- 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 from pages 25,26;
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.
???
