Posted on 02/13/2017 5:53:01 PM PST by Elderberry
The various criminal and civil cases associated with the Waco Twin Peaks bloodbath 639 days ago remain fossilized and nobody – certainly not the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas – gives a damn.
It has been a year, eight months and 28 days since the illegal, mass arrests. The ACLU’s stated mission is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” But the disillusioning truth is that the ACLU is just another meetup group for sanctimonious law school grads. And, for the last week, they have all been busy filing Freedom of Information Act Requests “to expose how Trump administration officials are interpreting and executing the president’s Muslim ban.”
As Terri Burke, Executive Director of the ACLU of Texas wrote two weeks ago: “Over the past 48 hours, our legal team, along with dedicated volunteers from all across the state, has worked day and night to free those illegally detained by the President’s executive order. Thanks to their tireless efforts, we have prevailed, for now. But ours was only an early tactical victory in what will be a long, hard fight for our nation’s soul. There is still much to do.”
Burke and the rest of her dedicated gang of bourgeoisie bohemians see nothing to champion in Waco. They never have. Maybe the problem is that the victims of the illegal arrests that followed the “Battle of Twin Peaks” were actually Americans. What Happened
What happened, in case someone somehow connected to the ACLU sometime, somewhere stumbles across these few words, was that about ten score citizens who care about issues that are mostly, only important to bikers – issues like mass detectors at controlled intersections that don’t detect motorcycles, and how license plates may be legally displayed on motorcycles, and how high handlebars should be allowed to be and that sort of thing – went to a political meeting sponsored by a wholly legal group called the Texas Confederation of Clubs and Independents and found themselves charged with criminal conspiracy to commit murder. Many of the accused had well deserved reputations for their civic mindedness and for their charitable works on behalf of animals, abused children and veterans and so on. Virtually all of the accused were simply trying to not get shot by police.
Among the attendees were two score members of the Bandidos Motorcycle Club; which is regularly smeared as a “criminal organization” by sensationalist television journalists, lazy prosecutors and the sorts of postmodern cops who think they are storming Iwo Jima every time they drive their Lenco BearCats down to the donut shop. The Bandidos were, at the time of the bloodbath, proud sponsors of the Confederation. They are also actually about as criminal as most labor unions and a lot less criminal than the Baylor football team but the police, particularly the federal police, are always trying, without much success, to catch them at something. Which may explain why more than a score of police were waiting for Bandidos to pull into the Twin Peaks parking lot that day.
About four score members of the Cossacks Motorcycle Club – which is not a member of the Confederation and so had no particular reason to be there – arrived early and while more than a score of police watched, claimed all the seats that had been reserved by the Confederation and most of the parking spaces. There is significant, anecdotal evidence that the police invited the Cossacks there in hopes of getting the Bandidos to react. There is documentary evidence that the police expected violence to result. There is video evidence that the police did nothing to prevent the violence. Nine people died and another score were injured seriously enough to be taken to a hospital. 15,336 Hours
The local prosecutor, a bald, America Ferrera look-alike named Abelino Reyna, interjected himself into the subsequent investigation and ordered that everybody who literally or symbolically stated “I think the Bandidos are nice” or “I love me some Cossacks” should be arrested, incarcerated and held on million dollar bails. Local officials immediately portrayed the bloodbath as a real life episode of a ridiculous television show called Sons of Anarchy. The great, restless herd of the world’s migrating press stampeded toward that angle. This all ruined many lives and many Texas lawyers have been trying to straighten out the mess Reyna created ever since.
Because of this official obstruction all the criminal and all the civil cases that resulted from the Twin Peaks bloodbath are officially on hold. So far there have been five evidence dumps in the case. An evidence dump is the release of massive amounts of putative evidence from prosecutors and police to defense attorneys with the intention of concealing a few relevant leaves in a deep, dark forest. The last evidence dump, Evidence Packet Five, was released in August. Evidence dump six, which contains cell phone records and information collected from social media, was released and almost immediately recalled in September because, officials announced, it contained child pornography. After evidence six there will also be an evidence dump seven and an evidence dump eight. Official Proceedings
The first trial in the case, against an as yet unnamed defendant, is scheduled to begin on April 17 but that now seems unlikely because of the mass of evidence that prosecutors continue to hide under their skirts.
