We have not published in awhile, but decided now would be a good time to keep the public updated on the proceedings related to a Hays County Police Chief misusing his office to follow a citizen, so he could cover up for his past actions.
There has been a lot of movement in a very short time, in the cause. The key notes are the Hays County District Attorney’s Office and the elected Judge for Hays County Court at Law 1; have both recused themselves in the cause.
After recusal, the Travis County Pro Tem were assigned to take the place of the Hays County District Attorney’s Office. This was on October 1, 2020.
In June 2021, they finally decided to file a “harassment,” case; rather than a “stalking,” case on this blogger.
Since the filing, the defendant has filed various motions. At the moment, the filing has resulted in two appeals to the Third Court of Criminal Appeals. Both of those appeals have been assigned to the Travis County Attorney’s Office, Appeals Division.
The first appeal was filed before the Pro Tem elected to file a case. It was filed based upon the duration of time it was taking to file a case.
The appellant (defendant) has already filed his brief, and it is published for public viewing. The Pro Tem has been given an extension of time to file a brief; potentially, because the Appeals Division was never aware of the brief being due. Such issue may be under review of the Pro Tem’s Office.
The second appeal is related to how the Pro Tem applied the “harassment,” law on the defendant. The Motion to Quash was denied because the Presiding Judge, the Honorable Michael Keasler, informed the defense, in open court, the only reason the motion was denied was to avoid Interlock Appeals.
The appellants brief on the constitutionality of the law, as applied by the Pro Tem, is due on September 20, 2021, the same date the Pro Tem has a brief due on the longevity to file.
In the public court records (filed by the Hays County District Attorney, as a Motion to Recuse) in the Hays County Court at Law 1, the complainant is named as “Jeffrey Blake Barnett,” City of Kyle Police Chief. The pseudonym was still filed by the Pro Tem to list a “John Smith,” even when the recusing office disclosed the complainants name publicly.
The next setting is September 13, 2021, and it is a Pre-Trial Hearing. We cannot disclose any information we received in “discovery,” other than what we already received publicly, but the case will be very interesting if the Pro Tem elects to proceed, or if the Judge allows it to proceed; because the next step is to raise the Motion to Dismiss due to Lack of Probable Cause. Now that the Pre-Trial Hearing will allow the Judge to see evidence, we can formally raise the motion.
Since the moment the Pro Tem released some items in discovery, the Defendant filed two motions for specific discovery items and exculpatory items. This is typical in proceedings; what is not, is what the specific items of request were. Almost everything the Defense requested was ordered to be released, only a few items require discussion in court for the Judge to decide.
In any case, the Pro Tem will have to obtain quite a bit of information and provide it to the Defense. Again, per our previous publishings, we stand firmly behind this being an attempt to silent the public for improper government conduct. We believe there is no case for the Pro Tem to file, that has us listed as a defendant.