U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear Baumgartner case; matter closed

Baumgartner

The nation’s highest court has declined to hear the federal case against disgraced former Knox County Criminal Court Judge Richard Baumgartner.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that justices will not hear arguments as to whether federal prosecutors overstepped their boundaries after Baumgartner pleaded in state court.

Lawyers for the former judge had argued that the prosecutors went too far in trying to apply an arcane area of the law.

Instead, they said the matter should have remained as a state-prosecuted case.

Once convicted in federal court, Baumgartner lost his state pension.

Defense attorneys Don Bosch and Ann Short in March submitted their bid, called a petition for certiorari, to the court.

It typically takes four justices to agree to hear a case, and the court takes only a fraction of the petitions submitted to it.

In September 2014, a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals turned down an appeal by Baumgartner in what amounted to a split decision. In October, the lawyers' request for a full or "en banc" review by the appellate court was denied.

Baumgartner, who presided over such high profile cases as the Thomas D. Huskey serial killing case and the prosecution of four people in the Christian-Newsom homicides, stepped down in early 2011 as details began to emerge that he had carried on an affair with a woman in the drug court that he supervised, using her to secure prescription pills for a drug habit.

He admitted to official misconduct and received a diversionary sentence in state court. He was allowed to keep his state pension.

Then, federal authorities stepped in, securing indictments against him for what's called misprision of a felony, for which a jury convicted him in 2012. His state pension was now in jeopardy.

Misprision of a felony is an old area of the law, dating back more than 200 years in the United States. Simply put, it means someone was aware of a felony, concealed that and failed to report it to the proper authority.

It's generally been applied to circumstances when someone explicitly tried to hinder a federal investigation, Bosch and Short argued.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case, the matter is officially over.

Baumgartner Vs. United States is 'petition of the month' for May

In March, we broke the news that lawyers for disgraced former Knox County Criminal Court Judge Richard Baumgartner asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review his case, arguing federal prosecutors went too far in trying to apply an arcane area of the law.

Don Bosch and Ann Short submitted their bid, called a petition for certiorari, to the court. They're waiting to hear if the U.S. solicitor general, which oversees U.S. litigation before the court, responds. An April 3 deadline has been set for the response.

You can find the story RIGHT HERE.

It should be noted that the attorneys are not arguing whether the ex-judge is innocent (we all know the dude pleaded guilty), but rather whether the feds had any right to meddle in the case.

Well, the Supreme Court Press, which touts itself as the legal brief preparation and printing for the U.S. Supreme Court, has selected it for "Petition of the Month" for May.

You can read about it RIGHT HERE.

Ex-Judge Baumgartner's attorney appealing case to U.S. Supreme Ct

Richard Baumgartner

Lawyers for disgraced former Knox County Criminal Court Judge Richard Baumgartner are hoping to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to review his case, arguing federal prosecutors went too far in trying to apply an arcane area of the law.

Instead, they contend, the matter should have remained as a state-prosecuted case.

Don Bosch and Ann Short have submitted their bid, called a petition for certiorari, to the court.

They're waiting to hear if the U.S. solicitor general, which oversees U.S. litigation before the court, responds. An April 3 deadline has been set for the response.

It typically takes four justices to agree to hear a case, and the court takes only a fraction of the petitions submitted to it.

There's no timetable on how soon the court might move - if at all. The court's docket is scheduled through the rest of the term, which ends in June., so if justices wanted to hear the case, it likely wouldn't be until at least fall 2015.

"We think this is an important issue that federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have been addressing," Bosch told WBIR 10News. "We hope they will also review Mr. Baumgartner's legal position."

Bosch declined to comment further because the case is on appeal.

Read the rest of the story RIGHT HERE.

Can't apply diversion law to Duncan

So, if you follow Knox County government and you've been under a rock, click right smack here for today's story about now-former Trustee John Duncan III stepping down from his post and pleading guilty to a felony charge.

(And, yeah, pat of the back. We broke this story. Love this #*(#$&7)

Anyhoo, JD3 will more than likely receive judicial diversion. It's actually pretty common. However, he's pretty lucky on that one. Under a state law that took effect last July, officials who commit crimes "in the person's official capacity or involved in the duties of the person's office" are no longer allowed judicial diversion. (All this is because of former Knox County Criminal Court Judge Richard Baumgartner and his, er, pill problem.)

