Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Elderberry

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.


2 posted on 07/16/2015 6:09:38 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Regulator
-- The first of many lawsuits like this. --

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.

4 posted on 07/16/2015 6:25:52 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Regulator

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.


12 posted on 07/16/2015 7:31:31 PM PDT by Crystal Palace East ("We Must All Hang Together, or Assuredly We Will All Hang Separately" B. Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson