eCoU,U.S. FILED SEP 132018 CASE NO. 18A62 OFFICE OF THE CLERK

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Jon Vazeen, pro se Petitioner, Vs.

STATE OF TENNESSEE, Respondent.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari To the Supreme Court of Tennessee

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(GALILEO-STYLE PROSECUTION OF A SCIENTIST, VIOLATIONS OF CITIZEN'S CIVIL RIGHTS/ RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL, THE LEGALITY OF A COURT MAKING NEW LAWS)

Petitioner (pro se): Jon Vazeen P.O. Box 9094 Knoxville, TN 37940 Tel: (615) 673-0777 email: [email protected]

Responder: Supreme Court of Tennessee, Middle Division 100 Supreme Court Bldg. 401 7th Avenue North Nashville, TN 37219-1407 GALILEO-STYLE PROSECUTION OF A SCIENTIST, VIOLATIONS OF CITIZEN'S RIGHTS (FAIR TRIAL/CIVIL RIGHTS), THE LEGALITY OF A COURT MAKING NEW LAWS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Introduction This case is about a renegade trial court. A wide-umbrella question reflective of the case reads: "Is it a trial court or a lawless kingdom?" However, the historic rulings by Third Circuit Court of Davidson County, Tennessee in 2015 are best understood through the following interrelated questions that are selected from a pool of many others.

Does a trial court have any rights to prosecute a scientist, in reminiscence of Galileo's prosecution, for his/her forward-thinking science when the science even has the support of the National Science Foundation (NSF)?

Has citizen's rights been violated when a court puts a citizen under duress (i.e. threatens the citizen with jail) to force the citizen to sign off his/her property at a price that is proven to be less than the fair market value of the property?

When a court overrules all existing Laws/Codes/Prior Cases by classifying the entrepreneurial activities of an inventor in producing/marketing his /her award winning inventions as asset dissipation, has that court overstepped its bounds into becoming a lawmaker?

Iv. When a court ignores and/or modifies evidences in order to mold a case into having an outcome desired by the court, has the court, at the minimum, violated citizen's right to a fair trial? TABLE OF CONTENTS

page QUESTIONS PRESENTED...... TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... ii INTERESTEDPARTIES ...... TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...... iv

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI...... 1 OPINIONSBELOW ...... 1 JURISDICTION...... 2 RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS ...... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...... 2

...... GA.LII.EO-STYLE PROSECUTION ...... 1RIAI, COTJR.1' ACTING AS A LAW 1IL4KER...... 4 VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS ...... VIOLATIONS OF CITIZEN'S RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL ...... 6 COURT OF APPEALS V. QUESTIONS...... 7 WHY THIS WRIT SHOULD BE GRANTED...... 8 CONCLUSIONS...... 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS continued

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS page APPENDIX A (Court of Appeals' 3 Judgments) ...... App.2a

APPENDIX B (Questions: Court of Appeals & TN Supreme Court) ...... App.8a

APPENDIX C (Opinion of Court of Appeal)...... App. 12a

APPENDIX D (Request for Rehearing)...... App. 19a

APPENDIX E (TN Supreme Court Rejection) ...... App.23a

APPENDIX F (US Supreme Court Deadline Extension ...... App.25a

INTERESTED PARTIES Responder:

Supreme Court of Tennessee, Middle Division 100 Supreme Court Bldg. 401 7th Avenue North Nashville, TN 37219-1407 iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES As the body of this Writ dissects, this historically unique case is about a renegade trial court that openly violated laws left and right and even made laws. As such there is not even one previous case to cite. 1

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner Jon Vazeen respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals (Middle Tennessee). Tennessee Supreme Court rejected the petition to review the case.

OPINIONS BELOW The level of uncertainties of Court of Appeal (Middle Tennessee) about a correct verdict for this case is extractable from Court of Appeal's 3 different judgments that changed from Vacate and Remand to Dismiss. (trial court's decision) and Remand to Dismiss the Appeal (Appendix A, page2a). Although, the 3 judgments have apparent same entry date, they were mailed to Petitioner in intervals of 10 days. Appendix B (page 8a) show copies of evidence-supported questions that Petitioner submitted to Court of Appeals and Tennessee Supreme Court.

