Gentlemen,
A brief update to the situation regarding Rienne after our consultation with the defense attorney we retained for her case. I'm just going to post the main issues and my thoughts.
John Wilson was with us, and by the blessing of God was able to be in the meeting with us during the consultation, so he heard firsthand what the situation is and what Rienne and we all face in the coming months.
First let me say a THANK YOU to you all for your love, prayers and support during this unfolding trial. Ericka and I were about to go to pieces about all this - and you have all given us strength and love and great advice. You are holding us up, and in a way - I understand so that God's work can continue in the face of an evil world.
Here's the important things you need to know about where we are at and what we face as we go forward.
1. This is a Class 3 Felony Assault on a police officer. This is now out of the hands of the local jurisdiction and the attorney told us that in almost all cases of this kind, a conviction is obtained and jail time is done. This will automatically go to a criminal trial if Rienne does not plead guilty. It looks that if all goes as normal, the trial will probably be occurring during the Feast of Tabernacles this year - but that is just a guesstimate in terms of what the attorney said was the general timeframe of such cases after the preliminary court date.
2. It is possible, after the preliminary hearing on May 21, if the state prosecutor feels that his case is not strong - that they will offer a misdemeanor charge to Rienne which will remove the prison sentence and fines and she will get some kind of probation with Community Service in lieu of prison time. But it will go on her record which she can expunge after 5 years. If Rienne rejects the offer, it will not be offered again and they will move to the criminal trial and the prosecutor will go for conviction and full punishment. If they do not make any offer, then the State feels they can win the case and will still go for the maximum penalty.
Sadly, the attorney told us that based on the language of the police report and the reputation of the officer who filed the charge - chances are there will be no plea offer, and they will go for the conviction and sentence. He told us the police say that they have video and audio of the entire incident, and the officer is adamant that Rienne punched him with a closed fist on his right jaw. He will testify in court against her and he insists the video and audio will corroborate his charge. Geelyn, Matt, Travis and Rienne say that claim is bogus and a flat out lie, Rienne hit no one.
However, none of us nor our attorney is permitted to see what is on the video or hear the audio until AFTER Rienne is indicted by a grand jury which the attorney says is a virtual guarantee. He said a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich.
It is after this indictment that the lawyers may enter into discovery and obtain and review the evidence. Unfortunately, we the accused are not permitted to view or hear it until the trial itself. The attorney will then go to Rienne to tell her what he heard and saw and offer advice on what they may do. Rienne assured him that she did not hit anyone, she did not care what their evidence is.
The attorney did say to us that sometimes, after an officer knows they made a mistake on an initial call - sometimes they set up situations like this to cover up for the fact they are going to lose the original case of why they were there. Sometimes they will accuse someone whom they threw down whose arm hits them in the process of an arrest as "assault on an officer". The issue the attorney said is the intent. Class 3 means that the defendant deliberately and with malice sought to harm an officer of the law, even if no harm was caused. It's all about intent, and most times, it's the police's word and testimony against that of the defendant. The police almost always prevail in court in these cases we were told. He did say Rienne could possibly be an exception to that.
3. The costs from this criminal attorney were reasonable, essentially close to $5,000 to take us from here all the way through the criminal trial. He is not going to bilk us by an hourly rate as most do. We paid $1,500.00 from the gift from the Nashville congregation towards retaining this particular attorney whom Rienne said she felt confident and comfortable with. He was the only attorney we called who returned our call - and actually went to the jail to interview Rienne at 2 AM Saturday morning. He did not blow smoke up our rear ends, he told us the hard truth - but he also seemed to think that there was a good possibility - but no guarantee, that he could help her beat this charge. He said almost all of these class 3 assaults end up in convictions - but that he truly believed Rienne was innocent of the charge. Rienne told him at the moment - she was not going to make any plea deals whatsoever. He told her that he wold advise her the best way possible - and that she should not do anything she was not comfortable with. He did tell her, that her noble desire to fight the charges and reject any plea offers might turn to regret if they lose (which is a possibility) and she is in jail for 5 years. He asked her to think carefully on any advice he gives her before making any decisions.
This fella is NOT going to handle any civil case. He is a criminal defense attorney only. In fact, even if Rienne gets an acquittal, the attorney told us he thinks she has no standing for any civil case against the police. None.
4. While in some respects this case as explained seems hopeless for Rienne, the attorney was impressed enough with Rienne that he may do something that is almost NEVER done, and that is allowing Rienne to go into the Grand Jury and allow the Jurors to ask her questions. They may, after questioning her, (a very tiny possibility) - that they return a vote to drop the charges and not proceed to trial. That would be a miraculous happening and best case scenario for Rienne - so let's pray about that and ask God if it is His will, for that to happen. However, the attorney advised us not to get our hopes up - it's a long shot - a Hail Mary pass from your own 5 yard line with 6 seconds on the clock. Grand Juries will indict a sandwich, and most often any charge of assault from a police officer is rubber-stamped for a move to trial. The attorney said such a thing is very, very, very rare - but it has happened before. He thinks it might be a risk he is willing to advise Rienne to take. Risk being that anything she says may be used against her later during trial. He, as her attorney is not permitted to be in the room with the grand jury, so she would be all by herself in there being asked questions that may either help or hinder her case. The angle here is that Rienne makes a good enough impression of personability that the Grand Jury will not find evidence enough for Rienne to be prosecuted. It's a hope - and a slim one, and a risk as well.
