"a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted" New York State chief judge Sol WachtlerNASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Some officials are expressing concerns about a new policy to post free digital recordings online of oral arguments from all of Tennessee's appeals courts.
the "Victim" of Stalking MUST be an INDIVIDUAL
Sharyn Bovat Was Jailed TWICE for Stalking/Harassment of NISSAN.
Bovat sent emails to executives telling them NOT to waste taxpayer money & to stop discriminating. Women in management at NISSAN went from 20.9% in 2006 down to 10% in 2009. www.NISSANWhistleblower.com
NISSAN Hired a Lawyer That Appeared at Grand Jury. The NISSAN head of corporate security testified against Sharyn - BUT NISSAN says they were "not involved".
Bovat Was NOT Allowed to Defend herself & NOBODY Told the Grand Jury that the Stalking code in Tennessee CLEARLY states that the victim is an INDIVIDUAL.
Bovat did NOT stalk NISSAN....
Twice the Charge was dropped.
Bovat lost credibility due to the charges. Sharyn Bovat was told in spring 2009 that NISSAN had 77 lawyers in Franklin. Yet Joe Baugh a former DA was hired from day 1 to "baby sit" the case. Why? If this was "truly" the actions of Just Terry Wood the ADA.
Judge Jeff Bivins let a faulty case continue & told Bovat he'd have her in jail for a year. Sharyn is 47 years old & has NEVER done anything wrong. She had a clean record. UNTIL the State of Tennessee let NISSAN "Swear Out" a Trespass charge & harassment charge. The trespass charge is "sketchy" Bovat was found guilty had to pay the "maximum" $50 fine - it's = to a speeding ticket. Still She claims she's innocent and says "educated people" know that she was railroaded. It's ALL about her blogging. Thank god Freedom of Speech is still allowed in America. NISSAN was trying to make Sharyn Bovat quiet... That is why her life has been hell. www.NISSANWhistlblower.com
Judge Robbie Beal quashed MOST of Bovat's Subpoenas.
Judge Time Easter Knowing that Bovat just lost her legal council for a valid reason did NOT give her time to prepare a defense at a Summary Judgment. Bovat's lawyer withdrew on January 14th.
January 28th he dismissed Bovat's malicious prosecution case based on: 1) Grand Jury Indictment = Probable Cause
2) Case was dropped on Technical Issue (yet that's how a case like this is DROPPED).
3) An affidavit from the Williamson County ADA Terry Wood - who took a case that he know would be overturned in an Appeals court to a Grand Jury. Terry Wood made false statements in reference to a pre-trial diversion that he says he offered Bovat. Worse he lied and Bovat proved that in a motion she filed with the court.
Matt Largen of Williamson County - Relocate Me OUT of Tennessee ...
mattlargen.blogspot.com/.../web-stats-show-williamson-county...Share
Jan 15, 2013 – From Jalopnik Article Oct. 5th, 2010 Williamson County ADA Terry Wood said Sharyn Bovat did not mention the Leaf prior to Oct 2010. That is ...
You +1'd this
Sharyn Bovat wants her reputation back and will take it to the SUPREME Court if needed: Educated people KNOW that Bovat was "wronged"
Those that know local politics and NISSAN's "close" relationship with the courts want Sharyn to fight to stop the Good Ole Boys. Too much bond debt to a foreign com pay that does NOT provide the jobs promised. A company that has taken federal money because in 2009 they had a "cash flow" problem. NISSAN marketing said it's to build a mass market EV - The NISSAN leaf is a flop. Just as Bovat blogged.
Jon Brancheau the VP of marketing "dodged" his subpoenas... Guess he didn't get the memo that the constitution is NOT a valid document in Tennessee. His was quashed. Brancheau connected with Bovat on Linkedin AFTER she was identified the #2 security threat for NISSAN. Who "connects" with the NISSAN Stalker? Why would the man that Terry Wood "repeatedly" says had he been at the trial would have said I stalked him.... Still Carlos Tavares (as of November 2012) uses my address for his COSTCO membership.
