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.

SovCit failures – Cherron Phillips found guilty

Paper terrorism does not pay…

The closely watched trial lasted two days, after which Phillips was convicted of ten counts of retaliating against a federal official by filing false claims. She will be sentenced in October and could spend up to ten years in prison. Or, it’s possible she’ll only get probation. It’s hard to know at this point if Judge Michael J. Reagan will make an example of Phillips and give a “paper terrorist” a lengthy prison stay. The Chicago press will no doubt watch that sentencing just as closely as it watched the trial.

Source

TX – Taitz v Johnson – Hearing

Orly Taitz is attempting another court case (docket), this time related to President Obama’s “immigration” policies. While she is likely going to fail due to lack of standing, the Fogbow will have “boots on the ground” to report on Orly’s next entertaining visit to a court. The Judge, Andrew S. Hanen, however, does appear to be friendly to Orly’s mistaken beliefs and provided some dicta in U.S. v. Nava-Martinez in which he strongly objected to the practices of the DHS. However, his disagreements with US policy, are of no relevance to the fact that Orly lacks any standing.

08/27/2014 01:30 1:14-cv-00119 23 Taitz v. Johnson et al Miscellaneous Hearing

She has subpoenaed several border patrol agents who she believes to be willing to ‘testify’. Oh boy, such entertainment. Expect filings of treason to follow quickly thereafter ;-)

Orly’s FOIA requests, having failed, are also on appeal, however she stands little chance of winning those as the SSA has provided her with the information she requested, even though she still believes that they are hiding some…

She can just not accept that there is no evidence of a Harry Bounel ever receiving social security or that his social security number matches the one assigned to President Obama.

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

FL – Common Law Knitting Club versus the law

It seems that the Florida Common Law “grand jury” knitting club may soon be starting its shenanigans.

I wonder if they are familiar with Florida Code 843.0855 ? It’s about time that the Sovereigns are protecting themselves from these ‘knitting clubs’… Note that the original statute had been found to be unconstitutionally as it was overly broad. Larry Klayman obviously is familiar with the statute while serving as a “Citizens Grand Jury” prosecutor.

843.0855 Criminal actions under color of law or through use of simulated legal process.–

(1) As used in this section:

(a) The term “legal process” means a document or order issued by a court or filed or recorded for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction or representing a claim against a person or property, or for the purpose of directing a person to appear before a court or tribunal, or to perform or refrain from performing a specified act. “Legal process” includes, but is not limited to, a summons, lien, complaint, warrant, injunction, writ, notice, pleading, subpoena, or order.
(b) The term “person” means an individual, public or private group incorporated or otherwise, legitimate or illegitimate legal tribunal or entity, informal organization, official or unofficial agency or body, or any assemblage of individuals.
(c) The term “public officer” means a public officer as defined by s. 112.061.
(d) The term “public employee” means a public employee as defined by s. 112.061.

(2) Any person who deliberately impersonates or falsely acts as a public officer or tribunal, public employee or utility employee, including, but not limited to, marshals, judges, prosecutors, sheriffs, deputies, court personnel, or any law enforcement authority in connection with or relating to any legal process affecting persons and property, or otherwise takes any action under color of law against persons or property, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) Any person who simulates legal process, including, but not limited to, actions affecting title to real estate or personal property, indictments, subpoenas, warrants, injunctions, liens, orders, judgments, or any legal documents or proceedings, knowing or having reason to know the contents of any such documents or proceedings or the basis for any action to be fraudulent, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(4) Any person who falsely under color of law attempts in any way to influence, intimidate, or hinder a public officer or law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official duties by means of, but not limited to, threats of or actual physical abuse or harassment, or through the use of simulated legal process, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(5)

(a) Nothing in this section shall make unlawful any act of any law enforcement officer or legal tribunal which is performed under lawful authority.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit individuals from assembling freely to express opinions or designate group affiliation or association.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit or in any way limit a person’s lawful and legitimate access to the courts or prevent a person from instituting or responding to legitimate and lawful legal process.

Walt – Bias of the Grand Jury

van Irion presented an ‘argument’ that the Grand Jury which indicted Walt was somehow tainted. There is one problem with this argument

Read Rippy v. State, 550 SW 2d 636 – Tenn: Supreme Court 1977

Petitioners complain that the Grand Jury was not impartial and unbiased and its proceedings were not held secret.

