Something that was given to us anonymously. We will have the full 20 page document available tomorrow for your viewing pleasure. It will be ready for download too! Its long, but most definitely worth the read! Enjoy! #JCTXiscorrupt Request for Petition for Johnson County Court of Inquiry January 24, 2008 REQUEST FOR EXAMINATING TRIAL AND PETITION FOR COURT OF INQUIRY Now comes Randall D. Kelton, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, and moves the court to examine into the sufficiency of allegations made herein to determine the existence of probable cause to believe the accused charged herein have violated laws relating to their duties as public officials. Petitioner further moves the court to petition for a court of inquiry into the activities of those accused herein. In support of requested action Petitioner will show the following: STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR INQUIRY On examination of the criminal files at the Johnson County District Clerks office, I found records of criminal causes which included indictments, informations, plea bargains, bond forms, and various and sundry other documents. What I did not find were any criminal complaints that are specifically stipulated by law to be filed with the information and are absolutely mandatory in order to confer jurisdiction on the court. From the record it appears the district courts, in Johnson County, are acting as accuser and prosecutor in matters before the court. Further, in those cases prosecuted by information, I find no written waiver of indictment as specifically mandated by law. In case the court may be tempted to consider the absence of a complaint as correctable error or simply a minor adjustment toward administrative convenience and adjudicative expediency, let me assure the court, the absence is far from minor, neither is this an innocent omission by otherwise well-meaning officials. I assert and will here demonstrate, the absence of the complaint is part and parcel to an ongoing criminal conspiracy orchestrated by the district attorney in order to circumvent the due course rights of the accused and place those accused of crime in such an impossible position that they have little rational alternative to a plea of guilty. The criminal complaint does not appear in the court record for all causes for the purpose of implying consistency. The absence of the criminal accusation in all cases hides the fact that it cannot appear in most. If the complaint, prepared upon arrest by the arresting officer were to be presented to the grand jury as specifically mandated by law, it would be clear to the grand jury that the presentment is so remote in history as to be barred by limitations. I maintain and allege by this document, the complaint does not appear in the court record as it has been secreted from the court by the examining magistrate at the direction of the prosecuting attorney in clear and direct violation of Section 37.10 Texas Penal Code. § 37.10. TAMPERING WITH GOVERNMENTAL RECORD. (a) A person commits an offense if he: (1) knowingly makes a false entry in, or false alteration of, a governmental record; (2) makes, presents, or uses any record, document, or thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent that it be taken as a genuine governmental record; (3) intentionally destroys, conceals, removes, or otherwise impairs the verity, legibility, or availability of a governmental record; (4) possesses, sells, or offers to sell a governmental record or a blank governmental record form with intent that it be used unlawfully; (5) makes, presents, or uses a governmental record with knowledge of its falsity; or (6) possesses, sells, or offers to sell a governmental record or a blank governmental record form with knowledge that it was obtained unlawfully. (b) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(3) that the governmental record is destroyed pursuant to legal authorization or transferred under Section 441.204, Government Code. With regard to the destruction of a local government record, legal authorization includes compliance with the provisions of Subtitle C, Title 6, Local Government Code. (c) (1) Except as provided by Subdivisions (2), (3), and (4) and by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the actors intent is to defraud or harm another, in which event the offense is a state jail felony. (2) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record was a public school record, report, or assessment instrument required under Chapter 39, Education Code, or was a license, certificate, permit, seal, title, letter of patent, or similar document issued by government, by another state, or by the United States, unless the actors intent is to defraud or harm another, in which event the offense is a felony of the second degree. (3) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record is a governmental record that is required for enrollment of a student in a school district and was used by the actor to establish the residency of the student. (4) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record is a written appraisal filed with an appraisal review board under Section 41.43(a-1), Tax Code, that was performed by a person who had a contingency interest in the outcome of the appraisal review board hearing. (d) An offense under this section, if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record is described by Section 37.01(2)(D), is: (1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a)(2) or Subsection (a)(5) and the defendant is convicted of presenting or using the record; (2) a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed under: (A) Subsection (a)(1), (3), (4), or (6); or (B) Subsection (a)(2) or (5) and the defendant is convicted of making the record; and (3) a felony of the second degree, notwithstanding Subdivisions (1) and (2), if the actors intent in committing the offense was to defraud or harm another. (e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for possession under Subsection (a)(6) that the possession occurred in the actual discharge of official duties as a public servant. (f) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(5) that the false entry or false information could have no effect on the governments purpose for requiring the governmental record. (g) A person is presumed to intend to defraud or harm another if the person acts with respect to two or more of the same type of governmental records or blank governmental record forms and if each governmental record or blank governmental record form is a license, certificate, permit, seal, title, or similar document issued by government. (h) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 32.48 or 37.13, the actor may be prosecuted under any of those sections. (i) With the consent of the appropriate local county or district attorney, the attorney general has concurrent jurisdiction with that consenting local prosecutor to prosecute an offense under this section that involves the state Medicaid program. The magistrate, upon receiving a criminal allegation against a citizen into evidence in a court hearing must examine into the sufficiency of the allegation and if it is determined sufficient cause exists to warrant binding the accused to the court, the magistrate must do so by preparing an order, Article 16.17 Decision of the Judge After the examining trial has been had, the judge shall make an order committing the defendant to the jail of the proper county, discharging him or admitting him to bail, as the law and facts of the case may require. Failure of the judge to make or enter an order within 48 hours after the examining trial has been completed operates as a finding of no probable cause and the accused shall be discharged. then set bail where bail was authorized. This is the method, under law, by which a court accrues criminal jurisdiction. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure by Article 2.11. EXAMINING COURT. When the magistrate sits for the purpose of inquiring into a criminal accusation against any person, this is called an examining court. This nonsense of a criminal action commencing on indictment is just that, nonsense. There is nothing in law that gives the grand jury authority to investigate into anything except a criminal accusation, and when there is no criminal accusation, the grand jury is without jurisdiction to act. Art. 20.09. DUTIES OF GRAND JURY. The grand jury shall inquire into all offenses liable to indictment of which any member may have knowledge, or of which they shall be informed by the attorney representing the State, or any other credible person. While the grand jury has the duty to inquire into all offenses, nothing gives them authority to act against a citizen except on a criminal accusation. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 20.19. Grand jury shall vote After all the testimony which is accessible to the grand jury shall have been given in respect to any criminal accusation, the vote shall be taken as to the presentment of an indictment, and if nine members concur in finding the bill, the foreman shall make a memorandum of the same with such data as will enable the attorney who represents the State to write the indictment. (emphasis added) Attached the court will find a copy of a Petition for Writ of Mandamus I filed in the Tom Delay case where I demonstrate the impropriety of a grand jury acting without a criminal accusation. Said document in included in its entirety by reference. There must be a criminal complaint and there always is a criminal complaint, it just never gets to the clerk of the court as commanded by Article 17.30 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 17.30. Shall certify proceedings The magistrate, before whom an examination has taken place upon a criminal accusation, shall certify to all the proceedings had before him, as well as where he discharges, holds to bail or commits, and transmit them, sealed up, to the court before which the defendant may be tried, writing his name across the seals of the envelope. The voluntary statement of the defendant, the testimony, bail bonds, and every other proceeding in the case, shall be thus delivered to the clerk of the proper court, without delay. It is secreted from the clerk of the proper court and spirited, instead, to the prosecuting attorney, at his direction. This begs a question: Why would the district attorney commit the act of felony tampering with a government document in order to secret the criminal complaint from the clerk of the proper court? The answer is simple; it is because of The Deal. If the prosecutor, in concert and collusion with defense counsel, is to avoid the time and expense of a fair trial, he needs time which the speedy trial act does not provide. If the prosecutor allows the records of the examination hearing to be forwarded to the clerk of the court and, thereby, become accessible to the grand jury and everyone else, he will not be able to get an indictment as the information will show, clearly, on its face, that the alleged act is so remote in history as to be barred by limitations. Prosecutors, for the most part, are in no hurry to get the accused to trial for a couple reasons. If the accused is an habitual criminal and the prosecutor has little evidence to use as leverage for a better