“OUTLAWED”
by Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III, ©2017
(Jul. 2, 2017) — The Deep State finds its spawn in Tennessee. It was in the Volunteer State where the first planting and harvest occurred. Tennessee is one place where laws go to die.
In an act of arrogant, purposeful discrimination, Tennessee criminal court judges unconstitutionally “handpick” the thirteenth member of Tennessee county grand juries. Then, judges unlawfully “anoint” the special member as the “foreman” of the assembled group.
Citizens possessed of the temerity to force introductions of outlaw government actors to their criminal consequences are instead arrested by agents of the rogue government.
In an act of supremacy obedient to their foreign government, agents willfully compliant, exercising their treasonous system, arrest citizens attempting to defend our recognized state and federal Constitutions.
The treasonous government authorities then illegally prosecute and lock up those defenders of our American way of life.
Meanwhile, absent the protection of a grand jury, innocents are being wrongfully prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated in service to a prisoner-for-profit business model which is being increasingly privatized.
Absent the scope and operation of a constitutionally-formed and operating grand jury, tyrants are free in their treasonous administration of U.S. government arrogantly confident no force exists strong enough to stop them.
Present-day legal controlling authority: Three federal courts have ruled handpicking the grand jury foremen in Tennessee is discriminatory.[i]
The United States Supreme Court ruled on this date in 1979: The ritual whereupon Tennessee criminal court judges engage in, with a particular purpose in mind, to carefully single out particular persons to fill the position of county grand jury foreman, is unconstitutional and impermissible.[ii]
In each review federal jurists concluded, respecting the method used in appointing Tennessee grand jury foremen, the opportunity for discrimination was to be inherent in the selection process.
Federal judges ordered and otherwise allowed Tennessee officials to explain their atrocious activity. But there was no response. In this moment, there remains no Tennessee answer to the federal courts.
It is therefore a settled matter: dispositive. State and federal authorities are in full agreement with each other on this point: Grand jury foreman shopping and appointment is unconstitutional and outlawed.
No room is left to polemic.
Still, the cherry-picking of Tennessee county grand jury foremen continues in full force. I explain why below.
Discrimination in the judges’ personal selection of county grand jury foremen in Tennessee is the operation of a government competing with both state and federal Constitutions.
Stacking Tennessee county grand juries is an act of treason.
In Tennessee, we find the rule of man operating in fact (de facto), having successfully replaced the rule of law (de jure).
Federal government officials are complicit and compromised in Tennessee’s grand jury racket. Tennessee is where the Deep State’s roots run deepest.
Witness-tampering, witness-influencing, evidence-tampering, misprision of felony offenses, intimidation, harassment, extortion, exercise of undue influence, abuse of power, in part, populate a list of criminal activities which can be charged against those responsible for the ongoing grand jury criminal adventure.
In practical terms, as I’m about to show, this renders void every indictment and presentment issued by an outlawed Tennessee grand jury where it can be demonstrated a Tennessee criminal court judge personally and selectively chose and then installed the grand jury foreman.
Not voidable. They are void!
[i] U.S. District Court for Western Tennessee in 1977, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth District, and the U.S. Supreme Court two times in 1979 and 1984.
[ii] 1979: Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, 99 S. Ct. 2993.
Editor’s Note: This article is the first in a series.
Rose v. Mitchell actually said:
“Discrimination on the basis of RACE, odious in all aspects, is especially pernicious in the administration of justice. Selection of members of a grand jury because they are of one race and not another destroys the appearance of justice and [443 U.S. 545, 556] thereby casts doubt on the integrity of the judicial process.”
You misquoted:
“The exclusion from grand jury service of NEGROES, or any group otherwise qualified to serve, impairs the confidence of the public in the administration of justice.”
Any group refers to a protected class. Race is one such protected class. From Rose:
“That is, “in order to show that an equal protection violation has occurred in the context of grand jury [foreman] selection, the defendant must show that the procedure employed resulted in substantial underrepresentation of his race or of the identifiable group to which he belongs.” Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S., at 494 . Specifically, respondents were required to prove their prima facie case with regard to the foreman as follows:
“The first step is to establish that the group is one that is a recognizable, distinct class, singled out for different treatment under the laws, as written or as applied. . . . Next, the degree of underrepresentation must be proved, by comparing the proportion of the group in the total population to the proportion called to serve as [foreman], over a significant period of time. . . . This method of proof, sometimes called the `rule of exclusion,’ has been held to be available as a method of proving discrimination in jury selection against a delineated class. . .”
