If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR OPENLY BREAK THE LAW, BUT “THIS IS TENNESSEE”
by Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III
(Jun. 29, 2012) — In a follow-up telephone call today regarding the hearing in the “Monroe County Criminal Court” on June 28, 2012 on a charge of tampering with government records, Fitzpatrick stated that Judge Walter C. Kurtz disregarded the laws regarding judicial notice and the convening of district grand juries. “They do whatever they want,” Fitzpatrick said.
Kurtz’s behavior was markedly different from that of the last hearing for Fitzpatrick on May 4, 2012. He described the hearing on June 28 as “mind-boggling.”
When you ask a judge to take judicial notice of something, you’re establishing a fact. If the prosecutor doesn’t want that fact established, then there’s a debate between the two of you, but if the judge takes judicial notice, that means that it’s a fact that has now been entered into evidence. When a judge is asked to take judicial notice of a law, as he was yesterday, he is mandated. There’s not discretion. When I point to a law and I ask him to take judicial notice of it, or a point in the constitution, state or federal, under their own rules of evidence, Rule 202, the judge is required to establish the fact that the law is the law. And yesterday, he refused to do that. I had it right in front of me.
The law that I pointed to is not in dispute; it’s not refuted. The law is the law. Yesterday he made some derisive remark about my interpretation of the law in the assembly of what he called “super grand juries” and refused to take judicial notice of that. He also gave license to forgery and said that the grand jury cured the underlying forgery of the criminal instruments. I said, “They wouldn’t have done that; have you told them they were forged?” Mr. Rush was my accuser standing before the grand jury that day. Of course, nobody did, and he refused to accept or even recognize judicial notice spelled out in his own state law. He was saying that Faye Tennyson is not a juror and he was disagreeing with his esteemed colleague, Judge Blackwood, who said that the foreman is just like any other juror. We were standing in a “county criminal court” yesterday.
This is how our country is being taken over. You walk in and think that you’re standing on solid ground by looking at the law book, the Constitution, at documents that say, “This is how the country and the government work.” Here, you walk into a courtroom and you find out, “No, that’s not the law.” They make the law from the bench. They do whatever they want.
The judge is concealing the identity of the person who forged Martha Cook’s name to the charging documents. I asked him yesterday in the courtroom, and he or Paul Rush said that Martha Cook is representing that one of her deputies signed the document. I asked, “How do you know that?” I get to know the name of the person who signed the charging documents because at that point in time, that person made a decision as it went to probable cause, which was why the arrest warrant was issued. The same person signed Martha Cook’s name to that document. That person is to be called to the stand and asked questions, and by concealing the name of that person, I’m not to know who that person is and I’m blocked from calling that person as a witness to come in and answer questions before me, directly. I’m supposed to be able to face my accuser; it’s in the state constitution. That was the whole point back in January of this year when I asked Martha Cook questions. If you go back and listen to the conversation with Martha Cook, I believed that I was speaking to her as my accuser. Then it was discerned that she was not. She was not accusing me. Well, then, who is? Who signed your name to these documents? Martha Cook is concealing the name of the person who forged that document: J. Reed Dixon is concealing the name; Paul Rush is concealing the name, Conway Mason…everyone who’s involved in this…Judge Kurtz …they’re all concealing the name of the person who forged Martha Cook’s signature to the charging documents. I get to know the name of the person who that person is, and I’ve asked over and over again in open court, and they’re not telling me. I get to know who that person is!
I asked the judge if it was a deputy clerk who signed Cook’s name. I asked, “How do you know this?” This goes to the deep corruption. If they think that they have a case against me, then it’s of no consequence to them or anyone to disclose the name of the person who signed Martha Cook’s signature in those charging documents. This is a big deal. We still don’t know today; if it was a deputy clerk, give us that person’s name. What is the big deal? Tell us who it was! Why not tell us? That is the question. Another question is, “Why didn’t Martha Cook sign those documents herself?”
Conway Mason came out to the house; I wasn’t there. He left a note, and then he returned, and when he returned, it was still a business day as far as I understand it. Martha Cook was still around. He got a statement from her, then he came out to the house; I wasn’t home, and then he left, and he went back to Madisonville. So why didn’t Martha Cook sign those documents herself on her own? If she wasn’t available on the 7th of December, then fine, wait until she returns the next day. What was the urgency?
In any event, no matter what happened, I get to know who signed the documents, and every person you point to is withholding that name. That is not a secret. In fact, the judge said yesterday that he didn’t agree with the way it was signed out. He said, “I wouldn’t have done it that way.” The person is supposed to put his or her initials next to the name as signing under the authority of, in this case, Martha Cook. How did Martha Cook invest that authority? Is there some document that someone is authorized to sign for her? That’s a much lesser deal, but I get to know the name of the person who forged Martha Cook’s name. It’s a constitutional denial here. They’re committing criminal acts, and they’re trying to protect everybody, and they’re not going to want that type of question to come up in front of a jury. And that’s what they’re preventing me from doing. If they don’t give me the name, then I can’t call the person, because I don’t know who it is.
