Tuesday, 31 December 2013
FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF PRECRIME!
Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III
United States Navy Retired
Post Office Box 293
Athens, Tennessee 37371-0293
Cell phone by appointment: 423.381.5311
Monday, 30 December 2013
EMERGENCY CITIZEN WRIT OF MANDAMUS
In re: United States v. Darren Wesley Huff
CASE #: 125581
Unites States Court of Appeals for the federal Sixth Circuit
540 Potter Stewart United States Courthouse
100 East Fifth Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
And many others in a wider distribution
To: Chief Judge Alice M. Batchelder
Copies to: Various and numerous government agencies and law enforcement offices previously contacted
With waning deference and respect I write to you this day to report the scope and operation of a government I’ve been trained to fight against and destroy.
I sound the alert that a fraud is being perpetrated on the U.S Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Federal and state judges, federal and state prosecutors, federal and state law enforcement officers, lower ranking state and federal court officers and Mr. Huff’s court appointed defense attorneys are criminally complicit in the fraud being visited upon this federal appellate Court.
I am commanding you to recognize this fraud and release Navy Veteran Darren Wesley Huff as an innocent man. I demand and command that Mr. Huff’s innocence be publicly and loudly declared and that Mr. Huff’s name be cleared causing to expunge all government records naming Mr. Huff a criminal in matters related to his case that have come into existence since April 2010.
I am commanding that the Court become the forcing function behind causing criminal investigations against those people who have acted to wrongfully harm or injure Mr. Huff resulting in his illegal incarceration presently. I furthermore call upon this Court to lash out and act against the fraud presently being visited upon this bench.
I am commanding that the Court order a federal grand jury assembled for these express purposes. The grand jury is to be impaneled to hear my testimony and inspect my voluminous investigative work product representing proofs and evidences going to Mr. Huff’s innocence and egregious maltreatment at the hands of various government officials; then to broaden their investigation from that starting point. For the sake of efficiency this federal grand jury is to be formed near the community of Athens, Tennessee.
Federal agents, assisted by Tennessee Start law enforcement officials arrested Mr. Huff in Tennessee State on Friday, 30 April 2010 on charges arising from activities that occurred in Madisonville, Tennessee on Tuesday, 20 April 2010 that have become commonly referred to as “The Madisonville Hoax.”
Federal Bureau of Investigation Mark A. Van Balen criminally accused Mr. Huff of being physically present armed with gun(s) at the R. Beecher Witt government building in Madisonville, TN on Tuesday, 20 April 2010. Van Balen further asserted under oath that Mr. Huff, while standing outside the R. Beecher Witt government building armed with gun(s), was thinking about using gun(s) to commit acts of violence against persons and property at that location.
Van Balen stated under oath that Mr. Huff was joined with other armed individuals at R. Beecher Witt government building and outside the building with Mr. Huff who were thinking about joining Mr. Huff at that location in carrying out acts of violence against persons and property using gun(s).
The truth is Mr. Huff was never physically present at the R. Beecher Witt government building at any moment in time on Tuesday, 20 April 2010. Enclosed, see former Sergeant of Marines William Looman’s sworn statement. Other fact witnesses, eye witnesses, ear witnesses have always been available to attest to Mr. Huff’s whereabouts in Madisonville, Tennessee on 20 April 2010.
The truth is that Mr. Huff was unarmed at every moment he was physically present in Madisonville, Tennessee on Tuesday, 20 April 2010. Again I invite focused attention to Marine Sergeant Looman’s sworn affidavit.
State and federal prosecutors, law enforcement officials, judges and court officers and public defenders all blocked unassailable testimonial and physical evidences proving Mr. Huff’s innocence from ever coming forth. They have instead created, enhanced and embellished upon The Madisonville Hoax!
Mr. Huff’s presence in Madisonville, Tennessee on Tuesday, 20 April 2010 was due to the discovery that Mr. Gary Pettway had stood in the Monroe County Tennessee grand jury as its foreman for twenty-eight (28) consecutive years.
The hearing Mr. Huff wanted to attend was part of a process seeking to expose Mr. Pettway’s criminal conduct and eventually effect Pettway’s peaceful removal from Pettway’s illegal yet officially declared job as “grand jury foreman.”
Federal and state government functionaries took action in bad faith against Mr. Huff and myself based on the false claim that Mr. Gary Pettway was, in fact, a legally summoned and impaneled “juror.”
Mr. Gary Pettway testified at Mr. Huff’s October 2011 federal trial passing himself off as a lawful and legal “juror” who was the object of Mr. Huff’s “thoughts” on Tuesday, 20 April 2010.
Mr. Pettway committed perjury by so testifying.
Other state and federal functionaries, mendacious muckrakers, embellished Mr. Pettway’s perjury, adding their own.They reported that Mr. Pettway, with other people and property, were somehow, in someway at risk of being harmed, injured or damaged on Tuesday, 20 April 2010 by Mr. Huff or other innocent men and women who came to Madisonville to attend a public court hearing as court watchers.
This was all accomplished through the guise of The Madisonville Hoax.
State and federal officials used Mr. Huff in The Madisonville Hoax as a pawn to extend the durable myth that criminal court appointed foreman in Tennessee State were (1) jurors, and (2) legally acting as foremen.
One hundred and two (102) days ago, on Friday, 20 September 2013, Assistant Tennessee Attorney General Kyle Hixson, in a brief filed with the Tennessee’s Criminal Appellate Court in Knoxville gave up the game.
Hixson declared in an affirmative admission against state’s-interest that Mr. Pettway had never, in fact, been a “juror.”
The Hixson Brief affirmatively declares that no Tennessee grand jury foreman has ever been a “juror” going back scores of years.
This admission is ominous. Tennessee State law declares that the foreman of the grand jury, like any other member of a Tennessee State trial jury or grand jury must be in fact a juror.
The Madisonville Hoax was a brazen law enforcement operation the design of which was to cloak the decades old practice of criminal court judges illicitly anointing their own non-juror advocates and sycophants into what might have otherwise been a lawful grand jury.
Mr. Huff became a government tool, a pawn in breathing life into their hoax from that day to this day.
I’ve been conducting an investigation into the Madisonville Hoax ever since Tuesday, 20 April 2010. State and federal judges and prosecutors have ruthlessly blocked every effort I’ve made to report the results of my investigation and offer up for examination my investigative work product. I hold extensive proofs and evidences intended for presentation to a seated federal or state grand jury.
My investigation proves no prospective court-watcher who came to Madisonville, Tennessee on 20 April 2010 attempting to attend a court hearing that day carried a gun in the city of Madisonville.
No court watcher intended or planned any violence of any description. I have all their names. I’ve been in contact with them all. I have statements from several.
Creators, facilitators and agitators of the Madisonville Hoax steadfastly maintain to this day, some under their perjured oaths, that Mr. Huff carried a gun in Madisonville on that troubled day.
They continue to maintain and falsely report that other frustrated court watchers, wrongly accused as was Mr. Huff, were carrying guns with intent to carry out violence.
NONSENSE I SAY! NONSENSE!
It’s all a lie. It’s all part of the Madisonville Hoax! None of the court-watchers carried a gun. Mr. Huff did not carry a gun.
Mr. Huff was never physically present at any time at the R. Beecher Witt government building on Tuesday, 20 April 2010.
Mr. Huff’s variously assigned defense attorneys were all on notice that this information was available to them then as now. An exhaustive record has always been available to them as the volume of amassed information, proof and evidences of Mr. Huff’s innocence continued to grow. Mr. Huff’s appointed defense counsels turned their heads away from all of it, laughing up their sleeves as they walked away.
In April 2011 Federal Judge H. Bruce Guyton personally intercepted my direct submissions to the two federal grand juries sitting in Knoxville seeking to appear before one of both of those two assemblies. I was prepared to prove Mr. Huff’s innocence to the grand jury. I was prepared to tell the grand jury, under oath, about my discoveries regarding The Madisonville Hoax and the part played in the hoax by state and federal officials so far as I knew in the spring of 2011.
Guyton personally blocked my submissions.
Guyton then personally refused to grant me permission to appear, deflecting my attempts to the U.S. Attorney for Tennessee’s Eastern District, William C. Killian.
H. Bruce Guyton was the presiding judge in Mr. Huff’s federal prosecution at the very moment H. Bruce Guyton obstructed my efforts to report to the federal grand jury on The Madisonville Hoax.
U.S. Attorney Killian, named as one of the perpetrators in The Madisonville Hoax, continues to block my efforts to appear before a federal grand jury to this day. See Killian’s enclosed letter dated Friday, 14 June 2013 that reintroduces Guyton’s letter dated Wednesday, 6 April 2011.
I was defeated again just fourteen (14) days ago, attempting to report to a local Tennessee State grand jury regarding the criminal court judges’ take down, take away and the take over of our local grand juries by way of judicial appointments of non-juror foreman.
I call attention once more to the Hixson Brief dated Friday 20 September 2013.
It was the criminal court judge, judicially anointed, county employee non-juror foreman, actually named in my submission as a fraud using the Hixson Brief as evidence, who personally blocked my submission and presentation from being reviewed or heard by the grand jury on Tuesday 17 December 2013, and then ordered a deputy sheriff to escort me from the courthouse.
I’ve aggressively attempted to report these matters to the Federal Bureau of Investigation at various locations in the country.
One of my more significant and memorable contacts occurred on 28 June 2011 (3½ months before Darren Huff’s October 2011 trial). I met with Special Agent Roxanne West for approximately three hours in Knoxville.
I’ve lost count of my reports to the FBI. They are numerous. And all of them ignored and trashed.
One reason why is that The Madisonville Hoax, as an extra added bonus, allowed for federal judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officials and court functionaries to exploit false accusations against Mr. Huff so as to achieve the first ever successful “thought crime” prosecution in United States history.
Van Balen’s sworn affidavit is based upon what Van Balen personally thought, and other FBI agents and law enforcement agents said they personally thought Mr. Huff was thinking about.
Maintaining Mr. Huff’s wrongful conviction in place, as FBI Special Agent Scott Johnson gleefully reported on 5 May 2012 is supremely important:
“This case is monumental to the FBI because it will set precedent for case law in future domestic terrorism cases throughout the United States.” (LINK)
I am not going into my efforts to report these matters to Tennessee State law enforcement officers that are as unceasing and unrelenting as they are numerous.
One other man who has been regularly defeated in attempting to bring to the attention of a sitting grand jury those actions of a corrupt government, and particularly those actions taken against Mr. Huff wrote this yesterday:
In Devvy Kidd’s piece today she refers to the movie “Open Range” where Kevin Costner tells the complainer who asks what he can do” You’re men ain’t you?” The complainer says he didn’t raise his sons to get killed, to which Costner replies: “You may not know this, but there’s things that gnaw on a man worse than dying.”
Darren’s hearing is one of those incremental crossroads things where we take an extra large step further into servitude it the state prevails.
I am sure no one will die if they make a stand. To put their name to paper and send it to a judge or stand with Darren in the courtroom will not get anyone killed. But to not make a stand and continue the incessant pecking on a computer keyboard will accomplish nothing.
Walt [I’m Walt] has nailed the dire circumstances involved in this hearing. If the state succeeds it will hamper the future efforts of all activists, but most specifically veterans.
The state motto in New Hampshire is: “Live Free or Die.” That’s what Costner was referring to. Are we there yet?
Repeating for emphasis, I SAY AGAIN to this U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, that I’m reporting in this EMERGENCY CITIZEN’S WRIT the scope and operation of the government I was trained to fight against and destroy.
The immediate reaction I expect to cause is that this Court take actions to guard itself against the fraud being committed against it, and after that see to Mr. Huff’s release from federal prison.
Accept my EMERGENCY CITIZEN’S WRIT as but another sworn criminal complaint. I’m calling for the immediate arrests of persons I’m able to name in the conduct of those criminal acts I’m able to credibly report.
Accept this as but one more demand to appear before sitting federal and state grand juries. Accept it as well as an emergency court filing in Mr. Huff’s pending judicial review.
