Posted on 07/12/2015 5:24:02 AM PDT by don-o
It's not a gang, it's a club.
When it comes to the Houston-born Bandidos Motorcycle Club, this debate has taken on some urgency and a few twists.
Following a May 17 melee in Waco that left nine dead and 18 wounded, police arrested 177 bikers. Each was charged with engaging in organized criminal activity by being part of a conspiracy to commit murder and assault as part of a turf war between the Bandidos and a lesser-known rival, the Cossacks.
The distinction carries a hefty penalty, as those charged faced 15 years to life in prison if convicted - even if they never threw a punch or fire a shot.
While police have built hefty records of prosecuting some gangs and cartels, there hasn't been much courtroom action in recent years when it comes to the Bandidos.
Federal prosecutors can't remember the last time a group of Bandidos was charged in federal court in Houston. Attorney Kent Schaffer notes that more police officers are indicted each year in Houston than members of the Bandidos. Then he also says that while DPS labels Bandidos as a dangerous criminal gang - and tracks its members - it is the very same agency that has issued at least 80 concealed handgun licenses to Bandidos in this area.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
Cboldt, you remarked: “I’m pretty sure of a few things, even though formal, sworn evidence hasn’t been produced.
some of the dead were killed by OMG members
some of the dead were killed by police
some of the dead were collateral damage
the first use of unjustified force was by an OMG member
the first gunshot was by an OMG member
the government lacks probable cause to arrest somewhere between 130 and 160 of those it arrested. People fleeing from the direction of the parking lot altercation, for example”
I agree with all the above, with the caveat that I do not know the number of those who should not have been arrested.
I am in hopes that your posting can be a nexus of agreement on this forum, so that focus can shift to figuring out what is not commonly agreed.
As for the number of those who should not have been arrested on the basis of insufficient probable cause — I do not have a handle on that number. I do not know the “gang” or club affiliation of all those who were arrested.
It is common knowledge that 62 bikers of non-affiliated clubs were not arrested that day. Then, you have the Weavers. Mr. Weaver, who states he is no longer in a club, came in his vehicle; his wife came on her bike, riding as a member of a club that is an affiliate of the Eastern Star. I do not know if either of them wore anything associating them with the Bandidos in any way . . the Bandidos are the head of the Confederation of Clubs and Independents that was scheduled to meet there at 1pm. The Weavers stated they have valid conceal carry permits and were carrying. That should not send up a red flag, to the contrary. Field observation could determine whether their weapons had been fired recently. Then, they should most likely have been let to go on their way, as the Boozefighters, Christian and Veteran Club members were.
I can well believe that Mrs. Weaver, riding as a member of the Queens of Sheba Motorcycle Club, Order of Eastern Star, was not in the loop with the Bandidos. That, whatever she might have known or sensed about an upcoming rumble between the Cossacks and Bandidos, that is not what drew her to the meeting that day; she was not part of the inner circle of criminal and associated clubs, and based upon what I know about the OMGs, she would have been one of the last they would inform of their intentions. So . . . . based on what I know from the Weavers’ testimony and assuming that there is no evidence to the contrary, she did not ride to Waco in a show of force. Based on what I know now and presuming what we know now is what would be presented to a Jury, the Weavers: should not have been arrested, and a Jury would vote them NOT GUILTY. And YES they should (given the above is the truth) NOT plea down to a lesser offense.
So we have — as far as we now know — innocent Weavers. If they are indicted, they should demand a jury trial. The Jury should vote Not Guilty — if the statute does not apply to them. They should be voted Not Guilty by Jury nullification, if the Statute were reasonably applied to them.
THAT is the problem I have with the Statute. cboldt, I appreciate your responses. But were people such as the Weavers validly subject to the Statute, YES I have a problem with the Statute.
So maybe I am using circular logic. I am placing on the Statute, the application of it to the Weavers. So the DA overreaches. If a DA can overreach the Statute to such an extent, the Statute has to be clarified.
I agree, this may be a distinction without a difference. But to me: Statute OK, but Statute allows overreach —> the Statute is still a problem.
