Holding Temple Police Department Accountable

With my trial behind me, I can talk a little more about it. My first trial ended in a mistrial in spite of the judge doing everything in his power to keep exculpatory evidence from being heard by the jury. In fact, my attorney was not allowed to present evidence to the court that the original caller lied on the stand. In her call to report my legal activity, Lisa Wilkerson stated that the reason she was calling was because she thought it was “odd” that my son and I were carrying a rifle. She never mentioned what kind of gun, so she can’t claim that she did it was because I was carrying an AR15. In fact, she didn’t even know whether I was carrying a rifle or shotgun. She only mentioned that it was “odd” to see a man in the middle of the country carrying a rifle.

However, in court, Wilkerson claimed that she was “alarmed” at the sight. Never mind that an alarmed person doesn’t take the time to call a non-emergency, 7-digit number. A person truly alarmed calls 911. But, Wilkerson wasn’t alarmed. She never stated such and never used any language that would otherwise suggest she was scared or feared for her life. So, why did she claim in court that she was alarmed when she never mentioned that in her call? Well, turns out that Investigator Gilpin of TPD sat her down to do a statement a few weeks after the call. During that interview, she basically said the exact same thing she said in the original phone call.

Then Gilpin asked her something that would serve as the snowball in TPD’s false narrative to attack a law-abiding citizens. After Wilkerson wrote her statement, Gilpin asked if she would say she was alarmed. This had never entered her vocabulary prior to this statement. She never even used similar terms like frightend, scared, panicked, unnerved, distressed, agitated, upset, disconcerted, shocked, dismayed, or disturbed. Her word in the phone call and on her statement was “odd.” But, after Gilpin said this, she said, “I guess you could say that.” He then asked her to include that on her statement and she did. Then, on the stand she claimed again to be “alarmed” upon prompting by County Attorney John Gantt Jr. However, we were not allowed to play her phone call as proof that she didn’t so much as hint to such. Instead, she tried to convince the jury that “odd” and “alarming” is one and the same. They played that same broken record during the second trial.

But don’t take my word for it. Listen to the phone call yourself.

After watching that video, it’s hard to see why Temple Police Officer Steve Ermis was the next on the witness list for the prosecution during both trials. Ermis has proven to be a seasoned liar with a pension for thinking that he will never have to answer for being a bully. He has no compunction against putting a man in jail who wasn’t harming anyone, but heaven forbid he be held accountable for killing a woman when his motorcycle she was riding with him on left the road and crashed through a barbed wire fence in 2010. According to Ermis’ personnel records that were provided by TPD, he’s never so much as accidentally sneezed on anyone. Yet, in June 2010, a woman riding with Ermis was killed when his motorcycle left FM 487 and crashed through a barbed wire fence. I’ve been riding motorcycles for 31 years and the only way that’s possible is driving too fast for conditions or alcohol was involved. Odd how that isn’t included in his SPOTLESS record of nearly 30 years as a police officer. He’s obviously been able to get away with whatever he does for so long. Most bullies don’t have people willing to stand up to them. That’s how they get away with it. When I did just that on the side of the road that day, I was met with the business end of that decision. I know how to deal with bullies and badges.

But back to the trials.

Ermis stated on the stand that the reason his SWORN affidavit was so wrong was because it’s typical for people not remember details of stressful experiences right away. Odd. I didn’t have a problem telling Ermis what really happened mere moments after it happened AND I’M THE ONE THAT HAD A GUN PUT TO MY HEAD! I also didn’t have the benefit of reviewing my audio and video prior to submitting sworn testimony. So, either Ermis has been getting away with lying on his affidavits of probable cause for so long he didn’t think it would come back to bite him in the ass or he’s incompetent.

In Chapter 501 of the Temple Police Department General Orders Manual, the department lays out how and when officers are to use force against the public. “Officers shall use only the minimum amount of force necessary to effect lawful objectives.” According to Ermis and the County Prosecutor under Jim Nichols, it is the duty of the police to disarm people for walking down the wrong side of the road. Wrong. The law is not on their side.

