Presentation of Info To The DCGJ Sept 16 2014

INFORMATIONFORTHEGRANDJURY
DavidsonCounty
SEPTEMBER16,2014

Photo:WalterBrumit
TennesseeJudicialPerformanceEvaluationCommission
ThephotographtakenJanuary17,2014showstheJudicialPerformanceEvaluation
Commissionmeeting,inviolationoftheFinalOrderfrom1stCircuitCourtDavidson
County,TCA174201(b)(6)andSupremeCourtRule27,mandatingthattheappointments
totheCommission,"approximatethepopulationofthestatewithrespecttoraceand
gender."
TheCommission,asseatedabove,iscomprisedofsevenwhitemen,onewhitewoman,
andoneAfricanAmericanwomanandnoAfricanAmericanman.
Information for the DCGJ Page 1 of 31 09/15/2014
INFORMATION FOR THE GRAND JURY

J ohn J ay Hooker , Wal t Br umi t , Tony Got t l i eb, Hol l y Spann
and For r est Shoaf come bef or e t he Gr and J ur y and pr ocl ai mt he
Gr and J ur y has a dut y under Rul e 6 of t he Rul es of Cr i mi nal
Pr ocedur e t o make " i nqui r y" and " r epor t " t o t he cour t t hat t he
j udges of t he Supr eme Cour t and t he j udges of t he Cr i mi nal and
Ci vi l Cour t s of Appeal wer e unl awf ul l y el ect ed. See Appendix

Fur t her mor e t hey " abused" t hei r of f i ce when t hey f i l ed t he
Decl ar at i on of Candi dacy based on an i nval i d r ecommendat i on
f r omt he J udi ci al Per f or mance Eval uat i on Commi ssi on ( J PEC) ,
whi ch was mal - appor t i oned wi t h Seven ( 7) men and Two ( 2) women.
I t i s a f act t hat a val i d r ecommendat i on f r omt he J PEC i s a
qual i f i cat i on t o be on t he bal l ot or hol d t he of f i ce. Ther ef or e,
t he j udges whose names wer e on t he August 7, 2014 bal l ot and
r et ent i on el ect ed ar e not seat ed accor di ng t o l aw.

Consequent l y, t he Supr eme Cour t had no l awf ul power ,
yest er day, t o appoi nt an At t or ney Gener al , and when t hey made
such an appoi nt ment , t hey abused t hei r of f i ce whi ch f act t hi s
Gr and J ur y hopef ul l y wi l l r epor t t o t he ci t i zens of t he St at e of
Tennessee i n t he name of j ust i ce.

No doubt , t hese J udges, al l of t hemwel l knew t hat t hey
wer e not ent i t l ed t o r el y on an i nval i d r ecommendat i on f r om
t he J PEC and t hey ar r ogant l y and i nt ent i onal l y vi ol at ed t he l aw
f or t hei r own economi c benef i t , i n vi ol at i on of t he Of f i ci al
Mi sconduct st at ut e Tenn. Code Ann. 39- 16- 402 See Appendix


On December 9, 2013, t he case of Hooker et al v. Ramsey et
al was f i l ed i n t he Ci r cui t Cour t of Davi dson Co. chal l engi ng
t he composi t i on of J PEC. The l awsui t cl ai med t hat J PEC was not
composed i n accor dance wi t h Tenn. Code Ann. 17- 4- 201( b) ( 6) and
Supr eme Cour t Rul e 27 and t her ef or e coul d not gi ve a val i d
r ecommendat i on because t he Commi ssi on was composed of 7 men and
2 women when t he af or esai d st at ut e r equi r ed t hat t he member s of
t he Commi ssi on appoi nt ed by t he Speaker of t he House and t he
Speaker of t he Senat e be appoi nt ed i n accor dance wi t h t he
appr oxi mat e popul at i on of t he st at e wi t h " r espect t o r ace and
gender . " See Appendix

On J anuar y 15, 2014, J udge Hami l t on Gayden of t he Fi r st
Ci r cui t Cour t of Davi dson Count y hel d a hear i ng; t he Def endant s
wer e r epr esent ed by t he At t or ney Gener al ' s of f i ce. On J anuar y
15, 2014, J udge Gayden f i l ed a Fi nal Or der : See Appendix

FINALORDER
4.ThisCourtfindsthatallPlaintiffshavestandingtoseeka
declaratoryjudgmentastothevalidityofthecompositionoftheJudicial
PerformanceEvaluationCommissionundertheprovisionsofTenn.Code
Ann.174201(b)(6)whichreads:
TheappointingauthoritiesforthejudicialperformanceEvaluation
Commissionshallmakeappointmentsthatapproximatethepopulationof
thestatewithrespecttoraceandgender...thespeakershallreceive,but
shallnotbeboundby,recommendationsfromanyinterestedpersonor
organization."
5.ThisCourtfindsthatthelanguageofthelegislativeenabling
statuteforthemembershipoftheninememberJudicialEvaluation
Commissionlanguageismandatory,notpermissive,andrequiresthatthe
appointingauthoritiesfortheJudicialPerformanceEvaluationCommission
shallmakeappointmentsthatapproximatethepopulationofthestate
withrespecttoraceandgender.
ThisCourttakesjudicialnoticeofthefactthatthe
populationofTennessee,accordingtotheUnitedStatesCensusBureaufor
2012is52%women,48%menand17%AfricanAmerican,roundedoff.
ThisCourtfindsthatthecompositionoftheJudicial
PerformanceEvaluationCommissionconsistsofninemenandtwowomen
andthereforeonlyrepresents22%ofthefemalepopulationand11%of
theAfricanAmericanpopulation.
6.ThisCourtconcludesthatthecompositionofthecurrent
JudicialPerformanceEvaluationCommissionisinvalid,abinitiounder
Tenn.CodeAnn.174201(b)(6)andisdiscriminatoryagainstthefemale
andblackpopulationoftheStateofTennessee,inviolationoftheEqual
ProtectionandDueProcessclausesofboththeUnitedStatesand
TennesseeConstitutions.

