Near the end of May 2020, an arrest warrant was executed for “stalking,” Jeffrey Blake Barnett, or Jeff Barnett, the Police Chief of the Kyle Police Department.
The arrest warrant was issued by Justice of the Peace Beth Smith. The initial police report was made on or about October 1, 2018; however, we do not have the initial report and have no idea how Mr. Barnett (aka John Smith) was being stalking on or before October 1, 2018.
In 2020, the arrest warrant was issued. When the initial complaint was generated in 2018, it claimed “John Smith,” was the victim of stalking and harassment:
On September 30, 2019, almost a year later, it was found out that the City of Kyle had a case for stalking/harassing a John Smith. Prior to this date, it was never known to the suspected individual. The suspected individual had no clue who “John Smith,” was supposed to be or that he was even being investigated by the City of Kyle for anything.
After the arrest, and a few months later, the Hays County District Attorney’s Office recused themselves from the matter and appointed the Travis County Attorney’s Office:
The review is supposed to determine if the suspected individual committed any crimes, “and/or,” if there is a problem with the Kyle Police Report “and/or,” warrant issued by the Justice of the Peace.
The recusal happened on or about October 1, 2020. This is two years from the initial case report being generated and about five months since the arrest.
On or about December 22, 2020, the suspected individual filed a Habeas Corpus petition to remove the bond on the suspected individual and to dismiss the case that has not been filed.
On or about April 13, 2021, the District Court Judge under Civil Cause 20-2877 informed the parties the matter of Habeas Corpus Relief needs to be filed in County Court because the matter at hand is not a felony. In other words, the matter is not stalking and the use of a pseudonym was improper; especially, since October 1, 2018.
The next day, April 14, 2021, a new petition was filed within the County Court and it sat there for weeks, until recently.
On may 10, 2021, Sandra Lopez, the Court Administrator for the Hays County Court at Law’s made a judicial decision not to allow scheduling a the civil remedy, Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief.
The matter was decided between the “special prosecutors,” and the Court Administrator. Essentially, they all decided and agreed that the petitioner did not and is not entitled to habeas corpus process.
This decision, being contradictory to the Texas Constitution caused a complaint to be sent to the Hays County Government, General Counsel.
The Texas Constitution states the following:
Sec. 12. HABEAS CORPUS. The writ of habeas corpus is a writ of right, and shall never be suspended. The Legislature shall enact laws to render the remedy speedy and effectual.
If this is a right, how is a Court Administrator and a Special Prosecutor allowed to inform someone he is not entitled to the right?
Well, soon after the email, and soon after a final notice that a civil rights lawsuit would be filed, the following was presented to the requester:
As one may see, it is the legal right to petition for habeas corpus relief. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedures provides the following:
Art. 11.01. WHAT WRIT IS. The writ of habeas corpus is the remedy to be used when any person is restrained in his liberty. It is an order issued by a court or judge of competent jurisdiction, directed to any one having a person in his custody, or under his restraint, commanding him to produce such person, at a time and place named in the writ, and show why he is held in custody or under restraint.
Art. 11.64. APPLICATION OF CHAPTER. This Chapter applies to all cases of habeas corpus for the enlargement of persons illegally held in custody or in any manner restrained in their personal liberty, for the admission of prisoners to bail, and for the discharge of prisoners before indictment upon a hearing of the testimony. Instead of a writ of habeas corpus in other cases heretofore used, a simple order shall be substituted.
Art. 32.01. DEFENDANT IN CUSTODY AND NO INDICTMENT PRESENTED. (a) When a defendant has been detained in custody or held to bail for the defendant’s appearance to answer any criminal accusation, the prosecution, unless otherwise ordered by the court, for good cause shown, supported by affidavit, shall be dismissed and the bail discharged, if indictment or information be not presented against the defendant on or before the last day of the next term of the court which is held after the defendant’s commitment or admission to bail or on or before the 180th day after the date of commitment or admission to bail, whichever date is later. (b) A surety may file a motion under Subsection (a) for the purpose of discharging the defendant’s bail only.
Seeing how the matter was initially filed as a felony and no indictment has been returned the habeas corpus was initially filed in the District Court. After learning the case may only be a misdemeanor, but nothing higher than such, an agreement was reached to file in the County Court.
In any case, the initial affidavit is not factually accurate:
Here is how the complaint is factually inaccurate and improper:
Because of this whole matter, a Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit has been filed and can be read HERE.
It seems apparent that people may be trying to assist Mr. Barnett because either they have been mislead by him, believe him, or just want to help him cover up what he has done for an extended period of time, but the reader should decided for him or herself. All the items published in this story are public record.
This is compounded when the Court Administrator makes decisions for the Judge without proper approval and such decision hinders the entitled rights of those involved.
The main issue being, the Justice of the Peace never filed the case in her venue. She cannot file it because she issued a felony warrant. Because there is no place to motion dismissal, the Habeas Corpus Petition is the only remedy. The Justice of the Peace should have filed the case in her venue, or would that show our OPINION on the topic is correct? That Justice of the Peace’s shouldn’t be issuing felony warrants as they have been? Maybe that is what Criminal District Attorney Wes Mau recused the case without creating a prefile?
PLEASE NOTE: “John Smith,” should NEVER have been a name used so Jeffrey Barnett or Jeff Barnett could misuse his employees to follow the person he falsely arrested to cover up his long stemming conduct.