preference over trials of other criminal actions.

TEXAS PENAL CODESec. 37.10. TAMPERING WITH GOVERNMENTAL RECORD. (a) A person commits an offense if he:(1) knowingly makes a false entry in, or false alteration of, a governmental record;(2) makes, presents, or uses any record, document, or thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent that it be taken as a genuine governmental record;(3) intentionally destroys, conceals, removes, or otherwise impairs the verity, legibility, or availability of a governmental record;(4) possesses, sells, or offers to sell a governmental record or a blank governmental record form with intent that it be used unlawfully;(5) makes, presents, or uses a governmental record with knowledge of its falsity; or(6) possesses, sells, or offers to sell a governmental record or a blank governmental record form with knowledge that it was obtained unlawfully.(b) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(3) that the governmental record is destroyed pursuant to legal authorization or transferred under Section 441.204, Government Code. With regard to the destruction of a local government record, legal authorization includes compliance with the provisions of Subtitle C, Title 6, Local Government Code. (c)(1) Except as provided by Subdivisions (2), (3), and (4) and by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the actor's intent is to defraud or harm another, in which event the offense is a state jail felony.(2) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record was:(A) a public school record, report, or assessment instrument required under Chapter 39, Education Code, or was a license, certificate, permit, seal, title, letter of patent, or similar document issued by government, by another state, or by the United States, unless the actor's intent is to defraud or harm another, in which event the offense is a felony of the second degree;(B) a written report of a medical, chemical, toxicological, ballistic, or other expert examination or test performed on physical evidence for the purpose of determining the connection or relevance of the evidence to a criminal action; or


(C) a written report of the certification, inspection, or maintenance record of an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, or other similar device used in the course of an examination or test performed on physical evidence for the purpose of determining the connection or relevance of the evidence to a criminal action.(3) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record is a governmental record that is required for enrollment of a student in a school district and was used by the actor to establish the residency of the student.(4) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record is a written appraisal filed with an appraisal review board under Section 41.43(a-1), Tax Code, that was performed by a person who had a contingency interest in the outcome of the appraisal review board hearing.(d) An offense under this section, if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record is described by Section 37.01(2)(D), is:(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a)(2) or Subsection (a)(5) and the defendant is convicted of presenting or using the record;(2) a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed under:(A) Subsection (a)(1), (3), (4), or (6); or(B) Subsection (a)(2) or (5) and the defendant is convicted of making the record; and(3) a felony of the second degree, notwithstanding Subdivisions (1) and (2), if the actor's intent in committing the offense was to defraud or harm another.(e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for possession under Subsection (a)(6) that the possession occurred in the actual discharge of official duties as a public servant.(f) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(5) that the false entry or false information could have no effect on the government's purpose for requiring the governmental record.(g) A person is presumed to intend to defraud or harm another if the person acts with respect to two or more of the same type of governmental records or blank governmental record forms and if each governmental record or blank governmental record form is a license, certificate, permit, seal, title, or similar document issued by government.


(h) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 32.48 or 37.13, the actor may be prosecuted under any of those sections.(i) With the consent of the appropriate local county or district attorney, the attorney general has concurrent jurisdiction with that consenting local prosecutor to prosecute an offense under this section that involves the state Medicaid program.(j) It is not a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the record, document, or thing made, presented, or used displays or contains the statement "NOT A GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT" or another substantially similar statement intended to alert a person to the falsity of the record, document, or thing, unless the record, document, or thing displays the statement diagonally printed clearly and indelibly on both the front and back of the record, document, or thing in solid red capital letters at least one-fourth inch in height.

PATRICIA A. POTTS

Documents

Transcript of PATRICIA A. POTTS