tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post1285523452182717839..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Sheriff real, unintentional star of 'Tulia' filmGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-79363634704308497082009-04-18T09:47:00.000-05:002009-04-18T09:47:00.000-05:00I first encountered the Tulia cocaine travesty whe...I first encountered the Tulia cocaine travesty when the BBC Panorama documentary <A HREF="http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2003/20030414_texas/default.htm" REL="nofollow">"Texas Undercover"</A> was broadcast on ABC television in Australia on 14/04/2003. Since then I have followed it via web searches which lead to Nate Blakeslee's articles in The Texas Observer and finally I bought his book <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Tulia-Cocaine-Corruption-Small-Texas/dp/158648219X" REL="nofollow">"Tulia: Race, Cocaine and Corruption in a small Texas Town".</A> The Tulia instance illuminated by books and documentaries serves as a case study of what is seriously wrong with justice in the US and with the war on drugs.<br /><br />It is important after viewing these documentaries to ask the right questions and to avoid drawing the wrong conclusions. For example some might be tempted to say that the system worked in this case, the people were not wrongfully imprisoned for very many years and not to notice how unlikely that outcome was.<br /><br />The thing is it was only the colossal incompetence of Coleman in carrying out the frame up together with his equally enormous ambition and over reach that resulted in the Tulia cases unraveling. Coleman targeted about 40 people for framing but 5 of his cases fell apart when it became obvious that the intended victims had unbreakable alibis or had physical appearances grossly different from Coleman's descriptions of them. Five out of 40 is an error rate of 12.5% which was enough to cast doubt on the other cases. Had Coleman been less incompetent in constructing a frame by making sure that he knew what his victims looked like and that they did not have alibis at the times he said he bought drugs from them, there would have been no failed prosecutions to cast doubt on the other cases. Likewise had he been less ambitious, and tried to frame only 8 instead of 40 with the same error rate there would have been only one failed prosecution which would not throw doubt on the other 8 cases to the same extent that 5 does on 40.<br /><br />How many other Tulia's are out there, where the wrongly convicted are wasting their lives in prison because they plead not guilty just because they were factually innocent instead of accepting a plea. Only a rare confluence of factors, the incompetence of Coleman, the large number of victims, the presence of competent lawyers willing to donate large amounts of expensive time, the luck that the biased judge did something so obvious in indicating his prejudice that he had to recuse himself, the luck that the judge who replaced him was honest and competent resulted in the overturn of the Tulia convictions.<br /><br />The vaunted innocent until proven guilty presumption only works if juries give effect to it, and it is obvious that a poor black defendant accused of drug related wickedness coming before a white jury has snowflake in Hell's chance of acquittal. Taking a plea is the only reasonable option despite factual innocence.<br /><br />There are other questions needing to be asked. Did Tom Coleman think he was doing anything wrong? Did Coleman think Sheriff Stewart had told him to railroad the blacks in Tulia into prison as efficiently as possible? Is that in fact what Stewart told Coleman to do?<br /><br />The legal system is very efficient means of discriminating against members of disliked minorities. You may not be able to make laws saying that it is illegal to be black, but one can skew the enforcement of laws against normal human behavior like using and trading mind altering substances so that toll on members of minorities is colossal while doing little damage to members of respectable society.TheEvilOnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762637210865545012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-19566216494071905512008-11-20T13:35:00.000-06:002008-11-20T13:35:00.000-06:00Reverend, by what means did you become a Reverend ...Reverend, by what means did you become a Reverend and through what denomination?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-68036546110852823322008-03-17T09:06:00.000-05:002008-03-17T09:06:00.000-05:00Tulia still stands by their man. The retiring Sher...Tulia still stands by their man. The retiring Sheriff Stewart got "Man of the Year Award" at the Chamber of Commerce banquet last week.