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.
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 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.
“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…
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.
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.
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
||Monroe County Circuit Court
||Kurtz, Walter C
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.