deal, the criminal will know and hold out for a better deal. For the prosecutor that is not great problem as he can wait; he can expect that the habitual criminal will get another accusation before long and the prosecutor will then have more leverage. Besides, waiting costs him nothing, but it does put pressure on the accused, as he is restricted at his liberty, bound to the court and his bondsman, to whom he must report regularly. However, it is not for the benefit of the criminal I make this argument. It is for the benefit of those falsely accused. The law abiding citizen, falsely accused of a crime, will be justly indignant and outraged. They are not prime for The Deal. It takes time and continual threats and pressure from the court to morph their indignation to anxiety, from anxiety to dread, from dread to terror, and from terror to capitulation. If you doubt that there is a problem with the criminal justice system in Johnson County, just look at the court record. How many people, accused of an infamous crime would you expect to say, Oh yeah, Im guilty as sin. Let me have it. Would you expect a statistical 100%? No need to trust me just looks for yourself. Everybody takes the deal. Everybody takes the deal and they do so because most every step from arrest to trial as currently practiced in Johnson County is not only wrong, it is very specifically against particular law. It is not only against particular law, but it is against particular law toward a very specific purpose. Practice, procedure, and policy has been carefully crafted by prosecutors, through advise to the lower courts and police, to put a person I such an impossible position that they have no rational alternative to a perfectly reasonable deal. Citizens may not be compelled to forgo their constitutional rights because officials fear public hostility or desire to save money. Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917); Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958); Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U.S. 526 (1963). As quoted from PALMER ET AL. v. THOMPSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF JACKSON ET AL. 403 U.S. 217, 91 S. Ct. 1940, 29 L. Ed. 2d 438 If the accused takes the deal, what do they get? Well, for the most part they get out of jail, they get a deferred adjudication, they almost never get a fine, and they get to pay the courts a substantial part of their salaries for a very long time in the form of probation fees which, by pure happenstance, stay in the county rather than going to the States general fund. According to the State Criminal Justice Oversight Counsel in their 2002 report to the Governor, this is the specific reason the jails in Texas are overcrowded. It is not because of an increase in crime as, according to the FBI crime has been statistically down across the board for the last 20 years. It was the counsels consideration that people were being coerced into a deal and put on probation and if they violated probation, jail time was mandatory. We have created for ourselves a horrendous mess. In order to bypass the speedy trial act and wrangle the deal, prosecutors regularly exert pressure on people to take a deal when, by the court record, they have never been accused of a crime by any credible citizen. Because the prosecutors use this gambit to buy time, they cannot allow the original records to ever reach the court record. Now we have criminal prosecutions going on against people who have never been charged with a crime. Because of this we run the risk of flushing all the jails and of every official involved being personally liable for their involvement as, no complaint means no jurisdiction, and no jurisdiction means no immunity of any kind, not for the judge, the prosecutor, the magistrate, or even the hard working police officer on the street. All this so the prosecutor could gain an authority specifically denied him statute. An information is a primary pleading in a criminal action on the part of the State, Article 27.01, V.A.C.C.P., a written pleading in behalf of the State drawn, filed and presented by a prosecuting attorney charging an accused with an offense that may be prosecuted under the law. Article 21.20, V.A.C.C.P. in order to protect its citizens from the inherent dangers arising from the concentration of power in any one individual, Kennedy v. State, 161 Tex. Crim. 303, 276 S.W.2d 291 (1955)(Opinion on Motion for Rehearing, at 664), the Legislature precluded a prosecutor from presenting an information until affidavit has been made by some credible person charging the defendant with an offense, and also mandated, The affidavit shall be filed with the information. Article 21.22, supra. Such an affidavit is, of course, a complaint within the meaning of Article 15.04, V.A.C.C.P. In other words, a prosecuting attorney is not authorized to institute prosecutions in the county court upon his independent act or of his own volition. Kennedy v. State, supra, at 294. One may not be both the accuser and the prosecutor is misdemeanor cases. Wells v. State, 516 S.W.2d 663, at 664 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974). Compare Glass v. State, 162 Tex. Crim. 598, 288 S.W.2d 522 (1956); Catchings v. State, 162 Tex. Crim. 342, 285 S.W.2d 233, at 234 (1955) The criminal accusation was properly made by the arresting officer and presented to the magistrate at the examining trial, however, the magistrate did not hold a proper examining trial, seal up all the documents in and envelope, cause his name to be written across the seal, and forward it to the clerk of the proper court as commanded by Article 17.30 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The