The only statutory disqualification of grand jurors by reason of interest is set forth in § 40-1613, T.C.A.:

If any member of the grand jury is charged with an indictable offense, or is a prosecutor, or if the offense was committed against his person or property, or if he is connected by blood or marriage with the person charged, he shall not be present at or take part in the consideration of the charge, or the deliberations of his fellow jurors thereon.

[NBC: The jurors were neither victims of the crimes against Cunningham, nor where they connected by blood or marriage, so any objections that they had heard about Walt will likely be rejected as irrelevant]

Almost one hundred years ago this Court, in State v. Chairs and McNeal, 68 Tenn. 196, 197 (1877) declared:

[W]e do not understand that our laws require that the grand jurors shall be free from any previous opinion as to the guilt of the accused.

[NBC: This is a major hurdle for Walt to overcome as there is no requirement that the grand jurors shall be free from any previous opinion.]

This same language was quoted with approval in State v. Felts, 220 Tenn. 484, 489, 418 S.W.2d 772, 774 (1967). This seems to accord with the prevailing view throughout the United States. Thus, in 38 Am.Jur.2d, 642*642 Grand Jury, § 7, under the heading, “Effect of bias, prejudice, or interest” we find:

Generally, in the absence of a controlling statutory provision, a person is not disqualified or incompetent to serve as a grand juror by reason ofbias or prejudice on his part, by the fact that he has heard or read about the case under investigation or has even formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt of the accused, or by his interest in a prosecution other than a direct pecuniary interest. The reasons assigned in support of this rule are that a grand jury, being an accusatory and not a judicial body, has the right and obligation to act on its own information, however acquired; that the oath required to be taken by grand jurors contemplates that they may be called on to act in the cases of both enemies and friends and requires them to inquire diligently into the commission of crimes; and that those who live in the vicinity of the place where the crime was committed know better than others the character of the parties and of the witnesses and are, therefore, particularly proper members of the grand jury. However, there seems no authority which goes so far as to hold that this would be true where the jurors had determined through malice or bribery to violate their oaths. (Footnotes omitted)

We, therefore, hold that in the absence of a statutory prohibition, express malice, bribery or other equally reprehensible conduct, there is no legal objection to a person with bias or prejudice serving as a member of a grand jury.

WA – Sovcit watch – Dave Darby

Frustrated by his inability to have a previous case heard in a federal court, Darby said he made the conscious decision to stop paying the taxes on his Amboy property and home. Clark County records show that Darby has not paid his property taxes since the first half of 2008. He now owes Clark County nearly $24,000 in unpaid taxes, penalties and interest.

Darby said the Common Law Grand Jury foreman, Vancouver resident Lowell Miller, advised him not to attend a July 1 court date. Instead, Miller and other members represented Darby at the proceeding.

“They told the court to stand down,’’ Darby said. “Judge (Gregory) Gonzalez ran our jury foreman out of the court and would not listen to our constitutional argument.’’

source

Why do people accept advice from others who have nothing at stake? Dave allowed others to try to “represent” him at the court hearing and of course, the Judge was not impressed.

Sorry Dave, but the “magic incantations” of the “Common Law Knitting Club” do not really work…

Dave has some imaginative opinions about the Constitution of the State of Washington

Plaintiff also contends that there are two constitutions for the State of Washington: the original 1878 constitution, which guarantees “each sovereign his sovereignty and title to his land”; and an illegal 1889 constitution, which “took allodial title and sovereignty from the people.”5 Plaintiff asks this court to declare as null and void the second 1889 Washington State Constitution, even though it was approved by a vote of the citizens of the then-territory of Washington and accepted and ratified by the President of the United States. Paintiff argues that the first 1878 Washington State Constitution is still “in full force today” because it “was the first legal contract with the people of the future state of Washington [and t]o replace it legally, the government ha[d] to essentially cancel the contract with the people and the people have to sign the cancellation.”6 Plaintiff contends that because “the people” never signed “the cancellation, the contract is still in full force.”7

Perhaps Darby missed the following in the 1878 Constitution

Section 2.

All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority
levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected under general laws, which shall prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation for taxpayers of all property, real and personal.

Section 3.

The property, real and personal, of the United States, and the property of the state and counties; property
of municipalities; common-school property; cemeteries not owned or used for private or corporate
profits; public libraries shall be exempt from taxation; and all laws exempting from taxation property
other than hereinbefore mentioned, shall be void.

Read more about Darby’s “Constitutional Criminal Complaint” here

The Court does not obtain subject-matter jurisdiction just because the plaintiff raises a federal question in his complaint. The Court finds that the asserted basis of federal jurisdiction is patently meritless and dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is appropriate.