Replies

Judicial Rope A Dope.

Corruption all the way up, and all the way down.

Why should ANYONE trust government at ANY level?

One again, we have confirmation that the local court’s decisions have been proper, despite all the hooting and hollering from the conspiracy crowd to the contrary.

IBTG

Judicial Rope A Dope.

Yes, the Court of Appeals statement, as quoted in the article, is far less than illuminating...

This portion;

the trial court is the proper venue for review of alleged violations of its gag order.

leaves it open to interpretation, coming as that does right after the Court having written;

"In this procedural position, we decline to act; based on the complaint raised by the real party in interest (the defense)

Among other considerations, Broden had raised the issue that the District Court was not the proper venue.

We see in the above, that the District Court appears to be agreeing with that when they say that "the trial court is the proper venue".

Well, okey-dokey then.

What trial court would that be?

Has Mr. Clendennen had charges filed against himself?

Has ANY court been notified of what a prosecutor is alleging that Mr. Clendennen is guilty of?

We know that he was arrested...but has he been charged yet?

Isn't the answer to that "no"? Wouldn't that leave things to be, once all things are considered... that Renya sought to impose a gag order EVEN BEFORE HE TOOK THE MAN TO COURT???

If the above article is summarizing without leaving critical portions aside; the Waco Court of Appeals didn't clear things up, but instead left it all hanging, as if they were denying Broden's motions to lift the gag order, that by default they apparently are at the same time agreeing was wrongfully filed with their court by Renya (improper venue) in the first place.

From a filing on Sept. 14 2015 (days earlier than the Sept. 21, 2015 filing I previously supplied transcription for)

http://www.wacobikerjustice.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/9-14ccabrief.pdf

IV. The District Court Did Not Have Jurisdiction to Enter the Gag Order in this Case.
Mr. Clendennen has yet to be indicted and this case remains pending by
criminal complaint complaint in the justice court. In order to secure a reduction of his
$1,000,000 bond designed "to send a message," Mr. Clendennen was forced to file
a Writ of Habeas Corpus with the District Court and later sought modification of
bond conditions. Under the precedent of this Court, the District Court was not vested
with the authority to enter a wholesale gag order completely unrelated to the bond
conditions which were the only proper subject matter of its Writ jurisdiction.

Renya:

Appeals Court:

???

bears striking resemblance to DA Renya

You should have known that they would not have. This is going to be a Stalin Era Show Trial from start to finish.

Judicial Rope A Dope.

This is where Civil Servants prove themselves a class of Americans with totally different rights than the rest of us.

They get to punish us first, and if they were wrong, answer for it later (if ever). As will happen here when the 177 cases finally get to court three or four years from now, in 2017-2018.

Then maybe "we" can dole punishment to them for the crime of permanently severely damaging the finances and reputations of probably more than 117 law-abiding free Americans who love to ride big bikes on America's roads.

Too late, done deal. Mission accomplished by May 18, if that was the mission.

There are people who actually believe that if a guy in a club is wearing a 13 patch diamond or some damned thing, it means that he lives by dealing drugs, as sure as you're born, that it's a big conspiracy among bikers, a code, but the cops are wise, and so is Sons of Anarchy and the MSM, and they all say that's what the patch means.

How is it that people are hearing and believing that kind of extreme poppycock, and why?

Bikers are an American icon. They represent the rebel, the societal outlaw, independent, self-sufficient. Plus the big bikes are plain fun, and America has great roads. Veterans and adventurous types take to biking. A lot of patriotic folks are bikers.

This Waco thing scares me because the very Judicial Rope A Dope you identify is what fuels it, and that's trouble.

I haven't seen the opinion and order yet. If this court refuses to act, the previous posture was that the gag order is lifted. Reyna asked this court to order the 10th Court of Appeals to rescind its order. The report reads as though the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is refusing to grant what Reyna asked for.

Riffing off my previous ...

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused Wednesday to force a lower appellate court to lift a gag order ...

The lower appellate court is the Texas 10th Court of Appeals. Its order was to lift the gag order. What Reyna had asked of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was for it to order the 10th Court of Appeals to maintain (not lift) the gag order.

The reporting is all muddled.

One more point - notice that it is "refusing to act," and that "the trial court is the place to push for action on violations."

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals may be doing nothing more than telling Broden that his "unclean hands" argument is out of place. It could well be that a decision on the merits of the gag order hasn't been issued yet.

Reading the article a little more carefully, and while it contains plenty of mistakes, I think that the only thing the court did was address Broden's recent Motion, arguing unclean hands.

Some quotes from the article, and thoughts ..

" ... based on the complaint raised by the real party in interest (the defense), the trial court is the proper venue for review of alleged violations of its gag order."

The case was brought to this court, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, by the state, not by Broden. The only complaint Broden introduced to this court was the Emergent Motion re: unclean hands.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted "conditional relief" to the state and ordered both sides to submit briefs on the issue.

This is part true and part false. It was the 10th Court of Appeals that granted a conditional order, and that order was to lift the gag order in 7 days. The 7 days was enough time for the state to appeal its second loss (the state lost at the 54th District Court first, appealed that to the 10th Court of Appeals, lost that, and appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals).

At any rate, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stayed the conditional order from the 10th Court of Appeals, and order briefs. None of that was conditional, and none of that is "relief," it just holds status quo while deciding the case. I think the case is not decided yet.

Then twice in subsequent days, Broden filed motions with the higher court asking the original gag order be lifted because the 54th District Court had no jurisdiction to issue the gag order in the first place and because, he said, the state had violated the gag order several times by continuing to talk about issues in the case.
In denying the motions by Broden, the Court of Appeals did not address those issues but said if there are questions about the validity of the original gag order, the place to raise those questions and make accusations of violations is in the original court, not at the appeals level.

Muddled crap. Broden filed a BRIEF on the 14th. A brief is not a motion. Broden filed ONE motion with the Texas Court of criminal Appeals, that is the "unclean hands" motion filed on the 21st, past the deadline for submitting briefs.

If the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals did not address the jurisdiction question, then what it issued today is not a decision on the merits.

The only reason the gag order remains in place is that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stay remains in place. That stay will remain in place until the Texas Court of Criminal appeals issues an opinion and order.

It is as I suspected from the article. The only motion in the case is the one from Broden claiming the case should be decided based on unclean hands.

In this order, that motion (and only that motion) is denied. The procedural position is that the state has petitioned this court to decide the issue on the merits, this court has been briefed on the case, and the case is "set" for a decision.

Per curiam. M EYERS, J., dissents. R ICHARDSON, J., not participating.
ORDER
In the underlying cause, the trial judge entered a gag order at the request of the State.¹ In an application for a writ of mandamus, the real party in interest then asked the Tenth Court of Appeals to lift the gag order. That court conditionally granted relief, whereupon the State filed an application for a writ of mandamus requesting that this Court prohibit the court of appeals from lifting the trial court's gag order. This Court issued a stay as to the order of the Tenth Court of Appeals that conditionally granted relief and filed and set for submission the mandamus application filed by the
---
¹ This is one of 177 cases arising from a disturbance at a Waco restaurant.

1
State. The real party in interest now moves this Court to lift its stay and allow the court of appeals's order to take effect because the State has repeatedly violated the gag order.
The motion is denied. The issues raised in the State's application for a writ of mandamus have been filed and set in this Court, and the Court has received briefs from the real party in interest, the State, and two amici curiae. In this procedural position, we decline to act; based on the complaint raised by the real party in interest, the trial court is the proper venue for review of alleged violations of its gag order.