Distribution of this writing is online and wide. Common law grand juries emerging around the country are free to use this actionable information as they wish.
Beware the fury of patient men.
Dauntless and Unafraid in Defiance, Born fighting,
Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III
United States Navy Retired
Sworn and issued before me,
/s/ S. Renee Bentley
Monday, the 30th day of December 2013
at 1545 hours local ( 3:43 p.m. EST)
My commission expires: 09-23-2015
Filed: 31 December 2013 at 1006 hours (local) 10:06:53 AM EST
Certified mail #: 7011 0470 0001 6411 0447
JAG HUNTER note:
Darren’s only stop in Madisonville on Tuesday, 20 April 2010 was at Donna’s Old Town Cafe.
Photos below show Darren standing in front of Donna’s eatery with other folks who’d traveled to Madisonville to attend a public court hearing. Darren never made it to the R. Beecher Witt government building courthouse. Donna’s was as close as he got (two-tenths of a mile distant ~ 4 blocks away on a different street).
There were many others not photographed who were with Darren at Donna’s who are not shown in the photos above.
I count myself as one of those eye witnesses.
There exists a great deal more evidence proving the state and federal “MADISONVILLE HOAX.” which extends as well to prove Darren Huff’s innocence.
“The MADISONVILLE HOAX” WAS PART OF THE FBI’S OPERATION VIGILANT EAGLE (LINK).
THERE ARE BELIEFS AND THERE IS A THEORY THAT THE SATURDAY AFTERNOON ~ EVENING GANG STYLE MOB HIT MURDER OF MR. JIM MILLER WAS CONNECTED TO “The MADISONVILLE HOAX.” (LINK)
CURRENT OR FORMER TENNESSEE STATE EMPLOYEES CONNECTED TO “The MADISONVILLE HOAX!”
Here endth the lesson!
Sunday, 29 December 2013
Corrupt Federal Judges and Tennessee Officials Commit Obstruction of Justice, Go Unpunished
Posted By Sharon Rondeau On Sunday, December 29, 2013 @ 12:05 PM In National |
“THEY NEED THIS CONVICTION TO STAND”
(Dec. 29, 2013) — [Editor’s Note: On Thursday, federal prisoner Darren Wesley Huff informed The Post & Email and others that an appeal in his case has been filed and will be heard on January 30, 2014, at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, OH.
The attorney who will be representing Huff is Gerald Gulley of Knoxville.
Huff was convicted in October 2011 of “transporting firearms across state lines with the intent to cause a civil disorder” after false reports were made to local authorities in Monroe County, TN that he planned to “take over the courthouse” on April 20, 2010.
Initially, the trial jury produced a verdict of “not guilty” on one count and was hung on the second count, but Judge Thomas Varlan instructed them to “try again,” after which the jury pronounced Huff guilty on the one count.
An eyewitness, Bill Looman, who spent all of April 20, 2010 with Huff, provided a sworn affidavit affirming that Huff was not armed after he parked and exited his truck in Madisonville, TN. Looman stated that because would-be observers arriving for the hearing for Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III that day were barred from entering the courthouse, he and Huff went to a restaurant across the street to have breakfast. Looman maintained that Huff was not where the government claimed he was in order to effect the alleged “courthouse takeover.”
Looman and other eyewitnesses were not called to Huff’s trial, where Tennessee Tenth Judicial District officials perjured themselves, including Gary Pettway, who had served as grand jury foreman for 28 straight years under Judge Carroll Lee Ross. Huff’s public defender, H. Scott Green, did not call Fitzpatrick, Looman or any other eyewitness in Huff’s defense even though Fitzpatrick was physically at the courthouse waiting to be called to testify.
Ross had orchestrated Fitzpatrick’s arrest after Fitzpatrick attempted a citizen’s arrest on Pettway on April 1, 2010 for over-serving his term as a juror according to Tennessee state code. The April 20 hearing was an assignment hearing which Fitzpatrick understood would take only a few minutes.
Following the April 1 incident, Fitzpatrick was indicted by the Monroe County grand jury for having intimidated Gary Pettway, who was identified as “a juror.” Fitzpatrick was also charged with riot, intimidating a juror, and disrupting a meeting. In September of this year, the state of Tennessee clarified that the foreman of a Tennessee grand jury is not a juror, but rather, a court-appointed public employee. However, the foreman routinely votes with the grand jurors as the 13th person, thereby infusing state influence into a process which is expected to be driven by citizens acting as a buffer between government and the people in accordance with the Fifth Amendment.
Tennessee state code requires that 13 randomly-selected individuals comprise a grand jury, not 12 plus a representative of the state’s interests.
Huff was also charged by the Monroe County with intimidating “a juror” for having video-taped the citizen’s arrest carried out by Fitzpatrick. Now, the state of Tennessee maintains that Pettway was not a juror.
In Monroe County, Huff took a plea of “no contest” to the charges, but a federal case was brought against him based on a faulty FBI affidavit signed by Special Agent Mark Van Balen which stated that Huff and Fitzpatrick were armed and had planned to “take over” the Monroe County courthouse on April 20. Van Balen cited unnamed “officials” upon whose statements he relied to produce the affidavit, which served as probable cause for Huff’s arrest and jailing by federal authorities.
Over the last two years, Fitzpatrick has gathered sworn and unsworn statements from eyewitnesses which say that no one in Madisonville was armed on April 20, 2010 and that no clashes with law enforcement were observed, despite the heavy presence of local police, FBI and TBI agents, a SWAT team, bomb-sniffing dogs and Tennessee Highway Patrolmen throughout the area.
Some who attended the hearing but were not allowed in to the courtroom reported being audited by the IRS afterward. This past spring, the IRS admitted to having targeted groups perceived as politically opposed to the regime’s policies. Within the last several weeks, two men who have voiced their objections to Obamacare and the fallout of insurance policies’ cancellation have reported that they are being audited by the IRS.
The Post & Email attempted to obtain documentation on the massive deployment of law enforcement on April 20, 2010 but was denied on several levels in which the government cited “privacy” concerns. The Obama regime had promised “the toughest ethics rules and toughest transparency rules of any administration in history.”
Obama has not explained why the long-form birth certificate posted on the White House website on April 27, 2011 is a forgery. On March 17, 2009, Fitzpatrick had filed a criminal complaint of treason against Obama, naming him as a foreign-born domestic enemy. A criminal investigation has revealed that the image is a forgery, that Obama may be foreign-born and that it is likely that he was not born in Hawaii, as he claims. According to lead investigator Mike Zullo, the fraudulent image was posted “with the intent to deceive.”
Mainstream media have consistently reported that Huff was pursuing a treason complaint or removal of office against Obama, which was false. In a taped interview with The Post & Email in 2011, Huff stated, “That is not my issue.”
After Huff’s trial and just before sentencing in May 2012, Varlan was presented with evidence that several government officials’ testimony had been tainted, but that evidence was ignored. In accordance with the Obama regime’s declaration that Second Amendment supporters are “militia extremists,” U.S. Attorney William C. Killian, an Obama appointee, “commended the verdict and said he hoped it would send a strong message to those who attempt to take the law into their own hands.”
Killian continued, “Under our federal Constitution and statutes Mr. Huff and others like him can talk or write about their anti-government views. They cannot arm themselves and make threats to arrest public officials and takeover government buildings. The core of our democratic system is to allow peaceful protest, but prohibit armed threats to those who serve our government. His conviction is a great achievement by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Theodore and Mackie and several local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. Their cooperative efforts resulted in this conviction.”
Since Huff’s conviction, the corruption of public officials in the Tenth Judicial District of Tennessee has become public:
One of the officials named as a criminal by both Huff and Fitzpatrick is District Attorney General R. Steven Bebb, who is reported to under consideration to be removed from his post by the Tennessee General Assembly for professional misconduct and possible criminal behavior after the attorney general failed to find Bebb guilty of crimes.
Contrary to the indictments issued against Fitzpatrick and Huff, Pettway has been officially declared by Tennessee Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Justice Division, Kyle Hixson, not to have ever been “a juror.”
Judge Carroll Ross is retiring after numerous incidents of misconduct have been exposed by Fitzpatrick, Huff, The Post & Email, and Appellate Judge Thomas M. Tipton, who reversed Ross’s convictions against George Raudenbush on the grounds that Ross denied him his constitutional right to counsel in 2011.
The grand juries which have issued indictments against the above defendants and all others over an unknown number of years have been illegally composed of 12 citizens, some of whom were not chosen randomly and served consecutive terms in violation of Tennessee state law.
Assistant District Attorney General Paul D. Rush, who prosecuted Fitzpatrick in the case now on appeal, has been cited for ethics violations by the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility after Rush specifically identified The Post & Email as lacking in “ethics” and “integrity.”
Fitzpatrick’s defense attorney, Van Irion of Knoxville, has just announced that he is running next year for Criminal Court Judge against Amy Armstrong Reedy, who Fitzpatrick named as a criminal for hand-picking jurors for the 2012 term in open court, a fact Irion presented during the appeals hearing for Fitzpatrick on November 20.
Since discovering massive corruption within the Monroe County grand jury in December 2009, Fitzpatrick has attempted to enlist the assistance of the Knoxville FBI, the TBI, local police, sheriff’s department, and district attorney general’s office, but all have proven either corrupt themselves or unwilling to open an investigation.
The McMinn County grand jury is similarly compromised, with a judge-appointed foreman who exerts influence over the 12 grand jurors but denies that he has engaged in obstruction of justice even when he himself is the subject of a criminal complaint.
Fitzpatrick has attempted to bring the exculpatory evidence relating to Huff’s case as well as the corruption of Tenth Judicial District officials to the federal grand juries sitting in Knoxville but has been blocked by Killian, Magistrate H. Bruce Guyton, and Varlan. Here, Fitzpatrick explains how Guyton was compromised in his actions on Huff’s case and that grand juries at both the state and federal levels have become tools of the government, not of the people.]
Three years ago, I could have walked into a grand jury either at the state level or federal level and talked to some degree about the suspicions we had about the scope and operation of grand juries then, pointing directly at Mr. Pettway and saying “He’s been there for 28 years; there’s something wrong here. I’m willing to work with you folks in the grand jury to get to the bottom of this.” And you know what happened.
Almost three years ago, I tried to get in front of the federal grand jury directly. We knew that that Darren had falsely set up, falsely accused, and falsely arrested. There were two federal grand juries sitting at that time in Knoxville. I contacted the jury coordinator, Helen Spears, who sent me a handbook on the federal grand juries. I sent in a submission on March 16, and I sent a second on April 7.
These were mailed before I got Guyton’s letter. These three mailings were blocked. The 16 March mailing, which was a challenge to the grand juries, was returned unopened three weeks later. In the meantime, I sent in two more: the ones from the 7th of April and 8th of April. Those were not returned; he kept those.
I sent copies of the other mailings to the U.S. attorney and to Richard Lambert, who was the special agent then in charge of the Knoxville FBI.
And the other submission crossed in them mail with his letter back to me saying, “You can’t petition the grand jury directly. You have to go through me, the judge, the court; or you have to go through the U.S. attorney. He wrote that in the letter citing the case of New Haven Grand Jury from 1985.
What’s significant is that H. Bruce Guyton – and I didn’t know it at the time; I found out later – was the sitting judge in Darren’s case. He was making rulings on Darren’s case from the bench. Later on, I thought Guyton was going to be the trial judge, but it turned out to be Thomas Varlan. Darren had issues with the court; he was filing submission to the court, and they were all going to H. Bruce Guyton.
Guyton was preventing me from getting information into the grand juries about Darren and which eventually was about Guyton and other people in the federal government to include U.S. Attorney William C. Killian and Richard L. Lambert from the FBI. As time passes, we have learned more about what happened on April 20, 2010, and I’m still collecting information from people who were in Madisonville that day. It took me a couple of years, frankly. So we’re still putting together a picture from witnesses as to what happened, but I had enough to start a process for the grand juries to take a look at what was going on in the Tenth Judicial District. Guyton blocked me from doing that for no reason. He said, “I’m not going to give you permission; I’m deferring to the U.S. Attorney.”
