Posted on 11/02/2017 4:57:57 AM PDT by Elderberry
The issue that has torn this city’s public safety services in two once again figured in a major felony case.
Disclosure of confidential informants is so repugnant to police and fire department officials they will sacrifice entire blocks of prosecution in order to preserve the sacrosanct status of snitches.
The policy is so ingrained it has caused a complete shakeup in the structure of upper leadership – the replacement of the Chiefs of Police and Fire Departments – and the ouster of seasoned investigators who won’t budge on the issue, one way or the other.
All that bitter history came crashing down on Wednesday during a conference in the Judge’s chambers of the 54th Criminal District Court when the Honorable Matt Johnson made a decision that rocked and shocked the law enforcement and biker communities.
(Excerpt) Read more at radiolegendary.com ...
Rants, yes.
Brother? Seriously?
Would you really want someone who supports drug-dealing, murdering motorcycle gang scum like he does around you? Around your children?
Keeping it short for ya! FU.
I see you avoided an answer.
I hope, for their sake, your children never have to face the situation in real life.
All 4 of my children, grown, grew up around bikers sweet cheeks! We’re American’s, born and bred, and we have you surrounded.
Interesting read, Thanks for all who seem to realize there have been some real injustices in this case since day one.
I see there is apparently no limit to your hypocrisy.
Being outed as a (possible) Federal agent of some type must have gotten your goat. I've invited friends over for barbecue.
Why you mad tho?
Anger, and desperation over your own feelings being hurt (for having been corrected, and shown to be a stubborn, pig-headed liar) isn't going to save you now.
Keep posting though, so even more people can laugh at you -- you who takes yourself so seriously (but has different sets of rules for others than those he would have apply to his own puny self).
I've asked you this before (but you did not answer) -- when are you going to learn? No weapon you form will prosper against this little black duck.
Did Jesus say -- agree with your adversary while he was still "in the way" with you, or did He not?
What do you suppose Jesus meant by that saying? It's not hard to figure out. He explained in the very next passages what could happen if you don't.
And here we are, myself continuing to expose your errors. More keep on coming along everyday it seems. This is too easy.
Ah -- but the sins of prosecutors (and more importantly --Federal agencies using State LE agencies & State prosecutors to do the heavy lifting for them) are swept aside among all this accusation of what a bad guy I allegedly am, when more to the truth of the matter it's yourself who's been the disruptor, and a rude one at that, dishing out crass insult to right and left to any who disagreed with your own assessments -- specially when something about what the DA has done since the incident, or else the Feds may have been doing prior to it could be included within discussions. It's become plain what you're afraid of. Some truths, if those made it into the light of day -- woops -- some "public servants" would be hounded out of office, and some Agencies would possibly face having their own Power Ranger magical power wings grounded -- and brought into legislative repair shop for horsepower reduction. But hey, it's not like people would rise up and overthrow their oppressors with violence, so what's your problem with it?
Are the Feds worth making such a continuing ass of yourself? Or are you as you would prefer to be thought of, just a volunteer? You could help persuade us of that latter -- I see a starting place for it -- but more on that later.
The issues could possibly be discussed neutrally, without everyone here taking it all so personally, except that your participation has derailed much hope for that, because you go straight for the "making it personal" right out of the gate ---with each opening comment you make on some "new" Twin Peaks thread as you did in reply #2 on this thread.
Learn how to keep a civil tongue in your head -- or keep on trolling for the negative vibes? It's your call, but there are consequences...
I've tried to "be nice". I've been reasonable. I've offered "ground", surrendering it (since I wasn't standing upon those grounds anyway, but have been continually falsely accused that those were my grounds) and have gotten nothing much in return out of you but more insult, and false accusations.
Enough around here know me well enough to not believe your bullshit accusations for one second. Instead, I've got 'em thinking that you're quite possibly a Federal agent (if the posting psychology fits one must convict!)
We could work together to clear up possible misconceptions, but it would require some amount of cooperation on your part. I can do most of the hard work (writing everything out in detail, explaining what various stipulations mean, etc.,) but some parts must be left to you.
What was your previous freepname? You've avoided answering THAT question.
Answer that now, and then perhaps (if you'd keep up that sort of effort to provide response continually, and for some time) you'd have grounds for complaint about others here "avoiding answering" questions.
Time to clean your hands. Mine are *squeeky*. You jealous bro? Why you jealous tho?
There are many wonderful bikers. I, on my GoldWing (turned in the old Sportster when I needed a softer ride), am one of them.