magistrate did not do this because the magistrate did not know he was performing an examining trial. Magistrates have been trained to believe they or doing a magistrates warning, or magistration. My word processor just put a red line under magistration. It doesnt seem to know what it is. Frankly, I dont either, as it is mentioned nowhere in law. Article 15.17 requires the magistrate to issue warnings, but not to the exclusion of an examination for the purpose of determining probable cause, but rather, in addition to the procedures laid down in Chapter 16 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. If the magistrate was aware he was doing an examination into the sufficiency of an allegation, he would know that Article 17.30 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure applied. Since the magistrate thinks all he is doing is a magistration, he feels comfortable in following the policies of the prosecutor so that, instead of forwarding the complaint to the clerk of the proper court, the magistrate forwards the records to the prosecuting attorney by way of the jailer. Yes, the prosecutor has the complaint and has no intention of filing it in the court record. It gets worse. In order to maintain the efficiency of The Deal, the prosecutor will go to great lengths to shield those who participate in the improper practices from prosecution. He will simply refuse to abide by very specific law when he is made known that officials have violated laws relating to their office when those violations help to hide the improper practices engaged in at his direction. He will also resort to other, more devious methods of sharp practice. On May 8, 2006, I went to the Johnson County Jail and asked to witness the morning hearings held for those arrested overnight. I went in search of the criminal complaint. It was not in the court record and before I made any allegation of wrong doing, I wanted to see for myself that the magistrate did indeed receive a complaint into evidence in a trial, that the magistrate did then deny the accused opportunity to be faced with or examine the witness against him or to offer exculpatory evidence to refute the evidence already presented to the court, and that the magistrate did not seal all the documents in an envelope and forward them to the clerk of the proper court. In fact, I had reason to believe the magistrate, rather than acting as a neutral examiner of the facts, would instead, act as a member of the prosecutoral team by correcting any errors in the paperwork, or holding up the hearing and returning the paperwork to the jail with legal advise as to how to perfect the prosecution, before rubber stamping any allegation made against any arrested and brought before her court. All this I cannot allege from direct observation as I never witnessed the hearing. In fact, I was ordered from the building by Lt. Powell of the Johnson County Sheriffs Department after being told that Judge Judy Davis had insisted it was her courtroom and I would not be allowed in it. The Texas Constitution designates this a right as affirmed by Article 1.24 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure: Art. 1.24. PUBLIC TRIAL. The proceedings and trials in all courts shall be public. Since I had no reason to doubt Lt. Powell when he attributed the denial of access to Judge Davis, I prepared a criminal affidavit, complete in accordance with Article 15.05 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, had my affirmation duly verified, and filed it with the district attorney, Dale Hana. Dale Hana, on having it made know to him through a verified affidavit presented by a credible citizen, failed to reduce the complaint to an information and submit it to the grand jury as specifically mandated by Article 2.03(a) Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Art. 2.03. [27] [33] [34] Neglect of duty (a) It shall be the duty of the attorney representing the State to present by information to the court having jurisdiction, any officer for neglect or failure of any duty enjoined upon such officer, when such neglect or failure can be presented by information, whenever it shall come to the knowledge of said attorney that there has been a neglect or failure of duty upon the part of said officer; and he shall bring to the notice of the grand jury any act of violation of law or neglect or failure of duty upon the part of any officer, when such violation, neglect or failure is not presented by information, and whenever the same may come to his knowledge. (b) It is the duty of the trial court, the attorney representing the accused, the attorney representing the state and all peace officers to so conduct themselves as to insure a fair trial for both the state and the defendant, not impair the presumption of innocence, and at the same time afford the public the benefits of a free press. In Miller v. State, the only case on point, the courts clearly held that Article 2.03 supra, placed upon the district attorney a duty to present. In this case 20 persons were arrested for class C misdemeanor gambling, but only one was prosecuted. After conviction and on appeal he alleged selective prosecution but the court held: No other participants at the lake house were similarly situated as appellant, the sheriff of Brazos County. Further, district attorney has a duty to present to the grand jury any information of official misconduct by an officer. Tex. Code Crim. P. Ann. art. 2.03 (Vernon 1977). We find that appellant fails to meet the second part of the test because the State had legitimate reasons to only prosecute appellant. We overrule point of error five. Miller v. State, 874 