Source: The Post Email
True, as to Zullo: I have shown how the facts do not line up with the fiction. So I would not call it a mere attempt, but rather a successful rebuttal. As to Walt, I leave the discrediting up to himself, I focus on exploring the validity of his claims, many of which I have found to be wanting.
The revelation that a Xerox WorkCentre can replicate all the abnormalities observed in the PDF, has caused much frustration and embarrassment to the Cold Case Posse and I can understand why Zullo is feeling ‘hurt’. If only they had followed up on the suggestions by John Woodman, but the Cold Case Posse rejected his work out of hand.
Needless to say, the Cold Case Posse has yet to rebut our findings. Not that I expect anything, the time for such has long since passed.
As with Walter Fitzpatrick, I have shown how his claims that the foreperson of the Grand Jury in Tennessee cannot be re-appointed for multiple consecutive terms, are poorly supported. This is because in Tennessee, the history of the foreperson is one in which he takes the place of the “13th Juror” but unlike the other 12 jurors who are randomly selected, he is appointed by the Judge from those eligible.
In Tennessee, the grand jury is composed of 12 grand jurors, Tenn. Code Ann. 40-1501 (1975), and a foreman or forewoman who “shall be the thirteenth member of each grand jury organized during his term of office, having equal power and authority in all matters coming before the grand jury with the other members thereof.” 40-1506 (Supp. 1978).
Clearly the foreman is not a Juror but is a member of the grand jury, something Walt and others appear to have a hard time understanding.
The foreman or forewoman is appointed for a term of two years by the judge of the court having criminal jurisdiction in the county. Ibid. There is no limitation on reappointment.
The judge gets to appoint the foreperson for a period of 2 years and can reappoint freely.
The foreman or forewoman must be at least 25 years of age, “shall be a good and lawful man or woman,” and possess all the other qualifications required of Tennessee jurors. 40-1507 (Supp. 1978).
The foreperson must be eligible to serve on a grand jury…
See 22-101 (Supp. 1978). The members of the grand jury, other than the foreman or forewoman, are selected through the operation of the “key man” system, whereby three jury commissioners compile a list of qualified potential jurors from which the grand jurors are selected at random. See 22-223 to 22-228 (Supp. 1978); 40-1501 and 40-1502 (1975).
Source: ROSE v. MITCHELL, 443 U.S. 545 (1979)
See also the dissenting opinion in United States v. Perez-Hernandez, 672 F. 2d 1380 – Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 1982
My position is not inconsistent with Rose v. Mitchell. A grand jury foreman in the Tennessee state court system is chosen by a judge from the entire population for a two year term of office. He or she is then added to the randomly selected grand jury panel as the thirteenth member.
and in United States v. Hobby, 702 F. 2d 466 – Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit 1983
The question which the Supreme Court deliberately did not decide in Rose v. Mitchell was much more debatable than the one with which we are confronted. Involved there was alleged discrimination in the selection of grand jury foremen in Tennessee. In that state the foreman was selected by the judge from the eligible population at large, not from just those drawn to serve. He serves a two-year term, during which he has considerably more authority than that of the presiding officer. He is authorized to assist prosecutors in investigating crime and to order the issuance of subpoenas to witnesses. An indictment is fatally defective unless it bears the foreman’s signature. 443 U.S. at 548 n. 1, 99 S.Ct. at 2996 n. 1.
Also United States v. Cross, 516 F. Supp. 700 – Dist. Court, MD Georgia 1981
The Tennessee grand jury system at issue in Rose permitted the foreman to be “hand picked” by the Superior Court Judge from the public at large and not from the veniremen chosen at random as were the other members of the grand jury. There obviously is an important difference between a state judge selecting the grand jury foreman of his choice from the public at large and a federal district court judge selecting a foreman from among a constitutionally and statutorily composed grand jury of 23 members.
Simple, and straightforward. Legal precedent does not support Walt’s interpretation of the rules of selection of the foreperson in the State of Tennessee.
The Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure outline how the foreperson, together with the jurors who have been randomly selected, form the Grand Jury and how the foreperson is appointed by the Judge. In Tennessee, the rules are approved by the legislature and while the legislature could possibly override these rules, they have submitted attempts to reformulate the role and selection of the foreperson, but with limited success. In addition to the history and the rules of criminal procedure, there are various precedents in which it is made clear that a judge appoints the foreperson in Tennessee and that such a person can be reappointed for multiple consecutive periods.
Historical precedents, legal precedents and the Rules of Criminal procedure all contradict Walt’s interpretation of how a foreperson in Tennessee shall be selected.
Walt also has tried to imply that the police presence in Madisonville, on April 20, 2010 was unreasonable however given the statements by Darren Huff to his bank manager and bank teller as well as to police men, while he was stopped for a traffic violation, it seems that the presence was quite reasonable. There were plans to continue with Walt’s ‘arrest warrants’ to try to arrest, once again, those who Walt believed were criminals, traitors etc. All because, they refused to take his beliefs seriously, just because they lacked in sufficient legal foundation….
