Posted on 07/16/2015 6:01:23 PM PDT by Elderberry
WACO (July 16, 2015) A Dallas lawyer has filed a complaint with the Texas Attorney General’s Office accusing a Waco justice of the peace of criminal oppression.
F. Clinton Broden, attorney for Matthew Clendennen, filed a supplement to a motion he filed earlier seeking recusal of McLennan County Justice of the Peace Walter H. "Pete" Peterson from hearing any further issues concerning the May 17 motorcycle gang shootings at Twin Peaks, in Waco, as a result of which his client was arrested.
Peterson has set an examining trial for Clendennen on his arrest for August.
In the supplement, Broden is asking the Texas Attorney General’s Office to undertake an investigation "to determine whether Judge Peterson engaged in multiple violation of the Texas Penal Code, specifically official oppression, the supplement says.
In a letter to Attorney General Ken Paxton attached to the supplement, Broden says: "I believe it is appropriate for your office to undertake an investigation to determine if Justice of the Peace Walter H. "Pete" Peterson has committed the criminal offense of Official Oppression …"
Broden says the Texas Penal Code defines official oppression as: "Intentionally (subjecting) another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment or lien that he knows in unlawful."
The attorney general's office spokesman said that office would not comment on any pending issues before resolution.
The first of many lawsuits like this.
The other Judge - Strother - is the one who allowed a working detective from the Waco PD to head up the Grand Jury hearing. That’s beyond outrageous.
The level of corruption in Waco makes Mexico seem civilized.
Sec. 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION.(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commit s an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.
(c) In this section, "sexual harassment" means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person's exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, except that an offense is a felony of the third degree if the public servant acted with the intent to impair the accuracy of data reported to the Texas Education Agency through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) described by Section 42.006, Education Code, under a law requiring that reporting.
Texas Penal Code - Chapter 39 - Abuse of Office
Sec. 12.21. CLASS A MISDEMEANOR.
An individual adjudged guilty of a Class A misdemeanor shall be punished by:
(1) a fine not to exceed $4,000;
(2) confinement in jail for a term not to exceed one year; or
(3) both such fine and confinement.Texas Penal Code - Chapter 12 - Punishments
I would guess that the timelines for investigation and decision are measured in months, but Ken Paxton, Texas AG, can't blow this off by ignoring it. Whatever the answer is, the answer will be public.
This isn't a lawsuit, yet. Broden is asking Petersen, who otherwise sits in charge of and decides the Examining Trial for Clendennen (which aims to answer, "does probable cause exist to arrest Clendennen?"), to recuse himself.
Petersen can, of course, deny the motion. He has that power, no question. At which time Broden can appeal.
All that drags out the time to get Clendennen his Examining Trial, but the price is to put Petersen on the spot for Petersen's official actions.
Examining Trials become moot if the Grand Jury returns either an indictment or a no-bill, which is a way for Petersen to sort of take the heat off. But this action, publicly suggesting the Texas AG to undertake a criminal investigation against Petersen, is outside of the "Examining Trial / no bill" loop; and also puts some pressure on the Texas AG.
The knowingly specification is going to be a tough one to prove
Difficulty in proof is up to the Texas AG to decide and worry about. Broden has a point, Petersen sits as a judge, setting bail. Does he know how to follow Texas statute in setting bail, or not? Petersen's announcement that bail was set to "send a message" is, well, not cool for a judge, and outside of the bail statute.
The "knowing absence of probable cause" is a little more tricky, but the magistrate is supposed to know probable cause, and ought to know that an affidavit that does not particularly state allegations against the accused is, as a matter of black letter law, deficient. Not quite as neat and tidy as the Texas code for setting bail, but probable cause is something a magistrate judge is required to know, else they are incompetent to perform the function of approving warrants.
Paxton can blow this off, "got your letter, thanks." Then six months later say "investigation complete, no prosecution." He has no obligation to explain, any more than any prosecutor has an obligation to explain. It's all political.
You are of course correct, it’s a motion, not a lawsuit.
But my basic point stands...there’s so much fertile ground here for procedural actions against the judicial misconduct that has already happened and for civil rights lawsuits on pretty much everything else, it’s going to one long, never ending avalanche of paper on the entire Waco judicial and police establishment.
You may disagree....but from my perspective, comparing to virtually any jurisdiction in the rest of the West, this one is extreme.
Nine men dead, and hundreds arrested. Short of um...Waco!...I can’t think of a similar event. Maybe the Vegas Hells Angels bust, which probably had more going for it.
And in Texas, as elsewhere, believe there's no requirement for a JP to be an Attorney.
But um...ignorance or incompetence would not be an excuse.
I agree. First and necessary step is to get Clendennen out of the "accused" box. That works on the statutory criminal procedure timetable, roughly 6 month unless the GJ no-bills and announces the no-bill.
