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


by Sharon Rondeau

Monroe County, TN is part of the Tenth Judicial District, which Walter Fitzpatrick has exposed for corruption, racketeering, forgery, and violation of state statutes for more than three years. To date, no public official has taken definitive action to combat the institutionalized corruption which has incarcerated thousands and wasted untold amounts of taxpayer dollars; neither will the majority of the residents of Monroe County demand reform.

(Dec. 5, 2012) — On Monday, December 3, Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III was convicted by a Monroe County jury for “tampering with government records” after 7-8 minutes of deliberation.  Assistant District Attorney Paul D. Rush presented the state’s case, but Judge Walter C. Kurtz did not allow Fitzpatrick’s attorney, Van Irion of Knoxville, to present a prepared defense for his client.

The same situation occurred when Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin had gone to court-martial after refusing to follow orders issued from Barack Hussein Obama, who has never proved his constitutional eligibility to serve as president and commander-in-chief.  The judge in Lakin’s case, Col. Denise Lind, had denied Lakin discovery, stating that something on Obama’s original birth certificate might “embarrass” him. During Lakin’s court-martial, his defense attorney reportedly “broke him.”

Obama remains accused of identity fraud, forgery, and using a stolen Social Security number.

Fitzpatrick told The Post & Email following the trial that the judge spoke privately with the jury members after they had finished their deliberations, returned to the courtroom to give their verdict, and then left the courtroom.  Fitzptarick has long contended that the charging documents in the case were forgeries and therefore invalid.  The court clerk, Martha M. Cook, admitted in a previous hearing that she did not sign them.

Paul D. Rush is reportedly under investigation after an ethics complaint was lodged against him for allegedly exerting undue influence on grand jury members in McMinn County, which is part of the Tenth Judicial District.  Rush has stated in court documents that The Post & Email lacks integrity and ethics after redacted documents used to collect a significant amount of personal information on prospective grand jurors were published on December 21, 2011.  Rush has attempted to label Fitzpatrick “criminally insane” for exposing law-breaking and systemic corruption in the Tenth Judicial District and throughout the state of Tennessee over the last three years.

An audio recording of the trial is on its way to The Post & Email through the U.S. Postal Service.

During Monday’s trial, Rush voiced his opposition to Fitzpatrick’s treason complaint against Barack Hussein Obama which Fitzpatrick had attempted to advance through the Monroe County grand jury more than three years ago.  Fitzpatrick is not alone in his complaint; however.  A former congressman, current state representative, former vice president Richard Cheney, well-known writer and former Justice Department attorney have also named Obama in the commission of treason.  Many groups and organizations have called for Obama’s removal from office for numerous reasons which include aiding and abetting the enemy.  Accusations of “Treason” against Obama are now common.  Others are calling for his impeachment.  Still others are attempting to discover whether or not he was ever constitutionally qualified to hold the office of president.

Fitzpatrick has reported corruption within the Tenth Judicial District to the Tennessee Attorney General, Administrative Office of the Courts, his state senator and representative, Congressman John Duncan, the head of the state Senate Judiciary Committee, Mae Beavers; the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, the Knoxville FBI, local law enforcement, The Rutherford Institute, and the Thomas More Law Center.  An investigation was announced by the attorney general’s office in late August, but no update has been provided on its progress.  Neither the attorney general nor the state comptroller’s office will confirm or deny that an investigation is ongoing.  District Attorney Steven Bebb, who had pledged to step down after the investigation was announced, is reportedly still serving in his position.  A call placed with Bebb’s office last week asking if that were the case was not returned.

Fitzpatrick described the events of the trial in the following interview.

CDR FITZPATRICK:  We had intended to offer up two defenses, but Judge Kurtz disallowed both of them.  If one of the defenses had been allowed to stay in, then we would have been able to talk about the reasons why I did what I did.  We could have talked about all of the corruption.  We got some of that in there, but I almost was thrown in jail for “criminal contempt.”  Kurtz had said not to talk about something and I talked about it anyway.

MRS. RONDEAU:  What was that?

CDR FITZPATRICK:  That I watched Amy Reedy commit a crime on December 7, 2011.

MRS. RONDEAU:  A judge picking a jury is illegal according to Tennessee statute.