5. What happens in Matthew's case is irrelevant to what happens in Rienne's case. Understand this: IT DOES NOT MATTER WHY the police were at Matthew's house, even if they were there illegally. This case will be limited to only the question of whether or not Rienne punched the police officer or not. The circumstances of the situation are immaterial to her case. The only thing that will matter, is whether the jury will believe the police officer or Rienne. The lawyer was honest in telling us that most often juries side with the police out here. However, Rienne may be a rare exception - but courts, juries and judges are fickle. Sometimes when the evidence is overwhelming of innocence - a jury will vote to convict because they do not like the defendant or what they were wearing or what not. He did say most intelligent people who we would prefer to have on a jury are not smart enough to know how to get out of Jury duty. It was his way of telling us that most juries consist of low-information and emoting people, and this is the sad reality Rienne faces. Facts sometimes do not matter in cases, and the Constitutionality of Rienne's case is not even going to be allowed in court, not that it would matter anyway to most people who are ignorant of the Constitution anyway.
Frighteningly, the attorney said - that in most states, especially in KY - the law is that - now hear this - NO MATTER WHAT - we have no rights to resist any law enforcement officer who says he is doing his duty. NONE whatsoever. He said the law is that we the people must comply with whatever an officer of the law demands - even if he is there illegally. The law in Kentucky is such that even if someone swings at a cop during a forced entry and misses him entirely, making no contact - the charge of assault will still be levied. He said these laws were written mostly back in the 70's to protect police so they could do their job without fear.
I do not have to tell you how much this solidifies my contention that the America we live in today is in fact a police state. EVEN IF the cops get the wrong house, kick down your door and kill your dog - you have no right to resist them by law.
All I kept thinking about after the attorney explained this law, and why Rienne is in such serious trouble, is that everything the Nazis, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao did against their own people was perfectly legal also, and their subjects were not within any right to resist either. Now I find out that neither do we, and that law has been in place for a long time and strengthened moreso over the last few years.
Now think about this - THAT is the law in most states. What happens when gun confiscations are ordered? We may not - as plebes, as subjects to state authority - resist the police for any reason whatsoever unless they are attempting rape or some other injurious crime, and still there has to be evidence of the crime. So we can be disarmed, RIGHT NOW, legally if the Ruling Class decides to order it - and we may not - by law, resist. On top of that the attorney told us that the law also allows the police to use any and all force they feel necessary to keep THEMSELVES safe, up to and including deadly force if they feel threatened. The law is so broad that ANY REASON a police officer cites as why he felt threatened justifies his use of force. This is why cops can kill family pets and get away with it - because the law grants them that power to do so. But - if you so much as lift your hands up to ward off a policeman from hitting you in the face - (this is what the attorney said) and the officer decides to file the charge of 3rd degree felony assault (as one cop here locally was known to do routinely) - YOU can be charged with 3rd degree felony assault - and most often that charge leads to a conviction. He said the police use their mic's to also enhance the charges they file. It explains why it was that after Rienne and Matt were both handcuffed - the the police continued to thrash them around while yelling out loud repeatedly for them to "stop resisting!". When played in court the audio would seem to indicate that they were resisting.
We are no better than India. It's just sanitized and codified into law instead of tradition here.
That's tyranny folks. Plain and simple, and it's the law of the land. You asked me Robert why it is that no one stops police brutalizing women in their homes? Well, now you know the answer: they are within their privy to do so. Essentially, they can kill a woman in her home and claim they felt 'menaced', and chances are they get a paid vacation while internal affairs runs interference for them. Just the facts here fellas. It's where we have arrived.
5. As to Matt's case - the lawyer advised that it is not a cut and dried case of Constitutional Rights violation. He said his case was good, but not strong. Matt fell into a trap the police laid for him. When they showed up at his house the lawyer said they probably had the intent that someone was going to go to jail, and in such cases, they will ensure that someone does. So they goad a situation and escalate it so that happens. This is perfectly legal he said and is taught to the police. He said Matt made the mistake of talking with the officers through his door. Had he simply said "Get a warrant" shut his big door and ignored the threats and goading the police were taunting him with - they would have left the house and probably not have come back. They most likely would have waited until the next day and pulled him over on a traffic stop and arrest him, but the situation at the house would not have occurred.
The lawyer said Matt's case is a likely candidate to get the misdemeanors dismissed, but that any civil case is not one they may win. Not that he is one to listen to because he is not a civil litigator.
What I learned today, is that our Fourth Amendment rights are really just window dressing. The authorities can violate it under the color of law, whenever they feel like it, and get away with it.
I can only Pray God uses this situation for His Glory. I am moved at the outpouring of your care, concern and assistance to us during this time, and I cannot express the infuriation that all this effort is not being used for God's ministry, but instead is being diverted simply to keep my little girl out of prison from a system that truly illustrates itself as corrupted, failed and unjust.
We appreciate the prayers with thanksgiving and if you want to hear further details, John may have some recollections he will share during the consultation with the lawyer.
Bottom line is, this case against Rienne is very serious, is probably not going away easily and it may be a long hard and heartbreaking road. We love you all and thank you for bearing our trial as if it was your own and lifting us up. it is keeping us from losing our grip completely.
More updates and information as I get it.
In His Love and Service,
Michael Deering
###
