|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Texas Motion for Witness List pursuant to Texas weak statute
Call Lawyerdude 805 815 3599. Email: Lawyerdude@adelphia.net Join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_lawyedude Email: lawyerdude1989@yahoo.com If these numbers don’t work then gravitate to my links with higher 4 digit numbers. They are newer and will have the latest telephone number.
This page is http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/6639.html
Related pages:
Jason’s narrative story of his case and links to all his defense motions: http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/jason.html
Links to many other winning pro se litigants: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/traffic.html
Jason Lisle
Rural Route 6, Box 927
Orange TX 77632
Phone 409 746 2081
Jason’s Dad’s cell phone 409 350 5179
This page is on the web at http://www.lawyerdude.s4.com/6639.html
The entire defense case and list of motions is at http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/jason.html
District Court 1A - a branch of the Jasper Court - open 1st Thursday and 3rd Friday only.
Judge Monte Lawlis
110 Court Street, P. O. Drawer J, Newton, Texas, 75966
Bree Allen, District Clerk 409 379 3951 Fax: 409 379 9087
People
v
Jason Lisle
Case number: ND 5531
Document #6639 Version 0.9
Defendant’s 4th substantive motion.
We also expect to file Discovery Demand # 6579
Application and Order to compel production of Witness List and $100 fee for obstinance necessitating this motion.
Declaration or Jason Lisle
Declaration of Attorney Douglas Palaschak.
Memorandum of Law.
Proof of Service.
Proposed Order
Tentative Venue for this motion:
Date: Friday 17 December 2004
Time: 8:30 pm
Court: Court of Judge Monte Lawlis
Notice of Motion
To the prosecutor all parties and counsel: Be advised: At the venue indicated in the caption above or at such other time as the court may designate, I will ask the court to sign the attached Order to compel you to produce a witness list for trial and such other items as shall be listed in the attached Order. quash the search warrant nun pro tunc and suppress all evidence stemming from that warrant.
Table of Contents:
Here is the list of characters in this drama:
Declaration of Attorney Douglas Palaschak
This document is at http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/6571.html
Statement of the Case - subdocument #6571. Version 1.2
The facts in this case are not clear yet. Discovery has not been completed. So far the facts sound like an episode of the Dukes of Hazard. We have a grand jury indictment rubber stamped without a date affixed. They name the wrong day (and the wrong guy). The magistrate who signed the warrant works at the sand quarry. He is the brother of the sheriff - and, truth be told - we haven not yet seen a signed warrant. The affidavit for the warrant is not signed - and is insufficient to justify a warrant. It accuses Jason of “slinging the dope” but nobody steps up to say that they actually saw Jason do anything. Since they have no quantity of methamphetamine, they arbitrarily pick a quantity of 4 grams - which, I suspect, has more to do with the words in a statute than the reading from a scale.
Based on the documents that the defense has received, this is the case so far:
Here is the list of characters in this drama:
1. Jason Lisle, the innocent falsely accused defendant, is a 26 year old union apprentice electrician as is his father. Of the characters in this drama, Clint is the only one with a job and the only one who is not a crank user. On Saturday May, 2004, Jason was falsely arrested and falsely accused of manufacturing methamphetamine. On day of his arrest he was employed full time as an apprentice union electrician. Jason is one of 2 children. Jason’s older brother has an engineering degree and is employed professionally as an engineer. Jason’s Mom, Dad, and brother all support him in this case. Jason’s fingerprints were not found on any of the glassware of the alleged methamphetamine laboratory parts. He possessed no methamphetamine.
2. Curtis Pitman is 29 year old incompetent amateur crankster/ chemist who is trying to learn to manufacture methamphetamine. On June 4, nearly a month after this instant arrest, Curtis exploded his Mom’s house in Hartburg killing a woman. This woman died a slow agonizing death. Burns covered all her body. She struggled for 3 weeks before finally expiring. Curtis went to school with Jason, Clint, and Amy. He was only a casual acquaintance to Jason. Jason is 3 years younger than Curtis.
3. Marvin Clint Shepard a/k/a Clint Shepard is apparently an amateur manufacturer also. On or about this date of this arrest Clint’s trailer exploded in order to hide evidence or by mere act of incompetent chemical engineering.
4. Malita Nagle rented the home where the May 1 raid happened. She was subsequently arrested.
5. Amy crooks is an unemployed manipulative crankster opportunist. She has no car and no job. She has spent the previous night sleeping in a house formerly owned by Jason’s grandmother. Had she a care then Jason would not have had to drive her to the Malita Nagle house. She was romantically pursing Clint Shepard. That is why she was not there when Jason came to retrieve her at 2 pm. But for the manipulation of this destitute woman, Jason would not have been falsely arrested. It was her delay in returning from her tryst with Clint that cause Jason to be at the raided house at 8:15 pm when the raid happened. At that time Amy was on her way to the house, only to be intercepted by police and caught in possession of methamphetamine.
