Coming Soon to the Comedy Channel…

The Post and Email has announced that:

(Sep. 17, 2014) — Professional filmmaker William (Wilky) Fain has informed The Post & Email that a video depicting the efforts of CDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III (Ret.) to expose corruption within the Tennessee judiciary is nearing the stage when it will be presented to an agent for consideration as the basis for a documentary.

HT: Zeke

I interpret this to mean that they are hoping that the Comedy Channel will have a late night slot available? Note that contrary to some claims, Walt has done almost nothing to expose corruption within the Tennessee Judiciary.

We will hear how the 5th Amendment Grand Jury presentment clause, which has never been incorporated by the 14th Amendment to apply to the States, somehow determines how the State of Tennessee should run its own Grand Jury system. I guess, they are not great believers in state rights.

We will hear how for decades and more, the statutes of the State of Tennessee have allowed the Judge to appoint the foreperson of the Grand Jury as the 13th “Grand Juror” from the population at large. We will learn how such appointments, which are valid for 2 years, can be extended for multiple consecutive periods. We will learn how the State of Tennessee has corrupted the courts by applying its statutes correctly.

We will learn that in spite of the clear history that the Court may appoint the foreperson from the eligible population at large, the courts have been subverting justice by doing so exactly. How dare they not follow the principles laid out by Mr Fitzpatrick…

In light of all this evidence it is clear that the State of Tennessee and the Judiciary are guilty of following their laws and statutes.

Oh the comedy that ensued…

• The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
  • Carl Sagan, Broca’s Brain (1979), p. 64 ISBN 0394501691

 

 

TN – Ineligible foreperson – State v Lopez 2014

State v. Lopez, Tenn: Court of Criminal Appeals 2014

 

The foreperson was found to be ineligible due to his prior felony conviction and Lopez appealed

First of all an objections should have been raised before trial

Rule 12(b)(2)(B) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a motion alleging a defect in the indictment, presentment, or information must be raised before trial but that “at any time while the case is pending, the court may hear a claim that the indictment, presentment, or information fails to show jurisdiction in the court or to charge an offense[.]” Id. “`Lack of jurisdiction’ refers to subject matter jurisdiction,” State v. Nixon, 977 S.W.2d 119, 120 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997), which refers to a court’s authority to adjudicate a dispute brought before it. Freeman v. CSX Transp., Inc., 359 S.W.3d 171, 176 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “[A]ll objections or defects in the indictment[,] other than those [related to the subject matter jurisdiction of the court and failure to charge an offense,]” must be raised prior to trial or will result in waiver. Nixon, 977 S.W.2d at 121.

Court had jurisdiction

The defendant’s case was tried before the Davidson County Criminal Court, which has subject matter jurisdiction over crimes occurring within Davidson County. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-10-102. The status of the grand jury foreman as a convicted felon does not relate to the power of the court to hear and decide a case. Moreover, the defendant does not contend that the indictment failed to charge an offense. Neither of the narrow exceptions permitting objections to an indictment after trial applies; therefore, the defendant waived any objection to the grand jury foreman’s status as a felon because it was not raised prior to trial.

Any defect is cured if the Jury reaches a verdict

Moreover, the historic doctrine of aider by verdict stands for the proposition that any defects in the indictment are cured if the jury reaches a verdict. See, e.g., Kimbro v. Bomar, 333 F.2d 755, 757 (6th Cir. 1964); Allen v. State, 288 S.W.2d 439, 440 (Tenn. 1956); Jones v. State, 277 S.W.2d 371, 372 (Tenn. 1955); Driscoll v. State, 232 S.W.2d 28, 29 (Tenn. 1950); Pope v. State, 258 S.W.775, 776 (Tenn. 1924); State v. Smith, 7 Tenn. 165 (Tenn. 1823). In this case, the jury deliberated and returned a verdict of guilty of second degree murder and, by doing so, cured any defect in the indictment. The defendant is not entitled to relief.

 

Walt gets 3 years

“Boots on the ground” report that:

Walt got 3 years state prison, taken into custody, Judge Blackwood was furious, used the word “ludicrous” many times to describe Walt’s conduct, his thinking, Irion’s arguments. A district attorney and a probation officer talked to me. Both are friends of the Fogbow. More later, gotta hit the road to be home in time to do RC Radio.