<BR/><BR/>Celtic, as far how you know, I have seen nothing in your posts that indicates your knowledge goes beyond hearsay, "People say if you want drugs go to Tulia." I've seen nothing about anybody including yourself buying from a specific person. And hearsay evidence is simply not evidence. As far as I'm concerned, you don't know. And as far as I'm concerned, I don't know. I just know that the evidence on which they were convicted was finally deemed inadmissible. In the words of Judge Chapman who presided over the evidentiary hearings (I was there, and heard them, so this is a near verbatim rendering). This came after a couple of days of testimony from Tom Coleman, and a couple of days of obfuscating beating around the bush testimony by Sheriff Stewart. "All parties involved [this included the prosecutorial team and their attorneys] have concluded that the sworn testimony of Tom Coleman is simply incredible"--(then came the big therefore)--"therefore, it is the recommendation of this court of inquiry that all convictions based on his testimony, including those where there was a guilty plea, be overturned." This was on April 1, 2003. April Fool's Day. I wondered, "Is the judge playing a big April Fools' joke. He wasn't. He was for real. Let it be remembered that the recommendation of the court was not binding. This hearing was conducted by order of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, a body which takes a long time to do their work. So people were still in prison based on wrongul convictions, and I use the term intentionally and without aplogy. Tom Coleman walked free that day; people convicted on his incredible testimony went back to prison. With the help of some stalwarts in the Texas Legislature who want the Criminal Justice system to work fairly, Whitmire and Ellis I think (Scott probably knows) spearheaded the bill, the Lege. passed a bill allowing them to be out on bond while the CCA dealt with the case. I was there, and testified before committe for that bill. Before the CCA got its work done, the governor issued his pardons and took the CCA off the hook. Later that year I was in Austin on a Sunday, attended church with my niece, stayed for a church meal and some kind of program afterward, and had the serendipity to meet one of the members of the Court of Criminal Appeals. I told her who I was, and of my part in the Tulia controversy. She thanked me for what I had done. I asked what the CCA would finally have done. She said we would have overturned the convictions, but it would have taken a long time. I can't remember her name, don't know whether she is still on the CCA or not, but at that time I thought, "The Court of Criminal Appeals has it least one genuinely caring Christian gentlewoman member." So I could no longer call it the Criminal Court of Appeals.<BR/>A little incident is telling as to the attitude of Law Enforcement in Tulia at the time. This is hearsay, Celtic, it would not and should not stand in court as evidence. But word from a usually reliable source has it (it would stand as evidence in court if he said it there) that after all the hullaballoo, the sheriff wanted to rearrest and charge one of the defendants on the grounds that he had toke, I think they call it, in his billfold at the time of his original arrest. Therefore the sheriff wanted to charge him with attempting to smuggle a contraband substance into the county jail! I believe this is true, because of the source, but hope it's not!<BR/><BR/>The Reverend Charles in Tulia<BR/>a convinced Christian and also an active ACLU memberAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-53436179203546781972008-03-13T21:24:00.000-05:002008-03-13T21:24:00.000-05:00Don said-Actually, one or more of the Tulia defend...<I><B>Don said</B>-Actually, one or more of the Tulia defendants said, paraphrasing, hey, if the dude had said he bought crack or pot, I might believe it myself. Not powder. It's a whole 'nuther culture.</I><BR/><BR/>Despite the race or side of town, why would the citizens not want the town cleaned up? I want this town cleaned up. I could give a damn less about race. If you deal you should be in prison forever or beter yet dead.<BR/><BR/>And Charles if you read back, you'll see i said several times how I know, and as reposted, Don himself said how he knows.