– The Post & Email – http://www.thepostemail.com –

Exclusive: Tennessee Tenth Judicial District Public Defender Speaks with The Post & Email

Posted By Sharon Rondeau On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 @ 10:08 AM In States | 

“A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MAKE BOND”

by Sharon Rondeau

(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.

© 2013, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.


Article printed from The Post & Email: http://www.thepostemail.com

URL to article: http://www.thepostemail.com/2013/12/24/exclusive-tennessee-tenth-judicial-district-public-defender-speaks-with-the-post-email/

– 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.

Cunningham encounter 17 December 2013

© 2013, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.


Article printed from The Post & Email: http://www.thepostemail.com

URL to article: http://www.thepostemail.com/2013/12/18/tennessee-grand-juries-co-opted-by-government-operating-illegally/

Amy F. Armstrong Reedy is rigging juries in Tennessee State! (click on pix for more)

We don’t need a judge to say he or she is stacking a jury.  We have proof that they are!

LINK

REEDY JUDICIAL ORDERS APPOINTING “JOE” THE FOREMAN:

08 December 2006 Amy Reedy Appointing Order “Joe” the Foreman  (1) (CLICK HERE)

18 December 2008 Amy Reedy Appointing Order “Joe” the Foreman  (2) (CLICK HERE)

14 December 2010 Amy Reedy Appointing Order “Joe” the Foreman  (3) (CLICK HERE)

REEDY JUDICIAL ORDERS APPOINTING “FAY” THE FOREMAN:

03 January 2011 Amy Armstrong Reedy Appointing Order “Fay” the Foreman (CLICK HERE)

IN CLOSING: REEDY’S JUDICIAL ORDER APPOINTING RECYCLING 2009 TENNESSEE JUROR ANGELA DAVIS A 2010 GRAND JURY FOREMAN:

Amy Reedy’s 3 June 2010 Appointing Order for ANGELA DAVIS (CLICK HERE)


JAG HUNTER here with Sergeant of Marines Timothy Joseph Harrington:

The JURY LAUNDRY

In the days and posts ahead we’re going to  use the example of the Monroe County Tennessee  Jury Laundry to discuss and give examples regarding the scope and operation of modern day Jury Laundries found everywhere across America.

Jury-laundering

The Jury Laundry joins and converts innocent acts with innocent people transforming them into make-believe criminal acts and make-believe criminal actors.

Outlaw prosecutors and outlaw judges use the black-wash of innocents to populate their courtrooms as the objects of never-ending malicious, black-ball prosecutions.

The outlaw prosecutors and outlaw judges use the black-wash of The Jury Laundry to transform their malicious prosecutions into a form and forum that appears to be legitimate.

The Jury Laundry is a black-wash.

The Jury Laundry is no Jury at all.

The Jury Laundry used to be called The Grand Jury.

The Monroe County Tennessee Jury Laundry

Earlier today Helen Tansey posts in her “T-Room (click here)” published the first of what’s sure to become a series of reports regarding the events leading up to and executed earlier this month on Thursday, 3 June 2010.

Jury Laundrymen

Angela Davis is discovered as a second person illicitly judge-appointed into the 2010 Jury Laundry of Monroe County Tennessee.

Gary Pettway and Angela Davis serve together as two outlaw Jury Laundrymen.

Judge Amy Armstrong Reedy hand-picked Davis as the Foreman of the Monroe County Jury Laundry on 2 June 2010.

On 26 May 2010 a written order was issued to REEDY warning REEDY not to rig the jury (click here).

“Judicial interference or participation of any type or kind in the selection of the new Grand Jury or its foreman is fatal to the eventual vote of that Grand Jury constructed out of the need and necessity to examine and enforce the constitutionally lawful relationship between a judge and a jury.”

Reedy–a judge in the circuit criminal court–ignored the warning order. REEDY in her outlawry appointed Angela Davis as Foreman on 2 June 2010. Davis is one of the Jurors on the 2010 Jury Laundry (click here).

Tennessee State law commands that persons who’ve completed a term of jury service are prohibited from serving on any other Tennessee Jury for a period of 2-years (24-months).

Angela served as a Trial Juror for the first six-months of 2009 (click here – penultimate name on Panel #8).

Angela Davis’ jury service ended on 30 Jury 2009. Davis isn’t eligible to serve on another Tennessee Jury until 1 July 2011 (Click here: Tennessee Code Annotated 22-2-314).