This is not about bikers. This is about a gang of drug-dealing murders who happen to ride bikes.
As much as I would never condemn any group of bikers because they ride Harleys, the fact that they do ride does not excuse their drug-dealing and murder.
They are not on trial for their bikes nor their riding of them. They are on trial because after they parked their bikes, they drew guns and started to shoot people.
We had friends over for a Bar-B-Q too. One is a retired board-certified forensic psychiatrist.
I printed out your posts for her. She said, as an example, about your last post “He weaves in and out of about 6 or 7 separate thought strings thoughtful his writing. Disjointed thoughts, disjointed writing. He was either drunk, high, or more likely, (if he was clinically sober) severely disturbed from many years of chemical abuse. It’s called Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome or what we used to call ‘wet brains’.”
With any luck, you were only drunk.
As an example, do you even realize you wrote a completely disjointed 117 word sentence!
7th grade English grammar a bit tough for you, eh?
You have still failed to answer questions posed to, you hypocrite.
Well, I see your ‘ludes kicked in.
re: questions, your didn’t ask nicely. You didn’t say “please.”
Just answer the question, you hypocrite. Or shut your mouth about anyone anywhere ignoring questions (specially loaded ones) that you pose.
The more I hear you talk, the more you sound like a pig. Seriously.
And the specific "example" would be ...? What?
Whatssamattayou? Forget how to copy/paste? Or just too lazy?
You say you can count to 117. Such skills you have, and I should be flattered how you hang upon my each and every so much you've counted them all.
Sure, but you can't seem to understand there are sound reasons for opposing how DA Reyna went about sticking his big fat Hispanic nose (with the little flaring nostrils) into what was at one point purely administrative branch "police" business.
And now, here recently Reyna has requested himself be removed from prosecuting the case against Clendennen. Don't that beat all? I shouldn't laugh. I'm trying not to.
Think Reyna will be able to keep his self fully out of it? He's a friend of your's isn't he?
Perhaps you could explain for the forum here the technical basis for why Reyna's own request that himself be recused from trying one particular defendant doesn't necessarily equate with need to have recused himself from trying, ahem cough-cough Mr. Carrizal for example.
I see why, but then again I must assume that Judge Shaver accepted Reyna's stated reason...that just so happens to go back to when Broden was previously seeking Reyna's recusal but had been stymied by Judge Johnson -- which 'Judge' just so happens to have fairly recently recused his own self from presiding over legal proceedings in regards to Mr. Clendennen -- because -- (wait for it) he had once been legal partner with Reyna. Uh, and these guys seemed to have only remembered this fact more than two years after the indictments were first obtained?
Ah... and the reason Reyna gave for why he should be recused was...?
Tell the people, would you? Pretty please mr. lawyer piggie would you do that for us? I'd like to hear your own take on this flustering legal cluck.
Make it good. Make it plain. Make it clear. Be specific to the request. Wandering around in the sort of "he's a druggie! they're all druggies! you're a druggie!" lands that are among your most favored habitue would not serve any purpose here but for yourself to continue that particular rude & crude mental masturbatory display while providing thin cover for yourself continuing to not lifting one tiny little finger to do anything like real work.
Like I said. You're lazy.
What was the previous freepname you went by?
See there? That's one question you still won't answer, and that's only one among a great many others that have been posed to you. You have no standing to point to anyone around here having failed to answer one of your questions, particularly when that was a seriously loaded question. You do seem to specialize in those. I'm not sure why I would need repeat this...it's not difficult, nor complicated. Just tell the forum what was the previous freeper name you went by.
Now this here (below) sounds familiar ...didn't you post something quite like this to me once before, you know, something similar, while you postured that it was from some clinical diagnosis?;
I began a previous note to you regarding the hypocrisy which you frequently display. I ended that note with the question that you fail to supply answer for that underscores that hypocrisy. That does not display disorganization, but instead is exhibition of myself being capable of keeping eye on, and touch upon more than one concurrently running stream of thought at the same time, eventually arriving at an ending destination that was rationally linked to the very beginning sentence, the middling portions written along the way filling out the structure, referencing past conversations between you and I, while touching upon the subject matter of this thread's OP (original posting -- the "article" itself) that your own original posting at comment #2 was effort to prevent discussion by way of demonizing any and all who do not approve of DA Reyna's methodolgy.