All these mailings went to Guyton, Lambert and William C. Killian, the U.S. attorney in Knoxville, and they probably just threw all of this information away. Other mailings I sent after that went directly to Killian, and I got nothing back from him. In fact, the only letter I got from his office said, “Don’t send us anything else; it will be thrown away.”
This has been the attitude of the federal government from day one. As time has passed, you know how much information we have come into possession of regarding the Madisonville Hoax, who did what, the perjury at Darren’s trial, the revelation here that is just days old that the grand jury foreman is not a juror. If we had known then what we know now, Darren would not be in a federal prison. One of the ways that we could have known back in the spring of 2011 is if a federal grand jury had picked this up and started asking questions of the people in the local community about “How is it that the law says that a juror can’t be in the jury for more than one term, but the foreman serves multiple terms?” The grand jury could have started asking questions which the appellate court now has asked in my case since. And the state has now come in and they’ve been forced into a position where they have to admit that the grand jury foreman is not a juror.
I believe that if Guyton had allowed me to go forward with what we knew then, the grand jury could have discovered this on their own before Darren’s case ever came to trial. It wouldn’t have taken them long to start calling people into the federal jury room in Knoxville and start putting these people under oath and having people such as Gary Pettway explain under oath how he had been in that job for 28 years in a row. But that didn’t happen, and the reason it didn’t happen was because of Bruce Guyton’s obstruction and that of the FBI and William C. Killian.
The reason we’re talking about this now is that I just learned that Darren Huff has a hearing on 30 January 2014, and we can’t seem to get any of this information into the court that is hearing the case. We’re being obstructed in the same way that Bruce Guyton obstructed me almost three years ago. One of the reasons they want Darren in prison is that they successfully prosecuted him for a “thought crime.”
An article written by Jamie Satterfield three years ago on Friday and updated three years yesterday discusses the rulings that H. Bruce Guyton handed down in the case of Darren Wesley Huff, and they went to whether or not he should be locked up or wear an ankle bracelet. Bruce Guyton is the guy who blocked me from getting in front of a grand jury and talking about the case over which he was presiding.
He didn’t know what I was going to bring to the grand jury, but after follow-on submissions to the U.S attorney, which I made and were not answered, I went to the FBI and met with Special Agent Roxane West for three hours. I met with her, and nothing happened.
If nothing else, it’s important that we get this information out publicly.
Bruce Guyton could have been responsible for Darren’s being released. There was a federal judge obstructing justice.
We had a lot back in the day, and the juries should have called me in, but they did not.
The Post & Email asked Fitzpatrick if he believes there is anyone else who could be approached with the information he tried to present to the federal grand juries, to which he responded:
Darren Huff has an eyewitness to his whereabouts all day long on April 20, 2010 who was not called to the stand in Darren’s defense. Darren was set up by his own defense attorney. I was there to testify on Darren’s behalf. Nobody who could have squared away this jury would have been able to convict Darren, because he was not physically ever at the place where the FBI said he committed a crime that day. If all we have is Bill Looman’s sworn statement, then we have all that we need to get Darren released. We have so much more.
How do we get this in front of a judge for January 30? That is a question I can’t answer.
In going back over this information, I’ve come up with this other fact that a federal judge, H. Bruce Guyton, obstructed Darren’s getting a fair hearing. He could have prevented all of this from happening to Darren then. That’s another dynamic here that the appeals judges need to know about: that a federal judge has committed a crime.
Darren has been locked up as a political prisoner as we’ve said before.
We have this battery of information; it’s a lot, and it’s powerful. We can prove that we knew enough back in the day to exonerate Darren and that we were physically obstructed by the FBI, the U.S. attorney’s office, and by a federal judge who was hearing Darren’s case at the time. That’s pretty big.
We have it in writing that anything I might send to Killian is going to be thrown away. So I tried to go to a state grand jury here about ten days ago to raise up the issue that way, and I was turned away again. You remember my telling you about waiting hours to get in and then having McMinn County grand jury foreman Jeff Cunningham be the one who blocked me from getting in when he’s named in the complaint.
It reminds me of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany…it’s the government that I was trained to fight against. It is the government that all military personnel are trained to fight against. When they taken an oath to the Constitution, this is the domestic enemy from within. We’re seeing it firsthand. I can’t make it any more plain to people that grand juries have been taken over by the government than to demonstrate to them what happened at the federal level which is the letter that says, “You can’t get in here by any means.” The fact that Bruce Guyton obstructed this and it has never come to the fore to correct the mistake; we’ve tried to get in front of Thomas Varlan to get me in front of a grand jury; Varlan hasn’t cooperated. And now you see where at the state level, the people are not able to critically think through what it is they’re supposed to be doing. Frankly, I don’t know that they know what they’re supposed to be doing. They see a guy like Cunningham and say, “Hey, Jeff, now what?”
That’s the problem we face. We need juries that we can depend upon to stand up and to take back our government. Look at all of the efforts that have been made to get this information in front of a grand jury, and to have done that would have completely cleared Darren a long time. It would have blocked Darren from ever being prosecuted in the first place. This is all being done with purposeful intent.
This information was provided to Scott Green, who did not defend Darren.
The judge who was hearing Darren’s case blocked me from coming in to talk to the grand jury about the case. Darren could have been exonerated. It was as if Guyton was preventing Darren from defending himself.
If all we had was Bill Looman’s eyewitness testimony about Darren’s physical presence that day and the fact that Darren was not armed in Madisvonville, TN, that should have been enough. Nobody who testified that Darren was there that day had to prove that he was there that day. It was all cops who said that, and they committed perjury. They also had Gary Pettway come in and commit perjury by representing himself as a “real grand jury foreman juror.”
Darren’s release is just the first of thousands of dominoes which start to fall when you take a look at the larger picture, and the federal government is doing everything it can do to block Darren from proving his innocence. The people who are involved in the obstruction involves the federal judge who was hearing Darren’s case at the time, who had a conflict of interest in Darren’s case and was ruling on the case after the submissions were sent by me to Guyton, who was involved in this all the way up until Darren’s trial.
Guyton could have let me in. Why didn’t he? Killian could have let me in, and he didn’t. It’s because they need this conviction to stand.
© 2013, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.
Article printed from The Post & Email: http://www.thepostemail.com
Darren’s case is presently and singularly the most important case in United States history (CLICK HERE)!
Saturday, 28 December 2013
10TH DISTRICT, BRADLEY COUNTY NEWS, CRIMINAL COURT JUDGE SEEKS TENNESSE 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICT CRIMINAL COURT JUDGE POSITION!
(JAG HUNTER note: Counselor Irion is running for the position presently held by Judge Amy F. Armstrong Reedy!)
Quoted from The Bradley County News ~ December 27, 2013 at 8:37 AM (LINK)
Van Irion seeks 10th Criminal Court Judge position
Van Irion has announced his intent to run for the 10th Criminal Court Judge position.
This is most welcome news to the many hopeful in the area that have waited for this announcement with much anticipation and have a great fondness for Van Irion, pronounced “ear ee on.”
I am most pleased to announce that Van Irion is running for Criminal Court Judge in the 10th which spans four counties, Bradley, Polk, McMinn and Monroe.
I have spent many hours with Van and his family and can safely say he is the real deal.
I have seen him in lows as well as highs and he has always remained focused, diligent and head strong to complete the task at hand.
I have shared the National stage with him marching from DC, to Atlanta and to Lubbock Texas as a Lead Plaintiff in a class action lawsuit aimed to stop the dreaded rollout of nationalized healthcare.
We have shed tears of joy and and have also traveled the eastern US hemisphere, much of the 10th District and the 3rd Congressional District in pursuit of our goals. Gone door to door with him to countless homes spreading the message. I call Van Irion a close friend and can tell you there are few finer than him.
I have vetted him and he is a man of great integrity, honor and trustworthiness. He will make a fine Judge representing the 10th Criminal Court Judge division, he will do so impartially and with integrity.
Tell your friends, light up the social airways with this news, VAN IRION for 10th Criminal Court Judge.
Share and then share some more and on election day, get out and pull the lever for Van Irion.
A word from Van Irion:
Do not be unjust in judging — show neither partiality to the poor nor deference to the mighty, but with justice judge your neighbor.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my candidacy for the position of Criminal Court Judge for Tennessee’s 10th District.
I am deeply committed to the rule of law. As an experienced attorney I have always maintained a commitment to fairness for all participants. As Criminal Court Judge I will uphold the Tennessee and United States Constitutions fairly and impartially, treating all participants in the court process with dignity and respect.
With your support, I hope to serve all of you as Criminal Court Judge for the Tenth Judicial District of Tennessee.
I respectfully ask for your support and for your vote. In the meantime, if you have any questions or want to get more involved please contact me.
Van Irions experience:
Van Irion is an experienced attorney, admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, the District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and all State Courts in Tennessee. He has also served as an Adjunct Professor at the University of Tennessee School of Law, Transactions Attorney for the University of Tennessee Research Foundation, and Lead Counsel and Founder of Liberty Legal Foundation.
Prior to becoming an attorney Mr. Irion was a Medical Researcher at the University of California School of Medicine and then founded a biotech company.
Mr. Irion served in the US Air Force as an Air Traffic Controller at USAF Little Rock Air Force Base then continued to serve his community as a volunteer Firefighter and Emergency Medical Technician.
• Federal and State Courts
As lead attorney Van has litigated jury trials and bench trials in both state and federal courts. Mr. Irion has litigated several cases to the United States Supreme Court. He has handled criminal and civil cases in Tennessee’s Family courts, Juvenile courts, Sessions courts, Circuit courts, Chancery courts, Criminal Court of Appeals and Civil Court of Appeals. He has also practiced before the Tennessee and Georgia State Supreme Courts, the 6th and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, and U.S. District Courts in Tennessee, Virginia, Texas, Arizona, and California. He has also handled arbitrations, mediations, bankruptcy challenges, and administrative court matters.
• Attorney for UT
For several years Van served as a transactions attorney for the University of Tennessee Research Foundation where he managed the University’s patent portfolio. Van drafted and executed intellectual property licensing agreements and negotiated multi-million dollar contracts for the University.
• Law Professor
Van taught the next generation of lawyers while serving as an Adjunct Professor at the University of Tennessee School of Law.
• Former Medical Researcher
Prior to becoming an attorney, Mr. Irion worked in the genetics and medical research fields both in the public and private sectors, including the University of California School of Medicine and University of Tennessee Research Foundation. He has co-authored several peer reviewed scientific research articles. (listed below).
• U.S. Military Veteran
Mr. Irion is proud to have served in the US Air Force as an Air Traffic Controller at the USAF, Little Rock Air Force Base.
• Volunteer Firefighter and EMT
For several years Mr. Irion served as a volunteer Firefighter and licensed Emergency Medical Technician (EMT).
• Former Congressional Candidate
In 2010 Van ran for Congress in the Republican primary for Tennessee’s 3rd Congressional District. During his campaign, Van was endorsed by Congressman Ron Paul. He was also endorsed by speech writers and other staff of the Reagan White House.
• Lead Counsel and Founder
For three years Van served as the Lead Counsel and Founder of Liberty Legal Foundation. The mission of Liberty Legal Foundation was to strengthen Constitutional protections against governmental abuses by challenging federal court precedents that had diminished the original intent of our Founding Fathers.
University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, Sacramento, CA
Juris Doctor, With Distinction, May 2005
Law Journal: The Transnational Lawyer
Dean’s Scholarship Recipient, 2002-2005
Dean’s Honor Roll, 2003, 2004 & 2005
Academic Achievement Award, 2004
Witkin Award – Top Class Ranking, Contracts, 2003
Witkin Award – Top Class Ranking, Biology, Law & Human Behavior, 2005
Witkin Award – Top Class Ranking, Community Property, 2005
Mock Trial Competition Finalist, 2003
University of California, Davis, California
Bachelor of Science, Biochemistry, 1995
State Bar of Tennessee
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee
U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
State Bar of Tennessee
Knoxville Bar Association
Selected Scientific Research Publications Authored or Co-
Authored by Mr. Irion
• Non-viral gene delivery to the ventricles in rat brain: Initial evidence for distribution and expression in the CNS; Hecker JG, Hall LL, Irion VR.; Mol Ther. 2001 Mar;3(3):375-84.
