Tag Archives: attorney

LA Supreme Court: It’s Reasonable to Believe “Give Me a Lawyer Dog” was Request for a Dog Who is a Lawyer

Lawyer Dog Louisiana Supreme Court Canine Attorney

Lawyer Dog should really ask Grumpy Judge to recuse herself. #JusSayin

Recently, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued a ruling on a motion to suppress evidence against Warren Demesme, who is currently awaiting trial in New Orleans. By a 6-1 majority the court denied that motion, which maintained that statements Demesme had made should be thrown because the police had ignored his request for legal counsel during interrogations.

What’s gotten a lot of attention (and rightfully so) since that ruling is the courts’ contention that Demesme’s request was ambiguous and unclear. But even more so for the reasoning behind the ruling. Orleans Parish Assistant District Attorney Kyle Daly argued in his response to the motion that Demesme’s statement, “just give me a lawyer dog,” could be misinterpreted by a “reasonable officer” based on the use of the words “lawyer dog.”

In a brief accompanying the decision, Louisiana Associate Supreme Court Justice Scott J. Crichton agreed that the defendant’s use of “lawyer dog” could be misconstrued to mean something else and therefore did not qualify as a request for counsel.

Via the Washington Post:

Warren Demesme, then 22, was being interrogated by New Orleans police in October 2015 after two young girls claimed he had sexually assaulted them. It was the second time he’d been brought in, and he was getting a little frustrated, court records show. He had repeatedly denied the crime. Finally, Demesme told the detectives:

“This is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog ’cause this is not what’s up.” The punctuation, arguably critical to Demesme’s use of the sobriquet “dog,” was provided by the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s office in a brief, and then adopted by Louisiana Associate Supreme Court Justice Scott J. Crichton.

Demesme subsequently made admissions to the crime, prosecutors said, and was charged with aggravated rape and indecent behavior with a juvenile. He is being held in the Orleans Parish jail awaiting trial.

The public defender for Orleans Parish, Derwyn D. Bunton, took on Demesme’s case and filed a motion to suppress Demesme’s statement. In a court brief, Bunton noted that police are legally bound to stop questioning anyone who asks for a lawyer. “Under increased interrogation pressure,” Bunton wrote, “Mr. Demesme invokes his right to an attorney, stating with emotion and frustration, ‘Just give me a lawyer.’” The police did not stop their questioning, Bunton argued, “when Mr. Demesme unequivocally and unambiguously asserted his right to counsel.”

Louisiana Associate Supreme Court Justice Scott J. Crichton

Louisiana Associate Supreme Court Justice Scott J. Crichton

Orleans Parish Assistant District Attorney Kyle Daly responded in his brief that Demesme’s “reference to a lawyer did not constitute an unambiguous invocation of his right to counsel, because the defendant communicated that whether he actually wanted a lawyer was dependent on the subjective beliefs of the officers.” Daly added, “A reasonable officer under the circumstances would have understood, as [the detectives] did, that the defendant only might be invoking his right to counsel.”

Bunton’s motion to throw out Demesme’s statement was rejected by the trial court and the appeals court, so he took it to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in a ruling issued last Friday and first reported by Reason, could have denied the appeal without issuing a written ruling, which it does in most cases. But Justice Crichton decided to write a brief concurrence “to spotlight the very important constitutional issue regarding the invocation of counsel during a law enforcement interview.”

Crichton noted that Louisiana case law has ruled that “if a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal . . . the cessation of questioning is not required.” Crichton then concluded: “In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a ‘lawyer dog’ does not constitute an invocation of counsel that warrants termination of the interview.”

So…

There’s a lot of things wrong with that decision. The most obvious issue is that they didn’t actually provide him with a dog who is a lawyer, as they claim they thought he had requested. It’s probably not the wisest move to request a dog to represent you in court, but if he’s a good boy and graduated from an accredited law school, who am I to cast aspersions?

Of course, that’s kind of the biggest problem with the “logic” of this ruling. They couldn’t give him a “lawyer dog” because, outside of memes on the internets, it’s not an actual thing. At this point in history, not one single dog has ever managed to pass the bar exam. Not Lassie, not Rin Tin Tin, not Benji, not even Snoopy. Scooby Doo is way to high to even think about taking the SAT’s, let alone the LSAT’s, and don’t even get me started on Marmaduke.

