Post by Percival Pierso on Feb 15, 2006 14:56:16 GMT -5
July 30, 2003 the judge in the Harris County Criminal Court of Law #15, in case #1176877, ruled against all the defendants pro se motions, including the third motion for information or discovery. The judge did rule that the jury could determine punishment, and did not rule on the motion to suppress evidence, and set the trial date for August 16, 2003. I suspect that their indictment or information is defective, but the judge is supposed to be impartial. She granted all of the states motions. These are the motions she denied.
CAUSE NUMBER 1176877
THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE COUNTY CRIMINAL
§
VS. § COURT AT LAW # 15 OF
§
Percival Pierson § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OR INFORMATION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT
COMES NOW, Percival J. Pierson Defendant, a party in the above captioned and numbered cause, and defendant herein, pursuant to The Defendant does hereby make a motion for discovery pursuant to Art. 39.14. C.C.P. and Art. 25.04 which states "In misdemeanors, it shall not be necessary before trial to furnish the accused with a copy of the indictment or information; but he or his counsel may demand a copy, which shall be given as early as possible.
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO STATE'S MOTION IN LIMINE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT
asks the honorable court to deny the states motion in Limine pursuant to defendants 4th amendment right to a fair and impartial trial.
The defendant contends that the state's motion is improper as it does not cite the authority under which the state is filing this motion. The motion also fails to cite any authority for the motion in (1) (2) (3) (5) and (7) in the states motion in limine. The defendant has no legal training and this failure by the state to cite the authority under which their motion is based on makes it impossible; for the defendant to give a reply because he must guess at the rules or statutes the state is invoking, try to research them, and either agree or dispute them, and do it within the next 6 days. Granting this motion would in effect make a fair trial impossible.
In the event the motion in the above captioned and numbered cause is approved by the court the defendant argues that the rule cited in (4) (Texas Rules of Evidence 608(b) and 403 which says that Any such instance that has not resulted in a final conviction or a valid impeachable final conviction is inadmissible. Defendant contends this is little more than a catch 22 designed to exclude facts that might incriminate the court and the Sheriff's department as the Harris County Sheriff's Office Internal Affairs Division does not convict deputies of anything, therefore their will never be a final conviction issued by internal affairs.
Regardless of which factors the state may be citing, the defendant contends that the real purpose of this motion by the state is not any of the factors listed in Rule 403, but rather an attempt to exclude any mention of illegal or bad acts by the state and the courts, and to prevent the defendant from attempting to prove via relevant evidence that the state has unlawful violated the defendants rights and the cause against the defendant is therefore in violation of the exclusion rule, C. C. P. Art 17.15. (2)(3), Art 18.01 (b)(c)(d)(f), Art. 18.12, Art. 18.13, Art. 38.23(a)., Art. 38.22., Art. 38.08 and the Texas Rules of criminal evidence Rule 402, 404(b), 405(b), 406, and Rule 502 which states that "No Privilege exists under this rule in actions involving false statements, or other failure to comply with the law in question."
Defendant contends that the alleged pattern of unlawful acts by the police and the courts are relevant and admissible regardless of whether they have been convicted of any crimes, and any attempt to suppress such evidence is repugnant to the Constitution, and the law of the State of Texas.
Respectfully submitted,
ADDENDUM TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO STATE'S MOTION IN LIMINE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT
COMES NOW, Percival J. Pierson Defendant , a party in the above captioned and numbered cause, and defendant herein, and defendant also adduces Rule 404(b) which makes clear that the other crime, wrong, or act need not have been criminal, much less have resulted in a arrest or conviction.
The defendant contends that pursuant to this rule the defendant may reference, suggest, or produce documentation pertaining to investigation by the Harris County Internal Affairs division. Bad acts by law enforcement are relevant. I made the complaint against the deputies involved because they were trespassing on private property, because they seized me and handcuffed me illegally, and because they illegally broke down my bedroom door and searched my possessions without probable cause, or a search warrant or any other exception to the requirement to secure a warrant before conducting a lawful search on private property.
Defendant contends that if the bad acts by law enforcement are irrelevant, then their is not reason for CCP Art. 38.23. Evidence not to be used. (a) No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any.
Nor would their be any reason for (SECTION 1. Chapter 2, C C P, is amended by adding Articles 2.131 to read as follows: Art. 2.131. RACIAL PROFILING PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not engage in racial profiling).