• Advances in self-limited gene expression of protective intracellular proteins in-vivo in rat brain; Irion VR, Hecker JG; Anesthesia & Analgesia, 1998:86.
• Self-limited gene expression in vitro in neuronal cell cultures and in vivo in rat brain using mRNA/cationic lipid complexes; Irion VR, Hecker JG; Anesthesia & Analgesia, 1997:84.
• The fidelity of human telomerase; Kreiter M, Irion V, Ward J, Morin G.; Nucleic Acids Symp Ser. 1995;(33):137-9.
• The effect of carrier RNA on transfection efficiency; Third Annual Artificial Self-Assembling Systems For Gene Delivery Conference, November 1996.
• Hsp70 and Reporter Enzyme Expression in Rat Brain after Non-viral Delivery of mRNA and DNA to Lateral Ventricles; Hecker JG, Hall LL, Irion VR.; Society for Neuroscience Meeting, New Orleans, November, 2000.
• mRNA cationic lipid transfected expression of firefly luciferase in mammalian cells is enhanced by addition of tRNA; Giles J, Irion VR, Hecker JG; Western Anesthesia Residents Conference, Seattle, WA, April 17, 1999.
• Effect of cationic lipid ratio and carrier RNA on transfection efficiency; 3rd Annual Artificial Self-Assembling Systems for Gene Delivery Conference; Irion VR, Hecker JG; Cambridge Healthtech Institute, Newton Upper Falls, MA. November 17-18, 1996.
• Effects of electromagnetic fields on gene expression; Irion VR, Irion DN; Golden State Venture Capital Conference & Entrepreneur Expo, San Rafael, April 23-24, 2001.
Get out the vote!
Vote for Van Irion!!!
Friday, 27 December 2013
GENERAL QUARTERS! GENERAL QUARTERS! ALL HANDS MAN YOUR BATTLE STATIONS! THIS IS NOT A DRILL!
I just learned that oral arguments in Darren Wesley Huff’s case are to be heard before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Thursday, 30 January 2014: CASE # 125581 ~ United States v. Darren Wesley Huff. The Courthouse for Darren’s hearing is located in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Darren’s case is presently and singularly the most important case in United States history (CLICK HERE)!
I’m reaching out in an effort to find an attorney who can intervene and intercede on Darren’s cause. The stakes here are epic in that Darren’s case stands to set precedent giving license to future and fruitful federal “thought crime” arrests and prosecutions (CLICK HERE).
I’M CALLING OUR FOR SOMEONE WHO CAN SUCCEED IN GETTING SOME OR ALL OF THE INFORMATION REPEATED BELOW AND AVAILABLE ON DEMAND TO THE BENCH OF THE U.S. SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN CINCINNATI ON OR BEFORE THURSDAY, 30 JANUARY 2014.
ARGUMENTS COMMENCE AT 0900 HOURS (local ~ CST). THE ARGUMENT HEARING IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
(Note: Why Cincinnati, Ohio? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th federal district, located in Cincinnati, Ohio, is responsible for appellate review of cases emanating out of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. Darren’s federal trial ran from 18 – 25 October 2011 in Knoxville, Tennessee ~ Judge Thomas A. Varlan presiding)
The appellate “REVIEW” is very narrowly restricted as it was explained to me yesterday afternoon. The court will not hear any newly discovered evidence. The court will only consider Darren’s Record of Trial and briefs that were filed afterwards (more about those filings below).
As things stand, the court will not entertain, for instance, former Sergeant of Marines William Looman’s sworn eye-witness account statement attesting to Darren’s physical presence on 20 April 2010. The court will not hear Sgt. Looman’s first hand, sworn factual statement that Darren was unarmed.
The court will not entertain proof of perjury as it relates to the testimony of 10th Judicial District Attorney Robert Steven Bebb, the perjury of any of Bebb’s subordinates, or the perjury of Mr. Gary Pettway who testified against Darren as a prosecution witness on behalf of Tennessee State and the federal government representing himself under oath as a “juror” and foreman of the Monroe County Tennessee grand jury.
The court will not hear of any of the uncounted attempts to bring the criminal adventures of Tennessee State and federal officials in their conspiracy against Darren to the attention of both state and federal grand juries such as the MADISONVILLE HOAX or the murder of JIM MILLER. The court will not hear or read about any of the unceasing, relentless and continuing reports to state and federal law enforcement.
The court will not learn of Tennessee State Assistant Attorney General Kyle Hixson’s 20 September 2013 state filing and and statement against self-interest admitting that grand jury foremen in Tennessee State are not jurors! Had this information been disclosed in 2009 or 2010 Navy Veteran Darren Wesley Huff would not be wasting away in a Texarkana, Texas federal prison during this Christmas season! Nor would have Gary Pettway been passed off as a “real juror” back during Darren’s October 2011 federal hearing.
It’s confirmed that Counselor Gerald Gulley is Darren’s attorney of record. So you better believe the court will not hear of any of Gulley’s obstructions injuring Darren’s case or of the criminal conduct of Darren’s trial attorney, G. Scott Green.
I’m told the court will not hear anything about witnesses who were prepared to testify on Darren’s behalf as to the best of their knowledge during trial in Knoxville, TN between 18 – 25 October 2011, and who G. Scott Green turned away.
The court further will not consider any information as far as is known today regarding connections between Darren’s rigged federal trial, the interference’s and involvements of members of William Bryan’s FOGBOW gang, or about the MADISONVILLE HOAX, or about connections to the Saturday night, 17 July 2010 mob-style murder of JIM MILLER!
MRS. SHARON RONDEAU, OWNER ~ EDITOR OF THE POST & EMAIL ONLINE NEWSPAPER HAS AGGRESSIVELY PUT OUT INFORMATION AND REPORTS REGARDING NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE AND OTHER DISCOVERIES IN DARREN’S CASE FOR YEARS. AND AS MUCH IS REPORTED ON THESE JAG HUNTER PAGES!
The case manager for Darren’s case is Mr. Brian Crutcher. I spoke with a member of Mr. Crutcher’s case management team late yesterday afternoon.
Information I pass out here is preliminary based upon yesterday’s telephone exchange. It’s also the product of Mr. Huff’s plea for help which also came in over the transom just hours ago.
I’m told Gulley filed a brief on Darren’s behalf on 17 May 2012. The federal government filed a response thereafter.
Copies of these filings may be available off of PACER.
I’ve not seen the briefs. Nor do I know anyone who has.
Gerald Gulley’s Knoxville office closed down last Monday afternoon. It won’t reopen until Monday, 6 January 2014 according to the phone message currently playing (865.934.0754). No email address is available.
EMAIL CONTACT INFORMATION
Editor Sharon Rondeau: firstname.lastname@example.org
The JAG HUNTER: email@example.com
Either Sharon or I can give vectors after initial contact with first responders.
Here endth the lesson!
Thursday, 26 December 2013
Exclusive: Tennessee Tenth Judicial District Public Defender Speaks with The Post & Email
“A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MAKE BOND”
(Dec. 24, 2013) — On Monday, Tenth Judicial District Senior Public Defender Richard Hughes contacted The Post & Email regarding George Raudenbush, whose convictions and subsequent incarceration have been reported in detail previously.
Raudenbush was denied his constitutional right to defense counsel by Judge Carroll Lee Ross, who announced this past August that he would retire in August 2014 just before Raudenbush advised The Post & Email in a letter that the convictions were in the process of being reversed.
An opinion by an appeals court judge, Thomas M. Tipton, affirms Raudenbush’s statements.
Hughes explained that Tipton set the bond for Raudenbush at $25,000 but that Hughes was able to argue successfully that it be reduced to $10,000, 10% of which would be required to effect Raudenbush’s release pending the new trial. Hughes added that at times, a bondsman will accept something less than 10%.
On Friday evening, Hughes asked that “family and friends” of Raudenbush consider raising the bond amount if they are able so that Raudenbush could be released from prison before Christmas. During our interview, The Post & Email told Hughes that a reader had offered to donate $100 toward the $1,000 needed, after which Hughes explained that on Monday, he spoke with the Tennessee Department of Corrections, which informed him that a “mandate” authorizing Raudenbush’s release had not yet been received.
“He has the constitutional right to make bond,” Hughes said.
When The Post & Email asked Atty. Hughes to explain how the convictions were reversed, he told us:
The trial court had appointed the public defender to represent George. He had filed for post-conviction relief from his conviction and sentence, and Judge Ross had appointed my office to represent him on appeal, which is called a late appeal because George didn’t know to file a timely appeal because he’s not an attorney. I got personally involved and did the appellate brief myself. The basis for the appeal was the violation of George’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. He did have a right to appointed counsel, and Judge Ross violated that by not appointing an attorney at trial or even during the sentencing phase of his case.
There is case law where a person can forfeit his right to counsel, and it requires pretty extreme conduct on the part of the defendant. There are a whole lot of cases where the court has ruled that a person has forfeited his right to a lawyer by his actions, but the conduct has to be pretty egregious. There are cases where the defendant will not work with his attorney, sometimes even make threats to the attorney, won’t listen to their advice, refuse to meet with them, and then there are cases where that attorney will be relieved and another lawyer appointed, and then the same thing happens and the court ruled that the defendant is trying to delay justice in his case to avoid being tried by not cooperating with counsel. In those cases, the court can rule that you’ve forfeited your right to a lawyer by your words and actions.
Tipton, in the majority opinion, said that nothing that George did rose to the level where he had forfeited his right to an attorney, so Judge Ross violated his right to counsel. Basically, the judge should have made a decision as to whether or not George was indigent. There was never a hearing- I’ve been a public defender a long time, and my understanding is that when a person requests it, the judge has to have a hearing to determine indigence. Because of George’s religious views, he refused to swear an oath as to the information contained in the affidavit of indigence when he applied for the public defender. Judge Ross said that because he wouldn’t swear to it, he wouldn’t consider it.
The Post & Email said, “But you can affirm, can’t you?” to which Hughes answered, “You can affirm.”
The court of appeals said that that was not sufficient – that because he didn’t want to swear to the information enclosed in no way forfeited his right to counsel. The way I understand the posture of George’s case, he has to come back to Monroe County once the mandate is in; he’ll return to the county jail; he’ll appear back before the trial court, and my office would have to be appointed. There would still have to be again the determination that George is indigent for an appointment of counsel. So right now, this minute, I don’t represent George Raudenbush for the new trial on those charges. I represented him on the appeal; we won; so right now, he’s back where he was before he was ever tried. He doesn’t have a public defender; he obviously can apply for a public defender, and I would imagine that things will be a little different. If he qualifies, my office will be appointed and George can have a trial.
I know he doesn’t want to be tried again; he doesn’t think he should be tried again. But the state can try him. They did not vacate, although there are situations where they vacate and the judge may order that the case is over. Here, the judge reversed the convictions and remanded the case back to the trial court.
I would think George would be back before Judge Ross, and I would think that with what he has gone through, either the public defender or the counsel of his choice will be making a motion to remove Judge Ross from hearing the case a second time. I haven’t really thought through all of that, but I’m sure, based on the letters I have received from George, that would be one of his first requests.
“Would Judge Ross have any reason to refuse to recuse himself?”
Judge Ross can say, “I’m not going to recuse myself. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction; I respect the Court of Appeals; whether I agree or do not agree with them, they’ve acted, and I have to honor the decision they’ve made, but there’s no basis for me to step aside.” Or Judge Ross may decide, in the interest of justice based on what happened, from the perspective of George Raudenbush, that he should recuse himself. There are situations where the judge is supposed to look at the case from the perspective of the defendant and whether or not the defendant thinks he can get a fair trial. The judge in his own mind might say, “Well, of course I can be fair; there’s not the appearance of impropriety and I’ve done nothing inappropriate.” but he will recuse himself just as a precaution and say, “From the standpoint of the defendant, I understand that he may feel that the court can’t be fair, and I’m going to step aside.”
