TN – State v Fitzpatrick –

That’s not the end, however, as Irion confirmed that he has already filed an appeal and a new motion to arrest judgment with the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

“We’re doing everything we can,” Irion said.

Source

 

6 thoughts on “TN – State v Fitzpatrick –

  1. Interesting responses from the state. They are arguing what “Could have happen”. Courts have been dismissing Birther cases from years rejecting arguments of “What could happen”. It is easy for state and court to use the argument of “What could happen” when it suits their interest.

  2. nteresting responses from the state. They are arguing what “Could have happen”. Courts have been dismissing Birther cases from years rejecting arguments of “What could happen”.

    Courts have been dismissing birther cases because of lack of standing and a myriad of other reasons my friend. Nothing to do with “what could happen”…

    Clueless…

  3. Just to educate Jim:

    The 10th Judicial District Attorney’s office disagreed with that argument, however. Assistant District Attorney Krista Oswalt noted that materiality is based on “what could have” affected the decision and the mistruths in Fitzpatrick’s order of protection fell into that category.

    Refers to the perjury charge. Just because the Judge rejected the filing does not make the perjury go away. van Irion is trying to ‘argue’ that since the judge rejected the petition, Walt could not have committed perjury…

  4. “Courts have been dismissing birther cases because of lack of standing and a myriad of other reasons my friend. Nothing to do with “what could happen”…”

    Actually no. Although the courts have rejected birther cases due to standing, many reasons have been cited for “What could or might happen.” A perfect example of this is where birther litigants have tried to argue that they may be recalled to military service and would have to serve under and an illegal POTUS. The courts rejected this claim citing that this was merely a possibility or what might happen and not something it that going to happen immediately. Kerchner and Hollister would good examples of these.

  5. . Although the courts have rejected birther cases due to standing, many reasons have been cited for “What could or might happen.” A perfect example of this is where birther litigants have tried to argue that they may be recalled to military service and would have to serve under and an illegal POTUS.

    Ah yes, the standing issue… No relevance to this case.

    Try again…

    You do understand that standing in a criminal trial is somewhat automatic?

    Will you ever learn?

Comments are closed.