Hearing set to address JP’s potential recusal from biker case [Waco]

Waco Herald-Tribune ^ | July 22, 2015 | OLIVIA MESSER

[don-o]

all I want is the truth...

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

George Orwell

[Cboldt]

Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct - Public Sanctions FY 2015

That gives a flavor of the sort of output of the Commission. Judges may appeal adverse decisions to court, and some do. In re Davis is an example. In re: Terry A. Canales is a Commission review, of a decision to remove a judge from office and bar him from being a judge in Texas.

[Cboldt]

-- Bonds are routinely reduced in courts all over the country, that is no evidence of some kind of tyrannical imposition. --

I'd just add, that in nearly every case where bond is reduced, it is a sign of error on the part of the judge who set bail. That in itself should be remarkable, because appeals courts do not interfere with matters of judgment, only with matters of law. By definition, each reduction by a court of appeals is correction of an unlawful setting of bail.

Briley v. Texas is an example of a trial court abusing its discretion, and using bail as an instrument of oppression.

[don-o]

Fascinating. Thanks for finding these cases.

[Finny]

...using bail as an instrument of oppression.

What else could it be called, when it was so instantly established that only one in three of those arrested even had prior criminal records, yet that bail was carried through anyway?

Their lives were oppressed, and still are being oppressed. Most of them have to wear those stupid ankle bracelets, at great dollar cost and probably great mental humiliation.

It's pretty cut and dried, even now. I'm outraged at this blatant abuse of power, and I'm outraged that so many refuse to acknowledge that it is even now a grievous and worrisome abuse of power.

[Cboldt]

FWIW, "bail as an instrument of oppression" is the code phrase straight from Texas law.

-- Most of them have to wear those stupid ankle bracelets, at great dollar cost and probably great mental humiliation. --

That's not an "excessive bail" issue, that's an "absence of probable cause" issue.

-- I'm outraged at this blatant abuse of power ... --

Petersen and Reyna have civil rights too, as well as due process. They will likely be called to justify their actions.

[Cboldt]

There are a whole slew of them at the Commission website, disciplinary action page

[Finny]

Petersen and Reyna have civil rights too, as well as due process. They will likely be called to justify their actions.

As they are Civil Servants, their rights are different than the 117 non-criminal-record arrestees. Petersen and Reyna won't be accountable for their crimes until their crimes have played out on the victims.

When any of us are suspected of breaking the law, we're instantly called on it by civil servants, as the 117 "dangerous bikers" with zero arrest records were when they were deprived of their right to work for two weeks to a month or more, and had to pay thousands to return to their rightful lives.

But the criminal civil servants who deprived them of that right, maybe might just answer for it in a few years. Unlike our own rights would allow were we to "break the law" to prevent them from doing it again. It's getting just spooky, sorry, but that's the ultimate destination, IMO, as long as obvious right vs obvious wrong is ignored for "due process" giving civil servants different rights than the people they serve.

Thanks for your great posts that help clarify things. Lawyer-ese is different than normal speak.

[TexasGator]

“As they are Civil Servants, their rights are different than the 117 non-criminal-record arrestees.”

Criminal: A person that has committed a crime.

There is no evidence that the ‘117’ have never committed a crime.

[Robert Teesdale]

There is no evidence that the ‘117’ have never committed a crime.

Shall we arrest people because there's no evidence of innocence of a crime?

You asked for my to outline where I get the stench of killing pits from your posts. That one had it. You seem not to be aware of the concept of slippery slopes, nor care. Which is fine, and you're entitled to advocate for your own form of government and your own form of America.

America? I'll fight ya for it.

[Cboldt]

Whatever news comes out of this will be via Broden or Petersen. The Commission hearing is private. Too many baseless accusations, says the Commission, to allow public notice. At this point, all the Commission has is an accusation, and if I recall the process correctly, this hearing is for the purpose of deciding whether or not the Commission will investigate Broden's allegations, and render an opinion. Opinions can be private, public with no judge name attached, or public and naming/shaming the judge. Months to a year, typically.

[don-o]

Is it pretty much a sure thing that Peterson will preside at the Examining Trial? Is Broden without any recourse?

[Cboldt]

I doubt Petersen will preside over the examining trial. My primary point in this series of posts is that today's hearing doesn't decide Petersen's recusal, no matter what, if anything, comes out of it. If Petersen refuses to recuse himself, Broden will likely appeal that decision - to a court, not the Commission. I think it is more likely than not that Petersen will recuse himself.

[Cboldt]

Retired State District Judge Joe Carroll granted the motion for recusal filed by Clendennen's attorney, F. Clinton Broden.

That effectively removes Peterson from hearing any further issues in Clendennen's case, including an examining trial on probable cause for Clendennen's arrest on May 17, the day nine bikers were killed and 20 others injured in a gang gunfight at the restaurant.

Carroll will send his ruling to the regional administrative judge, Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield, in Georgetown, who will decide who should preside over Clendennen's examining hearing next month.

Judge Removes Local JP From Twin Peaks Case - kwtx.com - Paul J. Gately - July 23, 2015

[Cboldt]

My previous remarks (not the fact of recusal, but to the nature of the hearing) was based on a line in a news report. Seems the news reports are conflicting.

Joe Carroll, Senior Judge of the 27th Judicial District Court

vs.

The complaint, filed with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct

Both lines appear in a Waco Trib article, and one or the other controls the nature of the hearing and the possible outcomes. So, my remarks on this thread are in light of a hearing before the Commission, which is not the same as a hearing before the 27th Judicial District Court. Hearings in court are public, court decisions CAN result in recusal.

Just explaining why most of my remarks in this thread are irrelevant to the hearing that took place this morning.

[treetopsandroofs]

The Hussein Head trolls are doubling down here today.

Let’s not feed them.

[TexasGator]

“You asked for my to outline where I get the stench of killing pits from your posts. That one had it. You seem not to be aware of the concept of slippery slopes, nor care. “

I see you did not address my post. The slippery slope is departure from the truth which you embarked on in the post I addressed.