Justice has run its course.

One of his supporters had bragged that:

My name is Field McConnell and I expect that Tennessee will address issues with Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood and vacate any improper judgement(s) against Walter Francis Fitzpatrick. If the State of Tennessee and the County of McMinn continue on this corrupt course I will be filing charges in U S District Court, District of North Dakota against Barry Soetoro, Punahou ’79 for wrongful death, 2000+ counts, in period 20 January, 2009 to the removal from office of Barry Soetoro. I will not be filing those charges if Walter Francis Fitzpatrick is rightfully exonerated.

Expect another legal filing and failure…

Educating the Confused – P&E and no victim

Sharon Rondeau at the P&E, has posted the following. And while I do not have access to the full document, it is hilarious how she keeps focusing on the ‘victim’ component. In case of ‘perjury’, there indeed is no real victim, just a perpetrator, who violates the expectations that “We the People” have when filing legal documents. As to the extortion charge, while there was no official police report, the actual court case shows that the victim of this extortion was Jeff Cunningham. The Jury looked at the evidence, was told what components were necessary for a guilty charge and found Mr Fitzpatrick guilty accordingly on two charges and acquitted him of a third charge.

Bombshell: State of Tennessee Admits No Victim Exists for Fitzpatrick’s “Crimes”

Tweet INDICTED, CHARGED, CONVICTED AND SOON TO BE SENTENCED, WITHOUT A VICTIM by Sharon Rondeau (Aug. 11, 2014) — The State of Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole has admitted that in the case of Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III, 14-CR-69, in which Fitzpatrick was found guilty of “aggravated perjury” and “extortion,” there was no victim. […]

Time to celebrate?… From prison most likely… This is not rocket science and yet we see more and more of these ‘sovereign citizen like’ “arguments” in the news. Not surprisingly, none of them go very far.

TN – State v Fitzpatrick – Closing Arguments – van Irion – Constitutionally protected activities

In his closing arguments, van Irion argued that since Walt petitioning the Grand Jury or the court or the oversight committee is a constitutionally protected activity of petitioning the government, that therefor the jury should find Walt not-guilty.

In fact he even suggested that such a constitutionally protected activity cannot be the foundation for criminal charges, although later he accepts that lying under oath is considered to be perjury and in fact can be criminal. Therefore, if the jury believes that the evidence and facts support Walt having lied, and lied knowingly, that they jury may find a guilty verdict. Of course, the jury also has to find that the lies were material, and since the judge rejected the motion based on a failure on Walt’s part to indicate a relationship between him and Jeff Cunningham, anything in the motion is not material.

Educating the Confused – Fitzpatrick

Manning reads a letter by Neil Turner, asking people to spend 3 minutes sending the following message:

“My name is ___________.  As a concerned Citizen, I feel it is my duty to report to you that a jury in Tennessee’s Tenth Judicial District has recently criminalized a citizen’s attempt to take a petition for the redress of grievances to a grand jury.

NBC: No such thing has happened. Walt was accused and convicted of aggravated perjury in his attempts to have his complaints heard by a Grand Jury.

On June 24, 2014, honorably retired US Navy Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick was found Guilty of crimes that were never committed: ‘extortion’ – where nothing was extorted, and ‘aggravated perjury’ – where there was no proof of any perjury.

NBC: Again, the Jury disagreed. In fact, I believe myself that when Walt accused the foreperson of the Grand Jury of having blocked him from the Grand Jury, is by itself sufficient for the jury to have found him guilty of aggravated perjury. As to extortion, again, the jury was presented with the evidence as well as the requirements for conviction and found that the evidence was sufficient. The remaining charge of harassment was rejected by the Jury resulting in a not-guilty on that count. Walt himself recorded the trial which provides us with a complete overview of what was presented, including the summary statements by the prosecutor towards the end of the trial, outlining the elements of the three charges and the evidence presented.

All other State agencies and the Knoxville FBI have refused to take action against these and other well-documented cases of civil rights violations against Tennessee citizens. It is the duty of your committee to investigate and take appropriate action concerning these violations of Constitutionally guaranteed rights of American Citizens.”

NBC: These state and federal agencies have refused to take action because there is just no evidence supporting these claims.