In addition to its historic dimensions, the case is also unique. This is because there is no history of such open violation of laws and/or citizens' rights by any trial court. Even if such rare history exists, because there is absolutely no room for justifications/discussions when citizens' rights are violated by a court, immediate nullification of trial court's decisions is the only choice that any higher court has. Accordingly, there are no relevant prior case(s) to reference. However, the Opinion of the Court of Appeals (Appendix C, page 13a) centers, mostly, on the lack of prior citations by Petitioner.

The Opinion of Court of Appeal also points to Petitioner's failure to submit an itemized list of valuables as laws requires. However, as Petitioner's request for rehearing (Appendix D, page 25a) points, Petitioner could not have possibly provided an itemized list because trial court had barred Petitioner from accessing his house/belongings. Petitioner claims that on one hand the shortcomings of the legal system allowed the trial court to victimize the Petitioner and on the other hand the Court of Appeal punished Petitioner for the shortcomings of the trial court. The request for rehearing was rejected. 2

Tennessee Supreme Court rejected the petition without offering any reason (Appendix E, page 31a).

JURISDICTION The judgment of the Tennessee Supreme Court was entered on 4/18/ 2018. The time for filing Petitioner's petition for a writ of certiorari was extended by US Supreme Court to September 15, 2018 (Appendix F, page 33a). The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1257.

<-:-- -

RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS

CITIZEN'S RIGHTS RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL ABUSE. OF JUDICIAL POWER 5th AMENDMENT 9th AMENDMENT

•-

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case is about a renegade trial court and its extreme abuse of judicial power that extended into even making new laws. This is a different case than most cases therefore communication of its essence requires a different approach. Unfortunately, the case can't be fully understood without the following scenario- based summaries that unravel the historically reckless rulings by the trial court and their national consequences. Petitioner submitted a detailed evidence- 3

supported dissection of the lengthy case to Court of Appeals (of Middle Tennessee).

GALILEO-STYLE PROSECUTION Background: Roof: Around 2008 or so, Petitioner who is a scientist painted the roof of his house White. The science behind the painting was to lower the temperature at the interiors of the house through reducing the heat absorption at the roof surface. It is obvious that the ensuing reduction in AC (air conditioner) use saves capital and the reduced Carbon footprint helps the environment. Years later (in 2014) the National Science Foundation (NSF) funded a research that validated Petitioner's forward-thinking science by recommending that in certain areas of USthere are financial and environmental benefits in painting a roof White. It is totally relevant to know that in 2018 the city of Los Angeles initiated a move to capitalize on .the benefits of lowering the surface heat absorption by painting streets White. Incredibly, trial court determined that Petitioner's painting of the roof was dissipation of assets! Subsequently, in full rejection of NSF's recommendation, trial court charged Petitioner with damaging the property and forced Petitioner to pay for the roof! Background: Porch Column: Petitioner who has a Ph.D. in engineering erected a support structure around a tall porch column of his house after Petitioner noted soft spots at the base of the column. The objectives of the temporary structure were A) to slow the rotting process by allowing any water pool at the base of the column to drain, B) to lift the load off the column and, C) to buy time while devising a more permanent solution. Trial court rejected that the column was rotting, used sarcastic terms to ridicule Petitioner's engineered structure and, forced Petitioner to pay for the expenses of removing the support structure. However, the validity of Petitioner's forward-thinking science became undeniable when the base of the column rotted to the point of collapse while the divorce was ongoing. In 1633 Galileo was prosecuted because authorities did not have the smarts to understand his forward-thinking science. Nearly 400 years later in 2015 a divorce court in Tennessee prosecuted Petitioner for being a forward-thinking scientist whose science proved to be beyond the level of the court! 4

The national consequences are clear; in a system where a trial court acts as a kingdom and freely overshoots its bounds into science, engineering and, business (see below please), the integrity of the entire judicial system comes under question. It is obvious that when the population loses its trust in the judicial system (as many in US have), the consequences are immense. Obviously, because courts don't recklessly challenge the findings of the highest science authority of the land (NSF), the painting of roofs is yet to become widespread and, courts don't infuse themselves into technical arenas without expert opinions, there were (are) no prior case with any relevance to above scenario. The Court of Appeals invoked the lack of citation of a prior case(s) to reject the case without directly addressing any of the questions presented, including above scenario. The Galileo-style prosecution has remained enforced.