If any dog could have pulled it off, it obviously would have been Brian Griffin, but he died tragically after eating chocolate out of the garbage years ago. So, he’s not available right now.

What it boils down to is, if somebody asks for legal council, as is their constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment, you shouldn’t just be able to pretend you didn’t understand them because they used some (not uncommon) slang. In fact, if for some reason they ask for a “lawyer dog,” but there aren’t any available (or willing to work pro bone-o), then you give them a lawyer human instead.

It’s hard to have a lot of faith in the U.S. Injustice System, especially after rulings like this (not to mention all the coerced confessions and false convictions they allow for). However, you would hope that some sense of common decency and shame would compel the next appeals court this goes in front of to render a proper ruling on this nonsense.

I have a suspicion this might be a big part of the reason why the State of Louisiana has the highest incarceration rate in the entire world.

Leave a comment

Las Vegas SWAT Team Commander Under Investigation For Financial Exploitation of Elderly Couple

Lt Tom Melton LVMPD SWAT Commander Elderly Exploitation

Last week, it was announced that Lieutenant Tom Melton had been placed on administrative leave (AKA paid vacation) as the result of a criminal investigation. Melton is the commander of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department‘s SWAT team. He’s also been one of the public faces of the LVMPD, oftentimes being interviewed by local media and frequently providing briefings at crime scenes.

Initially, Metro declined to give any details about what the nature of that investigation was. However, soon after his suspension was announced a search of public records indicated that he has ties to a woman already facing over 200 charges of defrauding elderly people placed under her care. Lt. Melton had been appointed as legal guardian and trustee for Jerome and Beverly Flaherty, an elderly couple, who have since died. April Parks, the woman previously charged, was awarded co-guardianship of the Flahertys with Melton.

In March, Parks was indicted on charges including perjury, racketeering, filing false records, theft and exploitation, as part of a for-profit professional guardianship service. Parks has been characterized as the “ringleader of a small group” that included her husband; Gary Neal Taylor, an attorney named Noel Palmer Simpson, and her office manager; Mark Simmons. All four have been accused of taking advantage of the guardianship system to exploit and defraud the people placed under their supervision.

After confirmation was received that Lt. Melton was in fact the focus of an investigation into exploitation of an elderly couple, his attorney denied that he was involved in the fraud. Instead, he maintains that he had only hired Parks to care for the couple, whom he describes as friends of Melton. No other details relating to the nature of the investigation into Lt. Melton’s involvement have been released by the LVMPD.

Of course, it very well could be that he had no involvement in the fraud Parks and her partners are accused of. However, the timing of the suspension could potentially indicate otherwise. The fact that the other people involved were indicted in March and Melton didn’t come under investigation until the end of July would seem to imply that there’s more to it. It’s also a bit contradictory that none of the family members of the hundreds of other victims Parks exploited appear to be under investigation.

Leave a comment

Michigan Cop Arrests Motorist for Suspended License then Performs Illegal Body Cavity Search

Officer Daniel Mack of the Allen Park Police Department, located in the Detroit metropolitan area, stopped a local man because he claimed he couldn’t see a temporary registration sticker on a minivan he had just bought for his wife. During the traffic stop Mack determined that Kevin Campbell had a suspended license. For that he was arrested, but that was just the beginning of Campbell’s mistreatment at the hands (no pun intended) of Officer Mack and at least two other Good Cops that were present at the time.

Even though a K-9 failed to indicate there were any drugs in his car and there was no other evidence to indicate he had drugs in his possession, Campbell was taken to jail. Once there, he was subjected to a body cavity search, which was both illegal and humiliating. According to Cambell’s lawyer David Robinson, any body cavity search would require both a warrant and that a medical professional perform it.

The illegal search/sexual assault also failed to find any evidence of drugs.

Via wxyz.com, the Detroit area ABC affiliate:

“You can’t do that,” says Kevin Campbell on video captured inside the police lock-up on June 7, 2016.