Not wi t hst andi ng J udge Gayden' s Fi nal Or der of J anuar y 17,
2014, t he Commi ssi on unl awf ul l y composed of Seven ( 7) men and
Two ( 2) women met and t ook a vot e, and r ecommended al l t he
af or esai d j udges' names be pl aced on t he bal l ot f or a r et ent i on
el ect i on. The Commi ssi on made t hese r ecommendat i ons i n
cont empt uous di sr egar d of J udge Gayden' s or der of J anuar y 15,
2014 and t he or al ar gument of t he pl ai nt i f f s i n t hat case who
r epeat edl y r equest ed t hat t he Commi ssi on be r ecomposed i n
accor dance wi t h t he Tenn. Code Ann. 17- 4- 201( b) ( 6) and Supr eme
Cour t Rul e 27 because t he composi t i on of t he Commi ssi on
consi st i ng of Seven ( 7) men and Two ( 2) women di scr i mi nat ed
agai nst t he women and t he bl ack popul at i on, speci f i cal l y men i n
t he bl ack popul at i on, i n vi ol at i on of t hei r ci vi l r i ght s
pr ot ect ed by bot h t he Feder al and St at e Const i t ut i ons.

See Appendix

Never t hel ess, t he Commi ssi on t ook no act i on t o r ecompose
i t sel f i n accor dance wi t h t he l aw, Tenn. Code Ann. 17- 4- 201( b)
( 6) and Supr eme Cour t Rul e 27 despi t e t he f act t hat t he member s
of t he Commi ssi on, composed of Seven ( 7) men and Two ( 2) women,
wel l knew t hat t hey wer e pr oceedi ng i n vi ol at i on of t he l aw as
t hey wer e Def endant s i n t he Hooker et al v Ramsey et al as wer e
member s of t he Supr eme Cour t . See Appendix

Ther eaf t er , t he Supr eme Cour t t ook no act i on, t o r equi r e
t he Commi ssi on t o r ecompose when t he member s of t he Supr eme
Cour t had t he dut y t o do so under Supr eme Cour t Rul e 11.
I nst ead, t he Supr eme Cour t composed of Chi ef J ust i ce Wade,
J ust i ces Lee, Cl ar k, Hol der and Koch al l owed t he Commi ssi on t o
make i nval i d r ecommendat i ons gi vi ng al l t he j udges eval uat ed t he
r ecommendat i on needed t o f i l e a Decl ar at i on of Candi dacy t o be
r et ent i on el ect ed f or t he economi c benef i t of t he J udges and
t o t he har mof al l ot her s. See Appendix

The f act i s t he J udi ci al Per f or mance Eval uat i on Commi ssi on
i s a br anch of t he j udi ci al syst em and consequent l y t he Supr eme
Cour t has " super vi sor y power s" over t he Commi ssi on, Supr eme
Cour t Rul e 27, Sec. 2. 01 and coul d have and shoul d have r equi r ed
t he Commi ssi on t o r ecompose bef or e i ssui ng any r ecommendat i on.
See Appendix

Consequent l y, i t i s cr yst al cl ear t hat t he member s of t he
J PEC and t he member s of t he Supr eme Cour t abused t hei r of f i ces
and engaged i n Of f i ci al Mi sconduct Tenn. Code Ann. 39- 16- 402.
Ther ef or e, under t he r ul e of l aw i t i s t he dut y of t hi s Gr and

J ur y t o i ssue t he r epor t t o i nf or mt he publ i c of t hi s f act under
t he Rul es of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e, Rul e 6 based upon t he af or esai d
f act s and t he l aw ci t ed her ei n. See Appendix

Regr et t abl y, t he i nt egr i t y of t he j udi ci al syst emof
Tennessee has been gr eat l y damaged by t he conduct of t hese
J udges, however , by exposi ng t hemi n a r epor t i ssued by t he
Gr and J ur y asser t i ng t hat t he August 7
t h
2014 r et ent i on el ect i on
vi ol at es t he af or esai d l aws and i s t her ef or e nul l and voi d, i t
can be r est or ed by t he act i on of t hi s Gr and J ur y and t he
i nt egr i t y of t he j udi ci al syst emof Tennessee can be r ebor n!

APPENDIX
RULESOFCRIMINALPROCEDURERule6. THEGRANDJURY
(e)ItisthedutyOFTHEGRANDJURYto:
(1)Inquireinto,consider,andactonallcriminalcasessubmittedtoitbythe
DistrictAttorneyGeneral;
(2)Inquireintoanyreportofacriminaloffensebroughttoitsattentionbyamember
oftheGrandJury,
(3)Inquireintotheconditionandmanagementofprisonsandothercountybuildings
andinstitutionswithinthecounty;
(4)InquireintotheconditionoftheCountyTreasury;
(5)Inquireintothecorrectnessofsufficiencyofcountyofficersbonds;
(6)Inquireintoanystateorlocalofficersabuseand,
(7)reporttheresultsofitsactionstothecourt.
(f)IndividualGrandJuror'sDutytoInform.Ifamemberofthegrandjury
knowsorhasreasontobelievethatanindictablepublicoffensehasbeencommittedinthe
county,heorsheshallinformtheotherjurors,whoshallinvestigateit.
IN THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY, TELJt:. ED
JOHN JAY HOOKER, WALTER ) AHI/:48
BRUMIT, and ANTHONY )
GOTTLIEB, )
Plaintiffs,
v.
LT. GOVERNOR RON RAMSEY,
HOUSE SPEAKER BETH HARWELL,
HON. ROBERT JONES, MICHAEL
E. TANT, CHRISTOPHER CLEM,
HENRIETTA GRANT, J. GREGORY
GRISHAM, RON. ROBERT
MONTGOMERY, JR., HON. J
MICHAEL SHARP, RENATASOTO
JOSEPH A. WOODRUFF, DAVID
HAINES, SECRETARY OF STATE
TRE HARGETT" GOVERNOR BILL
HASLAM, and ATTORNEY
GENERAL ROBERT E. COOPER, JR.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINAL ORDER
RICH,l,RD R. ROGKER. ClERK

No. 13C-S012
This cause came on to be heard on January 14, 2014, on the Defendants' Motion
To Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Application for Declaratory Judgment and an Injunction, on
Plaintiffs Motion to Amend the Amended Application to name Holly Spann as a Plaintiff, and on
the Motion to Allow and Accept Amicus Brief of Mr. James D. R. Roberts, Jr. Based 00 the
pleadings of the parties, the arguments of counsel, the applicable law and the record as a whole,
the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
I. This Court finds that Plaintiffs' general challenges to the constitutionality of the
Retention Election Statutes, Tenn. Code Ann 17-4-101, et seq. are currently pending before the
Special Supreme Court in the case of Hooker v. Haslam, No. M2012-01299-SC-Rll-CV, and
therefore, such claims shall be dismissed under the doctrine of prior case pending.
2. TIlls Court finds that Plaintiffs, John Jay Hooker, Walter Brumit and Anthony
Gottlieb have standing to challenge alleged procedural denials of their constitutional right to
present grievances before the Evaluation Commission, to challenge the conduct of any Judge
under Article 1, sect. 23 and Supreme Court Rule 27, Section 2, alleging they were denied that
right, stating a recognizable basis affording them standing both as to subject matter and personal
standing, if true.
This Court also finds that John J. Hooker by reference, is a professed judicial candidate
based on findings in the case of Hooker v. Haslam, No. M2012-01299-SC-RII-CV, and thus
has separate standing.
This Court finds that Plaintiffs' motion to amend to add Holly Spann as a Plaintiff, -
representating women of Tenoessee, is well-taken, and as such she also has standing in her
own behalf and as representative of the female population of the State.
3. This Court finds that the decision of Mander v. Board of Professional Responsibility,
M2012-0079-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 2490576 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jillle 6, 2013) is controlling as to
the issue of the validity ofTeno. Supr. Ct. R. 27, and the Plaintiffs' challenges to the
validity of Rule 27 should be dismissed.
The Court further finds that the Supreme Court has the sole authority to establish the
procedures of its agencies pursuant to Teno. Sup. Ct. R. 27 and the Supreme Court has
established the procedures for the Judicial Perfonnance Evaluation Commission.
The court finds that it is without authority or power to issue injilllctive relief against the
Judicial Evaluation Commission or its members as the sole power to administer the Judicial
Evaluation Commission lies with the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
4. TIus court finds that all Plaintiffs have standing to seek a declaratory judgment as to
the validity of the composition of the Judicial Perfonnance Evaluation Commission under the
provisions of the Tenn. Code Ann. 17-4-201 (b )(6) which reads: " The appointing authorities for
the judicial performance evaluation commission shall make appointments that approximate the
population of the state with respect to race and gender. . . the speakers shall receive, but shall not
be bound by, recommendations from any interested person or organization."
5. This court finds that the language of the legislative enabling statute for the
membership of the nine member Judicial Evaluation Commission language is
mandatory, not permissive, and requires that the appointing authorities for the Judicial
Performance Evaluation Commission shall make appointments that approximate the population
of the state with respect to race and gender.
Tbis Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the population of Tennessee,
according to the United States Census Bureau for 2012 is 52% women, 48% men
and 17% African- American, rounded off.
This Court finds that the composition of the current Judicial Perfonoance Evaluation
Commission consists of nine men and two women and therefore, only
represents 22% of the female population of this state and 11 % of African- Americans
popUlation.
6. This Court concludes that the composition of the current Judicial Perfonnance
Evaluation Commission is invalid ab initio under Tenn. Code Ann 17-4-201(b)(6) and is
discriminatory against the female and black population of the State of Tennessee. in violation of
the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of both the United
States and Tennessee Constitutions.
7. This Court declines, however, to enjoin any further actions of the
Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission and denies Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief
nor to declare that the actions of the Judicial Evaluation Commission "null and void", as such
declarations would invade the province of the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:
1. Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' general challenge to the
constitutionality of the Retention Election Statutes is granted;
2. Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' challenge to validity of Tenn. Sup.
Ct. R. 27 is granted;
3. Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Application on the
grounds that Plaintiffs lack standing is denied;
4. 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'black
population of the State of Tennessee;
5. The Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief enjoying any further actions of
the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission is denied; the Plaintiffs' petition for this court
to declare the actions ofthe Judicial Evaluation Conunission "null and void" is denied;
6. That Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend to add Holly Spann as a PJaintiffis
granted;
7. That Mr. Roberts' Motion to File an Amicus Brief is granted; and
8. That all costs are assessed against the Defendants for which execution may
issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
~ 4 4 -
Judge Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.
I hereby certify that an exact and true copy of the foregoing has been mailed to:
Janet Kleinfelter
Deputy Attorney General
Office of Attorney General
P.O. Box 20207
Nashville, TeIUlessee 37202
John Jay Hooker
115 Woodmont Blvd.
Nashville, Tennessee 37205
On this the I ~ y of January, 2014.
Clerk
-
--- -
Grand Jury
Final Report
April - June 2014
The Honorable Judge Seth W. Norman
Criminal Court of Davidson County, TN
SEE SPECIAL CASE LAST PAGE
RE: GRAND JURY
APPEARANCE - JOHN JAY HOOKER
WALT BRUMIT - TONY GOTTLIEB
Presentment
We heard one Presentment on June 16, 2014 by Prosecutor Charles Robinson regarding
Defendant Sergio Espinosa and Defendant Joseph Progar.
Our charge was to review the "Police Shooting Disposition - Recommend no indictment ."
The grand jury heard the presentment and decided that the two poli ce officers acted
appropriately and should not be indicted.
Special Case
We were privileged to meet John Jay Hooker, who came to present a concern regarding
appointment of judges in Tennessee. He, along with attorneys Tony Gottlieb and Walter Bruit ,
brought documents from their lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Retention
Election Statues.
They stated that, according to the state constitution, it is unlawful for appellate court judges to
have their name on a ballot without opposition. Judges running unopposed must be
recommended to the governor by the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission. They stated
that the JPEC is not properly seated and is not a balanced commission, and therefore does not
fairly represent the population. They bel ieve because of this practice judges are being
unlawfully appointed by the governor and not truly elected by the public.
The case went to court and it was concluded that the JPEC was unlawfully seated and violated
the State constitution. When presented with this finding, the JPEC declined to take action to
rectify the circumstance, and in violation of the law, recommended all 22 appellate judges who
were seeking to run in a Retention Election without any candidate opposition.
This was a compelling and convincing case, and was very well prepared and presented.
However, due to time constraints by this jury, we were not able to take action. We recommend
that subsequent grand juries allow Hooker, Gottlieb and Bruit to again present their case and
allow time for steps to be taken that will bring about change in the process of electing appellate
judges in Tennessee.
In closing
We all agree that serving on the Grand Jury has been the experience of a life-time. As jurors
together for three months, we bonded as family and have enjoyed getting to know one
another. We recognized the gravity of our responsibilities and we took our charge very
seriously; however, we had a good deal of fun and laughter, and made new friends along the
way.
We were proud to serve on the Grand Jury. We come away with a broader understanding of the
criminal justice system and a deeper appreciation for the individuals who serve our community.
We believe the city of Nashville is in good hands.
FINAL PAGE -Davidson County Grand Jury
*
* JOHN JAY HOOKER et al, - v- LT. GOVERNOR RON RAMSEY et al
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY Case No. 13C-5012
APPENDIX
TENNESSEECONSTITUTION
ARTICLEX,1.Oathofoffice
Every person who shall be chosen or appointed to any office of trust or profit under this
Constitution, or any law made in pursuance thereof, shall, before entering on the duties
thereof,takeanoathtosupporttheConstitutionofthisState,andoftheUnitedStates,and
anoathofoffice.
Oath of Office
I, [Insert Name], do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of
the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Tennessee, that
I will administer justice without respect of persons, and that I will faithfully and
impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon me as Judge of the [Insert
Court & District], of the State of Tennessee, to the best of my skill and ability, so
help me God. This the [Insert Day, Month & Year].
SUPREMECOURTRULE10:Canon1
A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND
IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY, AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE
OFIMPROPRIETY.
RULE1.1Compliancewiththelaw
Ajudgeshallcomplywiththelaw,includingtheCodeofJudicialConduct.
RULE1.2PromotingConfidenceintheJudiciary
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
independence,integrity,andimpartialityofthejudiciary,andshallavoidimproprietyandthe
appearanceofimpropriety.
RULE1.3AvoidingAbuseofthePrestigeofJudicialOffice
A judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or
economicinterestsofthejudgeorothers,orallowotherstodoso.

