NEW HELL HOLE NEWS
MAY 13, 2011
New Hell Hole News #30 May 13th, 2011 Hey Y’all. I got some really good commentary on the previous issue. Sometimes I write so smooth and coherent, sometimes I’m on a rant but regardless, I always try to talk about som’ that substantive. I’ve got a lot of subjects and ground to cover in this issue so it looks like it’s gonna be a long one… A lot has happened in a very short time. First let me get me/my case out of the way. I’m sure you all know we won a landmark decision in the U.S. Supreme Court. The state is currently engaged in downplaying it as much as they can, calling it “narrow” and a “technical ruling” etc. Just to be clear, for the very first time in U.S. history, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that you can sue a district (prosecuting) attorney, a state agent, to force them to turn over forensic evidence (not just DNA) for testing. This whole thing is so crazy it’s beyond belief. What interest could the state possibly have in withholding evidence they’ve previously admitted could prove me innocent? The state should be the first one to say: “there’s a lingering question about this guy’s guilt and we want to put it to rest. So we’re gonna let this stuff be tested and find out”… I simply can’t imagine any responsible prosecutor wanting to do any less. Certainty in a verdict trumps finality any day of the week! Especially where death is concerned! Maybe now y’all can understand better why I say I often feel as if I’m living in an old re-run of “the Twilight Zone” ? Wow. Next, “hiding in a closet”. All you media reporters follow this very closely. This is also particularly for the informative nature of Ms Lisa Busby and Mr David Brito, who falsely calls himself David Brito-Garcia. Mr. Brito wrote me a letter in response to my letter of 05.22.10 to reporter Ben Briscoe of KFDA CH10 in Amarillo. Brito’s letter was undated but was e-mailed to KFDA on May 26th, 2010. I have Mr Brito’s e-mail address with Yahoo: brito6162@yahoo.com and other info. It’s very interesting, to say the least. Anyway, Mr. Brito’s letter accuses me of “a personal attack instead of informative” in reference to my 05.22.10 letter to KFDA, but Mr. Brito seems to have forgotten it was he who launched the first personal attack upon me when he wrote: “my wife and I did not associate with Skinner because he was always either drunk, at the dope dealer’s houses or in jail”. That statement is a blatant lie. I had a job, I worked every day at it, a legitimate and good paying living. I also operated 3 private businesses on the side. I have never been to, nor caught in, any “dope dealer’s houses”! I had my drugs delivered to my doorstep like any selfrespecting junkie would! (No, I’m kidding). I did drink on the weekends, sometimes. I have been drunk before, but not that often. I’ve never been arrested for drugs. I have been in jail for various bogus charges the sheriff of the time, Stubbledick, put on me. I proved them all false and got out, too! 38 arrests on 42 felony charges, according to Stubbledick. Hey man, if any of those charges had any substance I’d been long gone. The fact that magistrates and judges dismissed so many of them is prima facie evidence that ol’Stubbledick and his puny cronies were retaliating and filing bogus grief on me. How’s that for “informative” ol’Brito boy?!! Orales, homito! In Mr. Brito’s letter to me, he says: “You in fact were hiding in a closet, if anyone looks at the court transcripts they will know (he actually means the trial testimony statement of facts S.O.F.). You mention John Mann who is dead and cannot tell people the truth which is ‘the police found you hiding in a closet’”. His rant goes on and on, but that’s the gist of it. The rest is just needless drivel and repetition of the same theme. He says: “Maybe it’s because what you write is a pack of lies. I’m not a prejudiced person who prejudges without facts or information. I have the facts to judge you”… OK. In the U.S. district court of the Northern District, Amarillo Division, in case #2:99-CV-0045 by the Younger court reporting company, certified court reporters, I give you the oral testimonial deposition of exsheriff Randy Stubbledick taken on July 21st, 2004. This is the court record Mr. Brito refers to. Sheriff Stubbledick was the first person to run into the bedroom where I was standing – see my NHHN#29, the issue just before this one. 1
Page 55 of Stubbledick’s deposition, beginning at line 19: “So we went into the house, entered that bedroom and he was standing with the closet door open… he was standing inside the closet, facing us. And so we kept telling him to come out of the closet and he wouldn’t do it. And so we pulled him out of the closet, put him on to the bed – the three of us did – and got him handcuffed and took to the car”. Now admittedly, Stubbledick’s memory is a little off. The closet door was not open, the closet had no door, it was all open. I was facing them, but I had stepped off the edge of the mattress and fell backward against the clothes, my heels were against the edge of the mattress and my butt jammed against the clothes, my knees were hyperflexed and locked. So I appeared to be half-ass standing but leaned waaaaaayyy back. I couldn’t get up. But Stubbledick clearly admits I was never hiding or attempting to hide, I was in plain sight at all times! I