In court on monday I told the judge "David Letterman would not use his stalkers address for a COSTCO membership" he still sided with NISSAN.
The judge knowing my lawyer had to withdraw due to "Conflict of Interest" Google " Stephen Preston CIA" The court STILL did NOT give me time to prepare....
Judge Easter just let NISSAN "off the hook".... What do I do now? I know Appeal... but I need to work the stress is horrible. NISSAN is still abusing taxpayer money.
In court on monday I told the judge "David Letterman would not use his stalkers address for a COSTCO membership" he still sided with NISSAN.
The judge knowing my lawyer had to withdraw due to "Conflict of Interest" Google " Stephen Preston CIA" The court STILL did NOT give me time to prepare....
Judge Easter just let NISSAN "off the hook".... What do I do now? I know Appeal... but I need to work the stress is horrible. NISSAN is still abusing taxpayer money.
Also .... He never did an affidavit...saying Sharyn Bovat stalked him.
Thus those at NSSAN that were apart of "bad" real estate deals that hurt the average person in Franklin Tennessee. The city pays about 1 million in debt service - Just for the money they gave NISSAN. NISSAN has 3,950,000,000 in IDB Bond debt and another 2 Billion guarantee. When Carlos Ghosn "saved NISSAN" in the early 2000's ALL he did was "put the debt" on a credit card. NISSAN execs told me the subsidy Nissan North America is gonna go "bust" and America will not get back the 1.4 Billion tax dollars and those in Rutherford County will be liable. Bovat has stated on her blogs... if somethings NOT true call her and she'll CLARIFY. In reference to this issue ... SILENCE.
Appeals in Tennessee are Going to be ONLINE and Easily Available. Bovat was told hers could be one that gets LOTS of tweets. She has to learn how to "talk slow".... she will.People that care about the constitution know what happened to the NISSAN Whistleblower was wrong.
When shopping for a car - people will know that if they buy a NISSAN their supporting those that "abuse" power.
The Grand Jury Could NOT Read the Statue....
Historically, a grand jury indictment was used for determining whether to bring criminal charges in a number of common law countries. For example, England, Australia, and Canada all usedgrand juries during the twentieth century. In modern times, grand jury indictments occur primarily in the United States. Only some of the states, however, still use these indictments in prosecuting crimes. Grand jury indictments are also used in the United States if federal chargesare brought in a criminal case.
1)
By and large, grand juries decide whether enough evidence exists for a suspect to be taken to trial. Grand jury proceedings are usually required to be kept confidential. In most grand jury indictment proceedings, a prosecutor presents evidence in the form of witness testimony. As a general rule, the prosecutor can subpoena any potential witness to provide testimony without showing that the witness is likely to have relevant information about the crime. Certain types of witnesses, such as a spouse or the suspect’s criminal lawyer, can sometimes claim a specific privilege in order to avoid answering the prosecutor’s questions. |
Typically, the suspect and his or her criminal attorney are not present during the grand jurytestimony. As a result, they usually do not have the opportunity to present any conflicting evidence. If a suspect wishes to testify, however, a prosecutor may permit the testimony.
If the grand jury determines that the case may be brought to trial, they issue a “true bill” decision, and the suspect is formally charged with the alleged crime. A “no true bill” decision is issued when the jury decides insufficient evidence exists for a criminal trial. The grand juryindictment itself is usually drafted by the prosecutor and simply approved by the jury. If a grandjury fails to indict a suspect, a prosecutor may try to indict the suspect again, using a secondgrand jury, although this practice is uncommon.
Jurisdictions that no longer use grand jury indictments in charging a crime usually have a preliminary hearing. At the hearing, the prosecution presents evidence relating to the crime to acriminal law judge. The judge then determines whether sufficient evidence exists for trial.