There will be an appeals court healing on March 1 in which a couple of defenders named Clint Broden and Abigail Anastasio will argue that Reyna and his assistants should be disqualified from the criminal cases because they will be “necessary witnesses” at the criminal trials: Necessary because it will be legally necessary to ask them why they ordered police to accuse and incarcerate so many people they knew to be innocent.
If the appeals court eventually rules against Reyna, he will be replaced by a special prosecutor who may act legally and fairly. Or maybe he won’t. Over the weekend, a source familiar with the criminal cases said he expects a special prosecutor to dismiss the criminal charges against all but “eight” of the defendants.
In the meantime, since prosecutors have obviously been concealing something for almost two years, it might seem reasonable for the ACLU to ask its scores of “dedicated volunteers from all across the state” to work “day and night” to demand access to and evaluate the evidence Reyna claims to have that implicates 190 indicted and unindicted coconspirators in the murders of nine men and the felonious assaults of a score more.
Isn’t that what the ACLU is supposed to do? Obviously not.
Think about that the next time the ACLU asks you to write them a check.
“Waco”
Where over 200 gangsters met on a Sunday in a family plaza to have a gunfight.
Since you are a liar, then yes, I do not care to hear your lopsided distortions of reality.
The usual shape your lies take form of are made of the relentless, near- groundless (or else inapplicable) insinuations which you keep making. First, an insinuation over here, then another one like it, an attempt to point to some crime or moral failing among particular persons to then apply to ALL person who are members of the same MC (motorcycle club) over there. Like this one [below];
There was ~zero~ evidence in support of the above collective accusation presented at one of the preliminary hearings. A law enforcement officer was asked flat-out (in court) if there was any evidence which would back a scenario such as you've outlined. The answer was negative -- no evidence, no testimony, no proof of the theory, no proof that there was agreed upon intent to commit crimes among any of those arrested (much less ALL OF THEM!).
Proposal of plausible-sounding theory (possibly plausible to a gullible jury, I should add here) simply can never rise to the level necessary to be actual evidence of wide-ranging "conspiracy" partaken by all, thus guilt attributable to all who were present that fateful day in Waco.
To convict any number of individuals on charge of conspiracy, each defendant thus charged must be shown to have agreed to go there in order to knowingly, with full intent, commit a crime.
That "crimes" may well have occurred does not equal that each individual present there, went there to commit such acts (even if some number of members of the identifiable motorcycle clubs were possibly intent upon committing acts of unjustifiable violence which infringed upon other biker's Constitutional rights). So far there has been no evidence presented that would show that ALL present were part of some grand conspiracy, although that has been the way Renya has been holding his mouth.
This must be sorted out, lest there be grave miscarriage of justice. How many times must this be pointed out to you? It is the basis for pretty much each objection you have received in reply to your own comments on these threads, coming from scores of freepers. Yet each time anyone who dares stand for laws as those are actually written (instead of how those are apparently being sought to apply by Renya, and Co.) you call them criminal sympathizers. The hypocrisy of your position is most foul, and rank. It reeks like worse than a filthy gator.
The way the law reads (and I have read it) there must be prior agreement among participants to commit some crime. Just showing up, being present there that day does not make everyone into being conspirators, even if there WERE some number of persons who went there intent upon committing a crime (which has yet to be proven).
It goes a bit like this; If a few "gang members" say, decided to rob a store, or rob somebody, anybody, planned on committing any [serious] crime, and all were cognizant of that fact, and then during the course of the robbery (or whatever underlying other crime it may be) someone was killed, then all (under Texas law) could conceivably be charged with criminal conspiracy.
If say, also, in a somewhat different scenario, there were members of another chapter of the same club (or else members of a the same "gang") who had not agreed to engage in criminal conduct -- those persons, lacking prior consent and agreement with others to commit crime at the time and place of whatever offense took place, could not rationally be charged with "conspiracy" to commit particular crimes having occurred at a particular time and place.
