techno-ag said:

---

A grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if the local DA wants it to.

---

That ham sandwich was a bad egg and everyone knew he had it coming.

This agency has a history of preparing questionable reports with the sole purpose of getting a conviction of a bartender or an administrative penalty against the bar owner.

He lied in his report, and then lied on the witness stand.

Applicable penal code:

Sec. 37.02. PERJURY. (a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to deceive and with knowledge of the statement's meaning:
(1) he makes a false statement under oath or swears to the truth of a false statement previously made and the statement is required or authorized by law to be made under oath; or
(2) he makes a false unsworn declaration under Chapter 132, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

Sec. 37.03. AGGRAVATED PERJURY. (a) A person commits an offense if he commits perjury as defined in Section 37.02, and the false statement:
(1) is made during or in connection with an official proceeding; and
(2) is material.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.

Our DA can't/won't land a perjury charge with video evidence. Time for a new one.

Stucco said:

---

Our DA can't/won't land a perjury charge with video evidence. Time for a new one.

---

It's all about protecting the fellow "servants".

Quote:

---

District Attorney

Parsons, Jarvis

District Attorney
JParsons@brazoscountytx.gov
(979) 361-4320

300 E. 26th St.
Suite 310
Bryan, TX 77803
Phone:
(979) 361-4320

---

I've been a fan of Parsons. After this, I really hope someone qualified runs against him.

A photograph (mug shot) of Agent Jergens should be circulated and posted on wall of every bar in Brazos County. Also, each bar should have a security video setup like that used in this case. I is in their best e interest to protect themselves and their employees from false charges.

I emailed Mr. Parsons, and he asked me to meet with him tomorrow morning.

I'm unhappy work this outcome, but serious props to him for offering to meet with me in person. I respect that a lot!

Justin2010 said:

---

I emailed Mr. Parsons, and he asked me to meet with him tomorrow morning.

I'm unhappy work this outcome, but serious props to him for offering to meet with me in person. I respect that a lot!

---

Let us know how that goes. See if the respect is still warranted.

If Agent Jergins simply "misremembered," it may give me more issue than if he was just one bad egg who lied. How many other cases did he misremember before writing his report? What about every other officer? Typically, we trust them because they are trained and experienced in the investigation, and the report writing. We don't have that trust anymore.

Mr.Short-termMemory said:

---

Justin2010 said:

---

I emailed Mr. Parsons, and he asked me to meet with him tomorrow morning.

I'm unhappy work this outcome, but serious props to him for offering to meet with me in person. I respect that a lot!

---

Let us know how that goes. See if the respect is still warranted.

If Agent Jergins simply "misremembered," it may give me more issue than if he was just one bad egg who lied. How many other cases did he misremember before writing his report? What about every other officer? Typically, we trust them because they are trained and experienced in the investigation, and the report writing. We don't have that trust anymore.

---

The meeting this morning went very well. First, I have some serious respect for Mr. Parsons, not just being willing to meet - but inviting me to come to his office, giving me his cell number and asking me to text or call him any time.

That said, I still wish the officer had been indicted, but I came away understanding why he was not.

Basically, he laid out why the Grand Jury may have seen it as a weaker case that it appears on its face.

• The night of the sting, something like two dozen other additional bars were visited by the officer.
  
• The reports weren't written, per TABC policy, until well after all of the stings were made - something like a week went by before the reports were written.
  
• The minor and the officer made almost identical reports.
  
• It's very hard to prove intent. In the last couple of decades, he could only remember one case of perjury, and that one was very blatant.

All of those things may not mean the crime didn't happen. But would all plant reasonable doubt in a jury's mind.

I also came away convinced it wasn't a case of protecting an officer. Several officers have been recently prosecuted for various crimes.

Left feeling very impressed with Mr. Parsons - even if the non-indictment still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

20+ visits in a night seems excessive. How would you remember all the details when reporting days later?

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

Justin2010 said:

---

Mr.Short-termMemory said:

---

Justin2010 said:

---

I emailed Mr. Parsons, and he asked me to meet with him tomorrow morning.

I'm unhappy work this outcome, but serious props to him for offering to meet with me in person. I respect that a lot!

---

Let us know how that goes. See if the respect is still warranted.

If Agent Jergins simply "misremembered," it may give me more issue than if he was just one bad egg who lied. How many other cases did he misremember before writing his report? What about every other officer? Typically, we trust them because they are trained and experienced in the investigation, and the report writing. We don't have that trust anymore.

---

The meeting this morning went very well. First, I have some serious respect for Mr. Parsons, not just being willing to meet - but inviting me to come to his office, giving me his cell number and asking me to text or call him any time.

That said, I still wish the officer had been indicted, but I came away understanding why he was not.