“It would certainly remove any doubts about Judge Ross’s intentions or feelings about the case. He recused himself from one of CDR Fitzpatrick’s cases.”
The Post & Email then asked, “Are you able to speak at all to any corruption going on in the Monroe County criminal court or any of the Tenth Judicial District courts?
I know what you know, which is there has been a TBI investigation of the district attorney’s office, and the TBI released a report which I have not seen. I’m not authorized to review that, but my understanding is that they’ve reached a determination that there was no crime committed. There was a five-part series in The Chattanooga Times Free Press in which Judy Walton on the district attorney’s office and Drug Task Force. TBI decided that there was no crime committed, but there’s still the open question as to whether or not there was any unethical conduct.
“Members of the both the Tennessee General Assembly’s House and Senate Judicial Committees are trying to remove Bebb from office.”
Yes, the first of the year, there’s a committee formed to determine whether or not to proceed with an ouster of the district attorney general. When the General Assembly of Tennessee goes back into session in January, that committee is formed to make a determination. Obviously, I don’t know when that decision will be made or what the outcome will be, but I would imagine it will be made pretty quickly as to whether or not they are going to proceed. My understanding is that that committee has had the chance to review the entire TBI investigative file. All I know is what I’ve read, although I’m aware of certain things that have occurred. Most of what I know is based on what was reported in The Chattanooga Times.
I know Mr. Fitzpatrick feels passionately that the grand jury system in east Tennessee is unethical. I don’t know. Some states don’t have a grand jury system to charge people.
“There are no grand juries here in Connecticut, where they were legislated away in 1983.”
I don’t know…they say that the grand jury is a buffer between the powers of the state, the district attorney and law enforcement; and other people say, “It’s just a rubber stamp for the district attorney’s office.” I know there are differences of opinion on the necessity of a grand jury system. I know Walt feels as if there’s wrongdoing in the grand jury, unethical conduct…To be honest with you, I haven’t really followed that issue. I know what happened to Walter; I remember the charges, and I know he went through a trial. I know it’s on appeal. I talked to him and had a good conversation last week. I know he feels strongly that the system that’s in effect in east Tennessee and in Monroe County is illegal, a violation of the law. I know he feels strongly about that. Obviously, there’s no case law at the present time to support that. I don’t know how often that issue has been litigated.
The Post & Email then shared some of the experiences and research carried out by both Fitzpatrick and The Post & Email on Tennessee codes governing jury selection, including the District Attorneys General Conference website which says that a grand jury consists of 13 members of the community chosen randomly, from which the foreman is then chosen. In Tennessee, judges have been choosing their own foreman and hiring him or her as a court employee by an unknown vetting process.
The Post & Email then extended an offer to set up a complimentary account for Atty. Hughes and invited him to read and refute any of our contentions either on or off the record, which Hughes accepted.
Regarding the bond for Raudenbush, Hughes said that he could not handle the money himself. “A concerned friend or family member would have to be the one to collect and handle that,” he said. He affirmed that until the written mandate is received by the Department of Corrections, Raudenbush could not be released even to a county jail. “That mandate must be received before he can post bond,” Hughes said.
The Post & Email asked Hughes what his motivation was to put out the word about Raudenbush’s bond beginning on Friday evening given that he is technically not yet retained to handle the case, to which he responded:
I’ve been a public defender ever since I’ve been an attorney. Since 1989, I’ve been in this office. I feel strongly in the right to counsel. I feel that I have a good office. I certainly support my office and public defenders throughout the country. It’s a tough job, it’s an important job, and it’s important to the administration of justice. The Court of Appeals said that George’s right to counsel was violated, that he should have had an attorney through all proceedings that occurred in his case. I don’t know George. We’ve corresponded by letter; I know he’d like to see me in person. But I feel that based on what’s heard and the fact that the determination has been reversed, I would like to see him make bond. He’s been in custody for two years; the Court of Appeals says it was an erroneous conviction, and I would hate to see him in jail for many more months when his case has been set aside.
It’s not every day you get a conviction reversed. It’s very difficult, in my estimation. I’ve appealed quite a few cases, and the large majority of convictions are affirmed on appeal, so when you have a reversal, it catches your attention, and certainly, anybody in George’s situation in which his convictions are reversed, I’d like for him to have the opportunity to be able to make bond. He has a constitutional right to make bond, and that’s why I filed the motion.
Saturday, 21 December 2013
- The Post & Email - http://www.thepostemail.com -
Tennessee Grand Juries Co-Opted by Government, Operating Illegally
Posted By Sharon Rondeau On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 @ 8:39 AM In National |
“THIS GOVERNMENT IS COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL”
by Sharon Rondeau
(Dec. 18, 2013) — On Tuesday, CDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III (Ret.) went to the McMinn County, TN courthouse to submit a criminal complaint naming the grand jury foreman, court clerk, three Tenth Judicial District prosecutors and two criminal court judges as “illegally, individually and judicially selecting installing [sic] people into the grand juries,” thereby wielding undue influence in order to obtain specific outcomes.
Rhonda Cooley is the elected Circuit Court Clerk for McMinn County, and Atty. Jeffrey Cunningham, who is also a local bank official, is the appointed grand jury foreman.
Fitzpatrick had wished to explain to the grand jury that while the state attorney general’s office claims that the foreman is not a juror, but rather, a county employee, state law requires that the foreman must be a juror. Criminal court rules posted on the website of the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts state that “the foreperson shall possess all the qualifications of a juror.”
TCA 40-12-206 mandates that juries comprise 13 jurors and as many as five alternates. There is no mention in state code of a “foreman” who is injected into the grand jury or trial jury by the action of a judge, although the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts maintains that that process is legal. Local media have reported that “the foreperson is appointed by the judge and doesn’t necessarily have to come from the jury pool.”
the foreperson is appointed by the judge and doesn’t necessarily have to come from the jury pool. – See more at: http://advocateanddemocrat.com/story/21576#sthash.XqNwo0ZV.dpuf
Although the criminal courts in Tennessee have contorted the laws and court rules to allow the judges to choose the grand jury foreman, who often serves for years or decades at the judge’s behest, the District Attorneys General Conference has officially stated that the foreman is to be chosen from among 13 eligible citizens of the county who are selected by automated means.
Earlier this year, the Tennessee Attorney General declined to criminally prosecute District Attorney General R. Steven Bebb, who is named in Fitzpatrick’s current and previous complaints, after allegedly performing an investigation following extensive reportage at The Post & Email and The Chattanooga Times Free Press of Bebb’s alleged misconduct and criminal activity. The legislature, however, has taken action in an apparent attempt to remove Bebb from his post.
The Tennessee Supreme Court issued an opinion contending that a district attorney general “is answerable to no superior and has virtually unbridled discretion in determining whether to prosecute and for what offense.” Historically, the Tennessee General Assembly and the judiciary have acted at odds with and in contradiction to one another. The original 1796 Tennessee constitution contained no judicial branch, although the legislature later created one. Current General Assembly members are aware of the corruption within the grand juries and criminal courts.
Fitzpatrick’s four-page criminal complaint, dated December 16, 2013, can be read in its entirety here: 17DEC2013 GJCRIMCOM
Monroe County, TN has misrepresented the grand jury foreman as a juror and based criminal charges against Fitzpatrick and Darren Wesley Huff upon that false statement. On June 3, 2010, then-grand jury foreman Gary Pettway was described as “a juror” in indictments issued against both men signed by Angela Davis, who acted as foreperson for that day. Davis was herself serving illegally in a second consecutive term as a juror in violation of TCA 22-2-314.
On Tuesday and three previous occasions on which Fitzpatrick attempted to present criminal evidence to the McMinn County grand jury, the foreman, Jeffrey Cunningham, refused to recuse himself despite his having been named in the respective complaints. Instead, Cunningham brought the complaint in to the members of the grand jury and presided over them, then conveyed their “conclusion” to Fitzpatrick, as he did on Tuesday.
“This government is completely out of control,” Fitzpatrick said. “The grand jury is being controlled by the judges who appoint the foreman. Cunningham should not have been in the room today. He should have said, ‘I’m named in this complaint; I’m going to step outside and give it to Jack or Sally or whoever…You guys decide for yourselves…’ It’s astounding how serious this is; it’s breathtaking.
“Today was a special day because the report that I was bringing to them wasn’t my report; it was the report of the Attorney General‘s office for the State of Tennessee. They had a decision to make. I have very clearly demonstrated to them that Mr. Cunningham is not a juror, and they refused to look into this. The government is controlling the grand juries, and you cannot bring a complaint against the government because of people like Jeff Cunningham. It’s not just the foreman; it’s all of them. This grand jury is not protecting the people of the county,” Fitzpatrick said.
After Cunningham re-emerged from the grand jury room, which is also the office of U.S. Congressman Chuck Fleischmann, he informed Fitzpatrick that the grand jurors would not take action on his complaint and had asked that a deputy escort Fitzpatrick out of the building.
On December 7, 2011, Fitzpatrick observed Judge Amy Armstrong Reedy, who is named in the complaint submitted on Tuesday, peruse slips of paper containing the names of prospective jurors and choosing those she wanted, a fact which was presented to the appeals court on November 20 by Fitzpatrick’s attorney, Van Irion, who is defending him against the charge of “tampering with government records.”
One of the three appeals court judges appeared incredulous when Irion stated that Fitzpatrick had witnessed Reedy hand-picking jurors in open court. Fitzpatrick describes what Reedy did as “one example of how the system is vulnerable to human agency; picking your grand jury by pre-selecting them and knowing exactly what you’re going to get.”
The Tennessee constitution requires that evidence of a criminal nature be presented to a grand jury before a presentment against the person initiating a charge can be issued.
“This was historic. This grand jury in east Tennessee was shown unarguable, unassailable, unquestionable evidence that their foreman is not a juror, and they walked away from it, refusing to give their names. This is the kind of thing that would go into the history books when they used to be reliable.”
Tennessee state law requires that 13 people comprise a grand jury, but only 12 members routinely serve on a grand jury. Since the foreman is not a juror, but rather, represents the interests of the state, no grand jury in Tennessee can be operating impartially as is required by the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
“This is the control that the government exercises over our jury system now. The jury system is completely unreliable and taken over. We don’t have any better example of that than what happened today. This is extraordinary. The person who was criminally accused, their buddy, the guy they’ve worked with all year, was standing in the room with them. The conflict here is just overwhelming,” Fitzpatrick told us.
Fitzpatrick has presented evidence to the local FBI in Knoxville as well as the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI), both of which have chosen not to act.
When The Post & Email asked Fitzpatrick if he believed that the grand jurors did not want to know the facts about their proper function and that of the foreman, he responded, “It’s not that they don’t want to know; it’s that they have been told not to act. ‘Do not do anything at all. You’ve been picked for a special purpose; you are not to act against the government. Cunningham is your foreman; that’s that; live with it. If you don’t like it, leave, and we’ll get somebody else.’”
At 6:35 in the following recording, Cunningham states that he was serving as the foreman on Tuesday, despite having been named in the criminal complaint: 17 DEC 2013 FIRST CONTACT WITH CUNNINGHAM
Fitzpatrick said that the inaction of the grand jury on Tuesday “washes over every grand jury that’s had a court-appointed foreman for the last unknown number of decades. There was no more clear a case than the one that walked in the door today, and they said, ‘We’re not interested.’”
Cunningham did not make copies of the complaint for the grand jurors, but rather, “read it to them” while he stood in the room, where Fitzpatrick was not allowed to enter. Cunningham also told Fitzpatrick that he “did not appreciate” that Fitzpatrick had accused him of “blocking” criminal complaints from reaching the grand jury. “His physical presence is an influence; it cannot be argued,” Fitzpatrick said. “He’s the one who broke the seal on the package, even though it said, ‘Do not open unless you are a grand juror.’ He knew that he was named in the complaint, and he should have said at that point in time, ‘I’m sorry, but I know I can’t be in the room.’”