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-64597500233931358882008-03-13T19:37:00.000-05:002008-03-13T19:37:00.000-05:00To Charles Kiker: You know, I've wondered about t...To Charles Kiker: You know, I've wondered about the racial angle. Like you, I'm not sure that it was racial in that "we hate blacks", but you are correct in that it was certainly effectively racial. What my thoughts were, that if it was not "hate blacks" kind of deal, they were motivated by the way the task forces received money. They were effectively paid on commission. More busts, more money. So, these folks were an easy target. You can exploit the racism that exists in Tulia itself, obvious from the beginning juries. These folks are not gonna have money for high-powered lawyers. They were all indigent. They were made to order marks for this kind of thing. Stewart knew that, and I really believe all Coleman wanted was some feathers in his cap. Gung ho shoot 'em up lawman. Delusions of grandeur. Sick SOB. Anyway, the ethnic cleansing tag works because this is certainly what drives some of the denial of the citizenry. They wanted "that side of town" cleaned up. Well, thanks again for you work.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16902834245861000386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-6715003455775949722008-03-13T18:40:00.000-05:002008-03-13T18:40:00.000-05:00To Curious: Fair enough if you're not too familia...To Curious: Fair enough if you're not too familiar with the case. But the reason I was probably less than cordial to you was not that about them "getting what was coming to them" but your apparent attempt to jump in and challenge Scott on whether or not Jeff Blackburn was an ACLU lawyer. And you still didn't answer. Even though he wasn't, your post sounded like it would be a disgrace or something to work for ACLU. "Looks like a duck, walks like a duck" etc. But I assume now that you didn't mean it like that. The counties which made up the interlocal task force paid $5 million and Swisher paid another million. Nothing came out of Coleman, Stewart, or McEachern's pocket, that I know of. Stewart is retiring finally, but he suffered no repercusions at all, and neither did Judge Self, who IMO was as culpable as anybody in all this. I'm not even sure about the court of public opinion. I think all but McEachern won reelection. McEachern was investigated for about a year or something by the Texas Bar, and they concluded that, for all intents and purposes, he is indeed a dirtball, and violated most of the tenets of ethics and principles and good lawyering that had ever been thought of and was probably guilty of some that hadn't been thought of yet(my tongue in cheek words, of course). Then they told him to keep his nose clean for, oh I don't know, five years or so and he would be off the hook. Probation of sorts. And this thread was originally about the denial. Charles Kiker was one of the folks who spearheaded the whole expose. They don't like him more than they don't like Stewart, et. al. That's why I questioned exactly what it was that was coming to them that you thought they got. Off scot-free, is what they got. As I said, Coleman was convicted of perjury, but not about the trials or the frame-ups. It was for lying at an evidentiary hearing about when he knew of charges against him in Cochran County, where he had worked before. Stole gas from the county and ran out on a bunch of debts. Stewart arrested him in the middle of his investigation. Self suppressed that evidence at the behest of McEachern. He got 10 years probation. Can't work in law enforcement anymore. So, that's why I don't think they "got what was coming to them". Sorry I was whatever I was to you. Ol' Celtic just about wore me down.donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12781137507708837166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-39369791963663633522008-03-13T18:10:00.000-05:002008-03-13T18:10:00.000-05:00Charles: Great post, but you are wasting your tim...Charles: Great post, but you are wasting your time with Celtic.donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12781137507708837166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-60496660424219275872008-03-13T16:26:00.000-05:002008-03-13T16:26:00.000-05:00Charles Kiker from Tulia here:Celtictexan continue...Charles Kiker from Tulia here:<BR/><BR/>Celtictexan continues to insist that he knows for a fact that some of those convicted were factually guilty, but will not say how he knows. This is the line of some of the Tulia people. I know that so and so (I'll refrain from using names here) is a drug dealer. Well, how do they know? Did they purchase from him? As a matter of fact, even if they had purchased from him it would not have demonstrated that he was guilty as charged, of selling such and such an amount of powder cocaine to Tom Coleman on such and such day. And the only proof, yes, the only proof, was the uncorroborated word of Tom Coleman, whose word was demonstrably unreliable. Wrongfully convicted? You better believe it! And all this stuff about the whites involved. There was one white juvenile involved. His name was not made public. Cash Love was involved. He had been living with an African-American woman and fathered a child with her, and there was a great deal said about him. There was