What is the delineated class that is subject to discrimination and how are you a member of that class?
Commander Fitzpatrick here:
For Post & Email readers: Pay no mind to the fog bow (T.F. Bow). TFB and Lane Hudson are both clowns telling lies. Ignore them.
And I’m not done yet!!
The Supreme Court cases cited, Rose (1979) and Hobby (1984) ruled Tennessee’s method of selection of county grand jury foremen were discriminatory, due process violations and constitutionally impermissible. These two SCOTUS rulings both serve to support the positions I take in this series of articles.
Reasons why appellants in both Rose and Hobby did not prevail in their prayers to SCOTUS are given elsewhere in this series and in the comments and are, for purposes of supporting my position, inconsequential.
TFB and Lane Hudson are also inconsequential.
For both TFG and Hudson: “Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time. And it annoys the pig.”
This series continues tomorrow…
Here endth another lesson.
Email: jaghunter1@gmail.com
Mr. Fitzpatrick. I know you are not an attorney so let me give you some advice. Citing cases where the very proposition that you espouse failed to sway the justices won’t get you anywhere. I have asked multiple times where in either of the cases you cited the Tennessee system that let’s judges appoint a 13th grand juror as foreperson was ruled unconstitutional and all you can do is talk about pigs. There are in fact cases where that system was upheld as legal.
You are arguing a political question not a legal one. You don’t like the legal system in Tennessee. There are valid ways to change that system through the political process. Trying to arrest people and sneaking out with court documents will not work. Your record speaks for itself and is an embarrassment to the fine seamen with whom you served.
I am disappointed that you didn’t learn to reason better than that from your time at the USNA.
Commander Fitzpatrick here:
For Post & Email readers, so as to uncloak Mr. Lane Hudson once again as a leftist agent provocateur, which is to say Mr. Lane is a master of propaganda; a disciple of guys like Joseph Goebbels, the following explanation is quoted, making clear the distinction in the Rose and Hobby rulings.
Pay special attention to the stark difference between the selection process used to choose the foreman for a FEDERAL grand jury juxtaposed to the method used to pick the foreman into a Tennessee county grand jury:
“The [United States] Supreme Court has held that discrimination in the selection of the grand jury’s foreperson does not require the dismissal of an indictment if the foreperson was selected among the grand jury by its own members, as long as the grand jury pool was selected in an unbiased manner from among a cross-section of the community (Hobby v. United States, 1984). A federal grand jury foreperson is not in a position to sway the outcome of a case. On the other hand, in Rose v. Mitchell (1979), the foreman was not selected from among the local grand jury but instead from outside of [the grand jury] by a judge. Furthermore, the foreman [in the Tennessee county grand jury] had significant power in issuing subpoenas that could [be used to] influence the substance of an indictment. This did constitute a due process violation.”
(Citation: Criminal Procedure: Constitution and Society, Third Edition (2002), by Marvin Zalman, J.D., Ph.D., page 425)
Due process violations are unconstitutional.
“Never try to teach a pig to sing. It’s a waste of time, and it annoys the pig.”
Pay Mr. Lane Hudson no attention whatsoever! Hudson is a fraud!
So Mr. Fitzpatrick can do nothing but resort to old worn out ad hominem attacks when I pointed out to him that neither case he cited supports his conclusion that the method of selecting the grand jury foreperson in Tennessee is unconstitutional?
In both cases the issue was quite narrow and simple to read. The issue in both is that convicted parties tried to use the argument that the method of selecting the grand jury foreperson was discriminatory as grounds for dismissal. In both the court upheld the convictions. You can cherry pick sentences from both rulings but a graduate of a fine institution like the USNA should be able to sort things out.
Instead Mr. Fitzpatrick tried to arrest a black foreman of a legally constituted grand jury. So much for his discrimination argument.