And we know about Gary Pettway who serves illicitly on the 2010 Monroe County Jury Laundry with Davis.

Pettway served last year (like Davis) on a Tennessee Jury.

Pettway’s Jury term ended on 31 December 2009.

Pettway is  ineligible to serve on any Tennessee Jury until 1 January 2012.

Pettway’s first Jury term–as presently known–ended almost twenty-years ago on 31 December 1990.

But outlaw judges and prosecutors working with Pettway made sure Pettway never left the Jury Laundry.

Reedy promoted Davis from the Jury Laundry replacing Pettway as Foreman to protect Pettway and the Jury Laundry Process.

Davis and Pettway are co-workers…workmates.

Davis and Pettway are both criminals neither one of whom are allowed to sit on any 2010 Tennessee Jury.

And yet Davis and Pettway serve together on the 2010 Monroe County Jury Laundry not just as Jurors…but as Jury Foreman.

Davis’ assignment also went to protecting the Jury Laundry and its owners-operators such as Reedy from exposure to criminal consequence.

Human agency–the not so hidden hand of judicial jury tampering–stands as the only explanation finding Pettway and Davis standing together, serving together in the 2010 Monroe County Jury Laundry.

We’ll find other judge plants once we know their names.

Related links

J.B. Williams: A Right to Lawful Command (click here)

Helen Tansey – The T-Room: Operation American Freedom  (click here)

Helen Tansey – 1946 – The Year the Federal Government Illegally Usurped American’s Constitutional Protections (click here)

U.S. Grand Jury, Incorporated report on the Monroe County Tennessee Grand Jury (click here)

On the subject regarding indecent men… (click here)

The BIG LIE (click here):  Monroe County Advocate & Democrat running cover for the Jury Laundry (compare with Tenessee Code 22-2-314 below)!

Tennessee Code Annotated 22-2-314 (click here)

Note 1: Robert F. Cooper, Jr.–Tennessee’s Attorney General–notified today at 1333 hours. Point of contact is Marie (the receptionist) who refused to take the complaint. She refused also to transfer my call to anyone else. Marie the receptionist tells me Robert Cooper does not hold jurisdiction over the matters before us. Guess Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Washington was wrong (I spoke to him in person Wednesday morning, 9 June 2010–Chattanooga office)

Note 2: Incumbent Tennessee Democrat Governor Phil Bredesen first appointed Amy Reedy into her criminal court judgeship back in January 2006 (click here). Bredesen is running for reelection in November this year.

More to follow…

A Robert Hefner illustration

Copyright 2002 – 2010 ©™ by The JAG HUNTER

Chief of Police Gregg Breeden
Madisonville, Tennessee Police Department
315 Englewood Road
Madisonville, Tennessee 37354

Chief Breeden:

Please accept this Notice of the Necessity, Authority and Intent to conduct a series of imminent Citizen’s Arrests throughout Monroe County Tennessee.

The first arrest plan must be constructed and crafted in cooperation with the Madisonville Police Department. Wisdom dictates the first arrest plan be one that is acceptable to your Police Chief colleagues throughout Monroe County; an arrest plan that can be used again and again.

Time is not a friend. Planning must begin immediately. Contact information is provided separately.

Fair winds, following seas,
/s/
Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III
United States Navy Retired -USNA Class of 1975

Cc: Sweetwater, Tennessee Chief of Police Eddie Byrum
Distribution: Wide

JAG HUNTER here:

Grand Juries are what make us a Representative Republic. Taking back our Country means taking back our community Grand Juries!

More…


A Robert Hefner illustration


Sergeant of Marines Timothy Joseph Harrington Copyright 2010©™

THE UNVEILING!

A Tim Harrington Design!

Available for T-shirts, mugs, license plates, sweatshirts, ball caps,

patches, & bumper stickers!

Show your colors! Customize with your organization’s emblematics, your own State flag or Country flag, or military service logos!

Ordering information will be available in days.

PLACE AN ORDER ON TONIGHT’S SHOW!

Stay tuned!

Citizen’s Grand Jury tonight!

09:00 to 11:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time

Call in number: 347.637.3723

CLICK ON LOGO TO LISTEN LIVE!

U.S. Grand Jury.org website

(CLICK ABOVE)


U.S. Grand Jury on blogtalkradio tonight! (CLICK HERE!)

Call in number: 347.637.3723!

Contact Mack Ellis: mack@usgrandjury.org

Contact Mac McDougall: mac@usgrandjury.org