a white woman living with an African-American man who got off pretty lightly initially, took a plea and got probation. Those are the only whites I can think of. There were three or four Hispanics involved which makes up the difference between the 39 and the 46. But would the celtic one argue, on the basis of the fact that all 46 were not African American, that the sting was not racist? I do not know the sheriff's heart, so I cannot say the sting was racist in its motivation, but it was demonstrably racist in its effect. Sixteen percent (I did the math, Scott, on the basis of the 1990 census) of the African-American population was indicted. I have not done the math on this, but it would have involved approximately 50% of the adult male population. Alan Bean did an analysis and found that 63% of African-American males who had graduated from THS since 1960, I think was his date, and had stayed in Tulia were caught up in this sting. So, was the characterization of the sting as ethnic cleansing some kind of way out, off the wall thinking of some liberal commie nut? I think not.<BR/><BR/>And, by the way, I do not hide my identity on this blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-86297488058521341442008-03-13T13:30:00.000-05:002008-03-13T13:30:00.000-05:00don,I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get back to...don,<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. For some reason, all but one the comments on this thread got directed to my "Bulk" email box, and I only read them this morning.<BR/><BR/>Regarding what was meant by "what was coming to them," I was referring primarily to the court of public opinion. Stewart, McEachern and Coleman all came out looking like the bufoons that they were (and presumably still are). Beyond that, it was my understanding that the civil rights suit settled out of court. I can only assume that some money changed hands as a result (from Coleman et al. to the defendants in the criminal case), which would also constitute "what was coming to them."<BR/><BR/>Regarding my familiarity with the case, I have to admit that it's only passing at best. Since I've never posted any comments here before, I can understand how you might perceive me as a bomb thrower. If I came across that way, I apologize; that really wasn't my intention.<BR/><BR/>It looks like Grits didn't share that perception of me; he answered my question about the difference between an ACLU lawyer and an ACLU "volunteer lawyer" in the same spirit in which the question was originally intended, as an effort to better understand the whole concept. Grits, your answer was informative without being condescending, and I appreciate that. You added to my knowledge in an area with which I'm not very familiar.Curious Texanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07236663132181855501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-33393573468364004072008-03-13T13:13:00.000-05:002008-03-13T13:13:00.000-05:00Celtic, you are indeed a piece of work. I'm outa ...Celtic, you are indeed a piece of work. I'm outa here.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16902834245861000386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-27217956568514596042008-03-13T11:33:00.000-05:002008-03-13T11:33:00.000-05:00it's just that you keep dropping these little clue...<I>it's just that you keep dropping these little clues that you really don't know what the hell you are talking about</I><BR/><BR/>I know what I'm talking about when I said there was drug dealing going on in Tulia. I would not personally have been able to go and point some one out. Aand it wasn't thousands of ibs but low level But the people of that town could. And many of the users around here could. That is fact.<BR/><BR/>If police work was as bad as has been pointed out then I have apologised. I paid litllte attention to the actual police work you are correct. I have pride in the work I do. I build aircraft aand I never want to be responsible for the death of anyone. I assume perhaaps wrongly that the vast majority of POlice would feel much the same way. <BR/><BR/>I am not conflicted in that I want drugs to become ancient history. I'm not conflicted in that the current system, aand you are part of the system is not working. Things are only growing worse.<BR/><BR/>I don't like the way things are. It's all I'm concerned about.