Posted on 08/19/2015 6:02:18 AM PDT by don-o
Yesterday in Waco, a judge named James Morgan, ruled that there was probable cause to arrest William and Morgan English, a nice, young couple from Brenham, Texas, for engaging in organized criminal activity. The charge carries a penalty of five to 99 years in prison.
The Englishes had attended a brunch sponsored by the Texas Confederation of Clubs and Independents on May 17 at the Twin Peaks restaurant. Multiple, informed sources said Judge Morgan did not appear to be drunk.
Morgan based his ruling on the testimony of a Texas Department of Public Safety Lieutenant named Steven Schwartz who indentified a riding group called “Distorted” as a “support club” for the Bandidos Motorcycle Club. Schwartz called the Bandidos a “criminal street gang.” William “Piddle” English belongs to Distorted which has five other members. Morgan English was wearing a vest that described her as a Distorted Old Lady who was “Property of Piddle.”
Forbidden Flair
As is the custom in much of Texas among motorcycle riders, members of Distorted and women associated with members wear a small tab on the front of their club vests that reads, “I Support The Fat Mexican.” The felonious phrase is a reference to the Bandidos logo: A cartoon of a man with a big belly who is wearing a serape and a very heroic sombrero with a revolver in his right hand and a machete in his left.
Shwartz testified both that he had never heard of the Distorted before that day and that he knew that the Distorted was there that day in a “show of support” for the Bandidos. He also testified that of the seven members of the Distorted only William English, who was convicted of driving while intoxicated, has a criminal past. He also testified that the support tab the club members wear proves the Distorted is “somewhat involved in criminal activity.”
Shwartz also testified that the Confederation of Clubs and Independents is front for the Bandidos and that the Bandidos is a “security threat group.”
“Bandidos historically use support groups to do their dirty work so that the Bandidos don’t look bad,” Schwartz testified under oath.
Back In June
Morgan English testified that she drove a car to the restaurant that day, that there was a gun in the car and that she did, in fact, support the Bandidos. She said she left the gun locked in the car after she parked. Under Texas law, it is legal to have a gun in your car when travelling. Her husband testified that he knew there were “some issues” between the Bandidos and members of the Cossacks Motorcycle Club.
William and Morgan English were briefly famous at the beginning of June after their attorney, Paul Looney, negotiated a bond reduction and the couple was released.
They made us all feel like animals, like they herded us,” Morgan English complained at the time.
Her husband said “This whole thing is a sham. I’m kind of upset that we had to pay to get out of jail when we did nothing wrong.”
Shwartz also testified that the Confederation of Clubs and Independents is front for the Bandidos and that the Bandidos is a “security threat group.”
“Bandidos historically use support groups to do their dirty work so that the Bandidos don’t look bad,” Schwartz testified under oath.
Bandidos are already classified as Tier 2 (of 3) threat among OMG's. That already looks pretty bad to me and the cop's testimony looks lame.
In the past I have posted that at some point there would be Congressional Investigation of all this. Now I wonder. Bikers are not coal miners or college students. Those inquiries may never materialize. Even if Trump is elected and we can turn the USA around to a new course bikers may not generate sufficient sympathy to motivate opening all this to daylight. Bikers are not college students and this ain’t the USA of 1970.
Because that's the legal premise of the prosecutor, and apparently, the judge as well.
The examining trials are nothing more than a rubber stamp, endorsing whatever legal theory the DA offers, even when the legal theory is bogus. I suppose it was necessary to have at least one examining trial to prove the judicial malfunction.
Testimony from the bikers themselves backs up the same things we’ve been saying all along to you conspiracy types:
“Morgan English testified that she drove a car to the restaurant that day, that there was a gun in the car and that she did, in fact, support the Bandidos. She said she left the gun locked in the car after she parked. Under Texas law, it is legal to have a gun in your car when travelling. Her husband testified that he knew there were “some issues” between the Bandidos and members of the Cossacks Motorcycle Club.”
So, here we have sworn testimony from the accused that they were involved with the Bandidos (not just some innocent “enthusiasts” swept up by the cops) and that there was a conflict between the Cossacks and Bandidos, prior to the events of that day, just as law enforcement has already detailed.
I am pretty confident as the trials continue, this type of testimony is going to make a lot of FReepers look really silly.
They’re also not all “innocent motorcycle enthusiasts”. Some of them do, in fact, engage in organized crime and start shootouts with other criminal biker gangs in broad daylight.
