Posted on 07/25/2015 7:41:14 AM PDT by don-o
A local justice of the peace was removed Thursday from an examining trial in the case of a Hewitt biker accused of engaging in organized crime in relation to the shootout at Twin Peaks restaurant.
Joe Carroll, senior judge of the 27th Judicial District Court, granted a motion to recuse Justice of the Peace W.H. “Pete” Peterson from the case involving Matthew Clendennen after Clendennen’s attorney, Clinton Broden, filed a complaint against Peterson.
Peterson set the initial $1 million bonds for the 177 bikers arrested in the aftermath of the May 17 shootout, and he was on the scene that day to pronounce death and order autopsies on all nine bodies of those who were killed.
Carroll said Clendennen’s case should now fall to the next-closest justice of the peace, Dianne Hensley. Broden noted during the hearing that Hensley has said she will recuse herself because she doesn’t think she can be impartial.
If Hensley recuses herself, it will be up to Billy Ray Stubblefield, administrative judge of the 26-county 3rd Judicial Region, to assign the case to another court.
Hensley was not available for comment Thursday.
Broden’s complaint, filed June 2 with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, alleges Peterson violated several judicial ethical canons when he set the bonds for the jailed bikers. Broden has said his complaint is based on comments Peterson made to the Tribune-Herald after the shooting.
(Excerpt) Read more at wacotrib.com ...
Tip of the corruption.
Legally, this replacement is no big deal, not even a deal at all.
Peterson is said to have taken directions on bail from Reyna.
Is said to by whom, with what PROOF?
Just more stir the pot accusations, with no proof.
We should be better and smarter than to make such accusations.
Oh, now that the shoe is on the other foot, evidence matters. LOL.
-- We should be better and smarter than to make such accusations. --
This is just a chatroom. The consequences here are ZERO, NADA, none, nothing, zip. If Renya has a problem with the accusations, he can take it up in court.
One of the first things one learns to do on law school, and hopefully in life as well, is listen to both sides of a story.
This is one side pf the side of the story. There is NO ELEMENT OF PROOF proof attached, or even attempted in this complaint.
I would remind you of the complaint from the DC lawyer for $12,000,000 because a dry cleaner lost a pair of pants.
Peterson simply did not oppose the motion, because there was no benefit of any kind to do so.
Are you referring to the motion for recusal? Have you read it? If not, how do you know what it contains, and what it doesn't contain? Perhaps you aren't living up to your own standards.
You are pretty good, however, at bringing up irrelevant anecdotes and admonitions. Sort of like the senile grandfather type.
To repeat: This forum is not a court of law. We speculate. We share opinions, hopefully based on what facts can be gathered and what allegations have been made.
The DA alleges that 177 people conspired to commit murder on May 17. 177 are all charged based on identical probable cause affidavits. 177 were all held in $1,000,000 bonds.
The mind boggling audacity of that has caught the attention and interest of some of us. A few are “Nothing to see here, folks....”
Of course I read it.
If you had any experience in law, you would know there was no element of proof attached, nor should there be.
The big issue here is that this is a legal nothing, and some are acting as there is legal significance to it.
I suspect we are talking past each other, on two different "it"s. What is the contents of Attachment C in the recusal motion? I see an element of proof there. Attachment D? Also an element of proof there.
As for the significance of Paterson being ordered to recuse, I agree with you. In itself, it is insignificant, albeit, somewhat out of the ordinary, and never allowed for no cause.
A few legal points.
1: The general concept of “Murder in Consort” does not require any pre-instant of the killing conspiracy to murder, only to act in consort in another illegal activity.
2; Texas Penal Code 71 and further dealing with Organized Crime defines the motorcycle “clubs” involved at Waco as “Criminal Street Gangs.” As such, membership or association with such entities is clearly enough to establish conspiracy.
3: All charging instruments MUST be the same in a case such as this. POSOT are not accusing any of the individuals (at the time of the original bail setting) of being the trigger puller. POSOT are accusing them of being part of a group which’s activities led to a murder, and since each is accused of such PCSOT 71 linked offense, the charging documents HAD to be the same.
Another example, in sume jurisdictions, if drugs are found in a car, all in car are equally guilty of possesion unless one (or more) in car accept individual responsibility.
