[Dallas Traybo] CA

Date: 9/26/21

ATTN: Tyler Walton,

I first of all want to send pleasant greetings to you all and hope all is well. This correspondence is in regard to the letter I received from you, from jailhouse Lawyer Initiative. I want to submit this for an article for [The Harbinger, Review of Law & Social Change] at 110 W. 3nd St. New York, NY 10012. This is in regard to the structural Racism of the courts in this country, or at least in California where I was fraudulently convicted? I will for shortness sake make this correspondence as brief as I can! 11. This is in regard to the highest count in this country and how the clerk has aggrieved me and has not followed the rules of their job at this time. The situation is that after denial on [1/12/18] from the 9th circuit court of appeal En-Banc before the [90] days has clasped to file writ of certiorari I submitted a motion for extension of time to file writ of certiorari within the [90] day time frame according to Rule 29. The request for extension of time was submitted on [4/8/18], and I did not receive a response from the clerk of the court until [11/20/20], well over two years from the date of request! At this time the notice I was given from the clerk of the count was in regard to the [Covid-19] pandemic, whereas it stated that as of [3/19/20] there would be a [150] day extension from the

last court ruling, or from the notice of this letter of [3/19/20]. At this time I corresponded back to the court and advised the clerk that [150] days had long passed since my request for extension of time on [4/8/18] and that [150] days has well passed from [3/19/20], whereas I did not receive this notice until [11/20/20], [256] days from [3/19/20]1 At this time in my reply to the clerk I requested that I would like to have an extension of time of [150] days from [11/20/20] and the clerk never responded? 1 then submitted my writ of certiorari on [4/25/21] on there about. And now the clerk says that I am out of time to file writ of certiorari, WTF? [what's this for] The back story to this situation begins back in [2010] when I attempted to have my Habeas Corpus writ copied that was well over [50] pages, which CDCR has this [underground] policy that they claim if an inmates legal documents are over [50] pages the inmate must give a written explanation as to why this is, which I did. But I was still denied the copy's of the writ because it was about [300] plus pages hand written, whereas the Habeas Corpus petition clearly states to [ADD PAGES], if necessary, which I did because there is nothing in the Habeas Corpus Petition that informs you to keep document length to [50] pages, whereas the courts have a habit of claiming that inmates are not fact specific enough when one may generally state the facts. Whereas this was in regard to my criminal conviction! I was then refused the copy request by CDCR civilian law Library staff members, whereas at this time I submitted a 1602 grievance] that was then rejected by CDCR? I then corresponded to the U.S. District Court] requesting for an extension of time to file Habeas

Corpus Writ in Federal District Court because of the one year [AEDPA] time constraint act, which the count denied, stating 1 have nothing in the district court at this time in regard to my criminal conviction. Which I was simply informing the court that I would need a extension of time because of the extraordinary circumstance of not being able to have legal documents copied in there entirety, whereas when I finally submit my Habeas Corpus petition to the Federal District Court [ Judge Bernal & Kim] now state that I had no extraordinary circumstance, whereas I beg to differ on that point! Because being in prison and all, where else am I suppose to get my legal document copied? Irrespective of how many pages they are considering that it's a legal document. Because of the interference of my access to count when I submitted my writ of Habes Corpus to the California State Supreme Court they cited a case telling me I was out of time when I submitted the writ [1/17/15] after the [11/25/14] deadline to submit writ to California State Supreme Court, whereas I documented this for my civil suite. And the same bias was shown. So after the denial in Federal District Court I submit documents to 19th circuit court of appeals] and they take the same bias position and make the same rejection decision of my claim of interference of my access to the courts. Whereas now here we are in the U. S. Supreme Court that now shows this bias that I have proof of through legal documentation. I left a lot out such as case numbers and pertinent dates which I can provide. I submitted my Habeas Corpus writ to the Superior court on [1/8/13] and had a properly submitted Habeas Corpus writ in the count the whole time until I submitted Habeas

Corpus wait to the district court and [ Judge Bernal & Kim], has not given any tolling time? Tolling time is and should be afforded when there is a properly filed writ in the count as well as Gap tolling, which is the time spent in between a Habeas Corpus denial in a Lower court and a filing in the next highest count up the ladder on the way to the state's highest court. I'll give you the case numbers now, [Distric Count #2: [Redacted] this was in regard to my criminal conviction, but for some reason they have it as a civil case? / United States Supreme Court [Redacted]. This is what structural racism looks Like in the count systems in this country because I followed all the rules and met all time deadlines, whereas if I did not I should have been giving tolling because of barriers created by my fraudulent conviction in the first instance! Please advise if you need more details?

Sincerely [Dallas Traybo]

[Dallas Traybo]

[Redacted] CA

Tyler Walton, Esq. New York University School of Law 139 MacDougal Street B23 New York, NY 10012

Date: 7/24/22

Attn: Tyler Walton, Esq.

