Tennessee
Criminal Court
Fatal errors of the indictment:
1) two panelists were unqualified being residents of other counties
2) one panelist was an employee of a very small local government employee involved in a torts claim which was ongoing before the Court of Appeals at the time and that person's full blooded sibling was also impaneled.... both are off-springs of a career deputy for the county's department and failing to indict and convict would expose the sheriff's department to liability
3) an employee, undeniably familiar with the defendant and married to the Director of Operations for the small town back was impaneled and the DAG serves as a Board of Director member of the same bank that the defendant has banked with of many years while the real estate note was paid off and while the bank seemed intent of taking it via various bending of the rules such a failing to file HUMDA and RESPA documents and then improperly filing IRS documents upon the property being paid off, not to mention several attempts to foreclose on it.
Pre-trail Habeas? Motion to Dismiss has been denied and upon the Public Records act being changed AFTER the motion, with records prior produced being unlawfully redacted of personally identifying information, subsequently after several months of battle, having been produced and are prima facie evidence of the panel being Title 22 and Rule 6 violations.
If Habeas, which court has jurisdiction.
Criminal Court
Fatal errors of the indictment:
1) two panelists were unqualified being residents of other counties
2) one panelist was an employee of a very small local government employee involved in a torts claim which was ongoing before the Court of Appeals at the time and that person's full blooded sibling was also impaneled.... both are off-springs of a career deputy for the county's department and failing to indict and convict would expose the sheriff's department to liability
3) an employee, undeniably familiar with the defendant and married to the Director of Operations for the small town back was impaneled and the DAG serves as a Board of Director member of the same bank that the defendant has banked with of many years while the real estate note was paid off and while the bank seemed intent of taking it via various bending of the rules such a failing to file HUMDA and RESPA documents and then improperly filing IRS documents upon the property being paid off, not to mention several attempts to foreclose on it.
Pre-trail Habeas? Motion to Dismiss has been denied and upon the Public Records act being changed AFTER the motion, with records prior produced being unlawfully redacted of personally identifying information, subsequently after several months of battle, having been produced and are prima facie evidence of the panel being Title 22 and Rule 6 violations.
If Habeas, which court has jurisdiction.
Pre-Trial Habeas Corpus to Dismiss Indictment
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire