Has Fitzpatrick Been Framed in the Case of the Missing Documents?

TENNESSEE JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR CONTINUE TO PERPETUATE A LIE

by Sharon Rondeau

According to a law passed in 1984, the Monroe County courthouse has authority to manage only civil matters, not criminal cases

(Jul. 5, 2012) — Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III, who is defending himself against a charge of tampering with government documents, received a statement in the mail today from Judge Walter C. Kurtz in an apparent response to his citation last week of the 1984 Tennessee law which ordered the criminal courts to reorganize into districts but was never observed by the judiciary.

Fitzpatrick stated that in the mailing, the judge referred to a case which purportedly “decided” in 1992 that crimes committed within counties must be heard by county trial juries, which would contradict the 1984 law.  Reading to us from the letter received from the judge, Fitzpatrick quoted the case as “State v. Hill, 847 s.w. IId 544 (tenncrimappeals).  The closest case The Post & Email was able to locate online was “State Tennessee v. Tavaris Hill,” which actually declared that the Circuit Court was the appropriate venue for a person who was 14 years old at the time of his alleged crime but was being tried as an adult.  The defendant had argued that his case should have been heard in Juvenile Court because of his age.  The Criminal Court of Appeals ruled that “Accordingly, the Circuit Court has jurisdiction.”

A more exhaustive search for the case which Judge Kurtz maintains overrides the 1984 statute will be conducted.  However, throughout the history of American jurisprudence, a judicial decision does not override a statute passed by a state legislature.

At Fitzpatrick’s hearing on June 28, 2012, he said that Kurtz failed to “take judicial notice” of numerous laws which Fitzpatrick cited from law books and Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA), the laws of Tennessee.  The prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney General Paul D. Rush, acknowledged the existence of the law in his response motion, which had been delivered at 5:30 the previous evening to Fitzpatrick’s address of record by leaving it on the ground unannounced near a back entrance to the building.

At a prior hearing on May 4, 2012, Kurtz had appeared to be unbiased toward Fitzpatrick, and Rush was rendered “speechless” at one point.

On June 28, both Rush and Kurtz insisted that the county court had criminal jurisdiction, although the law states:

TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED
© 2012 by The State of Tennessee
All rights reserved

*** CURRENT THROUGH THE 2011 REGULAR SESSION ***

Title 16  Courts
Chapter 2  Judicial Divisions and Districts
Part 5  Trial Courts

Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-2-501  (2012)

16-2-501.  Legislative purpose — Existing courts.

(a) The general assembly expressly declares that its purpose in enacting this part is to reorganize the existing trial court system of this state in such a way that its growth occurs in a logical and orderly manner. It does not have as its purpose the abolition of any court or judicial office.

(b) Nothing in this part shall be construed as altering, diminishing or abolishing chancery court or the constitutional and historical distinctions between chancery court and circuit court.

HISTORY:Acts 1984, ch. 931, § 1.

The law establishing new judicial districts reads, in part:

TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED
© 2012 by The State of Tennessee
All rights reserved

*** CURRENT THROUGH THE 2011 REGULAR SESSION ***

Title 16  Courts
Chapter 2  Judicial Divisions and Districts
Part 5  Trial Courts

Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-2-506  (2012)

16-2-506.  Establishment of judicial districts — Assistant district attorneys general — Criminal investigators — Equity and law courts — Chancery courts.

The state is divided into thirty-one (31) judicial districts composed as follows:

(1)  (A) The first judicial district consists of the counties of Carter, Johnson, Unicoi and Washington. The four (4) incumbent trial court judges and the district attorney general currently residing in those counties shall continue to serve the first judicial district in their respective capacities. In 1988, the qualified voters of the first judicial district shall elect an additional judge or chancellor in accordance with § 16-2-505 to serve the court and part of court designated pursuant to § 16-2-512;

(B) The district attorney general of the first judicial district is entitled to nine (9) assistant district attorney general positions and one (1) criminal investigator position;

(2)  (A) The second judicial district consists of the county of Sullivan. The three (3) incumbent trial court judges and the district attorney general currently residing in such county shall continue to serve the second judicial district in their respective capacities. Effective September 1, 1984, the law and equity court currently located in Sullivan County shall become a chancery court for the second judicial district and the current law and equity judge shall become a chancellor who on such date shall possess the same jurisdiction, powers and duties and shall receive the same compensation, benefits, emoluments and dignity of office as is required or provided by law for chancellors. In 1984, the qualified voters of the second judicial district shall elect an additional judge in accordance with § 16-2-505 to serve part II of the circuit court of such district;

(B) The district attorney general of the second judicial district is entitled to eight (8) assistant district attorney general positions and two (2) criminal investigator positions;