Nor would their be any reason for the fourteenth amendment which guarantees equal protection under the law. As Theodore Parker said the law is binding upon every person or it is binding upon no person. The crimes of the Pasadena Police, and the Harris County Sheriffs Department, and the anonymous informant have not yet been held accountable for their crimes. The state should be proud that at least the Harris County Sheriffs Internal Affairs Department is at least investigating the alleged misconduct of it's deputies, instead of trying to suppress this information.
If the violation of a person's constitutional rights is not relevant to a criminal case, then the constitution and all the laws of this country are little better than a hypocritical farce, intended to fool people into believing that they live in a enlightened, just, and lawful society.
Defendant respectfully asks the court to in the interests of justice to obey the oath it took to protect and defend the constitution, and deny all elements of the states motion in limine.
Respectfully submitted,
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT
COMES NOW, Percival J. Pierson Defendant, a party in the above captioned and numbered cause, and defendant herein, and asks for dismissal of the charge against him pursuant to the ninth, and fourth Amendment to the constitution of the United States, and Article V of the constitution of the United States and VI of the constitution of the United States which states that the constitution shall be the supreme law of the land and that the judges in every state shall be bound thereby.
The defendant contends that like alcohol, marijuana was produced, possessed, and consumed prior to the signing of the constitution and the bill of rights, and that again like alcohol, marijuana was produced, possessed, and consumed after the constitution and the bill of rights were ratified.
Like alcohol possession this makes marijuana possession a constitutional right pursuant to the IX Amendment to the constitution of the United States, and this right can only be revoked in the same way the constitutional right to manufacture possess and consume alcohol was revoked, by a constitutional Amendment pursuant to Article V of the constitution of the United States.
It is unconstitutional for the state or federal government to revoke this right in any other way. They may not do it by Judicial Review, an act or congress, or an act of the state legislature. The defendant contends therefore that any law prohibiting the manufacture, possession, or consumption of marijuana is repugnant to the constitution and therefore void, and the court must dismiss.
Respectfully submitted,
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT
The defendant also contends that both courts failed to discharge their duty by failing to take into consideration nature of the offense and the circumstances under which it was committed pursuant to C. C. P. Art 17.15. (2)(3), Art 18.01 (b)(c)(d)(f), Art. 18.12, and Art. 18.13. and that this constitutes a pattern of official oppression by the police and the courts, that the defendant is entitled to pursue; provided the defendant is not unlawfully prohibited from doing so by the motion in limie filed by the state which legally must be approved by a judge who will not be harmed by this ruling.
Defendant contends that the excessive bail imposed by this court, the states motion in limine and the states motion to disclose experts clearly shows that the state expects the judge to grant any motion no matter how unjust or how unlawful. It also shows clearly the state's intent to unfairly take advantage of the defendants lack of legal training to suppress any mention of any pattern of official oppression by the police and the courts, and that the court therefore has an interest in suppressing such evidence against this court; as the judge may be injured by such evidence.
The motion to disclose experts has a certificate of service dated July 24, 2003. It demands that the court order the defendant "to disclose to the undersigned Assistant District Attorney on or before July 30, 2003 , the day the trial is scheduled to begin herein, . . . The State further requests, as required by TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC., art. 39.24 (b), that said order specify a time, no later than 20th day before the date the trial begins . . . and further, that said order specify the manner in which Defendant must make said disclosure to the state."
I may not be a lawyer but I can count and from the date of service of 7/24/03 to 7/30/03, the date the trial is scheduled is only 6 days and they are at the same time saying it must be filed 20 days before the trial to be valid. In short the state is asking the court to deny the defendant the right to call expert witnesses. At the same time the defendant has on his last two court appearances asked for discovery both orally and in a written motion filed with the court, which the state has yet to comply with despite it's rush to schedule a trial before I can mount an effective defense. The state also wanted to hold a motions hearing on the same day they served me with the motions.