6. Magistrate Leonard Powell is an uneducated employee of a sand quarry. We do not yet know whether he signed the warrant or not. Leonard is the brother of Sheriff Powell which prevents Leonard from being a neutral and detached magistrate - which in turn voids any search warrant that he may or may not have sighed in this case. Even if he had been neutral and detached, the affidavit for the search warrant is insufficient.
7. Sheriff Powell is the congenial brother of Magistrate Leonard Powell. Jason’s parents met with Sheriff Powell on 7 May. He ordered the release of Mom’s car. He knew nothing about the warrant.
8. Robert Lunsford is a rogue deputy in the far south of the county. He is the driving force behind the raid. He wrote the defective application for a search warrant. Our copy is unsigned. The warrant is fatally defective and insufficient to trigger a search warrant.
Chronology of Operative Events
On Saturday May 1, 2004 at approximately 9 a.m. Jason drove himself and Amy Crook to Malita Nagle’s home. He would eventually be arrested there later in the day. This house was then Malita Nagle’s house. They went there to visit Curtis Pitman and Clint Shepard who was a former schoolmate to Jason and others there. Curtis had been several years ahead of Jason in school. After 15 minutes Jason left leaving Amy behind. It rained that day. This was the first time that Jason had ever been to that house.
At 2 pm Jason returned to Malita’s house but Amy was not ready to leave. Jason departed.
.
Jason returned at around 8 pm to pick up Amy but Amy was not there. Curtis Pitman was there. Jason was only in the living room. He was never in the kitchen, the bathroom, the bedroom or any other room until the police arrived. Curtis Pitman told Jason that the police were coming. Jason then went into the bathroom to look out the window to see if Curtis was playing a trick on him.
The police arrived at Matila’s house around 8:15 pm according to the report of Deputy Threadgill. Police entered without a warrant and found the paraphernalia and other equipment that the police characterized as a meth lab. Jason, having never been in the rooms where the equipment was found (until he looked out the bathroom window to see the police car), had no prior knowledge that there was a meth lab in his very midst. Jason was there to retrieve Amy; he had dropped her off there 11 hours earlier on this rainy day.
After the raid the police were looking for mechanical defects and other reasons to detain motor vehicles on the road to Malita’s house. This is standard procedure when police suspect drug activity but have insufficient evidence to search the car or obtain a search warrant
Amy was on her way back and would have met Jason had she not been stopped and arrested for possession of an illegal drug.
The prosecution has not provided us with any information on what happened to the several other people arrested that day.
The prosecution has not provided us with any test results indicating that the chemical in Malta’s house was indeed methamphetamine.
Clint Shepard’s mobile home exploded around the same time that Jason was arrested on May 1. A logical conclusion is the Clint Shepard and Curtis Pitman were manufacturing. Jason, their high school friend, had a full time job. He was no involved in the manufacturing.
On Friday May 7 the sheriff released Jason’s Mom’s car. Clint had been driving it the night that he was arrested.
On Friday May 7 Jason’s Mom and Dad paid a bail bondsman and obtained Jason’s release.
On June 3rd , around a month after Jason and Curtis were arrested, Curtis’s Mom’s house exploded killing a woman. Curtis was there at the time his Mom’s house exploded.
On Friday September 17 Jason went to docket call. He was given a paper memorializing his indictment by the grand jury for violation of section 481.112 of the health and safety code, namely - manufacturing Meth on May 2. Jason was in jail on May 2; he did not manufacture meth in jail - or anywhere - on May 2.
Curiously the indictment bears no date. What tribunal performs a solemn function and then memorializes it without a date? The signature appears to be a rubber stamp. This scenario cries our for more investigation. We will be asking for a transcript of the grand jury proceedings.
Sometime around September 17 we received in discovery an application by Robert Lunsford, a peace officer for a search warrant. The application is undated and unsigned. The application is insufficient to justify a search warrant. The defects are so numerous that we have put them into an appendix.
There is no magistrate’s signature on the application for a warrant.
The prosecution has showed us no search warrant.
We believe, on the basis of the documents that we have received, that there was no search warrant.
Magistrate Leonard Powell is alleged by Jason’s dad to have signed the search warrant but we have no paper copy of the search warrant.
Leonard Powell is a full time employee of a sand quarry. He has no legal education and is not qualified to analyze or approve a search warrant.
Therefore the warrant, if any, is void ab initio. The deputies are not entitled to rely on a warrant from a Powell. They know that he is not a lawyer and not qualified to issue a warrant.
Although a 1995 Texas statute attempts to authorize a warrant by an uneducated person, we contend that the statute is void ab initio as a violation of due process. Jason is entitled to the judgment of a person trained in the law.
Jason is accused of a quantity between 4 and 200 grams. Jason did not have possession of any meth. Nonetheless, the quantity described is insufficient quantity to justify indictment.
I, Jason Lisle, declare the following under penalty of perjury: I am a journeyman union electrician like my dad. My brother is a professional engineer. I went to school with Clint, Curtis, and Amy. Amy slept at my Gramma’s house on the night before the raid. She had no car. I drove her to Malita’s house around 9 a.m. so that she could visit Clint. She was romantically pursuing Clint. She wasted a good part of my day by delaying. But for her delay I would not have been there during the raid. I was merely there waiting for Amy. I possessed no drugs. I did not manufacture any drugs.
