Illuminating Hidden Truths

The case of an alleged silencer in possession by an attorney is fast becoming in court an intellectual debate between a defense attorney and a judge, all while leaving the prosecutor behind to muddle her way through her pleadings. 

When questioned by the court during court hearings on Dec. 23rd., Assistant District Attorney Megan Williamson was more than hesitant to declare to the court that her Chief in case witness would be Michael Bond or that she would absolutely subpoena Michael Bond to trial as a witness.  

(ADA Williamson has been elusive to directly answer to the court about the participation of Michael Bond during trial, and for good reason.  Michael Bond has a history of lying and filing false statements to authorities.  Michael Bond has the potential on the stand to become the prosecutors worst nightmare during impeachment proceedings with an experienced trial lawyer as Jeffrey Jensen). 

Much of Megan Williamson’s court pleadings on the 23rd. were about the practices of a private investigator who served a subpoena to then MPD and ATF confidential informant Michael Bond.

Michael Bond had been working for “credits” to keep his street freedom and to further reduce his future prison time.

Megan Williamson has repeatedly pleaded to the court that the private investigator represented himself as a “gun dealer” to serve Michael Bond a subpoena.   Megan Williamson so far has not brought forth any evidence to the court in support of her claims.

During previous pleadings to the court, Megan Williamson stated she did not plan on introducing any evidence of the guns seized at the home of the defendant Tom Barrett.  According to Officer Dean Newport and MPD,   there were no illegal guns found or seized during the raid on Tom Barrett’s home.

Defense attorney Jeffrey Jensen has used preliminary motions to test the waters in judge Watts court, this defense inspires dialogue between the two before actual pleadings occur in the court 

Defense Attorney Jeffrey Jensen did made it very clear during court proceedings that an entrapment defense was going to be in play. Michael Bond would be called in trial as an adverse witness,   and would be impeached about acts of inducement by Michael Bond as part of defense.

During further court proceedings, Attorney Jensen was very coy in the specifics of all defenses, refusing to tip his hand in other strategies that will be used during trial.

MCC has not seen any corrections to court records regarding the false pleadings  in court of Megan Williamson.  Therefore another week goes by that Megan Williamson remains in violation of SCR20:3,3

Finally, MCC was informed that Megan Williamson had threatened the private investigator with arrest if he testified.

A strange threat by a prosecutor, because a person who serves a subpoena is acting on behalf of the court, even stranger, because of the threat of arrest, is the possibility of the claim of witness intimidation by the prosecutor.

MERRY CHRISTMAS