(3)  (A) The third judicial district consists of the counties of Greene, Hamblen, Hancock and Hawkins. The three (3) incumbent trial court judges and the district attorney general currently residing in such counties shall continue to serve the third judicial district in their respective capacities. In 1986, the qualified voters of the third judicial district shall elect an additional judge or chancellor in accordance with § 16-2-505 to serve the court and part of court designated pursuant to § 16-2-512. In 1990, the qualified voters of the third judicial district shall elect an additional circuit court judge in accordance with § 16-2-505 to serve part III of the circuit court of such district;

(B) The district attorney general of the third judicial district is entitled to nine (9) full-time assistant district attorney general positions and three (3) criminal investigator positions;

(4)  (A) The fourth judicial district consists of the counties of Cocke, Grainger, Jefferson and Sevier. The three (3) incumbent trial court judges and the district attorney general currently residing in such counties shall continue to serve the fourth judicial district in their respective capacities. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or this part to the contrary, the chancellor currently serving in the fourth judicial district shall also serve the fifth judicial district. As long as the chancellor for the fourth judicial district also serves the fifth judicial district, such chancellor shall be elected by the qualified voters of both such districts and may reside in either district. In 1990, the qualified voters of the fourth judicial district shall elect an additional circuit court judge in accordance with § 16-2-505 to serve part III of the circuit court of such district. Effective September 1, 1998, there is created an additional circuit court in the fourth judicial district. At the August 1998 general election, the qualified voters of the fourth judicial district shall elect a person in accordance with § 16-2-505, to serve as judge of the circuit court created by this section for an eight-year term;

(B) The district attorney general of the fourth judicial district is entitled to seven (7) assistant district attorney general positions and two (2) criminal investigator positions;

(5)  (A) The fifth judicial district consists of the county of Blount. The two (2) incumbent trial court judges and the district attorney general currently residing in such county shall continue to serve the fifth judicial district in their respective capacities;

(B) The district attorney general of the fifth judicial district is entitled to five (5) assistant district attorney general positions and one (1) criminal investigator position;

(6)  (A) The sixth judicial district shall consist of the county of Knox. The nine (9) incumbent trial court judges and the district attorney general currently residing in such county shall continue to serve the sixth judicial district in their respective capacities. In 1986, the qualified voters of the sixth judicial district shall elect an additional chancellor in accordance with § 16-2-505 to serve part III of the chancery court of such district;

(B) The district attorney general of the sixth judicial district is entitled to sixteen (16) assistant district attorney general positions and two (2) criminal investigator positions;

(7)  (A) The seventh judicial district consists of the county of Anderson. The two (2) incumbent trial court judges and the district attorney general currently residing in such county shall continue to serve the seventh judicial district;

(B) The district attorney general of the seventh judicial district is entitled to three (3) assistant district attorney general positions and one (1) criminal investigator position;

(8)  (A) The eighth judicial district consists of the counties of Campbell, Claiborne, Fentress, Scott and Union. The three (3) incumbent trial court judges and the district attorney general currently residing in such counties shall continue to serve the eighth judicial district in their respective capacities;

(B) The district attorney general of the eighth judicial district is entitled to six (6) assistant district attorney general positions and two (2) criminal investigator positions;

(9)  (A) The ninth judicial district consists of the counties of Loudon, Meigs, Morgan and Roane. The two (2) incumbent trial court judges and the district attorney general currently residing in such counties shall continue to serve the ninth judicial district in their respective capacities. In 1984, the qualified voters of the ninth judicial district shall elect a chancellor in accordance with § 16-2-505 to serve part I of the chancery court of such district;

(B) The district attorney general of the ninth judicial district is entitled to five (5) assistant district attorney general positions and two (2) criminal investigator positions;

(10)  (A) The tenth judicial district consists of the counties of Bradley, McMinn, Monroe and Polk. The four (4) incumbent trial court judges and the district attorney general currently residing in such counties shall continue to serve the tenth judicial district in their respective capacities. In 1986, the qualified voters of the tenth judicial district shall elect an additional judge or chancellor in accordance with § 16-2-505 to serve the court and part of court designated pursuant to § 16-2-512;

On the 28th, Rush lobbed accusations at Fitzpatrick and The Post & Email, suggesting that Fitzpatrick was of questionable mental capacity and that this writer lacked ethics and integrity because we published the documents which Fitzpatrick took from the courtroom and mailed to us.  We have published many documents over the course of the last two years from Fitzpatrick which demonstrate that we can support all of our statements.

Other Tennessee government officials, after Fitzpatrick informed them of the 1984 statute of which they might not have been aware, have insisted that the terms “circuit court” and “county court” are interchangeable.  A crime reporter for the Knoxville News Sentinel told Fitzpatrick two weeks ago that she had “never heard of district courts” in Tennessee, perhaps because they were never implemented.

