Readers Write - Grand Jury - the Courier - 3- 21-13
Question: Do illegal acts of our elected or appointed officials and county employees deprive the citizens of their right to have them perform their officials duties in the citizen’s best interest?
I think the answer to that question in Hardin County depends on if you are the citizen, or if you are one of those elected or appointed officials or employees doing the illegal acts.
I’m not sure where the absolute low point of political corruption is in Hardin County, but, after my recent experience with our grand jury, it has reached a new low in my book.
As you know from recent headlines concerning our schools superintendent, if the district attorney won’t, a layman can bring a bill of indictment to the grand jury and if the grand jury finds there was; a.) sufficient evidence for a trial; b.) that the act was a crime under law; and c.) that the court had jurisdiction, it would return the indictment to the complainant. A very low threshold called probable cause.
That is what I want to do, no more or no less, because T.C.A. §40-12-104(a) provides that "[a]ny person having knowledge or proof of the commission of a public offense triable or indictable in the county may testify before the grand jury."
Research has shown that it is the intent of the General Assembly that the integrity of the processes of local government be secured and protected from abuse. The General Assembly recognizes that holding public office and public employment is a public trust and that citizens of Tennessee are entitled to an ethical, accountable and incorruptible government. That includes the citizens of Hardin County.
About a year ago, if you will remember, it was revealed by the State Auditors that: "As a result of our investigation, certain employees of the Solid Waste Department admitted to us that they had removed scrap metal from the county’s Solid Waste Department and sold it for personal gain...
Management of the Solid Waste Department had knowledge of this illegal activity; however, they did not take corrective action...
...This practice by county employees resulted in a loss of revenue from the sale of scrap metal by the Solid Waste Department..." and that "County officials should seek to recover any funds determined to have been generated from the unauthorized removal of scrap metal."
The triable or indictable public offenses charges: Theft of property - Class C - Felony (4 year SOL); Criminal Conspiracy - Class D Felony (4 year SOL); Official Misconduct - Class E Felony (2 year SOL) ; Official Oppression - Class E Felony (2 year SOL) ; and Misrepresenting information to state auditors - Class C Misdemeanor (1 year SOL).
In a nutshell, I think the case is now made for our district attorney, Hansel McCadams, with his pet TBI agent, have tampered with our grand jury and strayed outside their established boundaries and limitations as prosecutors.
In an effort to thwart my efforts to present my case to the full grand jury and hold the "Management of our Solid Waste Department", i.e., Director Randy Etheridge and Mayor Kevin Davis, accountable for their illegal activity exposed by the county audit last year, the TBI agent, I’m sure with the blessing of District Attorney General McCadems, injected himself in to my application to testify before the grand jury that was being reviewed by a panel of three members of the grand jury before I was allowed to make a presentation to the full 12-member grand jury for their action.
I was told by the foreperson that the TBI agent had informed them, the three member panel, that the "Statute of Limitations" (SOL) had expired on my charges and therefore I would not be allowed to make my presentation to the full grand jury, for their up or down vote.
That is so wrong, unless the DA and the TBI agent have become the defenders of government corruption instead of the prosecutors because the government need not allege the time of the offense in the indictment and it is up to the defendant to raise the limitations defense. A statute of limitations defense is a non-jurisdictional, affirmative defense.
Case studies have established that it’s up to the defendant to figure out whether the statute has "run," and to raise the issue with the judge. Judges do not take it upon themselves to review cases for possible limitations problems. So why did the district attorney?
"[T]he common-law rule was that affirmative defenses ... were matters for the defendant to prove."
And then you have a "continuing offense" which is, in general, one that involves a prolonged course of conduct; its commission is not complete until the conduct has run its course.
In the light most favorable to the district attorney and TBI agent, they fabricated a departure from authorized procedure in order to deceive the grand jury reviewing panel AND deny me my right to testify before the grand jury.
Like Director Etheridge and Mayor Davis, they employed the insidious and charlatan rationale, the end justifies the means. Based on the facts as we now know them, they too are guilty of official corruption, the most malignant peril to the criminal justice system.
I really wanted to hand this off to the criminal justice system and get the subject off of my list of thing that needed to be dealt with, before I retire, again. It looks as if we are going to have to add another chapter to the book on exposing corruption in Hardin County, Tennessee.
Ted G. Cook
Savannah, TN
No comments:
Post a Comment