APPENDIX
SUPREMECOURTRULE10:Canon2
Rule2.12SupervisoryDuties
(B) A judge with supervisory authority for the performance of other judges shall take
reasonable measures to ensure that those judges properly discharge their judicial
responsibilities,includingthepromptdispositionofmattersbeforethem.
SUPREMECOURTRULE11:SupervisionoftheJudicialSystem.
I.General.
ThisRuleispromulgatedpursuanttotheinherentpowerofthisCourtandparticularly
the following subsections of T.C.A. 163502, providing that the Supreme Court shall have
thepower:
(5)Totakeaffirmativeandappropriateactiontocorrectoralleviateanyconditionor
situationadverselyaffectingtheadministrationofjusticewithinthestate.
(6)Totakeallsuchother,furtherandadditionalactionasmaybenecessarytothe
orderlyadministrationofjusticewithinthestate,whetherornothereinorelsewhere
enumerated.
Itspurposeisasfollows:
c.TopromotetheorderlyandefficientadministrationofjusticewithintheState.
II.Functionalimprovementofjudicialsystem
a. The judicial system of this State henceforth will function as an integrated unit under
thedirectionandsupervisionoftheSupremeCourt.
SUPREMECOURTRULE27:JudicialPerformanceEvaluationProgram.
1.04. The Tennessee General Assembly has enacted laws that establish a meritbased
process for selecting and retaining the members of Tennessee's three appellate courts. To
promote informed retention decisions, Tenn. Code Ann. 174201(c) requires the Judicial
Performance Evaluation Commission to publish reports concerning each appellate judge
APPENDIX
seeking election to an unexpired term or election or reelection to a full eightyear term. In

addition to its primary purpose of selfimprovement, the Judicial Performance Evaluation
Program must provide information that will enable the Judicial Performance Evaluation
Commission to perform objective evaluations and to issue fair and accurate reports
concerningeachappellatejudge'sperformance.
1.05.InTenn.CodeAnn.174201(a)(1),theTennesseeGeneralAssemblyhasgiven
theTennesseeSupremeCourttheresponsibilitytopromulgatearuleestablishingthejudicial
performanceevaluationprogramforappellatejudges.
Section2.JudicialPerformanceEvaluationProgram.
2.01.InaccordancewiththisCourt'sinherentsupervisoryauthorityoverthecourt
systemandthejudges,andpursuanttoTenn.S.Ct.R.11,Tenn.CodeAnn.163501and
Tenn.CodeAnn.174201(a)(1),thereisherebyestablishedaJudicialPerformance
EvaluationProgramaspartofthejudicialbranchofstategovernment.
2.02.TheJudicialPerformanceEvaluationProgramshallbeadministeredbythe
JudicialPerformanceEvaluationCommissionestablishedbyTenn.CodeAnn.174201(b).
2.03.TheJudicialPerformanceEvaluationCommissionshallhavetheresponsibilityfor
thedesign,theimplementation,andthedaytodayoperationoftheJudicialPerformance
EvaluationProgram.TheCommission'sdecisionsshallbeconsistentwiththisrule,andthe
Commissionhasnopowertowaiveortomodifyanyprovisionofthisrule.
Section4.EvaluationProcedureforAppellateJudges.
4.01.TheJudicialPerformanceEvaluationProgramshallincludetheregularevaluation
oftheperformanceofappellatejudges.Theevaluationsshallbecarriedoutusing
professionallyacceptedmethodstoprovideobjectiveandreliableevaluationsandtoreduce
theriskofunfairratingsandstatisticalcomparisons.Evaluationsshallbebasedonsufficient
datatoensurethestatisticalreliabilityoftheevaluationinformation.
4.02.TheJudicialPerformanceEvaluationProgramforappellatejudges,inadditionto
beingusedforselfimprovementpurposes,shallalsobeusedfortheevaluationrequiredof
appellatejudgesseekingelectiontoanunexpiredtermorelectionorreelectiontoafull
eightyeartermunderTenn.CodeAnn174201(b).
Section5.EvaluationProcedureforAppellateJudgesforRetentionRecommendations.
APPENDIX
5.01.TheJudicialPerformanceEvaluationCommissioncreatedbyTenn.CodeAnn.
174201(b)shallperformevaluationsofallappellatejudgesseekingelectiontoan
unexpiredtermorelectionorreelectiontoafulleight(8)yeartermforthepurposeofaiding
thepublicinevaluatingtheperformanceoftheappellatejudgesinaccordancewiththe
provisionsofthisrule.
5.02.(a)TheJudicialPerformanceEvaluationCommission'sevaluationshallbe
consistentwiththecriteriainSection3.01andshallbebasedontheresultsoftheevaluation
surveys,onthepersonalinformationcontainedinanapprovedselfreportingform,andon
suchothercommentsandinformationastheCommissionshallreceivefromanysource.
(b) If, because of gubernatorial appointment, an appellate judge holds office less than one
yearbeforethefilingdeadlineofadeclarationofcandidacyforeitheranunexpiredtermora
full eightyear term, and evaluation surveys are not available, the Judicial Performance
Evaluation Commission shall conduct an evaluation and make a retention recommendation
usinganapprovedselfreportingform,thejudge'sapplication,andotherreliableinformation.
5.03. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, or a panel thereof, shall

