KOPBUSTERS: Update!
|
Submitted by: Miss Green  Subscribe to this Author Paste this code into your site to promote this story! |
Type of Content: Article ------------KOPBUSTERS GETS KOP FIRED. WILL IT HAPPEN?------------ I recently posted this on the Odessa American Newspaper blog. In this post, I prove kop korruption...you won't believe it. Here it is: I was saving this evidence (and a lot more) for the film (KopBuster Episode The current Narcotics Investigator for the Ector County District Attorney is Joe Commander. The current Narcotics Investigator for the Yoakum County District Attorney is Richard Dickson. These two men were my close partners at the Permian Basin Drug Task Force and we were seen as the “three amigos” of our task force. Photos of Richard and Joe standing next to me can be seen on my website. Richard is in the second photo standing on MY LEFT. Joe is in the fifth photo and is also standing on my left. I blurred the faces two years ago when posting the photos to my site. Richard Dickson continues training with Joe Commander and the Odessa Narcotics squad on a weekly basis. He often meets with them in joint operations and k-9 training. I explained on my site kops often use illegal FLIR cameras when investigating grow houses. I have personal knowledge Investigator Richard Dickson owns and uses one of these illegal cameras that is hand-held. He told me it belonged to the Yoakum County D.A.‘s office and he sold me footage from the camera to use in my second film, NeverGetRaided. I used the purchased footage in an entire chapter where I inform citizens how to beat the technology of the illegal device. I placed this chapter on you tube for you to see. After watching the Youtube clip, you will notice Richard provided footage of an actual clandestine marijuana grow operation so he either knew about the illegal grow operation and allowed it to operate or he sold me evidence. I paid him $1000 for the footage. Richard Dickson knew I was using the footage in my second film to aid marijuana growers because he had previously sold me footage of his drug dog false alerting to use in my first film titled, So yes, one of West Texas’ drug kops, closely connected to the Odessa drug kops, secretly sold me evidence to use in my films that teach Americans how to not get busted for drugs. Richard Dickson can be quoted in various newspaper articles saying he was disgusted with my efforts and accused me of switching sides and producing the films “because of the money.” The entire time he was assaulting my integrity regarding the money my films made, he was spending the $2300 I traded him for the illegal footage. Make a call to Richard Dickson who will not deny these allegations because a prominent media personality witnessed the transaction between Richard and I. I also have paid check copies to prove I paid him. If he tries to deny this, I will post the checks and bring in the media personality to confirm he did it. The significance of a narcotics officer selling evidence to aid Americans in smuggling marijuana is one issue. The second issue is it’s direct relation to the KopBuster’s raid designed to expose korruption in the Yolanda Madden case. “Judge McCoy and Chief Burton defended the narcotics investigators' raid, even after knowing all that transpired. Burton also defended the fact that it was done solely on information given in an anonymous tip and two surveillance drive-bys done by his officers.” Everybody know it takes more than an anonymous tip and two drive by glances of a house to conduct a raid. I believe during one of the “drive-bys,” a kop was holding Richard’s FLIR camera (or another one like it) and took heat imaging footage of the hot air KopBusters was pumping out of the window near the front door similar to the house pumping the heat in the FLIR footage on the Youtube clip. The kops could not include the use of the illegal FLIR camera in the affidavit so they lied in the affidavit to obtain the warrant. More embarrassing, Judge McCoy signed the warrant after reading the affidavit that A suspicious poster on the OA blogs, mikelmassey, constantly belittles KopBusters and sides with the police. We pegged him as a kop but later learned through an ISF (Imaging Science Foundation) trained dealer search that this guy sells FLIR cameras. Mike L. Massey, Inc. They list the company name as Science Imaging with the number 915 620 8787. The kops are getting kop supporters to post on the blogs because they realize all three OA polls show the citizens hatred for the Odessa korruption. Now is the time for the citizens of Ector County to demand a citizen’s review of this matter in the form of a citizen’s review board and to make a plea to the FBI and the Texas Rangers. All officers involved in the raid and Yolanda’s case should be polygraphed. I already announced I would submit to one. Lying kops tremble at the thought of a polygraph…truth tellers do not. You allowed me to be korrupt in your town and I repented and told of my sins. I exposed the current korruption in your town and now it’s your turn. Thanks for all the recent tips you have provided our team and we are following up on all the leads. You may continue submitting krooked kop reports here: [http://nevergetbusted.com/kopbusters/reportakop.php] Peace, Barry N. Cooper
Created 25 weeks 4 days ago
Made popular 25 weeks 4 days ago |
- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 605 reads
****
I nominate Barry Cooper for freedom fighter of the year. Well Ron Paul deserves that title this year but Barry Cooper deserves a seriously honorable mention for his work. The police need to realize that more and more citizens are starting to realize what they are and how they operate and this isn't good for them. Once enough people realize that they will loose the support of the community entirely and be in far more danger. It isn't that the good citizens of a community would do anything to harm them so much as they simply won't believe them when they are being truthful.
