Prison Time for Petitioning Government

In a recent video following the sentencing hearing for Lt. Commander Walter Fiztpatrick, attorney Van Irion explains why he’s afraid…

Read more about Lt. Commander Walter Fiztpatrick’s case here –

Permanent link to this article:

TN’s 10th Judicial District Rejects Constitutionalist for Judge

It is with disappointment and dismay that we report that Van did not win the Republican primary for Tennessee’s 10th Judicial District. After years of fighting for the Constitution in the court room, it became apparent to Van that many judges lacked a principled understanding how to apply the Constitution to the particulars of each case. The voters of TN had an opportunity to elect a person of principal who knows the Constitution, and how to apply it, and chose not to elect him.  We could go on regarding the implications of this and the other outcomes of our legal battles, but we believe the implications are obvious.

May we suggest that this is a sign of how we should be spending our time and resources. There are people in our lives that need our help and present many small battles that we could be winning instead of the large battles we keep losing. Our guess is that a lot of you have already come to this realization and are doing exactly that.  We now join you.


Van’s message regarding the election results:


The election results are mostly in and it appears that Sandra Donaghy has won the Republican nomination for Criminal Court Judge.

When I decided to run for this seat, I was motivated by a desire to serve my community and to improve the criminal justice system in these four counties of East Tennessee. While practicing law in this area, I observed many areas needing improvement. I pray Sandra Donaghy will use her position to make those improvements happen.

I urge you all to support Sandra in the general election. She has vowed to follow the laws of the state of Tennessee and of our nation.

Thank you all for your support over these past several months.



Permanent link to this article:

New Directions, Van Irion is Running for Judge

I write today to update you on some major changes in our fight to restore our Constitutional Republic.

It has been almost 18 months since the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate penalty is really a tax. Since then many legal experts have raised many other challenges to the Constitutionality of Obamacare. Many have pointed out that our Constitution requires all tax bills to originate in the House, yet the version of Obamacare that finally became law originated in the Senate. This is a good point. Others have focused on the fact that Obamacare violates many people’s religious freedoms. This is also an excellent point. Specifically, Obamacare amounts to direct government funding of baby murder (a.k.a. abortion). There are numerous other legal arguments that are all excellent, and correct.

Unfortunately, it has become undeniable that the Federal Court system no longer cares about the Constitution. This will not change until we get Judges in the system that do care about upholding the Constitution.

When Liberty Legal Foundation began its fight against Obamacare, our goal was not simply to have Obamacare declared unconstitutional. We saw this horrible law as an opportunity to change the direction of Supreme Court precedent. We believed, at that time, that the Court would recognize Obamacare for the abomination against freedom that it is. We were wrong. Instead the Court proved that it has no intention of reigning in the monster that our Federal government has become. The Court has no intention of limiting Congressional authority to the scope originally intended when our nation was founded. The Court has no intention to limit Congressional authority in any way.

During the same Supreme Court session that gave us the twisted Obamacare ruling, the Court also delivered a crushing blow to state sovereignty in its U.S. v. Arizona ruling. After this ruling Judge Andrew Napolitano concluded that states can no longer be considered sovereign entities. He is not alone in this conclusion.

At about that same time the Federal Court for Western Tennessee handed down an order sanctioning Liberty Legal Foundation’s lead attorney, Van Irion, for simply filing a lawsuit requesting clarification of the legal term “natural born citizen” under existing Supreme Court precedent. Up until this point in his career Van had a pristine ethics record. Yet the Federal Court in Tennessee refused to grant Van a hearing, refused to consider the facts in the case, ignored Federal precedent, and went well beyond existing ethics rules by issuing an order sanctioning Van.

Liberty Legal Foundation has appealed the $10k+ sanctions order. That appeal is still ongoing.

I am sure you would agree that it has been upsetting and emotionally draining to watch our nation continue on a path to certain destruction. We at Liberty Legal love the principals, morals, and ideas that served as foundation for America’s beginning. Unfortunately we have concluded that the methods we tried to use to turn our courts back to the Constitution will simply no longer work.