conduct a public interview with each appellate judge seeking election to an unexpired term
orreelectiontoafulleightyearterm.TheCommission'smeetingsanddeliberationsshallbe
public.
5.04. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission may accept, and in its
discretion, may solicit public comments concerning the performance of the appellate judges
seeking election to an expired term or election or reelection to a full eightyear term. The
Commission shall provide each appellate judge with a reasonable opportunity to respond to
any information or comment received by the Commission regarding that judge prior to the
preparationoftheCommission'sevaluationofthatjudge.
TCA174115Declarationofcandidacyforreelectionforfullterm
(a)(1)Anincumbentappellatejudgewhoseekselectionorreelectionforafulleight
year term must qualify by filing with the state election commission a written declaration of
candidacy.
APPENDIX
(b)(1)If the declaration of candidacy is timely filed, only the name of the candidate,
without party designation, shall be submitted to the electorate in this state in the regular
Augustelection.Eachcountyelectioncommissionofthestateshallcausethefollowingtobe
placedontheballot:
TCA174201
(a)(1)By rule, the Supreme Court shall establish a judicial performance evaluation
programforappellatecourtjudges.Thepurposeoftheprogramshallbetoassistthepublicin
evaluating the performance of incumbent appellate court judges. The judicial performance
evaluation commission, established pursuant to subsection (b), shall perform the required
evaluations. The commission shall make a recommendation either "for retention" or "for
replacement"ofeachappellatecourtjudge;provided,thatthecommissionshallnotevaluate
or make any retention recommendation with regard to any appellate judge whose term of
office is abbreviated because of death, resignation or removal. Furthermore, the commission
shall not include within the final report, publicly disclosed pursuant to subsection (c), an
evaluation or retention recommendation for any appellate judge whose term of office is
abbreviatedbecauseofdeath,resignationorremovalorwhofailstotimelyfileadeclaration
ofcandidacyasrequiredby174114(a)or174115(a),unlessthejudgeisacandidatefor
anotherofficesubjecttoevaluationunderthissection.
(B)Assoonasisreasonablypracticableunderthecircumstances,butnotlessthanthree
(3)dayspriortothedeadlineforfilingadeclarationofcandidacyrequiredby174114(a)(2)
or174115(a)(2),thejudicialperformanceevaluationcommissionshallprovidean
incumbentappellatejudgewithadraftofthecommission'sevaluationandshallprovidethe
judgewithareasonableopportunitytocommentorrespondeitherpersonallyorinwriting.
(b) (1)thejudicialperformanceevaluationcommissionshallbecomposedofnine
(9)members.
(2)Thespeakerofthesenateshallappointfour(4)ofthemembers,ofwhom
one(1)shallbeastatecourtjudge,two(2)shallbeattorneymembersandone(1)shallbea
nonattorney.Nomorethantwo(2)ofthoseappointedshallresideinthesamegrand
division.
(3)ThespeakeroftheHouseofRepresentativesshallappointfour(4)ofthe
members,ofwhomone(1)shallbeastatecourtjudge,one(1)shallbeanattorney,andtwo
(2)shallbenonattorneymembers.Nomorethantwo(2)ofthoseappointedshallresidein
APPENDIX
thesamegranddivision.
(4)ThespeakerofthesenateandthespeakeroftheHouseofRepresentatives
shalljointlyappointone(1)statecourtjudge.
(5)TheSupremeCourtsevaluationproceduremaypermitthejudicial
performanceevaluationcommissiontoperformanevaluationwithlessthanthefull
membershipinpanels,butthefullcommissionshallapprovetheevaluation.
(6)Theappointingauthoritiesforthejudicialperformanceevaluation
commissionshallmakeappointmentsthatapproximatethepopulationofthestatewith
respecttoraceandgender.Inappointingattorneystothecommission,thespeakersshall
receive,butshallnotbeboundby,recommendationsfromanyinterestedpersonor
organization.
TCA3916402 OFFICIALMISCONDUCT
(a) A public servant commits an offense who, with intent to obtain a benefit or to harm
another,intentionallyorknowingly:
(1) commits an act relating to the servants office or employment that constitutes an
unauthorizedexerciseofofficialpower;
(2) commitsanactundercolorofofficeoremploymentthatexceedstheservantsofficial
power;
(3) refrainsfromperformingadutythatisimposedbylaworthatisclearlyinherentinthe
natureofthepublicservantsofficeoremployment;
(4) Violatesalawrelatingtothepublicservantsofficeoremployment;or
(5) Receivesanybenefitnototherwiseauthorizedbylaw.
(d)anoffenseunderthissectionisaclassEfelony

July18
th
2014
ArnettBodenhamer
GrandJuryForeman
DavidsonCountyGrandJury
WashingtonSquareBldg.
Suite500
2222
nd
Ave.North
NashvilleTN37201
DearMr.Foreman:
I would like to officially request that Walt Brumit, Tony Gottlieb,
Holly Spann and I be permitted to come before your Grand Jury
regardingamatterofthehighestpublicinterestassoonaspossibleas
suggested in the report of the previous Davidson County Grand Jury,
before whom we appeared. Their report made the following
observations, regarding the August 7
th
2014 election for appellate
judges.
ForyourconveniencetheGrandJuryreportsaid:
The case [Hooker, Brumit, Gottlieb &
Spann vs. Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey et
al] went to court and it was concluded
that the JPEC was unlawfully seated
and violated the State constitution.
When presented with this finding, the
JPEC declined to take action to
rectify the circumstance, and in
violation of the law, recommended all
22 appellate judges who were seeking
to run in a Retention Election without
any candidate opposition.