Basically, he laid out why the Grand Jury may have seen it as a weaker case that it appears on its face.

• The night of the sting, something like two dozen other additional bars were visited by the officer.
  
• The reports weren't written, per TABC policy, until well after all of the stings were made - something like a week went by before the reports were written.
  
• The minor and the officer made almost identical reports.
  
• It's very hard to prove intent. In the last couple of decades, he could only remember one case of perjury, and that one was very blatant.

All of those things may not mean the crime didn't happen. But would all plant reasonable doubt in a jury's mind.

I also came away convinced it wasn't a case of protecting an officer. Several officers have been recently prosecuted for various crimes.

Left feeling very impressed with Mr. Parsons - even if the non-indictment still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

---

Thanks for following up here. This goes back to my earlier statement about "misremembering." How many other cases did he "misremember" that night? Other sting nights? This bartender was ACTUALLY INNOCENT of what the Agent and the State accused him of because the officer wasn't paying enough attention to what was going on. And never did any investigation outside his memory. If not for the video collected by the defense, the bartender likely would have been convicted for something he didn't do. How many times has this happened over the years? How many jurors believe the defendant over the police? Not many.

Justin2010 said:

---

Basically, he laid out why the Grand Jury may have seen it as a weaker case that it appears on its face.

• The night of the sting, something like two dozen other additional bars were visited by the officer.
  
• The reports weren't written, per TABC policy, until well after all of the stings were made - something like a week went by before the reports were written.
  
• The minor and the officer made almost identical reports.
  
• It's very hard to prove intent. In the last couple of decades, he could only remember one case of perjury, and that one was very blatant.

All of those things may not mean the crime didn't happen. But would all plant reasonable doubt in a jury's mind.

I also came away convinced it wasn't a case of protecting an officer. Several officers have been recently prosecuted for various crimes.

Left feeling very impressed with Mr. Parsons - even if the non-indictment still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

---

1. Preparing reports well after the event is poor policy, but that does that even matter? That report is used to incriminate citizens of Texas. It better be completely truthful and accurate.

2. If the reports were identical, then the minor and the TABC both lied.

3. What if the video evidence wasn't available? Then a young bartender is wrongfully convicted and a bar owner is wrongfully fined.

4. So it's hard to prove, so the DA just isn't going to try? The prosecutors work hand in hand with law enforcement so this appears to be a deal between TABC Austin and Brazos County. Be better. Expect more. The 'intent' was to report and then testify that the bartender committed a crime, which he didn't. But for the video, the defendant would have been assessed fines, possible jail time and at minimum some BS plea deal that costs him a bunch of money, plus a record of a crime.

4. Reality is they don't care. TABC performs these large undercover sting operations to justify their existence. They want to bust some balls at Northgate and hand out as many citations as possible. If a couple bartenders didn't actually serve a minor or commit a crime, who cares.

We don't need the TABC. It's an unnecessary bureaucracy. Maybe just keep them for taxing and permits. The TABC Code and Regs are antiquated and make no sense. The entire code should be revised.

Quote:

---

The reports weren't written, per TABC policy, until well after all of the stings were made - something like a week went by before the reports were written.

---

Wow. That is a ridiculous policy and this case is exactly why it's ridiculous. If a report can't be written immediately, then they should at least be taking notes when there is the chance of a CRIMINAL CONVICTION being handed down on a person.

In fact, it's not ridiculous...it is infuriating.

Quote:

---

3. What if the video evidence wasn't available? Then a young bartender is wrongfully convicted and a bar owner is wrongfully fined.

---

Exactly. That young man did everything that he's supposes to do, but because someone "misremembered" his life could have been forever altered.

Justin2010 said:

---

Mr.Short-termMemory said:

---

Justin2010 said:

---

I emailed Mr. Parsons, and he asked me to meet with him tomorrow morning.

I'm unhappy work this outcome, but serious props to him for offering to meet with me in person. I respect that a lot!

---

Let us know how that goes. See if the respect is still warranted.

If Agent Jergins simply "misremembered," it may give me more issue than if he was just one bad egg who lied. How many other cases did he misremember before writing his report? What about every other officer? Typically, we trust them because they are trained and experienced in the investigation, and the report writing. We don't have that trust anymore.

---

The meeting this morning went very well. First, I have some serious respect for Mr. Parsons, not just being willing to meet - but inviting me to come to his office, giving me his cell number and asking me to text or call him any time.

That said, I still wish the officer had been indicted, but I came away understanding why he was not.

Basically, he laid out why the Grand Jury may have seen it as a weaker case that it appears on its face.

• The night of the sting, something like two dozen other additional bars were visited by the officer.
  