“This is exactly the function that these foremen have been serving for decades throughout the entire state of Tennessee. This is the reason that the judicial system is so highly successful in bringing in the amounts of money that they have been generating and sending people to jails and prisons for untold years.”
Cunningham did not return Fitzpatrick’s complaint or provide him with a signed statement from the grand jurors. 17 Dec 2013 PET 0838
Cunningham told Fitzpatrick that he “had made that mistake once and wasn’t going to make it again” when he provided Fitzpatrick a copy of the grand jury’s decision not to review his complaint containing their signatures. Tuesday’s “decision” was said to be “unanimous.”
At slightly past halfway in the following recording, Cunningham refused to return Fitzpatrick’s paperwork and contended that Fitzpatrick’s claims against him were “absolutely false.” Cunningham then said that “the grand jury would like for him to leave” and asked a deputy sheriff and chaplain to escort Fitzpatrick out of the building.
© 2013, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.
Article printed from The Post & Email: http://www.thepostemail.com
Blockbuster Exclusive: State of Tennessee: Grand Jury Foremen Are Not Jurors! by Post & Email’s Sharon Rondeau!
Tuesday, 26 November 2013
READ THE FULL REPORT AT- The Post & Email - http://www.thepostemail.com -
Blockbuster Exclusive: State of Tennessee: Grand Jury Foremen Are Not Jurors!
Posted By Sharon Rondeau On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 @ 10:04 AM
IN CONTRADICTION OF STATE LAW
by Sharon Rondeau
The office of the Tennessee Attorney General and Reporter claims that the grand jury foreman is a state employee, not a juror empaneled by state statutes
(Nov. 26, 2013) — The Post & Email can exclusively report that the Tennessee state attorney general’s office has stated on the record that the “foreperson” of all grand juries in Tennessee is IS NOT A JUROR as Tennessee state statutes require.
In December of last year, CDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III was convicted in the Monroe County, TN Criminal Court of “tampering with government records,” with Judge Walter C. Kurtz presiding.
Defense Attorney Van Irion submitted an appeal in the case of State of Tennessee v. Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, IIIprotesting CDR Fitzpatrick’s innocence. One of Irion’s points was that the grand jury foreman had over-served her legal term of one year. Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA) states that following their service on any jury in the state, jurors cannot be resummoned for a minimum of 24 months.
This past September, in his official capacity as Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Justice Division, Kyle Hixson responded to the Fitzpatrick appeal, writing a brief on the state’s behalf of which The Post & Email first came into possession last Thursday afternoon.
At the bottom of page 13 of his brief, Assistant Attorney General Hixson wrote:
“…the foreman of the grand jury is not ‘impaneled’ from the ‘summoned’ members of the ‘jury pool.’ See Tenn Code Ann. §§ 22-2-306, -307, and -310. The foreperson is ‘appoint[ed]’ by the trial court. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 6(g)(1). As such, section 314, by its terms, does not apply to the appointment process of the grand jury foreperson.”
The state’s entire argument can be read here: HIXSON BRIEF
Section 314 reads as follows:
“22-2-314. Limitation on jury service.
“A juror who has completed a jury service term shall not be summoned to serve another jury service term in any court of this state for a period of twenty-four (24) months following the last day of such service; however, the county legislative body of any county, may, by majority vote, extend the twenty-four-month period.”
Hixson clearly reports that grand jury forepersons do not come from the “jury pool,” are never “summoned” to jury duty, are never “impaneled” as a jurors, and never subject to state laws which deal with jurors and jury duty. Simply stated, Hixson affirms on behalf of the State of Tennessee that grand jury forepersons are never jurors.
However, Tennessee state law commands exactly the opposite: Tennessee statutes say that grand jury forepersons must always be jurors.
Tennessee state law, as tailored and refined by the Rules for Criminal Procedure, require that thirteen (13) jurors (or members) populate all state grand juries.
Hixson has now said, in clear terms in a statement against the state’s self-interest, that criminal court judges add a non-juror to the grand jury by their selection of the foreman. The 12 jurors plus one non-juror combination consequently leaves Tennessee grand juries one short of the lawfully-mandated requirement of thirteen (13) jurors. This has been and remains the case for decades.
Tennessee state law requires that all state residents, in the process of becoming jurors, must initially be randomly selected into the jury pool. From that pool, a smaller number of individuals are randomly selected to be issued summonses to report to the courtroom on a particular day, at which time jurors for the grand jury and trial juries are selected in but a third process of random selection.
In each of these three random selection rounds, the process used must be one that does not allow for the possibility of “human intervention.”
The Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference describes the grand jury as:
…a group of thirteen citizens chosen from the jury panel. One of these thirteen is the fore person and will preside over the grand jury.
Assistant Attorney General Hixson now reports that criminal court judges have always been permitted to install a handpicked non-juror foreman, that is, to “appoint” the foreman from, as Monroe County Court Clerk Martha M. “Marty” Cook has said, “from wherever they choose“ because the state laws that apply to jurors do not apply to non-jurors.
As readers of The Post & Email are already aware, Fitzpatrick’s challenges to the scope and operation of Tennessee grand juries arose upon his discovery in 2010 that the Monroe County Tennessee de facto grand jury foreman, Gary Pettway, had held that position since 1982, a period of twenty-eight (28) consecutive years. Moreover, there was no appointing order or evidence that Pettway had ever been duly sworn in.
Fitzpatrick placed Pettway under citizen’s arrest in April 2010. State law enforcement officials ignored Fitzpatrick’s complaint and arrested Fitzpatrick instead. The Monroe County grand jury then indicted Fitzpatrick for attempting to intimidate a juror, Gary Pettway.
Fitzpatrick has demonstrated that the grand juries and trial juries in Tennessee are unduly influenced by prosecutors, grand jury foremen, and court personnel and contaminated by jurors serving consecutive terms in violation of state law (TCA 22-2-314). In one case in Davidson County, a grand jury foreman chosen by a judge was discovered to be a convicted felon, which violates Tennessee statute and required the review of approximately 800 cases over which the illegally-serving foreman had presided.
Grand jury foremen in Monroe County are reportedly “picked from wherever” the judge “chooses” by means of an unknown vetting process. Throughout Tennessee, grand jury foremen have served for decades or multiple times with occasional breaks in service.
Tennessee Code Annotated provides no special selection process for the grand jury foreman.
Grand jury tampering and judicial misconduct have been reported to The Post & Email in Campbell County, Roane County, Sevier County, and Madison County. Crimes against District Attorney General R. Steven Bebb of the Tenth Judicial District have been alleged but dismissed by Tennessee Attorney General Robert E. Cooper, Jr., although members of the Tennessee General Assembly are working to remove Bebb from his post.
Now, for the first time ever, Kyle Hixson explains that (1) Gary Pettway was never a juror, resulting in (2) the law limiting jury service does not apply to grand jury forepersons such as Pettway, and (3) judicially “appointed” Tennessee residents are allowed to serve in a career position as a county employee called the “grand jury foreman.”
Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA) 40-12-206 is the only state statute which details the composition of every Tennessee state grand jury. The law commands that all grand juries be populated with thirteen (13) jurors (members) and up to five (5) alternates. The law does not provide for the judicial appointment of a “foreman” into a Tennessee grand jury.
The same law makes no distinction among the jurors (members). There is no distinction or separate-identity, non-juror “foreman.”
The process by which all jurors are to be selected is described as (1) Randomly populate the “jury pool,” (2) Randomly select potential jurors from the “jury pool,” (3) “Summon” the potential jurors to court for random selection into the grand and trial (petit) jurors for identified term dates, and (4) “Impanel” the grand juries and trial jurors.
Hixson, representing the state of Tennessee, publicly declared in his September 2013 appeals brief that, in Tennessee, grand jury foremen are not jurors.
Restating the state’s now first-time ever publicly pronounced policy position more clearly:
The grand jury foreman is not a juror.
A criminal court trial judge individually and personally selects, then specifically delegates (appoints, employs) grand jury foremen in Tennessee state.
The grand jury foreman does not come from a randomly-selected jury pool.
The grand jury foreman is not summoned to a courtroom to participate in the process of jury impaneling.
Tennessee state statutes that apply to jurors and jury duty do not apply to the grand jury foreman who is, rather, a paid Tennessee state employee.
Judicial appointment of a grand jury foreman who is a “non-juror, as Hixson described the office and process, is illegal under the Tennessee statutes.
The Post & Email asks if the State of Tennessee is committing the same crime as that which the U.S. Navy continues to perpetrate after more than 23 years in which an honest person is sacrificed and condemned for the sake of preserving a criminal enterprise in which a judge’s personal appointee masquerades as a member of the grand jury, unduly influencing that body and often casting the decisive vote to indict.
Editor’s Note: More articles on Tennessee grand jury foremen and the law will be forthcoming in the near future.
© 2013, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.
Article printed from The Post & Email: http://www.thepostemail.com
URL to article: http://www.thepostemail.com/2013/11/26/blockbuster-exclusive-state-of-tennessee-grand-jury-foremen-are-not-jurors/
Thursday, 3 October 2013
Fitzpatrick Court-Martial: Crime and Punishment of the Innocent
PEOPLE IN “POWERFUL” POSITIONS CHOSE COVER-UP RATHER THAN CONFRONTATION
Rep. Norman Dicks retired from the U.S. House of Representatives in 2012 after serving since 1976
(Sep. 30, 2013) — In April 1990, a sham court-martial was held charging CDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III with dereliction of duty for mishandling Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) funds on the USS Mars, on which he had served as Executive Officer. The alleged crime was fabricated, the adjudication panel rigged, and the outcome predetermined. In July of that year, a document titled “Response to Letter of Reprimand” which Fitzpatrick had never seen was filed with the court-martial record with his forged signature affixed to it.
After obtaining parts of the court-martial record piecemeal as a result of filing Freedom of Information Act requests, Fitzpatrick registered numerous criminal complaints with the U.S. Navy and Department of Defense alerting them to the forgery. He also cited Bitoff for his undue command influence in carrying out the court-martial instead of handing it to an impartial officer, as is required by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
This year, undue command influence has been claimed by USMC Maj. James Weirick against Commandant James Amos for his conduct regarding eight Marines accused of abusing Taliban corpses, and Weirick now faces evaluations and possible expulsion from the Marines. Weirick considers himself a whistleblower, which federal law states will be protected from retaliation for contacting members of Congress or law enforcement to report a crime.
In September 1997, turning his anger against Fitzpatrick, then-Navy Judge Advocate General John Hutson agreed to open a criminal investigation in an attempt to prove that Fitzpatrick was lying about his claim of forgery. On December 4, 1997, the entire court-martial file was located, and NCIS Special Agent Richard Allen subsequently matched the paper, font and ink used to create the forgery with documents signed by Capt. Kevin M. Anderson, Fitzpatrick’s former defense counsel.
Anderson was approached by the NCIS in early 1998 and told investigators that he did not know the origin of the fraudulent document. Five years later, however, he told a Port Orchard Police Department detective that he produced the document but did not admit to signing it.
Fitzpatrick did not discover Anderson’s police report until more than a year later, at which time he brought the evidence to the NCIS in Silverdale. Instead of reopening or launching a new investigation, the NCIS falsely told Fitzpatrick that his allegations could not be pursued because of the years which had elapsed and ultimately threatened his life if he were to continue to expose what he knew in order to seek justice.
Fitzpatrick was residing in the Port Orchard area after his honorable discharge from the Navy on September 30, 1994. For nearly a decade, Rep. Norman Dicks, who represented the Sixth District of Washington in the U.S. Congress, had assisted Fitzpatrick in obtaining documentation from his court-martial. Sen. Patty Murray also made requests on Fitzpatrick’s behalf, including a memo written by Lt. Tim Zeller which showed clear collusion between Zeller and Adm. John Bitoff.
