The Record
The Story
Documented chronology
A documented account
The documented account — told through the paper trail. Every claim below is backed by a source document.
Summary
This page is not the book, and it is not meant to be. It follows selected moments in order and places the supporting record beside them. Where a document establishes a date, an event, or a statement, the source appears with it. Where the fuller meaning depends on context, that context remains in the book.
The Record is the complete account: what happened, what I did, what I got wrong, what the documents show, and what the sequence cost my family and me. Use this timeline to examine the structure of the record. Read the book to understand the life inside it.
Chronology
Scroll through the chronology. When a document, recording, image, or published source belongs to a moment, it appears beside that moment so the record never leaves the story.
01 / 10
Before 2014
Before London Bailey appeared in a federal record, he was the primary caregiver in a family shaped by his daughter's serious medical needs. That history is part of the record surrounding the case, not an explanation added after it.[1]
[1] Source: Presentence Investigation Report (2016)
In the bookThe book begins with the family life the later case record reduced to a few lines.
Narrative context · no exhibit attached
02 / 10
October 2014
A trip to Brazil, a video call, and a series of text messages became the starting point for what followed. The communications exist in the case material; what they meant, and how they were later characterized, is where the fuller story begins.[2]
[2] Source: October 2014 text thread and federal device record
In the bookThe full sequence appears across the chapters dealing with the trip, the call, and the texts.
The communications are identified as sources but are not reproduced on this public page.
Narrative context · no exhibit attached
03 / 10
December 11, 2014
An FBI investigative report recorded Dana White's prediction that London would demand several million dollars. The same report attributed a criminal-record check to White's attorneys and described London as a convicted felon on probation, citing C265980. The Record's comparison of the state register, London's court-verified former identity, and the later federal PSR concludes that C265980 belonged to another person and was misattributed to London.[3]
[3] Source: FBI Report of Investigation, December 11, 2014view exhibit
In the bookThe book follows how these representations entered the investigative file, how the conversations changed once only one side knew they were being monitored, and what later records contradicted.
The excerpt records statements White made to investigators and a records check attributed to White's attorneys. It does not convert those representations into independent FBI findings.
The criminal-history allegation entered the FBI investigative file, but it was not repeated in Michael Mollica's later sworn warrant affidavit.
Document · reviewed excerpt
This report records White's prediction that London would demand several million dollars and attributes a disputed criminal-history check to White's attorneys. The allegation entered the investigative file but does not appear in Mollica's later sworn warrant affidavit. Names of uninvolved individuals and private sexual details have been redacted.
Source: FBI Report of Investigation, December 11, 2014 · USAO 000044
Document · recreated comparison
The state register identifies its defendant as Joshua Ramos and records a guilty disposition for battery resulting in substantial bodily harm. Listed gang-enhancement counts were amended, not addressed, or dropped. Compared with London's court-verified former identity and later PSR findings, The Record concludes this real case was misattributed to London.
Source: Clark County register, London’s name-change order, and federal PSR findings
Document · contextual background
Campbell's professional biography documents federal prosecutorial experience and organized-crime task-force roles. The December 11 report attributes the records check to White's attorneys collectively; no located document identifies Campbell as the person who performed it or directed a specific investigative step. The Record's broader conclusion is cumulative, not an assertion of an undocumented individual act.
Source: Campbell & Williams professional biography; period client profiles
04 / 10
December 29, 2014–January 8, 2015
Before the office meeting, White was knowingly participating in monitored communications with London. Mollica's affidavit says White sent a December 29 response at the direction of law enforcement. London declined to discuss an amount by telephone; the affidavit records White introducing $10,000 and $20,000 as the first specific dollar figures. London later entered the UFC offices for the recorded meeting and was arrested after leaving.[4]
[4] Source: Mollica affidavit and FBI evidence records, December 29, 2014–January 8, 2015view exhibit
In the bookThe book reconstructs the directed calls, London’s interpretation of their purpose, what brought him into the room, and what happened after he walked out.
London concludes that the directed communications were used to turn a personal confrontation into an extortion case. The documents establish the direction, monitoring, sequence, and recorded statements; they do not contain an admission describing the operation in those terms.
Two images preserve how the cash was arranged inside the UFC office and documented in the evidence record.
Document · recreated affidavit excerpt
The affidavit records law-enforcement direction, consensually monitored calls, London's refusal to verbalize an amount, White's introduction of $10,000 and $20,000, and figures later displayed during the office meeting.
