Prosecutor insists that case law trumps state law

EYEWITNESS: JUDGE GAVE “PREDETERMINED ANSWER”

by Sharon Rondeau

(Oct. 8, 2010) – Tennessee Congressional candidate Mr. H. James Headings was an eyewitness in the courtroom in Madisonville, TN, the seat of Monroe County, TN, for a hearing on Tuesday morning regarding the arrest of Walter Fitzpatrick on April 1, 2010.

After asking the Monroe County grand jury to act on a criminal complaint of treason against Barack Hussein Obama, Fitzpatrick attempted to execute a citizen’s arrest of Gary Pettway, the Monroe County grand jury foreman, for his alleged illegal occupation of that position for the past 20 years. On April 1, Fitzpatrick was charged with “intimidation” and “riot,” among other things.

Darren Huff was arrested on April 30 and was “charged in U.S. District Court in Knoxville with traveling across interstate lines armed and ready to incite violence if necessary to take over the city of Madisonville and the Monroe County Courthouse located there.”  Law enforcement claimed that Huff’s display of “suspicious indicators” on his vehicle caught their attention.

Fitzpatrick has maintained that he followed Tennessee state law when he attempted to effect the citizen’s arrest of Pettway and that the Monroe County grand jury has been “rigged” for many years by judges aware that the jurors have exceeded their terms of service, and in Pettway’s case, by many years.

Attorney Stephen Pidgeon has been retained to act as Fitzpatrick’s defense counsel.

MRS. RONDEAU: How long was this morning’s hearing?

MR. HEADINGS: I didn’t look at the time, but I would have guessed it was about 45 minutes.

MRS. RONDEAU: Who was the judge presiding?

MR. HEADINGS: It was Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood, who was brought in from Roane County for this case specifically.

MRS. RONDEAU: Was it your impression that the judge conducted the hearing fairly?

MR. HEADINGS: He was very careful not to make any mistakes, but it seemed that, because of the argument that the prosecutor made and the way the judge reacted in his answers…the judge actually at one point stopped Mr. Pidgeon and gave him an answer to part of an argument before he had made his ruling. To me, that came across that he had predetermined what his answer was going to be before he got there.

MRS. RONDEAU: Who was the first person to speak?

MR. HEADINGS: The judge began by stating that the hearing was for hearing several motions, and the attorney for Darren Huff, Mr. Matthew Rogers, was allowed to first present the motions that he had made. The judge first said, “I think we have resolved the issues of discovery,” which dealt with sending information back and forth, so they would then proceed with the motions. Nobody objected to that, so they proceeded. Darren Huff’s attorney presented all the motions dealing with information that they wanted from each other; there were motions as well as the “normal process of discovery,” as they call it. Anyway, he reiterated those motions, and the judge ordered the transcript of the indictment to be forwarded to both attorneys representing Darren Huff and Walter Fitzpatrick, respectively.

When it came down to the issue of the dismissal motions, Attorney Rogers deferred to Walt’s attorney, Mr. Stephen Pidgeon, and he presented the case for the dismissal motion. Then Jim Stutts, the prosecutor, presented the case against the dismissal of the motion, and at this point, the other judge was listening, but there was an air of boredom that came through. Then there was a little free information that came from Mr. Pidgeon, and then the judge ruled and denied the dismissal. Basically, the information that was sent back and forth was that the Tennessee Code Annotated was being violated and specifically, there was a law that went into effect on January 1, 2009 which was violated as far as appointment of the jury; but there was case law that said that that didn’t matter, so therefore the case law prevailed in the judge’s eyes. He didn’t say that, but when you took and added all the information together, that’s the way it came across.

MRS. RONDEAU: Regarding jurors who have served repeatedly despite the Tennessee Code, Walt has said,”Gary Pettway and Angela Davis both served on Tennessee Juries in 2009. Both of their Jury service terms ended in 2009 (Davis’ Jury-term ended on 30 June 2009, Pettway’s ended on 31 December 2009). Neither Davis nor Pettway is allowed by Tennessee statute to serve on any Tennessee Jury in 2010.”  He also has stated, “Gary D. Pettway (Sweetwater) and Angela D. Davis (Tellico Plains) serve illegally and contemporaneously on the extant 2010 Monroe County Grand Jury.”

