In the Circuit Court for Davidson County, Tennessee at Nashville
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE JOHN JAY HOOKER, lawyer, WALTER BRUMIT, ) ANTHONY GOTTLIEB, HOLLY SPANN, as qualified voters ) on behalf of themselves and other qualified voters, ) ) Applicants for Declaratory Judgment, ) v. ) No. 14C338 ) CHIEF JUSTICE GARY WADE ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ) ALL JUDGES WHO HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR RETENTION‐ ) ELECTION BY THE JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ) COMMISSION IN BOTH THEIR OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL ) CAPACITIES INCLUDING SUPREME COURT JUDGES, ) CORNELIA A. CLARK, SHARON G. LEE, AND COURT OF ) APPEALS JUDGES, ANDY D. BENNETT, FRANK G. ) CLEMENT, RICHARD H. DINKINS, THOMAS R. FRIERSON II, ) JOHN WESTLEY MCCLARTY, J. STEVEN STAFFORD, ) CHARLES D. SUSANO, D. MICHAEL SWINEY, AND ) CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES JEFFREY S. ) BIVINS, ALAN E. GLENN, CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, ) NORMA MCGEE OGLE, ROGER A. PAGE, D. KELLY ) THOMAS, ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JOHN EVERETT ) WILLIAMS, JAMES CURWOOD WITT, THOMAS T. ) WOODALL, ) GOVERNOR BILL HASLAM, LT. GOVERNOR RON RAMSEY, ) HOUSE SPEAKER BETH HARWELL, ) ATTORNEY GENERAL ROBERT E. COOPER, IN HIS OFFICIAL ) AND INDEPENDENT CAPACITIES ON BEHALF OF ALL ) RESPONDENTS AND INTERESTED STATE OFFICIALS, ) INCLUDING ALL MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL ) PERFORMANCE EVALUATION COMMSSION, ) CHAIRMAN JUDGE ROBERT L. JONES, MICHAEL E. TANT, ) CHRISTOPHER CLEM, HENRIETTA GRANT, J. GREGORY ) GRISHAM, HON. ROBERT MONTGOMERY, JR., ) HON. J. MICHAEL SHARP, RENATA SOTO, JOSEPH A. ) WOODRUFF, DAVID HAINES ESQ, ) SECRETARY OF STATE TRE HARGETT ) COORDINATOR OF ELECTION MARK GOINS, ) ) Respondents / Defendants. ) A MOTION TO RECUSE OR A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF JANUARY 28TH 2014, DISMISSING THIS CASE WITHOUT A HEARING; OR A MOTION IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A HEARING, UNDER THE RULES OF EVIDENCE 2.01(F) AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSES AND A DECLARATION, WHICH IS NOT BEING MADE FOR ANY IMPROPER PURPOSE, IS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUPREME COURT RULE 10B, SECTION 101 ET SEQ AND, IS MADE WITH PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS UNDER A PENALTY OF PERJURY BECAUSE YOUR HONOR’S IMPARTIALITY MIGHT REASONABLY BE QUESTIONED UNDER SUPREME COURT RULE 10 CANNON 2.11 AND ARTICLE VI §11 OF THE TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION AND TCA §17‐2‐101 AND UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF BOTH THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS. BACKGROUND 1) Your Honor presided in the case of Hooker et. al. vs. Lt. Gov Ron Ramsey Case No.13C‐5012, where in Your Honor acknowledged that Your Honor is “very good friends” with the Defendant Robert Jones, who is likewise the Chairman of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission. Your Honor said from the bench in that case, that, “Judge Jones and I are very good friends… I am certainly not going [to] enjoin Judge Jones.” Furthermore, Your Honor, from The Bench, on January 14, 2014 spoke of Your Honor’s friendship with the Defendant Joseph Woodruff and said, that “he’s a friend but I will straight out tell him, he is sitting on an invalid composed Commission, so that ‘s the ruling of the Court.” 2 OF 7 No. 14C338 2) In the Hooker et. al. vs. Ramsey et. al. case, Your Honor held in the Final Order of January 15 2015 that, “Plaintiffs' request for a declaratory judgment as to the validity of the composition of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission is granted and the Court rules that the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission is invalid under Tenn. Code Ann. §17‐4‐201 (b)(6) and unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions as being discriminatory toward the female and the black population of the State of Tennessee.” 3) The fact is that the Final Order of January 15th 2014, under the holdings in Kidd vs. McCanless, 292 SW 2d 40, 200 Tenn. (1956), Jordan vs. Knox County 213 SW 3d 751 and Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425, 6 S. Ct. 1121, 30 L. Ed. 178 ‐ Supreme Court, 1886, stripped and relieved the Commission of its de facto status, because said Final Order was an adjudication in a Declaratory Judgment proceeding by a competent Court that had power to determine whether or not the Commission is sitting in violation of the law. Consequently, as a result of the Final Order of January 15, 2014, appealed on January 21st 2014 the Commission lost its de facto status. 4) Notwithstanding, Your Honor issued an Amended Order on January 24th, 2014 declaring that the Commission had de facto status. However, the fact is the January 24th 2014 order was invalid because the Attorney General had filed a notice of appeal on January 21st, 2014. 