Statutes do not stand on their own wording or logic, but reams of pages of interpretation, and judicial case law, which distorts the original words themselves, the meaning of those words, the interpretation of original intent, to NOT the published Statute itself, which we might all read, but to endless Case Law Opinions that have to be read and digested.
I submit, were the Statute clear and simple, you and the DA would have to agree as to its clear meaning and valid application.
Thank you for this honest and heart-felt testimony.
I'm sure all indicted will demand jury trial. The more interesting question from my point of view is how many will press a federal civil rights claim against the government, and how those cases will fare. I'm researching the general subject of "absence of probable cause," (with an eye out for cases that depend on finding conspiracy), and stand by my contention that probable cause is absent for most of the accused (allowing that there is evidence of commission of crimes, even though those allegations are not particularized in the complaint either). Complaints that do little more than recite statutory language, and that lack allegation of fact pertaining to the individual accused, are deficient.
Probable cause is its own thing though, and has a very large volume of case law. It is not unusual for a defendant or the government to appeal a decision relating to probable cause, and probable cause motions/decisions are not uncommon.
As for Mrs. Weaver, you and the government are at odds. The government asserts that it has probable cause to find she committed a crime (but the complaint doesn't allege any action on her part), therefore she is under arrest, and by now, released on bond.
As for my guess of between 130 and 160 (out of 177) being accused, arrested and detained without probable cause, well, it is just a guess. I figure probable cause exists for everybody who used force, I doubt that was as many as 45 or any fewer than 15, and the government may have evidence of a few people who didn't use force at Twin Peaks, having conspired to use illegal force.
You are anticipating something that flat out won't happen. Even though you find the statute to be impenetrable, the DA understands it, the defense lawyer understands it, and the judge understands it.
If the government produces credible evidence that Mrs. Weaver conspired or agreed to perpetrate a crime, then she should be found guilty of conspiracy.
The government is not going to make the argument that you did, that agreement to ride (even if implicitly "ordered" by club rules) or agreement to show up at Twin Peaks, without more, translates into agreement to commit or facilitate commission of a crime.
What you are contenting is reasonable application of the statute, isn't, and everybody who matters in the prosecution of the case knows it.
-- So we have -- as far as we now know -- innocent Weavers. --
Now the question is whether or not the government knew that, or should have known that, when it accused the Weavers and gave them a felony arrest record. Clendennen is suing the government, because, he contends, he was placed under arrest without probable cause.
I view this place as a sort of theater, the posters being the actors, and many more readers being the audience. I have no intention of persuading the other person who is on stage - they are nothing more than tools for making a point.
I don't have an obsession with correcting everything I read, that I know is wrong. Not my problem, and at bottom, doesn't make a difference to anybody's life.
Wow very interesting story.
Nobody knows how you vote when the curtain is closed.
The fight is on and it is entirely Texas Gator fighting himself.
I never indicated that no bikers were fighting.
Or that bikers did not fight first.
Those things are not necessary for my statement to be true.
I do suggest that not everyone shot or arrested by law enforcement was assaulting anyone and we know for a fact that not all bikers shot, killed, or arrested were members of clubs involved in crime. Some were not members of any club.
We know for a fact that law enforcement has addressed the public about meetings of The Council Of Motorcycle Clubs And Independents leaving out the end of the group name, which would insinuate to the public that membership in a gang was required to attend.
We know for a fact that 177 people were helt at a million dollars bond on charges that would only be remotely legal if they are part of an organization with a known criminal agenda. That is only legitimate for those who are Bandidos.
We know that a cease and desist order has been requested for all city of Waco law enforcement, which in turn makes the enpaneling of a Waco detective in the grand jury illegal. Look up the statutes on Texas Grand Juries.
The whole mess looks a lot like what went on in Durham with the Duke LaCrosse rape hoax.
“Clendennen is suing the government, because, he contends, he was placed under arrest without probable cause.”
He is welcome to his day in court.
As I understand it, his claim is of a Tort. He does not have to prove beyond reasonable doubt, but the preponderance of evidence. On the other hand, as I understand it, Tort law allows evidence of contributory negligence.