S.W.2d 908, *; 1994 Tex. App. LEXIS 836 I subsequently prepared criminal allegations against Dale Hana, accusing him if violating the clear stipulation of Article 2.03 and presented that compliant to the current grand jury. At the writing of this document I am still waiting for a decision of the grand jury on this matter. After filing the complaint against Judge Davis with Dale Hana, he directed me, through his assistant, Lisa Wyatt, to present the complaint to the Sheriffs department. I was reluctant and make my reluctance known to the district attorney, but the department was insistent, so I capitulated. Since the complaint had already been properly filed with the district attorney, a filing with the Sheriff would be redundant, but I did not want to appear contrary, so I went to the Johnson County Sheriffs department with a copy of the verified criminal complaint and the letter from the district attorney directing me there. The Sheriffs department did take my complaint, but only after repeated refusals and three threats of arrest if I did not leave the building. I called their bluffs and the department finally capitulated and took my complaint, however, the complaint was never presented to some magistrate as commanded by Article 2.13 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Neither was it forwarded to the district attorney in accordance with alleged department policy. It is my assertion and allegation that, the prosecutor insisted I file the complaint with the Sheriffs department so that he could have the department forward the complaint to him. This begs the question: Why have it forwarded to him? As I read the law, nothing directs a complaint to a prosecuting attorney other than 552 Government Code, The Open Government Act. Everything directs a compliant to some magistrate. However, the prosecuting attorney has been directed to provide legal advise to the police and lower courts. The Legislature, in their wisdom, considered this and expedient and efficient use of resources, however, it was a bad idea. Having an attorney render legal advise on matters in which he will be representing a client before the court is barred by the State Bar Code of Ethics and is a prescription for disaster. It is a prescription for just the sort of practices we now experience. By having the policing agencies forward complaints to him, the prosecuting attorney manages to circumvent a very specific prohibition to the exercise of discretion. When a complaint is presented to a magistrate, or a person is arrested, a prosecution commences for purposes of speedy trial. By having the compliant sent to the district attorney, the prosecutor avoids two possible problems. The complaint does not appear in the court record demonstrating that a prosecution has commenced and the prosecutor gets opportunity to exercise the forbidden prosecutorial discretion. If you go to the jail and get a record of all persons arrested in the last few months, then check for a record in the court having jurisdiction, for the most part, you wont find one. If the accused attempts to file a motion or other document with the court, they will be told the court has no record of them. Consider this scenario: say I go to the jail and get the jail list of all persons arrested for the last six months, check the court record and for every instance where there is no court record, prepare a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and present it to you. When the Sheriff is directed to bring the accused before you and show cause as to why the person is being held, by the court record, there will be no court record. What then? There will be no court record as the prosecuting attorney has interrupted the prosecution by absconding with the records in order to give him time to squeeze a deal from the accused. He does this under the guise of giving legal advice to the police and lower courts. Since he has, thereby, received the records in the capacity of legal counsel, he has not been officially informed and uses that bit of sharp practice of conceal the records from the court and exercise judicial discretion. He tells the police rather or not to proceed with the prosecution. This, in effect, gives the prosecution the power to initiate prosecutions. Our law consists of numerous interlacing checks and balances, which must always be maintained in order to preserve our constitutional form of government. It is apparent that our procedure, which authorizes prosecutions by information presented by the prosecuting attorney, is bottomed upon the proposition that there must be a supporting affidavit, without which an information cannot be lawfully presented. WILMA HAZEL KENNEDY v. STATE (02/09/55) 276 S.W.2d 291, 161 Tex. Crim. 303 The Court went on to say: The rule was so well established by the former court of appeals that opinions after 1891 routinely followed it without further explication. But there are strong public policy considerations dictating the rule. An information is a primary pleading in a criminal action on the part of the State, Article 27.01, V.A.C.C.P., a written pleading in behalf of the State drawn, filed and presented by a prosecuting attorney charging an accused with an offense that may be prosecuted under the law. Article 21.20, V.A.C.C.P. in order to protect its citizens from the inherent dangers arising from the concentration of power in any one individual, Kennedy v. State, 161 Tex. Crim. 303, 276 S.W.2d 291 (1955) (Opinion on Motion for Rehearing, at 664), the Legislature precluded a prosecutor from presenting an information until affidavit has been made by some credible person charging the defendant with an offense, and also mandated, The