While we no longer believe that the Federal Courts are willing to follow the law, we are not giving up. After much thought and prayer, Van has decided that he can have the greatest influence over our judicial branch by becoming a judge in the state court system. A unique opportunity has presented itself and this week Van is announcing his candidacy for the elected position of Criminal Court Judge for Tennessee’s 10th Judicial District.
llf slider van4judge

This announcement means that Van can no longer serve as Lead Counsel for Liberty Legal Foundation. Please pray for Van as he continues his efforts to ensure that the Constitution is correctly interpreted, honored, and enforced. If you would like to know more about his run for Judge, you can visit his campaign website at



This past year, Attorney Van Irion has been defending Lieutenant Commander Walter Fitzpatrick on criminal charges of stealing court documents. LCDR Fitzpatrick did indeed take the documents because he believed a Judge was hand picking juries in violation of state law. He brought his information to the FBI and they asked for evidence. LCDR Fitzpatrick explains that he later observed said Judge making notations on jury questionnaires, sorting the documents, picking specific jurors and then declaring that subset to be the jury. These documents were left in a public space with other public documents and LCDR Fitzpatrick seized the opportunity to preserve evidence. He forwarded the documents to a reporter who then forwarded them to the FBI. Suffice to say, LCDR Fitzpatrick was promptly arrested and charged.

Attorney Irion intended to argue at trial that LCDR Fitzpatrick was acting to prevent a greater harm (necessity defense) but the Judge would not allow Attorney Irion to present Fitzpatrick’s only defense. LCDR Fitzpatrick was found guilty.

On appeal last month, Attorney Irion was finally able to get all the facts presented and at least one judge on the panel expressed shock that LCDR Fitzpatrick had witnessed a Judge hand-picking juries. The Post & Email have posted the audios of the hearing HERE and HERE. The really good part starts just before minute 7 on Part 2. As of today, we are still waiting for the court’s ruling.

The judge Fitzpatrick accuses of violating state law in this case is running unopposed for re-election as a Democrat. Attorney Irion is a resident of the District where all of these events took place. I believe God brought us here for such a time as this. This is one reason why Attorney Irion is running for the 10th District Criminal Court Judge for Tennessee.

Please visit and consider his candidacy for the bench.


Permanent link to this article:

Understanding Romans 13

Let every soul to the higher authorities be subject, for there is no authority except from God, and the authorities existing are appointed by God, so that he who is setting himself against the authority, against God’s ordinance hath resisted; and those resisting, to themselves shall receive judgment. Romans 13:1-2

Many a government have used this verse to coerce Christians into acting against their conscience, but they do so by mis-representing what the verse says. ANYONE, including government officials, who act, or ask others to act, against God’s ordinances are outside God’s chain of command and are not to be obeyed if you yourself don’t want to set yourself up for judgment. Times are changing quickly. Make sure you know why your true allegiance lies.

Permanent link to this article:

Forward the Counter-Revolution!

We pray that you had a blessed time with family and friends this week. In these times, having strong bonds of support is more important than ever. We encourage you to actively work to build up the communities in which God has placed you.

If you are paying attention at all you know that the powers that be are engaged in a revolution to “fundamentally transform America.” In 2012 Liberty Legal Foundation’s counter-revolutionary act was to speak truth to power in our nation’s courts. Because the Powerful hate the truth, LLF has been punished in the form of a $10,500 sanctions order imposed by the Federal Court in Memphis.

We intend to continue speaking the truth, but we need your help. Under the best conditions our fight for liberty costs money. Now that those in power are actively punishing us for defending the Constitution, our fight will cost even more.

Thank you for all your support in the past. Please remember Liberty Legal Foundation in your year-end giving. 

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

-George Orwell (1903 – 1950)

Survey Results 

Thank you to everyone who took our most recent survey. The following results show the percentage of our members who agree with each statement related to Obamacare.

I do not want to help fund birth control.


I do not want to help fund abortions.


I do not want to help fund the government run health care system.


Government shouldn’t be able to tell me what services I have to buy.


The Federal government should stay out of healthcare all together.


Permanent link to this article:

Survey Results

survey500In the past few months there have been some positive rulings for companies seeking exemption from Obamacare. Their position is that, as a company, they morally object to funding birth control and abortion services. One court in particular agreed with a for-profit company and entered an injunction against the government stating that the government “interests are countered, and indeed outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion.”