I’ve asked over and over again: “Give me the name of the person who forged Martha Cook’s signature. Who forged that name?” It’s not supposed to be a deep, dark secret. It shouldn’t be. And why is it? I’m facing a trial, and I get to know the names of these people who were behind this. Who gave that policeman permission to exercise a SWAT team raid on my home? Who gave that permission? I get to know that. And that they’re blocking that name from being disclosed exhibits criminal intent on their part.
Then they get certain outcomes. They’re feeding on their own community. The section of the law which mentions trial courts does not mention county grand juries. “A new district grand jury shall be empaneled twice a year…” By selecting jurors from a larger pool of citizens, it allows for impartial juries to be empaneled.
In our constitution, it says I can face my accuser. The government does not get to keep the names secret of those involved in this. Nobody was allowed to sign Martha Cook’s name because Martha Cook is not my accuser, and Martha Cook is not neutral. The documents are to be signed by people who are neutral players, and if you’re not neutral, then you are not to sign the document. Martha Cook is not neutral, but she is not accusing me of anything. They’re preventing me from facing an accuser.
We have no idea who signed those documents. Someone said it was a deputy, but how do they know that? Were you there???
Withholding that name gives them away. Why do that? If everything they’ve done is above-board and legit, then why do that? There shouldn’t be anything to hide. One of the reasons why they’re blocking the name of the person is that it really is a forgery. The judge said yesterday that the grand jury “cured this,” but the grand jury does not have license to forgive a criminal act. That’s what the judge said yesterday, that it was “forgiven” at the grand jury level. Well, no, it’s not. Where did he get that??? How did the grand jury cure that defect if they did not know it was a forgery to begin with? If they don’t know who signed the document, how are they able to “forgive” the fact that it’s a forgery? You don’t get to forge those types of documents. This is not how the process works. They are withholding the name and giving themselves away in the process, and they are standing in the way of my defending myself. I am already handicapped in this system which you can’t find in our constitution. Whatever they’re doing, we can’t find it anyplace. They’re just making things up as they go along. I get to know the name of my accuser. This is fraud on the court; this is willful concealment. It’s not allowed in the law. I get to know who this person is, if for no other reason than to inspect their neutrality. That’s being torn to shreds.
Conway Mason, the officer who came out to arrest me, knows who forged Cook’s name. He was standing right next to that person when it was done. That makes him a co-conspirator, a participant in the forgery. He knows that there’s someone standing in front of him who is not Martha Cook who is signing Martha Cook’s name without giving up his or her name. It was done in his presence.
It could have been Conway Mason who forged that document.
It has been almost six months, and I still can’t get the name of the person who forged Cook’s name. Why is it being kept secret? I asked the judge to give me the name, and he would not.
We had a judge yesterday who refused to even acknowledge the law as a fact, and that is at the core of this. Take me out of it; put any other issue in that courtroom yesterday when a judge is able to do that without any kind of consequences. Then you don’t have any law; we are not running a republic. The way the Founders gave us to put a stop to this kind of judicial tyranny and dictatorship is the grand jury, and we don’t have one here in Tennessee that we can go to to take up the issue of what Judge Kurtz did yesterday or what any of the other judges have done. There’s no place to go. They’re using the grand jury as a weapon against the people instead of as a defense for the people against the government.
There is no system of law. The judge was able to ignore forgery, the fact that there was a rigged jury and a foreman not legitimately installed in the jury; she’s not even a juror; they are doing whatever they please! And Mr. Rush being my accuser…”Oh,that’s OK; this is the way we do things around these parts; it’s always been this way…”
It’s common sense that the prosecutor cannot be your accuser and then be allowed to prosecute the case! Somebody has to bring the accusation to the prosecutor and then based upon other facts and evidence, they might decide to prosecute the case, but they’re not supposed to be the person who’s actually leveling the charge. If you are a judge and are in a parking lot and assailed by an assailant and then it goes to trial, you can’t be the judge who sits the bench. You are the victim of the crime and become a non-player in any other role besides being the accuser.
This is rock-solid, constitutional law, stuff that kindergarteners can understand, but yesterday, the judge just ignored every law that I brought to his attention. “No, that’s not right, not going to do that…this ‘super grand jury’ thing that you’re suggesting; no, no, no…” and he would not take judicial notice of the laws on the books.
We’re living in the twilight zone!