Posted on 06/30/2015 5:05:51 AM PDT by don-o
Clint Broden is starting to look like the last lawyer in Texas with huevos.
Most of the attorneys in the Twin Peaks case are dithering and telling their clients not to make too much noise. This morning Broden, who represents Scimitar Matt Clendennen in a federal civil rights lawsuit and who is trying to subpoena one of the many video recordings of the May 17 massacre, threw an affidavit at McLennan County District Attorney Abelino Reyna, Assistant District Attorney Michael Jarrett, Waco Police propagandist W. Patrick Swanton and Waco Police Chief Brent Stroman.
Broden filed his affidavit in preparation for a hearing in Waco tomorrow on his subpoena, which the city of Waco is trying to block. The affidavit offers a fine review of the Waco disinformation campaign so far and is reproduced at length below.
Swanton
Prior to filing the subpoena…I was aware that Patrick Swanton, on behalf of the Waco Police Department, held several press conferences in which members of the national, and possibly international, media were present. Included among the statements Swanton made at these press conferences were: The events at Twin Peaks occurred inside the restaurant (where Mr. Clendennen moved during the altercation) and moved to the parking lot. Those arrested (which would include Mr. Clendennen) were not there to “drink beer and eat barbeque.” Those arrested (which would include Mr. Clendennen) “participated one way or the other in what happened”at Twin Peaks. Those arrested (which would include Mr. Clendennen) came to Twin Peaks “with violence in mind.”
Reyna
Prior to filing the subpoena…I was aware that McLennan County District Attorney Abelino Reyna made the following statements during a television interview: That nothing was telling him that anybody arrested (which would include Mr. Clendennen) was not guilty. That those arrested (which would include Mr. Clendennen) were not there “just to eat lunch.”
Stroman
Prior to filing the subpoena…I was aware that, on June 12, 015, Brent Stroman, the chief of the Waco Police Department, held a press conference where numerous media people were present. Included among the statements Stroman made at the press conference were: That he (Stroman) had seen the “surveillance video” and that he believed that there was, in fact, probable cause to arrest all of those arrested (which would include Mr. Clendennen). That he (Stroman) wanted the “surveillance video” released because it would “show what happened.” The implication was that the video supported the prior statements made by Swanton.
Michael Jarrett
Prior to filing the subpoena…I was aware that the McLennan County First Assistant District Attorney claimed to have reviewed the surveillance video and the video showed: A group of Cossacks arriving at Twin Peaks and “spreading out across the patio in sentry positions,” obviously keeping close watch on their surroundings. As a line of Bandidos rode through the parking lot, Cossacks scramble over patio railings as the shootout ensues.
The Associated Press
Prior to filing the subpoena…I was aware that The Associated Press reported viewing the Twin Peaks surveillance video that is the subject of the subpoena and it reported: The video shows bikers on the restaurant patio Sunday, ducking under tables and trying to get inside. When gunshots start at 12:24 p.m. on the video, most bikers, other patrons and staff immediately run away from the windows and into the restaurant’s interior. One camera angle shows bikers running into the men’s bathroom. When there’s no space left in the bathroom, they dash toward the kitchen.
Upsetting The Police
Prior to filing the subpoena… I spoke to Patrick Keating (the lawyer for the former Twin Peaks Waco who has the video Broden has subpoenaed). Mr. Keating told me: Twin Peaks would willingly turn over the surveillance video provided it had a subpoena because Twin Peaks did not want to upset the Waco Police. He reviewed the video and did not see Mr. Clendennen in the parking lot area and that there was a clean shot of the patio area where Mr. Clendennen said he was sitting. His review of the video did not contain the representations made by Jarrett.
Polygraph Exam
Prior to filing the subpoena I was aware that Mr. Clendennen was given a polygraph exam and was found to be truthful when asked the following questions and having given the following responses:
Q1: Did you go to Twin Peaks on May 17th for the purpose of engaging in violence? A: No
Q2: Did you engage in any violence yourself at Twin Peaks on May 17? A: No
Q3: Did you encourage anyone to take part in violence at Twin Peaks that day? A: No
The Video
Based upon the above, I believe that the Twin Peaks surveillance video, which is in the possession of Mr. Keating, will refute public claims made by Swanton, Reyna, Stroman and Jarrett. First, I believe it will show that, in fact, Mr. Clendennen was sitting on the patio and did, in fact, appear to be at Twin Peaks “just to eat lunch.” Second, I believe it will show that Mr. Clendennen did not appear to be at Twin Peaks with “violence in mind” nor did he participate in any violence. Third, I believe that it will show Mr. Clendennen taking cover near the restaurant bathroom after the violence broke out. Fourth, I believe it will show that Mr. Clendennen was not in any position to have knowledge that bikers allegedly “spread out across the patio in sentry positions keeping close watch on their surroundings.”
I…note that the City of Waco, through Swanton and Stroman, have repeatedly made public statements about what occurred at Twin Peaks and, in the case of Stroman, what was contained on the video. Nevertheless, the report by The Associate Press and my conversations with Keating appear to contradict those public statements.
Good recap of what’s been happening and seems to explain the disappearance of Waco PD’s previous ‘updates’.
Thanks for your dedication in keeping this mess in the forefront.
Although I have waded into the speculations on what went down at the TP on 5/17, my REAL interest is in the legal aspect - specifically the 177 cookie cutter affidavits of probable cause and the 177 bonds of $1,000,000 each and the seizure of private property as well as the wall of silence(and PR incompetence).
It’s interesting that one the polygraph questions goes to “intent” which, looks like is a key to Broden’s defense gainst the only charge his client (or anyone) currently faces.
What would be the DA’s reasoning behind not releasing the tape?
If it served their interests you better believe that it would be out.
On Thursday, Waco Assistant City Attorney Judith Benton filed a motion asking 54th State District Judge Matt Johnson to throw out the subpoena, saying Broden was trying to “circumvent the criminal discovery rules by seeking records in a criminal case from a nonparty.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3304566/posts
Oh. I see.
In other words “baffle ‘em with bull shit.”
Judge denies city's motion.— Will Hutson (@baylorbarrister) June 30, 2015
Broden wins!
The tweets are confusing - it seems that BOTH the city and the state are joining forces. Arguing whether the state has standing to attempt quash.
BTTT
Judge is reviewing case law submitted by the state.— Will Hutson (@baylorbarrister) June 30, 2015
Judge will allow the subpoena to be issued but places a protective order on the video preventing it from being disclosed.— Tommy Witherspoon (@TSpoonFeed) June 30, 2015
Broden objects to gag order and said he will appeal the gag order and protective order on the video.— Tommy Witherspoon (@TSpoonFeed) June 30, 2015
Again, the 'lookouts' were apparently blind, as they didn't notice a squad of ATF, and Waco officers right there in the parking lot.
Yea. B.S.
The “gag order” will be overturned too. Or should be.
Seems like they tried to say that the defense has no right to exculpatory evidence unless the state turns evidence over to them? In other words, defense has no right to conduct it’s own investigation.
B.S.
I think they were hoping that if they stalled long enough then this would go away quietly.
Oh, BTW. The gag order said nothing about commenting on the contents of the tape. Just that it couldn’t be released.
The judge also placed a gag order on prosecutors and attorneys involved in the case, limiting both sides from discussing the case in the media.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3306103/posts
That’s nice isn’t it? I mean it’s not like law enforcement hasn’t already tarred and feathered all of the accused. Every single one that was arrested.
Yep. LE can discuss the case with the media but those who are accused cannot. More Bizzarro world logic.
Bump.
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.