But, Duncan was grandfathered in. He's accused of paying out illegal free money in December 2010.

You can find a copy of the Senate bill, right smack here. And here's the TCA part of the law where it gets inserted.

Zoinks: Creeper guilty on 5 counts

A federal jury has fund former Knox County Judge Richard "da Creepa" Baumgartner guilty on five counts and not guilty on one.  I'm assuming this will eventually lead to the end of his nice pension.

He is free pending a March 27 sentencing, according to my colleague, Jamie Satterfield. Each penalty carries a maximum of three years in the clink, but doubtful the feds will get it. (Doesn't mean they won't try.)

The former judge, who used to eat pain pills like candy and have sex with shady women, showed no reaction as he left court.

County to exert power over state?

Was going back over yesterday's County Commission work session agenda. Saw three items in a row that made me chuckle. Item No. 22-24 as follows:

• Resolution that would direct the commission chairman to send a letter to Big Bill in the Gov's Office and the county's Legislative delegation requesting that they direct the TBI to release the entire (former) Judge Richard “The Creeper” Baumgartner files.
• Resolution requesting that the commission chairman send a letter to the county's Legislative delegation requesting that the members support legislation making the sale of synthetic weed and designer stimulants a felony per some state code.
• Resolution requesting and “encouraging appropriate officials” at TVA to reconsider its existing policies regarding the clear cutting removal of trees, vegetation, whatever.

I mention these because every now and then a controversial issue crosses the paths of county, state, federal, space martians, whatever officials and no side wants to take the reins. It's always: “Oh, they shouldn't play in our sandbox” or “I don't think we should get involved in county business.” Or whatever.

(More recently, for example, the state comptroller's office chickened out when county Mayor Tim Burchett asked it to audit the KTSC. Didn't want to interfere, the chickens said.)

Anyhoo, what I'm getting at here, is that we got three resolutions that can be broken down as follows:

• The county wants to tell the governor about what he should do with da Creeper.
• The county wants to tell the state legislature about what to do with drugs.
• The county wants to tell the TVA about what to do with trees.

The commission ended up withdrawing the Creeper proposal (I'm talking about the judge, not the weed). But, it approved to its full voting board/meeting/whatever the drugs and trees resolutions. They'll talk further about the issues next Monday.

In the meantime, I'm thinking that now is a good chance for the county to weigh in on Afghanistan.

Heh.

DA to commish: Table Baumgartner plan

Apparently, the good attorney general isn't too keen on that resolution the County Commission unanimously approved during last week's work session.

You know, the one that asks Big Bill and some of the boys (and ladies) in the state Legislature to request from the TBI for a copy of the unreleased Judge Richard "da Creeper" Baumgartner file.

Click right smack here for the initial story I wrote about the resolution.

The commission this afternoon was set to rubber stamp this thing, but Chairman Mike Hammond said Knox County District Attorney General Randy Nichols asked him to hold off.

In a letter, written by Nichols to Hammond today, the DA said his office had something similar cooking and he didn't need the commission meddling in it. (Actually those are more my words than his.)

Anyhoo, you can read the letter by clicking right smack here.

Hammond said Nichols has 30 days or the commission is bringing back the resolution.

Zoinks! It's old man Baumgartner!!

It’s funny how pictures can jog old memories, oddities of the past, blah, blah, blah, whatever.

Anyhoo, not too long ago I stumbled across this photo of former Judge Richard Baumgartner (on the KNS website taken by Michael Patrick).

It reminded me of something. Then I remembered: Scooby-Doo. Or a Scooby-Doo bad guy. So, I Googled it. And up pops “The Creeper.” And he’s exactly who was stuck in my head. Cause, you know, you might look like the creeper after eating 30 pain killers a day, having sex in your judge chambers with your pill supplier and then taking the bench while pilled out of your mind and screwing up (potentially) thousands of cases.

Remember how whenever Scooby and the gang would unmask the villain? They’d be like: “Zoinks, it’s old man Jenkins.” Heh.

Well, apparently, the Creeper was old man Baumgartner. Yeah, I couldn’t resist.