Commander Fitzpatrick here:
Out of respect for Post & Email readers, and in defense of veracity and journalistic integrity, Mr. Lane Hudson’s mendacity and prevarication must be profiled, called out, exposed and condemned.
Mr. Hudson is a sophisticated, polished practitioner of the high art form of broadcasting propaganda and falsehood.
Lying Hudson’s comments respecting Hobby v. U.S. supply me with a target rich environment to expose Hudson as a purveyor of “fake news.”
The Hobby case was an appeal of a cause which found its beginning in a federal setting.
The Rose case originated in a Tennessee county court.
Hobby began as a federal case.
Rose began as a Tennessee state case.
The petitioner, Hobby, in the federal case argued that the decision in the state case, Rose v. Mitchell out of Tennessee, supported Hobby’s position that discrimination in the selection of the foreman to Hobby’s federal grand jury warranted reversal of his conviction and dismissal of the federal case against him.
Hobby incorrectly maintained that proven discrimination in the method of selection of Tennessee county grand jury foremen extended to the federal system proving discrimination in the selection of federal grand jury foreman.
Hobby’s misplaced argument was discrimination found in Tennessee proved discrimination at the federal level respecting selection of grand jury foremen.
In Hobby, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court went into great detail regarding the different methods used to select grand jury foremen in a federal setting versus the method used in Tennessee (which Hobby pointed to directly).
SCOTUS ruled in Hobby the two method of selection were different; the method used in Tennessee (as recorded in Rose) was altogether different from the method used for federal grand juries (as was exercised in Hobby’s cause).
SCOTUS reasserted the method used to handpick county grand jury foremen in Tennessee was unconstitutional and “impermissible.”
SCOTUS than explained the federal system fell within the boundaries of the law and perfectly acceptable.
SCOTUS said in Hobby: “Discrimination in the selection of [federal] grand jury foremen—as distinguished from discrimination in the selection of the [federal] grand jury itself—does not in any sense threaten the interests of the defendant protected by the Due Process Clause.”
SCOTUS then went on to explain, in excruciating detail, the difference between a federal grand jury foreman and a Tennessee county grand jury foreman pronouncing: “As we have noted, discrimination in the selection of federal grand jury foremen cannot be said to have had a significant impact upon the due process interests of criminal defendants. Thus, the nature of petitioner’s [Hobby] alleged injury and the constitutional basis of his claim distinguish his circumstances from those of the defendants in Rose.”
Lane Hudson explains none of this to you. Pay Hudson no attention. Hudson is a leftist liar. Ignore him. Hudson works to defend the treasonous administration of our American government.
FAKE NEWS INCARNATE!!
Here endth another lesson.
Mr. Hudson:
Guidance I learned at Annapolis:
“Never try to teach a pig to sing. It’s a waste of time…and, it annoys the pig.” -Robert A. Heinlein, United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Class of 1929.
What I’m ignoring sir, and what I suggest to everyone else coming to these Post & Email pages, is that they ignore you!
No one can fix stupid.
Dismissed.
Mr. Fitzpartick
You ignored the finding in Hobby v US:
“Discrimination in the selection of grand jury foremen — as distinguished from discrimination in the selection of the grand jury itself — does not in any sense threaten the interests of the defendant protected by the Due Process Clause.”
You are ignoring the findings in both cases (Rose and Hobby) and telling us what the courts should have ruled.
I don’t seem to find that you have any expertise in law other than you seem to be constantly misreading it to the point it lands you in prison. Go back and read the plain language of the findings and tell me that in either case the court found the Tennessee system for selecting the grand jury foreperson is unconstitutional. Or you can continue down the self destructive path you seem to have chosen.
Mr. Lane Hudson:
My name is Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III, commander, United States Navy, Retired.
The 1979 Rose v. Mitchell U.S. Supreme Court ruling expounded: “The exclusion from grand jury service of [any group] otherwise qualified to serve, impairs the confidence of the public in the administration of justice…[such exclusion] destroys the appearance of justice and thereby casts doubt on the integrity of the judicial process…as this court repeatedly has emphasized, such discrimination ‘not only violates our Constitution and the laws enacted under it but is at war with our basic concepts of a democratic society and a representative government.’ ”
Going further the High Court exhorted: “…a conviction based on an indictment where the foreman was chosen in a discriminatory fashion is void just as would be a conviction where the entire grand jury is discriminatorily selected, whether or not there is a showing of actual prejudice.”