According to Texas Government Code Section 411.207, “A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer’s official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder.”

There is no law on the books that allows an officer to steal a person’s rifle without probable cause and walking down the wrong side of the road is not it. Of course, we filed motions to suppress the arrest and seizure as illegal and retired visiting Harris County Judge Neel Richardson overruled those motions as part of his efforts to “teach us how to be good parents.” One of the cases the prosecution tried to use to justify stealing my personal property was Terry v. Ohio. However, Terry required reasonable suspicion of a crime and they were responding to a legal activity that the caller considered “odd”.

In the Terry case, Detective McFadden was able to prove reasonable suspicion based on the behaviors of Terry and Chilton in a high crime area of downtown Cleveland. McFadden was able to ARTICULATE that reasonable suspicion, whereas neither Ermis nor Menix could. In fact, it took them five months and a motion from us to suppress the arrest for the prosecution to claim that their “reasonable suspicion” was that I was walking down the wrong side of a country road, a Class C misdemeanor. This fact never once entered the minds of the officers on the scene and was nothing more than a legal maneuver to save face, legitimized by a biased judge looking for any reason to convict. And so, our motion to suppress was overruled and the trial went on. Unsurprisingly, the fact that I “was committing a crime in [Officer Ermis’] very presence” played into a major theme during both trials. Suddenly, a major epidemic of criminals walking unknowingly down the wrong side of the road seemed a major cause for concern to the Temple Police Department and Bell County Attorney Jim Nichols in spite of the fact that NOT A SINGLE person had been charged or convicted of such a victimless “crime” in the past six years, according to the results of an open records request I received from the city on August 2, 2013. Zero. Not one.

Ermis has a habit of sticking his foot in his mouth on the stand. For example, he tried to claim that the reason he needed to check me out was because there were a bunch of forced break-ins in the area where I was walking. Of course, that’s all the more reason for someone to walk around armed if there is such a rampant criminal element. Of course, a cursory look at crimes in the area on the RAMPS system impeaches Ermis’ statements.


This image depicts only those crimes in the past 6 months that Ermis claimed he was protecting citizens from in the area of my arrest. Other than a break-in at a local business, this was just another one of Ermis’ lies propagated by the prosecution in an attempt to convince the jury that it’s paramount we disarm citizens to determine if they MAY HAVE committed a crime instead of having reasonable suspicion that was, is, or will be committed. Thought crimes.

After Ermis finished perjuring himself, the prosecution called Sergeant Thomas Menix to the stand to testify. As he wasn’t present at the scene, we questioned why he was included as a witness. He was used to basically further the statist ideas that a man with a shiny badge can disarm anyone for any reason and we just have to suck it up. Menix is the quintessential yes man. In fact, it says a lot about Ermis that a man like Menix even outranks him. He is unsure of himself and barely audible as he answers questions meekishly into the microphone. He appears as if he is about to wet his pants having to testify. However, on cross-examination, he is forced to admit that Ermis lied; that his subordinate – a man with five years more service than Menix – lied to him several times on the scene. This explains why County Attorneys Jim Nichols and John Gantt, Jr. didn’t bring him back during the second trial. Reminds me of this clip from Liar, Liar.

Those are the only prosecution witnesses during the first trial. During the second trial, it was determined that Menix and his honesty wouldn’t be needed.

Our only witness was Chris, who testified that we always carry rifles when we’re out on our walks and have never had a problem. During the first trial, the prosecutors made Chris cry by accusing him of violating a court order. Here’s the interesting part: during the first trial, Chris was on the prosecution’s witness list! In fact, they scared the shit out of Chris by demanding they deliver their subpoena personally to Chris instead of allowing Emily to accept it since Chris was a minor. The deputy came to the house and spoke to Emily to serve Chris, but wouldn’t give it to her. As seems to be customary with law enforcement in Bell County, they obviously either didn’t know the law or refused to use it. I wouldn’t doubt if this was an intimidation tactic by the county to scare him.