This is in regard to my fraudulent criminal conviction and how one's rights in the court's are arbitrarily violated to the point were the court's will not publish the case(s) of African Americans who go to trial, and then rule contrary to the precedent's set by The United States Supreme Court, and The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and The California State Supreme Court? Whereas the (CALIFORNIA STATE SUPREME COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD THAT THE IMPROPER ADMISSION OF UNCHARGED SEX OFFENSES IS SO PREJUDICIAL AS TO REQUIRE REVERSAL) ! Yet when this issue was presented on direct appeal it was denied by the appellate court and California State Supreme Court? (See: PEOPLE V. ALCALA (1984) 36 Cal.3d 604, 635-636; People v. Thomas (1978) 20 Cal. 3dl 457, 470; People v. Kelley (1967) 66 Cal. 2d 232, 245.), Yet when I presented this to the [California Supreme Count in my Habeas Corpus and Direct Appeal Petition on (1/7/15), I was than told that I was barred because of the (AEDPA- ANTI TERRORISM DEATH PENALTY ACT), time deadline based on court reference to case cite, (See:Robbins- (1998) 18 Cal.4th 770,780; Clark (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 750,767-769), which was a direct result of the interference of CDCR not making legal copy's with this under ground policy that prevented me from filing Habeas Corpus Petition in it's entirety with direct appeal issue's on (1/8/13]! (Which is the reason why counts routinely do not publish cases that have to do with minority's who have gone to trial and have lost due to violations of their constitutional rights, and secured from the public scrutiny)? The use of not publishing cases is to conceal from the public with the device of those judge's who

-- 1-

routinely engage in racial bias, and the systemic racism that is prevelant in the legal system by judge's Like ([Redacted]) ! Which judge's engage in subterfuge at the behest of the prosecutions like, ([Redacted] TO ME IN A RACIAL DEROGATORY WAY BY NOT REFERRING TO ME AS THE DEFENDANT, BUT AS THE "BLACK MALE", DURING FIRST PRELIMINARY HEARING, [Redacted], AND [Redacted]), who have something to hide !

[Redacted]. Which that knowledge of that secret must be secured from public scrutiny, kept from those who would have the most to lose from the knowledge of knowing that secret of how they (The Courts & PROSECUTOR'S), violate and conceal minority's court proceedings and trials by not publishing those case(3), and constitutional rights during the legal process with the help of the public defenders like ([Redacted] WHO DID NO INVESTIGATION FROM [MAY 30 [Redacted] -TO-FEBRUARY 20 [Redacted]), FOR THE ENTIRE 9-MONTHS HE WAS ON MY CASE, CONSIDERING THE EXPOSURE OF TIME I FACED? WHY WOULD HE NOT INVESTIGATE?) & (TRIAL COUNSEL [Redacted] (HO HAD THE CASE FOR [ (5) MONTHS FROM FEBRUARY 20 [Redacted] -TO THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL-JULY 30 [Redacted]] ? Whereas once this task is accomplished by the enfeeabled lawyering, the prisoner/inmate is then instructed or told by the count's that they have one year to connect the arbitrary legal violations that have taken place? But the courts then set the bar so low for the public defenders that God could not get the courts to over twin convictions based on ineffective assistance of counsel, because the courts to often then say that what ever the issue was it has been waived by the fact that the acting attorney, and the appellate attorney who are no different than the public defenders. ([Redacted], LAW OFFICES OF [Redacted]), did not do the motion and or the investigation, or call the exculpatory witness, or object at the trial, which should of been done, that could prove facts contrary to the criminal case being presented? My fraudulent criminal conviction runs along the lines per-se of (The Tube Lacrosse Case), in that "Linda Fairstien", the former head of the Manhattan District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit and one of the nation's leading experts on sex crimes, states for the newspaper, on (March 21, 2007, BY LARA SETRAKIAN, ABC NEWS & JUSTICE UNIT), that some changes in a victim's story are not uncommon "within a day or two of the attack," said Fairstein, ! "Six to eight months later is not when the story begins to

-2-

shake out". "It's in the days that follow"! For the cube lacrosse case! (IN WHICH PROSECUTOR [Redacted] LOST HIS JOB AND WAS DISBARRED FOR THE SAME FRAUD THAT I'M CURRENTLY INCARCERATED FOR AT THIS TIME) ! But in my fraudulent case the story changes (14) months later at trial? As well as several days after the alleged attack, when (Lead Detective. [Redacted]), States on, (5/22/08), [Report- [Redacted], Lastly I asked "[Redacted]" why she said she was abducted at the [Redacted] Station, (AT [Redacted], when she was allegedly taken from the area of [Redacted]! [Redacted] then stated she was picking up a gift for her boyfriend (NFD/NO FURTHER DETAILS) and didn't want him to know where she was? [Redacted] then stated "Everything else submitted in the report was connect and true to the best of her knowledge") ! Wow! I WOULD GUESS THIS MEANS THE TWO OTHER SUSPECTS WHO ALLEGEDLY HELPED ME AS LOOKOUTS WHILE I COMMITTED THIS CRIME, which was revealed (14) months later at trial as a lie? And then there is the alleged second victim ([Redacted]), which is not her real name? And I'LL stop at that, considering if I committed a crime against anyone, why would they have to lie and make up story's and lies and then have [Redacted]give false proposition 115 testimony at second preliminary hearing [Redacted]? Whereas wouldn't the truth suffice if a crime was committed?

