08/19/2014 – RCR Blogtalk Radio – Walt’s sentencing hearing

 Walt Fitzpatrick will be sentenced tomorrow in Athens, TN following his conviction for aggrevated perjury and extortion, We will have a same day report from none other that Foggy. Join us at 9 PM ET/ 6 PM PT. Call 1-347-324-5546 with quations (sic) or comments.

Source

18 thoughts on “08/19/2014 – RCR Blogtalk Radio – Walt’s sentencing hearing

  1. http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2014/aug/20/birther-gets-3-years-in-mcminn-extortion-perjury/?local

    The reporter reported the following:

    Judge Blackwood said, “All he can say is that the grand jury foreperson is not being chosen properly. So what? So what?”

    WOW! That is highly disturbing to hear from a judge. The Grand Jury is a FUNDAMENTAL DUE PROCESS component of our justice system that is meant to protect the innocent and the accused. If the foreman is UNLAWFUL(OR ILLEGAL OR NOT CHOSEN CORRECTLY) the entire process is corrupted.

    Walt very well may have had his due process right violated.

    Sharon Rondaeu appears to right after all.

  2. Judge Blackwood said, “All he can say is that the grand jury foreperson is not being chosen properly. So what? So what?”

    That’s so foolish an argument John. Yes, we all know that you lack logic skills, reading ability and a legal background, but this is just plain dumb.

    First of all the judge is correct that the status of the foreperson of the grand jury has no relevance to Walt. He is not injured by it and the only ones who may legally object are defendants who are affected by this.

    Secondly, merely saying that a foreperson is not properly chosen does not make it so. Walt could have pursued a more proper avenue but instead went down a path of follies.

    No due process rights were violated and Sharon does not appear to have gotten it right.

    You were pointed out last night by Foggy, who was there, unlike Sharon, what the judge did say…

    Don’t get your hopes up my friend.

    Come on John this is pretty foolish even for you.

    Think more, complain less and you may reach a stage of credibility

  3. “First of all the judge is correct that the status of the foreperson of the grand jury has no relevance to Walt.”

    Total BS. I would urge on appeal the Van Irion argue the process in which the foreperson was appointed. If it can be shown that process was unlawful, illegal or otherwise improper, Walt’s due process rights are violated and his sentence is vacated.

    For a judge to suggest that the improper appointment of foreperson to the Grand Jury is of no concern is highly egregious and I would argue that the judge needs to be impeached and thrown off the bench.

    Again the grand jury is a fundamental due process component and if that component is deemed improper or unlawful, the due process is corrupted.

  4. Total BS. I would urge on appeal the Van Irion argue the process in which the foreperson was appointed. If it can be shown that process was unlawful, illegal or otherwise improper, Walt’s due process rights are violated and his sentence is vacated.

    Too late for that. This should have happened much earlier. Surely you are aware that objections to the Grand Jury need to take place early in the process?

    And the Judge did not make a claim that the improper appointment of a judge is of no concern, so stop making up ‘facts’ my delusional friend.

    As to due process, unless this involved Walt’s case and unless it was properly and timely preserved, there is no due process violation argument that can be made.

    Sorry my friend, you really need to familiarize yourself.

    An objection to the grand jury is made in a plea in abatement and has to be made before he pleads “not guilty”

  5. if he had requested it, he waived these matters by going to trial upon a plea of guilty. 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. State v. Cole, 28 Tenn. 626; McTigue v. State, 63 Tenn. 313; Epperson v. State, 73 Tenn. 291; Dyer v. State, 79 Tenn. 509; Turner v. State, 89 Tenn. 547, 15 S.W. 838; Ellis v. State, 92 Tenn. 85, 20 S.W. 500; Chairs v. State, 124 Tenn. 630, 139 S.W. 711.

  6. I’m not saying what Walt did was right. It was very wrong. Walt sounds so creepy and harassing on the phone calls. And I’m not saying Walt is right about the Jury Foreman being illegally appointed. The most troubling thing about this whole situation was the Judge’s suggestion that if the Grand Jury Foreman is Illegal it is of no concern. That is a completely egrecious statement for a judge to even suggest that and the judge should be impeached and thrown off the bench in disgrace. The Grand Jury is a FUNDAMENTAL DUE PROCESS component to our legal system. If the Grand Jury foreman has been unlawfully, illegally or otherwise improperly appointed, the entire system has been corrupted. And if that is so in Walt’s case, his sentence should be vacated and he should be released.

  7. John would have a better argument if he were to suggest that Walt raises the issue of the Grand Jury having been tainted, but I am not sure that such a motion was made in time.

    John should really do some background research before he makes a fool of himself once again.

  8. if he had requested it, he waived these matters by going to trial upon a plea of guilty. 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. State v. Cole, 28 Tenn. 626; McTigue v. State, 63 Tenn. 313; Epperson v. State, 73 Tenn. 291; Dyer v. State, 79 Tenn. 509; Turner v. State, 89 Tenn. 547, 15 S.W. 838; Ellis v. State, 92 Tenn. 85, 20 S.W. 500; Chairs v. State, 124 Tenn. 630, 139 S.W. 711.

    Speaking like a true prosecutor. Do you know how prosecutors try to argue UNTIMELYNESS to the court when they trying to execute an inmate? Thankfully, there have been many death penalty cases where the court has explored legal issues untimellyness not withstanding. It’s called due process my friend and that is why it takes 20 years to execute a death row inmate.

  9. Still making up what the Judge said eh Jim?

    And you are very wrong

    Petitioner, Kenneth Dewayne Johnson, pled guilty to aggravated assault in Davidson County on November 17, 2011. On June 10, 2013, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the foreman of the grand jury that issued the indictment was ineligible to serve for being a convicted felon. Petitioner also asserted that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and entered an unknowing and involuntary plea. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition as untimely. On August 16, 2013, Petitioner, with the assistance of counsel, filed a second petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the statute of limitations should be tolled in his case because the ineligibility of the grand jury foreman was not made public knowledge until after the statute of limitations had expired and was, therefore, a “later-arising” ground for relief. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, finding that the ineligibility of the grand jury foreman did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction and that Petitioner was not denied effective assistance of counsel. Petitioner appealed. Upon a thorough review of the law and the facts in this case, we affirm the decision of the post-conviction court.

  10. Speaking like a true prosecutor. Do you know how prosecutors try to argue UNTIMELYNESS to the court when they trying to execute an inmate?

    Spoken like someone who knows the law.

    Poor Jim, and the recent ruling in which a foreperson who was ineligible due to a felony conviction was not a reason for post conviction relief or was sufficient an error, indicates, once again that our poor friend is wrong again.

    You really should make some effort to educate yourself my friend, It would make such a difference.

  11. and

    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.

    Ouch… Poor Jim…

  12. Who needs enemies with JY at one’s side😉

    He is in such denial, even after the facts are presented, he struggles…

    Fascinating…

  13. These appear to TN rulings. I can see why Sharon Rondeau is upset. The entire legal process starting from the Grand Jury appears to be corrupted.

  14. I see, everything is corrupted in TN…

    You are drinking the cool aid as well, even though this is well established law.

    You are such a poor loser, which is remarkable because you are so good at it.

    So once again we see how Jim’s ‘claims’ are contradicted by a history of legal rulings, which he now claims must be evidence of some corruption because they do not match his beliefs.

    That’s how Walt got into trouble my friend, a slippery slope indeed.

  15. And of course these are TN rulings, is that not what is relevant if a person stands trial in TN?

    You are hopelessly clueless my friend.

    So have you searched for rulings outside of TN? Have you done any research?

    I doubt it.

Comments are closed.