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WALTER FRANCIS FITZPATRICK, III

Case Record

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WALTER FRANCIS FITZPATRICK, III

Monroe County Circuit Court

Kurtz, Walter C

12108CRM

Walt had appealed his conviction to the Appeal’s Court, arguing that he should have been allowed to use the “necessity defense”. On April 11, 2014, the Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s judgement. Walt filed a petition for rehearing, which was denied on April 29th, 2014.

The case was appealed to the TN Supreme Court on June 26th, 2014, were it is pending.

An “innocent” man is on his way to prison

The Post & Email ‘reports‘ that Walt Fitzpatrick will spend another period of time in prison. While the prisons are full with ‘innocent’ people, the P&E asks a good question: What on earth did Walt do, to deserve another prison sentence? The full article by Laurie Roth can be read here.

Let’s see if I can help add some light onto these matters as there appears to be some confusions:

Walt was indicted by the McMinn County Grand Jury of four criminal counts on 05/13/2014 and arrested in the Courthouse while he was waiting to hear about his sixth(?) petition to have his complaints to be presented in front of the full Grand Jury.

Walt Fitzpatrick – What perjury?…

Walter Fitzpatrick and his sidekick at the Post and Email have been expressing the belief that somehow the prosecutor had failed to provide any evidence of perjury. I listened to Walt’s recordings and made some notes about how the prosecutor summarized the case.

The jury looked at the evidence and found that Walt, in at least one instance, had made a statement under oath which was false, and made with the intent to deceive as part of an official proceeding and which was material. Appeal’s courts are not going second guess the jury as to what statement or statements they found to have been perjurous, and I believe that there exists sufficient foundation that Walt claimed that Cunningham had blocked him six times from appearing before the grand jury. A statement which I could see would lead a jury to convict Walt.

Fitzpatrick and the Grand Jury that indicted him

During the motion hearing in June, the defense raised the issue that since the jurors who indicted Fitzpatrick in March, were told in January about his involvements in a Monroe County incident, that there may have been prejudice.

It is unclear to me if counsel raised the issue in a timely and proper fashion however.

Under the criminal procedure in this state, objection to the venire or the indictment is deemed waived unless raised in apt time by motion or plea in abatement.

In State ex rel. Lawrence v. Henderson, Tenn.Cr.App., 433 S.W.2d 96, 101, this court said:

“If the defendant does not object by motion or plea in abatement, to the venire or to the jurors summoned under it, before he pleads to the indictment, an objection thereafter is too late.”

Source: State ex rel. Henderson v. Russell, 459 SW 2d 176 – Tenn: Court of Criminal Appeals 1970

On a personal note, I believe that the Judge should have appointed a different Grand Jury to deal with the issue since the appearance of bias should be avoided at all cost.

The Hixson Brief

The Hixson Brief was submitted by Kyle Hixson as part of Walt’s Appeal of State v Fitzpatrick to the Court of Criminal Appeals at Knoxville.

Walt has claimed that:

On 20 September 2013 Tennessee’s Attorney General Robert Cooper admitted in a by way of a court filing submitted by Cooper’s Assistant Attorney General Kyle Hixson that Mr.Jeff Cunningham is not a juror

Source: 17DEC2013-GJCRIMCOM.pdf

What Hixson actually wrote is quite different

Walt found guilty of two felonies

Justice has been served

Sharon is speculating based on courtroom ‘observers’ making what sound to be unfounded claims about Cunningham’s testimony and is pretending that Walt was convicted for ‘attempting to submit a petition to the McMinn County Grand Jury’. Accuracy in reporting requires one to be more careful in one’s claims.

The Post Email Speculates

Tweet AFTER STAR WITNESS PERJURES HIMSELF by Sharon Rondeau (Jun. 24, 2014) — On Tuesday afternoon, a jury in the case of State of Tennessee v. Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III, 14-CR-69, convicted the defendant of aggravated perjury and extortion for attempting to submit a petition to the McMinn County grand jury in March. He was […]

 

State v Fitzpatrick – In Jury deliberations

After a late start yesterday, the Jury has recessed for deliberations. It sounds like Walter was not asked to testify by his defense counsel, a wise decision indeed. I wonder if they got to argue their ‘the Foreperson is illegal” claims, which by all account are based on a flawed understanding of TN statutes and law.