His case is not as “clear” as the Weavers, because he was riding with the Scimitars, presumably ordered by the Cossacks to engage in their “show of force.”
I do not know what the Scimitars knew about any pending show-down. Yet the Scimitars did ride in force with and presumably at the behest of the Cossacks.
Maybe the Scimitar leadership “knew nothing” about the Cossack intent (WHICH of course, still has to be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.) Even if the Scimitar leadership “conspired” in this event, I do not know what Clendennen knew about it.
Sitting in the Jury Box. Waiting for the testimony.
Maybe I would have to disqualify myself from his Jury (were I called, which I would not be, because I am not in Texas.)
I do not know if the following observations constitute “contributory negligence” in the legal sense of a civil case, or merely poor judgement, which is not a legal offense.
Clendennen was a small business owner. He rode motorcycles on the highway. In my Humble Opinion, that is poor judgment. NOT saying that rises to a legal standard! My husband is a small business owner. He wanted to commute on a motorcycle. My advice was: you could ride for miles and live through it, but it takes only ONE accident at Interstate speed to turn you into a smear on the highway. YOU are a small business owner, you cannot AFFORD that risk, You have employees and vendors and customers counting on your continuity in the business. You just cannot afford to take that risk. Fortunately, he did not buy a motorcycle. I could not have stopped him, I could only offer my advice.
Clendennan, a small business owner and father, did indeed ride, not only subjecting himself to the risks of a highway accident, but he rode with the Scimitars, an affiliate of the Cossacks.
Is it merely poor judgment for a small business owner and father to ride, not merely on the highway, but WITH the Scimitars IN SUPPORT of the Cossacks? Or is that “contributory negligence” in a civil case? What it says about his criminal case, I also do not know, because I do not know what the Scimitars knew and when they knew it; and if the Scimitars knew about a show-down, I don’t know if Cloendennan knew about it.
Clendennan has to surrender his “poster boy” status of the innocent arrested to the Weavers, IMHO. OF COURSE he gets his day in court.
Except Nifong had evidence, even though the "victim" turned out to be a liar. There isn't even a witness to the crime alleged against most of the people at Twin Peaks, that the cops and DA accuse of committing a felony.
I don't see a statutory impediment to empaneling a Waco detective in the grand jury. I am aware of Clendennen's motion.
Art. 19.23. MODE OF TEST. In trying the qualifications of any person to serve as a grand juror, he shall be a sked:CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CHAPTER 19. ORGANIZATION OF THE GRAND JURY
- Are you a citizen of this state and county, and qualified to vote in this county, under the Constitution an d laws of this state?
- Are you able to read and write?
- Have you ever been convicted of a felony?
- Are you under indictment or other legal accusation for theft or for any felony?
The Council Confederation Of Motorcycle Clubs And Independents is a front for the Bandidos.
We know for a fact that 177 people were helt at a million dollars bond on charges that would only be remotely legal if they are part of an organization with a known criminal agenda. That is only legitimate for those who are Bandidos.If it is legitimate for the Bandidos, it is legitimate for their support clubs in attendance and it cannot be said that the Cossacks and their support gangs are not also legitimately accused.
It's a civil rights claim under US Code. Either the government deprived him of due process, or it didn't.
One last free law lesson, and then really, you tire me out, and for some reason, your innocent ignorance of the law bores me to tears. Nice to meet you, have a nice life.
Any of the civil rights claims against Waco, the cops, and the DA hinge on absence of probable cause. The inquiry is entirely to what the GOVERNMENT reasonably believed about THE INDIVIDUAL, at the time of arrest; and what FACTS are alleged, to support the GOVERNMENT's belief.
In order for the arrest to be justified, the government must have probable cause to believe that Clendennen committed the crime he was accused of committing.
Rinse and repeat for anybody else who has the basis, time and enegry to press a claim. Most will walk away. The government gets away with deprivation of rights (not quite, but close to) all the time.
“Most will walk away.”
See my next post.
Odd, isn't it, that child molesters have to put signs in their yards, etc but muggers, carjackers, home invaders, and champions in the knock out game, etc. do not need to file their whereabouts with the neighbors.
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.