On May 1, 2004, about 9:00 a.m., Amy Crooks and I went down to Malita's house to visit Curtis Pitman and Clint Sheppard. After about 15 minutes I left the residence. I then went to Cindy's house to see if she had heard from her son, Daniel Smith. We talked for a while and then she asked me to go to the store to buy her some cigarettes. It was pouring down rain so I stayed until it slacked off. At about
2:00 I returned with her cigarettes and then went to Malita's house to see if Amy was ready to leave. She said no, so I returned home. At about 8:00, I returned to Malita's house to pick up Amy, but she wasn't there. As I was talking to Curtis the police showed up and arrested us.
Until that day, I had never been at that residence. The only room I was in was the living room. I did go into the bathroom
when Curtis said the cops were coming up the drive. I ran to the window to look and see if he was telling the truth. That day, I never
passed Sgt. Ashworth as he pulled over on the side of the road. I did not see a meth lab inside of that house. My DOB 12/18/77. I had
received no indictment as of 9/6/04
In the affidavit of probable cause it states that one jar of brown liquid found and two syringes with brown liquid found believed to be
meth. Also one tub with scales, glass jars and tubes consistent with meth lab.
Inadequacy of Affidavit.
The inadequacy of the affidavit is discussed in my motion to quash it. That motion is # 6570. It is filed with this court. It is on the web at http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/coolidg2.html It was my 2nd substantive motion but I cannot argue it until I receive my discovery items.
Search Warrant was not signed
The copy of the search Warrant that I received days after the raid was not signed.
Signed ______________________ Jason Lisle 17 Dec 2004. Friday.
Declaration of Attorney Douglas Palaschak
I, Douglas Palaschak, declare the following under penalty of perjury: It is 2:20 pm central time on Monday, November 15, 2004. I just hung up the phone after talking with Billy Springer, investigator for Prosecutor A.W. Davis. Springer says that they will not release any discovery on this case without a court order. He says that they have a variable policy. In some cases they release discovery; in some cases they don’t. He says that the factors in this case are: 1 It is a drug case; and 2 It is a felony.
Signed___________________ Douglas Palaschak. Monday, November 15, 2004. 2:33 pm cst.
Signed by permission of Douglas Palaschak
Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722.
Art. 39.14. Discovery
(a) Upon motion of the defendant showing good cause therefor and
upon notice to the other parties, the court in which an action is
pending may order the State before or during trial of a criminal
action therein pending or on trial to produce and permit the
inspection and copying or photographing by or on behalf of the
defendant of any designated documents, papers, written statement of
the defendant, (except written statements of witnesses and except
the work product of counsel in the case and their investigators and
their notes or report), books, accounts, letters, photographs,
objects or tangible things not privileged, which constitute or
contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and
which are in the possession, custody or control of the State or any
of its agencies. The order shall specify the time, place and manner
of making the inspection and taking the copies and photographs of
any of the aforementioned documents or tangible evidence;
provided, however, that the rights herein granted shall not extend
to written communications between the State or any of its agents or
representatives or employees. Nothing in this Act shall authorize
the removal of such evidence from the possession of the State, and
any inspection shall be in the presence of a representative of the
State.
(b) On motion of a party and on notice to the other parties, the
court in which an action is pending may order one or more of the
other parties to disclose to the party making the motion the name
and address of each person the other party may use at trial to
present evidence under Rules 702, 703, and 705, Texas Rules of
Evidence. The court shall specify in the order the time and manner
in which the other party must make the disclosure to the moving
party, but in specifying the time in which the other party shall
make disclosure the court shall require the other party to make the
disclosure not later than the 20th day before the date the trial
begins.
Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722.
Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 578, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1,
1999.
I, _________________ , declare the following under penalty of perjury: On (date)_________I personally handed this motion #6639 to Prosecutor Davis in court. Thereafter I filed it with the court clerk
Signed ____________________________ Date Dec 17 2004. Friday.
I. Douglas Palaschak, certify that I served this by email on Prosecutor Davis at 7:45 pm on Thursday 16 Dec 2004. I thereafter telephoned his office at 409 379 8600 but there was no answer after a full 60 seconds of ringing as measured by my telephone screen.
Jason Lisle
Rural Route 6, Box 927
Orange TX 77632
Phone 409 746 2081
Jason’s Dad’s cell phone 409 350 5179
District Court 1A
Judge Monte Lawlis
110 Court Street, P. O. Drawer J, Newton, Texas, 75966
Bree Allen, District Clerk 409 379 3951 Fax: 409 379 9087
People
v
Jason Lisle
Case number: ND 5531
Order after hearing on motion #6639 Version 0.9
Prosecutor Davis is hereby ordered to disclose all items pursuant to the statute cited in the motion.
Such disclosure shall be made within 48 hours and mailed to the defendant at his address at the top left corner of Motion #6639.
The prosecution shall pay a fee of $100 for frivolous delay in failing to comply with the request for discovery.
Signed _______________________
Judge Monte Lawlis Friday Dec 17 2004.