Congrats to Rulon in Texas for taking a principled stand against Texas predators and getting charges dismissed. Rulon filed the motion to dismiss and discovery/Brady request. Instead of answering the motion and discovery/Brady request, viz., provide the evidence/competent witnesses supporting their claims, the prosecutor filed a motion to dismiss:
There was no flurry of motions filed, only one and a discovery/Brady request. Any claims the prosecution was buried and decided to withdraw because Rulon was causing them “too much trouble” are wrong. All Jessika J. Velasquez (city prosecutor) had to do was provide the evidence proving the constitution and code applied to Rulon because he was physically in Texas, and the witness with personal knowledge of such evidence.
If it’s so easy to prove the constitution applies to Rulon just because he’s physically in Texas, then why didn’t Ms. Velasquez just provide it and the name of her witness? A paralegal should have been able to, if not, they could call the police officer, who presumably does not have a doctorate degree, and they could have provided the proof.
Unless just having to respond at all is now “too much trouble.” If that was the case traffic tickets would never get to trial if you file a motion to dismiss. It’s only too much trouble because the evidence doesn’t exist.
The judge granted the motion and dismissed the charge:
I admit that Rulon and I have not spoken with the prosecution and judge, I’m only going based on the circumstantial evidence:
- the motion and discovery request was filed,
- the prosecutor filed their own motion to dismiss instead of responding, and;
- the judge granted it.
If we apply the “but for” test (yes, I know this is used for causation in tort causes), the circumstantial evidence points strongly to it was because of the motion. Would the prosecutor have moved to dismiss but for Rulon’s challenge to their claims?
We can’t know if the prosecution would have filed the motion to dismiss had Rulon not moved to dismiss for a lack of evidence and asked for the witness with personal knowledge the constitution applied to Rulon because he was physically in Texas. We only know they chose to dismiss instead of responding to the motion and discovery request.
If all the prosecution has to do is cite their code to “prove” the constitution applied, then they can use a copy and paste template to respond. The Brady request would also have been very easy to fulfill, just provide the name of the cop who wrote the ticket.
I just see no merit to claims it had nothing to do with the motion. Imagine the conversation:
Look at this garbage, this guy is asking for proof the constitution applies. This is an easy conviction that will help me look better as a prosecutor.
Nothing helps our careers like lots of convictions. So you’re gonna slam this run of the mill anarchist at trial?
No, it’s just way too much trouble to let the judge deny this nonsense, I’m dropping it.
I just don’t buy the claim that prosecutors, who live by getting convictions, who believe their laws apply to everyone, would drop what they think is a slam dunk conviction. If there were other grounds to dismiss, then why not have a paralegal take a couple of minutes to include them in the motion?
The circumstantial evidence strongly supports the conclusion the prosecution dismissed because of the motion. Yes, there are other explanations, but they require assumptions and therefore not really as plausible.
Bottom line is Rulon took a principled stand and the predators were not able to steal more from him. And that is what is really important here.