Knoxville, Tn., Judge Emery allows mentally ill thief to keep assault rifles he stole

[Speedbump]

Subject: Knoxville, Tn., Judge Emery allows mentally ill thief to keep assault rifles he stole.


Date: Friday, July 25, 2008, 1:58 AM


How killers get hold of dangerous guns.


Your government is protecting you??? Guess again!


***** Case/ Docket # 46076G, Knoxville Sessions Court,

Larry D Henderson, 865-482-3483, 209-6142, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
VS Alvin Lee McNutt and Darla J Henderson


Mentally ill thief allowed to keep stolen assault rifles in Knoxville, Tn.

Hello,

My name is Larry D. Henderson and I live in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Yesterday, (Wed., 23, July) I went to Sessions court to try to force Alvin Lee McNutt, a mentally ill, former hard drug user, alcoholic, moonshine seller, and violent west Knoxville man, to return my 4 assault weapons he stole from me. Judge Emery REFUSED to even hear the case. He confused my August divorce case apparently with the stolen guns somehow. He would cut me off when I tried to explain. The lawyer representing McNutt whispered something to judge Emery before court began and the judge nodded and that was all it took for Mr. McNutt to be allowed to keep the stolen rifles. McNutt took two from my gun safe and two from a closet. McNutt lives in low income subsidized apartments in West Knoxville, Tennessee. He possesses a Tennessee handgun carry permit. He was accompanied by his close friend and fellow marijuana user, Darla J. Henderson, an employee of UT Medical Center Knoxville who provided Mr. McNutt with use of her attorney. He carries a handgun around in his pocket often. He holds a Tennessee Carry Permit. His ex wife use to often have to call the police to their Corryton home when McNutt would become violent. He once threatened to "shoot" his ex wife" Lenore Peggioli. So McNutt STILL has these 4 semi auto high capacity rifles in his possesion. He apparently may NEVER be forced to return them to ME their lawful owner. This is a news story the public really does need to hear. Wouldn't you agree? OUTRAGEOUS!!

-Larry D. Henderson

[knoxcat]

I am going to pull the court documents on this. Procedurally, it just doesn't make sense.

[pages]

I am going to pull the court documents on this. Procedurally, it just doesn't make sense.

Which could be why nothing was done....

[knoxcat]

Exactly. Judge Emery is a fine person and an excellent Judge.

[Hi Top]

Any news??? I'd love to hear what the deal is.

[knoxcat]

Civil sessions case - action to recover property. It hasn't been dismissed. It was reset to 8-27. Service of process didn't take place until July so if I had to take a wild wild guess I would say that Judge Emery, recognizing the rules allowing 30 days after service for a party to answer a lawsuit, reset the case. Court dates are initially set by the clerk, not the parties. If the Judge hears argument before the parties are sworn in or in a context other than a proper hearing or motion before the court, he conflicts it off of his docket.

I do think it is interesting that this is a civil sessions case. Either it didn't make it through warrant screening in criminal sessions or no police report was filed to classify it as the same.

Civil sessions court is small claims court. As this case stands right now it is just a property dispute.

[Hi Top]

Guess that doesn't tell us much. Still don't understand.

[pages]

Mr. Speedbump claims theft. However, he either didn't bother to file a police report of the theft OR he filed one and someone (help knoxcat) didn't believe there was adequate evidence to support the warrant claiming theft. So, Mr. S's only choice was to go to small claims and say, "He has my property." And the judge continued the case because ALM and Ms. Speedbump hadn't had adequate legal time to respond to the complaint.

In other words, Mr. S either has a very weak case for his argument and/or has no comprehension for what the judge actually did.

[relentless1]

Knoxcat's explanation makes perfect sense to me.

Stolen firearms in civil court? WTF?

[knoxcat]

The gist of it is that he was never denied his day in court. The case was just reset because the proper time for notice wasn't given before the hearing. The defendant isn't charged in criminal court with this docket number. The plaintiff has just sued him to recover the property (like a contract dispute where you buy a car and then don't make payments).

[Speedbump]

Unfortunately my lawyer tells me not to post anything here more about my stolen guns. If I could I would thoroughly explain because you people sure are missing what oughta be the obvious, common sense point! You obviously are a bunch of lawyers! I was trying to get media attention to this matter which is why I posted here and elsewhere. Just bear this fact in mind. Tonight 4 high capacity rifles are not in their legal owners hands and I have no idea where they are. 2 semi auto SKS's, a 308 Cetme, and a HK-USC-45. They are in the hands of a man who apparently has gone quite crazy and who has threatened to shoot his ex wife, and was quite threatening in tone on my answering machine toward me merely because I asked him to return them. He has been under psych care for roughly 18 months. He has violent domestic disputes involving the police in his recent background. Hard drug use and alcoholism are part of his past. He tried to extort $60K from his new wife. His ex went an got herself a handgun permit she is so afraid of him.
Judge Emery allowed such a person to keep these guns another month!

Now!? You tell me? Should this angry psycho have been allowed to keep 4 assault weapons for another day!!????? WELL DUH LAWYERS!!-L

[Ian]

Unfortunately my lawyer tells me not to post anything here more about my stolen guns...

...followed by another two hundred words about the stolen guns.

[trancendyce]

...followed by another two hundred words about the stolen guns.

yeah, i noticed that, but i didn't want to be the first one to say so.