5) Furthermore, the fact is, Your Honor, in the instant case, on January 28th 2014 issued an Order of Dismissal, in reliance upon the Amended Order of January 24th 2014, issued without jurisdiction, in the Hooker et. al. vs. Ramsey et. al. case. That Amended Order held that the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, “is a de facto body and as such, its findings carry the full effect of the law for which the Legislature intended.” However, Your Honor had no jurisdiction to put down an Amended Order on January 24th 2014, in the Hooker et. al. vs. Ramsey et. al. case, or the right to rely on that Order in Your Honor’s Order of January 28th 2014, in the instant case. However, Your Honor dismissed this case without a hearing, based upon Your Honor’s reliance on an invalid Amended Order in the Hooker et. al. vs. Ramsey et. al. case. 6) Moreover, when Your Honor took Judicial Notice, regarding the January 17th 2014 Commission meeting, in Your Honor’s invalid January 24th 3 OF 7 No. 14C338 Amended Order, Your Honor did so in violation of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence Section 201(f) because the proceedings had terminated and the Court had lost jurisdiction in the Hooker et. al. vs. Ramsey et. al. case. 7) Finally, Your Honor’s Order of January 28th 2014, dismissing this case without a hearing, “under Your Honor’s discretionary powers” violated the Plaintiff’s right to a hearing to contest, “the propriety of taking Judicial Notice and the tenor of the matter noticed,” under the Tennessee Rules of Evidence 201(e). 8) Therefore, because of the aforesaid facts, relating to Your Honor making invalid orders, the Plaintiffs respectfully claim, under the holding in Bean vs. Bailey 283 S.W. 3rd 298, 806 (2009), that due to Your Honor’s disclosed friendship with the Defendant Jones and Commissioner Woodruff, that a person of “ordinary prudence,” would find that the relationship between Your Honor and the Defendants provides, “a reasonable basis,” for questioning Your Honor’s ability to be “fair and impartial.” Furthermore, the Plaintiffs respectfully suggest that the foregoing circumstances, relating to the aforesaid Orders, issued without Jurisdiction, likewise would indicate that a “person of ordinary prudence, knowing all the facts known to the Judge,” learned from whatever source that Your Honor’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” That circumstance, is of crucial importance in this matter because this matter involves the “Highest Public Interest,” the integrity of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, and the rights of the female population of the State, to have the representation upon the Commission mandated by TCA §17‐4‐201(b)(6), and the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of both the State and Federal Constitutions in accordance with Your Honor’s holding in the Final Order of Hooker et. al. vs. Ramsey et. al., issued on January 15th 2014. 9) Furthermore, in light of the foregoing circumstance, including the fact that Your Honor’s good friend Judge Jones, Chairman of the Commission, ignored Your Honor’s Final Order of January 15th 2014, in obvious disrespect for the Rule of Law, it could appear to an ordinary person, that in view of Your Honor’s disclosed friendship with two of the Defendants and in light of Your Honor’s holdings that the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission is a de facto body in Your Honor’s Amended Order of January 24th 2014, issued without jurisdiction, notwithstanding 4 OF 7 No. 14C338 that Your Honor had held in the Final Order of January 15th 2014, that the Commission is unconstitutionally seated, raises the question whether Your Honor’s, “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 10) In conclusion, the fact that Your Honor relied on the Order of January 24th 2014, issued without jurisdiction, in the case of Hooker et. al. vs. Ramsey et. al., to issue an Order on January 28th 2014, in the instant case, which took judicial notice without a hearing as required by Due Process and under the Tennessee Rules of Evidence, of facts not otherwise before the Court, would raise a question in the mind of a person of ordinary prudence, who knew all the facts, known to Your Honor that, Your Honor’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Therefore, the Plaintiffs, who have a solemn obligation to represent the female population, to see that the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission is properly seated, with respect to gender, respectfully request that Your Honor disqualify yourself in this case forthwith, or in the alternative grant the Plaintiffs the opportunity to have an oral argument regarding Judicial Notice and the Court’s Dismissal Order of January 28th 2014. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ___________________________________ JOHN JAY HOOKER, Pro‐Se BPR #005118 __________________________________ 115 Woodmont Blvd. WALTER BRUMIT, Pro‐Se Nashville, Tennessee 37205 30 East Dale Court Phone (615) 269‐6558 Greeneville TN 37745 Cell (615) 479‐6531 Phone (423)‐823‐0157 Fax (615) 383‐6036 [email protected] [email protected] _________________________________ ANTHONY GOTTLIEB, Pro‐Se __________________________________ PO Box 1770 HOLLY SPANN, Pro‐Se Hendersonville TN 37077 21 Vaughn’s Gap Phone (615)‐824‐9439 Nashville, TN 37205 [email protected] (615) 812‐2551 [email protected] 5 OF 7 No.