Art. 24.011. SUBPOENAS; CHILD WITNESSES. (a) If a witness is younger than 18 years, the court may issue a subpoena directing a person having custody, care, or control of the child to produce the child in court.

It was the prosecution’s responsibility to inform their witnesses that a rule had been invoked that witnesses were unable to talk to each other about the trial or to others involved in it. When Chris took the stand during the first trial, prosecutors immediately began interrogating Chris about “the rule.” Chris obviously had no idea what he was talking about. Chris was removed from the stand while the judge and attorney’s retired to judge’s chambers to discuss.

Here’s what happened: because Chris was a witness, he wasn’t allowed to talk about the case or even be present when others talked about it. Well, Chris’s room is right next to ours and he admitted overhearing us talking about the trial. Prosecutors tried to claim that I violated the rule, but I wasn’t under the rule, Chris was. The judge told my attorney he was trying to find a way to hold me in contempt, but couldn’t come up with one. This is where the judge referred to us as “local yokels” and threatened to throw me, Chris and Emily in jail to “teach us how to be good parents.” In the end, the prosecution had only one choice: hold CHRIS in contempt or suck it up like a big boy that they were responsible for failing to inform THEIR witness.

The prosecution added county investigator Joe Madrano. His basic testimony was that he’s been spying on me. He accused me of using the video my son took to “gain notoriety” and “sympathy for his cause” as well as to raise money for my defense. Of course, it had nothing to do with the fact that TPD was lying through their teeth about me and I released the video to defend myself. I was actually a little embarrassed for this witness because 1) he wasn’t a witness to anything and 2) his testimony was meaningless. I think he was basically trying to paint me as a media whore or something like that, but I’m not quite sure what they hoped to accomplish. What I did learn from this witness is that the government spies on anyone that stands up to them. Additionally, Michael Yon peppered them with all sorts of bogus information that they wisely didn’t bother using. It says a lot that “tips” from Yon were ignored by a man tasked with spying on me and gathering as much dirt as possible to convict me. If anyone that was there in the second trial can think of exactly what Joe Madrano was trying to accomplish, please let me know in the comments. I felt dumber after hearing him testify than before. By the way, I want to take this opportunity to give a shout-out to Joe since he’s probably still spying on me. What up, dawg! Que pasa?

Besides Chris, our only other witness was one of the owners of a home further down the road where we were hiking. He owns several guns and testified that people are around there with guns all the time hunting and he wouldn’t have been afraid at all seeing me walking down the road with a rifle. He testified that people hunt in that area all the time. When prosecutors asked how he knew people hunt there, his response elicited courtroom giggles: “Because I live there.”

Chris was our only witness and testified to what actually happened. This naturally contradicted what the officers said happened. One moment that stuck out in my mind was when the prosecutor asked Chris about why I needed a rifle and whether the pistol would have been enough. Chris, in his usual matter-of-fact manner, responded that you don’t hunt coyote with a pistol. The courtroom laughed. The prosecutor seemed thrown off his game.

What both trials boiled down to was the jury charge. In the first trial, the jury was immediately split 3-3. After about 12 hours of deliberation, the jury was split 4-2 for acquittal. The jury sent several questions to the judge for clarification. However, the judge did not provide any additional information. For example, the jury wanted to know what “criminal negligence” was. The judge said he couldn’t respond. He also told them they couldn’t consider the circumstances surrounding the “why” I allegedly interfered. They also were not allowed to consider self defense. Once those clarifications were made, the jury almost immediately changed to a 5-1 split for conviction. One juror refused to take that into account and did what juries are supposed to do – nullify bad laws or arrests.