What you seem to miss is what perhaps could be called the time and place element for "conspiracy". It would not matter if club members agreed upon commission of other possible crimes, say had exchanged marijuana among themselves, or even if some had "conspired" to commit SOME OTHER crime or crimes in SOME OTHER time and place. What the law stipulates is agreed upon intent to commit crimes directly associated with whatever other crime is being most specifically pointed towards while charge of conspiracy is being leveled.
What has yet to see light of day in regards to this 'Waco' biker case is any evidence there was conspiracy on the part of two or more to intentionally commit crime. Your own mouthy say-so, and prattling on about "gangs" doesn't quite get there, doesn't fulfill the requirements for there having been conspiracy.
I still think everyone here on FR should look upon yourself as LEO troll, come to FR to fish around, and try to goad persons here (through angering them, by yourself being such a f'n jackass) into making statements that could be used against them at some later date.
I would add again, telling you "go to hell", but that would be superfluous, since that IS where all who make and love a lie will end up. With their true daddy, the father of all liars.
You may repent of such (promoting lies and false accusations) someday, but the general consensus would be that sort of thing is better done sooner than later -- for there will not always be a "later" for any and all of us. Understand?
I suggest you do your homework in Texas conspiracy laws...
Scores of freepers?
LOl!
Already have.
Difference between you and me is that I actually understand that portion of the codes. You, obviously, do not. I have outlined enough the reasons just why.
Being as deliberately stupid about this as you are, should be painful. I wish you much pain.
LOl!
You think it doesn't matter that the majority here see through your garbage, and so are against you?
Laughing in the faces of freepers by the dozens now too, are you?
“You think it doesn’t matter that the majority here see through your garbage, and so are against you?”
I really don’t think the majority here support the outlaw gangs.
That's just it.
It is not that people here "support outlaw gangs" but that people here support justice, which includes just application of Law --- even regarding application of the same upon those who are accused of being members of "outlaw" gangs.
Are you truly so biased (or so stupid?) you cannot see the difference? I think by now enough of us have seen the answer to that question!
“It is not that people here “support outlaw gangs” but that people here support justice, which includes just application of Law “
I think most here support prosecuting outlaw gangs when they bring their hundreds to a family plaza for a gunfight.
Around and around it goes, and obviously it won't stop until your mouth is tapped shut.
Shut up, Princess Troll. Stop falsely accusing freeepers of supporting "gangs" , which has long here been near-central portion to the rest of your bullshit act. It is beyond tiresome. You are a truly sick individual.
You'd fit right in with a Fascist gubermint though. Those types of evils depend on the faithful service of folk like you (with the same sickness).
You are not fit to be in the company of Americans.
“A key underlying premise of yours is still faulty.”
I think it is correct that two motorcycle gangs showed up at a family plaza on a Sunday and executed another incident in an ongoing gang war.
“Stop falsely accusing freeepers of supporting “gangs” “
Look back a few posts and you will see that someone posted to me that gangs have more honor than cops.
“If say, also, in a somewhat different scenario, there were members of another chapter of the same club (or else members of a the same “gang”) who had not agreed to engage in criminal conduct — those persons, lacking prior consent and agreement with others to commit crime at the time and place of whatever offense took place, could not rationally be charged with “conspiracy” to commit particular crimes having occurred at a particular time and place. “
A procedural issue of great importance to parties accused of conspiracy is whether government prosecutors try to frame the conspiracy as a “hub-and-spoke conspiracy” or a “chain conspiracy.” In a hub-and-spoke conspiracy, many parties (the spokes), conspire with one person (the hub), but not with other defendants. It is advantageous for a defendant to have its actions characterized as part of a hub-and-spoke conspiracy, because that means that the conspiracies are separate and disconnected.
In contrast to a hub-and-spoke conspiracy, a chain conspiracy involves several parties as links in one long criminal chain. Defendants in chain conspiracies are responsible for the actions of all participants in the chain, even if they never met some of the other participants in the chain.
http://sheenalawfirm.com/conspiracy.htm
What “you think” is correct hardly matters. Charge of conspiracy to commit crime must be established far beyond your own mere opinion.
“What “you think” is correct hardly matters. Charge of conspiracy to commit crime must be established far beyond your own mere opinion.”