The Rose court ruled Tennessee’s method of choosing the grand jury foreman was discriminatory as in such a manner prohibited by the U.S. Constitution Equal Protection Clause found in the Fourteenth Amendment: “…a claim of grand jury discrimination involves charges that state officials are violating the direct command of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and federal statutes passed thereunder, that ‘no state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the Equal Protection of the Laws.’ Federal habeas review is necessary to ensure that constitutional defects in [Tennessee’s] judiciary grand jury selection procedure are not overlooked by the very state judges who operate that system.”
Under our form of government, a representative Republic, the Supreme Court of the United States, our court of last resort, aggressively asserted a second time, in 1984, its condemnation of Tennessee’s method for selecting county grand jury foreman emphasizing: “The foreman selection process [ruled upon] in Rose…determined not only who would serve as presiding officer, but also who would serve as the 13th voting member of the grand jury. The result of discrimination in foreman selection under the Tennessee system was that one of the 13 grand jurors had been selected as a voting member in an impermissible fashion.” (my emphasis in italics) (Case citation: Hobby v. U.S, 1984).
The 1979 court, in a gross dereliction of duty, adopted the outrageously narrow position that discrimination was indeed a factor in the Rose case, but not racial discrimination.
Punting, SCOTUS hinted at some other kind of unnamed discrimination. Quoting SCOTUS: “…other forms of discrimination still remain a fact of life,” the High Court conceded, “in the administration of justice as in our society as a whole. Perhaps today that discrimination takes on a form more subtle than before [which, in the eyes of SCOTUS, appellant attorney Walter C. Kurtz inartfully failed to attack]. But it is not less real or pernicious…and we adhere to our [SCOTUS] position that discrimination in the selection of the grand jury foreman remains a valid ground for setting aside a criminal conviction.”
The issue: What kind of discrimination is secretly at work?
Appellant attorney Kurtz would have served Rose magnificently had Kurtz made the case that, unless the judges tell us, it cannot be known what bias the judge applies in the personal selection of a grand jury foreman.
Because Tennessee’s judiciary as a whole, and individual criminal court judges in particular, hide their prejudices, motivations and various qualifying attributes in their perpetual, personal selections of actual jurors, it stands that the process is constitutionally infirm, fatally impaired and extremely prejudicial.
In Tennessee, selection of the grand jury foreman is a political test, the design of which is known to the criminal court judge alone.
The judges hide what type or types of discrimination are at work. The judges cloak the “what, when, where and the how’s” of any given episode of discrimination.
SCOTUS, uttering a profound understatement in Rose, obliquely and timidly, almost in a whisper, said: “…one may assume for purposes of this case [Rose] that the Tennessee method of selecting a grand jury foreman is susceptible to abuse.”
UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Discrimination was found in the Rose case by three federal courts previously cited, all of them in the appeals process attendant to Rose (the U.S. District Court for Western Tennessee (1997), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth District (1978), and the U.S. Supreme Court in (1979 and 1984).
But not racial discrimination!
Had any of the appellate federal courts had the Vasquez v. Hillery ruling in hand, the Rose conviction would have been reversed as a matter of law! Alas, Vasquez v. Hillery wasn’t handed down until 1986.
Vasquez v. Hillery asserts: “Once having found discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, we simply cannot know that the need to indict would have been assessed in the same way by a grand jury properly constituted.”
Recall, from above cited from Rose, discrimination in the selection of the grand jury foreman disqualifies a grand jury as an entity as if all the members of the assembly were chosen in a discriminatory fashion.
My reading of case law is dead on target, Mr. Hudson. The citizen’s arrest of Mr. Gary Pettway on 1 April 2010 was justified and righteous. Pettway, as of 1 April 2010, was four months into his twenty-eighth year in his outlawed position of grand jury foreman. Pettway presided over two grand juries in each year, totaling fifty-six when, due to his being exposed, Pettway was removed in December 2010.
