LOL!
Posted on 10/22/2017 6:48:58 AM PDT by Elderberry
Back in my biking days I often rode alone. Sad that now the president of the dominant gang is afraid to ride alone and has to have guards at the door when he goes to piddle at a restaurant in a public mall ...
It wasn't addressed to you, Princess.
Nope. Not really.
But in addition to yourself being a liar, you're still an idiot, Princess.
My own concerns have not been for those who were most centrally involved -- some of whom I'm fairly certain are possibly guilty (or nearly so) as almost as charged. The conspiracy thingy is still a bit of a stretch...
Rather, my concerns have been for those who were not -- and who likely did not plan on there being any violence, and were not were seeking any. Persons such as Clendennan, and what's that other guy's name? Paul Lasker was it? --the man who was going to the meeting to discuss legislation that was either pending, or else somewhere in the workings within the State Legislature. That man had been involved in those type of affairs for many years, and had valid reason to attend the meeting, but was indicted using identical, one-size-fits-all, fill-in-the-blank-with-a-name template.
That's been the big problem all along. I've only been writing the same things (drawing distinction between various defendants) over, and over, for the last two years. You don't get to tell me, are anyone else what I hope for, or what I think. You aren't even smart enough to read and understand what I put in black and white. You're far too stupid to read my mind, Princess.
I say this not to justify myself to you (because I don't have to) but say what I do so that others here on FR can see what you are. A real jerk. Smarmy. deceitful and not just a little dumb.
Don't post any more of your little comments, Princess. Nobody was talking to you. Nobody wants to. People around here know what you're like. A real sicko (and still all butthurt somebody said something bad about the police).
Grow up, bitch.
LOL!
“and what’s that other guy’s name? Paul Lasker was it? “
Best not to wear a ‘Support Bandidos’ patch when going to a Bandidos fight ...
“the man who was going to the meeting to discuss legislation “
You mean the primary spokesman!
Dude, to be the primary spokesman for a Bandidos ‘pep talk’ means you are in deep doo doo with them!
“I’ve only been writing the same things (drawing distinction between various defendants) over, and over, for the last two years. “
OK. What is the distinction between being a member of the Bandidos and being a member of a Bandidos support club?
A nothingburger...the court is simply enforcing the concept of a 'presumption of innocence' and the redaction of that description will have no material bearing on the outcome of the case.
An eye witness saw Jacob Cardizal draw his gun and fire the first shots in the melee.
The question now is whether or not he was justified under Texas State law in doing so.
I had addressed a comment to Boomer, not to you -- even though it did feature one of your lies -- the big fat main LIE you've been holding on to for the last couple of years. Which is basically the same accusation that Judge Johnson just told the prosecution to not again repeat. (see comment #10, this thread).
I'd say get back to me when you can stop lying about things and admit you've been wrong. But that would most likely be NEVER. Which would suit me fine.
http://radiolegendary.com/2017/10/prison-industrial-procedure-paint-out/Waco – Deeply ingrained in the lore of the Twin Peaks operation is a recollection of the inmates locked down under $1 million bond.
They soon learned that the month previous to their arrests, correctional authorities of McLennan County had painted out the tank walls for one reason and one reason only.
The object was to see what kind of “gang” markings the Bandidos and their support clubs and the Cossacks and their supporters would inscribe on the freshly painted walls.
Assumption, exaggeration, or is there measure of truth to that?
The rest of what Radio Legendary touches upon regarding prison-industrial complex, and prosecution strategies to coerce plea bargaining (and snitches, don't forget the snitches --who'll say anything to save their own hides -- or just to get cigarettes and other favors, see; https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/the-murders-at-the-lake/) fits with what one fairly recent sign-up here on FR has been advocating for the numerous defendants. That "fairly recent sign up" joined only after it had become apparent that many of the arrested were not going to beg the McLennan County DA for leniency in exchange for turning State's evidence. He even shortened it into capitalized "SE" as if it was common among his own side of the lawyer biz to speak of it in that way. He smells like a federal agent. Anyone know who I'm talking about? ;^')
It's a dirty business...apparently, even down to State and County level;
Short-cut synopsis -- 2 persons (with Hispanic names, apparently Mexican origin) arrested for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute -- but charges dismissed by Abelino Reyna "in the interests of justice".
Two (count 'em, two) packages referred to as ("bricks") of cocaine delivered to McLennan County DA's Office, somehow turns into only
Is Radio (Legendary) Jim misleading us here, and had clipped off a lower portion of this last official document? Is there an "item 2" which would be...another "brick" of cocaine as was accounted for in the document that indicted there were TWO bricks of cocaine had been transported to the DA's Office?