affidavit shall be filed with the information. Article 21.22, supra. Such an affidavit is, of course, a complaint within the meaning of Article 15.04, V.A.C.C.P. In other words, a prosecuting attorney is not authorized to institute prosecutions in the county court upon his independent act or of his own volition. Kennedy v. State, supra, at 294. One may not be both the accuser and the prosecutor is misdemeanor cases. Wells v. State, 516 S.W.2d 663at 664 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974). Compare Glass v. State, 162 Tex. Crim. 598, 288 S.W.2d 522 (1956); Catchings v. State, 162 Tex. Crim. 342, 285 S.W.2d 233, at 234 (1955). If that were all it would be bad enough, but it gets worse. He also holds onto the records when there is clearly insufficient evidence to coerce a deal, apparently hoping the person gets charged with something else, then he will get opportunity to hold up the unsupportable claim like a red flag as leverage on the new charge. If no new charge occurs, nothing happens, he just leaves it be until the bondsman petitions to be let off the bond, then the prosecutor will make a last ditch effort to squeeze out a deal and if he cant get one, he will simply notify the accused he is dropping the charges while completely keeping the court out of the loop. This has the effect of dismissing a prosecution, which commenced by law upon arrest, or the filing of the complaint with some magistrate. In fact, it has been held, long ago and recently, that the filing of a complaint accusing one of a felony offense with a justice of the peace is the initial step in the commencement of a prosecution under Texas law. Baskins v. State, 75 Tex. Crim. 537, 171 S.W. 723, 725 (1914); Ex parte Clear, 573 S.W.2d 224, 228 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978). The above cited by the court in Rios v State 688 S.W.2d 642 Article 32.02 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure specifically forbids a prosecutor from dismissing a prosecution, however, by this criminal maneuver, the prosecutor circumvents the prohibition and accrues the power denied by legislative mandate. Art. 32.02. Dismissal by states attorney The attorney representing the State may, by permission of the court, dismiss a criminal action at any time upon filing a written statement with the papers in the case setting out his reasons for such dismissal, which shall be incorporated in the judgment of dismissal. No case shall be dismissed without the consent of the presiding judge. By this act the prosecutor exercises powers reserved for judicial officers, specifically judges, and thereby, acts in impersonation of said judicial officer. § 37.11. Impersonating Public Servant (a) A person commits an offense if he: impersonates a public servant with intent to induce another to submit to his pretended official authority or to rely on his pretended official acts; or knowingly purports to exercise any function of a public servant or of a public office, including that of a judge and court, and the position or office through which he purports to exercise a function of a public servant or public office has no lawful existence under the constitution or laws of this state or of the United States. (b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree. Specific acts of impropriety Relator has personally presented the district attorney to the grand jury in Johnson County. It some great effort to get before them, but I did. While the grand jury was deliberating on the allegations against the district attorney, the district attorney sent one of his assistants into the grand jury room to talk to the grand jury. Subsequently, the grand jury refused to indict the district attorney. When Relater was trying to prefer complaints against the district attorney, the county attorney directed Relater to the Justice of Peace in the court house, Judge Stiles. Relater told the clerk he needed to speak to the judge about complaints against the district attorney. When Judge Stiles appeared she asked, Is this about the drug charges against the district attorney? Astonished Relator could only say, Well, no. On subsequent investigation, Relater got tacit confirmation by asking several officials of the Sheriffs department what they knew about the charges. I was repeatedly told that they could not talk about them. At the time Relater had his own business where he hired low wage workers and, unfortunately, almost every one was a drug addict. I asked them about drug charges against the district attorney and all were well aware of the district attorney getting arrested in Dallas County while purchasing cocaine. Relater checked and, as Relater expected, no record of such an arrest existed or was revealed. The above stuff about the cocaine is, more Relater, just an aside and a matter of which Relater has no real concern. It is only presented in case the court is interested. What does interest Relater is that the district attorney would send in his assistant to influence the grand jury when they are deliberating about a charge against himself. Also, the assistant district attorney, Mr. Fry (no longer so employed), influenced the grand jury to violate Article 20.09 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and refuse to examine into criminal complaints presented by Relater alleging an act of Official Oppression by Judge Bridewell. Disappearing indictments On _________, Steve Fritts, a personal friend of mine, presented, directly to the grand jury, five criminal complaints. The grand jury heard the complaints after they had finished their daily work load and stayed over extra time to hear what Mr. Fritts had to present. Mr. Fritts