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 – State v Fitzpatrick – What now…

Remember how only a few weeks ago, a certain Field McConnell, threatened to file a legal action against President Obama if Judge Blackwood would not reject the Jury’s decision as to Walt’s conviction.

Even though Walt was, in accordance with the Constitution, indicted by a Grand Jury and found guilty by a jury of his peers, Field somehow believes that the Judge should take notice of his ‘threats’. As expected, the judge totally ignored the rather meaningless statements and sentenced Walt to little more than the minimum sentence.

So now, being ignored by the judiciary and the media, Field has signed an affidavit in which he objects to the behavior of the Judge and the Prosecutor and proposes that the NLA, a common law knitting club, to “indict” them.

Why is it that some are so intent to fail, time after time?… The NLA has no legal relevance, and is nothing more than a “knitting club” petitioning the Courts for redress and unwilling to pay any filing fees or explain their “standing”.

Well, the outcome is so predictable and it will be fascinating to watch the developments. Now let’s see if the NLA will get themselves involved. As a sidenote, does Tennessee have a statute criminalizing pretending to be a judicial officer?

39-16-510.  Retaliation for past action.

  (a)  (1) A person commits the offense of retaliation for past action who harms or threatens to harm a witness at an official proceeding, judge, district attorney general, an assistant district attorney general, an employee of the district attorney general or a law enforcement officer, clerk, employee of the clerk, juror or former juror, or a family member of any such person, by any unlawful act in retaliation for anything the witness, judge, district attorney general, assistant district attorney general, employee of the district attorney general or a law enforcement officer, clerk, employee of the clerk, or juror did in an official capacity as witness, judge, district attorney general, assistant district attorney general, employee of the district attorney general or a law enforcement officer, clerk, employee of the clerk, or juror. The offense of retaliation for past action shall not apply to an employee of a clerk who harms or threatens to harm the clerk.

   (2) For purposes of subdivision (a)(1), “family member” means the spouse, parent, grandparent, stepmother, stepfather, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, adopted children of the parent, or the spouse’s parents.

(b) A violation of this section is a Class E felony.

TN – P&E questioning job performance county officials

In a somewhat strange posting, the P&E is wondering if county officials in TN are performing their jobs satisfactorily.

A McMinn County Sheriff Corporal apparently informed Sharon that Walt is going to prison. Which is exactly what is to be expected to happen to someone who has been found guilty and sentenced to 3 years. Since the P&E, in the past, has complained about conditions in county jails, Sharon should be happy to hear that this time Walt is going to a State correctional facility.

Speaking of job performance, I wonder if Sharon has taken the time to familiarize herself with the laws, statutes and case law related to the appointment of a foreperson of the Grand Jury in TN. Contrary to her claims, which mirror Walt’s, the history of the TN Grand Jury and the laws passed, show that it is indeed the Judge who appoints a foreperson from amongst the population at large and that said Judge can re-appoint the foreperson for multiple, consecutive 2 year appointments. The recent statute which limits jury duty to once every two years, does not apply to the foreperson since he is not summoned but rather appointed.

Before one makes accusations of corruption etc, it is helpful to first outline the facts and study them. So far, the facts do not appear to support most of the ‘charges’ against the TN judiciary, the Sheriff’s office or the attorneys general. This does not mean that there is no corruption, just that the evidence has failed to point to any thus far.

For those interested, Walt’s status in the McMinn County jail can be checked here

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.

Walter Fitzpatrick – Some weird stuff

Not only has a person named Field McConnell been making some foolish threats, but now they are organizing a “prayer breakfast” in the hope that higher authority intervenes. Unlikely…

“STAND WITH WALTER, STAND FOR AMERICA, STAND WITH JESUS. STAND.” by Sharon Rondeau

Walter decided to violate the laws of our Nation and was properly found guilty by a jury of his peers. Let’s pray that justice will be done. As to the weird claims of corruption, they appear to be all based on a failure to understand the laws of our nation. Ignorance has been the fuel behind much of Walt’s foolish behaviors that have led him to enjoy some time in our nation’s jails. Let’s sit back and enjoy this. I wonder if all this is happening with Walt’s approval… One thing seems certain to me, this is only going to do him a disservice.

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.

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

TN – Discrepancies name Foreperson

The Post Email wrote about Walt

(Oct. 7, 2012) — On October 3, 2012, Monroe County acting grand jury foreman Faye C. Tennyson told Assistant District Attorney Steve Morgan under oath that she is currently not under an appointing order as grand jury foreman. However, Tennyson confirmed that her signature appears on the indictment charging Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III with “tampering with government records” in March of this year.

The lack of an appointing order is not sufficient to invalidate her signing off as the foreperson of the Grand Jury. First of all, any defect should have been remedied before the Grand Jury was sworn in:

22-2-313. Objection required to affect validity of selection. [Effective in Certain Counties. See the Compiler’s Notes.]