TRIAL COURT ACTING AS A LAW MAKER Background: In addition to being a faculty, Petitioner has worked as an inventor and a visual artist for decades. While trying to make his inventions/arts happen, Petitioner, like all other inventors/artists, faced many challenges and many road blocks. More importantly, Petitioner encountered numerous out-of- control-of-Petitioner situations that negatively affected the projects and slowed the progress. One such situation, among many, is cited below. It is also importantly relevant that Petitioner's former spouse admitted to trying to block Petitioner's art/inventions from progressing.

Petitioner took a trip to China and found a factory for production of his invented BiaBo shoes. Unfortunately, the factory shipped defective BiaBo shoes. Petitioner was forced to donate the entire shipment to a Church for the needy. The financial blow and the setbacks for Petitioner's invention are undeniable.

Trial court made history by ruling that the entrepreneurial activities of Petitioner in trying to produce/market his inventions were asset dissipation! It is an absolutely undeniable fact that throughout the US court systems, the interpretations of "asset dissipation" don't come even close to encompassing legitimate entrepreneurial activities of an inventor. Therefore, such reckless ruling is invalid and illegal with/without consideration of any contributing factors. Without any Codes/Laws/Prior Cases that even remotely come close to trial court's ungodly ruling, trail court deviated from its task, assumed the role of a lawmaker and, made new laws. Needless to say that by ignoring the contributing factors, trial court effectively blamed Petitioner for the fault of others. An import comparison: trial court also determined that Petitioner's former wife did not dissipate her assets when she, just days before filing for divorce, transferred $40,000 out of her bank account and transferred the ownership of her car! It is an undeniable fact that every single court system in US would have determined that the actions of Petitioner's former wife were absolutely asset dissipation. The comparison leaves no room for any other conclusion except that trial court fabricated the case toward having an outcome desired by the court. To achieve its goal, trial court made new laws, stepped over existing laws, abused its judicial power and, in the process grossly violated Petitioner's rights to a fair trial. From another angle, trial court's ruling also violated the accepted business fundamental that doing business is inherently risky and success cannot be guaranteed. With this kind of rulings, society should expect the end of the brain storming of innovators, the end of risk taking of entrepreneurs and, the addition of entrepreneurship to the list of endangered species.

VIOLATIONS OF CITIZEN'S RIGHTS Background: Trial court gave Petitioner's former wife the right to sell the house that they co-owned. When an offer was made, Petitioner claimed that the price was too low and refused to sign the sales papers. In support of his claim, Petitioner submitted evidences to the court that showed similar houses in the same neighborhood were sold at much higher prices within the span of 1-3 months prior. Instead of assigning an independent agent to investigate, trial court grossly violated Petitioner's civil rights by converting the court into a cheap theater where Petitioner was given the choice of "sign the sales paper immediately or go to lail". Petitioner was put under duress and was forced to sign the papers. Meanwhile, Petitioner's claim of low sale price became undeniable 6

when a different buyer offered $10,000 more than the advertised price and near $20,000 more than the price that the trial court forced Petitioner to commit to! Ignoring the evidence, converting the court into a cheesy theater, and acting as a king is exactly how societies must not allow a court to operate. In order to protect the integrity of the judicial system, the respectful US Supreme Court should offer an opinion on the legality of a court putting a citizen under duress in order to force the citizen to commit to an act where (1) evidences show that the act is flawed, (2) the flawed act causes damages to the citizen and, (3) the citizen is reluctant to commit to the flawed act.

VIOLATIONS OF CITIZEN'S RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL Background: Both Petitioner and his former wife agreed that Petitioner was the primaa caregiver for their daughter as she was growing up. Although both parties had agreed on the same fact, trial court changed the fact by determining that Petitioner's former wife was the primary caregiver! In support of its phony determination, trial court made up stories and specifically stated that Petitioner did not contribute to taking care of his daughter after Petitioner's former wife got home from work. However, the fact that Petitioner, after taking care of his daughter during day, had to go and teach his night classes and couldn't even be around after his former spouse got home, nullifies the determination and proves its made-up dimensions. Relevant to this scenario, trial court also determined that during the course of the marriage Petitioner had refused to work! This amazing determination was made in despite of a mountain of evidences in contra. The most direct evidence is the ongoing Petitioner's academic work as a faculty at various universities that go back several decades. Additionally, the ruling projects an intentional ignorance because common sense dictates that it takes real hard work for an inventor to invent, make and perfect prototypes, write his/her own patent applications, produce his/her inventions from his/her garage, package, write the script/shoot/edit TV commercials, exhibit at tradeshows, open a store, etc. without even hiring anyone. The same analysis extends to Petitioner's hard work in trying to make his visual art a success that included opening an art gallery. 7

While the freedom that the trial court felt in piling up false determinations is of outmost concern, the fact that trial court also created a new legal issue should not be minimized:

"If a faculty position and entrepreneurial activities are not accepted as work, then what profession can legally be accepted as work?"