RiverRat a/k/a Tres Melton,
Believer in Freedom, Crusader for Liberty, Supporter of Dr. Ron Paul
You are right, the communities need to realize there is strength in numbers, strength the police enforcing unconstitutional laws do not have.
it is simply amazing to me that criminal defense attorneys have been saying that the cops lie in affidavits for search warrants all the time but none of them thought to actually set up a fake grow & prove it!
In reality, search warrants are not used all that often with all the court created exceptions to the warrant requirement. But even when they are used, one must always be suspicious.
Like every field that humans work in, there are good and bad cops. Good judges and bad judges. Good attorneys and horrible attorneys. Good cops sometimes cut corners. Good judges sometimes overlook cop malfeasance and forget that they are constitutionally required to be a neutral arbiter of probable cause. And lastly, good attorneys sometimes don't represent their clients with the type of determination and resolve that is needed. As a result of all the above, a lot of people are in jail or are convicted felons for life because of it.
But ultimately, ALL of the above is a result of the failed War on (some) Drugs. Cops need arrests. Judges want the support of the local police unions to get elected. Counties need fines from court fee's, etc.. to pay employees. All of this is enabled because of the complete and total infringement on liberty that the war on drugs has ushered in. We reclaim our liberty, and that will be the first step to cleaning up this whole mess.
Well said windy. I think that it goes deeper than that though. Those defense attorneys have to face the same judges and district attorneys next week when they are trying to plea bargain on behalf of their next client so they can't get too aggressive defending any one client lest all of their other clients suffer. I know this first hand as the local cops in a small town tried to railroad me for something. I informed the DA that he was unaware of all the facts in the case and that if he failed to become aware of them I would leave this meeting and retain council from a large city today that wouldn't never have to face him in a plea bargain and that would like nothing more than to notch his belt with some small town DA like you if this went to trial. I further informed him that I wouldn't stop with my criminal defense but pursue his bar card and criminal charges for malicious prosecution if I had to retain council at all. I told him that he would become aware of the facts in the case at trial and not before from me or he could actually do something more than read the police report on his own; the choice was his. He told me to wait there, I told him I was going to lunch and would be back in half an hour.
Upon my return his demeanor was visibly different; I suppose he had made a few phone calls while I was gone. He said he was dropping the charges. I told him I didn't believe him and that they could always be reinstated unless he had them dismissed with prejudice in open court. That happened 5 minutes later. The cops were truly pissed but I think the DA made himself clear as they didn't harass me again. I even went to the bar one night, parked right in front, drank coke for four hours and then left, dropping my keys twice on the way to the car and fumbling to get the door unlocked. They followed me home but didn't pull me over even as I weaved from side to side (but never crossing the lines). After that I got a few dirty looks from them but I was never harassed again.
RiverRat a/k/a Tres Melton,
Believer in Freedom, Crusader for Liberty, Supporter of Dr. Ron Paul
and from knowledge of smaller jurisdictions this is usually what happens as far as local counsel being chummy with the D.A., the judge, the police and who knows who else. My brother (when in college) went through that experience and I learned a lot from it. Luckily, I am in a big city. I often dont have the same prosecutor in a case from beginning to end, sometimes go through many, especially DUI cases (the assistant DA's have high turn over from DUI court off to a felony branch).
I of course do not try to burn bridges, as you never know when that assistant DA will be having their own trial room or judge's seat themselves someday. And you would be surprised at how long some of these people remember a name!
However, I also believe in a vigorous defense and will not plead or copt out to charges for a client if I think there is a reasonable chance to beat the case. It is the State's burden of proof to prove each and every element of every crime alleged- let them meet it.
If i could argue jury nullification, I dont think i would ever accept a plea :)
Guess thats why you can no longer argue jury nullification.
But thats a discussion for another day.
I have had this question for a while now and it seems you may help me. If I were to be taken before a judge for any charges, I would present a copy of the constitution and ask if this could be admitted as evidence. If the judge says no, I would refuse to enter a plea due to a lack of jurisdiction of the court.