This was a compelling and convincing
case, and was very well prepared and
presented.

However, due to time constraints by
this jury, we were not able to take
action. We recommend that subsequent
grand juries allow Hooker, Gottlieb
and Bruit to again present their case
and allow time for steps to be taken
that will bring about change in the
process of electing appellate judges
in Tennessee.

We are requesting a hearing as soon as possible because the
electiononAugust 7
th
willviolateThePeoplesrightstoalegitimate
election.
WesubsequentlyhavefiledwiththeBoardofJudicialConductthe
attached document and we are likewise attaching to this letter a
document we filed with the previous Grand Jury. [Information for the
GrandJury]
We believe as the aforesaid documents reflect that all the 22
appellateJudgeshaveviolatedtheOfficialMisconductStatuteTCA39
16402, because they sought and received an unlawful
recommendationfromtheJudicialPerformanceEvaluationCommission
[JPEC], well knowing that they we violating TCA 174101, TCA 174
201andSupremeCourtRule27fortheirowneconomicbenefit,and
consequently,asaforesaid,violatedthecriminallaw.
They accepted said recommendations notwithstanding the fact
that the Supreme Court, under its supervisory powers, Supreme Court
Rule 11, had the duty to require the JPEC to operate according to the
aforesaidlaws.
The fact is in an effort to be fair to the judges when we went
before the Grand Jury we did not seek an indictment, despite the fact
we do believe that because of their criminal conduct the people of
Tennessee are going to be confronted with an unlawful election on
August 7
th
2014, due to the fact that the 22 Judges were unlawfully
recommended when the JPEC had no power to do so because the
Commission was malapportioned and the Commission therefore had
no power to make any recommendation under Supreme Court Rule
27Section2.01,2.03whichprovides:
Section2.JudicialPerformanceEvaluationProgram.
.
2.02.TheJudicialPerformanceEvaluationProgramshall
beadministeredbytheJudicialPerformanceEvaluation
CommissionestablishedbyTenn.CodeAnn.174
201(b)[(6)raceandgender].

2.03.TheJudicialPerformanceEvaluationCommission
shallhavetheresponsibilityforthedesign,the
implementation,andthedaytodayoperationofthe
JudicialPerformanceEvaluationProgram.The
Commission'sdecisionsshallbeconsistentwiththis
rule,andtheCommissionhasnopowertowaiveorto
modifyanyprovisionofthisrule.
Wefeelasprivatecitizens,underArticleISection1,23andArticle
XISection16oftheTennesseeConstitution,wehavearighttoprotect
our voting right and the voting rights of all other citizens from the
conductofthosejudgeswhoapparentlydeterminedtoseekreelection
notwithstanding, the fact, that they well know that their names are
unlawfully on the ballot in violation of TCA 174101, 201 and
SupremeCourt27.
We come to the Grand Jury because the appellate Judges of the
CourtsofthisStatehavebeenunabletodealwiththeprobleminview
of the fact that under the Constitution they have been disqualified
becausetheyhaveaninterestinthesubjectmatterofthecaseunder
ArticleVISection11.
As aforesaid we did not seek an indictment before the previous
GrandJuryinthehopesthattheJudgeswouldannouncetothepublic,
and to the election officials, that are no longer candidates due to the
factthattheyknowtheyhavenorighttofileadeclarationofcandidacy
based upon an unlawful recommendation and that to do so for their
ownbenefitmadethemsubjecttoanindictmentforaClassEfelony
undertheOfficialMisconductStatute.
FortheInformationoftheGrandJury
June23,2014

Wepromiseyouthatifyouwilllistentousandreadthedocumentswearegoingtogive
you that you can understand what we are saying as well as anybody, lawyer / nonlawyer or
whomever,thisisamatterwherethechoiceisbetweenrightandwrong.
We have come here this morning having brought a lawsuit to challenge the
recommendation of the appellate Court judges to have their name on a ballot without
oppositionin August 7th 2014 the purposeof that lawsuit was to protect the people from an
unlawful election. We have likewise attempted to get the Legislature to be involved in this
matter for the same purpose. This is not a partisan or political conflict this is a moral issue.
ThereisaconflictbetweenthosewhoignorethelawandtheRuleofLaw.
We have come here on a citizen to citizen basis because in the final analysis the
membersoftheGrandJurypickedatrandomfromthecitizenryarethepeoplesbestdefense
against criminal conduct. It is the Grand Jury that has the power to indict misbehaving public
officialsorinthealternativetowritereportsthatexposetothepublictheirmisconductforthe
benefitofthepublic.
We do not come here for the purpose of seeking an indictment but rather for the
purposeofexplainingthejudicialcrisisthatconfrontsusinthehopesthatthemembersofthis
Grand Jury, who are the Peoples ultimate protector more than any other public officials, will
considerthefactsinthissituationandprotectthePeoplesrighttoalawfulelection,sothere
will be no need to indict the Judges for Official Misconduct or otherwise, TCA 3916402.
However, if the Grand Jury were to subpoena them, they would soon ascertain that all the
appellate Judges who have accepted the unlawful recommendations hereinafter described,
violatedthelawfortheirowneconomicbenefit.
Unfortunately in the election of August 7