presented allegations of aggravated robbery against two sheriffs deputies, allegations of lying to the grand jury against a Depart of Public Safety Officer, allegations against a judge and bailiff. Subsequently, the grand jury came into the court and presented the indictments to the court. At previous such hearing, Relator had personally witnessed the grand jury read each indictment onto the court record in open court as required by Article 20.22 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure: Art. 20.22. PRESENTMENT ENTERED OF RECORD. The fact of a presentment of indictment by a grand jury shall be entered upon the record of the court, if the defendant is in custody or under bond, noting briefly the style of the criminal action and the file number of the indictment and the defendants name. If the defendant is not in custody or under bond at the time of the presentment of indictment, the entry in the record of the court relating to said indictment shall be delayed until such time as the capias is served and the defendant is placed in custody or under bond. In the instant case, the grand jury did not read each indictment onto the court record, instead the foreman simply read onto the record the number of indictments in the form of true bills, the number of no bills and the number of passes. At that time there were ____ true bills read onto the record, one no bill, and no passes. In as much as Mr. Fritts made five criminal accusations known to the grand jury, it would seem that at least 4 of those accusations were true billed, however, no record of any indictment of any of the accused made known to the grand jury by Mr. Fritts have ever appeared in the court record. As to the court record, Relater specifically requested of the District Clerk, access to the minutes of the grand jury but received a letter from same claiming the clerk had no records responsive to Relaters request. So, it appears the court does not keep the minutes specified by Article 20.22, or in the alternative, someone is lying to Relater. Relater had made several trips to the Judge Bosworths court in an effort to find out when the grand jury meets, but Judge Bosworth has barred Relator from any records of the court calender in order to deny Relator access to the grand jury. The games afoot Your Honor. Someone is playing fast and loose with the laws put in place to protect us all. Criminal allegations In furtherance of the above, Relater is prepared to prepare and present to the court, criminal allegations against public officials in support of the allegations and assertions made. The complaints can include: 1. Aggravated kidnapping against every arresting officer who arrests a person without a warrant and subsequently transports said person directly to any jail without having first made a due diligent effort to locate a magistrate; 2. Official Oppression against any jail personnel who participate in the contrived punishment of a protracted and humiliation booking procedure of someone who has not only never not been convicted of a crime, but hasnt even yet been accused of a crime; 3. Official Oppression against the jail guard who presented evidence to the magistrate outside a proper hearing wherein a probable cause determination was made and bail set; 4. Felony Tampering With A Government Document, Article 37.01 Texas Penal Code, against the magistrate and the jail guard who received the file from the magistrate after the magistration wherein the documents were secreted from the clerk of the proper court; 5. Felony Tampering With A Government Document, Article 37.10 Texas Penal Code, against the person or who subsequently took possession of the documents used in the examining trial (who Relator suspects is the prosecuting attorney); 6. Official Oppression, Section 39.03, against any judge who participated in a prosecution of any person when there was no criminal complaint in the court record which is necessary to render validity to any information or indictment; 7. Official Oppression, Section 39.03 Texas Penal Code, against Judge Bridewell on allegations that he held an ex parte hearing, excluding a party to the matter in order to protect a judge and defense attorney from prosecution from criminal allegation made against them in court filings, this having been done solely because the party being secreted from the ex parte hearing could not afford counsel; 8. Official Oppression, Section 39.03 Texas Penal Code, for denying Relater access to the courts administrator in order to secret the meeting of the grand jury from Relater; 9. Shielding From Prosecution, Section 38.05 Texas Penal Code, for secreting criminal allegations made before them from the court. There are numerous and sundry more minor offenses Relater could present, but I believe this is enough to give the court the idea. PRAYER In consideration of the above allegations, I pray of the court to hold an examination into the varsity and validity of the allegations and assertions made in the instant presentment, and to examine further into improprieties included as lesser offenses and to accept specific criminal allegations Relater is prepared to present to the court or prepare criminal complaints itself as authorized by Chapter 52 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Relater further moves the court to prepare and file an affidavit in accordance with Article 52.01(b) and request that the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district appoint a district judge to commence a Court of Inquiry. 1 of 20 #JCTXiscorrupt
Posted on: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 05:22:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015