Defendant also contend that the state and the court is acting in violation of the Equal Protection provisions of the 14th amendment which requires equal protection of the law and Yick Wo v. Hopkins, (1886) where the court ruled that unequal administration of a neutral law is violation of equal protection when it operates to discriminate in practice against a racial minority. Clearly the Anonymous informant gave a false report to the police in violation of the Texas Penal Code 37.08. Both the defendant who is Native American and the police (If they are being truthful) are victims of this persons illegal act. Yet the informant, who was clearly guilty of giving false information to the police (a class B misdemeanor) was not charged with any crime concerning this incident. But his victim the defendant was unlawfully oppressed by the police and the courts who know and apparently approve of the fact that no warrant was issued in this case, and the entire case is biased on one persons bearing false witness against the defendant. Possession of Marijuana is not in the ten commandments, but bearing false witness is, yet the state has failed to even bring lawful action against the perpetrator, who is known to them and that such an unequal application of statutes constitutes intentional and purposeful discrimination against the defendant and is immoral and a violation of God's laws as well.
Respectfully submitted,
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE
a motion for change of venue pursuant to C.C.P. Art. 31.03. (a)(2) as defendant believes that there is a dangerous combination against him instigated by influential persons, by reason of which he cannot expect a fair trial.
Both the police and the courts are forbidden from imposing cruel or unusual punishment, by both state and federal laws, and are also forbidden from using bail as an instrument of oppression and must take into consideration the nature of the offense and the circumstances under which it was committed pursuant to C. C. P. Art 17.15. (2)(3)
The defendant understands that when the state use's certain words that it has learned causes an irrational emotional response that it can get away with doing anything it wants. Some of these words are: drugs, trial lawyers, terrorist, and communist to name but a few. I can remember when I went to the drug store, but the state has so vilified and demonized the word drug that the word is almost never use for a pharmacy any more. The governments campaign has worked so well that even doctors who should know better let patient's suffer needlessly because even prescribing the so called evil drugs might taint them as well.
The defendant contends that it is the government that is evil and cites Biblical Prophecy as proof. to quote from the prophecy in Chapter 31 of Proverbs 4-9 "It is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted. Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more. Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction. Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy. . . ."
Respectfully submitted,
AFFIDAVIT
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Percival Joseph Pierson, who, being by me duly sworn, deposed as follows:
My name is Percival Joseph Pierson, I am of sound mind, capable of making this affidavit, and personally acquainted with the facts herein stated:
On or about June 5, 2003 Tyler (7 year old my stepson) and I (the defendant) arrived at my home just before dark, between 8:00 PM and 8:30 PM, to find about 6 or 7 Harris County Sheriffs Department patrol cars parked on my property, at 16828 Oak Lane #B in Channelview, Texas. I pulled off the public road and parked on my property also.
I exited my truck and locked it, then asked the first deputy I saw what happened, and he asked me if I lived here, and I told him that I did. He told me that he could not tell me anything. So I went to another deputy I saw who was closer to my trailer, and asked him what had happened. He told me I would have to talk to the Sergeant in charge. So I asked where he was and he told me that the Sergeant was in my trailer home. I entered my residence to find three deputies and my son David Pierson.
When I asked for the sergeant he came out of my sons bedroom. I asked him what was going on and he told me that they had received an anonymous tip that there was narcotics being dealt at my residence. I asked him if he had found any narcotics and he said no. I asked if he had a warrant and he said no. I then asked him how he had got into my home, and he stated that my son had invited them in. I stated that my son did not pay rent, or bills, and was not in control of the premised and I asked them all to leave the property.
The sergeant told me that I did not have to holler. I stated to him that I was not hollering but I am very upset at the unlawful search being conducted by them based on false witness. This is when a another deputy stated to me that their was a pair of scissors on the coffee table and he did not trust me, so put your hands behind your back so I can cuff you for our protection. He deliberately hand cuffed me in front of my stepson in order to intimidate a 7 year old prior to their interrogation of him. They then separated me from my stepson to further soften him up for his interrogation. So they took me outside while they heroically gave a 7 year old the third degree without an adult present. This had a profound impact on him and he cried for several days because he thought that he had cause me to get arrested.
For about the next 45 minutes they continued to search my home. The deputies broke down my bedroom door and searched and also during this search broke into my locked brief case which had my legal papers in it. They used cotton swabs to test for any residue narcotics, and left them laying all over my home and yard and yet they found nothing.
