Posted on 06/26/2015 8:49:35 AM PDT by don-o
A Dallas attorney who is seeking the video of the May 17 biker shootout from Twin Peaks filed a motion Friday to sanction the city of Waco for filing what he called a “frivolous” motion to quash the subpoena for the video.
Dallas attorney Clint Broden, who represents Matthew Alan Clendennen, a member of the Scimitars Motorcycle Club, obtained a subpoena for the shootout video Monday and said Patrick Keating, a Dallas attorney who represents the Twin Peaks franchisee, had agreed to honor that subpoena on Friday morning.
Broden, other attorneys and many from the general public have called for the city of Waco to release the video since shortly after the Sunday afternoon melee.
Broden said he needs the video to help prepare for an Aug. 10 examining trial McLennan County Justice of the Peace W.H. “Pete” Peterson has set in Clendennen’s case.
On Thursday, Waco Assistant City Attorney Judith Benton filed a motion asking 54th State District Judge Matt Johnson to throw out the subpoena, saying Broden was trying to “circumvent the criminal discovery rules by seeking records in a criminal case from a nonparty.”
Broden was in Johnson’s court Friday morning and said he expected Keating to honor the subpoena unless the judge ruled otherwise. Johnson scheduled a hearing to consider the city’s motion to quash the subpoena for 9 a.m. Tuesday. Benton, who also was in court Friday morning, declined comment on the proceedings and on Broden’s motion to sanction her or the city.
Broden said in his motion that the city has no standing to intervene, saying the “video in question belongs exclusively to the Twin Peaks franchisee and that the city of Waco has no ownership interest in the video whatsoever.”
He claims the city is circumventing the rules of criminal procedure and asks the judge to sanction the city or Benton in the amount of Clendennen’s attorney’s fees, which the motion did not specify.
Clendennen, of Hewitt, was one of 177 bikers arrested after the shootout that left nine dead and 20 wounded.
Benton said Thursday she was contacted by Twin Peaks representatives about the subpoena. 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 said it is “troubling” that the city is seeking to “suppress the video.”
“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.
Broden says in his response to the city’s motion that the video will support Clendennen’s defense that he did not “participate in nor encourage any violence” at Twin Peaks.
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.
Reminds me of the Joe Paterno suck up threads ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3189592/posts
Don-o has posted the constitutional amendments that are related to this case. Search his comments to see them and please repost them when you find them for the benefit of newcomers to this case.
I think you can most easily find them by googling:
freerepublic don-o Waco amendment
“Don-o has posted the constitutional amendments that are related to this case. Search his comments to see them and please repost them when you find them for the benefit of newcomers to this case.”
Yes but he has failed to cite the specific violations. If you are going to cry that someone’s constitutional rights were violated, you need to be specific on how they were violated.
For example, he claims the $1,000,000 bail is unconstitutional. But nowhere in the constitution is ‘excessive’ defined. Bails in excess of $1,000,000 have been levied. In fact the constitutionality of “NO BAIL” is not challenged.
Yes it MUST be asked again and again so long as the wrongful ploy is tried again and again by the criminal bike gang sympathizers.
As long as the subversion of what took place at Waco and who was responsible, in purposeful defiance of historical fact, common sense, known evidence and proceedings through the WPD and courts, I will continue to call the criminal bike gang’s apologists out. They stop, I will stop answering the call.
Their call.
Are you joking? I’m going to do his part and debate with myself? How cute of you and your vanished co-conspirator.
I don’t care what he posted previously, he routinely avoids serious questions and anything that does not lend to his criminal bike gang misleading narrative.
We are facing Creeping Normality
Who can explain exactly how release of a video hinders a police investigation?
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.