<BR/><BR/>I'm back on the sticky board sorry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-52559539316109620102008-03-12T20:49:00.000-05:002008-03-12T20:49:00.000-05:00Celtic, it's more than just most of us disagreeing...Celtic, it's more than just most of us disagreeing with you. I hate to hurl insults as you put it, but it's just that you keep dropping these little clues that you really don't know what the hell you are talking about, opinions aside. Getting the facts wrong. Some of the people on this thread had a ringside seat, namely Scott Henson. He's not just parroting something he read or heard. The smartest thing anybody, including me, has said on this thread is when Scott told you that we are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. It is your "opinion" that drug counselors do more harm than good, and we are part of the problem and not the solution. So that's not an "insult", since it is your opinion? This is sincere, and coming from the heart and not intended as an insult. You seem misinformed, emotionally guided in your thinking, and genuinely conflicted. This is just an example of what I'm talking about and I'm not putting a fine point on it. There is nowhere near a million people in prison in Texas. (148,000) There are almost a million in the system, which is probably what you read and got wrong. That's jail, parole, probation, state jail, and prison. You were so adamant to the point of being indignant during this discussion, then suddenly, when you were met at every turn with indisputable logic that you couldn't counter, you just said to hell with it, maybe they're right and I'm wrong. The difference between me and you is that I have the courage of my convictions. I'm not going to make a bunch of wild assertions then suddenly abandon them. If the truth is insulting to you, then why shouldn't I feel pity for you? To disgusted: yeah. Me, too. Nice knowing you, Celtic.donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12781137507708837166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-3238652120085740202008-03-12T19:54:00.000-05:002008-03-12T19:54:00.000-05:00I know you don't believe drug enforcers can do any...<I>I know you don't believe drug enforcers can do any wrong, Celtic, but that's how most of these guys operated</I><BR/><BR/>I've never said or believed they can do no wrong. I've experianced wrong myself. It's just hard to believe they could be that bad. I mean what was the point? What is there to gain by being that sloppy? It's bound to come out and heresay or not dealing was there and it should not have been complicated to prove. <BR/><BR/>Anyway if the police were that bad then I apologize and will politely bow out. <BR/><BR/>I will never believe they were innocent, but if the police work was that bad then I would have to agree with you and all. No one should go to jail on the word of just one person. <BR/><BR/>It is just hard to believe more resources were not being used.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-10773172301724861152008-03-12T19:43:00.000-05:002008-03-12T19:43:00.000-05:00So true. That's why the prisons are nearly empty a...<I>So true. That's why the prisons are nearly empty and every judge's docket is so light these days.</I><BR/><BR/>The jails are packed, the cases on docket can take years to run, and I suppose your area is totally crime free? <BR/><BR/>Your post only makes my case. Drugs murder robbery rape vandalism is rapant. <BR/><BR/>Texas alone has close to one million in prison. Kinda says alot as far as how worried criminals are of going to jail and how many there are still on the streets. <BR/><BR/>Just lazy stupid cops I guess. The courts though, are doing their best.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-38900138679612769722008-03-12T19:31:00.000-05:002008-03-12T19:31:00.000-05:00"Is that court records that may have had things ba..."Is that court records that may have had things barred or raw info?"<BR/><BR/>Not a damn thing but his word. He claimed at one point in his rambling, contradictory testimony that rather than have recordings he'd write notes on his leg in ball point pen then wash it off after the police report was written. In one of those reports, e.g., he got a suspect's height wrong by 6 inches, misidentified a rail thin woman as six months pregnant, and claimed a man who'd been bald for years had a "bushy hair type."<BR/><BR/>As for what the rest of the DTF was doing - cashing the checks, of course. Some of them did show up when John Cornyn named Coleman Statewide Law Enforcement Officer of the Year (great picture in the documentary of then AG Cornyn giving Coleman the award).<BR/><BR/>I know you don't believe drug enforcers can do any wrong, Celtic, but that's how most of these guys operated, like rogues with virtually no oversight. That's why the Tulia operation was criticized, and ultimately why all the task forces lost their funding and were shut down by Gov. Perry. He's the guy that pulled the trigger, not me. Perhaps he's a closet Libertarian? Or probably not.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-35900265092950492642008-03-12T19:24:00.000-05:002008-03-12T19:24:00.000-05:00That's exactly, PRECISELY correct. Get the picture...