The UCMJ states that an accuser cannot also convene the court-martial, but Bitoff disregarded the rules and played both roles, using his own staff to steer the outcome and create the false documentation. In a letter to Dicks in 1999, Bitoff attempted to appear surprised and concerned at Fitzpatrick’s claim of a forgery having been placed in his file. At the same time, Bitoff admitted that he “brought the charges and convened the court-martial.”
In 2003, Rep. Dicks’s office suddenly became hostile and evasive toward Fitzpatrick without explanation. Fitzpatrick attributes the sudden change in demeanor to the revelation in 2003 that Anderson created and signed the fraudulent court-martial document in July 1990. Dicks’s and Anderson’s respective offices were located in close proximity, and the two were acquainted. Dicks was also well-known to Russell Hauge, lead prosecutor of Kitsap County, where Anderson served as a deputy prosecutor. Having committed the crime of forgery to frame Fitzpatrick, Anderson has now served more than 15 years in that position of public trust.
“It just got too close to home,” Fitzpatrick said of Dicks’s new hostility. “He knew these guys; their offices were just about next to each other.”
Dicks ultimately became responsible for not only refusing to assist Fitzpatrick further, but also for having him incarcerated.
She did not invite me in any farther. Right above us was a good-sized video camera. I conducted myself with complete professionalism and aplomb, and I said, “I’m here to get a status report.” She was decidedly nasty and malicious. She was new at that point. I hadn’t had that much interaction with her, but she was a very unpleasant person to work with.
She told me to leave, and I did, and later on, she called the police. I was leaving the building, and at the corner of Sixth and Pacific, a patrol car came speeding up, stopped and a cop saw me and approached me, asked me who I was, and I told him. He said he had just had a complaint from Paula Blake, and I said, “Well, I was just there.” And I told him what I just told you.
I was pretty upset by the confrontation, so I went immediately to the Bremerton Police Department, which wasn’t that far away downtown. I met with the sergeant and said, “I didn’t do anything wrong.” So he took down the information and I left.
The next thing I heard was that Cherylynne Fitz Williams went in and wrote out a request for a protection order against me and got it. She was complaining that I had interacted with her, but she wasn’t there that day at all.
So we went to court on the 27th, and the judge, whose name is Rio, said, “Don’t bother Scherri; the only way you can contact them is by mail.” And that was it.
Rep. Adam Smith represents the Ninth District of Washington in Congress
I had interaction with Rep. Adam Smith earlier, in 2001 and 2002. Adam Smith sent me a very nasty letter because I was trying to help out a soldier named Cory Cox, who lived in Adam Smith’s congressional district in Tacoma. I had met with Rep. Smith in his office and briefed him on the Cory Cox matter, and then I kept calling for updates and to see what kind of action he was taking. I got that nasty letter from him in 2002.
The order the judge handed down to me in 2003 looked very much like the letter that Rep. Smith sent to me in 2002: “You can’t contact this office unless you go through the mail.”
Cory Cox was let out of prison because of my intervention.
Rep. Smith’s was the first adversarial letter that I received. Then in 2003, all of a sudden, Scherri Fitz Williams, acting on behalf of Paula Blake, took up action against me and got the protection order issued. I said, “They’re lying; I did nothing wrong. There’s a video camera there; let’s have the footage. If Ms. Williams wants to make her case, then let her do it with the footage, and she said, “It’s not available,” and I was thinking, “Well, why not?”
For the longest time, Dicks was called “the third senator” from Washington State, so he was a very powerful man. Judge Riehl then took action against me and said, “You can’t send emails.”
In 2004, I was advocating on behalf of a chaplain and I was sending out an email about him. Scherri called the cops after she got the email. This is in a report dated April 26, 2004, and in it, she said I had violated the protection order by sending the email. The cop investigated and on the back of the report it says, “I contacted Williams via phone per her request. Williams stated that she works for Congressman Norm Dicks at this location, 500 Pacific Avenue. Williams stated she is a petitioner in a protection order against Fitzpatrick due to a problem he caused in the past.” I didn’t cause any problem in the past, as I’ve explained. “Williams stated she received an email today from Fitzpatrick which is a violation of the order. I observed the email as information and nothing threatening towards anyone.” That’s what it says.
“I’ve located the order, which is a protection order which is valid and served. The order prohibits Fitzpatrick to contact Williams in any form at work or residence. The notes state that Fitzpatrick can contact Norm Dicks through the U.S. Postal Service. “
The email was sent out to a list of people, and I just forgot to leave Norm Dicks’s name off of it.
A warrant was issued, and I was arrested. Nothing came of it; I was released, and the whole thing went away. Scherri had complained about me in April 2004, and I was arrested in August. I was in jail for a day or a little less. I was released, and that was the end of that. But that was all Norm Dicks’s doing.
Norm Dicks was behind it, and he could have stopped any of it from going forward. Scherri was not in the office when I first presented myself in October the year before. So Norm said, “Hey, we have to make this guy go away.” So Scherri went in and she filed a complaint, naming herself as the target of the incident that she alleged, and she wasn’t even physically present there that day. I told the judge that. I said, “She wasn’t there; I didn’t interact with her. I wasn’t there that long, and the only person I interacted with was Paula Blake, and the whole thing is captured on the video camera which is right there…” But the video was not brought into evidence.
The rig is in. Dicks was behind all of this, and before that, Congressman Adam Smith.
© 2013, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.
Article printed from The Post & Email: http://www.thepostemail.com
Tuesday, 1 October 2013
- The Post & Email - http://www.thepostemail.com -
U.S. Marine Corps Retaliates Against Judge Advocate WhistleblowerPosted By Sharon Rondeau On Friday, September 27, 2013 @ 10:43 PM In National |
IN CASE EERILY SIMILAR TO THAT OF CDR WALTER FRANCIS FITZPATRICK, III
Maj. James Weirick, a judge advocate of the U.S. Marine Corps, has been removed from his position and ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation following his outspokenness on allegations against Commandant James Amos of undue command influence, cover-up and suppression of evidence against eight Marines
(Sep. 27, 2013) — On Friday, the Marine Corps Times reported that Marine Corps Maj. James Weirick, a staff judge advocate who alleged undue command influence on the part of Marine Corps Commandant James Amos against eight Marines accused of abusing Taliban members’ corpses in 2011, was removed from his post and ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, among other things.
Twenty-three years ago, CDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III was railroaded in a sham court-martial orchestrated by his admiral, John Bitoff, and members of his staff, based on false charges and a fraudulent signature.
The Navy, though well aware that a forgery has been maintained as authentic for nearly a quarter-century, refuses to comment on their continued cover-up and the false conviction used against Fitzpatrick for having spoken out about his superior officers. Fitzpatrick’s Navy career was ruined as a result.
Fitzpatrick has told The Post & Email that the military “justice” system “is not justice at all” but only a “function of command.”
Weirick’s attorney, Jane Seigel, told the Times that “I think this is a last-ditch effort by some very heavy hitters to completely undermine the credibility of Maj. Weirick. If they push this rock down the slippery slope, he’ll end up out of the Marine Corps.”
Last month, Weirick filed a complaint with the Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector Generalagainst Amos and his advisers for attempting to influence the outcome of the courts-martial against the eight accused Marines. A general whom Amos had tasked with conducting the investigation against the Marines corroborated Weirick’s claims that Amos wanted “harsh punishment” meted out against the defendants, that Amos “suppressed evidence” and orchestrated a cover-up.
When a military judge ordered Amos’s emails to be made public, the Marine Corps quickly dropped the charges against Capt. James Clement, who was the last of the eight to be disciplined. Clement’s attorneys had claimed that the case against their client was tainted with “blatant unlawful command influence that denied their client a fair court-martial.” Lead attorney John Dowd called the case “the largest case of unlawful command influence in the Corps’ history.”
The Marine Corps is a department of the U.S. Navy.
Putative Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel expressed support for Amos at the end of July. However, in early 2012, Amos had appeared to admit his involvement in the outcome of the cases.
The Marines who have received some form of punishment may have reason to seek new trials or expunging of their records.
Weirick has been ordered to relinquish his personal firearms maintained at his home, undergo a “risk assessment” and the psychiatric evaluation.
One player in the Fitzpatrick court-martial with whom The Post & Email has spoken attempted to convince us that Fitzpatrick was mentally unstable, although he would not speak on the record. Another hung up on us and then pretended he was not at home. A third spoke to us at length but refused to go on the record, stating, “If somebody did this [forged Fitzpatrick's signature], they did bad…”
Through his attorney, Weirick said that he plans to comply with all requests from his chain of command, but in August he said that he “would not back down.” In addition to the DOD, he had taken his complaint to Congress, after which Rep. Walter B. Jones attempted to obtain information on the status of Weirick’s complaint.
Fitzpatrick had approached his U.S. representative, Norman Dicks, and U.S. Senator Patty Murray, both of whom were told by the Navy that they could not obtain a copy of an incriminating document signed by Lt. Timothy Zeller which stated that “no record” of the communication with Bitoff would be maintained on his computer or in his files. A year later, Navy Deputy Inspector General Derek Vander Schaaf located and sent the memo to Murray, who forwarded it to Fitzpatrick.
It took Fitzpatrick many years and FOIA requests to acquire many of the documents from his court-martial, with some still kept obscured the Navy nearly a quarter-century later.
When Weirick asked to obtain emails from Amos and his advisers about their possible roles in attempting to fix the outcomes against the Marines, he said, “I lack the power or authority to get the emails and other requested materials in the possession of the Commandant and his staff. To ensure a fair proceeding I need the assistance of those with much greater authority. I should have acted earlier, but I truly believed those with the authority to accomplish this would adhere to the Rule of Law and our shared value of due process. This, sadly, has not been the case. Both civilian and uniformed counsel for the Commandant have thwarted my efforts and remained silent, or possibly assisted in, this unlawful command influence.”
By August, Weirick’s allegations reportedly had “received attention in national media, on Capitol Hill and throughout the Defense Department.”
Media Affairs for the Navy and Army have refused to research, respond to or counter The Post & Email’s assertion of the forgery in Fitzpatrick’s court-martial file. A formal letter addressed in April 2012 to Chief of Naval Operations Jonathan Greenert, a former classmate of Fitzpatrick’s, was met with no response.
Emails to primary participants in the Fitzpatrick court-martial, the creation of the forgery, and to those continuing to keep the deceit obscured have gone unanswered. Because the allegations against more than 100 former and current Navy and NCIS officers are criminal in nature, they can still be prosecuted.
“Here we see the DNA markers in the case of the Marine snipers as you see in what happened to me,” Fitzpatrick said. “Whenever you try to stand up and expose the command influence, you are yourself targeted for elimination, and this is what’s happening to Maj. Weirick,” Fitzpatrick said. “He’s been relieved of his position; he’s been ordered to turn in his sidearms; he’s been ordered to go to a psychological evaluation; these things happened to me as well.”
© 2013, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.
Article printed from The Post & Email: http://www.thepostemail.com
Sharon Rondeau at The Post & Email: Fitzpatrick: Navy “Willing to Destroy Subordinates to Protect the Institution”
Monday, 30 September 2013
Fitzpatrick: Navy “Willing to Destroy Subordinates to Protect the Institution”
“A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE”
Comparison of true signature of Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III (top) and that which appears on a July 17, 1990 Response to Reprimand letter (bottom) and is an obvious forgery
(Sep. 25, 2013) —In a previous report, The Post & Email described how a culture of corruption permeated the U.S. Navy from at least the late 1980s through the mid-1990s, encompassing the Tailhook scandal and the court-martial of Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III.
In 1989, several charges without any basis in fact were brought against Fitzpatrick by his commanding admiral, John Bitoff, with the assistance of his staff JAG, Tim Zeller and Bitoff’s chief of staff, Capt. Mike Edwards. A Marine Corps attorney was hand-picked by Bitoff to serve as Fitzpatrick’s defense attorney.