I would love to hear your comments on this scenerio.
Have the courage to be responsible
This is a complicated discussion but to simplify for our purposes: It used to be the case that jurors were empowered to pass judgment on both the Facts and the Law in any given case. Thus, even if the facts "fit" the crime, if the jury was not convinced that this was a particularly good application of the "law" they could be advised to vote to acquit.
Thus, the jury was itself a check on government authority/power. The jurors' verdict could not apply outside of that particular case (the State cannot appeal an acquittal) so it was localized to any individual case. That is, if a jury decided not to convict because they thought the law stupid, unconstitutional or whatever, it would not invalidate the law itself, just its application in that particular case.
Sometime after reconstruction and around the time of the passing of the civil rights laws; a few notorious examples of juries (usually but not always in the South) refusing to convict a white man for a crime against a black person led to a growing movement to empower judges to curtail these perceived (and sometimes actual) injustices.
So now, the jury decides the "facts" and the Judge decides the "law" (in the form of jury instructions) so now the jury is told to simply apply the facts of the case to whatever elements of the crime need to be met and if they find a connection, they MUST convict. Further, defense attorneys can no longer argue the merits of the law in question to the jury -something that used to be an option.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
pardon the source - but it seems to give a good overview
Not all states are the same - and the rules change depending on state/federal jurisdiction.
Like i said, it can get complicated.
Thank you very much for that historical explanation. If I may bother you for just a moment more...
What happens if an informed juror decides on his own that the law is stupid and refuses to convict?
Also, it should probably be in another thread, but what happens if an accused refuses to enter a plea if the judge does not allow the constitution to be admitted as evidence?
Well, in criminal cases, the jury verdict must be unanimous to convict. If there is a lone holdout, a rogue juror if you will, the judge will eventually ask the foreperson of the jury to poll the jurors again to see if a verdict can be reached. If not, the judge could declare a mistrial. A new jury would then be empaneled and a new trial held. Nobody likes to do that (for obvious reasons) but it is a common last resort.
The mechanics of jury deliberations are completely random, since the jurors themselves are often chosen at random. If a particular juror is informed and persuasive, it is certainly possible that they could convince other jurors (even if they voted to convict in earlier polls) to switch their vote. If you get enough votes to acquit (say 8 to acquit 4 to convict) the tide can turn and other jurors will go along just so they can get outta there. Never underestimate the power of people who just want to just go home. The key, in my humble opinion, to being a successful informed juror is not only knowledge (and the ability to persuade others), but stubbornness. "I don't care if we have to sit here for 5 days, 15days, or 150 days, I AM NOT VOTING TO CONVICT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!"
As far as your other question; assuming a felony case, the plea is entered at the arraignment stage. Arraignment occurs after the arrest, after a bond hearing, but before any substantive action is taken in the case itself (like discovery, motions, etc...) Thus, at that stage, it is not evidentiary. If you refuse to plea, the court automatically enters a plea of not-guilty for you and sets the case over for discovery and eventually, trial.
Once the trial begins, the state goes first. Once the state rests their case in chief, the defendant has an opportunity to present witnesses and their own evidence. Part of that evidence could theoretically be the constitution itself, but I have not really heard or seen someone using the constitution as direct evidence, or really as demonstrative evidence. To tie in the discussion above on jury nullification, the State would likely object to the constitution being used as 'evidence' because it would interfere with the Court's duty to provide the jurors the "law."
Note, if your argument is that the law you are charged with is unconstitutional, the proper procedure would be to file a pre-trial motion to dismiss the charges. Arguments, etc.. would be heard on that motion and the judge would have to decide the constitutional question BEFORE the jury is even in the building. It would have to be a rare case in which if that was unsuccessful (on behalf of the defendant) where the defense could then rely on the same constitutional argument during trial. Perhaps if you were charged with a crime that is specifically mentioned in the constitution, like treason or something. Likely, assuming this last scenario to not be the case and you are charged with a run of the mill statutory violation, the state would object (or file a pre-trial motion in limine to bar constitutional arguments during the trial) and the judge would grant it.
To make a long story short, while your idea is well intentioned, it wouldn't fly (at least in my jurisdiction.)
Further, i always advise people to seek and find a good attorney. It will cost money, usually a lot, but you could save yourself a lot of grief in the long run. Never wise to gamble when the State is seeking to take your liberty and throw you in a cage.
Check these links out. These cops can be trusted about as much as a Congressman.