Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Robert Teesdale

Bergman’s Statement

My name is George Bergman and I want to introduce myself to the Court and to the District Attorney’s Office and tell you who I am.

I am 48 years old. I am a long haul truck driver. I have been married to my wife, Judy, for the past 24 years and I am still on good terms with my ex-wife, Kimberly, who I was married to for two years when I was younger. I am the proud father of five children (Ashley, Stephen, Joshua Jonathon, and Jayanna), one of whom is a highway patrolman, and I am also the proud grandfather of six grandchildren. I work hard for my family and have been law abiding my entire life. I also want to tell the Court and the District Attorney’s Office who I am NOT. I am NOT a gang member and I am NOT a criminal. My life is my family and one of the few outside interests I have is motorcycles. I am a member of the Desgraciados Motorcycle Club that has about ten or eleven members. To my knowledge this Club has never been involved in any type of violence whatsoever. The funny thing is that I was not even planning to go to the Confederation of Clubs meeting at Twin Peaks on May 17, 2015. Nevertheless, my wife had to go out of town and it was a beautiful day so, at the last minute, I decided to ride my motorcycle down to the COC meeting without about four other club members. What is also funny is that I thought the meeting was at the Texas Roadhouse and did not realize it was not until we passed it by.

When I arrived at Twin Peaks, I parked my bike and when I saw how crowded Twin Peaks was I decided to use the restroom at the Don Carlos restaurant. Just as I started toward Don Carlos I heard shooting and ducked behind some cars. I then saw one police officer in front of me just shooting wildly toward the crowd at Twin Peaks with a rifle and then one officer ran past me and told me to stay on the ground. I want it to be clear that I did NOT take place in any violence that day. I had been to several other COC meetings and there was never any violence at the meetings. I left my gun in my Motorcycle because I never dreamed I would need it when going to a COC meeting. There are things from that day I will never get out of my mind:

• The police shooting into a crowd of motorcyclists.
• Me calling my wife at 12:27 and telling her, ‘Baby I love you and I may never see you or talk to you again. I am in
the middle of a police shootout “
• Having the police dump a body of one of the bikers in front of me and me having to try to plug the hole where he was shot to help stop him from bleeding out and dying.

Although I was originally told I was being taken to the Convention Center to be questioned, I was later arrested and my bond was set at $1,000,000. Thanks to my attorney at the time, Brittany Lannen, my bond was finally lowered to $80,000 and thanks to be ex-wife who posted my bond I was released after spending 20 days in jail. As a result of being in jail I lost my job. I now also suffer from shoulder problems because of the length of time I was kept zipped cuffed. I am also being treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I have been getting work here and there to support my family but it has been tough.

In summing up, I know a lot of people are looking at this situation and judging it with the luxury of perfect hindsight, however, as I said, I had been to several other COC meetings and I had no reason to expect any violence on May 17th. I try not to judge others but I feel betrayed by a system in which I could be an innocent bystander, get arrested, be told I have to post a $1,000,000 bond and then have to sit in jail 20 days and lose my job and my ability to provide for my family.

I was not part of a conspiracy to commit murder. The only conspiracy I was part of was a conspiracy to drink beers and eat hamburgers with my friends.


4 posted on 09/22/2015 9:18:14 AM PDT by don-o (I am Kenneth Carlisle - Waco 5/17/15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: don-o
The Court and the District Attorney's Office does not give a damn who he is. They also do not give a damn if he is guilty or not. In fact, to them, guilt or innocence does not enter into the equation. He will get just as much time whether he is innocent or guilty. And plenty of time he will get. Is it right? No, but it will be legal. It is power and power does as it pleases.
20 posted on 09/22/2015 11:04:19 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: don-o; Cboldt; Robert Teesdale; House Atreides; Flintlock; wastoute; sport; nobamanomore; ...

Skipping through the first pages of the pdf (it is a real pain to convert it into html which will properly display, it being almost easier to transcribe by hand, keystroke by keystroke, than stitch all the words back together after copy/paste from a pdf splits them into small fragments, I'll here pick and chose portions to transcribe & post here, while encouraging any and all to go to the pdf link and read it) I may not fully capture all which is in the pdf file at the above web address link.

To the peanut gallery (not you don-o, and to any whom I also ping, but others we can think of, but whom I will not ping...) I will further say, do not reply to this comment on FR until after reading the entire pdf, for my own representation of it, is in hope of conveying the gist of the issue for those who may not care to take the trouble to open and read it, and for those who may later desire to copy from this hand transcription...

If one were to look at this from LE and prosecutorial perspective, imagine what a DA would do if a defense attorney had been successful in having a judge impose a gag order, after the defense attorney had brought the case to pre-trial in the press, then continued to make statements to the press about it, while somebody in his own office, or from the defendant's side of the case had leaked;

Yet effectively, that is what the prosecution side of things has done. I don't know how a Court could deny it, at this point, even though the complaint at one point does narrow it down to Renya giving interview/providing statements to the press...



Filed Sept 21, 2015,

TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

CASE NO.WR-83,719-01

IN RE STATE OF TEXAS EX REL. ABELINO REYNA Relator

_____________________________________________________

Trial Cause No. 2015-1955-2
In the 54th District Court, McLennan County

Honorable Matt Johnson, Presiding

Appellate Cause No. 10-14-00235-CR 10th Court of Appeals
Waco, Texas

EMERGENT MOTION BY REAL-PART-IN-INTEREST MATTHEW
ALAN CLENDENNEN TO VACATE STAY BASED ON RELATOR’S
UNCLEAN HANDS

______________________________

[address and phone # info for attorney redacted by BD, FreeRepublic]

I

On August 7, 2015, the Tenth Court of Appeals entered its unanimous opinion
conditionally granting a Writ of Mandamus in this case in the event the District Court
did not withdraw its unconstitutional gag order by August 14, 2015.