In fact, up until about the 1920s, jury nullification was included in jury instructions. If the jury thought that a law was baseless or too vague, they could find a defendant innocent. To best describe this, pretend the governor signed into law a bill that required Texans to wear pink on Wednesdays. One particular Wednesday, I decide to wear blue because I don’t like pink. Officer Ermis pulls up in his pink uniform and and decides to arrest me for wearing blue because I was breaking the law (kind of like walking down the wrong side of the road). At court the judge told the jury that if they found I was wearing blue on Wednesday, they had no choice but to find me guilty. A jury KNOWS I’m guilty of the crime of wearing blue, but they find me innocent anyway because it’s just a dumb law. If enough juries acquitted people of wearing blue on Wednesdays, this would basically nullify the statute itself.

Jury nullification was an important part of our legal system because, without it, judges could unduly influence the justice system. Juries can refuse to convict due to nothing more than a perceived injustice of law or the way it is being implied. For example, taking away someone’s right to keep and bear arms just because they’re walking down the wrong side of the road. Jury nullification played an important role during Prohibition. In US v. Moylan, the court upheld the right of juries to nullify, but also ruled that courts don’t have to instruct juries on its ability to use the tool. But, in the 80’s and 90’s, the courts became more hostile to jury nullification and even began to insinuate that such actions were unlawful, against the common law basis of our legal system. Because barred attorneys are effectively officers of the court, they can be punished now for even suggesting it. This is why I want to study law, but will never take the bar exam. I refuse to be “an officer of the court”. I have no problem representing myself in my traffic tickets as it is.

The judge realized the problems he created in his jury charge during the first trial and made sure to narrow it even more during the second. The jury was charged with deciding two facts only: 1) did I touch my rifle after being told not to and 2) did I refuse to IMMEDIATELY put my hands behind my back? If yes, they had to find me guilty. They could not consider that the first action was a reaction and the second was self defense as I feared for my life having a gun to my head and wanted to get it on film if I was going to be prevented from defending myself. One of the jurors from the first trial said it best in an interview he did after a mistrial was declared.

“There’s a lot of room for interpretation,” he said.

“But then we were told we couldn’t consider mitigating circumstances. We could only determine if he had done the things he was accused of. But he did them in self-defense. He was never told he was detained or that he was being investigated. That jury charge didn’t sit well with my conscience. It wasn’t a good charge,” Coterrill said.
The jury charge the attorneys agreed on Tuesday night was changed Wednesday morning, leaving out the portion about self-defense, Grisham’s attorney Blue Rannefeld said.

Here’s a complete interview with that juror where he makes a great analogy of what this judge did in my case.

I was found guilty in the second trial of a Class B misdemeanor of “interference with public duties.” I am appealing the decision on numerous rulings.

21 Comments on “Holding Temple Police Department Accountable

  1. A detail that seems to have gone past without note by everyone here is the time interval between the cops’ instruction and your reaction. Which if the jury had considered even per their narrow instructions should still put you squarely into the ‘not guilty’ category here.

    Is anyone seriously suggesting that the human brain can instantly hear, absorb, and react to a police instruction without any significant delay? Did anyone even bother to time the durations here and compare them against any kind of scientifically determined standard of human reaction times?

    How should that same jury react to instructions when determining whether you were given a warning if a Ermis had said, “Stop-or-I’ll-shoot-BANG!”?

    Seems to me you reacted within better-than-reasonable time, (faster than I could ever have), in a compliant-as-possible manner and with far more deference than was deserved, in terms of removing your hands from the weapon, and submitting to the cop physically to avoid further violent escalation, (while still verbally asserting your remaining rights and coherent objections verbally). Whereas the cop acted precisely the opposite – making rapid non-sensical demands and not allowing you reasonable time to voluntarily comply before escalating to physical force.