As is now published at The Post & Email, Tennessee’s 1923 Supreme Court reversed in the Roberts case, having found a criminal court judge’s outlawed selection of a Henderson County grand jury foreman.
To close: You, Mr. Hudson, represent chaos. You are a nuisance, a menace; you, along with your subversive and seditionist fellow travelers.
You will not prevail in your attack from the left.
For the sake of the Post & Email readers, of those you’re lying to, close attention is paid here responding to the attempt to legitimize a treasonous government, a rival government in competition with our Republican form of government.
Much of what is recorded in your deceit, and my calling you out, was meant for future segments of this series.
I’ll revisit points made above in upcoming articles.
Your day is done, Mr. Hudson.
My name is Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III, commander, United States Navy, Retired.
Make no mistake, Mr. Hudson: I’m not done yet!
Here endth the lesson.
Email: jaghunter1@gmail.com
Website: The JAG HUNTER: http://thejaghunter.wordpress.com
Scalia was absent from Rose v. Mitchell, apparently. According to Amendment VI: ” . . . . trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district . . .”. A perennial juror would not meet the Constitutional definition of impartial. Nor can a juror appointed by the judiciary be impartial, one would think? Or another requirement of jurors to be peers? Is a juror in the employ of the judiciary a peer?
But nitpicking the minutia of case law is not “the lesson”. The goal is for the citizens to regain control of their jury; the common jury but more importantly the grand jury. This can only happen by citizen education and action in the jury box.
Ms. Rondeau. Thank you for replying however you failed to provide an answer to my question. I asked for a statement from the court in Rose v Mitchell that the Tennessee grand jury was illegal unconstitutional. What you provided instead was a sentence from Justice Harry Blackmun’s opinion where he was quoting from another case, Castaneda v. Partida, that provided the burden of proof that the Respondents had to meet to make a prima facie for discrimination in the selection of the grand jury foreman . Let’s look at the entire section from Balckmun’s opinion that you quoted:
“Notwithstanding these holdings that claims of discrimination in the selection of members of the grand jury are cognizable [443 U.S. 545, 565] on federal habeas corpus, and will support issuance of a writ setting aside a state conviction and ordering the indictment quashed, it remains true that to be entitled to habeas relief the present respondents were required to prove discrimination under the standards set out in this Court’s cases. That is, “in order to show that an equal protection violation has occurred in the context of grand jury [foreman] selection, the defendant must show that the procedure employed resulted in substantial under representation of his race or of the identifiable group to which he belongs.” Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S., at 494 . Specifically, respondents were required to prove their prima facie case with regard to the foreman as follows:
“The first step is to establish that the group is one that is a recognizable, distinct class, singled out for different treatment under the laws, as written or as applied. . . . Next, the degree of under representation must be proved, by comparing the proportion of the group in the total population to the proportion called to serve as [foreman], over a significant period of time. . . . This method of proof, sometimes called the `rule of exclusion,’ has been held to be available as a method of proving discrimination in jury selection against a delineated class. . . . Finally . . . a selection procedure that is susceptible of abuse or is not racially neutral supports the presumption of discrimination raised by the statistical showing.” Ibid.
Only if respondents established a prima facie case of discrimination in the selection of the foreman in accord with this approach, did the burden shift to the State to rebut that prima facie case. Id., at 495. ”
The section of the ruling I quoted before showed that the court in fact ruled that the Respondents failed to make a prima facie case for discrimination in the case of the selection of the foreman of the grand jury.
The author subtitled the article “Outlawed”. If he is trying to use Rose v Mitchell to show that the Tennessee grand jury system is illegal or unconstitutional the title is misleading at best. I do not thank in fact the system has ever been ruled illegal in any state or federal case where it has been challenged.
You mentioned the review of the convictions in Knox County as an example of a corrupt system. In fact this is an example of how the system should work. When it was found that the grand jury foreperson was not eligible the convictions were reviewed to see if the convictions were proper.
I believe the author of this article was the same person who took it upon himself to attempt to arrest the foreman of a grand jury in Tennessee because he had previously misread case law as he does in this article and decided the said foreperson was not legally selected..This unjustified action led to tragic consequences for the author.
A system where a lay person can on his own decide what is legal and what is not and attempt to physically detain a person based his or her interpretation of the law is a recipe for chaos.