It looks like as far as Clendennen is concerned -- Reyna is now "toast". I do wonder if he will be able to restrain himself from trying to intervene and influence the efforts and decisions of the attorneys who have been appointed to replace McLennan County DA's Office through behind the scenes back-channels. I add mention of those sort of things here, since it's about the only opportunity I have to do so, what with after having corrected a couple of your misleading statements and errors, it's been nothing but fight-fight-fight ever since, with your main weapon being trying to paint me as some sort of "druggie". That does work towards keeping the subject matter off the table though. I'll grant you that much.
But you're still pathetic...
You pointed at someone allegedly having "avoided" a question. The question you were speaking of was a loaded one. Did you show your imaginary friend that part too? How about your comment at #2 on this thread, and the responses you got from more than just a few others? Did you show this imaginary psychiatrist friend myself having corrected what you said about LEO having shot only people who were themselves "shooters"? And then, shown that "friend" your responses? What you posted was simply not true. Not entirely enough -- which is important. You had stated it as all-encompassing descriptive. I pointed out one definite place (a man shot in the face) where it was not accurate description. Additionally, there is possibility that LEO's may have fired the last of three bullets that entered the Cossack known as 'Bear'. I explained to some extent how that is definite possibility.
Oh, wait -- you said that "you printed out" what I posted to you in one comment. That's what you said last time you tried to pull this same stunt. That you printed out something I wrote to you, and showed it to others nearby to yourself. If you're not lying here (it's so hard to tell, you lie so much) it's obvious enough you were withholding the wider context. That's another way to misrepresent things.
It's amazing just how much you love the lies you tell, and boy, oh boy those are flowing from you here of late.
It seems to me you've been wounded, and are getting desperate to save face, and save the past misstatements and outright lies you've been telling. Simply repenting would be much simpler for you. Ever think of that?
That's hilarious. Your imaginary doctor friend must be a quack. The real truth is "None of the above". It's more like sky-high IQ (inherited) on way too much instant coffee. See how much easier that is? lol! (Wally World just marked Maxwell House instant down to $3.79 a jar, fwiw. It had been $4.99 iirc, just a few weeks ago).
But myself drinking too much instant coffee doesn't fit the accusations that you've been hurling my way. Too bad. So sad, for your imaginary friend and the invention of the "he must be drunk or else a druggie" diagnosis.
I'm not a drug user, nor was drinking anything but instant coffee. And here I used to be a specialty grade, small batch coffee roaster too, and had enjoyed some of the finest coffees from all over the world...but now, go figure. It's a crying shame how much instant coffee I drink nowadays -- bwaaahahAAHHAA!!! (I hardly ever sleep anymore...)
See there? I address most everything you say. You spin up the bullshit. I shoot it out of the air. You suck at this. You keep losing, and you always will, as long as you keep fighting me.
One would think you'd tire of this process. When are you going to learn? That's me returning to a previous theme -- ask your imaginary friend if my doing so is evidence of being "disjointed", or shows re-integration of varied trains of thought to become one whole diagnosis of the way you're thinking goes.
Agreement with the diagnosis is not required in order to agree that it is a diagnosis of your ills (you know, like the part about you being a damnable liar?).
It's no wonder you had to invent imaginary friends to help yourself feel better about the lies that you keep telling yourself, and telling others.
As pattern and practice (I've seen you in action) those lies topically are crafted in order that you could distance yourself from needing contemplate having been proved wrong, and proved to have attempted to mislead -- had even lied. You think you're slick, and you do try to be, but then again so is fresh crap. You're about as impressive as that stuff, come to think of it. Is it crazy to say that? Ask your imaginary friend.
It is yourself who "avoids" questions, never answering -- not unless you can shit on somebody when doing so (or otherwise makes yourself feel all good when it's not necessary for you to shit on other people in effort to salve your wounded ego, and pride, since part of the time you can get away with seeking after ego boost "fix" without needing to shit out-right at others). It's the way things go with you.
It's your nature, and in this small exchange, it's been your way of trying to get back at me for having shown you to be a liar. That's what this all this stuff is really all about. So cut the bullshitting.
Have your imaginary friend read the whole thread, including this comment, and then get back to us. eh?
You could perhaps ask them too if you're not getting some freebie internet psychoanalysis that's more in-depth. and on-the-spot than the missed-by-miles diagnosis that I was drunk, or had a history of drug abuse, etc., etc.
And tell us your previous freepname -- though I suspect you're lying about that, and are possibly a FED, trying to manage LEO PR (or maybe one of Reyna's friends? you did once say to me that you had friends that knew Reyna, and that Reyan was A-OK, or something like that didn't you?) and troll up grounds for rounding up those creatures of much Myth and Legend -- the dreaded "Tea Party Terrorist".