Other than the fact that some 140-160 innocents have been swept up in one go, police and judicial over-reach and heavy-handedness is common. It;s usually one-offs, which tend to not make the news.
There are a few "judicial hellholes." Judicial HellHoles 2011|2012, and I'm sure similar play in criminal law.
Paxton has prosecutorial discretion, and can decide to pretend to look into the case. Pretty much depends on his preferred outcome, first.
In court (if Paxton charges Petersen), words have whatever meaning the judge decides to apply. Although it is a bit tough for a judge to admit that his fellow "judge" is incompetent, that decision might come out in order to avoid a finding that Petersen knew the (bail setting) law he was charged with applying.
Just saying, when it comes to protecting their own, ignorance and incompetence ARE a defense, excuse, whatever one prefers to call it.
FYI, in case you haven’t seen this yet.
Actually, there are two separate documents here.
One is a Motion to Remove/Recuse. That may have merit, especially since it is so easy to simply set another judge/JP to hear these matters.
Secondly, who is going to oppose it? Peterson? If he is smart, he certainly does not oppose it, as there is no possible victory for him here. What is there for him to win?
There’s no real loss either, but why spend political capital fighting it?
The other matter; the letter/complaint. A non-starter. First, it has no more legal standing than any other complaint to a LE authority.
Secondly, the law speaks to prohibit/penalize the doing of that which is “unlawful.” My argument has always been that what Peterson did was unwise, excessive and judicially very intemperate, but still legal. No matter how far anyone tries to stretch it, there will never be a finding that what he did was unlawful.
Judges can be stupid. Look at the whole “Constitutional Right to Privacy” farce. I’m not talking about one bad decision here, I’m speaking about a whole body of law that was written inside the sparsely populated head of an Associate Justice of SCOTUS. Every pro-abortion decision flowed from that. It’s like holding that 2+2 = 7 as a base of your mathematical formulation, then wondering why all the rest of your math problems come out wrong and you can’t ever balance your checkbook!
(End of Burger Court Rant)
Seriously, Peterson could be criticized for excessive bail, but his act was certainly not unlawful. Even it he did it out of spite, or because he doesn’t like motorcycles, or whatever, it’s not “unlawful.” If he did it again and again and was reversed a number of times on this issue, the judicial process in Texas could remove him, but we’re nowhere near that here. If 51% of the voters thought he was wrong, he would be defeated at the next election.
Recall? No. Not all Texas jurisdictions have recall election provisions, and many Law and Order types would see him as defending his county from “troublemakers who ain’t from round these here parts!”
Recall is a non-starter, although I guarantee he’ll draw a serious opponent at the next election.
Bottom line. Big story today. They’ll be another story tomorrow.
If there ends up being any true justice in this case; this Pete Petersen person will end up doing the same amount of time every single one of those he set the bail at for $1 mill.
He will not do it concurrently either. He will do it consecutively so he does the time each and everyone he wronged did. Probably end up being a year or two. Maybe 20 to life depending on how this turns out.
Correct. Many are not.
Years ago, (not sure now) coroners did not have to be physicians. Many were the local undertaker.
re: Being a lawyer or physician for elected office. Take Loving County, TX as an example. 86 people, one gas station and one traffic light in the whole county.
No lawyers, no MDs, but every constitutionally-mandated position is filled. A few years ago, they had to work hard to get people to fill posts. One man was a county commissioner, sheriff, bridge commissioner, and a few other jobs too.
Welcome to West Texas.
This will never be a criminal matter, as it is not. Please see #12.
It’s also the wrong way to go in this matter.
I would not be surprised that two things happen.
#1; Peterson is “invited up to Austin to have a little chat with the AG.”
#2: It becomes a Federal Class Action civil matter, with Jeff Blackburn as lead counsel for the now-accused/future plaintiffs.
Why? Because even if it was a criminal matter, which it by no means is, what benefit is that to the Defs?
Secondly, as a civil matter, there can be compensation for the Defs. ( $ )
That’s where this will go, but they’ll let it cook for a while, to get all the potential criminal matters finished and the Defs adjudicated innocent before they move for damages as a federal civil rights Class Action matter.
Bottom line? Big $ damages and a deep pocket defendant in the State of Texas.
That’s the smart way for it to go, too.
“All that drags out the time to get Clendennen his Examining Trial, “
If the GJ indictment comes down first, the examining trial is cancelled.
“Maybe the Vegas Hells Angels bust, which probably had more going for it.”
Laughlin, not Vegas? Mongols vs. HA
“Laughlin, not Vegas? “
With the HA’s, you pick any major city near the west coast and you have a good probability of being correct.
Bandidos activity in Ontario, Canada.
“Shedden massacre” Eight dead
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shedden_massacre
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.