“Yes, I can. Yes, I can,” says Allen Park Police Officer Daniel Mack.

Campbell, and his attorney David Robinson, say Officer Mack performed an illegal a body cavity search on Campbell.

“Why you putting your fingers in my [expletive]??  Why you feeling my [expletive],” says Campbell in the video.

“Cause you got [something] tucked into your [expletive],” said Mack.

Campbell denies that, and Mack finds nothing during the search.

“It was very dehumanizing,” Campbell told 7 Investigator Heather Catallo.  “What he did was unconstitutional, violated my civil rights and violated me as a man period.”

The 32-year-old father from Detroit says he was terrified to find himself in that jail cell, and says he felt helpless.

“My fear switched over to me wondering ‘am I really going to make it out of here alive,’” said Campbell.

Campbell says this all started back in June, when Officer Mack pulled him over on the Southfield freeway near Rotunda.  Campbell says he had just bought a minivan for his wife, and it still had the temporary paper license plate taped to the window.

“He said he couldn’t see the license plate.  I thought that was very weird and odd that he couldn’t see a license plate by it being 7:00 in the afternoon,” said Campbell.

Campbell was driving with a suspended license, since he says he can’t afford to pay the fees needed to reinstate his license.   So Officer Mack patted him down, arrested him, and that’s where Campbell says things start to go wrong.

“He ran my name, he then got the K9 dog out; him and the K9 dog went searching through the car – didn’t find anything,” said Campbell.

Allen Park Police officers do not have scout car cameras or body cameras.  If Mack ran the K9 dog through the vehicle, he would have needed probable cause to look for drugs, and a search warrant.  There was no search warrant that the 7 Investigators or Campbell’s lawyer could find.

Campbell says the dog didn’t find anything, because there were no drugs.  Yet when they arrive at the Allen Park Police Department, Officer Mack is insisting that Campbell put something down his pants.

“Your pants [are] unzipped.  I’m gonna find it one way or another, alright?  So we can do this the easy way or the hard way,” said Mack on the video.  “What you got in your drawers,” said Mack.

After Campbell is put in the holding cell, Officer Mack appears to become irate.

“Drop ‘em,” said Mack.
“Drop what,” asked Campbell.
“Your drawers,” said Mack.
“You want me to get naked,” asked Campbell.
“Yeah, you’re getting naked.  You’re in a holding cell, you’re getting naked,” said Mack.

Then, Officer Mack pats Campbell down for a third time, unzips Campbell’s pants, and looks down his underwear.

Officer Mack is still insisting that Campbell needs to take his pants off.

“Drop your drawers,” said Mack.
“I’m not taking my underwear off,” said Campbell.

Then two other police officers enter the room and Campbell and his lawyer say Mack begins the body cavity search.

“Why you putting your fingers in my [expletive],” said Campbell  “Why you feeling my [expletive].”
“Cause you got it tucked into your [expletive],” said Mack.
“No,” yelled Campbell.
When Mack doesn’t appear to find anything, he says, “You can keep it.”
“Ain’t nothing to keep,” said Campbell.

“The other officers were being aggressive with their voices telling me “don’t move,” and be still, but it’s kind of hard to be still when you know you have someone grabbing your testicles through your underwear, and putting their fingers in places that another man shouldn’t be,” said Campbell.

“It is a body cavity search; it is the worst intrusion by any public officer anywhere on the face of the planet,” said Attorney David Robinson.

Not surprisingly, Campbell has now filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Allen Park Police and Officer Mack for his actions that night. In addition the lack of a warrant and licensed medical professional, Ofc. Mack also failed to mention the cavity search in his police report. Documentation of any body cavity search conducted is another legal requirement.

Another less than shocking aspect of this story is that Officer Mack has a history of misconduct. Just last year, he was involved in a scandal in which he wrongfully arrested a completely innocent man. In that case, he charged a man named Arthur W. Chapman for reckless driving. After a bystander who had filmed the incident came forward, it was revealed that Chapman was merely driving a car similar to the person Mack had intended to arrest.