By this time it was already dark and instead of releasing me and leaving they instead started searching all of the vehicles on my property and called in the VIN and License Plate numbers on all the vehicles on my property. When they could find no stolen vehicles they then began searching my truck from the outside using flash lights. They did this several times. They then took my keys from me and searched inside my truck and then announced that I was under arrest for Possession of Marijuana. By this point there were about 9 police cars on my property and I was put into one of them and taken to jail.
CAUSE NUMBER 1176877
THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE COUNTY CRIMINAL
§
VS. § COURT AT LAW # 15 OF
§
Percival Pierson § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OR INFORMATION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT
COMES NOW, Percival J. Pierson Defendant, a party in the above captioned and numbered cause, and defendant herein, pursuant to The Defendant does hereby make a motion for discovery pursuant to Art. 39.14. C.C.P. and Art. 25.04 which states "In misdemeanors, it shall not be necessary before trial to furnish the accused with a copy of the indictment or information; but he or his counsel may demand a copy, which shall be given as early as possible.
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO STATE'S MOTION IN LIMINE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT
asks the honorable court to deny the states motion in Limine pursuant to defendants 4th amendment right to a fair and impartial trial.
The defendant contends that the state's motion is improper as it does not cite the authority under which the state is filing this motion. The motion also fails to cite any authority for the motion in (1) (2) (3) (5) and (7) in the states motion in limine. The defendant has no legal training and this failure by the state to cite the authority under which their motion is based on makes it impossible; for the defendant to give a reply because he must guess at the rules or statutes the state is invoking, try to research them, and either agree or dispute them, and do it within the next 6 days. Granting this motion would in effect make a fair trial impossible.
In the event the motion in the above captioned and numbered cause is approved by the court the defendant argues that the rule cited in (4) (Texas Rules of Evidence 608(b) and 403 which says that Any such instance that has not resulted in a final conviction or a valid impeachable final conviction is inadmissible. Defendant contends this is little more than a catch 22 designed to exclude facts that might incriminate the court and the Sheriff's department as the Harris County Sheriff's Office Internal Affairs Division does not convict deputies of anything, therefore their will never be a final conviction issued by internal affairs.
Regardless of which factors the state may be citing, the defendant contends that the real purpose of this motion by the state is not any of the factors listed in Rule 403, but rather an attempt to exclude any mention of illegal or bad acts by the state and the courts, and to prevent the defendant from attempting to prove via relevant evidence that the state has unlawful violated the defendants rights and the cause against the defendant is therefore in violation of the exclusion rule, C. C. P. Art 17.15. (2)(3), Art 18.01 (b)(c)(d)(f), Art. 18.12, Art. 18.13, Art. 38.23(a)., Art. 38.22., Art. 38.08 and the Texas Rules of criminal evidence Rule 402, 404(b), 405(b), 406, and Rule 502 which states that "No Privilege exists under this rule in actions involving false statements, or other failure to comply with the law in question."
Defendant contends that the alleged pattern of unlawful acts by the police and the courts are relevant and admissible regardless of whether they have been convicted of any crimes, and any attempt to suppress such evidence is repugnant to the Constitution, and the law of the State of Texas.
Respectfully submitted,
ADDENDUM TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO STATE'S MOTION IN LIMINE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT
COMES NOW, Percival J. Pierson Defendant , a party in the above captioned and numbered cause, and defendant herein, and defendant also adduces Rule 404(b) which makes clear that the other crime, wrong, or act need not have been criminal, much less have resulted in a arrest or conviction.
The defendant contends that pursuant to this rule the defendant may reference, suggest, or produce documentation pertaining to investigation by the Harris County Internal Affairs division. Bad acts by law enforcement are relevant. I made the complaint against the deputies involved because they were trespassing on private property, because they seized me and handcuffed me illegally, and because they illegally broke down my bedroom door and searched my possessions without probable cause, or a search warrant or any other exception to the requirement to secure a warrant before conducting a lawful search on private property.
Defendant contends that if the bad acts by law enforcement are irrelevant, then their is not reason for CCP Art. 38.23. Evidence not to be used. (a) No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any.
Nor would their be any reason for (SECTION 1. Chapter 2, C C P, is amended by adding Articles 2.131 to read as follows: Art. 2.131. RACIAL PROFILING PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not engage in racial profiling).
