Why Reyna Should Not Be Your DA Or Prosecutor



Waco – Next Tuesday, March 6, voters in this Texas county will have the opportunity to strike a blow for freedom by voting against the sitting DA, Abel Reyna.

His opponent Barry Johnson has vowed to drop the cases in which there is no real probable cause that the defendant participated in acts of criminal violence as alleged in the 155 indictments returned for the offense of engaging in organized criminal activity on May 17, 2015 at a political meeting at Twin Peaks Restaurant.

He says the charges are not only bogus, but that there is no way the State can prove that the acts of the vast majority of defendants had anything to do with capital murder and/or aggravated assault as alleged in the charges.

Knowledgeable observers have repeatedly said that there are offenders among the list of those charged, but they are not being prosecuted by Abel Reyna. Why?

One wonders.

This document alleges the crime of aggravated perjury by the elected Criminal District Attorney.

Aggravated perjury is a serious crime because it involves the circumstance of a public official uttering a falsehood in testimony against a person in a legal proceeding.

According to this legal memo filed with the Court on behalf of a defendant seeking the disqualification of Abel Reyna, this is exactly how the decision to charge 177 persons with engaging in organized criminal activity and set their bail at $1 million on an affidavit of probable cause that actually alleged no probable cause other than the wearing of certain colors.

It is not a criminal act to wear certain colors, associate with persons of your choosing, speak and publish freely the truth. Both the U.S. and Texas Constitutions guarantee that right. For three years, the defendants indicted for the bogus offenses of Twin Peaks have not had those rights, under pain of a return to jail.

It is a felony crime for an elected public official to utter falsehoods from the witness stand in a legal proceeding, and if proven on trial, it can result in a sentence of not less than two or more than twenty years confinement in the state penitentiary.

If Reyna is allowed to continue as the Elected Criminal District Attorney, he will be able to exert pressures on people who have for three years suffered under the terms and conditions of bond, the restrictions of court appearances, and the constant pressure of being confronted with the notion that a guilty plea to something they did not in fact do can stop the music – at the expense of freedom, of liberty.

Collectively, they have refused to do so, now, for three years at great personal expense and the loss of their liberty.

In the memo, one may read the actual testimony of high ranking Waco Police officials, the Criminal District Attorney, and the Detective who signed the ridiculously bogus charging instrument that had been prepared for him to sign – when he admittedly had no personal knowledge of the events alleged in the document.

Quite simply, this memo documents from the transcript made by the Court Reporter in the 54th Criminal District Court the verbatim testimony of the cops, the DA and the Detective. From there it is easy to figure out where the Twin Peaks cases went totally off the tracks – and why the Elected Criminal District Attorney Abel Reyna has a financial interest in the continued prosecution of cases that are very shaky. In fact, the cases as indicted are very unlikely to result in any guilty verdicts.

Each defendant is due a fair civil trial in Federal District Court for the deprivation of their civil rights under the U.S. Constitution and Texas Constitution. More than 100 have filed suit both against Abel Reyna as a public servant and individually as a citizen and legal practitioner admitted to the State Bar. Their claims for money damages extend to many millions of dollars – more than McLennan County’s indemnification insurance can provide.

To read the memo, one need only download it from the hyperlink below:



2 thoughts on “Why Reyna Should Not Be Your DA Or Prosecutor”

  1. Relevant facts, as always, Sir.
    Enjoyed Your compilation of the Truth and coming circumstances.
    Refreshing to see a journalist that expresses clearly the meanings of fair treatment written in our Constitution. I know We had to hammer at the rest of the media, but with Your articles as a guide, the slow corporate regurgitaters of P.I.O.’s (public information officers) will possibly serve their communities here at the end by adapting Your example as a Champion of Justice for ALL.

    1. I’ve never really thought of myself in quite those terms. It’s just that this question pushes the point to the boundaries of credibility. From the moment they released the affidavit of warrantless arrests, titled “Complaint,” I and many others with a great deal of subject matter expertise could see that the charges as phrased are completely inadequate. There is a stop gap, and it is the Magistrate’s assent. At that point, the judge could have refused to sign off on the affidavit because there is no real probable cause to believe that the persons so named committed even the slightest offense other than to be present at the scene of some serious carnage. That did not happen. The Jail Magistrate could have rejected the instrument of commission due to its demand for an excessive and punitive amount of bail. That development, too, was not forthcoming. As the weeks rolled by, there were attempts by a special prosecutor and prosecution counsel to obtain hold harmless agreements from the defendants in exchange for a bond reduction. The parties that perpetrated this vigorously denied it even happened in the face of much evidence that it did, including text messages and e-mails. As the nightmare unfolded, there developed a perfect storm of denial of due process of law that spiraled out of control by the minute. All of this was stoked by a prearranged public relations effort in the national media that totally ignored the facts of the case. Why? Because this is not, and never was, an action of a local government’s public safety departments. This is a militant action of a national security apparatus that has classified its true intentions and let events play out in an atmosphere of secrecy and classification of all events under that cloak – national security. Whose security, for what purpose? Give that some though as you go to the polls to make a decision as to whom you will entrust your future. Or don’t. The choice is yours. It’s a free country, or at least, it was. It’s not too late to take it back under Constitutional principles. I am sincere. – Legendary Jim

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

× two = 10