Leave a comment

Full Waco Twin Peaks Biker Shooting Videos; Witness Statement Made Public

More video has been made public from the shootings that took place at the Waco Twin Peaks biker meeting in May of last year. The new video was provided by Las Vegas attorney Stephen Stubbs via his YouTube channel.


Although he hasn’t provided his exact source for the video, they do consist of (previously released) surveillance video from two different cameras inside the restaurant, as well as new footage from the dash cam of one of the responding officers and from a Texas Department of Public Safety surveillance camera that was apparently placed on a pole in the parking lot.

In addition to the new video, audio of a witness statement from an unnamed person who is described as a “completely independent witness” and as the only person interviewed by police whose statement was recorded was released. The video above (and embedded first below) consists of a combination of the four different videos (also embedded individually below) with that audio superimposed over them.

None of the surveillance videos have audio from the actual shooting. In addition to the witness audio, descriptive captions have been added to the video consisting of the merged footage. Also included in the videos below is a report from a local NBC News station in Texas featuring an interview with Stephen Stubbs in which he discusses these new videos.

In related news, over the past weekend Paul Looney, a Houston lawyer representing two of the hundreds of bikers arrested after

Attention people! The G700 Flashlight is indestructible and the brightest light you have EVER seen. 75% OFF LIMITED time only!! CLICK GRAPHIC NOW!

Attention people! The G700 Flashlight is indestructible and the brightest light you have EVER seen. 75% OFF LIMITED time only!! CLICK GRAPHIC NOW!

the shooting, stated that the charges had been dropped against 39 of them, due to the grand jury’s term having expired without an indictment. District Attorney Abel Reyna later disputed that claim saying that Looney was “sadly inaccurate” and that the charges had not been dismissed.

Within the YouTube description of that video Stubbs states:

THIS POST IS MADE AND PRESENTED BY STEPHEN STUBBS, INDIVIDUALLY. THESE STATEMENTS ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE AND BELONG TO STEPHEN STUBBS ALONE. STEPHEN STUBBS IS NOT REPRESENTING ANYONE IN THIS MATTER AT THIS TIME. PLEASE TO NOT ATTRIBUTE THIS TO ANYONE EXCEPT STEPHEN STUBBS.

The description then includes a summary of the evidence related to the videos:

The evidence in the May 17, 2015 Twin Peaks incident is voluminous. So, I put together some important video clips that tell the story in the clearest manner. I then attached the audio from the ONLY recorded police interview of a COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT WITNESS. He describes what he saw, including the fact that a Cossack pulled a gun first, Cossacks fired first, and the police fired on all of the bikers in what he describes as “automatic gun fire.”

Here are some additional facts from the evidence:

  1. In August 2014, 3 Cossacks went to police complaining that they were getting picked on by the Bandidos. The police then started an investigation against the Bandidos (spending a massive amount of resources).
  2. Between August 2014 and May 17, 2015, even though the police had spent enormous amount of money on the investigation, the police could not find any substantial evidence to support the Cossack’s complaint.
  3. There was a Texas Confederation of Clubs and Independents Meeting scheduled at the Twin Peaks in Waco, TX for May 17, 2015. The Texas Confederation of Clubs and Independents is a political action organization that was meeting to discuss politics, legislation, and constitutional rights on issues effecting motorcyclists. Cossacks are not members and were not invited. Noone except the Cossacks and police knew that they were coming. The COCI meeting was not usually held in Waco, but this was a multi-regional meeting with a key-note speaker, and Waco was chosen because it is centrally located between Austin and Dallas (so that more people could attend).
  4. Numerous law enforcement agencies set up at the Waco Twin Peaks and were literally prepared for war. Police were working with at least 3 Cossacks, the Cossacks were not invited to the meeting, no one knew the Cossacks were coming except the police and the Cossacks, and the police set up substantial surveillance as well. The Cossacks showed up with 70+ members and supporters.
  5. As soon as a small group of Bandidos arrived, they were immediately surrounded by 50+ Cossacks and an argument ensued. At this time, other Cossacks were posting up in strategic positions and at least 1 Cossack was caught on security camera brandishing a pistol while the Cossacks were surrounding the Bandidos and before the argument started.
  6. Of the 2 (and only 2) independent witnesses that saw the first shot, both told police that a Cossack pulled a gun 1st and shot a Bandido with a blue shirt in the shoulder.
  7. None of the independent witnesses corroborate Cossack claims that Bandidos drew weapons and fired 1st- not even 1. All independent witnesses saw the opposite.
  8. Very shortly after the first shot, and during the fight, law enforcement (who were ready with their AR15 rifles and tactical gear) started firing on the group of bikers, regardless of whether those bikers were actually involved in the fight (some were running away).
  9. On video, 3 different Cossacks are seen firing guns on groups of bikers that are on the ground covering themselves. 2 of these Cossacks were shot while they were firing on others. Another Cossack was shot and killed while he was attacking people with a large chain.
  10. Jesus “Mohawk” Rodriguez (Vietnam Veteran and Purple Heart recipient) was not a member of any club, but was there for the political meeting. When the fight started, video shows him throat punch a Cossack that is brandishing a gun and Mohawk takes him down (likely saving lives). While they are on the ground wrestling, a different Cossack approached, kicks Mohawk in the head, pulls out a gun, and shoots Mohawk in the face (killing him). That Cossack then walks over to where there are people on the ground guarding themselves and opens fire. The shooter then drops as if he was shot.
  11. Most likely, the majority of the people killed were killed by police.