    I’ve seen this shit before, and it seems like a tactic common to thug bouncers and cops that isn’t even fit for the former, let alone the latter. I’ve had a cop walk toward me while I was standing there in a non-threatening manner having no reason to suspect what would come next, grab my upper arm and keep walking at the same speed, dragging me backwards while simultaneously stating I was under arrest, (based on a false accusation I did not hear made, so I had zero reason to even expect an arrest). Whether he started to say the sentence before he actually grabbed my arm, or even finished saying it beforehand, (which he didn’t), is not even relevant to whether I ever had sufficient opportunity to comply voluntarily. The technicality of whether he said the words at all is nothing but another intentional loophole-threading and routine misrepresentation, (ie. LIE), by cops intended to either avoid any risk whatsoever to themselves at the expense of greater physical and legal risk to the, (innocent until presumed guilty), suspect and/or give them an excuse to escalate the situation when the person autonomously “resists” the sudden unexpected, unannounced application of unbalancing, uncomfortable, painful and/or downright health-endangering physical force.

    You see the exact same inappropriate and downright cowardly attempt to transfer risk from the cops to citizens during no-knock raids where a bunch of armed and armoured cops bust in en masse and shoot your dog just in case it may attack or distract them. Yellow bellies with a trigger finger heavily biased toward shooting before properly identifying the target, because the cops’ value their own life over your family’s. Men so gutless they wont even risk an extra millisecond to distinguish between a confused child who was just awoken by loud noises in their own home at 3am and someone posing an actual threat. Which is minimal anyway considering they are wearing body armour. There’s a low chance they’ll sustain even minor injury, and even less of actually being killed. Which ironically would be even lower if occupants didn’t mistake them with burglars, home invaders, or rival gang bangers and understandably shoot back.

    If I had back problems I can imagine being dragged suddenly by the arm and twisted that way would illicit an extreme physical response. Being generally unflappable and being particularly slow to react luckily served my interests in that situation, but would not have in your case as stated above.

    Just like bouncers, these shitty cops learn a few simple psychological tricks, get to see enough people to know how the average person will react, and then start using the same lying, manipulation, and “Have you stopped beating your wife?”, bullshit on everyone from motorists to jaywalkers, until they’re using it on obviously innocent productive citizens just going about their business in order to fill quotas and cover their own petty misconduct and incompetence. Then they bemoan the fact that they don’t get enough love, respect, or help from the public when they need it. Classic ‘Boy Who Cried Wolf’ consequences when you selfishly act like a bunch of compulsive liars for the sake of nothing but your own ego and career prospects. You wouldn’t tolerate someone like that in the rest of your life for long. The predictable negative public reaction is of course used as an excuse to bemoan their oh-so-hard lot in life, act even more thuggish, and treat all citizens like they are guilty until proven innocent.

    Anyone who doesn’t know this about cops is shocked when they find it out, especially if they have been raised with a rosy view of the police, and expects them to act honestly, lawfully, reasonably, or even just logically. This is another reason your reactions to a dishonest, unreasonable, unlawful, or even just downright illogical order from a cop may take longer to mentally process than it otherwise would. If during cross-examination your lawyer suddenly demanded Ermis make him a hippopotamus sandwich in suitcase sauce, how long do you think it would take this dimwit to comprehend and respond verbally? What if while he was trying to comprehend the meaning and motivation behind the demand, the lawyer barked another question, got in his face, and started ordering him to stand up, sit down, and do the Hokey Pokey under the implicit threat of legal and/or violent reprisal?

    The cops know exactly what they’re doing when they pull this kind of crap. They are trained on how to do it, (hence it’s an institutional problem despite the intentions of any would-be “good cops”). That’s why the logic of anything you say doesn’t seem to penetrate. It’s like talking to a troll on the internet who is intentionally being obtuse to inflame debate – because that’s exactly what they are. They are being unreasonable and saying shit that is offensive to logic itself on purpose. It’s a one-note tactic. Lie, lie, lie. They are allowed to lie, (except supposedly under oath, but they can’t seem to break the ingrained habit while in a court room either). That would seem to make sense if they were needed to deceive a bank robber to catch him, or trick a guilty man into inadvertently confessing his crime Columbo style. But that’s not what they use it for. They use it to trick obviously non-criminal people into waiving their basic rights when there’s no valid reason to, and forcibly extracting word-game “confessions” from innocent men.