<I>That's exactly, PRECISELY correct. Get the picture now?</I><BR/><BR/>Maybe. Is that court records that may have had things barred or raw info?<BR/><BR/>And if just raw then what the hell was all the rest of this drug task force doing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-84073641246323846132008-03-12T19:19:00.000-05:002008-03-12T19:19:00.000-05:00Don-Why in the hell do you think I would ask names...<I>Don-Why in the hell do you think I would ask names and addresses for drug dealers?</I><BR/><BR/>Because you said this.<BR/><BR/><I>Here in the Lubbock/Levelland area, dealing with dozens of drug addicts every week, I never heard that.</I><BR/><BR/>It had occurred to me that if you never heard it, that perhaps you had never asked. I was assuming that as a counselor where and who it came from would not be your priority. Is that so hard to figure? Also I should think you would know, drugs generally travel south to north, which would perhaps make Tulia a non player in your area. <BR/><BR/><I>A far greater number have lost their lives, their freedeom, their limbs, their innocence, their childhoods, because of the "war on drugs" than ever have because of the drugs themselves</I><BR/><BR/>I won't go off the deep end here and start hurling insults as you do, but seriously do you really believe this? Cause I'd really love to have you explain it to me.<BR/><BR/>Truth is and this is not an insult I try hard not to get into those kinds of worthless arguments, but counselors rarely help anyone long term. Truth is I think your profession part of the problem not a solution. Drug counselors are just another one of the very many who profit from the availability of drugs. <BR/><BR/>Your right the drug war as currently conducted is a waste. But only because so many want it to continue. Read Scots post about the DEA chatroom.<BR/><BR/><I>How do you guys have so much time to write, but none to read?</I><BR/><BR/>And I've probably read more on this than you. I don't think, you think I haven't. What your really trying to say is how can I read it and not believe it. I could turn it around and ask how you can read, and just blindly accept it. <BR/><BR/>We disagree, none of us are ignorant,idiots, deserving of pity and what ever else you have called me. We just disagree. <BR/><BR/>And for all, as far as the ACLU issue goes just drop it, as it really doesn't matter if he is a card carrier or imitator. <BR/><BR/>I saw the bust, thought of Baldwin, googled "jeff blackburn"+aclu, got 330 hits and read many of them and posted one. Excuse me if I-cough, cough-took it the wrong way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-11137120263350874202008-03-12T19:10:00.000-05:002008-03-12T19:10:00.000-05:00"under current law to prove, beyond a shadow of a ..."under current law to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the guilt of almost anyone for anything charged and tried under a felony has become almost impossible."<BR/><BR/>So true. That's why the prisons are nearly empty and every judge's docket is so light these days. All these technicalities make it impossible to convict anybody of anything, letting the crooks just run rampant. So of course you just have to assume everyone is guilty whether or not it's ever proven. After all, somebody accused them. They must be bad people. Who cares if you can't prove they're guilty? If a cop said so, it must be true.<BR/><BR/>This mentality IMO is about one or two goose steps away from full-on fascism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-91054439676474442492008-03-12T18:49:00.000-05:002008-03-12T18:49:00.000-05:00Oh, I forgot to answer your question, "do you want...Oh, I forgot to answer your question, "do you want these drugs legalized?" I've actually stated my position on that question fairly recently <A HREF="http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/02/heads-vs-feds-on-south-plains-is-it.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-78355562331238800332008-03-12T18:45:00.000-05:002008-03-12T18:45:00.000-05:00"In all that 1.5 year investigation, are you sayin..."In all that 1.5 year investigation, are you saying that not one picture, not one recording, not one defendant turned states evidence, not one single iota of evidence was gathered outside of the spoken word of Coleman?"<BR/><BR/>That's exactly, PRECISELY correct. Get the picture now?Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-39036047949828183862008-03-12T18:01:00.000-05:002008-03-12T18:01:00.000-05:00You seem to be saying you don't care if the Tulian...<I>You seem to be saying you don't care if the Tulians weren't demonstrably guilty</I><BR/><BR/>See this is well said, and at the center of what I try to say. I'm not so eloquent in my writing. <BR/><BR/>Demonstratively guilty. This in itself could be a long debate. It really is a matter of degree.