I never committed any act of extortion against Jeffrey Lane Cunningham.EVER!
[NBC: And yet the Jury, having seen all the evidence, disagreed with Walt.]
Cunningham testified a number of times under oath that I never threatened Cunningham.
Cunningham testified that Cunningham felt no threat from me (in his 16 June 2014 testimony as I recall.)
[NBC: Definitions http://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2010/title-39/chapter-11/part-1/39-11-106 Extortion http://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2010/title-39/chapter-14/part-1/39-14-112]
I attempted to advance legitimate and now proven accusations against Cunningham.
[NBC: I am not sure what Walt considers ‘proven accusations’. The Jury heard about Walt’s accusations in open court and after deliberations found that he met the requirements.]
In his sworn statements Cunningham confirmed that I acted legally in petitioning the Grand Jury.
Cunningham, working with Ross and Reedy, furiously and successfully obstructed me from testifying on Cunningham’s obstructions.
[NBC: After the Grand Jury had refused to hear Walt’s original complaint, Cunningham claimed that Walt continued to petition to be heard on much of the same materials.
See: IN RE DEATH OF REED, 770 S.W.2d 557 (1989)
Moreover, the appellants were not entitled to present their evidence and witnesses to a grand jury. It is provided by statute that the decision of the grand jury panel is final. T.C.A. § 40-12-104(c). Having made application to present their case to the grand jury, and the panel having decided not to permit the appellant to present their case to the full grand jury, the right of the appellants to be heard by a grand jury was terminated.
If Walt wants to pursue action against Cunningham then perhaps filing a mandamus order would be the best avenue, assuming that the Foreperson of the Grand Jury has an official duty to bring all submissions to the attention of at least the panel of three jurors. Then again, Cunningham is not on trial here.]
There is no proof of extortion…
Pass the word, furiously,