MR. HEADINGS: Yes, and they quickly rattled off the cases, although I didn’t write them down. But there is case law out there where people have tried to get their cases overturned because of problems with grand juries before, and in each case, they have failed to do so. So they are using that as being a precedent in this case which, in my opinion, is not legitimate, because this case deals specifically with the grand jury, whereas in each of the other cases, there was some other activity that was deemed criminal and the defendant was found guilty, which did not deal with the grand jury.

MRS. RONDEAU: And this case contends that the sitting grand jury was an illegally-convened grand jury.

MR. HEADINGS: Yes, and the one with Angela Davis, who was the special grand jury foreman appointed for Walt and Darren’s case also was illegal because she was appointed after having served as a petit juror within less than a year prior to that, and the Tennessee Code Annotated specifically says that a person can’t be called for jury service once you’ve served until 24 months has passed.

MRS. RONDEAU: Why do they think that this “case law” argument will prevail over the Tennessee Code Annotated?

MR. HEADINGS: I think it isn’t a case of their thinking that it will prevail as much as it’s the fact that this judge has been appointing a grand jury foreman in his county for longer than Gary Pettway has been appointed in Monroe County. So the situation is that you’re asking them to rule against themselves, and because of that conflict of interest, they’re just not going to do it.

MRS. RONDEAU: So is “case law,” to them, simply what they’ve been doing, rather than a law being passed to make it so?

MR. HEADINGS: Exactly. That’s what it boils down to: ‘We’ve been doing it, we’ve been getting away with it; it’s been holding up in court, and we’re not going to change.”

MRS. RONDEAU: Mr. Rocky Joe Houston has sent me documentation that the same grand jury foreman has been in place in Roane County since 1987.

MR. HEADINGS: That’s three years longer than Gary Pettway has been in Monroe County. The idea of using case law from precedent is something that is taught in law school now, and in these guys’ minds, that prevails, period. Just because it’s been wrong for so long doesn’t change the fact that it’s wrong.

MRS. RONDEAU: What was the outcome of the hearing, and what is the next step?

MR. HEADINGS: They said that the trial would proceed on December 1.

MRS. RONDEAU: What was your impression of Attorney Pidgeon?

MR. HEADINGS: I was quite impressed with Mr. Pidgeon. He seems to understand what’s going on. I talked to him a little bit and stood and listened to him talk at some length with some others, and he seems to have a perception of the truth of the law and the Constitution and how those things apply. In fact, in his explanation, it came across that he understands that the whole concept of a grand jury is for the purpose of protecting the citizenry and also making officials accountable to the law as well as people who are not officials. That’s why the grand juries have to be separate from the judicial system, because if the judicial system becomes corrupt and the grand juries are in any way within the control of the judicial system, it’s like putting the fox in the hen house. You just can’t allow them to police themselves.

MRS. RONDEAU: Would you say that right now, that is the current situation: that the judicial branch is controlling the grand jury?

MR. HEADINGS: Yes. The foreman of the jury can control the jury, and the judge stated that he disagreed with that. But I have served on a petit jury, and I was asked to be foreman of it by the jury but declined in deference to a lady who was there and had a similar background that I had.  I did so because I didn’t want to totally leave the jury, but I wanted to be able to debate and argue more, and basically, I swayed the jury to my way of thinking. If you have someone who is foreman of the jury or outspoken like that, it is very easy to control the jury. The leader of the jury will get his way 90% of the time.

MRS. RONDEAU: What was your impression of Mr. Huff’s attorney?

MR. HEADINGS: For a public attorney who was appointed, he seems to be working, at least to some degree, with Walt’s attorney, Mr. Pidgeon. I was pleasantly surprised, but I still am not sure that he’s not part of the system.

MRS. RONDEAU: Is he a public defender?

MR. HEADINGS: Yes, I think he is a private attorney who takes a certain number of cases like that; I think that’s the way they do it here wherein private attorneys share in that responsibility and rotate.

There’s another angle to this case, which is that Mr. Huff is also indicted on a federal charge that really disappears if they’re found innocent of these charges.  In essence, the federal charge arises from the allegation that Mr. Huff was coming to Monroe County to do something criminal. I’m not sure exactly how it’s stated in the complaint; I haven’t seen that other than the newspaper reports of it. He was stopped, and they’re basing the charge on his intent when he got to Monroe County. If there is no problem and no disruption, then his federal charge becomes moot.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you have enough information to judge whether or not the federal charge is legitimate?