CDR FITZPATRICK:  Kurtz jumped all over me.  He was about to say “You’re going to jail, today,” but Van intervened.  Another interesting development was that Counselor Irion had argued before that the original documents which got this case started were forgeries, and the judge had said, “Well, that’s all cured by the grand jury,” but then we take a look at the grand jury and find that Ms. Tennyson isn’t legally there.  On Monday, Counselor Irion argued to have evidence of an inmate suppressed, and one of the reasons that Kurtz granted that motion was that Bruce Arp, the clerk who signed the charging documents – the arrest warrant and affidavit of complaint – didn’t sign his own name.  That’s why the judge granted it.  He ordered it before, on October 3, but on Monday he said, “We’re not going to let this guy testify because he didn’t sign his own name.”

[Editor’s Note:  Fitzpatrick reported that his attorney, Van Irion, plans to file a motion for a new trial on or before January 2, 2013, with Kurtz having set a date set for oral argument on January 9.  Should Kurtz deny the motion, Fitzpatrick plans to appeal.  The sentence is suspended until after Fitzpatrick’s appeal is adjudicated.

Irion and Fitzpatrick discovered just before the trial began that a witness who was subpoenaed for the defense moved to Nebraska.  The witness had had significant information as to how at least some grand jury members are chosen by human and not automated means, as stipulated by law.]

MRS. RONDEAU:  So when it hurts them, they don’t allow it in, but when it benefits them, they allow it.

CDR FITZPATRICK:  He was a criminal court clerk, and the third reason why the judge wouldn’t let him testify this time was that Tennessee law requires that a Sessions Court clerk issue these documents.  Bruce Arp wasn’t allowed to sign those documents out at all.  [Editor’s Note:  Kurtz was correctly referring to TCA 40-6-214, which states that “Clerks of courts of general sessions and their duly sworn deputies have jurisdiction and authority, concurrent with that of the judges of the general sessions court, to issue warrants for the arrest of persons.  Additionally, TCA 18-4-203 states  that the “clerk of the general sessions court has concurrent authority with the judge to issue warrants and other process and writs…”]

MRS. RONDEAU:  So the charging documents were signed by someone without authority, as you have claimed.

CDR FITZPATRICK:  Another reason is that Arp didn’t establish probable cause; he just signed this thing off as a rubber stamp.  That came out on Monday.  Everywhere you look, there are crimes being committed, and I’m the one being prosecuted.  The judge actually sentenced me to 11 months, 29 days in jail, but he said, “I’m willing to suspend that sentence to 20 days in the Monroe County, TN jail.”  You can listen to it when you get the recording.  The sentence includes supervised probation and community service; I’m not sure how long the probation is.  Every time you go in, you have to have a drug test and pay for the session.

[Editor’s Note:  When Arp was asked why he is no longer working as a criminal court clerk in Monroe County, he pleaded the Fifth Amendment.  Ironically, the Fifth Amendment also provides defendants the right to a grand jury’s review of evidence prior to being charged with a crime.]

When I tried to tell them that I believed that I had just seen a judge break the law last December 7, Judge Kurtz said, “That’s enough.”

MRS. RONDEAU:  Did they show the video they said they had of your picking up the documents?

CDR FITZPATRICK:  Yes, they did.

MRS. RONDEAU:  What was Atty. Irion’s reaction to the judge’s denial of a defense?

CDR FITZPATRICK:  You will hear Van saying on the audio that this is exactly the kind of case for the defense strategy which he planned to use, and the judge just said “No.”

MRS. RONDEAU:  The Tennessee constitution allows every defendant a defense and an impartial jury.

CDR FITZPATRICK:  Look at what’s happening to me:  I’m trying to stand up against the corruption, and I’m getting beaten up.

MRS. RONDEAU:  It sounds like a court in Cuba or the old Soviet Union.

CDR FITZPATRICK:  It’s certainly third-world.  Everywhere you look, there are people breaking the law.  The clerk was not allowed to sign out those charging documents, so there should not have been a trial on Monday.  Arp forged Martha Cook’s name; he did not go through any kind of a probable cause sequence.  He took Conway Mason’s word for it and just signed the documents.  Then he lost his job and wouldn’t talk about it today…

These are the people who are acting against me.  This is the system of government of government they’re operating.  I watched a judge hand-pick jurors; I talked to someone who was told to “come back” the following year to get on the grand jury.  None of this could be considered by the jury because the judge would not allow a defense.