• The reports weren't written, per TABC policy, until well after all of the stings were made - something like a week went by before the reports were written.
  
• The minor and the officer made almost identical reports.
  
• It's very hard to prove intent. In the last couple of decades, he could only remember one case of perjury, and that one was very blatant.

All of those things may not mean the crime didn't happen. But would all plant reasonable doubt in a jury's mind.

I also came away convinced it wasn't a case of protecting an officer. Several officers have been recently prosecuted for various crimes.

Left feeling very impressed with Mr. Parsons - even if the non-indictment still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

---

Then I'd like to hear Jarvis commit to extending the same consideration to private business owners as he did to the officer. Unless the TABC officer can provide video evidence of the crime, I don't think they should be trusted anymore to properly document a crime. Jarvis also needs to commit to nullifying all previous testimony by this officer, and really all TABC officers if these policies have always been acceptable. I know that if I'm on a jury, I will now assume that all TABC officers are lying if they don't have clear video evidence to back up their claims.

And if it's "very hard to prove intent" I want the same consideration the next time I get a ticket for speeding. I didn't MEAN to speed, it just happened. I didn't do it intentionally, so charges should be dismissed, right?

You can do 99 things right, but the 1 thing you do wrong will be what gets remembered. This is the 1 thing to me. I'll be voting for a different DA next time it's on the ballot.

Because whether or not there is an indictment is often dependent on how hard a DA office pushes for one.

I served on a grand jury.

Grand juries operate in secrecy and under near-complete control by the prosecutor. All we needed to indict was probable cause. The prosecutors feed and control the evidence, and control the grand jury. Here we have an absolute false report and he backed it up with false testimony. Probable cause to indict?

Regardless of political persuasion, any investigator working for the DA, or DA themselves, worth their salt would have discovered that a video existed before anything went in front of a grand jury.

I get that it makes it a little harder to uncover but just because the attorney kept it a secret doesn't mean it was a secret and couldn't have been discovered. It supports the notion that an inadequate investigation was performed.

What I am gathering from your recounting of the conversation is that Parsons is hoping that the voters won't be able to figure out:

- The difference between probable cause and reasonable doubt.
- The extent to which the prosecutor controls the grand jury process.
- The fact that though there were 2 dozen stings, there was only one where Jergins gave beer to a 17 year old girl, which he noted under oath he knows to be a crime and not what he does during normal stings.
- The agent started telling the fake story at most hours after the fact. The identification team went to give the citation to the bar that night, not a week later.
- The minor's falsified signed affidavit, was almost certainly not written by her.

"My name is [redacted] I am 17 years of age, having been born on [redacted]

On the 16th day of September, 2016, at approximately 10:34 pm, while at the licensed premises known as Rebel Draft House, which is located at, 301 University Drive, College Station, Texas, I purchased and received alcoholic beverages, namely a Dos Equis draft beer, from a person who was later identified by Agent Rodney Meyer of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission as [bartender's name], an employee of the aforementioned license premises. I paid a total sum of $4.75 for the aforementioned alcoholic beverages.

I in no way or manner, verbally or otherwise, misrepresented my age to Allen Bradley Frick, the person from whom I purchased the aforementioned alcoholic beverages, nor have I ever previously misrepresented my age to [bartender's name], or any other employee of the aforementioned licensed premises."


The idea that we should believe that she came up with that herself, and it wasn't given to her to sign by a TABC agent, possibly Jergins himself, is kinda bonkers. I think the DA is being overly hopeful about our gullibility if he wants us to think that she came up with that independently and the affidavit should be taken as evidence that two different people misremembered the events in the same way.

If what you are saying about Parsons explanation is correct, that and the TABC's statement claiming that "Our review found no wrongdoing on the part of Agent Jergins..." even when we have a video of him giving a beer to a 17 year old girl shows me that these folks do not think they can be held accountable.

Republican primary is next March, I think. We will see.

I don't know all the legalese regarding this case but I do know some state employees several years ago in Huntsville who got convicted of conspiracy because, even though they weren't involved in the act, gave false statements about what they saw. They did federal time for it.

My understanding in this case is that a state employee made an erroneous report regarding the sale of alcohol to a minor. In addition, it appears that he or another state employee wrote the minor's statement that she signed as fact. Probably a fill-in-the-form letter. This was presented as evidence in an attempt to convict an innocent bartender.

I don't care if they did do 20 stings that night. They have a professional responsibility to keep accurate records regarding potentially ruining someone's life.

On KBTX, the spokesman or supervisor for TABC said he was glad the no bill was found as " the agent did nothing wrong." Bull ***** He did do something very wrong and it is a shame the agency views it as it has.

If the TABC cannot get this simple issue right, the legislature needs to sunset it and keep the plumber's licensing board.