If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
HOW MANY “OUTLAW GOVERNMENT OPERATIVES” ROUTINELY SELECT JURY MEMBERS?
(Mar. 1, 2012) — Editor’s Note: On December 7, 2011, Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III was rearrested by the Monroe County Sheriff’s Department for allegedly under-serving his last jail term and was charged with “tampering with government records.” The local news report misstates Fitzpatrick’s age, which is 58, and incorrectly lists his address as “Mayes Street” in Sweetwater, when it was 504 May Street.
Fitzpatrick’s landlords evicted him in January while he was in the Monroe County jail, even though his rent was paid, and provisions to pay it through the month of March had also been made.
Chapter 66-28-504 of the Tennessee Code Annotated states:
If the landlord unlawfully removes or excludes the tenant from the premises or willfully diminishes services to the tenant by interrupting essential services as provided in the rental agreement to the tenant, the tenant may recover possession or terminate the rental agreement and, in either case, recover actual damages sustained by the tenant, and punitive damages when appropriate, plus a reasonable attorney’s fee. If the rental agreement is terminated under this section, the landlord shall return all prepaid rent and security deposits.
Fitzpatrick has not received his security deposit from the landlords and was given less than 30 days to move. The eviction notice was not processed through a court and appears to violate state law.
Fitzpatrick was incarcerated until February 9, 2012. A trial on the tampering charge is scheduled for March 26, 2012. Fitzpatrick is awaiting a disposition on a habeas corpus petition filed with the U.S. District Court in Knoxville as a result of its having been ignored at the local and state levels.
In late February, The Post & Email was told by a state official that the Monroe County jail would have to close due to the poor conditions inside. During a previous incarceration, Fitzpatrick had reported an infestation of rats in the kitchen.
Although we were informed by Monroe County Chief Court Clerk Martha M. Cook that no recording of the probable cause hearing for Fitzpatrick would be available, we were able to obtain a full recording of the proceeding, which took place on January 17, 2012, during which Fitzpatrick acted as his own attorney. During the recording, Assistant District Attorney General Paul D. Rush is heard stating that he is Fitzpatrick’s “accuser.” In an earlier article, Fitzpatrick affirmed that in a criminal case, there must be an accuser, separate from the prosecutor or law enforcement officer making the arrest DM420160_A_A DM420160_A_B.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Will Fitzpatrick have a real “trial” on March 26 if the grand jury reviewing the charge is hand-picked by the judge?
The Tennessee constitution, Article I, Section 6, states:
That the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, and no religious or political test shall ever be required as a qualification for jurors.
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
If the grand jury which will review the charge against Fitzpatrick is hand-picked by the judge, are the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, written to protect the citizenry from the tyranny of a monarch, dead? Are we living under tyranny now with an imposter and treasoner in the White House? Do we now have “monarchy courts” under a tyrant?
The system utilized in Monroe County allows the accuser and prosecutor to be the same person routinely, in violation of the Tennessee constitution and Sixth Amendment. Fitzpatrick has stated since April 1, 2010, upon attempting to make a citizen’s arrest of Gary Pettway, then-grand jury acting foreman, that the grand juries in Monroe County are illegally constructed.
At the end of the recording, which will be posted in a subsequent article, the judge can be heard clearly stating, “The judge picks the grand jury,” which violates TCA 22-2-304 mandating that jury selection be done by automated means. The recording has been reported to several members of the Tennessee General Assembly as well as the Knoxville FBI with no response.
The General Assembly is aware of numerous complaints against Tennessee judges and the Court of the Judiciary, the body authorized by the legislature some years ago to “police” judges against whom complaints are filed. It has been reported that a very small percentage of complaints received from the public result in censure or removal of a judge from the bench.
Why cannot legally-constructed grand juries “police” the judiciary, returning control to the hands of the people? Is that not what the Founding Fathers and authors of the Tennessee constitution intended? When did this change?
On December 21, 2011, Fitzpatrick wrote the following letter from the Monroe County jail about his perceptions of how the grand juries are functioning in Monroe County. It was one of six letters labeled “Legal Work Product” sent to The Post & Email, although we never received the fourth letter.
Background information on Gary Pettway’s 28-year tenure as the grand jury foreman, after which Fitzpatrick discovered that he had never been sworn in, is detailed here.
Fitzpatrick’s letter reads:
Mr. Gary D. Pettway and Mrs. Faye C. Tennyson have never been jurors in any Monroe County Tennessee grand jury. They have never been foremen.
Monroe County Tennessee government have engaged this community in a nomenclature war. An epic name game. The words the outlaw government operatives use in the combat over the U.S. Constitution do not mean what we as a law abiding community believe their words mean.
The outlaw adventure described here was discovered first in Monroe County Tennessee but is since discovered prevelant [sic] throughout the entire state of Tennessee, and discovered prevelant [sic] throughout the rest of these United States. 1946 is accepted as the benchmark origin regarding the death of our grand juries and the rebirth of the ancient, medieval “monarchy courts.”
Kings and queens rule as dictators in monarch courts. Kings and queens (or whatever title of nobility the monarchs take) sit simultaneously as law-makers, law enforcers, and as judges.
Our U.S. Constitution was created to abolish the monarch courts and to empower citizens of America with those protections and defenses against the resurgence of the totalitarian monarch court.
It is America’s greatest shame that we, as Americans, have allowed, encouraged and emboldened government conspirators to rob the meanings of those words found in the Constitution and use the new meanings and definitions against us so as to reestablish the monarch’s court.
