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.

TN – Ineligible foreperson – State v Lopez 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.

 

News Reports on Walt’s conviction

Chattanooga Times Free Press

Judge John Blackwell on Tuesday sentenced Fitzpatrick to three years in prison, with the opportunity for release after he serves 30 percent, or a little under a year. The sentence on each of the McMinn convictions will run concurrently, but consecutive to another conviction in Monroe County associated with a previous case.

Blackwell called Fitzpatrick a “moral coward” and his accusations of criminal wrongdoing among local judicial officials and the president “ludricrous.”

and

More than 25 people were in the gallery Tuesday to show their support for Fitzpatrick and they broke out into applause as Fitzpatrick was taken from the courtroom in handcuffs, amid a couple of cries of “thank you.”

Quite the support…

U.S. Navy Lt. Cmdr. Walter Frances Fitzpatrick III (retired) was indicted in March on charges of aggravated perjury, harassment, stalking and extortion and convicted by a jury back in June on the perjury and extortion charges. Court officials tell NewsChannel9 the stalking charge was dismissed prior to trial and jurors found Fitzpatrick not guilty of harassment.

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…