Nor would their be any reason for the fourteenth amendment which guarantees equal protection under the law. As Theodore Parker said the law is binding upon every person or it is binding upon no person. The crimes of the Pasadena Police, and the Harris County Sheriffs Department, and the anonymous informant have not yet been held accountable for their crimes. The state should be proud that at least the Harris County Sheriffs Internal Affairs Department is at least investigating the alleged misconduct of it's deputies, instead of trying to suppress this information.
If the violation of a person's constitutional rights is not relevant to a criminal case, then the constitution and all the laws of this country are little better than a hypocritical farce, intended to fool people into believing that they live in a enlightened, just, and lawful society.
Defendant respectfully asks the court to in the interests of justice to obey the oath it took to protect and defend the constitution, and deny all elements of the states motion in limine.
Respectfully submitted,
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT
COMES NOW, Percival J. Pierson Defendant, a party in the above captioned and numbered cause, and defendant herein, and asks for dismissal of the charge against him pursuant to the ninth, and fourth Amendment to the constitution of the United States, and Article V of the constitution of the United States and VI of the constitution of the United States which states that the constitution shall be the supreme law of the land and that the judges in every state shall be bound thereby.
The defendant contends that like alcohol, marijuana was produced, possessed, and consumed prior to the signing of the constitution and the bill of rights, and that again like alcohol, marijuana was produced, possessed, and consumed after the constitution and the bill of rights were ratified.
Like alcohol possession this makes marijuana possession a constitutional right pursuant to the IX Amendment to the constitution of the United States, and this right can only be revoked in the same way the constitutional right to manufacture possess and consume alcohol was revoked, by a constitutional Amendment pursuant to Article V of the constitution of the United States.
It is unconstitutional for the state or federal government to revoke this right in any other way. They may not do it by Judicial Review, an act or congress, or an act of the state legislature. The defendant contends therefore that any law prohibiting the manufacture, possession, or consumption of marijuana is repugnant to the constitution and therefore void, and the court must dismiss.
Respectfully submitted,
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT
The defendant also contends that both courts failed to discharge their duty by failing to take into consideration nature of the offense and the circumstances under which it was committed pursuant to C. C. P. Art 17.15. (2)(3), Art 18.01 (b)(c)(d)(f), Art. 18.12, and Art. 18.13. and that this constitutes a pattern of official oppression by the police and the courts, that the defendant is entitled to pursue; provided the defendant is not unlawfully prohibited from doing so by the motion in limie filed by the state which legally must be approved by a judge who will not be harmed by this ruling.
Defendant contends that the excessive bail imposed by this court, the states motion in limine and the states motion to disclose experts clearly shows that the state expects the judge to grant any motion no matter how unjust or how unlawful. It also shows clearly the state's intent to unfairly take advantage of the defendants lack of legal training to suppress any mention of any pattern of official oppression by the police and the courts, and that the court therefore has an interest in suppressing such evidence against this court; as the judge may be injured by such evidence.
The motion to disclose experts has a certificate of service dated July 24, 2003. It demands that the court order the defendant "to disclose to the undersigned Assistant District Attorney on or before July 30, 2003 , the day the trial is scheduled to begin herein, . . . The State further requests, as required by TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC., art. 39.24 (b), that said order specify a time, no later than 20th day before the date the trial begins . . . and further, that said order specify the manner in which Defendant must make said disclosure to the state."
I may not be a lawyer but I can count and from the date of service of 7/24/03 to 7/30/03, the date the trial is scheduled is only 6 days and they are at the same time saying it must be filed 20 days before the trial to be valid. In short the state is asking the court to deny the defendant the right to call expert witnesses. At the same time the defendant has on his last two court appearances asked for discovery both orally and in a written motion filed with the court, which the state has yet to comply with despite it's rush to schedule a trial before I can mount an effective defense. The state also wanted to hold a motions hearing on the same day they served me with the motions.
Defendant also contend that the state and the court is acting in violation of the Equal Protection provisions of the 14th amendment which requires equal protection of the law and Yick Wo v. Hopkins, (1886) where the court ruled that unequal administration of a neutral law is violation of equal protection when it operates to discriminate in practice against a racial minority. Clearly the Anonymous informant gave a false report to the police in violation of the Texas Penal Code 37.08. Both the defendant who is Native American and the police (If they are being truthful) are victims of this persons illegal act. Yet the informant, who was clearly guilty of giving false information to the police (a class B misdemeanor) was not charged with any crime concerning this incident. But his victim the defendant was unlawfully oppressed by the police and the courts who know and apparently approve of the fact that no warrant was issued in this case, and the entire case is biased on one persons bearing false witness against the defendant. Possession of Marijuana is not in the ten commandments, but bearing false witness is, yet the state has failed to even bring lawful action against the perpetrator, who is known to them and that such an unequal application of statutes constitutes intentional and purposeful discrimination against the defendant and is immoral and a violation of God's laws as well.