While “convicted” on one of the several charges, Fitzpatrick has shown that the entire proceeding was carried out behind closed doors and the outcome predetermined. Although Fitzpatrick was accused of misusing $10,400, the NCIS was not contacted to initiate an investigation.
Fitzpatrick has reported that Anderson created and signed a fraudulent response letter to a Letter of Reprimand issued by Bitoff which Fitzpatrick discovered only after submitting multiple FOIA requests for his file. Anderson also made it appear that Fitzpatrick had received a copy of the response letter during the summer of 1990 when he had not. 7 JULY 1990 KEVIN ANDERSON LOR RECEIPT
As accuser, Bitoff was not allowed to convene the court-martial as stated in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). An officer whom Bitoff initially disqualified from participating in the alleged investigation for conflict of interest was later placed on Fitzpatrick’s panel which then issued the “guilty” verdict on the charge of misusing ship’s funds.
In a letter to Rep. Norman Dicks, who requested an explanation from the Navy on Fitzpatrick’s behalf in 1999, Bitoff lied by stating that he was “surprised” when he discovered that Zeller had conducted the investigation instead of the NCIS. He then admitted that he had acted as both Fitzpatrick’s accuser and convening authority. He also expressed “concern” that Fitzpatrick had charged the Navy with the crime of forgery.
Prior to the court-martial, the logs maintained by Fitzpatrick showing how the ship’s funds were spent were declared “missing” and have not reappeared. Fitzpatrick said he was meticulous with his record-keeping and that all funds were spent in keeping with a vote by the crew.
Only two months before the charges were brought against Fitzpatrick, he earned an outstanding review from his commander, Capt. Michael Nordeen of the USS Mars, where Fitzpatrick was executive officer.
Of Bitoff’s motives for framing him, Fitzpatrick told The Post & Email:
Bitoff forced me out of the naval service because of my character…Bitoff used the court-martial process to punish me, using me as an object lesson throughout the fleet.
Years later, after Fitzpatrick persistently brought the forgery to the attention of the Navy JAG Corps, he was threatened with another court-martial if he were found to have fabricated the story. Reluctantly, Navy Judge Advocate General John Hutson directed the NCIS to open an investigation with the purpose of proving that Fitzpatrick was lying.
Hutson and a subordinate admiral, Don Guter, warned the NCIS of Fitzpatrick’s claim and the decision to launch an investigation. In an interoffice memo generated the same day, September 5, 1997, NCIS Assistant Deputy Director Ernie Simon wrote, “…if you can prove the forgery, it totally supports his 10 years worth of contentions and makes the NAV look really bad.”
Instead of finding that Fitzpatrick had lied, an Inspector General for the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, Rand Pixa, and NCIS Special Agent Richard Allen discovered that there was a forgery in Fitzpatrick’s court-martial file after the paper, font size and type matched other documents which Kevin Anderson was known to have generated with his own signature affixed.
When Anderson was confronted by the NCIS in early 1998, he said he knew nothing about how or when the document had been created and placed into Fitzpatrick’s file. However, five years later, in 2003, he told a police detective that he created the letter bearing the forged signature, although he did not admit to signing Fitzpatrick’s name to it.
The signature intended to look like Fitzpatrick’s is missing the “III” after his name and his last name is misspelled. Fitzpatrick has always included the “III” when signing his name, including during the period in question.
Inspector General Derek Vander Schaaf had issued a scathing report on the Tailhook matter in 1992 which was the catalyst for the resignation of two Navy admirals, one of whom was the Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy. All told, Vander Schaaf identified 51 officers who had lied to his investigators. The irresponsible behavior of those involved in abusing female members of the Navy may have contributed to the suicide of Chief of Naval Operations Jeremy Michael Boorda in 1996. Boorda also knew about Fitzpatrick’s claim of forgery and fraud in regard to his court-martial and had sought, and received, assurance from Adm. Ronald J. Zlatoper which lacked any fact-finding that Fitzpatrick’s court-martial had followed proper procedure.
Vander Schaaf was able to procure a long-sought “Thanksgiving Day memo” written by Zeller to Bitoff which stated that no record of the communication would be retained on Zeller’s computer or in any file.
Repeated attempts to reach Anderson, Zeller, and the former JAG officers involved, particularly over the last several weeks, have been met with complete silence with the exception of one former JAG attorney who was willing to answer all of our questions in a two-part interview. That officer revealed that the place where Fitzpatrick’s file was reported to have been found by Pixa did not exist.
CDR FITZPATRICK: Look at what these people were doing 20 years ago, and they thought they got away with it. Now here we are 20 years later, and they’re caught in it. There isn’t a single officer or person who is at this moment defending the court-martial of Walt Fitzpatrick as legitimate; not even John Bitoff…with the exception of Kevin Anderson, the man who forged my name.
A four-star admiral…this is as high as you get in the military. If there were anything that they could hang their hat on that Fitzpatrick’s court-martial was legitimate, they ought to contact me right away.
If they could prove that my signature on that document was really my signature, which of course they can’t, we should be hearing from them right now.
DOJ’s spying on reporters. Someone must have had some pangs of conscience.
CDR FITZPATRICK: Yes, you have some of the institutional ineffectiveness of an organization unable to keep its dirty laundry concealed, but there are people like Richard Kadelec , the guy who dropped the dime on Zeller. They never in their wildest imaginations think that I would actually find the kind of document record that I now hold.
There are two different dynamics going on here. In fact, Tim Zeller knew what I was doing; he wrote about it. He said, “Fitzpatrick waits until new people come into a job, and then he starts to ask them questions, thinking that he’s going to get different answers.” It’s been a highly effective method, because that’s exactly what’s happened. New people come in and they release information about which they have no idea of the significance. So there is that dynamic going on where there is an institutional weakness where they can’t cover up for each other as effectively as they would want to if they could stay in the same jobs for years and years. They move on and other people come along.
But the other thing that you have is that there are people who want this information to be known and acted on, and I can’t tell which is which; I can only speculate.
THE POST & EMAIL: It sounds like the people who leaked the IRS’s targeting of certain groups and the Thanksgiving Day memo. Had he not told me about that memo, we wouldn’t know about any of them.
THE POST & EMAIL: Did you ever speak with him?
CDR FITZPATRICK: I did speak to him. I was standing in a phone booth at the end of Pier #3 at the Naval Air Station at Alameda, CA. This is where the USS Carl Vinson was tied up at the dock. Because I didn’t want anyone listening in on my conversation, I left the ship and walked to the foot of the pier and made a phone call from the phone booth to Combat Logistics Group 1. I wanted to get a hold of the attorney who had replaced Zeller, and the guy I reached was a First Class Petty Officer called a legalman. He was not a trained attorney; in the Navy, we call them “legalmen.” This was on July 2, 1993, and Richard Kavlick told me about the Thanksgiving Day memo that he had seen, and he said, “Hey, Commander, you need to get your hands on this. I can’t release it, because if I release it, they’ll know it came from me.”
That was on a Friday, and on the 5th of July, after the July 4 weekend, I called Congressman Dicks’s office and I said, “We need to get this memo.” It was Congressman Dicks who sent in the first Freedom of Information Act request in July 1993. The Navy came back out of San Diego and said, “You can’t have it.”
In the meantime, I went to Sen. Patty Murray and told her the same thing. So Sen. Murray said, “OK, fine, I’ll ask for it.” And she did. And the judge advocate general of the Navy, Rick Grant, told her, “You can’t have it.” What he told her was, “I don’t have access to it, Senator, so go away; you’re bothering me.”
It was at that point that Sen. Patty Murray said, “Fine; we’ll go to the Department of Defense Inspector General’s office and we’ll ask them if they can get their hands on it.” So that’s what happened, and that’s where Derek Vander Schaaf comes in.
THE POST & EMAIL: Derek Vander Schaaf seems like a “good guy” in all of this.
CDR FITZPATRICK: Yes, and he was a good guy in Tailhook as well. He was the one who blew the scandal wide open and said that the 35 admirals and generals who avoided criminal responsibility should have faced the consequences. This is the same environment now in which the court-martial of Walt Fitzpatrick is starting to emerge, and Vander Schaaf realized that. He went looking for the memo, and he got it. On July 8, 1994, he turned it over to Patty Murray, and on the same day, she turned it over to me. A year and a week after my conversation with Richard Kavlick, we finally got our hands on the memo…and it was as powerful and explosive as it could be. And it should have been enough at that point to order a new hearing.
We didn’t know about the rest of the memos. After the first one, the other ones started to seep out. That’s how all of that happened.
Back in the early 1990s, they knew that they had put Steve Letchworth into the panel, knowing that he had an axe to grind going in and that he should have been disqualified from that position.
THE POST & EMAIL: Should that one thing not have been enough to nullify it?
CDR FITZPATRICK: Correct. So I point now to the forgery and I say, “Excuse me, but the forgery was meant to cover up all of this, and the first person to use it as it was intended by Bitoff to be used in covering up what Bitoff had done was Judge Advocate General of the Navy Rick Grant.
THE POST & EMAIL: They all insisted that everything was done properly, but all of your appeals were denied for no reason.
CDR FITZPATRICK: That’s because I didn’t have enough information in that day to prove that these people were involved in a criminal enterprise.
THE POST & EMAIL: It seems as if they were battling to keep the lid on it as you were getting closer to exposing what they had done.
CDR FITZPATRICK: That’s correct, and that’s why they went into a panic when it finally got into The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, first as a story, and then as an editorial in the days before Mike Boorda came into the job as Chief of Naval Operations. So the third person who participated in representing the forgery as an authentic writing and confession was Mike Boorda, who shot himself in the chest two years later because he had to live with it.
In the meantime, more things were building up and more was coming out, and I hadn’t gone away, and he knew that. He knew I wasn’t going to go away.
So how many admirals and generals do we have wrapped up in this thing right now? It’s a whole bunch of people.
THE POST & EMAIL: You mentioned that you have contacted all of them, plus many reporters at the same time.
CDR FITZPATRICK: I don’t want anybody to think that we’re doing anything behind closed doors. I am doing this publicly and openly. As a reporter, you have to be able to independently verify that everything I say is as I have presented it.
Why do we say that this is the most-examined court-martial in the history of the country? These confrontations are being made in public with reporters watching, and if there were a squeak of protest from anybody, we would have heard it way before now. Instead, what we’re getting back is confirmation of the information we have. At this point, Tim Zeller has gone dark and quiet and is trying to keep this as buried as he can. And the one who did come forward said, “Well, that’s not the way I remember things.”
THE POST & EMAIL: When I spoke to him, I tried to keep a completely open mind.
CDR FITZPATRICK: Now Pixa becomes a question mark. He’s the guy who held the other guy out to dry. So I went and found Rand Pixa. We thought we knew what had happened to this court-martial record, but we really don’t. All we know is that its chain of custody is murkier now and that the one guy who had it in his hand that we know of is Rand Pixa. “Well, how did you get it, sir?” Is Rand Pixa coming forward? He’s been confronted. He’s working in DC, for goodness sakes.
It’s Rand Pixa who was good friends with Diane Carr and Kevin Anderson when they all worked together at the Navy Legal Service office at Treasure Island, CA. When the forgery was discovered, Pixa didn’t have any idea that it was going to lead back to Anderson.
One of the guys wearing a white hat is Richard Allen. He knew what was going on and did his best to get the word out. He did a very effective job with that but was overruled by his admirals and generals at the NCIS. He found this and said to Capt. Pixa, “Do you see these documents?”
I haven’t seen the original of anything, but Allen told me that the first thing he examined was the kind of paper that was used. I don’t know what type it was, but it stood out from the other paperwork in the record. Then the special agent said, “Well, this paper looks like that one,” and he started taking a look at the type, fonts, style, and he saw that they were identical. Then he saw that the other writings were signed by Kevin Anderson using his own name. Then Kevin Anderson became Suspect #1 in the moment.
In our next installment, The Post & Email will explain how Rep. Norm Dicks became hostile to Fitzpatrick and why, then had him arrested.
© 2013, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.
Article printed from The Post & Email: http://www.thepostemail.com