The Post & E-mail ‘reports’

A trial in the case of State of Tennessee v. Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III, 14-CR-69, has ended and the jury was in deliberations as of 10:30 a.m. EDT

TN – TN v Fitzpatrick – Court of Appeals ruling

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

November 19, 2013 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WALTER FRANCIS FITZPATRICK, III

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Monroe County
No. 12108-CRM Walter C. Kurtz, Judge

No. E2013-00456-CCA-R3-CD – Filed April 11, 2014

Appellant, Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III, was indicted by the Monroe County Grand Jury for one count of tampering with government records. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted as charged and sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days with twenty days to serve in incarceration and the remainder to be served on probation. Appellant appeals his conviction. He argues that his indictment was faulty because the grand jury foreperson was not eligible to serve; that the trial court erred in ruling that Appellant could not testify regarding his proposed defense of necessity; and that the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s request for a jury instruction on the defense of necessity. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Trial Court are Affirmed.

TN – TN v Fitzpatrick – Appeal Denied…

The Court ruled on Apr 11, 2014

Summary: The denial of Fitzpatrick’s Motion to Dismiss based on his theory that the grand jury foreman was illegally appointed was affirmed as Fitzpatrick did not supply the appellate court with a transcript of the hearings held by the trial court on this matter. The situation facing Fitzpatrick was not such that his stealing the documents was a “necessity”.

As to Fitzpatrick’s necessity defense:

Appellant argued in the trial court that his taking of the documents was a necessity because he was told by an FBI agent to get tangible evidence and because he thought the documents would be destroyed. However, as set out above, the defense of necessity has been used in situations where there is a lesser of two evils situation created by some sort of natural force or condition. That situation was clearly not present in the facts at hand.

Examples given by the court of a true situation where a necessity defense could be raiser are

a ship violating an embargo law to avoid a storm and a pharmacist providing medication without a prescription to alleviate someone’s suffering during an emergency.

Fitzpatrick loses. On to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Sharon Rondeau may have missed the April 11 ruling. Funny…

Educating the Confused – Tennessee Jury Questionnaire

Sharon Rondeau from the Post and Email (P&E) and Walter Fitzpatrick have commented on the fact that jurors in Monroe County fill out “Juror Questionnaires” which include such details as, name, address, occupation, name of spouse, occupation of spouse etc.

Based on the information which Monroe County apparently collects on each potential juror, it seems that it could have been easily determined whether or not the “Angela Davis” serving as foreman for one day in 2010 and who signed out an indictment against Fitzpatrick was the same as she who served in 2009.  The judge stated that there was no proof, but there could have been.

Source: P&E, Judge Amy Reedy Caught in the act of hand-picking jurors?, Sharon Rondeau, Dec 21, 2011

If so, the defendant’s attorney should have provided such proof. Failing that, the Judge was correct. Furthermore, Angela Davis can serve as a foreman in 2010 and serve in 2009, as the foreperson of the Grand Jury is not summoned but rather appointed by the Judge. But that was irrelevant to the issue.

Walt  accused Martha Cook of “outlawry”:

Item: Martha Cook in her outlawry profiles the jury pools. Cook directs potential jurors to complete a poll survey calling for disclosure of personal information such as marital status, education level, profession, employment status, employer, spouses’ name and address, spouses’ employment status and employer, and number of children.

Item: Martha Cook’s collection of personal information from members of the jury pool beyond what is statutorily mandated is outlawed. Martha Cook’s construction and maintenance of a database containing off-limits personal information collected from jury pool members is outlawed.

So why would Martha Cook provide the prospective jurors with a juror questionnaire? Well, she is following the rules:

Grand Jury and Walter Fitzpatrick

Walter Fitzpatrick attended a court meeting on December 7, 2011, where he claims he observed the Judge manually selecting the jurors. The Grand Juries impaneled were for the Jan-Dec 2012 time period. Walt believed that he was witnessing fraud by the court and removed some documents from the court room. However, I believe that Walt may have been wrong about the process he observed, which, as I will show, appears to match the processes outlined in the Tennessee Code and the Rules of the Court.

You have just been impaneled to serve on the Grand Jury for the Criminal Court of Monroe County.  Your term of service will be for the months of January thru December 2012.

Source: Chief Court Clerk Martha Cook’s letter to Grand Jurors