Afron Washbourne, an Assistant Travis County Attorney, may be receiving a “show cause notice,” in the near future; as it relates to allegations she has violated an order of a District Court Judge in Hays County.
Through numerous open records requests, so the public can be made aware, officially, it has been concluded that the Hays County Criminal District Attorney’s Office never had a form to protect a City of Kyle Police Chief’s name form being publicly displayed as a claimed victim to a matter where he used his officers for his own benefit.
Concerning is the lack of duty the Pro Tem has performed, as drafted in the Motion for Contempt of Court.
The Pro Tem claims she was told to only focus on Chief Barnett’s suspect and not to focus with the problems of the case, which is against the order of the court.
However, the Hays County District Attorney’s Office was unable to provide any proof to the Pro Tem’s statements.
Even more concerning is the sworn statement that indicated Chief Barnett made an official complaint with his police department, yet the actual complaint he made cannot be located.
It is very interesting that main stream and local news outlets do not find the story of a Kyle Police Department Police Chief claiming to be a victim of harassment to be newsworthy. Maybe they do, but they are being suppressed in some form or fashion to present the information to the public. It is also interesting that many items which should exist in this case, do not exist.
We cannot provide specifics, but know there is also a lot of contradiction to the case the Kyle PD put together and other information received.
Did you know the Hays County District Attorney’s Office has a policy which requires the employees of such office to reply to emails from citizens? It makes one wonder how the City of Kyle decided not to reply to any emails over the course of almost two years.
It’s no wonder they recused themselves on the matter surrounding the Kyle Police Department. Now, the original habeas corpus proceeding, opened in December of 2020, has been reopened to review the motion of contempt of court on the Pro Tem.
Again, Chief Barnett has claimed he never replied because he was lied about and slandered. This is what Chief Barnett said, but he has yet to identify any slander.
The results of Chief Barnett’s unwillingness, inability, or failure to reply to the citizen was to arrest the citizen.