<BR/><BR/>My real point is under current law to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the guilt of almost anyone for anything charged and tried under a felony has become almost impossible. <BR/><BR/>That is not in the interest of the common good and it's not of original intent. A year and a half was spent on this case. And they all walked and were well paid for the inconvenience. And they walked not because they were innocent but because of technicalities of law to complicated for even lawyers to agree upon. And of course the old race card gets played which really means it becomes the proverbial political hot potato.<BR/><BR/>I'll admit that in fact all I know before and after is heresay. All I know is what people who should know, told me. I would love to be in a bar half drunk with the main actors on the lower rungs of the legal side, them drunker than me, and hear what they have to say. <BR/><BR/>I suspect it would be much like your post on the DEA blog. They do their best with what they have, then get shot down from some higher level. <BR/><BR/>Nor have I read the Court Transcripts. I really don't want to, as I know from personal experience how many things are ordered inadmissible by the Judge that should be allowed. In one case I wasn't alowed to use newspaper or magazine adds to show a <B>general</B> price for German Shepherd puppies. I guess I was suppose to pay some, "expert" to testify. In court it's all about the money. <BR/><BR/>Now you tell me. In all that 1.5 year investigation, are you saying that not one picture, not one recording, not one defendant turned states evidence, not one single iota of evidence was gathered outside of the spoken word of Coleman? <BR/><BR/>And let me ask one more question. You will probably duct it as that has been my experience in the past. But do you really want drugs to be legalized as so many here seem to want. Do you want these poisons available to all at some cheap price in the local Toot and Tote? <BR/><BR/>Are you by chance a Libertarian at heart?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-33963585132660495202008-03-12T17:54:00.000-05:002008-03-12T17:54:00.000-05:00Also Curious, why would Grits try to hide anything...Also Curious, why would Grits try to hide anything about the ACLU? He used to work for them. Are you suggesting that's something to be ashamed of? Because it sure as hell sounds like it. Incidentally, Coleman also didn't "get anything" from all the crap he did vis-a-vis the phony drug busts. What he got was for lying at a hearing about when he knew of the charges against him in Cochran County. He wouldn't have gotten that except that they had a real judge come in from Dallas when it became clear that Self couldn't be trusted. Are you familiar with this case, or just looking to be contentious?donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12781137507708837166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-29110732537373229802008-03-12T17:44:00.000-05:002008-03-12T17:44:00.000-05:00Curious: Just to be clear about "what was coming ...Curious: Just to be clear about "what was coming to them" McEachern and Stewart didn't get anything. What do you mean "got what was coming them"?donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12781137507708837166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-22762853341459455202008-03-12T17:14:00.000-05:002008-03-12T17:14:00.000-05:00Curious - An ACLU staff attorney represents client...Curious - <BR/><BR/>An ACLU staff attorney represents clients and tries cases. "Volunteer attorneys" for ACLU are part of a regional network that vets legal intake (i.e., requests for assistance, of which there are thousands each years statewide) and forwards cases that are good possibilities for litigation to the state office for a final decision. They typically meet once a month face to face and examine that region's most recent requests for legal assistance, but for the most part aren't trying cases and make no final litigation decisions.<BR/><BR/>By contrast, e.g., Lisa Graybill is a staff attorney at ACLUTX, and goes into court identified as an ACLU lawyer. Since I've known him, including in the Tulia case, Blackburn has never done that.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-31675901568799683632008-03-12T16:59:00.000-05:002008-03-12T16:59:00.000-05:00I'm curious (hence the name):What's the difference...I'm curious (hence the name):<BR/><BR/>What's the difference between an "ACLU attorney" and an "ACLU <I><B>volunteer</I></B> attorney," aside from the fact that one gets paid and the other works pro bono?<BR/><BR/>Looks like a difference without a distinction to me.Curious Texanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07236663132181855501noreply@blogger.com