Could the author please explain exactly where in Rose v Mitchell the Supreme Court found the method of selecting a grand jury foreperson in Tennessee to be unconstitutional? I found this paragraph in the majority opinion:
“As a matter of law, respondents failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause with regard to the selection of the grand jury foreman. Respondents’ case rested entirely on the testimony of the two former foreman and the current foreman, since they were the only ones who testified at all about the selection of a foreman, and their testimony was insufficient to establish respondents’ case. Absent evidence as to the total number of foremen appointed by the judges in the country during the critical period of time, it is difficult to say that the number of Negroes appointed foreman, even if zero, is statistically so significant as to make out a case of discrimination under the “rule of exclusion.”
The court found that if discrimination in the selection of a grand jury foreman could be proved then that could be grounds to overturn a conviction. However, that was not the case here.
It would be helpful if citation for the other case mentioned could be provided. Rose v Mitchell appears to be of no help to the author.
I am not the author, but I happened to write an introduction to a different article published afterward in which I quoted from Rose v. Mitchell. In its majority opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote of the selection of the grand jury foreman: ““…a selection procedure that is susceptible of abuse or is not racially neutral supports the presumption of discrimination raised by the statistical showing.”
“Susceptible of abuse” is the key phrase. A judge hand-picking someone who does not have to be screened as the other jurors are is “susceptible of abuse” by its very nature. In Knox County in 2011, it resulted in hundreds of cases having to be reviewed because the grand jury foreman was himself a convicted felon and by law could not serve: https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2013/01/31/nashville-da-says-grand-jury-foreman-was-felon
http://www.thepostemail.com/2017/07/03/former-tennessee-defendant-whose-case-dismissed-excoriates-government-operatives/
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/443/545.html
We need to disband our corrupt federal courts run by so-called “liberals” and also get rid of all the “liberals” running our brainwashing “public schools” and universities they’re ruined on every level. In addition, our press and media and everything democrats touch..
Footnote [i] does not give the case names or citations. Although the 1979 U.S. Supreme Court decision referenced is presumably the one listed in Footnote [ii].
A jury performs the checks and balances of the legislative system. The elected representatives create the law but is not good until it is tried in court. This is where the jurors come in, especially and uniquely in Georgia whose constitution mandates that, ” . . .the jury shall be the judges of THE LAW and the facts.” If the jury decides a particular law is unjust for any reason they must find for the defendant and that law is dropped from future use, in Lysander Spooner’s world.
But in the real world of the corrupt jurisprudence “systems” the judge charges the jury with their responsibilities, including taking the law from him. And if a juror attempted to nullify a law by finding for the defendant it will be ten hots and a cot for contempt.
How can the “system” get away with this? They can because no one challenges them. Citizens don’t because they don’t know they can and worst of all don’t know they must. The defense attorneys don’t for fear of losing any future case before that judge, except for one state in New England that has legislation that allows it.
The DA won’t because he wants to win cases so he can run for AG. DA’s control juries so tightly that they brag that they could indict a ham sandwich. Nothing goes into a jury unless the DA lets it. Corruption on a grand scale!
The solution is the concept of FIJA (www.fija.org), the Fully Informed Jury Association. FIJA is essentially non-functional but it’s products are still available for presentation to citizen activist groups such as TEA Parties, etc.
This is not a hopeless concept as it only takes one informed juror to hang a jury or to inform other jurors of the concept of nullification. One nullification, one no-bill, or hung jury will empower other juries to retake control of the (citizens) juries.
Young men and women have lost their life and limbs in God forsaken sand dunes and swamps to protect our right to an autonomous jury trial by our peers. Walt has spent literately years in prison and had his health destroyed promoting this concept.
Consider next time you sit on a jury would the possibility of ten hots and a cot in your local gulag be too much to ask?
It is beyond disgusting that this goes on in America. This smacks of 1951 Soviet Union justice.
God Be With You Commander
ELmo
In footnote i what are the cases cited?
The cases are listed next to the footnote indicators.
Well said, Commander. Void does indeed mean VOID!
I hear ya but they still go to jail no don’t they and there is nothing we can do about it.