Fitzpatrick has stated that the charging documents authorizing his arrest on December 7, 2011 after some papers went missing from the Monroe County courthouse were signed by an unknown accuser who wrote the name “Martha M. Cook” on them, rendering them “forgeries.”  Cook affirmed during the probable cause hearing on January 17, 2012 that she did not sign the charging documents.  Fitzpatrick told The Post & Email that the documents he picked up from a courtroom table were out in the open with other publicly-available materials.  He had been at the courthouse that day to observe the annual selection of two new grand juries for Monroe County, TN, along with several other members of the public.

On June 28, when Fitzpatrick asked who signed the documents which Detective Conway Mason used to arrest him and impound his computer and some personal papers on December 7, the judge said that the “forgeries had been cured by the grand jury.”  Fitzpatrick does not believe that the grand jury empaneled to review the evidence in his case was told about the forged signatures on the charging documents.

A full recording of the probable cause hearing on January 17, 2012 was obtained by both Fitzpatrick and The Post & Email, excerpts of which were published here.  However, upon reviewing it again today, Fitzpatrick stated that he made a new discovery.  He reported that he heard Martha Cook say very softly the name “Renee Ezzell” as one of her “deputy clerks” and identify her as the person who left the documents in question on the table in the lower-level courtroom where Fitzpatrick found them on December 7, 2011.  “She says it in a very low voice, but she says ‘Renee,'” Fitzpatrick said, “almost a whisper.  She says ‘Renee,’ and that’s Renee Ezzell.”

Fitzpatrick further related of Martha Cook’s comments:

Martha Cook also said in that recording which you have that she called me to notify me on the 7th of December – and I’m paraphrasing here – to alert me that I had documents that were not publicly available to get them back before charges were brought against me.  That’s Martha Cook saying that, under oath.  So I wasn’t being charged with anything until, as Martha Cook tells the tale, they had an opportunity to tell me that those documents were in some way protected or in some way misadministered – left out on a table by mistake, negligently – but it was not their intent to charge me until, apparently, in their minds, I had refused to give the documents back.  And they never contacted me.  The sheriff came out to the house, and I was out.

We’re not in a circumstance now where there is a competent court of jurisdiction that is hearing this case, so we can tell everyone what happened.  We can name Renee Ezzell because Martha Cook did; she left the documents on a table in the Chancery Courtroom, where they were left unprotected.  I asked Martha Cook a question:  “Were these documents open to anybody?” and she said “yes” in her sworn testimony.  Again, it was almost in a whisper, but she said, “These documents were available to anybody who came to pick them up.”

So as we go back to review them, these things are very important.  The government has admitted that those documents were left down there by a woman clerk named Renee Ezzell; that they were available for anybody to pick up; that they were unprotected.  Martha Cook admits that by saying that they were calling me to alert me.  This is consistent with the search warrant language that Martha Cook had called and then the deputy came out to try and recover the documents, and he didn’t find me at home, but he thought that I was, and it was because they thought I was home that I was refusing to return the documents which was at that point in time, in their minds, it became a criminal act and they charged me with a crime.

Well, it’s only through their negligence or, in the alternative, through their intentionally setting a trap, which others have suggested, that the documents were taken.  This is supremely important for the following reasons:  Martha Cook tells us that it was a deputy clerk who forged her name to the charging documents.  You”ll be getting the recordings from Judge Kurtz having recognized this in his own courtroom last Thursday.  Everybody recognizes that that’s a forgery of Martha Cook’s signature, and the judge in the lower court, J. Reed Dixon, and the judge in the county probate court, Judge Walter C. Kurtz, both recognized that the signature is a forgery.  Judge Dixon said, “Well, let’s not call it that…”  Well, what are we going to call it?  It’s a forgery, and Cook named her deputy clerk as having signed it, but we don’t know that.  Martha Cook refuses to release the name of the deputy clerk who forged her name; J. Reed Dixon refuses to release the name of the putative deputy clerk who forged Martha Cook’s name; now Paul D. Rush refuses to disclose the name; Conway Mason refuses to release the name, as does Judge alter C. Kurtz refuses to release the name of this person who is identified as a deputy clerk who forged Martha Cook’s signature to the charging documents charging me with a crime.  This is very important, because that deputy clerk could have been Renee Ezzell.

