8th Amendment protest in Waco

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

They are probably trying to establish a RICO Case. Which is why they are taking their sweet time. Trying to get everything together so they can charge them all with the same felonies.

~Tenth

a reply to: Greathouse

I would point out that what you're getting at....

Is exactly what happens with most LEOs that get investigated. They get suspended but remain free for the investigation. No real point, it just illustrates the disparity. Though I wonder if people would be complaining of they were set free. Somebody is always unhappy.

A lot of factors go into setting a bond amount. It would be interesting to see the actual charges for everybody. Criminal history, current charges, likelihood of appearing court (as in will they show up for a court date or will they likely be gone?), and so on. I know the state I work in and the states to the north and south of us you can actually get a pdf copy of the sheet that is used to determine a bond amount. Unless you're familiar with all the terms it can be a little confusing to try and work out. But has anybody looked for that stuff?

a reply to: tothetenthpower

I'm sure RICO is exactly what they're going for. Though typically you don't try and build a RICO case in a month or two.

Then again....Texas

From what I've read, isn't RICO used to target specific organisations? So wouldn't they have to make a case for each club separately? Unless they are trying to pin RICO on the Congress of Clubs...Which seems mad considering the large number of Christian clubs and mom and pop clubs that are involved.

a reply to: Greathouse
Thanks for posting this. I've been reading up on this whole mess over the weekend, and there is much that doesn't add up about it all. Including the judge, who is apparently a justice of the peace, and does not have the authority to impose such a bail and/or jail time. At least according to this attorney:

The Latest on Waco Shooting- A Shocker!

The issue with a $1 million dollar bond was also mind boggling until now. The arrest warrants were issued by a Justice of the Peace, not a judge! A Justice of the Peace has the authority to hear misdemeanor cases if no jail time is sought and civil cases not exceeding $10,000 (small claims courts). The Justice of the Peace that issued the arrest warrants, Walter H. “Pete” Peterson, is a former Public Safety Trooper with no formal legal training; meaning he is not a judge nor an attorney!

There were also rumors that the bikers were offered reduced bail and/or charges dropped in exchange for their silence -- including no lawsuits against the police department -- but I'm not sure if that was true or not. I could never lock it down one way or another, just he said/she said, so take it with a grain of salt.

It's not looking good for the LE agencies on scene. We'll probably have to wait for the ballistic reports will tell the tale.

Every single one of them is being treated as guilty until proven innocent.

In the eyes of the enforcers, we all are.

a reply to: Boadicea

That's not a very accurate description of a JoP. They do have formal training for the execution of their office when they begin their term, as well as continuing training annually.

They also operate as magistrates, and one of the those duties would be issuing arrest warrants. A magistrate doesn't hear murder trials but can still issue a warrant for arrest on the charge.

a reply to: Greathouse

Adam Valdez of Yoakum, a pipe recovery specialist is a good man.

I agree with ATS masses for once. Keeping that many persons without bail for this long is stomping on the constitution.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: tothetenthpower

I'm sure RICO is exactly what they're going for. Though typically you don't try and build a RICO case in a month or two.

Then again....Texas

Probably never occurred to them until afterwards honestly. RICO is always a logistical nightmware which is why it's so seldom used from what I have gathered.

So once you have a hundred perps you need to charge with something, might as well take ALL the time you can to come up with that reason. It's not right mind you, but hey, they legally can hold them.

It also really hurts the organization in general to have so many of it's leadership and foot soldiers down and out. If they are a criminal organization then it doesn't take long to dismantle it when more than 20% of your workforce is behind bars.

~Tenth

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Boadicea

That's not a very accurate description of a JoP. They do have formal training for the execution of their office when they begin their term, as well as continuing training annually.

They also operate as magistrates, and one of the those duties would be issuing arrest warrants. A magistrate doesn't hear murder trials but can still issue a warrant for arrest on the charge.

A Justice of the Peace has the authority to hear misdemeanor cases if no jail time is sought and civil cases not exceeding $10,000 (small claims courts).

I'm sure you're right -- he must have received some kind of training to do the job; but if the job doesn't include hearing felony cases with jail time, then was it the appropriate training necessary to fairly adjudicate these cases? Did he have the authority under Texas law to do what he did?

This author/attorney was pretty adamant:

Walter H. “Pete” Peterson, is a former Public Safety Trooper with no formal legal training; meaning he is not a judge nor an attorney!

I really don't know. I guess we'll find out sooner or later... either it becomes an issue because it is an issue, or it doesn't become an issue because it's not an issue.

a reply to: Greathouse

When are they going to start rioting?

