If the charges, as filed were actually solid, and there was due cause for the arrests to be made under the charges and conditions which they were, then at the hearing to examine whether or not there was due cause, was the place to begin showing actual & factual basis for claims on the part of LE that there was due cause.
If there was actual proof, instead of much of the charge of 'conspiracy' standing upon reliance of assumption and innuendo, then why was one judge of a panel of three, not willing to support those assumptions (on strength of reason and evidence he wasn't being shown)?
The two judges who approved the arrests in that examining --- do you think they shared use of the same rubber stamp? (borrowed from Waco PD and Mclennan County, no doubt).
One judge refused to being a rubber-stamper. Why would that be?
Oh! I know! Pick me, pick me!
It must be because he is a supporter of criminal biker gangs!
Yeah, that must be it -- if we were to here apply the sort of logic and explanatory "because why" which YOU have been consistent applying.
” then why was one judge of a panel of three, not willing to support those assumptions (on strength of reason and evidence he wasn’t being shown)? “
Do you have a link?
The only facts in play in this appeal are the facts recited on the face of the affidavit used to support arrest. If those facts are not sufficient, then the arrest was not lawful.
I notice too, a minor nit. Nobody has been charged yet. Charging of felony must be by a grand jury. Those who are under arrest stand accused, but not charged.