On Mar 25, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Shirley Pigott MD <shirleypigottmd@gmail.

com>
wrote:

Hi Jerry,

I brought up the fact that there was no mens rea in a pre-trial motion before you
took over; my intention was to flee to safety; I never denied the actus reus. The
court erred in failing to rule on the motion; the Court erred again when it made no
explanation to the jury of the two components which must be present for a crime
to have occurred - the actus reus and the mens rea.

I brought up the fact that the DA withheld what I thought would have been
exculpatory evidence - the first 20 seconds of the DPS video, which would have
shown why I was so frightened. It would have shown Officer Ochoa at my rear
bumper, his lights and siren on, tailgating me at 74 mph, having blocked me in
on three sides. He later testified that I 'broke the law' by leaving the highway
and moving to the left shoulder. The court erred in not clarifying that no law was
broken.

I moved to compel the prosecutor to produce a complete version of the video

beginning when it was triggered to start by the turning on of the lights and siren.
The Court granted my motion, but the DA refused to comply with a direct order.
I then made an open records request, but in what was an incredulous lie, I
was told by DPS General Counsel Jennifer Cohen reported that the video had
been 'turned over' to the Wharton County DA, in violation of DPS policy. Policy
requires keeping a copy in the archives. My next motion was to hold the DA in
contempt of court for refusing to comply with a direct order. The Court erred
again in denying my motion.

You and I both alleged prosecutorial misconduct, which the court erred by
allowing repeatedly and which was exemplified many times over. It started with
the DA threatening a felony indictment unless I agreed to the seizure of my car.
Believing I was constitutionally protected from such malfeasance, I refused.
Three months after the event which led to my arrest, after repeated threats, I
was indicted for two counts of fleeing arrest with a deadly weapon (the car). The
DA needed to cover up the fact that Terronez had shattered my window with his
heavy flashlight. I needed to have my evidence preserved and I don't understand
why that didn't happen.

Six months after the precipitating event, DA Josh McCown succeeded

in 'indicting a hamburger'. He re-convened a Grand Jury and somehow
persuaded them to grant him a superseding indictment of "aggravated assault of
a law enforcement officer in the line of duty with a deadly weapon, the car I was
driving." The explanation he gave to my lawyer was that I had accused Terronez
and Ochoa of perjury, use of excessive force, and other malfeasance.

Several hours before the Grand Jury rendered the first indictment, having been
told, I believe by a church elder, "Shirley's going to lose her medical license, go
to prison, and bankrupt your family," my husband climbed into a dumpster behind
my medical office and took a fatal overdose of fluoxetine and zolpidem.

I am not sure whether it was brought up that there was a Verizon tower less
than a mile from the stop, but I made five attempts to call my husband, but had
no cell phone service. What those facts implied about the use of electronic
blocking equipment was probably not brought out at trial. It was relevant to my
allegations of being stalked by law enforcement, but you agreed to a motion in
limine, without my knowledge or consent, which excluded testimony about my
allegations of racketeering. Please find a way to bring it up in the oral argument
in appeal.

Please find a way to bring up that I drove directly into the path of the speeding
18-wheeler Terronez was facing only after he shattered my car window, causing
me to do it. It is significant that Terronez was crouching behind my car, hiding
from Ochoa's camera when he assaulted me initially using excessive force.
It is reasonable for a 'somewhat elderly female' to have been terrified under
those circumstances. You shouldn't have difficulty considering the major point
of appeal was the state's failure to make reasonable accommodations for my
previously stable bipolar disorder and PTSD. In modern times, when persons
with psychiatric diagnoses have civil rights, a law enforcement officer should
be skilled in his ability to defuse a tense situation, not to escalate it. I careful
explained why I was frightened; a reasonable non-criminal explanation for my
flight from the scene, lacking a mens rea, should have been sought; their failure
to do so violated DPS policy. This can all be tied in to the state's failure to make
reasonable accommodation for my disability; in medicine, we assume the worst
until it has been ruled out. Doing so requires a higher level of diagnostic acumen
and theoretically results in fewer errors. Although he had no way of knowing
about my diagnoses, as the senior officer on the scene, he could have been
expected to have the where-with-all do deal with any situation he created.

Please succeed in bringing all these points into the oral argument, in the unlikely
event we must continue an appeal.

--
Shirley Pigott MD
Texas Medical Board Watch
Texas Phoenix 007
361-894-6464 home
361-652-9474 cell

Exposure of the corruption of the Texas Medical Board is the most important
thing I've ever done in medicine. It has the potential to save more lives and
right more wrongs than anything I could ever have done in 30 years of medical
practice. It has become my ongoing mission. I will never give up.