Respectfully submitted,
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE
a motion for change of venue pursuant to C.C.P. Art. 31.03. (a)(2) as defendant believes that there is a dangerous combination against him instigated by influential persons, by reason of which he cannot expect a fair trial.
Both the police and the courts are forbidden from imposing cruel or unusual punishment, by both state and federal laws, and are also forbidden from using bail as an instrument of oppression and must take into consideration the nature of the offense and the circumstances under which it was committed pursuant to C. C. P. Art 17.15. (2)(3)
The defendant understands that when the state use's certain words that it has learned causes an irrational emotional response that it can get away with doing anything it wants. Some of these words are: drugs, trial lawyers, terrorist, and communist to name but a few. I can remember when I went to the drug store, but the state has so vilified and demonized the word drug that the word is almost never use for a pharmacy any more. The governments campaign has worked so well that even doctors who should know better let patient's suffer needlessly because even prescribing the so called evil drugs might taint them as well.
The defendant contends that it is the government that is evil and cites Biblical Prophecy as proof. to quote from the prophecy in Chapter 31 of Proverbs 4-9 "It is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted. Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more. Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction. Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy. . . ."
Respectfully submitted,
AFFIDAVIT
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Percival Joseph Pierson, who, being by me duly sworn, deposed as follows:
My name is Percival Joseph Pierson, I am of sound mind, capable of making this affidavit, and personally acquainted with the facts herein stated:
On or about June 5, 2003 Tyler (7 year old my stepson) and I (the defendant) arrived at my home just before dark, between 8:00 PM and 8:30 PM, to find about 6 or 7 Harris County Sheriffs Department patrol cars parked on my property, at 16828 Oak Lane #B in Channelview, Texas. I pulled off the public road and parked on my property also.
I exited my truck and locked it, then asked the first deputy I saw what happened, and he asked me if I lived here, and I told him that I did. He told me that he could not tell me anything. So I went to another deputy I saw who was closer to my trailer, and asked him what had happened. He told me I would have to talk to the Sergeant in charge. So I asked where he was and he told me that the Sergeant was in my trailer home. I entered my residence to find three deputies and my son David Pierson.
When I asked for the sergeant he came out of my sons bedroom. I asked him what was going on and he told me that they had received an anonymous tip that there was narcotics being dealt at my residence. I asked him if he had found any narcotics and he said no. I asked if he had a warrant and he said no. I then asked him how he had got into my home, and he stated that my son had invited them in. I stated that my son did not pay rent, or bills, and was not in control of the premised and I asked them all to leave the property.
The sergeant told me that I did not have to holler. I stated to him that I was not hollering but I am very upset at the unlawful search being conducted by them based on false witness. This is when a another deputy stated to me that their was a pair of scissors on the coffee table and he did not trust me, so put your hands behind your back so I can cuff you for our protection. He deliberately hand cuffed me in front of my stepson in order to intimidate a 7 year old prior to their interrogation of him. They then separated me from my stepson to further soften him up for his interrogation. So they took me outside while they heroically gave a 7 year old the third degree without an adult present. This had a profound impact on him and he cried for several days because he thought that he had cause me to get arrested.
For about the next 45 minutes they continued to search my home. The deputies broke down my bedroom door and searched and also during this search broke into my locked brief case which had my legal papers in it. They used cotton swabs to test for any residue narcotics, and left them laying all over my home and yard and yet they found nothing.
By this time it was already dark and instead of releasing me and leaving they instead started searching all of the vehicles on my property and called in the VIN and License Plate numbers on all the vehicles on my property. When they could find no stolen vehicles they then began searching my truck from the outside using flash lights. They did this several times. They then took my keys from me and searched inside my truck and then announced that I was under arrest for Possession of Marijuana. By this point there were about 9 police cars on my property and I was put into one of them and taken to jail.