My opinion? What I posted was the ‘opinion’ of an attorney at law.
“What “you think” is correct hardly matters. “
Let’s see.
1. There were two rival gangs.
2. It was a family plaza.
3. It was a Sunday.
4. The two gangs had an ongoing feud.
Which do you dispute?
Me: “I think it is correct that two motorcycle gangs showed up at a family plaza on a Sunday and executed another incident in an ongoing gang war.”
But you had just expressed your opinion. The faulty, key underlying premise (of yours). Remember? You are assuming a central premise that is not in evidence. It was to that I was speaking for what you chose to quote, then provide reply. Try to keep up, would you?
In context of this conversation, as for the attorney's posted-online discussion of conspiracy, it appeared to me as if you were presenting that as proof of there having been conspiracy. If so, you were confusing the issues, which you must do, I suppose, in order to keep up the effort of selling loose, broadly sweeping insinuations and innuendo be mistaken for facts.
It's an interesting read.
http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2015/11/2015-93-spaghetti-prosecution-in-waco/
Here is one of the indictments arising from the Waco Twin Peaks killings:
This indictment charges three offenses: Murder (“Code: 19.02”), Aggravated Assault (“22.02”), and two counts Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity (“71.02”).
Murder and Aggravated Assault are lesser-included offenses of the two EOCA counts. “Committing the offense as a member of a criminal street gang” makes an agg assault a first-degree felony, and makes a murder a fifteen-to-life crime.
To convict this defendant of the most serious offense charged the State would have to prove at least (under the law of parties):
Here’s an interesting question: to convict the defendant of the EOCA, does the State have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which person was murdered, or can the jury give a general verdict, so that they all agree that a murder occurred, just not which one? The answer ought to be “no,” but the State might argue that “commits murder” is just a manner or means of committing EOCA, and a jury does not have to be unanimous on which manner and means a defendant has used to commit an offense.1 If that were correct, then the jurors wouldn’t even have to be unanimous on which underlying offense—murder or aggravated assault—the defendant was responsible for.
If the State had any confidence that they could prove their case—that D, as a member of a criminal street gang, deliberately assisted someone in committing a felony that predictably resulted in a certain person’s case—they would have pled each murder separately. What they are hoping to do is throw a bunch of stuff at the wall, and hope that something sticks. If the State pleads, “D murdered A or B or C or … Z,” the jury is much more likely to convict out of sheer confusion than if the State pleads “D murdered A” as one count, “D murdered B” as another, and so forth.
The unit of prosecution for EOCA as pled is not the criminal street gang, but rather the underlying offense.2 So murdering A as a member of a criminal street gang is a separate offense from murdering B as a member of a criminal street gang. Multiple offenses arising from one “criminal episode” may be alleged in a single indictment, but they must be pled in separate counts.
If we take the gang allegations out of the picture (the State could abandon those allegations at any time) it seems obvious to me that the murders and aggravated assaults are even more improperly pled. The State has pled ten murders in one paragraph, and twenty-three aggravated assaults in the other. That’d be a separate ground for quashing the indictment.
The Waco defendants haven’t paid me enough to research the issue, but their lawyers should certainly be considering motions to quash.
In Texas, motions to quash must be filed by the earlier of a) the formal motion-filing deadline, if there is one; and b) the day before trial. I’d wait till the last possible moment to file a motion to quash so that the State can waste as much time riding a defective charging instrument as possible before I force them to choose a different horse.
What good does a motion to quash do in this case? If it’s denied, something interesting is preserved for appeal, and the lesser-included agg assault and murder are probably off the table because the only way the indictment works is if it’s for a single count of EOCA pled in two separate pairs of two paragraphs. If the motion to quash is granted, the State has to rewrite their indictment to match the law—one count for each murder, one count for each aggravated assault, and sixty-six counts of EOCA.
Either way, the State’s options for proving the case are narrowed. Which is, as Martha Stewart might have said, “a good thing.”
No. I was highlighting parts you conveniently failed to address.
If you are the driver of the getaway car and the cops kill your partner in crime inside the bank you can be charged for murder.
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.