Source: Michael Mollica affidavit, USAO 000023–000026
Images · evidence record
2 imagesTwo evidence images show bundles of cash arranged inside the UFC office before the recorded January 8 meeting and arrest.
Source: FBI evidence record, January 8, 2015
05 / 10
September 22, 2015
After months of release conditions, changing counsel, and plea discussions, a federal grand jury returned an indictment. The indictment marks the formal charge; it does not, by itself, tell the story of the months that preceded it.[5]
[5] Source: Federal indictment, plea agreement, and judgmentview exhibit
In the bookThe book lays the earlier offers, emails, representation issues, and indictment beside one another in sequence.
Document · recreated procedural record
The indictment was filed September 22, 2015. London entered a guilty plea on November 3, 2015. On June 30, 2016, the court imposed twelve months and one day of imprisonment followed by one year of supervised release. Neither the located indictment nor plea agreement identifies C265980 as a basis for the charge.
Source: Federal indictment, plea agreement, and judgment
06 / 10
November 2–3, 2015
London recorded a conversation with his attorney on November 2. The following day, he entered a guilty plea in federal court. The recording and the plea hearing preserve two different parts of that moment.[6]
[6] Source: Author recording, November 2; plea-change record, November 3, 2015
In the bookThe book examines what London said privately before the hearing and what the court record shows the next day.
The private recording and the public plea record are distinct sources. Neither is reproduced on this page.
Narrative context · no exhibit attached
07 / 10
June 30, 2016
For sentencing, U.S. Probation checked discovery materials, NCIC, applicable Las Vegas state courts, and Las Vegas Metropolitan Police records. The PSR reported one adult misdemeanor conviction carrying zero guideline points, a total criminal-history score of zero, Criminal History Category I, no pending charges, and no other arrests. The federal court imposed twelve months and one day of imprisonment followed by one year of supervised release.[7]
[7] Source: Federal PSR findings and judgment, 2016view exhibit
In the bookThe book places these later criminal-history findings beside the earlier FBI report and separates what happened in court from what was being discussed beyond it.
The PSR did not report C265980, a felony conviction, or then-current state probation. Its findings directly contradict the criminal-history description recorded in the December 11 FBI report.
Document · recreated findings card
This reader-safe card reproduces only the approved findings: sources checked, one adult misdemeanor conviction, zero criminal-history points, Category I, no pending charges, and no other arrests. The raw PSR remains private.
Source: Presentence Investigation Report, paragraphs 53, 55–57, and 59–60
08 / 10
March–June 2017
After the appeal ended, London self-surrendered on March 28, 2017. While he was imprisoned, a separate family-court proceeding changed custody of his daughter.[8]
[8] Source: Appellate order; family-court filings and correspondence, 2017
In the bookThe book holds the federal sentence beside what happened to his family while he was unable to appear in person.
Private family-court material is not reproduced on this public page.
Narrative context · no exhibit attached
09 / 10
2020–2022
London filed a civil action in April 2020. The state court dismissed it that October, and the Nevada Supreme Court later affirmed the result. The rulings are part of the record; the allegations remained disputed.[9]
[9] Source: Nevada civil and appellate court records, 2020–2022
In the bookThe book explains what London alleged, what the courts decided, and what those decisions did—and did not—resolve.
Narrative context · no exhibit attached
10 / 10
2021–2022
In 2021, Ernesto Joshua Ramos legally became London Bailey. In 2022, a neighbor's camera recorded a federal agent from the earlier case at London's home. The name changed; the history attached to the former name did not disappear.[10]
[10] Source: Name-change order (2021); neighbor video (2022)view exhibit
In the bookThe book explains why London describes the change as reclaiming his identity rather than leaving the record behind.
The later contact can be documented without assigning an intent that the available record does not establish.
Document · reviewed redaction
The redacted court order verifies London's former and current legal names. It supports the C265980 identity comparison without exposing the withheld case number, birth information, address, contact information, or London’s handwritten signature.
Source: Clark County District Court name-change order, March 5, 2021
The record continues
The timeline can show when the records were created and place selected evidence beside the events it documents. It cannot reproduce the relationships, private conversations, disputed meanings, and accumulated consequences that connect one entry to the next. The full account—including the source notes, the limits of London's knowledge, and the places where memory gives way to the written record—belongs in The Record.
Read the complete documented account
FAQ
It is a selective chronology of documented moments from the larger account. It establishes sequence and identifies the records connected to each event, but it does not reproduce the complete narrative told in The Record.