th
2014 22 Judges will be unlawfully on the
ballot, because in order to run in an election without any opposition, the Judges must be
recommended by a Commission popularly known as JPEC which stands for Judicial
Performance Evaluation Commission. That Commission is the creature of the law, passed by
theLegislatureanditmustbeconductedundertherulessetoutbytheLegislatureandbyRule
11andRule27oftheTennesseeSupremeCourt.
InfactJPECispartoftheJudicialBranchofGovernmentandsubjecttothesupervisory
power of the Supreme Court itself. Under the aforesaid provisions and supervisory powers of
theSupremeCourt,someofwhichareinherentpowersandothersthatarestatutorilygranted,
the Supreme Court had a duty to see that the JPEC was properly seated, because under the
RulesoftheSupremeCourt,theCommissionhasnopowertowaiveormodifyanyprovision
June23,20142
oftherule,includingtherequirementsforraceandgenderapproximation.Theruleissetout
inTCA174201,whichstatuteisattachedhereto,asisSupremeCourtRule27whichcreated
the JPEC, and Supreme Court Rule 11 which gives the Supreme Court the power and the
responsibilitytooverseeanyjudicialcircumstancethatneedsattentionandgivestheCourtthe
powerunderRule11(5),totakeaffirmativeandappropriateactiontocorrectoralleviateany
conditionorsituationadverselyaffectingtheadministrationofjusticewithinthisState.

Unfortunately, the Speakers of both Houses of the Legislature failed in their
responsibilities under TCA 174201(b)(6) and the Rule 27 Sections 2.01, 2.02, 2.03 and
Sections4.02,5.01,5.02,5.03and5.04,whichrequirestheCommissionbebalancedastorace
andgender,sothatallthepeopleareequallyrepresented.Instead,theSpeakersappointed7
menand2womenwheninfacttherearemorewomenwholiveinTennesseethanmen,and
consequently the Speakers obviously violated the law and discriminated against women
whentheyappointedtheCommission.ThereforemorethanhalfthevotersoftheStatearenot
properlyrepresentedbytheCommission.
ThatcircumstanceoccasionedbythelawsuitofHooker,Brumit,GottliebandSpannvs.
Lt.Gov.RonRamseyetalthatchallengedthelegalityofthatsituation.
That case went to court and the Court concluded that the JPEC was indeed unlawfully
seatedinviolationoftheaforesaidstatutesandSupremeCourtRulesandlikewiseviolatedthe
Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of both the Federal and State Constitutions.
ThatcasewasdecidedbyJudgeHamiltonGaydenoftheFirstCircuitCourtofDavidsonCounty
on January 15
th
2014. Thereafter on January 17
th
armed with his opinion, which is attached
hereto for your reading, the four Plaintiffs in that case appeared before the JPEC and
requestedtheJPECtoacknowledgethattheCommissionwasunlawfullyseated,anaccordingly
take action to rectify that circumstance before the Commission recommended any Judges for
retentionelection.
TheCommissionastonishinglydeclined,andinviolationofthelawrecommendedall22
Appellate Judges who were seeking to run in a Retention Election, without any candidate
opposition on August 7
th
2014, notwithstanding, the fact that the Commission was obviously
unlawfullycomposed.
However, despite the unlawful conduct of the Speakers in making the unlawful
appointments, and despite the unlawful conduct of the JPEC in making the unlawful
recommendations, the ultimate judicial crisis was created by the fact that all the members of
the appellate Courts, in reliance upon the unlawful recommendations of JPEC, filed a
DeclarationofCandidacytoputtheirnamesontheballot,indirectviolationofSupremeCourt
Rule 11, 27, and TCA 174201. In other words, it is the Supreme Court itself in accepting
June23,20143
unlawfulrecommendationstobeontheballotwhentheCourthadthesupervisorypowersto
require that the Commission to act in a lawful manner that is the culprit that has caused the
judicial crisis in this State. That circumstance is ultimately responsible for the fact that the
election on August 7
th
2014 will be in direct violation of the law. A Judge cannot run in a
RetentionElection unlessthe Judge meetsthe Constitutionalrequirementsregarding age and
residency. In addition a Judge to run in a retention election must be lawfully recommended
undertheaforesaidrulesasotherwisetheCommissionhasnopowertowaiveormodifyany
provisionoftheRules,[SupremeCourtRule27,2.03].
Wehavecomeherethismorningtoansweranyquestionthatyoumayhaveinthefirm
belief that each of you have the facility to understand this circumstance and the sense of
responsibilitytodosomethingaboutit.
For all practical purposes in this instance your authority to address this matter and
reportuponit,isthePeoplesbesthopetohavethematterfairlyaddressedsoastopreventa
corrupt election, depriving the people of their basic constitutional rights, particularly the
womenofthisStatewhoinmanyinstanceshavedifferentissuesthanmen,andwhounderthe
law are entitled to equal representation. The women of this State are entitled to their full
representation. There are many examples where womens rights are violated but none more
obviousthanthissituationthatobviouslydiscriminatesagainstwomen.
Weareherebecausewebelieveintheintegrityandintelligenceandtheloveofjustice
whichhasmadeeachofyouwillingtoserveonthisGrandJury.Wearethereforehopefulthat
you will take the appropriate action regarding the conduct of the aforesaid law violators,
becausewebelievethatyoubelievethattheJudgesofthisStatecannotthemselvesbeabove
the law, and must be accountable under the Rule of Law if we are to restore justice in this
State.
///

June23,20144
________________________
JohnJayHooker
115WoodmontBlvd.
NashvilleTN37205
6152696558
johnjayhooker@hpeprint.com
________________________
TonyGottlieb
4108BrushHillRoad
Nashville,TN37216
6154058083
tonygottlieb@aol.com
_____________________
HollySpann
21VaughnsGap
Nashville,TN37205
6158122551
hollyspann@hotmail.com
_____________________
WalterBrumit
30EastDaleCourt
GreenevilleTN37745
423230157
waltbrumit@aol.com