In the absence of fraud, no irregularity with respect to this title or the procedure under this title shall affect the validity of the selection of any grand jury or the validity of any verdict rendered by a petit jury unless the irregularity has been objected to before the jury is sworn.

Any objects were clearly made too late.

P&E: Morgan, acting for the prosecution, had asked Tennyson, “Do you have an appointing order?” to which Tennyson had answered, “No.” “After she said ‘no,’ they got her out of there right-quick,” an attendee of the hearing told us.

P&E: While an appointing order announcing Tennyson as the new foreman was issued early in 2011, Fitzpatrick had challenged its validity because it had no beginning date nor end date and misspelled Tennyson’s first name.

As courts have ruled, minor discrepancies between the name of the foreperson in the appointment order and the indictment are immaterial.

Variance between Indorsements and Minutes The minutes of court showed that CJ Davis was appointed foreman of the grand jury. The indorsement on the indictment a true bill was signed by JC Davis foreman of the grand jury .There is no explanation of this discrepancy in the record. No question was made upon it in the lower court. It was held that this court will presume that the discrepancy arose from mere clerical error and that it is immaterial. Green v State 88 Tenn 615 14 SW 430

van Irion had tried as well, arguing that since she had served on a regular jury, she could therefore not serve as the foreperson of the Grand Jury.

P&E: After assuming Fitzpatrick’s defense in August, Atty. Van Irion had maintained that Tennyson was ineligible to serve in 2012 when she had served in 2011. In 2008, a law was passed by the Tennessee General Assembly which stated that jurors could not serve consecutive terms.

Criminal Court Rule 6(g)(2) states that the grand jury foreman “shall possess all the qualifications of a juror.”

Source: Facebook

As Walt and others have been told, the foreperson of the Grand Jury is appointed by the Judge from the community at large while the 2008 statute refers to summoning of jurors, a concept which only applies to the 12 randomly selected Jurors, not the foreperson. As to qualifications, these refer to TCA 22-1-101

Every person eighteen (18) years of age, being a citizen of the United States, and a resident of this state, and of the county in which the person may be summoned for jury service for a period of twelve (12) months next preceding the date of the summons, is legally qualified to act as a grand or petit juror, if not otherwise incompetent under the express provisions of this title.

In the end, Walt’s objections fell on deaf ears because of the laws and statutes.

The Appeal’s Court considered Walt’s ‘arguments’ and found that:

Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his request to dismiss his
indictment because the grand jury foreperson had “illegally served on successive grand juries.”

Prior to trial, Appellant filed a motion in which he alleged that his indictment was
“counterfeit” because the grand jury foreperson had served a jury in the previous calendar year, 2011.

The trial court heard this motion on June 28, 2012, and made the following findings in a written order:

Defendant asserts that the grand jury foreperson has illegally served on successive grand juries. Tennessee law, however, is clear that a foreperson may serve on successive grand juries and is not limited to one term. See Nelson v. State, 499 S.W.2d 956, 956 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1972) and Thompson v. State, 2005 WL 2546913, *25 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005). See also Raybin, Tennessee Criminal Practice & Procedure, § 9.8 (2008) (selection of grand jury foreperson).

TN – Appointment Order Foreperson Grand Jury

Walt has made a big deal out of finding out that not all forepersons have an appointment order.

First of all, there is nothing in the laws or rules that require an appointment order. In fact the courts have ruled that the administration of the oath required by statute to be taken by the foreperson is in effect the appointment.

Record evidence of appointment 1. The administration the oath required by statute to taken by the foreman of the jury is in effect the appointment and a statement in the record that person was sworn as foreman necessarily implies his appointment such by the court. Woodsides v State 3 Miss 655. To same effect Bird v State 2 Miss 247 2. Although the better practice require it, it is not usual in all to enter the appointment of the foreman upon the minutes of the court and If an Indictment is indorsed, the foreman returned to the cour,t properly filed and transmitted the fact that the appointment of foreman was not entered upon minutes of the court Is not material. Peo v Roberts 6 Cal 214 and for Tennessee, State v Gouge 12 Lea 132.

Also

Evidence of Appointment The record showing that a grand jury was impaneled and sworn may be silent as to who was appointed foreman by the court. In such case the record showing an indictment was returned into court, endorsed a true bill, and signed by one of the jury as foreman, in the absence of plea in abatement to the regularity of the finding and to sustain the plea, is sufficient evidence of the appointment of such foreman State v Gouge 12 Lea 132 State v Collins 6 Baxt 151 152

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

Darren Huff’s text messages…

Darren not only loves to talk, but also loves to text…

MR. THEODORE: And then I’ll just read them in order there as they go down, the conversation that’s going on on that Blackberry, the text messages, starting with right alongside here from a Mike Fulmer: “How did today go? Are you still a free man?” “LOL,” I think most people understand as “laughing out loud,” “It went well, and now we’re moving to Phase 2,” and that’s, again, that’s from Mr. Huff’s cell phone, so that’s what he sent.