Darren Huff was convicted, not because he carried his gun while in Madisonville, or because he was actually involved in trying to arrest people, but because of his intentions when he crossed state line, carrying several guns and ammunition. The jury of his peers, agreed that there was enough evidence to find him guilty of this charge. While some have tried to argue that Darren did not carry his firearm while in Madisonville, this does not address the conviction of Darren. Presently, Darren’s case is on appeal and the Court is pondering various issues such as the suppression of the testimony Darren freely gave to the police officers after his traffic stop, and the applicability of the statute to Darren’s actions.
These simple facts, continue to be ignored, however they help understand why the legal system continues to ignore Walt’s musings.
Walt’s recent conviction
Most recently, Walt was convicted for taking private papers belonging to those selected to serve on the Grand Jury.
MADISONVILLE-The trial took most of the day, but a jury only needed about 10 minutes to convict a man of stealing a grand jury member list in Dec. 2011. Walt Fitzpatrick was convicted of tampering with government evidence, leading to a sentence of 11/29 suspended and 240 hours community service.
Source: The Advocate and Democrat
While Walt insists that he has evidence that the Judge hand selected these jurors, it seems more reasonable that Walt witnessed the typical procedures used to impanel the summoned candidates for the Jury and mistook administrative procedures for actual mischief.
(a) Formation of the Grand Jury.
(1) Formation at a Regular Term. On the first day of each term of court at which a grand jury is required to be impaneled, the judge of the court authorized by law to charge the grand jury and to receive its report shall direct the names of all the qualified jurors in attendance for the criminal courts of the county to be written on separate slips of paper and placed in a box or other suitable receptacle and drawn out by the judge in open court. The foreperson and the twelve qualified jurors whose names are first drawn constitute the grand jury for the term and shall attend the court until dismissed by the judge or until the next term.
Of course, while Walt insists that he took his actions out of necessity, it is not certain that the appeal’s court will accept his arguments. We will have to see how the various appeal’s courts deal with Darren Huff and Walt.
From the Hixson brief
On December 7, 2011, potential jurors assembled at the Monroe County Courthouse for the impaneling of grand and petit juries. (III, 23-25.) The potential jurors brought personal information forms that had been sent to them by clerk’s office along with their summons. (III, 23.) Ms. Cook saw the defendant sitting in the first row of the courtroom during the jury selection process. (III, 36.) The defendant asked a potential juror, James D. Kirk, if he could see Mr. Kirk’s information form. (IV, 150.) Mr. Kirk acquiesced, and the defendant took notes based upon the questions asked on the juror questionnaire. (IV, 150-52; Ex. 15.)
The potential jurors passed their information sheets to the judge, who randomly selected two panels of 18 grand jurors. (III, 27.) Once the panels were selected, Ms. Cook gave the sheets’ to her Deputy Clerk, Renay Ezell, who accompanied the grand jurors downstairs to the chancery courtroom. (TII, 38-39.) Although no one was supposed to be in the chancery courtroom except for the grand jurors, the defendant eventually made his way into the courtroom. (IV, 125 153.) Ms. Ezell placed the information sheets on the table, along with other packets of information for the jurors. (IV, 122-23.)
The selecting judge eventually asked the grand jurors to return to the upstairs courtroom. (III, 46.) The defendant attempted to follow the grand jurors, but he was stopped. (IV, 152-53.) At this point, he returned to the empty chancery courtroom. (IV, 153.) The defendant took the jury selection documents, including the juror information sheets, from the table and left the courthouse. (Id.)
Rather than just discrediting, I am involved in educating those interested as to how better explanations appear to exist, whether it be for the Xerox Workcentre generated PDF or claims about criminal mischief in Madisonville and beyond.
Once one understands the facts, one can much better understand whether or not the claims made by some, have a reasonable foundation in logic, reason and evidence. As I have tried to show in various instances, such a foundation appears to be lacking. If Zullo or Walt disagree, then why have they failed to address the issues raised?
Zullo predicted that when the operatives are exposed publicly, they will “deny, deny, deny.” Gallups responded that if that happens, “they will be lying, lying, lying,” to which Zullo said, “I’ve got the proof, proof, proof.”
Source: The Post Email
I predict that Zullo will fail to present anything relevant, and that the much touted revelations will fizzle. If Zullo and the Cold Case Posse could not even rebut the Xerox Work Centre findings… So what will Zullo’s excuse this time?… History is on my side… And history is known to repeat itself. Just like the words by Zullo and Gallups, but unlike theirs, history’s repetition has real world relevance.
Read more at the Advocate and Democrat
07-02-2012 – Fitzpatrick spars with prosecutors
05-21-2012 – Going to jail in a Huff
05-07-2012 – Walt back in court
01-23-2012 – General Sessions: Week of Jan. 16-20
01-16-2012 – General Sessions: Week of Jan. 9-13
10-31-2011 – Huff sentenced in Knoxville
08-04-2011 – Huff facing January trial in alleged court takeover plot
06-15-2011 – Judge denies motions to dismiss Huff case
01-24-2011 – Indictments handed down in county Grand Jury
12-06-2010 – Huff pleads
12-02-2010 – Fitzpatrick found guilty on two charges
12-01-2010 – Fitzpatrick goes to court, will defend self
06-23-2010 – Fitzpatrick indicted; faces June 28 arraignment
05-05-2010 – Man threatens to take over Courthouse with gun
05-10-2010 – General Sessions for the week of May 3, 2010
04-26-2010 – Court records for week of April 19