Glad you are starting to figure this stuff out.
Is submitting to extortion a criminal act?
Well, it’s clear that everyone in the stands wearing a team jersey is a member of the team.
Glad that’s cleared up.
Do they all get a share of the gate receipts?
Presuming that you believe in freedom of association, where’s the crime?
I don’t think most of what you said is in question.
The issue is whether the government was there to support one of the gangs, and kill off some of the ‘good guys’ (the ones who were helping guard the borders).
That's the inference suggested by some posters here, and also the inference accepted by the judge. Paying money to the CoC infers support and awareness of the criminal activities of other members of the CoC. CoC being a "front" for Bandidos, and paying dues being done for "protection" reasons is sufficient evidence to infer conspiracy to commit a crime.
Even if money dues aren't involved, wearing the support patch (again, for "protection" reasons, like the FOP sticker intended to generate leniency on traffic stops) is being taken as sufficient evidence to have probable cause that the person wearing the patch has committed a crime.
What I am figuring out is that whatever the motivation that precipitated the police plan of action was even the “father” of this mess has not stepped forward and proudly taken ownership. So even the authorities consider that plan a bastard stepchild and are now twisting every which way to avoid child support. That is what I am figuring out and has been apparent all along. The question remains is there an even greater level of malfeasance and it is beginning to appear there is.
The evidence you offer is wearing the support patch and awareness of bad blood. Any other facts? Just saying that "involvement" is an indefinite word, and some meat has to be put on that before reaching a conclusion that one or both of the Engishes had entered into an agreement involving perpetration of a crime.
What they are accused of is not some indefinite "involvement," they are accused of entering into a conspiracy or agreement to participate in or facilitate perpetration of a crime.
One could argue that those of us who are interested in how this case unfolds, in court, are "involved" too.
Anyway, what other facts are present. That was a serious question above, and I'm just making a casual list from your post and my memory. I'd rather work from a list that YOU agree is comprehensive. What exactly are the facts that reflect English's "involvement?" I believe your position is that those facts, once proved beyond a reasonable doubt, represent a criminal act.
Based on Boggieman’s (TG?) logic we can start shooting everyone wearing a Che T shirt. Maybe I am starting to “come around”.
The autopsy that continues to interest me for some reason is the single gunshot to the sternum. This victim also has a serious scalp laceration “down to the galea”. IIRC, 2 inch by 4 inch. I doubt it produced a loss of consciousness but in someone with a blood pressure it would produce a fairly rapid loss of 400 to 500 ml of blood. Enough to put one on “pause”. I can’t imagine anyone wasting time on inflicting such a wound on a dead man in a gang fight so one presumes this was done before the GSW. I don’t see in Ledbetter’s account (Boyett Jr.) any mention of this victim having been struck in the head by a baton or chain or of him bleeding profusely from a scalp wound. If he had such a wound at the time I would think an “eyewitness” would fail to notice.
Like I posted earlier today, I have no doubt the video the police have corroborates at least roughly some of what Ledbetter says happened but there are just too many things that don’t match up in the autopsies with this story. Was he coached or just deluded?
Nope, this whole thing is a Fed directed disaster.
This smells as bad as the John Doe investigations in WI. That also had Federal Involvement.
This will go on for years in the courts. It is total nonsense under our laws, but since Obama that makes no difference.
“Welcome to New Kenya (Africa USA) where the law of the jungle has replaced the Law of the Land.”
Multiple, informed sources said Judge Morgan did not appear to be drunk.
I disagree, at least to the extent that law enforcement in general (and Waco PD, Texas DPS in particular) has said, all along, that it was present at the scene because it, like the accused conspirators, expected violence. They have proudly proclaimed their proactive presence and preparation.
The "plan" was to prevent or minimize bloodshed, and as far as I can tell, they official narrative is that the mission was a success, on that basis. But for the police, more criminals and would have shot each other.
Bear in mind that the government action indicates that the government believes that most of the people on scene are probably criminals. Not proven criminals, but probably criminals.
>>> there are just too many things that don’t match up in the autopsies with this story. Was he coached or just deluded? <<<
An eyewitness only sees a tiny vignette of a situation they’re involved in, and that view is then colored by their personal perceptions and a self-serving selective memory.
Therefore "by his own stated testimony": Guilty! ... of something
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.