Related Posts:

click banner to read more about the CopBlock Network

click banner to read more about the CopBlock Network

Both the Twin Peaks Waco shooting and Stephen Stubbs himself have been featured numerous times previously in posts by Kelly W. Patterson (me), Asa J, Ademo Freeman, and Brian Sumner on CopBlock.org. Below is a list of posts related to one or both of them. In addition, Pete Eyre wrote this 2013 post about the 20th anniversary of the massacre of the Branch Davidians by members of the FBI and ATF, which also took place in Waco.

If you personally have information you would like to share with the CopBlock Network you can submit it using the CopBlock.org Submission Page.

Twin Peaks Shooting:

  1. 48 More Bikers Indicted in Waco Twin Peaks Shooting – Just For Being There
  2. Waco Police Caused Deadly Fight in Hopes of Ensuring RICO Charges
  3. Police Shot Bikers In Waco Twin Peaks Killings, Evidence Shows
  4. Texas Blocks Biker Request For Twin Peaks Police Shooting Video
  5. Waco, TX; Twin Peaks Shootings Arrests – June 10th Call Flood
  6. Four Waco Bikers Killed in May Shot by Police Rifles According to Investigation Reports
  7. Snipers On Roof Tops Outside Harley Dealerships in Wake of Waco Shooting
  8. CopBlock Radio Show Preview for June 10, 2015

Stephen Stubbs:

  1. Know Your Rights Seminar At Las Vegas “Rally For Your Rights”
  2. Nevada Police Chief Resigns After Protecting Animal Shelter Supervisor Who Killed Pets
  3. Fired NV Police Chief Ordered to Pay Punitive Damages in Abuse of Authority Lawsuit
  4. Las Vegas Attorney Stephen Stubbs Found Not Guilty in 5th Amendment Right to Counsel Case
  5. Game Over for Insert Coins’ and Their Abusive Bouncers
  6. Dance, Dance Revolution Protest at Insert Coins Las Vegas- Feb. 26, 2015
  7. Insert Coin(s) Las Vegas Bouncers Beat Man and Obstruct Witness Trying to Film
  8. Las Vegas Police Promise “Fundamental Policy Changes” after Dominic Gennarino Beating
  9. Las Vegas Police Beat a Man for “Not Moving Fast Enough”
  10. Las Vegas Police Agree That You Should Film Them
  11. Free Know Your Rights Seminar in Las Vegas
  12. Attorney Stephen Stubbs Arrested for Refusing to Leave His Client’s Side

Banner - cell 411Local NBC News Station’s Coverage of Video

kcentv.com – KCEN HD – Waco, Temple, and Killeen

Truth and Evidence- Twin Peaks Waco, May 17, 2015

Officer Michael Bucher’s Dash Cam, Twin Peaks, Waco, TX, May 17, 2015

DPS Pole Cam, Twin Peaks, Waco, TX Incident May 17, 2015

Patio View 1, Twin Peaks, Waco, TX, May 17, 2015 Incident

Patio View 2, Twin Peaks, Waco, TX, May 17, 2015 Incident

4 Comments

Know Your Rights: Can the Police Make You Get Out of Your Car?