And then we have CDCR civilian law library staff who are then allowed to interfere with my access to the court's access by refusing to make legal copies of my legal documents if the document is over (50), pages? whereas they tell you that if you provide a note or written statement explaining the need? which I was still then refused legal copies? And then the courts do not recognize the tolling issue? which time should be given by the courts when they are advised of the problem? Which caused the procedural issue that the court was advised of the situation on (3/24/13), requesting a "Enlargement of Time", explaining the CDCR "50" page copy limit to (District Court [Redacted]), after filing grounds, (1- thru-16), of [20] grounds of Habeas Corpus Petition on (1/8/13), having (2), months left of the (1) year (AEDPA) deadline to file in Federal Court. The Judge then misconstrued, that I was seeking the Judge's advice, which was completely false! But when the Judge got my habeas corpus petition on

(January 24, 2016), after denial, by The California State Supreme Court on (6/20/15], he then asserted that I was procedurally barred because I filed to late in the Federal District Court?

I know you cannot help me from a legal prespective, but I have to let people know what type of legal system we have here in this country, which is no better than the U.S.S.R. and China, with the arbitrary rulings that have tehen place during my legal proceedings to facilitate a framilent conviction, and then have to combat the interference that's allowed by the court's for the COCR. If you are going to use this information use my pen none of (Traybo), to protect my family from embarrassment and share.

-4-

Thank you for reaching out to me and Happy New Year, and hope you all had a happy and safe Merry Christmas.

I would like to be part of the new pen pal program you are launching at this time, because I look forward to getting a chance to critique the minds of people who have degrees in the law, because I have some true stories for you all that I know violate the procedures of law? I have not just my own true circumstance, but those who I have tried to help, and what I've come across is going to shock you all? whereas I'll just give you a small taste of what I'm talking about. In any legal wrangling's per-se, would the prosecutions witness need to make up a better story if a crime were committed against them or anyone for that matter? I just would Like to critique the legal minds compared to my own because I don't have a degree in law yet at this time.

I would like to be included in future cohorts of the pen pal

program!

Sincerely [Dallas Traybo]

[Dallas Traybo]

[Redacted] CA

Jailhouse Lawyer Initiative

[Redacted]

Attn: [Redacted]

Hope you had a happy and safe Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year.

I would like to touch bases with you at this time considering that you are part of the JLI and the community paralegal. I have some inquires of you that I hope you could respond to at this time if it is convenient for you to do so. Whereas how long does it take for you, or any, on most if not all legal professionals to prepare count documents per-se for a client to file and start a civil suit. On response to motions for summary judgements, and on dismissals by defendants, whereas this would be in regard to hours in a general sense? if it seems like an odd question, that's because here where I'm at these people and the courts seem to think that 12-hours), a day for a (7-day), period is sufficient time for individuals who are Lay persons in the law, please advise? In critiquing the minds of people who have degrees in the law, or knowledge because I have some true stories for you all that I know violate the procedures of law as well as one's constitutional rights. I have not just my own true circumstance, but those who I have tried to help, and what I've come across is going to shock you all. whereas I'll just give you a small taste of what I'm talking about. In any legal wrangling's per-se, would the prosecutions witness need to make up a better story if a crime were committed against them on anyone for that matter? I just would like to critique the legal minds compared to my own because I don't have a degree in law yet at this time.

I will not hold you to any thing that you may say, which relieves you of any responsibility to me using any information you may respond with? This is simply an inquiry of your mind on legal knowledge per-se compared to what my reasoning is in regard to a great many issue's that I have come across, with this particular inquiry is just one such true incidents that occurred in open court with this being in transcripts! In closing aren't judge's suppose to make assessments on witness's credibility?

Sincerely

[Dallas Traybo]

[Dallas Traybo] [Redacted] CA

ATTN: Tyler Walton Esq.

Hello Tyler I am in receipt of the latest correspondence from Jailhouse Lawyer Initiative Issue No. 7, and I would very much Like to be able to communicate with you all via electronically if at all possible? we just got the GTL tablets that facilitate that very process, which I am very interested in testing the usefulness of the device, which to this point it's been kind of hit and miss, whereas my particular tablet seems to have a problem with phone calls and messages, which I have informed GTL of the situation, and I'm still waiting for a reply from the maintenance aspect of the system at this time? But I can get messages at GTL-GETTING OUT. And then you would just have to put my name and CDCR number in the system and my name would come up and then you may send a message.

Sincerely

[Dallas Traybo]