Dalllas attorneys F. Clinton Broden and Don Tittle have announced that since the two-year filing deadline for civil rights actions stemming from arrests made at Twin Peaks on May 17, 2015 expires on that date in May, they would like to speak with people who face charges in what they describe as illegal, unconstitutional cases of unreasonable search and seizure, among other violations of constitutional law.
We of The Legendary elected to ask them specific questions about such cases, to let them explain to We The People the significance of the constitutional law that underpins the quality of life in a free country. Simply because we don’t really believe we have a total or complete grasp of such a weighty subject, we have sought wise counsel.
Broden has enjoyed a successful track record in contending with the heavy-handed nature of Waco jusitce in these cases. He led the charge to have the Justice of the Peace who signed off on the cookie cutter affidavits of probable cause recused from the case, arranged for examining trials to be held prior to indictment, and caught District Attorney Abel Reyna in a lie as he testified in open court during a hearing on a motion to disqualify both he and his staff from prosecuting these cases.
Don Tittle is a successful federal litigator of civil rights cases who has made many police departments and public officials pay for ignoring the rights of their consituents. Together, they have graciously agreed to volunteer their time to answer these questions so that We The People will be able to form an intelligent opinion on the issues and base any resulting decisions on reliable information.
Amendment IV to the Constitution of the United States of America
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
1. Why is Amendment IV to the Constitution so important – the basic underpinning – in the litigation of a 42 United States Code § 1983 Civil Rights case complaint for persons arrested at Twin Peaks on May 17, 2015?
2. Does their arrest represent a “seizure” in the eye of the law?
3. So the fact that Detective Chavez did not “particularize” the reasons for probable cause to exist that the defendants did then and there engage in organized criminal activity in a conspiracy with others attending a political meeting of the Confederation of Clubs and Independents is significant because an affidavit presented to a magistrate is to be particular enough to describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized?
4. District Attorney Abel Reyna testified on cross examination from the witness stand in a hearing of your motion to disqualify he and his staff from this prosecution that he had cautioned Detective Manuel Chavez, his codefendant in other civil rights suits stemming from the Twin Peaks arrests, that he must satisfy himself that his probable cause affidavits of warrantless arrests, each of them identical, were valid, that he could with confidence sign off on their allegations of complaint. When Detective Chavez was recalled to the witness stand, he plainly stated he had not spoken with Reyna at any time that day. How is this significant as to the litigation of Twin Peaks civil rights lawsuits? Clearly, Reyna lied. What role was he playing when he cooked all this up?
5. So, would it be fair to say that the basic complaint in this body of litigation is centered on the conditions precedent that existed when Chavez presented the charging instruments to Justice of the Peace “Pete” Peterson?
6. Had he been of a mind to, could Judge Peterson have rejected the charges out of hand due to this alleged defect, as described in previously filed § 1983 complaints about the arrests at Twin Peaks on May 17, 2015?
7. How does the occasion itself, the meeting of the COC & I, relate to the basic civil rights as guaranteed by the Constitution? Which Amendment in the Bill of Rights is paramount, and why?
8. The controversial practice of civil asset forfeiture is drawing a lot of scrutiny in this term of the Legislature from members who are disquietened by alleged abuses by law enforcement officers who are not bound by any requirement to first obtain a conviction, or even to file any charges in order to seize money and property from alleged offenders. In the case of the civil asset forfeiture of one of your clients’ motorcycle, you were able to have his property restored. For future reference, could you describe to folks just how such a thing can be done by a competent attorney, and what is involved?
9. If there is linkage between the Twin Peaks assault on civil liberties and the U.S. Army’s Special Operations Command’s previously announced JADE HELM 15, would you consider it similar to pacification programs the Army has run in foreign lands under the aegis of the CIA, operations such as the Phoenix Program in Vietnam and similar in other conflicts known as undeclared wars? After all, the operation was particularized to the American Southwest, its acronym an abbreviation for Joint Assistant Defense Executive Homeland Elimination Local Militants 2015.
10. If so, would that indicate that the American military is levying war on its own activist citizens in the absence of constitutional authority or congressional approval?
11. Why do you, as a seasoned litigator, think that the U.S. Constitution’s Preamble begins with the words, “We The People…”?
12. As the only woman in detention in the big back parking lot of Twin Peaks, I was forced to squat in order to urinate in full view of television cameras and spectators when police refused to walk me to a restroom. Can I be compensated for that humiliation?
13. A biker who requested anonymity asked these questions: After talking to ‘Mama,’ just the normal ones, I’m sure: How long can we expect the case to take? How much money do you think we’re looking at? Do we have to pay money up front for this, or do you take this on a contingency basis? If a contengency basis, what percentage? Who do we sue? Individuals, or the entire state and county government? What proof is required?