The following post was shared with the CopBlock Network by Omer Jaleel of Jaleel Law in Chicago, IL., via the CopBlock.org Submission Page. Along with the submission, Jaleel included this statement:

I recently wrote an article on my website that I thought would be a great fit for CopBlock.org. The article answers a question that I receive on almost a daily basis at my law firm and I’m guessing that CopBlock.org is the same. That question is whether the police can order you out of your car.

Unfortunately, SCOTUS has held that the police can order someone outside of his or her car based upon officer safety. The article discusses this issue, what the reasoning for the court’s decision was, and what someone can do to protect his or her rights. If you need any additional information about your rights during a traffic stop or are need of a defense lawyer, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Can the Police Make You Get Out of Your Car?

Most encounters with the police occur after a traffic stop and while most traffic stops are routine, the cops are trained to view traffic stops as a potentially dangerous or deadly situation. That view sometimes can result in terrible outcomes, which is why it is imperative that everyone knows their rights.

A situation that arises more often than not is a police officer asking someone to get out of his or her car following a routine traffic stop. While common sense says that being asked by the police to get out of your car after being stopped for something as trivial as an expired registration sticker or not using a turn signal is unreasonable and an invasion of someone’s rights, the United States Supreme Court held otherwise. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court held that the police can make you get out of your car after a valid traffic stop. This ruling applies to the driver and all the passengers in a car. Because of this ruling in Pennsylvania vs. Mimms, a person must exit their car if ordered to do so by the police.

Background of Pennsylvania vs. Mimms

Mimms involved a case where two Philadelphia police officers stopped a car being driven by Harry Mimms for driving with expired plates. After stopping his car, the police ordered Mimms to step out of his car, which was common practice for the police department. After Mimms complied with the officer’s order, the police observed an unusual bulge in Mimms’ jacket. The police then searched Mimms and discovered a handgun.

Mimms unsuccessfully sought to have the gun suppressed on the grounds the police violated his 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have probable cause to order Mimms out of his car and reversed the conviction against him. However, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to take the case on appeal to answer the question whether the police order to Mimms for him to get out of the car, which was given after Mimms was lawfully stopped for a traffic violation, was reasonable and thus permissible under the Fourth Amendment?

In a 6-3 per curium opinion, SCOTUS held that the police routinely asked drivers who were being ticketed to exit their cars for the safety of the officer. The police stated that it would diminish the chance that person could get something from the car while the police officer is writing the ticket and attack the officer. Also, if the stop was executed in a high traffic area, having the driver stand between the police car and the driver’s car allows the police to conduct the traffic stop away from moving traffic.

Why Can the Police Make You Get Out of Your Car?

The Mimms court held that allowing the police to make a driver exit his car is a nothing more than a “mere inconvenience” to the driver especially when compared to the safety benefits to the police. The court reasoned that since the car was stopped after a valid traffic stop and ordering the driver to get out of the car was a “minimal and reasonable intrusion” of his freedom. The court further held that the search would have occurred regardless if Mimms was out of his car or seated, because the bulge in his jacket was visible while he was seated in the car. The court held that the bulge allowed the police to assume that Mimms was armed and posed a danger to the police. Under these circumstances, the Mimms court held that any cop of “reasonable caution” would likely have conducted the “pat down” of Mimms.

Conclusion

The dissenting opinions in Mimms that were written by Justices Marshall and Stevens argued that the new rule created by Pennsylvania vs. Mimms greatly expanded the police officer’s right in searching an individual that they stopped. The dissenting opinions predicted what would happen, the police were limited in searching an individual only to the extent they could invent a justification for the search based upon officer safety.

After a traffic stop it is imperative that you do everything possible to protect your rights and that can only begin if you know your rights. If stopped by the police for a traffic stop, the officer can order you out of your car without violating your constitutional rights. However, that doesn’t prevent you from doing everything to protect your rights. Remember the interaction as best as you can and write it down, better yet record the interaction.