When will they destroy the town by burning buildings and robbing every store in site?

a reply to: Boadicea

I know what a JoP's job is. Which is why I know they can issue felony warrants. All a warrant needs is probable cause. So how can a JoP adjudicate (which means finalize a proceeding, as in a trial matter which issuing a warrant is not) what amounts to small claims court matters but he can't be trusted to weigh probable cause? A JoP can finalize criminal matters. That means "beyond a reasonable doubt" a person did something, or establishing that there is a reasonable doubt as to the person's guilt. That is a much, much higher threshold to meet than probable cause.

Bottom line: a warrant requires a much lower evidentiary level than a criminal conviction does. It is entirely routine for a magistrate level official to issue a warrant for a felony case, despite the fact that they're not allowed to JUDGE the felony case, because the level of proof needed for one is significantly lower than the other.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Boadicea

I know what a JoP's job is.

Okay. As I said, I really don't know and I'm not pretending to know. For all I know, different states (or counties or cities or whatever) could have different requirements and assigned responsibilities -- or maybe a JoP is exactly the same in every respect in every jurisdiction. I really don't know.

So how can a JoP adjudicate (which means finalize a proceeding, as in a trial matter which issuing a warrant is not)...

I don't want to quibble over semantics. The JoP did "judge" the issue of probable cause, and "judged" an extreme bail appropriate, in a court of law. The proceeding finalized was the issue of bail; not guilt or innocence of the charges.

ad·ju·di·cate əˈjo͞odəˌkāt/ verb verb: adjudicate; make a formal judgment or decision about a problem or disputed matter. Synonyms: judge, try, hear, examine, arbitrate, referee, umpire; More: pronounce on, give a ruling on, pass judgment on, decide, determine, settle, resolve; "this court cannot proceed to adjudicate on a matter when the accused does not have a counsel"; pronounce or declare judicially

...what amounts to small claims court matters but he can't be trusted to weigh probable cause?

I don't know! I didn't make the rules!!! You tell me... oh wait! You are!!!

A JoP can finalize criminal matters. That means "beyond a reasonable doubt" a person did something, or establishing that there is a reasonable doubt as to the person's guilt. That is a much, much higher threshold to meet than probable cause.

Bottom line: a warrant requires a much lower evidentiary level than a criminal conviction does. It is entirely routine for a magistrate level official to issue a warrant for a felony case, despite the fact that they're not allowed to JUDGE the felony case, because the level of proof needed for one is significantly lower than the other.

Okay. That makes sense -- in a bureaucratic way.

So do you think the author of the article is just wrong? Mis-informed? Lying?

a reply to: Boadicea

Well....it's the law. Semantics matter in law. So if you aren't willing to discuss semantics in legal matters, then don't discuss legal matters period. Verbiage, words used or not used, sentence structure, punctuation, all of it matters in law. Definitions of words matter in law. So saying that the justice adjudicated a warrant is patently false. A warrant isn't adjudicated, because adjudication means "final decision." There is no "decision" rendered for a warrant. A judgement or a decision is the court's final solution to a matter, ie a conviction or declaration of not guilty. A warrant is far from a final solution.

It's not a matter of bureaucratic or not. A warrant is a warrant. It's not a conviction. It's not an indictment.

Bail was set by jail magistrates, which is not a court of law. A bail hearing in front of a judge is a court of law.

You're applying incorrect definitions and assumptions to legal terms where they shouldn't and can't be applied. As I said, when it pertains to the law both definitions and semantics matter. Not everything is interchangeable, even though the terms may be when not used in actual legal matters.

As to the attorney's comments as they pertain to bail: yea, I think the bail is wildly excessive and I'm frankly shocked at how this is all being handled. While I can understand hanging on to people who are believed to have a) exchanged fire with others and b) are indigent, I can't see any reason to hang on to a grocery store manager with kids unless there's strong evidence that he was directly engaged in the gunfight.

originally posted by: southernplayalistic
a reply to: Greathouse

Personally, i despise bikers.

Get off the road, for effs sake.

There is a sidewalk right there!

Oh, no sidewalk? There is grass, where you are less likely to be hit by a car. I fel deep deep deep despair for bikers on the road.

Lol


While I don't despise bikers. I do despise them when they're riding by and windows my windows are down . I could definitely go for a mandatory no open pipes death penalty law in those moments .

a reply to: Feltrick

Agree that the state views them as flight risks, thus the high bail amount.

There is no way to rate 176 men a flight risk especially since they're all from the state . I guarantee you the majority of those arrested had posted bail in the past . That works in your favor when you're bail is consider. Those that had already posted bail before have shown the court they will return .

I would also think that they arrested as many as they did to try and prevent further violence.

That certainly seems to be their motivation . My concern is the legality behind their motivation .