On August 13, 2015 and upon Relator's opposed motion, this Court stayed the
Court of Appeals' Writ of Mandamus and ordered the parties to brief three questions.

After the filing of the briefs in this case, Relator has continued to violate the
very gag order he requested this Court to consider in his petition for Writ of
Mandamus to this Court.

II

"Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, not issued as a matter of right, but at
the discretion of the court. Although mandamus is not an equitable remedy, its
issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles." Riverfront Associates v.
Rivera,
825 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. 1993). Indeed, this Court has noted that
"equitable principles are necessarily involved when we consider whether mandamus
should issue." Smith v. Flack S.W.2nd 784, 792 (Tex. Cr. App.1987).

Of course, it is also well settled that "a party seeking an equitable remedy must do equity
and come to the court with clean hands." City of Fredericksburg v. Bopp 126
S.W.3rd 218, 220 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003).

[page] 2

In fact, the law recognizes that “the doctrine of unclean hands applies to a litigant whose own conduct in connection with the same matter or transaction has been unconscientious, unjust, marked by a want of good faith or violates the principles of equity and righteous dealing.” Id. at 221.1

In sum, “Texas courts have held that, because mandamus is governed to some
extent by equitable principles, a party that comes before the court with unclean hands
is not entitled to issuance of a writ of mandamus.” In re Simon Property
(Delaware), Inc.
985 S.W.2nd 212,215 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1999) (emphasis
added), citing, Axelson, Inc., v. McIlhaney, 798 S.W.2nd 550,552 n. 2 (Tex.1990)

III

It appears that, on September 18, 2015, Relator, Abelino Reyna, again violated
the very gag order he is asking this Court to uphold. Indeed, KWTX News in Waco,
Texas reported:

________________________________

1See also Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 483-484(1928)(Brandeis, J.
dissenting) (Regarding unclean hands;"The Court's aid is denied only when he who seeks it has
violated the law in connection with the very transaction as to which he seeks legal redress").

[page] 3

Attachment A hereto (emphasis added).2

Mr. Clendennen agrees that, if it was a defense attorney who released discovery
materials to the AP, that attorney may very well have violated his/her "ethical and
legal obligations." On the other hand, Mr. Clendennen strongly disagrees that
Relator Renya's focus has been on the "facts and the law" of this case and submits
that Relator has fully contributed to "the ridiculousness that is occurring all around"
the case.

IV

Mr. Clendennen continues to submit that what has occurred and what is
occurring in relation to the gag order is very transparent to even the casual observer.
Immediately after the May 17, 2015 incident, Relator, personally, along with other
state actors sought to fill the public's mind with pictures of roving "outlaw biker
gangs" and, only when the believed that they sufficiently accomplished that task,
Relator requested a gag order. But it seems like even that is not enough for Relator.

___________________________

2This is not the first time Relator Renya has violated the gag order he seeks this Court to
enforce using equitable principles. On or about July 8, 2015, Mr. Renya gave a press interview discussing the selection of the grand jury foreperson for the grand jury that could possibly
consider Mr. Clendennen's case. See Appendix 1 to Mr. Clendennen's September 14, 2015
brief. During that interview, Mr. Renya told the media; "That's the system. He was chosen totally
at random, like, the law says."

3Of course, the person who released the material may very well be a conscientious
whistleblower from Relator's own office or from a law enforcement agency associated with the
case.

[page] 4

Relator apparently believed he was creating a situation where Mr. Clendennen and
his attorneys were denied their free speech rights under the United States and Texas
Constitutions but he was free to continue to make statements to the press.

As explained in Mr. Clendennen's September 14, 2015 brief, the ruling by the
Waco Court of Appeals was not an abuse of discretion for several reasons. First, the
district court did not have jurisdiction to enter the gag order. Second, there was no
"imminent or irreparable harm" or even a "substantial likelihood of prejudice" to
justify the extraordinary broad gag order. Third, there was no indication that the
District Court in this case considered any less restrictive means of preserving the
rights to a fair trial- a trial that would be at least a year in the future- instead of
imposing blanket restrictions on free speech rights. Fourth, a gag order in a case
involving 177 defendants in different courts, involving related civil litigation in state
and federal courts, and involving judges who give their own press interviews is
unworkable as a practical matter.

To compound all of this, it is now abundantly clear that Relator comes to this
Court with unclean hands. Mr. Clendennen has been denied his free speech rights for
more than two months and Relator has succeeded in persuading the Court to issue
a stay and thereby continue the denial of such rights while, at the same time, Relator
goes right on making statements to the media. For that reason alone, Mr. Clendennen

5

submits that the stay issued by this Court was improvidently granted and requests the
Court to dissolve the stay as soon as practical.

[end of transcription to FR, by my own hand, of the pdf court filing liked to at the top of this reply]

Source for Attachement 1;
Article one with one of the Renya brief interviews; Waco Officers Shot Bikers In Deadly Twin Peaks Gun Battle with that web page reproduced and displayed with accompanying photo also in the court filing of September 21, 21015 (that's yesterday, as of this writing).

And no, I'm not connected with the defense. I found the pdf at The Aging Rebel link at the top of this FR thread.

The way Renya has been going about his bizness, courting Tea Party folks, being mr. hardcore law & order with the stink of the cynical manipulations of the legal system engaged in by McLennan County DA's office in regards to the Twin Peaks incident, and in view also of "everyone does ninety days" sort of stinking garbage
I feel a song coming on...

This next tune goes out to Abelino Reyna;


53 posted on 09/22/2015 2:00:49 PM PDT by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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