MRS. RONDEAU:  How many attorneys are told that they can’t present a defense for their client?

CDR FITZPATRICK:  It happened to Col. Lakin.  It happened to him, and it’s happened to me.  Who knows how many others it’s happened to?  You’ll hear Van talking about it on the recording.  Kurtz said, “No, you can’t use that defense.”  The judge did not want any of this information – that the judges are rigging the juries – to be heard. It’s out of control. This is the state of our nation.

Join the Conversation


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. “. . . prevail on appeal for lack of due process . . .” is an oxymoron in east TN. Recall that Walt’s habeas was ignored at the state and federal level. If the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus can be suspended in east TN, something as simple as due process won’t rate consideration.

    It all goes back to where it started . . . If the citizens won’t stand up in their grand juries, tyranny is just going to continue to happen.

  2. Sibley Interview article and this article’s headlines are appended by “pb” – May I inquire (if ignorantly) as to the meaning of the “pb”?
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Yes, a while back I needed to find a way to mark our free-access articles so that they would be easy to find. The letters must be lower case and without any punctuation in order for the articles to be launched on Twitter. Therefore, “pb” stands for “pro bono.” http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/11/11/free-content-will-be-marked-pb-pb/

  3. I feel compelled to point out that Walt’s case is probably far worse a travesty of justice than Col. Lakin’s case because Col. Lakin had no right to challenge Mr. Obama in the first place, which is why he had no right to discovery, and was indeed guilty as charged. In Walt’s case, he is entitled to put forth a defense and it appears that he was denied that due process right based on what has been reported. If true, then Walt has been denied due process of law where I can see no due process violation for Col. Lakin. I don’t think the two cases are comparable.

    In Col. Lakin’s case, a Colonel in the military tried to challenge the legitimacy of a sitting President in order to refuse orders. Only CONGRESS has that power, not someone from the military. We are not a banana republic were the military can challenge the authority of the executive branch of government. Only Congress has that authority, and in some cases a civilian citizen.

    The military person takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, so as not to overthrow it by using military force to replace our Constituional government via a military coup. That is why the oath is given. This does not give the military person the right to challenge the validity of Mr. Obama or his orders. Only a civilian who is not a subject of the Executive Branch of government would have such authority. The military person has voluntarily subjected themselves to involuntary servitude under the executive branch of government which means that any military personnel are subject to the Defacto Officer Doctrine just like a Judge or Sheriff who are found to not be eligible to hold their position of office. Therefore, the military person, whether active duty, or retired, or inactive, have no right to challenge the legitimacy of the person who occupies the Office of President as they have no injury as a military person. They can challenge him in their civilian capacity as ordinary citizens, but just not in their military capacity. This is why Col. Lakin had no right of discovery because he had no law on his side to make a defense, and any discovery would be irrelevant, like embarrassing the President, for example, is irrelevant to any defense that Lakin could use since there is no defense for his actions even if a fraudulent BC was produced that proves Obama cannot be an nbC. It is irrelevant for the military.

    Walt’s case is entirely different. It is not even about Obama. Walt has been charged with a crime as a civilian under civilian authority. Walt is entitled to discovery and to put forth a defense. If he was denied that, as it is reported here, then he should prevail upon appeal if he was denied due process. Lakin got all of his due process that he was entitled to. It is not so clear that Walt got all of his due process rights, which is why Walt’s case could be an even bigger travesty of justice.

  4. In another light, Fitz has put his life on the line and lost his “fortune” to provide the citizens of Monroe County the means to overthrow the tyranny that consumes their judiciary “system”.

    Did they not jump on this opportunity out of ignorance or perhaps fear? Maybe both? Whichever it was; they failed their chance and will not get another any time soon, if ever. May they wear their chains lightly.

    But there it was. A finding of not guilty for Fitz would have been nullification of the corruption in their judiciary system and specifically in that particular courtroom.

  5. Now we are seeing into the belly of the whale. I believe that Kurtz is being manipulated by the Dems and is under orders since they are operating outside traditional law procedure by denying presentment it is obvious that it is all prearranged/orchestrated but still think that Kurtz is giving Walt a pass through the woods even though this sham is a Kangaroo Court like Lakin experienced and no one will listen to the wrongs being done or laws broken at will. We can see it is all being run one-sided and touch and go to follow their agenda only. A sad day for Veterans and taxpayers.