Any chance a lot of these were for concealed weapons violations? I recall one story with a witness that was a customer at the place and he said knives, brass knuckles and pipes and stuff were being used. I would think that, if those weapons are illegal to carry in this town, they could hold them solely based on that. Likely many of them had criminal records in the past in which carrying a weapon would also be a big no-no.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Greathouse

I would point out that what you're getting at....

Is exactly what happens with most LEOs that get investigated. They get suspended but remain free for the investigation. No real point, it just illustrates the disparity. Though I wonder if people would be complaining of they were set free. Somebody is always unhappy.

A lot of factors go into setting a bond amount. It would be interesting to see the actual charges for everybody. Criminal history, current charges, likelihood of appearing court (as in will they show up for a court date or will they likely be gone?), and so on. I know the state I work in and the states to the north and south of us you can actually get a pdf copy of the sheet that is used to determine a bond amount. Unless you're familiar with all the terms it can be a little confusing to try and work out. But has anybody looked for that stuff?

Is exactly what happens with most LEOs

Normally they're out pretty quickly. The cops in Baltimore all had bonds lower than a kid that kicked a police windshield out and turned himself in .

But as noted before I think that was also to prevent further civil violence . Which again that brings up the case of pre-judicial prosecution .

I'm starting to see a pattern here that I find very alarming .

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Boadicea

Well....it's the law. Semantics matter in law. So if you aren't willing to discuss semantics in legal matters, then don't discuss legal matters period. Verbiage, words used or not used, sentence structure, punctuation, all of it matters in law. Definitions of words matter in law. So saying that the justice adjudicated a warrant is patently false. A warrant isn't adjudicated, because adjudication means "final decision." There is no "decision" rendered for a warrant. A judgement or a decision is the court's final solution to a matter, ie a conviction or declaration of not guilty. A warrant is far from a final solution.

It's not a matter of bureaucratic or not. A warrant is a warrant. It's not a conviction. It's not an indictment.

Bail was set by jail magistrates, which is not a court of law. A bail hearing in front of a judge is a court of law.

You're applying incorrect definitions and assumptions to legal terms where they shouldn't and can't be applied. As I said, when it pertains to the law both definitions and semantics matter. Not everything is interchangeable, even though the terms may be when not used in actual legal matters.

As to the attorney's comments as they pertain to bail: yea, I think the bail is wildly excessive and I'm frankly shocked at how this is all being handled. While I can understand hanging on to people who are believed to have a) exchanged fire with others and b) are indigent, I can't see any reason to hang on to a grocery store manager with kids unless there's strong evidence that he was directly engaged in the gunfight.

Okay. The JoP did not "adjudicate." But we both know perfectly well what I'm trying to say... the point I'm trying to make... and yet you nitpick terms and play semantics. Got it.

What word do you approve of? What would you like me to call it when a JoP sets bail -- excessive or otherwise? Why is that even an issue? Is my using the wrong word going to make anything worse? Will my using the right word fix everything? Will that word change anything in terms of what this JoP did? Do the men sitting in cages care what we call it? Do their families care what we call it? Nope. The end result is the same.

Looking at the official website for the government code for Texas, I can find absolutely nothing -- yay or nay -- regarding the power and/or duty for a JoP to set bail in felony matters, with the applicable codes being Sec. 27.031, "SUBCHAPTER B. JURISDICTION AND POWERS."

Sec. 27.031. JURISDICTION. (a) In addition to the jurisdiction and powers provided by the constitution and other law, the justice court has original jurisdiction of:
(1) civil matters in which exclusive jurisdiction is not in the district or county court and in which the amount in controversy is not more than $10,000, exclusive of interest;
(2) cases of forcible entry and detainer;
(3) foreclosure of mortgages and enforcement of liens on personal property in cases in which the amount in controversy is otherwise within the justice court's jurisdiction; and
(4) cases arising under Chapter 707, Transportation Code, outside a municipality's territorial limits.
(b) A justice court does not have jurisdiction of:
(1) a suit in behalf of the state to recover a penalty, forfeiture, or escheat;
(2) a suit for divorce;
(3) a suit to recover damages for slander or defamation of character;
(4) a suit for trial of title to land; or
(5) a suit for the enforcement of a lien on land.
(c) A justice court has concurrent jurisdiction with a municipal court in cases that arise in the municipality's extraterritorial jurisdiction and that arise under an ordinance of the municipality applicable to the extraterritorial jurisdiction under Section 216.902, Local Government Code.
(d) A corporation need not be represented by an attorney in justice court.

If you have further information that sheds further light on the matter, please share. But if you just want to pick a fight... you win. Say what you want, think what you want -- I don't care.

a reply to: Boadicea

So you're offended that when discussing law I try to use the terms according to the actual legal definitions instead of lay man's definitions.

Got it.

No need to say more.