just had my attorney deliver the federal habeas record to me and this deposition is part of that record. So I wanted to share that with the whole world. So Mr. Brito, you Sir are in fact a prevaricator, just as I originally stated. I’m gonna tell all of you armchair spoof artists and haters out there, I know the facts of this case inside-out, so please don’t waste time trying to challenge me on anything I say. I am 100% truthful and I do not color or shade the facts; I don’t have to. As I said, the truth will out. John Mann and David Brito are liars. Ex-sheriff Randy Stubbledick was the first one in that bedroom that night, John Mann (ex-D.A.) and/or David Brito were not there. I was there. Next thing. My friend Lee “Tiny” Taylor, whom I wrote about a few issues back, is in serious trouble. His number is 999344. He has been set a date for June 16th, 2011. A little over a month away. The U. S. S. Ct. has denied his writ of certiorari. The attorney he’s saddled with is questionable at best. I’ve tried to get another attorney to step in, to no avail. I did get one to offer to help Sergi do som’ stuff, whether that flies is anyone’s guess. I wish so bad that I was out there and free with access to som’ electronica. I could do soooooooooo much more. Y’all write to Tiny and give him som’ support, ok? Having almost gotten executed last year myself, I know what he’s going through. It’s hell to wake up every day thinking “they’re gonna kill me on this day right here… Only this many days left of ‘me’…” Secondly, the other prisoner I wrote about, Wesley Ruiz 999536. Y’all have got to read the CCA’s crazy opinion on his direct appeal N° AP-75,968. I just gotta go through this thing that you can find here: http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/OPINIONS/PDFOPINIONINFO2.ASP?OPINIONID=20670 and you can pull it up on the computer and go along, see what I’m talking about. First read what I wrote about Ruiz and his case a few issues back. To re-familiarize yourself with the state’s insane conduct which almost killed Mr. Ruiz. Footnote 1: It’s a capital offense to murder a swine “who is acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty” not “off his official duties”. This distinction is a very, very important one. Statutes are interpreted according to their plain language everyday meaning as defined in Merriam-Webster unabridged dictionary except where to utilize such an interpretation would lead to a bizarre or unintended result; in which case you look to the framer’s intent to discern the correct interpretation and application of the statute. The obvious plain language intent of the words “who is acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty” means the swine has to be so engaged at the time of the murder. Officers have lots of official duties. The plain language intent of “an official duty” and lawful means that if he is acting unlawfully or illegally, he might forfeit the protection of his murder being a capital offense. In other words, the statute could have some intent to deter officers from unlawful/illegal actions. “An” as used here also means a particular and nameable/identifiable official duty that’s being lawfully discharged. So if he’s doing something that’s not an official duty and/or the person does not know he’s a peace officer, it’s not capital murder.
2
The use of the word and has significance too. “A person commits an offense if the person commits murder as defined under §19.02(b)(1) and… the person murders a peace officer… who is acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty and… who the person knows is a peace officer”. So, all those requisites are elements of the offense of capital murder of a swine. If all those elements are not met, it’s likely not a capital murder. Footnote 5. The state now admits that the car Mr. Ruiz was driving was not the “suspect car” they were looking for in the unrelated prior capital murder. This is important too. It’s an outright admission that ol’officer Nix there, chased down and attempted to assassinate an ordinary citizen who’d done not a damned thing to deserve it at all! So the CCA’s “interpretation” of the capital murder (§19.03(a)(1)) statute which says, in footnote 8, that he is acting in the lawful discharge of his duties so long as he is in uniform and on duty, is plainly incorrect. Why? Wearing a uniform cannot make a criminal act a legal one, that’s why. Now here at this point they really start playing with words: “he may be effectuating any unconstitutional arrest; or, a lawful arrest in an improper or unlawful manner, does not mean he is not acting in the lawful discharge “of his duties” or “of an official duty”. Uh-Huh. Well, that’s all groovy baby, but Mr. Ruiz did not allege any of those situations in his writ. What actually happened is that these yahoo cowboy assed idiots, who call themselves officers of the law, were actively engaged in illegal criminal conduct – they profiled an innocent citizen. They hunted him down like a rabid dog and when they caught up to him, Officer Nix ran up on him with a gun, threatened to kill him and started in busting the windows out of his car. Terroristic threats, profiling, conspiracy to murder, abuse of official power, official oppression, violation of the civil rights of a prisoner, misconduct of office, assault and attempted murder and destruction of