    Ermis had no intention of speaking to you in any reasonable manner, asking politely for you to relinquish your weapon for his inspection, ascertaining your licence and legal right to carry, or dealing with you in any reasonable, lawful or even professional manner. That sauntering smartass wanted to intimidate, provoke, threaten, and push you around right from the start, all with the craven intent of minimising his own risk, (in his own mind), trying to forcibly extract “respect”, (in his own mind), and walk all over your rights to remove a perceived threat, (in his own mind). Ironically all of these things are made less likely by his behaviour , and his actions were counter-productive. He put himself at greater risk, proved himself unworthy of respect, and created violence and a problem where there was none. The man is an idiot, from an institution of idiots. A lazy public servant doing what public servants are usually spending their time and your tax dollars doing, the least amount of work possible, concealing their mistakes at everyone else’s expense, and covering their own fat arses. He is no hero.

    I sincerely wished this had turned out differently. I would have preferred to see you have the opportunity to use that weapon to turn the tables and arrest Ermis for his unlawful behaviour as per your Second Amendment right, (yes, that’s what it’s for), and be fighting that case in court instead – all the way if necessary – just so other people would know they have that right too.

    I can understand why any individual would choose not to fight this domestic threat even if you had been expecting it, that you would have been concerned for your son’s safety, and I can’t criticise that decision, but I can’t help but wish for that to have happened and all be on camera so the entire world could see how a truly free citizen does shit down town.

  2. Mr. Grisham would have been well within the constaints of the law had he just shot the police officer.

  3. The police officers involved in this clearly need to be charged with a crime.

  4. Any updates, Master Sargeant?

    It seems you haven’t been ’round. You have friends. Let us know where this all is at.

  5. I can not believe what I am reading. How could the trials end up in any way this form, when the jury was snowballed. The jury was illegally directed. How has this nation lost completely it’s moral fortitude, and direction between right and wrong.

    MSG Grisham, Thank you for your service, and all the things you are doing about this farce today, placed upon you and your family. I cannot imagine how this has negatively affected your son. In his future, aside from the things we already know which will cause him to face hardship, every time he sees an Officer, this will flash in his mind, and it may turn very bad, very quick. I hope you have been working with him on how to stay frosty, and stay sharp.

    I would love to donate. Given today’s economic climate, my wife and I can hardly afford to eat. I am at home write now, typing this and researching your case, because my company has no work for me.

    I am truly scared about our tomorrow. For us, for our children, for our nation. I’ve no clue how to fight it, how to change it, how to rise above it. One thing i do know, is money is the only thing that wins in this world, and I have none. I am a sheep by force, not by choice.

    I wish you and yours the absolute best outcome in this mess. And I hope the most, that your son’s future is brighter than we can foresee.

    Molon Labe, sir.

    I will not be silenced.
    I will not lay down.
    I will not comply.

    M. Walsh,
    A fellow Patriot

    God save us all.

  6. I would love to be able to see/ participate in an open carry walk maybe on the anniversary of the event, I’m fully in support of you and fighting to ensure we keep our rights which seem to be taken slowly.

    Reminds me exactly of V for Vendetta and the rights and governmental force being used even in the most friendly of gun owner states

  7. I wonder what’s going on with CJ, he hasn’t been on his twitter or Facebook for almost three days now. I hope he’s ok.

  8. Bravo! Thank you for your service off & on our soils!

  9. The outcome of this case just makes me sick. This is such a clear miscarriage of justice by a judge and DA who are more interested in protecting the police department than serving justice for a veteran of our armed forces that did nothing wrong. I would like to know how we can contact them to express our displeasure with how they are carrying out their jobs.
    I’m not a lawyer or judge, but I have read a lot about the law and court cases. It seems clear to me from Supreme Court rulings that a police officer must have reasonable suspicion that someone has committed a crime or is about to before they can legally detain or demand ID from that person. Further, they have ruled that open carrying, where legal to do so, cannot constitute that reasonable suspicion. In addition the courts have ruled that a person can defend themselves with up to and including lethal force against an unlawful arrest. Based on this case law, CJ had the right to shoot and kill those officers and would have to be found not guilty.
    With all that being said, how can the judge basically instruct the jury to find him guilty, when he was clearly within his rights to resist an unlawful arrest and unlawful orders from a coward with a badge? Bad judge. No justice. Let’s expose this fascist for what he is and get him removed from the bench if possible.