However, the most important thing you can do is hire a criminal defense attorney who knows what he or she is doing. Not all criminal defense lawyers are fully versed on the 4th amendment and search and seizure law.

The current state of search and seizure law allows a police officer to order a driver and the passengers out of vehicle that is stopped for even a minor traffic violation. However, the law does not require you to answer any questions or to consent to a search of your vehicle. If a police officer orders you out of your car, you must comply and do what the officer orders, but remember to not answer any questions and don’t allow the police officer to search your car.

Leave a comment

Waco, TX; Twin Peaks Shootings Arrests – June 10th Call Flood

Members of Texas CopBlock have requested a Call Flood on behalf of the 170+ bikers who were arrested and are being held at the McLennan County Jail, with $1M ransoms being demanded for each, after the May 17th shootings at the Twin Peaks restaurant in Waco, TX. (See below for more details.)

Call Flood Details – June 10th, 2015 4:00 PM CDT

Waco (TX) Police Department

Website: http://www.waco-texas.com/police/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WacoPoliceDepartment
Twitter: https://twitter.com/wacopolice
Online Contact Form: http://www.waco-texas.com/cms/forms/contactus.aspx
Chief Brent Stroman: http://www.waco-texas.com/cms/forms/contactus.aspx?name=Brent%20Stroman
Phone Number: (254) 750-7500

Waco City Attorney: Jennifer Richie

Online Contact Info: http://www.waco-texas.com/attorney.asp
Phone Number: (254) 750-5680

McLennan County District Attorney: Abel Reyna

Website: http://www.co.mclennan.tx.us/distatty
Phone Number: (254) 757-5084

Waco Police Association (Police Union)

Website: http://www.waco-pa.com/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Waco-Police-Association/164667240609
Twitter: https://twitter.com/wacopoliceassoc
Online Contact Form: http://www.waco-pa.com/contact-us/

Waco Biker Call FloodTexas CopBlock has requested this call flood as a result of the unfair treatment, excessive bail demands, and unsubstantiated arrests of bikers who were not actually involved in either the shootings themselves or even the altercation preceding the shootings. As of yet, charges for the majority of those arrested have either not been filed, or have not been made public. In addition, those being held have been given the option of signing a waiver of their right to sue in exchange for being released. This is both a violation of their civil rights and an indication that the police do not have solid evidence against them, but are attempting to coerce them into giving up those rights.

click banner to learn how you can help spread the message!

click to help spread the message!

Most of the bikers being held have been arrested for merely being in the same building. All told, nine lives have been lost and 18 people have been injured. Many people, including witnesses present at the incident have been questioning the official story and casting doubt upon the legitimacy of the actions by the police, including the extent of police involvement during the incident, how many of the dead and injured were actually shot by the police, and whether the police had provocateurs that intentionally helped to escalate the incident.

The Facebook invite for this event can be found here:
https://www.facebook.com/events/650708251726053/

 Additional Information/Eyewitness Accounts

Stephen Stubbs Las Vegas Biker AttorneyStephen “Bowtie” Stubbs, a Las Vegas attorney who has been featured several times on CopBlock.org in the past (here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), is well known as an advocate for civil rights and specifically for defending motorcyclists, especially those that have been targeted by the police and/or government agencies/departments. Because of his past reputation for supporting the rights of bikers, he has garnered trust and connections within that community, as well as an understanding of the inner workings of motorcycle clubs, beyond the typical hype and myths.

Below is a series of videos he has released on his YouTube channel discussing the case itself, as well as the many unanswered questions, wrongful arrests, excessive bail amounts, and illegal lawsuit waver demands. Many of the details he discusses in those videos consist of inside information, provided by eyewitnesses or those who have spoken directly to people that were in attendance during the Twin Peaks shootings in Waco.

Wrongfully Arrested Bikers Have to Sign Lawsuit Waiver to be Released

The Truth About the Twin Peaks Shootings in Waco, TX.

Eyewitnesses’ Perspectives on the Waco Biker Shootings

True Story of a “Boozefighter” Hero

Are the Bandidos Really Ninjas?

12 Comments