In Monroe County Tennessee the words “grand jury” are not defined nor do they mean what they should mean as we read them in the U.S. Constitution.
In reality — in Tennessee State’s monarch courts — the grand jury is nothing more than a hand-picked, custom-tailored audience to the judge-kings and judge-queens. An assembly of useful idiots! Assemblies of scoundrels!
The new-age monarchical courts — reestablished and operating in the traditions of ancient and medieval eras — now replace what were once recognized as the law courts found in our U.S. Constitution.
Judges in this modern age are dressed in the roles and robes of a monarchy. Their assistants and abettors in this day (former law court officials) are contemporaneously burdened with carrying out the orders of the judge monarchs and fullfiling [sic] their every expectation. Former law court officials and functionaries are transformed in our modern age into a new breed of monarchical sychophants [sic], our contemporary “coutiers;” advocates to the monarch-judges. That is to say: judge advocates.
Grand juries have consequently been reduced to nothing more than adoring audiences stomping and clapping when the coutiers — the judge advocates — hold up the “applause” sign.
Distinctions between monarchy courts and the constitutional law courts are chillingly manifest when examined side by side.
Tennessee state law commands a person must first be randomly selected as a juror using a process that is free from the possibility of human agency to become eligible for selection as foreman to a grand jury. And in constitutionally recognized and constructed grand juries the assembled jury group select their foreman from amongst the newly formed jury group.
But in the operation of Tennessee’s monarchy courts, king/queen judges handpick “foremen” from wherever they choose. The requirement to be a juror first is erased. Whatever selection qualifications that exist are known only to the king/queen judges.
Jurors randomly selected to serve in constitutionally assembled and lawfully recognized grand juries are limited in the time that they may serve. In Tennessee’s court of the monarchy — Mr. Gary D. Pettway for instance — because he was never a proper juror,, served at the pleasure of numerous king/queen judges for twenty-eight (28) consecutive years as the monarch’s coutier advocate — the judge’s advocate! Judge Advocate Gary Pettway’s example is contemporaneously and widely discovered throughout the rest of Tenneese [sic] state.
Constitutionally constructed grand juries chose one foreman only from amongst themselves. One jury, each jury, one foreman.
In the expression of wizardry that describes the operation of Monroe County Tennesse’s [sic] court of the monarchy, monarch judges put on an act pretending to be selecting juries. The king/queen judges pretend to select two juries populated by eighteen (18) people each. This sleight-of-hand trick was carried out in each of those twenty-eight (28) years running during Judge Advocate Pettway’s dynasty.
But neither of the two groups of eighteen (18) was ever a jury for real. What they were instead were two assemblies of useful idiots and scoundrels that represent the present day DNA markers of the monarch’s court. Not one-time did any one of the idiot/scoundrel population of these fifty-six assemblies ever question why they could not select their own foreman from among their own organization. Nor did any of them ever question the presence of Judge Advocate Pettway, or Pettway’s role or responsibilities.
Foremen, because they are co-equal jurors, sit with fellow grand jurors in the jury room during grand jury deliberations. Neither Judge Advocate Pettway,, not his 2011 Predecessor [sic], Faye C. Tennyson, ever retire to the grand jury room for jury deliberations. Neither Pettway nor Tennyson were ever jurors.
The foreman in a constitutional grand jury becomes the soul of that jury. He/she is the moderator, the recorder and the designated spokesman who expresses the agreed upon will of the grand jury.
Pettway and Tennyson were instead, as judge advocates, the voice of the monarch judges. The two were impostors and infiltrators who stood watch for the king/queen judges as palace guards.
Pettway and Tennyson took their orders, as subordinates, directly and indirectly from more senior coutiers. At the same time Petway and Tennyson held themselves as masters over the various assemblies of useful idiots.
Neither Pettway nor Tennyson were ever co-equal jurors. Consequently they could not lead. Pettway and Tennyson were however always in control. The two controlled the cases the various assemblies of useful idiots and scoundrels were to consider and Pettway and Tennyson controlled the proofs and evidences the assemblies of idiots were to examine and explore.
In courts of the monarchy the foremen wear an elaborate and sophisticated disguise. Playing the role of foremen they are nothing but fakes and counterfeits. But they act always as masters, set apart and above they assemblies [sic] of useful idiots, never ever an internal functioning part of any or any of the idiot assemblies. The masters are different. They are the voice of the king/queen judges. They are the judges [sic] advocates!
King/queen judges commit the crime of attainder when they directly inflict a criminal consequence and punishment upon a citizen without the preview and permission of a constitutionally constructed and recognized grand jury. Attainder is another DNA marker that identifies the existence and operation of a monarch court. Courts of the monarchy and courts of attainder are identical in their scope, intent and operation.
Worthy of comment here is that our U.S. armed forces have run courts of attainder throughout the entire history of this nation. The new king/queen judges reestablished the monarch and attainder courts in 1946 on the civilian side at both the state and federal levels.
Sixty-six (66) years ago we as the American people allowed civilian government officials to constitute for themselves the new age monarchy-attainder courts. Stabbing the grand jury to death with one hand they crowned themselves with the other as king/queen judges in the courts of the monarchy, the courts of attainder.
The time has arrived for us as Americans to knock the crowns off their heads and take back our grand juries.
Her endth another lesson.
Editor’s Note: The remainder of the probable cause hearing which reveals the judge’s admission will be published in a continuance of this article.