    • The right the shoot the Officers?

      Try shooting me and you’ll be the one with a bullet in your head.

      Nice supporters you got here Sarge……

      • I was simply explaining what the supreme court has ruled. They ruled you can defend yourself. I never said Cj or anyone else should shoot a cop. I was simply pointing out that police should keep this in mind before they go out and arrest people under false pretenses because if they keep trumping up ridiculous charges against good citizens, eventually someone will exercise that right. I’d hate to be the cop who learns this the hard wa

      • Your point means that for an unlawfull action of a citizen, policeman can shoot him, but for unlawful action of policeman, citizen can’t shoot him? First of all you putting the whole thing in the plane of – who draws faster. So what if you’ve met some1 equal or best? Then because of your unlawfull actions country will have either you, him or both of you ending up dead? Homecountry btw, not Iraq or Afganistan.
        Police forces are given powers to control citizens only for a very special situations, btw. And though trying to maintain higher standards of behavior amongst those who serve, it’s still all the same peoples who comprise police as other population, not a special breed of specially honest and courageous white knights. And they’re with all the other peoples good and bad sides. So there might be as well a rogue cop on the empty road. And then it’s up to citizen not to let his rights violated, like robbed, beaten over nothing, wife raped or at all killed not for a crime.
        But as well, i’d say to AFreedomLovingTexan that it’s not a good idea to shoot an officer of police because of negligible reason, and may be even for some minor violation. Problem is – what can start from small thing, may end up in big troubles and when one already won’t be able to control the situation, being disarmed, cuffed or held by force. And sure… everyone can appeal to the court if being mistreated, (if yoy’re alive yet) and even then this nice idea is not appliable if you don’t have a pocket full of $$.
        And how to be with all that, i don’t know. I’d encourage anyone to be peace-loving, honest, law-abiding but the world is what it is, and ppls are what they are.
        Well actually the only tning i wanted to say is that LEO sometimes have rights overs citizen rights, but NEVER over the law.

      • Sounds to me as if we have another rogue officer here. Above the law. Answers to noone. Yup. Also, has no idea that the law can work against you, just as much as me. I’m glad you have a badge. Reallly. No tglad at all.

  10. CJ, my son in law reached out to the selfdefensefund.com site. He has a lot of reservations about my willingness to donate to your legal defense fund. After reading the reply my son in law received from Mr Keilberg which read, “Pursuant to your email asking for advise about donations. I recommend that your father in law not donate any money to any individual, organization, or entity, that he questions the validly of the purpose of the funds being used, whether it be for Mr. Grisham’s defense or otherwise.”, I’ve decided that my donation to your legal defense fund of $5000.00 would be better used by the NRA. It seems your legal representation has valid concerns about you and your situation. Those concerns, coupled with the rumors online and your oblique admission that there maybe some truth to those rumors have cemented my decision. I wish you good luck in the future but I am unable and unwilling to support you.

    • Stan,

      That is obviously your prerogative. If you base your decisions base on false accusations by a disgraced blogger, I can’t help that. I’m not going to beg anyone. My integrity speaks for itself and because I’ve become a somewhat popular topic of conversation, I will always have detractors. I already explained that the allegations were false. The NRA is definitely a good choice, as well as Gun Owners of America. I’m sure that no one has ever accused them of anything untoward and they have spotless records. Larry is absolutely correct: you should never donate any money to someone or something you feel comfortable donating to. I agree with him about that. Thanks again and take care.

  11. Wow. He’s really going after you, MSG Grisham. He posted this today:

    Email address to his Command Sergeant Major and Commander:



    Good to ask them why they think this is okay and if they think the mighty 504th BfSB is combat ready.