In that case, charging document would read FOR ALL DEFENDANTS “..... and at that time, place and jurisdiction was an occupant of the aforementioned vehicle.... “
The identical documents claim is all smoke.
OK. What "other illegal activity" transpired on 5/17 and who done it? All 177?
2; Texas Penal Code 71 and further dealing with Organized Crime defines the motorcycle “clubs” involved at Waco as “Criminal Street Gangs.” As such, membership or association with such entities is clearly enough to establish conspiracy.
What is the basis for identifying a club as a criminal street gang?
3: All charging instruments MUST be the same in a case such as this.
Isn't that circular? At least one judge has ruled that individualized probable cause is sacrosanct.
Judge Sullivan: Some Arrests at 2004 RNC Lacked Probable Cause
POSOT are not accusing any....
What is POSOT and PCSOT?
btw, thank you for a civil exchange. I can deal with disagreement and with challenges to my opinions and gaps in my knowledge.
That label attaches by operation of Texas Department of Safety. I'm pretty sure the complaint is correct in its assertion that Cossacks and Bandidos are in that database.
CPE's contention that membership establishes conspiracy is utter bullshit. There is tons of case law on what constitutes gang conspiracy, and what constitutes simple conspiracy - membership in a gang is never enough evidence, but it is, in a gang conspiracy claim, required.
CPE's contention is that the complaints ARE individualized. That all are guilty of exactly the same thing, on exactly the same evidence (see complaint) and THOSE allegations fit the alleged crime.
There’s got to be career preservation behind this.
Probably too many copies of video existed from the beginning for indefinite suppression of it to be viable.
The course this was launched on is untenable.
1: The general concept of “Murder in Consort” does not require any pre-instant of the killing conspiracy to murder, only to act in consort in another illegal activity.
OK. What “other illegal activity” transpired on 5/17 and who done it? All 177?
Belonging to a Criminal Street gang as defined in PCSOT 71
2; Texas Penal Code 71 and further dealing with Organized Crime defines the motorcycle “clubs” involved at Waco as “Criminal Street Gangs.” As such, membership or association with such entities is clearly enough to establish conspiracy.
What is the basis for identifying a club as a criminal street gang?
Best to ask you to read it yourself, as opposed to trying to summarize here. Basically, more than 3 members, identifying wear (”uniforms”), the organization gaining revenue from criminal activity, IE drug distribution, etc.
3: All charging instruments MUST be the same in a case such as this.
Isn’t that circular? At least one judge has ruled that individualized probable cause is sacrosanct.
Judge Sullivan: Some Arrests at 2004 RNC Lacked Probable Cause
Understand, but in a case such as this, when the “together belonging’ and “together assembling’ and “joining together to” are part of the joint conspiracy, all charging instruments have to be the same.
The issue here is not the the Defs were accused of murder or even murder in consort, (at that point) but of the Conspiracy, so all are the same.
POSOT are not accusing any....
What is POSOT and PCSOT?
Legal shorthand
Criminal charges are often not brought to “protect the STATE” which is a political entity, perhaps land, etc. but to protect the “People Of the State Of XXXXXs.” In this case, People Of the State Of Texas is shorthand.
PCSOT = Penal Code of the State Of Texas.
PS, always glad to have such a discussion with a gentleman such as yourself.
I wouldn't count on that. The law as practiced is remarkably different from the law in principle.
The government usually "gets away with it." They have the court papers to prove it's legit.
Truth comes out a generation or two later, if at all.
That has become somewhat less true since the deployment of ubiquitous cameras.
Big brother now often finds himself watched.
Which is likely why, after all, such an absurd number of people were rounded up.
It was a fool’s errand to try to suppress all the video. But hey, we have the Waco branch of the BATF involved here and they have a reputation for botched operations to maintain.
I have read it. It seems to me that there hss to be some substantive basis to ID the organization - perhaps Texas Gang Threat Assessment
Are you saying that the law allows the cops (and the DA and the JP on scene) to decide who, based on their apparel, shall be arrested without any reference to previous documented illegal behavior?
Never confuse The Law with Justice.
-- Are you saying that the law allows the cops (and the DA and the JP on scene) to decide who, based on their apparel, shall be arrested without any reference to previous documented illegal behavior? --
membership in an OGE is a chargeable crime in itself.
07/18/2015 3:39:57 PM PDT by Crystal Palace East
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.