How to explain how two bricks of coke became only one brick of coke? And... it was "covered with black tape" ...one white "brick" that formally was TWO "bricks" of cocaine. ???
Is the DA down in Waco in the cocaine re-packaging business...you know, like they made two half-kilo bricks into a single one kilo brick? Then -- somebody in the DA's Office wrapped it with "black tape"??? ha!
Where, oh where is the white women dope at?
Perhaps Amanda Dillon could tell us. She's allegedly willing to testify against Reyna in regard to past (and possibly still presently ongoing) FBI investigation into the issue of whether DA Renya had been making it practice to prosecute (or not prosecute) based not upon law, but upon "political considerations".
Amanda deary, will we see you run for District Attorney of McLennan County?
Oh, wait -- first in line is Assistant District Attorney Michael Jarret. Right???
It was and IS a something prime rib steak for the purpose I put it to use, on this forum. The accusations that some around here have been making -- that each and every defendant was a "drug dealing gangster" (and worse) has been a travesty. The Judge's ruling vindicates myself and others who have been facing accusations our own selves. You mean to tell me that you didn't catch that part..?
That witness claims she saw a man wearing a yellow motorcycle helmet fire the first shot.
Did you see where two Waco PD officers testified that they saw a large, balding man (not a man wearing a yellow motorcycle helmet) fire the first shot?
Uh...and if memory serves I *think* there may have been mention there was no GSR (gun-shot residue) found on Carrizal's hands...
How much that could mean (if I'm remembering correctly) I'm not sure, since I do not know how easy (or not easy) it is to get rid of GSR.
If the prosecution could do a bit better than the one witness, then that could a next part, and it might not be looking too good for Carrizal if it goes that far --- although the jury may be [unanimously] persuaded the waitress (who claimed she was "30 feet away" -- which I think is impossible -- it's more like double that distance, or more if the man with the yellow helmet was in the parking lot) was telling things accurately as to what actually happened (instead of "accurate" as best as she thinks she remembers -- while forgiving the part about her testimony not agreeing with the two police officers).
The prosecution had telegraphed that they thought this case their best chance for a win.
If this is as good as it gets --- there ain't no way they could try and convict all 154 defendants.
Not quite. Gotro asked a police officer a leading question; if the officer thought their actions that day saved lives.
You can't get anything right, TG. When are you going to give it up?
Gotro got away with that sort of "leading the witness". The prosecution could scarcely raise objection to that little story.
"Biker's lawyer" said no such thing, Princess.
“Hey Princess. Had anyone addressed comment to you on this thread, before you decided to post some more of your half-truth misrepresentations of isolated info? “
Huh! My post was a quote from the source you posted in your post! If it was a half-truth misrepresentation of isolated info then so was your post.
“Did you see where two Waco PD officers testified that they saw a large, balding man (not a man wearing a yellow motorcycle helmet) fire the first shot? Uh...and if memory serves I *think* there may have been mention there was no GSR (gun-shot residue) found on Carrizal’s hands...”
I missed those. Can you link? Thanks.
“Not quite. Gotro asked a police officer a leading question; if the officer thought their actions that day saved lives. “
ummm. Reading comprehension 101 ...
“You know you saved innocent lives that day, don’t you?”
Actually, if we look at her statement, first we see that she says he saved innocent lives (”You know you saved innocent lives that day,”) THEN she asked him if he knew that (”don’t you?”)!
“You know you saved innocent lives that day, don’t you?”
What is anyone to make of such a confusing mess like the above? You made many posts, Princess. I was commenting on those both generally, and some portions specifically. But what's the use of rehashing it now? I see none, because I know that no matter how much effort I would put into making you less confused, you'd simply squirm around in your chair trying to make a puddle...
Princess, nobody here had addressed you prior to you cranking up your troll act.
Deal with that.
It's a bad joke when you of all people make appeal to "reading comprehension".
I read the statement in context within the article.
The lawyer herself is not declaring the statement to be factual ---even though she was trying to sell the very idea to the jury by having a police officer agree that that was his own opinion.
“Gotro was asking if the officer “knew”. It was a leading question.”
Yep. She was asking him if he knew that he had saved lives.
She stated he had saved lives, just asking if he knew.
“The lawyer herself is not declaring the statement to be factual “
She did. If the question was meant like you think, she would have asked if he believed he had saved lives.
Reading Comprehension 101.
“It’s a bad joke when you of all people make appeal to “reading comprehension”. “
You do know that you have a problem with reading comprehension, don’t you?
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.