They're everywhere. But nobody can quite find one...save for in the sort of goobermint publications that deleted mention of Islamicists, and Islamic extremism, writing in "Tea Party" where those other words used to be...and face down in the snow alongside a rural highway in Eastern Oregon.
Do people describe you as “obsessed” openly, to your face, or only behind your back?
.... and you forgot to say “please” again!
and you still love drug-dealing, murdering, motorcycle gang scum.
Why is that?
Can you answer that, “please?”
Oh... have a nice day.
By the way, there was a full moon tonight.
That explains soooo much of your “thought” process and your writing!
Says the guy who's obsessed with "druggie bikers", who's obsessed with me (because I call him out on being a liar) and who's obsessed with trying to discredit me any way he can, false accusation and lying being the methodology.
I see that you never address anything that's said to you --- never address subject matter and discussion of any 'Waco' Twin Peaks thread except to label bikers as "drug dealing scum" and "murderers", and associate freepers here with those persons whenever they dare say anything that goes against DA Reyna, and the way he went about labeling each and every biker who was present at Twin Peaks much the same as you do.
When the greater majority of those whom Reyna indicted walk free --- who will you blame for that? Perhaps you'd like to blame the Framer's of the Constitution of the United States of America?
Since when was that owed to you by anyone around here? You hands are unclean. Seriously unclean.
Please for what? If that nicety had been included with each request that you consult further with your imaginary friend -- would that have "made all the difference" as that saying goes?
Thanks for yet another demonstration of how shallow your thinking on this subject matter truly is. You can stop repeating yourself though. We (myself and multiple others) heard all that garbage the first time you deposited that steaming pile right in the middle of things here on FreeRepublic. Many have replied to it, and gave explanation of what the various effected individuals personal motivations more actually were -- yet you persist. In this sort of thing you're almost as bad as your buddy, Princess Puddles. Yeah, that bad.
Asked, and answered. Answered even before you signed up to FR --for the second time you did, was it?
About that previous freep-name. What do you have to hide?
It's my guess that things are not as you added to your homepage in way of explanation, but that you were a zottee (it would fit, since you are a disruptor, and often extremely rude to persons here on FR, beyond merely the attempts to have discussion threads pertaining to the Waco Twin Peaks subject matter).
Can't you come up with something better than that little too cutesy ending? That one's suffering from overuse.
The title of this thread explains" to those of us who are acquainted with you why you came running to post on this thread, at comment #2;
"some druggies here" you said, slandering multiple persons who are members of FR, and even long-term members of FR, on top of the crassly indiscriminate "they went to Waco and killed a bunch of people".
Not all -- not even close to all who "went to Waco" killed anyone that day. It's arguable that most were not intent upon murdering anyone. Assistant District Attorney Amanda Dillon highlighted that aspect when she pointed out to a jury video showed bikers of different MC's casually walking around among one another.
Dillon pointed out that things were peaceable enough --- up until the group of Bandidos from Dallas showed up.
That's what some of the surviving Cossacks of the incident told news reporters and interviewers too. It's no stretch to assume that much the same was told to Waco PD officers when they interviewed the survivors.
Can it be concluded that Amanda Dillon a "druggie" for having pointed these things out? Does that Assistant DA "love drug-dealing, murdering, motorcycle gang scum?" for having underlined that; by-and-large (up until the Dallas Bandido crew arrived) not only were there were no acts of violence, but that it also did not appear that any bikers present were intent upon murdering other bikers? That was part of the case she was making against defendant Carrizal.
Answer the questions, hypocrite.
But since you will not (I 'didn't say "please, you hypocrite, please answer") then I must provide the answer for you, using the same [ahem] logic that brought you to place of labeling persons here on FR as being "druggies".
She must be. Amanda Dillion must be a druggie who "loves drug dealing motorcycle gang scum". There can be no other explanation for it, not if your own "thought" processes, and your own "writing" were clear expression of those alleged thoughts.
I say "alleged" since it appears that you react emotionally to Waco, Twin Peaks "biker" subject matter. What you do not do is present solidly logical reasoning.
You still haven't answered any questions.
Speaking of unanswered questions --- Go ask your friend Reyna what happened to the missing kilo of coke.
Two packages went in to the DA's Office. Only one package (one kilo) made it out.
Is "dawg" the 'magic word', my niggah?
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.