Main Menu

FOGBOW named by Tennessee appellate court

Readers are reminded that the birther Walter Fitzpatrick was convicted of a number of crimes in Tennessee related to his attempts to get a local grand jury to indict individuals involved with allowing Barack Obama to appear on the ballot, and his challenges to the legitimacy of the grand jury foreman.

The convictions on the most recent charges of aggravated perjury and extortion were appealed, and that appeal was heard by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. The Court affirmed the conviction. For those wanting to know more about Fitzpatrick, you may click on the “Walter Fitzpatrick III” tag at the end of this article, and for details about the most recent charges and the appeal, the Court’s ruling, which contains an extensive history of the case, is available as part of the Jack Ryan collection at Scribd.

Of note is the reference to FOGBOW in the decision:

In the February 2013 petition, Fitzpatrick alleged that a “self  – identified hate group known as FOGBOW” had targeted him as a dangerous individual.

Some discussion has appeared at The Fogbow as to whether the statement from Fitzpatrick is liable to a charge of defamation.

, ,

8 Responses to FOGBOW named by Tennessee appellate court

  1. avatar
    bob September 10, 2015 at 11:03 am #

    The appellate court affirmed Fitzpatrick’s conviction.

    “FOGBOW” gets a shout out!

  2. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 10, 2015 at 11:27 pm #

    This just reminds me of Sharon Maroni claiming that the predecessor of The Fog Bow was stealing her mail by dressing up as door-to-door meat salesmen, and she knew that they were not because everybody knows that she’s a vegetarian.

  3. avatar
    Foggy September 11, 2015 at 6:25 am #

    Where did the court get that quote about us being a self-described hate group?

    The brief of the State, by the attorney general’s office, said we were an international terrorist group. Maybe there were two petitions by Walt that named Fogbow. Maybe even more.

    Whatever. My mom woulda been so proud!

  4. avatar
    Slartibartfast September 11, 2015 at 12:26 pm #

    Does that mean we’re an international group that hates terrorists or a group that hates international terrorists? Either way doesn’t seem so bad. As I said over on the Fogbow, I hate Illinois Nazis.

    So I’ve got that going for me.

    Foggy:
    Where did the court get that quote about us being a self-described hate group?

    The brief of the State, by the attorney general’s office, said we were an international terrorist group. Maybe there were two petitions by Walt that named Fogbow. Maybe even more.

    Whatever. My mom woulda been so proud!

  5. avatar
    Jon Beck September 11, 2015 at 12:33 pm #

    Not sure about TN, but here in CA statements in legal pleadings generally not actionable as defamation. Truth is a defense, and Fogbowers are know to hate bigots and racists.

  6. avatar
    Rickey September 12, 2015 at 11:02 pm #

    Jon Beck:
    Not sure about TN, but here in CA statements in legal pleadings generally not actionable as defamation. Truth is a defense, and Fogbowers are know to hate bigots and racists.

    Fitzpatrick’s statement about The Fogbow wasn’t in a legal pleading. It was in a petition that he submitted to the Grand Jury.

    However, while he did defame The Fogbow, everyone (except birthers) knows that Fitzie is a crank, so proving damages would be difficult.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 12, 2015 at 11:27 pm #

    There is that Libel per se thing:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Defamation_per_se

    Calling them a “hate group” probably doesn’t qualify, but calling them terrorists would (assuming that all terrorists are by definition criminals).

    Rickey: However, while he did defame The Fogbow, everyone (except birthers) knows that Fitzie is a crank, so proving damages would be difficult.

  8. avatar
    Rickey September 14, 2015 at 12:03 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    There is that Libel per se thing:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Defamation_per_se

    Calling them a “hate group” probably doesn’t qualify, but calling them terrorists would (assuming that all terrorists are by definition criminals).

    Yes, but my point is that there isn’t much point in pursuing it if you don’t have any damages, unless you’re a famous person who can afford to finance a lawsuit. Defamation cases are known for returning verdicts for plaintiffs but with awards of just $1 in damages.

    And than there would be the question of who has been defamed. Just Foggy? Just the members who post frequently? Everyone who has posted there? And how to you defame someone whose true identify is unknown?