Waco officials seek to quash subpoena issued for Twin Peaks video

Waco Tribune-Herald ^ | June 25, 2015 | TOMMY WITHERSPOON

[Prolixus]

The city of Waco is seeking to quash a subpoena issued to the former Waco Twin Peaks franchise holder for video of the May 17 shootout that left nine bikers dead and 20 wounded.

Dallas attorney Clint Broden, who represents Matthew Alan Clendennen, a member of the Scimitars Motorcycle Club, obtained a subpoena after speaking with Patrick Keating, a Dallas attorney who represents the Twin Peaks franchisee.

Broden said he sought the video to help him prepare for an Aug. 10 examining trial set in Clendennen’s case in McLennan County Justice of the Peace W.H. “Pete” Peterson’s court.

The subpoena for the video was issued on Monday. On Thursday, Assistant City Attorney Judith Benton filed a motion asking 54th State District Judge Matt Johnson to throw out the subpoena, saying that Broden was trying to “circumvent the criminal discovery rules by seeking records in a criminal case from a non-party.”

“It is troubling that the city of Waco would go to such lengths to suppress this video,” Broden said in a release Thursday. “The Waco police have repeatedly given the public contradictory information about the events at Twin Peaks and have said that the video will support its current version of the facts, yet they have now taken this extraordinary measure to interfere with the subpoena process.”

Broden said Keating had previously agreed to accept service of the subpoena on behalf of his client and to produce the video in compliance with the subpoena by 9 a.m. Friday.

“It is important to note that this video is the sole property of the Waco Twin Peaks franchisee and does not belong to the city of Waco, the Waco police nor McLennan County,” Broden said.

Benton said Thursday she was contacted by Twin Peaks representatives about the subpoena, prompting her motion to quash. Her motion claims Broden’s subpoena is contrary to the rules of discovery governing criminal cases.

“On its face, the subpoena at issue exceeds the scope of any legitimate purpose and is an obvious attempt to conduct pretrial discovery. Therefore, it should be quashed,” the motion says.

Broden says in a response to the city’s motion that the video would support Clendennen’s defense that he did not “participate in nor encourage any violence” at Twin Peaks.

“The video would therefore support Mr. Clendennen’s argument that there is no probable cause in his case and that he should not be held on restrictive bond conditions,” Broden’s motion argues.

The Tribune-Herald has filed a Public Information Act request seeking to obtain the video. The city of Waco has opposed that request, arguing that it is not subject to disclosure at this time because of the ongoing investigation. The matter has been sent to the Texas Attorney General’s Office for a ruling.

[justlurking]

Your example does not apply. No organization involved; no conspiracy, only two people, not at scene of shooting.

There's an organization involved: Sons of Confederate Veterans.

And the statute doesn't all parties to be at the scene of the crime:

(a) A person commits an offense if, with the intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of a combination or as a member of a criminal street gang, the person commits or conspires to commit one or more of the following:

I'll skip the list of offenses.

For the comprehension-impaired: I'm not actually suggesting that the Confederate Flag is actually a symbol of a criminal organization. However, there are people that believe that, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center.

But, my point is that if you accept an emblem or logo as prima facie evidence of a conspiracy, there are many contrary examples that you would have to consider as the same. It's a REALLY slippery slope.

However, if you want to keep twisting yourself into a pretzel to avoid the flaws in your claims, then you'll need one of these:

[TexasGator]

“But, my point is that if you accept an emblem or logo as prima facie evidence of a conspiracy,”

Strawman. No one has suggested that.

[TexasGator]

“There’s an organization involved: Sons of Confederate Veterans.”

Irrelevant. Neither of the two you mentioned were in that organization.

[TexasGator]

“And the statute doesn’t all parties to be at the scene of the crime:”

Not on point. None of the Bandidos that did not go to the site were arrested.

[justlurking]

Strawman. No one has suggested that.

Really? How about your own postings?

“Richard Hernandez, with Cossack Motorcycle Club, on left, Will Bradford with the Scimitars Motorcycle Club, bottom right wearing Cossack patch.

Scimitar cut with “We Support the Cossacks” patch.

According to legal documents, some allegedly present during Sunday’s shooting were wearing Scimitar T-shirts and Cossack patches together. Others wearing Los Pirados paraphernalia were combining them with “support your local Bandidos” T-shirts.”

Now, so the context is clear, you posted those in reply to my posting #93, which reads, in part:

But, it's still not "evidence". He's been reporting hearsay as fact. I'm still waiting to hear actual evidence. The only thing that comes close is public statements by witnesses, but they are also the accused.

This was the latest in a series of postings that I decried the lack of evidence that "support clubs" were engaged in a criminal conspiracy. If you weren't responding to that statement, exactly what were you trying to say?

It's not a "strawman" when I'm responding directly to YOUR attempts to link patches and T-shirts to a criminal conspiracy.

[justlurking]

Irrelevant. Neither of the two you mentioned were in that organization.

No, they weren't. But, the statute doesn't require that:

(d) "Criminal street gang" means three or more persons having a common identifying sign or symbol or an identifiable leadership who continuously or regularly associate in the commission of criminal activities.

Again, to be clear: the statute requires other factors to establish the criminal conspiracy. But, you have posted that the individuals are likely involved in the conspiracy, simply because they wear the same logos.

[justlurking]

Not on point. None of the Bandidos that did not go to the site were arrested.

Actually, there were three motorcycle riders arrested off-site. I don't know if they were Bandidos, though -- and weren't able to find it quickly.

Keep twisting in the wind, Gator. This is starting to get entertaining.

[TexasGator]

“Actually, there were three motorcycle riders arrested off-site. “

Where were they arrested? Were they involved in ‘extracurricular activities’?

[TexasGator]

“This was the latest in a series of postings that I decried the lack of evidence that “support clubs” were engaged in a criminal conspiracy. If you weren’t responding to that statement, exactly what were you trying to say?”

If you check, you asked for evidence that the Scimitars were associates of the Cossacks. That was all. Not intended to be anything else.

[TexasGator]

“Again, to be clear: the statute requires other factors to establish the criminal conspiracy. But, you have posted that the individuals are likely involved in the conspiracy, simply because they wear the same logos.”

I have not.

I have specifically posted that it will have to be proven that they were engaged in a conspiracy including evidence of association and past incidents.

[TexasGator]

“But, you have posted that the individuals are likely involved in the conspiracy, simply because they wear the same logos. “

If I were to make a statement like that distorting my position, I would be personally attacked and most likely flagged to JR and/or the moderator.

[justlurking]

Where were they arrested? Were they involved in ‘extracurricular activities’?

I found at least an excerpt of the arrest report:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/267610395/Waco-Texas-Twin-Peaks-Arrest-Report

They were at Cabela's, which is a bit west of the restaurant. They were noticed by officers arriving at the scene, arrested on a separate charge and released on bond.

Then, a judge decided to add on the additional charge and raise their bond. The three men, all from the Austin area, turned themselves in.

[justlurking]

If you check, you asked for evidence that the Scimitars were associates of the Cossacks.

No, I didn't. And, you know better than that, because you can read my postings just like everyone else:

And since I had already heard that claim [about "support clubs"], I added that the prosecutor will have to prove that the third group is also engaging in a continuing pattern of criminal activity.

The claim that they are a "farm team" that supports criminal activity by the Cossacks is an empty accusation, without evidence. I don't know if it is true or not -- I'm just saying that posting it repeatedly without evidence doesn't make it so.

Do you have difficulties with reading comprehension? Or do you just selectively edit out the parts that are inconvenient for you?

I've already called you out for misrepresenting my postings. Do you really want to go there again?

[justlurking]

I have not.

You didn't think I remembered, did you?

The colors they fly.

So, the context is clear... This is was your response when finny asked you:

Where's your source for this info?

And what did you claim just before that?

They [Vice Grips] are an outlaw gang support club. They obey the orders of their parent club.

I have specifically posted that it will have to be proven that they were engaged in a conspiracy including evidence of association and past incidents.

And as I have pointed out, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals won't settle for "association". There has to be proof of intent, and completion of a continuous course of criminal conduct.

And "past incidents" doesn't include "past incidents" by other people. Each person has to be prosecuted individually, and proved that they engaged in the conspiracy.

Just belonging to an organization doesn't count. it's not just association. It's intent

[TexasGator]

“Actually, there were three motorcycle riders arrested off-site.”

Thank you for providing the link which shows they were arrested at the scene.

[justlurking]

Thank you for providing the link which shows they were arrested at the scene.

No, that wasn't at the scene. It was certainly nearby, but not at the scene.

They were even booked on a separate charge, and later combined with the rest of the group.

[justlurking]

If I were to make a statement like that distorting my position, I would be personally attacked and most likely flagged to JR and/or the moderator.

It isn't a distortion when I can cite your own posting explicitly saying that.

If you think you can play this game, you are gonna lose.

[TexasGator]

“If you think you can play this game, you are gonna lose. “

So this is just a game to you. Sorry. I don’t play.

[Triple]

A supposed crime with a $1,000,000 bail is not serious?

Sounds to me that they just do whatever they want, and if someone challenges them they just run the clock. While the accused suffers...or awaits justice from a jail cell.

That is not how justice in this country is supposed to work.

[sport]

Some on here believe as long as they are said t be gang members it is o.k. that they are getting their just deserts. They do not have the intelligence to understand that if they can do that to gang members, should the desire to do so, they can do it to them. But that is the way it goes.