This determination when viewed in the light of other mentioned scenarios creates yet another legal issue. The obvious fact is that had Petitioner's inventions made millions, trial court could not have fabricated its false determination that Petitioner had refused to work. Therefore, the legal issue becomes: "How is it possible to classify the some level of activity as work if a project succeeds and as no work if the project fails?"

The dependency of trial court's determination on which way the wind blows, means that the determination was factually inept and legally invalid.

It is also easily extractable that had Petitioner's inventions made millions, this same trial court would have ignored the fact that Petitioner's former spouse admitted to having tried to block Petitioner's progress and would have given her a lion share of Petitioner's hard work.

COURT OF APPEALS V. QUESTIONS Obviously this case is about trial court's gross abuses of judicial power. At the same time that trial court's rulings were illegal in absolute sense, there was no relevant prior case to reference/compare. As a result, Petitioner whose rights were violated left and right was forced to pose questions to Court of Appeal that were related to the case through pointing to some obvious trial court's illegal practices. The plan was to have Court of Appeals acknowledge that, for example, if a trial court ignores evidences, trial court's determinations are legally invalid. This would have rolled the ball toward a re-trial by a different trial court. However, Court of Appeals did not answer any of the questions directly but argued, in general terms, that prior case citation was needed. This poses the question: what should be done when there is a case that cannot be fitted into any of pre-programmed formats? 8

WHY THIS WRIT SHOULD BE GRANTED (LEGAL LOOPHOLE)

Unlike typical cases that the respectful US SUPREME COURT considers, there are no contradictions among lower courts in this case. This case is about a renegade court that saw itself above the law and the higher courts that could not or did not intervene. As such, this case does not even have a prior case to reference. In addition to the severe national consequences, this historic and unique case also exposes what appears to be a legal loophole as discussed below.

In a judicial system where appeal courts can review only cases that have prior history, there is a legal loophole that trial courts can use to violate citizen's rights and/or make new laws with perfect legal impunity. To use the loophole only two conditions must be satisfied:

Avoid the appeal process by making sure that there are no prior case to cite (i.e. make new laws/ungodly determinations).

Avoid further scrutiny by hiding behind Memorandum Opinion

The Court of Appeal's initial Vacate & Remand judgment (Appendix A, page2a) reflects that the Court of Appeals noted clearly plausible legal flaws in trial court's determinations. Accordingly, if Court of Appeal could proceed when no prior case exists, the Court of Appeals would not have dismissed the appeal. On the other hand, if trial court didn't have the option of hiding behind Memorandum Opinion, trial court would have never made such ungodly illegal rulings. This is obvious because trial court knew very well that its illegal rulings, if published, would receive immediate nullification through the challenges by other courts and/or scientific/engineering/business organizations. If trial court's ungodly rulings had any legal legitimacy, trail court would have published them proudly. The respectful US Supreme Court has the power to plug the loophole and stop renegade courts from violating citizens' rights with impunity.

This society has fought long and hard to achieve rules and regulations that prevent dictatorship of individuals and/or institutions. The freedom that the trial court felt in making illegal determinations has precautions that vibrate across the society. This case is the poster child of what is wrong with the judicial system. Now, if US Supreme Court assumes the same voice as Tennessee Supreme Court/Court of Appeal and reject this Writ, the mentioned loophole has worked perfectly for the trial court at the expenses of Petitioner and other former/future victims of the trial court. By granting this Writ the respectful US Supreme Court will prevent the society from taking a few steps backward into a dictatorship of courts and will send a strong message that this society does not allow the violations of even one citizen's rights.

CONCLUSIONS Above selected scenarios reveal that trial court confused itself with a dictatorial kingdom where the dictator king decides what is right, what is wrong and, who should be hanged next. Apparently, it was Petitioner's turn to get hanged! There is no doubt that trial court grossly violated laws, there is no doubt that gross injustices were openly exercised upon the nearly 70 years old Petitioner and there are no doubts that for the good of society US Supreme Court can and should intervene.

Submitted,

Jon Vazeen (pro se P.O. Box 9094 Knoxville, TN 37940 Tel: 615 673-0777 email: [email protected]