If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Sharon Rondeau

(Apr. 23, 2012) — The extraordinary police presence in Madisonville, TN on April 20, 2010 was unnecessary, according to Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III, when he was scheduled to attend a brief hearing following his conducting a citizen’s arrest of Gary Pettway, the acting Monroe County grand jury foreman of 27 years, on April 1, 2010.

Teams of snipers, Tennessee Highway Patrol, FBI and TBI agents, and local police patrolled the streets of Madisonville, the county seat of Monroe County, and were stationed at nearby highway exits and entrances.  Two helicopters flew overhead, and canines were used to purportedly detect explosives which might have been brought in by spectators.  None were found.

On March 8, 2010, Fitzpatrick had written a letter to the Madisonville Chief of Police Gregg Breeden and copied to Sweetwater Chief of Police Eddie Byrum titled, “Notice of Necessity, Authority and Intent to Conduct a Citizen’s [sic] Arrest.” The letter stated that the plan was to be “acceptable to your police chief colleagues throughout Monroe County.”

Eddie Byrum was one of the officers who spoke with Fitzpatrick after he was unlawfully evicted from his home in January of this year and nearly all of his personal furnishings and possessions stolen.  The Sweetwater Police have been unresponsive in providing The Post & Email with police reports, although Fitzpatrick received the first report, written by Officer Gary Newman in December 2011, and marked “sealed” for reasons unknown.

Fitzpatrick had told local law enforcement that Pettway had been serving illegally according to Tennessee state law and had placed an advertisement in the local newspaper to inform the citizens of Monroe County.  In September of last year, Fitzpatrick was told in a letter from the court clerk that no appointing order or evidence of swearing-in could be located for Pettway over the several decades he had served as foreman.

On March 4, 2010, Fitzpatrick stated that he met with Breeden “eyeball-to-eyeball” and told him that “if he didn’t act, then we would have to.”  The March 8 letter was considered by Fitzpatrick to be a follow-up to that encounter and was sent by certified mail.  Fitzpatrick said that the letter sought an “arrest plan” to be reviewed and approved by local law enforcement personnel.

“Law enforcement officials refused to meet with us in the construction of an arrest plan,” Fitzpatrick said, “leaving the citizens to put together an arrest plan on their own.”

“The arrest plan that was effected on April 1, 2010 was carried out with precision; it was carried out peacefully; there was no hostile environment; we notified the police that a citizen’s arrest was under way before we left the restaurant; we called them, and then we called them repeatedly after that,” Fitzpatrick said.

Fitzpatrick has stated that there was no “plan” on the 20th of April, which was the day set by the Monroe County court for him to return for a hearing as a condition of his bond.  “There was no plan on anybody’s part to do anything.  The government knew about the plan that we wanted to put together for the first event, but there was nothing to follow that.  We told them what our intent was.  They cannot at this point say that our intent was something other than what we reported it to be.  They refused to meet with us, and Darren didn’t do a single thing wrong on the 20th of April.  He wasn’t arrested for another ten days.  If Chief Breeden and Chief Byrum thought this was a federal issue, we were prepared to come in and work together to put together an arrest plan.  Law enforcement officials refused,” Fitzpatrick said.

Fitzpatrick told The Post & Email that he never asked anyone to travel to Madisonville on April 20 and that he had expected the hearing to take “five minutes.”  He stated emphatically that he did not know that Darren Huff, Carl Swensson, or anyone else was going to the hearing. “I walked in cold to this thing on the 20th,” Fitzpatrick said.

Dr. Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily and The Post & Email reported that one “William L. Bryan” had bragged about being the catalyst for the heavy police presence on April 20.  Fitzpatrick has called the law enforcement response “completely unnecessary.”

“The case against Darren Huff is a government construction; they made it all up, and Obama supporters jumped on the bandwagon.  I think it was Mr. Obama’s people who started this off in the beginning,” Fitzpatrick said.  “They could have come to me or anyone else beforehand.  This whole thing was preventable on their part, but on my part, there was nothing to prevent.”

On April 20 in Madisonville, a bomb-sniffing dog and a drug-sniffing dog were brought to Huff’s truck but reportedly found nothing.  Huff had been visited by the FBI the day before and stopped on his way to Madisonville on the 20th but allowed to proceed.  He was arrested ten days later for allegedly transporting firearms in “interstate commerce” with the intent to use them in a civil disturbance. Last October, Huff was convicted of that charge but acquitted of another.  News reports inaccurately stated that the citizen’s arrest of Pettway involved Obama’s “citizenship,” which it did not.

The Monroe County jail had been evacuated on April 20, during which time Fitzpatrick said he learned that several inmates had been utilized to place pole cameras at various points in Madisonville on April 19.

Fitzpatrick told The Post & Email that “no one had any weapons that day,” contrary to local news reports.  Fitzpatrick maintains that the local media do not understand, or are not willing to report, that it is the government that is committing criminal acts, not him.

William L. Bryan still remains ” at large” despite the vast amount of resources deployed in Madisonville that day.  A local reporter told The Post & Email in an email that “Police witnesses testified about seeing two other people with guns openly displayed” at Huff’s trial.

Then why weren’t those people arrested?

The Post & Email has been told that “about half” of the people who attended the April 20 assignment hearing for Fitzpatrick were subsequently audited by the IRS.

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Very loose “planning” took place in the days before the April 20th hearing between two or more groups branded as potential domestic terrorists by the SPLC/DHS. Fitzpatrick was not part of this.

    Darren did meet with the FBI in GA on the 19th, did tell them he was going to Madisonville the next day, and did say he would be armed. Note that armed in the southern Appalachians is a state of being not a show of aggression. Folks just are. So Darren was stopped ten miles outside town by the FBI and token other LEO. He was armed and did disarm at that location in deference to the FBI suggestion that he disarm at the venue (courthouse trailer). The hype from Bryan and the FBI set the stage for a false flag operation with potential lethal consequences. If Darren had actually come to the venue, which he did not, and disarmed there (brandished a weapon) he would have been sniped and the operation could have been identified as quelling a riot of terrorists. None of this testimony was brought up at Darren’s trial.

    Another trial was set subsequent to the April 20 trial. Plans were made to stand around in support of Walt. But between these two dates the FBI (not IRS?) “interviewed” several of the April 20th participants on the grounds of ascertaining if there would be violence at the hearing and with the ulterior motive of intimidation. Three folks showed up at the next hearing! The FBI took detailed notes during these interviews. The notes contained an earful about how there was no riot on the 20th nor intent for one. None of these agents testified at Darren’s trial from the interviews that they conducted.

    Jamie from the KnoxNews rag refuses to publish any of this information on the grounds that it is biased. Her statement: “We covered ‘the story’ leading up to the trial as presented during the trial. People always say we’re afraid of investigative journalism when what you really want is for us to do an account of a story that is biased to one side.” The bias is on the side of the libtard media because they have published nothing in support of the efforts of Fitz and Darren.
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Nor do they question that anything the government does might be in violation of the law.