Our position since Obamacare passed is that the federal government has absolutely no Constitutional authority to legislate health care in any way. As a result, talking about the particulars of the Obamacare bill was similar to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. We still hold that position. All of the mess, cost, confusion and bureaucracy associated with Obamacare is directly because it’s something the federal government shouldn’t be doing in the first place.

However, because of these recent court developments, we at Liberty Legal Foundation were curious as to how many of our members agreed that they too objected to funding birth control and/or abortion services as Obamacare requires. The results are in and 4 to 1 of you agree with these corporate religious objectors. 80.02% of you stated that one of your primary reasons for opposing Obamacare is because it forces you to support medical services to which you are morally opposed.

Thank you for sharing your opinion with us. We continue to seek avenues to return our nation to the rule of law and welcome your input.

Permanent link to this article:

Frustrating Victories in 2012

As 2012 winds down Liberty Legal Foundation reflects upon a year of frustrating victories, and active hostility from Federal Courts. In two major cases LLF presented arguments to the Supreme Court that positively influenced the Court’s rulings. In both cases LLF’s arguments were not being presented by any other party. Unfortunately, in both cases, the Court went on to create new law in order to avoid the natural results of LLF’s otherwise winning arguments. Let me explain:

LLF filed an amicus brief in the Obamacare litigation last winter. With the exception of Senator Rand Paul, Liberty Legal Foundation was the only party to argue that Wickard v. Filburn should be overturned. Our brief went on to make further arguments and present overwhelming data showing that the Court’s 1942 Ruling in Wickard directly caused exponential growth in federal spending and loss of freedom. See our brief at our website. We argued that Obamacare’s individual mandate is simply the latest example of federal abuse of authority under the “commerce clause,” as expanded by the Wickard ruling.

On June 30 the Court agreed that the individual mandate is beyond the scope of Congressional authority, even when considering the extremely broad Wickard Standard. Unfortunately the Court then redefined the individual mandate as a tax. The Court also made a completely new rule under the tax and spend clause, essentially removing any remaining limitations on Congressional authority to regulate under the tax and spend clause.

So, you can understand our frustration. The individual mandate is beyond Congressional authority under the commerce clause, but the individual mandate still exists. And now the tax and spend clause is wide open for future abuses by Congress.

Liberty Legal also filed an amicus brief in the U.S. v. Arizona case. Again, LLF was the only party making the argument we made. Our brief pointed out that the Obama administration’s own policy violated existing federal law that had been passed years earlier. Specifically, existing federal law prohibited ANY federal agency from refusing to cooperate with state law enforcement when they request the immigration status of arrested individuals. In other words, Obama’s policy and his lawsuit against Arizona, both violated existing federal law.

The Supreme Court agreed with this point. It was one of the very few victories within the Court’s ruling in Arizona’s immigration lawsuit. Most of the Court’s ruling destroyed state sovereignty. The Court did rule that the Obama administration must cooperate with local law enforcement, as required by federal law. However, the Court went on to tell all states that they are no longer allowed to enforce federal immigration codes. Understand that this was a completely unique ruling. Never before had the Court told states that they could not enforce federal law.

So, again, you can understand LLF’s frustration.

We are proud of the fact that in both the Obamacare litigation and the immigration litigation the Court’s rulings reflect agreement with LLF’s arguments. We are also frustrated that in both cases the Court changed the rules, making both situations much worse. These two cases represented opportunities to correct glaring errors in federal precedent. Both cases presented opportunities to re-establish essential checks and balances between federal and state powers, and between the branches of federal government. Both cases were golden opportunities to restore Constitutional limitations on federal authority. Yet in both cases the Court created completely new rules that swept away any remaining limits on federal power.

Even more disturbing is the fact that the Court has no excuse. LLF’s briefs made the Court aware of issues no other parties were pointing out. The Court’s rulings reflected the fact that it was aware of these issues. The Courts rulings also reflect that it no longer has any intention of maintaining Constitutional limitations on federal authority. The one positive that can be taken from the Court’s 2012 rulings is this: Because of our legal briefs, no one can claim that the Court didn’t know exactly what it was doing.

We at LLF will continue to work for Constitutional government and shine a light on federal corruption. But we need your help more than ever. As 2012 comes to a close, please remember LLF in your year-end giving.

Permanent link to this article:

Older posts «