    It’s unfortunate he’s going after your career and livelihood. What he and his supporters don’t realize is military personnel are allowed to have private lives that actually encompass the public arena. They’re attempting to link your activities to your military service, but they’re shamefully misinformed. You haven’t done anything illegal nor immoral. It’s odd to me that people can’t distinguish between your military service and your activities outside that service. Frankly, it’s bizarre and a little bit disheartening.

    Since Mr. Yon (who enjoys two-hour foot massages) likes to insinuate that you’ve had an adulterous affair, after what Barbara Lawrence wrote, and continues to write by proxy for Mr. Yon (who killed a man in a bar fight) it makes me wonder what their relationship is. She’s clearly smitten with him. 😉

    Anyway. Military commanders and senior noncommissioned officers see this nonsense all the time from agenda-driven types like Mr. Yon (who has never provided tax documents for all his donations through his for-profit website). Just keep in mind he’s probably bitter that you did your job and pointed out his OPSEC violations while embedded with the military, and he was actively encouraging Soldiers to do the same (thus he was aiding and abetting the enemy during war… A treasonable offense.).

    Chin up, MSG Grisham. From where I sit this will never stop. That probably means you’re doing something right.


  12. Ok, thanks CJ I’ll contact the selfdefensefund.com and get back to you.

  13. CJ I would like to donate signifigantly to your legal defense fund. I have reservations about doing that in regards to numerous rumors about you floating about online.
    How are the donations you recieve accounted for?
    Will my donation be used solely for the purpose of your legal representation?
    Is there any truth to it, that the army has barred you at anytime from carrying your assigned personal weapon and barred you from being a supervisor? (I’m a civilian and I’m uneducated in military matters)
    Is there any truth to it, that you staged this confrontation with the police?
    Is it true that the army is supportive of your 2a constitutional fight and doesn’t want to fire you from the service?
    I ask these questions as they seem to be the big rumors floating around about you. Please clarify. I would like to donate, but I want to be sure about the person I’m donating to. Thank you for your army service.

    • Stan, nearly every claim made here is coming from a single source: Michael Yon. And every single claim is either blatantly false or based on nothing more than speculation. Every single dollar I’ve raised has been given to my legal defense team and they have receipts for all of it. If you doubt this as the case, please feel free to contact them through their website: http://www.selfdefensefund.com.

      I’ve never been barred from carrying a firearm – another lie. Yon makes this claim, but even if true, he would be violating federal law by sharing it as all my health records are protected by HIPPA. I’ve never staged confrontations with police. As for the Army’s position, you’d have to ask them. I don’t discuss my private life with the Army and they don’t discuss it with me.

      Michael Yon types from the comfort of his Thai hotel knowing I can’t sue him for libel or defamation. I’ve shared publicly on this blog numerous evidence that he lies and spreads rumors. I can’t help these rumors flying around, but all originate from one source.

  14. One thought you stated stands out plainly: “What I did learn from this witness is that the government spies on anyone that stands up to them.” True. The witness was making assumptions from everything he read about this case behind the intent of the prosecutor’s attempts to find wrongdoing.

  15. Excellant rebuttal to the outcome of your case. One thing I do not understand is the DA proceding to procecute this meritless case. One would assume the DA investigated the case also, and not just take an officers word and report alone. Considering the dashcam and recorded phone call, why would the DA risk his reputation selling a case showing so many inconsistantcies? From my experience, the only thing a lawyer REALLY cares about is how HE is perceived and judged. A narcissist never wants to look a fool in front of a group of people. They (Bell county authorities) filtered the facts to cloud the judgement of a jury that already had orders to convict. Why even let the defense present testimony or evidence if it can’t be considered to establish innocence? They gave you their version of “just us”.

    I know it will go quite different for you in a real court, with a real judge following real rules of evidence, testimony, and procedure. As far as your appeal, I wish for you all the justice and award that Bell county can afford.

    Press forward with full speed my friend, and watch your six!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.