MR. HEADINGS: I don’t understand why he would have even been pulled over in the situation in Knoxville. It seems like almost a setup to me. That’s my gut feeling; it’s not based on evidence because I wasn’t there when it happened. I haven’t seen a video of the stop, although I’ve seen some videos of some other things. As far as what happened there, all I have is hearsay evidence, but it does appear to me that it was a setup.

MRS. RONDEAU: It would seem to be difficult to prove that someone was on his way somewhere with an intent to do something because you can’t tell what people are thinking.

MR. HEADINGS: Right. And I think in the case in Monroe County, the reason Mr. Huff was dragged into that and that Walt was charged with “rioting” as part of it was that the federal charges had already been presented, and it was to add credibility to the other. In the early hearings, there was a massive number of law enforcement there. I witnessed law enforcement with sniper rifles and SWAT teams. I’d go down the street, and some of the officers I would know and some I wouldn’t, and there were state troopers. But since all of this transpired and the charges were filed against Walt and Mr. Huff, we haven’t seen that.

MRS. RONDEAU: Was a claim that Obama was ineligible to hold office at the heart of this hearing?

MR. HEADINGS: I don’t know that it was Obama’s ineligibility, although I’ve done a lot of research on it and have spoken with some of the people who have been to Kenya and different places. I’m sure that Obama is not even a U.S. Citizen. But Walt’s original petition actually charged Obama with treason rather than ineligibility.

MRS. RONDEAU: Yes, in the criminal complaint, he charged Obama with treason over his violation of the Posse Comitatus Act as evidenced by Army troops being sent to Samson, Alabama on March 10, 2009 and acting as a police force, with the order ultimately emanating from Obama.

MR. HEADINGS: Exactly, and also, the treason is established again in a legitimate case law based on the Whiskey Rebellion that occurred in 1791.

——————————–

Editor’s Note: At this point, Mr. Headings had to go to an appointment, but we will speak again about developments in the Monroe County case against Fitzpatrick and Huff and whether or not there is a determination is made as to the legitimacy of the Monroe County grand jury.

CDR Fitzpatrick wrote the following summary of the October 5 hearing:

Jon Blackwood ruled Tuesday morning that Judge Amy Reedy’s appointment of Gary Pettway and Angela Davis to the 2010 Monroe County Grand Jury effectively harmless error.

James Stutts argued the government’s case. James Stutts is an assistant district attorney in Tennessee’s 10th Judicial District. Stutts works for Counselor Steve Bebe, is the District Attorney General.

Even though infected by the outlawry of Amy Reedy in the assignment of Pettway and Davis to this year’s Monroe County Grand Jury, Blackwood ruled the work product as it goes to the remainder of the 2010 Monroe County was recognized as good enough so as to render the 3 June 2010 Grand Jury presentment legally sufficient (the work of a de facto jury).

The Record is clear as of Tuesday, 5 October 2010 that the Monroe County Grand Jury is infected by the presence of–at least–Pettway and Davis. .

The government–in the persons of Blackwood, Bebe and Stutts–was placed under a duty on Tuesday to repair the de facto jury.

The government anticipates the need for urgent and immediate replacement of jurors rendered unqualified (illicit) in the jury process by the selection of alternative jurors!

Blackwood was under a lawful duty to order the Monroe County Grand Jury repaired as of Tuesday, 5 October 2010.

Bebe and Stutts were burdened under an identical duty to act on their own authority in the absence of an order from Blackwood’s bench.

Gary Pettway stood as the Monroe County Grand Jury Foreman yesterday, 7 October 2010. James H. Stutts stood next to Pettway as the Grand Jury’s district attorney advisor.

Jon Kerry Blackwood is now demonstrably criminally complicit in the outlaw operation of the 2010 Monroe County Grand Jury. Stutts and Bebe are further exposed as criminally complicit.

Note well: Jon Kerry Blackwood was burdened under a more expansive lawful duty on Tuesday. It was Blackwood’s duty to declare every illicit Tennessee Grand Jury in need of immediate repair and rehabilitation ordering alternates to be called upon instantly  (Blackwood comes from Roane County, Tennessee wherein one Mr. Snow has been a permanent member of the County Grand Jury for twenty-three consecutive years).

Blackwood must now be removed from the bench in the hearing of my case. Stutts must be removed as the state’s prosecutor.

Blackwood’s judgment of Tuesday 5 October 2010 is now fatally undone.

We must stop now going forward in state’s bogus and disingenuous (bad faith) prosecution, and start going backwards.

The government’s specific criminal intent as directed against myself is in plain view and is unarguable.