The next message coming in: “What happened? Did ya do a citizen arrest?” Also coming in to his phone the message, “Did ya pull out the mussell(sic),” a spelling mistake there, but– and, again, that’s coming in to his phone.

The message that Mr. Huff sends from his phone is: “Not today. They released him night before last, so now we’re adjusting days.” Message coming to his phone then from Mr. Fulmer: “So a wasted trip?” Mr. Huff’s message back: “Not at all. We met with the arrested to coordinate with all groups involved.”

So, they met with Mr Fitzpatrick (“the arrested”) to coordinate with all groups involved. Coordinate what?…

Now remember that the Post and Email had ‘argued’

On January 30, 2014, Assistant U.S. Attorney Luke A. McLaurin told a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that Fitzpatrick and Darren Wesley Huff had exchanged “text messages” to plan a “courthouse takeover” on April 20, 2010. Fitzpatrick has submitted a sworn statement to The Post & Email refuting McLaurin’s claim in addition to stating that he does not use text-messaging with anyone.

Without knowing Fitzpatrick’s response to McLaurin’s statement, Huff also refuted McLaurin’s perjured statement in response to our question posed by email.

Ignoring for the moment that the P&E appears to be less than familiar with the meaning of perjury, we can also lay to rest that the US Attorney had made a false statement. From the audio I captured the following statement

If you listen to the exchange (around 32:00) , you will hear that the statement is that “he had gone up to Madisonville, he consulted with Fitzpatrick, he sent text messages back saying no we did not conduct a citizen’s arrest today”

It seems that all this is supported by Darren’s text messages. Why noone took the time to actually research what the AG had actually said and what the evidence showed, is unfortunate but has hopefully been corrected now.

The ‘Madisonville Hoax’ and ‘who reported what’?

Much has been made about the fact that 3rd party concerned citizens contacted the Madisonville police about plans to take over the court house. We have even heard from some who believe that what happened in Madisonville was some sort of a ‘hoax’.

What few have reported on are the reports by the bank teller and other witnesses. Remember how Darren Huff had gone to visit his bank a few days before the Madisonville event and had made certain statements that had caused concern? Well, the teller testified in court.

From the testimony from the bank teller, Ms Dupree,  we learn that one of the grand jury members thanked her:

“For actually doing something about the situation and not just blowing it off”

Source: Huff Trial Testimony-10/19/11 (Dupree-Cross) page 19

Ms Dupree testified that:

A. He came in on April 15th, and it was right around close, probably five or six o’clock, and I was the only teller up on the line at that point. And he came up to me and just started talking about a trial that was going on in Madisonville, Tennessee, the Fitzpatrick case, and–

<Interruption>

He was telling me about the Fitzpatrick case and how him and the Georgia Militia were going to be coming to Tennessee with guns, AK-47s, things like that, to take over the city at nine o’clock April 20th.

Q: So this was very specific as to date and time?

A: Right. It was at nine o’clock.

Q: And as to the particular person in the case, he mentioned that you?

A: Yes.

Q: Fitzpatrick?

A: Right

Q: In the course– well, first, at this time, did this cause you any concern?

A: Yes, very much so.

Ms Dupree contacted someone she knew who put her in touch with the chief of police of Madisonville. She almost immediately reported what had occurred in the bank. This happened on April 15th, 5 days before the event on April 20th.

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…

Walt’s hearing on Monday

Walter Fitzpatrick, who has once again been arrested, will have a hearing this coming monday for a preliminary hearing, the Post and Email ‘reports’. Walt was arrested last Tuesday when the Grand Jury returned an indictment charging him with extortion,” “stalking,” “harassment,” and “aggravated perjury”.

Walt has been on a quixotic quest to charge forepersons of the Grand Jury because Walt apparently fails to understand that under Tennessee law, the court appoints the foreperson and may reappoint said person for consecutive 2 year periods of time. While Walt insists that the foreperson has to be selected from amongst those who were randomly selected and summoned to appear, the case law and legal history do not support such an interpretation.

Darren Huff – Gone Sovereign?

Poor Darren, again he falls victim to poor advice and understanding of issues of law. He was written up for “insolence towards a staff member” of the Texarkana prison. He claims freedom of speech as an unalienable right, even for prisoners…^[1]

Come now the Undersigned Darren Wesley Huff, the REAL PARTY OF INTEREST (Fed R Civ Proc Rule 17), a non corporate, natural born, living, breathing and sentient, on the land, with clean hands, [r]ectus in curia, and demands DISMISSAL of these charges for this court’s lack of jurisdiction of this Personum… Darren Welsey Huff, who is an Authorized Representative of DARREN WESLEY HUFF, the corporate entity in this case. The Undersigned asserts that Texarkana FCI is a corporate entity and can only adjudicate another corporate entity, not the flesh and blood, living, breathing, sentient being Darren Wesley Huff.

Source: Post and Email