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. 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. ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 14C338 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

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 HONORS IMPARTIALITY MIGHT REASONABLY BE QUESTIONED UNDER SUPREME COURT RULE 10 CANNON 2.11 AND ARTICLE VI 11 OF THE TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION AND TCA 172101 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.13C5012, 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 Honors friendship with the Defendant Joseph Woodruff and said, that hes 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. 174201 (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 Honors Order of January 28th 2014, in the instant case. However, Your Honor dismissed this case without a hearing, based upon Your Honors 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 Honors invalid January 24th
No. 14C338 3 OF 7

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 Honors Order of January 28th 2014, dismissing this case without a hearing, under Your Honors discretionary powers violated the Plaintiffs 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 Honors 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 Honors 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 Honors 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 174201(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 Honors 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 Honors good friend Judge Jones, Chairman of the Commission, ignored Your Honors 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 Honors disclosed friendship with two of the Defendants and in light of Your Honors holdings that the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission is a de facto body in Your Honors Amended Order of January 24th 2014, issued without jurisdiction, notwithstanding
No. 14C338 4 OF 7

that Your Honor had held in the Final Order of January 15th 2014, that the Commission is unconstitutionally seated, raises the question whether Your Honors, 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 Honors 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 Courts Dismissal Order of January 28th 2014.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ___________________________________ JOHN JAY HOOKER, ProSe

BPR #005118 115 Woodmont Blvd. Nashville, Tennessee 37205 Phone (615) 2696558 Cell (615) 4796531 Fax (615) 3836036 johnjayhooker@hpeprint.com __________________________________ HOLLY SPANN, ProSe 21 Vaughns Gap Nashville, TN 37205 (615) 8122551 hollyspann@hotmail.com

__________________________________ WALTER BRUMIT, ProSe 30 East Dale Court Greeneville TN 37745 Phone (423)8230157 waltbrumit@aol.com _________________________________ ANTHONY GOTTLIEB, ProSe PO Box 1770 Hendersonville TN 37077 Phone (615)8249439 tonygottlieb@aol.com

No. 14C338

5 OF 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and exact copy of the foregoing has been sent via First Class mail, postage prepaid, email and or fax, to: Attorney General Robert Cooper, Jr. Attorney General and Reporter on behalf of all State Defendants Janet Kleinfelter Deputy Attorney General Public Interest Division Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 20207 Nashville, TN 37202 ______________________________ John Jay Hooker 115 Woodmont Blvd. Nashville, Tennessee 37205 Phone (615) 2696558 Cell (615) 4796531 Fax (615) 3836036 johnjayhooker@hpeprint.com On this the 7th Day of February, 2014

No. 14C338

6 OF 7

February 2, 2014 By Frank Daniels III fdanielsiii@tennessean.com Kafkaesque. A great word, referring to the writings of Franz Kafka, a lawyer and businessman turned existential novelist, whose stories described nightmarish scenarios of bureaucratic and political power run amok and characters with feelings of senselessness, disorientation and helplessness. A situation becomes Kafkaesque when it seems incomprehensibly complex, bizarre or illogical. The saga of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission has become the definitive Kafkaesque experience. On Jan. 15, Judge Hamilton Gayden issued an order that said the makeup of the commission did not comply with the statutes requiring it to approximate the states population by gender and race. Gayden did not enjoin the commission from meeting, which it did on Jan. 17. The commission opened its meeting without even acknowledging that Gayden had ruled it was seated in disregard of state law and the U.S. Constitution. When questioned about Gaydens ruling, the commission called the state attorney generals office and went into an hourlong executive session after Deputy Attorney General Janet Kleinfelter arrived in her blue jeans to tell them what to do. The ninemember commission (78 percent male), whose votes on whether to retain an appellate judge determine whether a judge can stand for an unopposed retention election, went on to cast their votes after Kleinfelter, we presume, told them they could ignore the fact they were blatantly in violation of the statute. (The commission has been unrepresentative of the population since at least 2006.) The commission reversed its preliminary votes against retention for Judges Andy Bennett and Camille McMullen and voted to retain all the judges who have not resigned. On Jan. 24, Judge Gayden, for some strange reason, amended his order. In essence, Gayden said that because the commission ignored his order and met on Jan. 17, and in that meeting voted to retain all the judges, the commissions votes are valid. His rationale was that although the commission was seated unlawfully, its decisions have full force and effect unless there exists other infirmities or irregularities in its work or deliberations. Despite the fact that the commission is not seated de jure, or by law, Gayden ruled, it is seated defacto as long as no one protests too loudly or points out procedural mistakes. Gaydens order also said: The Court takes judicial notice that the Commission reversed its tentative ruling that Court of Appeals Judges McMullen and Bennett would not be recommended for retention. This development renders the treatment of all the Appellate Judges as equal, thus all the Tennessee Appellate Judges will be subjected to a yes or no vote for retention. In other words, as long as the commission does not really do its job and makes sure that all its votes are to retain judges, its decisions have standing. We might take notice that Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 27 Section 5.03 says, The Commissions meetings and deliberations shall be public. Yet, the commission closed its meeting to deliberate after hearing the public appeals of Judges Bennett and McMullen. That seems to be an infirmity or irregularity in its work. Kafkaesque: Judge rules that commission is unconstitutional; commission ignores ruling with advice from attorney general; commission says all judges are acceptable; judge rules never mind that because commission accepts judges, it is OK to ignore ruling. The de facto in Tennessee is that our political and judicial leadership believe they are above the laws they pass and enforce upon the rest of us. Governor, you are sworn to uphold the constitution and laws of the state; you have some work to do.

No. 14C338

7 OF 7