I don’t know if it was she, but for that matter, any other deputy clerk working for Martha Cook is now compromised.  They’re not allowed to sign either their own names as deputy clerks or the name of Martha Cook in an agency relationship, because it was one of their coworkers who was negligently responsible or intentionally responsible for leaving those documents on the table in the Chancery courtroom, which was a waiting room; unprotected, not marked in any way as protected.  It could have been a trap, or they were left down there negligently.  But Martha Cook has now admitted that anybody could have picked them up, and she also admits that it was not a criminal act at that point in time when she knew that I didn’t know that those documents were protected in any way.  The government admits that.  They said they wanted to notify me first.  I wasn’t home when they first came out; I was walking to or coming back from the post office after having mailed those documents to you.

So there was no crime on the afternoon of the 7th of December of 2011, which means that Paul D. Rush can’t be my accuser from a timeline perspective, because Paul Rush was not part of any of this.  Martha Cook states that she’s not my accuser, so who was it that afternoon who signed out the search warrant and set the stage for the SWAT team raid on my home that night at about 9:00 p.m.?  They know all of this; they know that there was no crime committed, and they’re trying to advance this through…and they got this through the grand jury…they didn’t tell the grand jury any of this.  They didn’t tell the grand jury that those documents were left negligently or intentionally downstairs in the Chancery courtroom and that they were open for anybody to come in there and pick up.  They didn’t play the recording that we have of Martha Cook’s testimony on the 17th of January; that testimony was not played for the grand jury on March 13, because if it had been played for them, they would have said, “There’s nothing here; let’s move along.”

So the government is advancing a case against me that they know is a fraud from its beginning.  This is all a fraud on the court.  And now the judge himself has participated in this, and the judge needs to be condemned because he is also sitting the bench on a murder trial, trying to advance a murder trial through a probate court which has no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever.  He knows it and refuses to accept his own written law.  It’s on the books.  You will hear this for yourself.  He refuses to take judicial notice of his own laws.

The Post & Email has been informed that Mr. Rush was vituperative in his mention of The Post & Email in the courtroom on June 28.  When we receive the recording of the proceedings, which should be soon, we will listen carefully and make an evaluation as to whether or not threats have been made against us.  If so, we will contact the authorities, starting with the FBI agent and state trooper who picked up the missing documents at our office in February.  Both men urged us to contact them if anything made us “uncomfortable.”

The matter of Rush’s slander against The Post & Email will be taken up separately.

3 Responses to "Has Fitzpatrick Been Framed in the Case of the Missing Documents?"

  1. jetdriver2   Saturday, July 7, 2012 at 11:19 AM

    All of these Tennessee public officials are despicable.

    Is there one honest person among them who it true to his or her duty as a public servant? Apparently not!

    Thank you for exposing this sad story. It makes me weep for my country. How can we have allowed our country to descend into such depravity and lawlessness?

    I am sure this lawlessness is going on in every state in the Union.

    LCDR Fitzpatrick is one tough guy. Thankfully his Naval Academy training taught him something about what duty and an oath of office as a U.S. military officer means.

    Unfortunately I cannot say the same for my own squadron mates who are Annapolis grads and who continue to support the imposter in the White House.

    I am praying that Walt’s courage and tenacity will bring down these corrupt officials in Tennessee.

    All of those corrupt judges, sheriffs, police, and court officials should spend their days in stocks in front of the Monroe County courthouse, and their nights in the Monroe County jail.

  2. A pen   Friday, July 6, 2012 at 11:38 AM

    I can hear the clickety clack of the Tennessee railway all the way in NY. I’ll bet it can be heard around the world.

  3. gigclick   Friday, July 6, 2012 at 2:18 AM

    Now they are not only blaming Walt but the Post Email also. I am interested to see what Judge Kurtz will do. He was assigned to this case by authority for what reason we don’t know. Was it to “move it along” to cover up their lack of reason to create this case in the first place and the entire false charge against Walt or does the reason go futher to cover more? Anger by these people at exposing a fraudulant court, police and public trustee operation by Walt for trying to do his duty to expose corruption and people not doing their job and protecting crime is absurd at best. What happened to the Jim Miller case and how will this play into the time scenario of all the corruption happening in the same time line? It’s getting kind of sticky out there and all the finger pointing won’t bring back Jim or fix Walt being falsely accused but it may sure generate lots of law suits especially since now they are cursing The Post Email on top of it. I wonder when such scrutiny will be paid to Bari Malik Shabazz, son of Malcolm X, the great white hater and fallen leader of Islam? When will they stop embarrassing the good African Americans that have also given so much to America? I wonder when such scrutiny will be paid to all the corruption and theft that is going on? We all wonder when Treason, Perjury and Election Fraud will be finally held against Pelosi, Hillary, Dodd, Biden, Reid,criminal assistants of the Democratic party and when Obambies records will be released to the public from Perkins Coie and stop charging the public with millions in taxpayers money to keep them hidden? Only the Communists know.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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