personal property are all illegal criminal offenses, as is false arrest. That, by God, all that, is what Officer Nix was doing, “discharing” a tyrannical, over-the-top, insane use of force that constituted one of the worst abuses of official authority you ever saw. He sure as hell was not engaged in the lawful discharge of an official duty nor any official duty at all! Criminal acts of any description are not part of his official duties!! Because of all the above and more, Mr. Ruiz was perfectly within his right to defend himself! The CCA opinion tries to stupidly pigeonhole officer Nix’s criminal misconduct as merely “a violation of department policy” where he bumbrushed Ruiz’s car after it stopped. Then, operating from this false premise, it goes on to say: “we are aware of no precedent, and the appellant cites none, holding that a violation of a P.D. policy constitutes criminal or tortuous conduct per se.” Well! Read footnote 9. It’s all in there. It’s all idiocy. Nix threatened Ruiz’s life as he was running up to the car! Then went to beating out of the car windows! You know what’s sad about this? Ruiz’s case is in the shape and posture it is solely because a) it happened in Dallas, TX; b) Ruiz is half Mexican; c) Nix was white and d) Ruiz’s trial lawyer was a coward and a state ringer sell-out. You’re sitting in a stalled out car, surrounded by cops with guns drawn and aimed at you, one comes running up on you pointing a gun at you, telling you: “if you move or run, I’m gonna kill your ass” and then starts swinging an ASP busting out your windows. What other motive could he have than wanting to gain access for a shot, where your driver’s door is open, you got one leg out, prepared to exit on order to do so? What do you think is going through Ruiz’s mind? I’ve been in such a situation with the swine before, as had Ruiz. In such a situation they always stay in front of the car and tell you: “raise your hand up where I can see them, palms flat out as if you’re gesturing stop and exit the vehicle. Put your hands flat on the hood, spread your legs and assume the position. If you make any move, force will be used against you”. If it had been done, he’d still be alive today. Even the Dallas police chief recognized Nix’s fatal mistake in violating Mr. Ruiz’s rights although he didn’t exactly characterize it that way: “ He (Nix) died doing what he loved to do”. Obviously “what he loved to do” was shoot people, beat them, slam them to the ground and stomp them; otherwise using excessive force against them and their rights, since he already had two sustained complaints against him and was about to be fired with a third (blank - case?) pending.
3
“As long as Nix was acting within his capacity as a police officer, as we have held, he was acting within the “lawful discharge of his official duties”. The CCA idiots say and cite Guerra v State, 771 S.W.2d 453 (TX Crim App 1988). That is so plainly not what the statute says at all. Under that standard, police officers in Texas are above the law. They can do anything and get away with it as long as they can plausibly claim “I was on duty and acting in my official capacity at the time”. That interpretation of the statute adds words and context not found in the statute at all and clearly leads to a bizarre and unintended result: the Dallas P.D. can profile you, stop you with erroneous probable cause and , if you run, attempt to assassinate you, firing over 55 rounds, hitting you 14 times and getting smooth away with it. Ask yourself, what legitimate reason would Nix have for wanting to get behind Ruiz and knock out his rear passenger window? So he could shoot him in the back through the seat or, in the back of the head, that’s what. Don’t believe me? Well, just read footnote 20 and got on over to page 10 – first Nix shot Raquel Sosas’s boyfriend in the back and killed him, then later shot Marine Karlous Lake in the back with a taser, both unprovoked. Sosa and her boyfriend merely running out of huge culert tunnel away from Nix when he told them to stop, that he didn’t feel like chasing them. They didn’t stop, so he shot and killed the male. In cold blood! Lake was merely leaving a bar when Nix smarted off to him and Lake kept walking away, saying he didn’t have any curfew and Nix tasered him. You know, if you’re a smart serial killer or a sadist or someone who likes bondage and discipline or sadomasochism (B&D and S&M) and exerting harsh dominion over others, you go to work for the swine force (Police Dept. or Sheriff’s Office – P.D. or S.O.) or the jail or TDCJ. How about the strapdown team who does executions over at the Walls? There’s a whole pack of serial killers!! Tell me, are they any better than Ted Bundy, the Green River Killer, Zodiac murderer, the BIK killer Dennis Rader or son of Sam David Berkowitz, just because they do it for the state? Till next time! Wishing you all well, Hank 999143 Polunsky Unit H W Hank Skinner 3872 FM 350 South Livingston TX 77351-8580 h.w.skinner@gmail.com http://www.hankskinner.org Facebook http://on.fb.me/Justice4Hank Twitter http://twitter.com/Justice4Hank Newsletter http://eepurl.com/cYCIE For those of you who use JPay to write, don’t forget to always include your postal address and your e-mail address after your signature, so I can reply. www.jpay.com don’t forget to enter my TDC number as an 8digit number: 00999143.
4