Frank Daniels III, fdanielsiii@tennessean.com 7:08 a.m. CDT July 18, 2014
Board of Judicial Conduct complaint accuses judges of violating rules and oaths
Complaint against Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission and all judges running for retention election on Aug. 7(Photo: file)
Tennessee's judicial election season just keeps getting more interesting, and complicated.
We are so worried about the "politics" and whether we will "keep Tennessee courts fair," that we ignore serious questions about whether the August 7
elections are legal.
I do not think they are.
Judicial conduct
Thursday, J ohn J ay Hooker, Anthony Gottlieb, Walter Brumit and Holly Spann filed a complaint with the Board of J udicial Conduct against three judges
(http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1223132/complaint-to-bjc.pdf) who were appointed to the J udicial Performance Evaluation Commission (J PEC)
accusing them of violating a valid court order by deciding to proceed with evaluations and recommendations for retention elections for 22 appellate
judges.
The judges accused of misconduct are J PEC chairman Robert L. J ones, Robert Montgomery J r. and J . Michael Sharp.
Hooker et al were the plaintiffs in a suit against Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, Speaker Beth Harwell and the members of the J PEC accusing the commission of
being seated in violation of the statutory requirement that it represent the state's population in proportion to "race and gender" (TCA 17-4-201 (b)(6)). The
state is 52 percent women, but Ramsey and Harwell agreed to seat just two women and seven white men.
Ramsey and Harwell did, of course, abide by the statutory requirement appointing 3, 3, 3 judges, lawyers and lay people; so we know they can count.
JPEC is mal-apportioned
On J anuary 15, J udge Hamilton Gayden ruled: "This Court concludes that the composition of the current J udicial Performance Evaluation Commission is
invalid ab initio under Tenn. Code Ann 17-4-201(b)(6) and is discriminatory against the female and black population of the State ofTennessee.in violation
of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of both the United States and Tennessee Constitutions."
On J anuary 17, the J PEC met to hear appeals from two judges who received preliminary do not retain recommendations from the commission. Though
the commission was comprised of six lawyers, three of whom are judges, they asked Deputy Attorney General J anet Kleinfelter to tell them whether they
could continue with their business in the face of J udge Gayden's order. I guess that since she had lost the case to Hooker et al she was an impartial
(Photo: The Tennessean)
Buy Photo
Are August 7 judicial elections legal? http://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/columnists/frank-daniels/2014...
1 of 4 7/18/2014 8:32 AM
advisor.
Gayden refused to enjoin the J PEC, saying in open court that "his friend" J udge J ones is a responsible fellow member of the bench and would know what
to do.
Judges have rules
Gayden also knows that the Rules of J udicial Conduct forbid judges from acting in ways that undermine the "independence, integrity, and impartiality of
the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety." Quoting from Supreme Court Rule 10 Canon 1.
J ones, Montgomery and Sharp have a sworn duty to uphold the rules of conduct, and the constitutions of Tennessee and the USA.
This is the oath they each took:
"I, [Insert Name], do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Tennessee,
that I will administer justice without respect of persons, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon me as J udge of the
[Insert Court & District], of the State of Tennessee, to the best of my skill and ability, so help me God."
They did not abide by their oath. Did they?
So help me
They did not follow their oath or the rules they swore to uphold. They allowed the J PEC to continue meeting and issue determinations that all 22 appellate
judges could place their names on the August 7 ballot unopposed.
The J PECs actions are not valid. The ballot is not valid. And we have to question whether the 22 judges who filed for retention in this environment are
themselves in violation of the Rules of Conduct.
Hooker et al make that claim in their filing too.
We should quit worrying about Democrats versus Republicans, and start worrying about a system that flouts the very foundations of its legitimacy.
Frank Daniels is the community conversations editor of The Tennessean, 615-881-7039, or @fdanielsiii
4 7/18/2014 8:32 AM
John Jay Hooker 11:02 p.m. CDT July 28, 2014
In this retention election, the real culprit is the Supreme Court whose members' have "dishonored" their oaths of
office.
Frank Daniels III has made a great contribution by ably explaining the fact that all three branches of our state
government have been involved in the corrupt practice of having our Supreme Court "appointed" instead of
"elected."
Respectfully, however, the illegitimate election now in process must be laid at the feet of the five members of
the Supreme Court who had a responsibility to require that the J udicial Performance Evaluation Commission be
properly organized under TCA 17-4-201(b)(6) and under Supreme Court Rule 27.
That provision provides the commission shall have "no power to waive or modify any provision of the rule."
Notwithstanding, J PEC disregarded the requirement that it be seated in accordance with "race and gender"
population. Instead, the commission with seven men and two women unlawfully recommended all appellate
judges for retention election, well knowing that their recommendations were in violation of J udge Hamilton
Gayden's order, in the case of Hooker, Brumit, Gottlieb and Spann vs. Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey et al. That order
held:
"This Court concludes that the composition of the current J udicial Performance Evaluation Commission is invalid ab initio under Tenn. Code Ann
17-4-201(b)(6) and is discriminatory against the female and black population of the State of Tennessee, in violation of the Equal Protection and Due
Process Clauses of both the United States and Tennessee Constitutions."
In addition to J udge Gayden's order, Supreme Court Rule 11 provides for the "inherent power of the Court":
"To take affirmative and appropriate action to correct or alleviate any condition or situation adversely affecting the administration of justice within the
state."
When the Supreme Court failed to act, it violated the Official Misconduct statute, TCA 39-16-402, for the economic "benefit" of the judges seeking
retention election, which is a Class-E felony, well knowing that the voters were being "harmed" and deprived of their legal rights.
In 1962, I became the general counsel for The Tennessean, shortly before J ohn Seigenthaler became its editor. The newspaper under his leadership was
highly aggressive in the public interest. I represented The Tennessean in the famous case of McNabb vs. The Tennessean, where the newspaper was
sued for alleged libel in conjunction with an "unlawful election," and we won. We won because we were right, and because we knew the law. We were
right then, and I am right now, and I am writing this article in memory of my great friend and great editor.
Consequently, I want to challenge any of these judges to debate the matter, or, in the alternative, I would like to challenge Gov. Bill Haslam, Speaker Beth
Harwell or Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, all of whom have violated their oaths of office in conjunction with this election. It is particularly noteworthy that I have
challenged Gov. Haslam as an independent candidate this election year for the sole purpose of pointing out to the people of Tennessee that Haslam has
violated his oath of office under Article X, Section 3, to "see that the laws be faithfully executed."
But make no mistake: The real culprit is the state Supreme Court, whose members have dishonored their oaths of office and misled the people of
Tennessee for their political benefit.
I have said what I have said out of a sense of duty in the hope that you will vote against all these appellate judges and for the rule of law.
J ohn J ay Hooker is a "retired" lawyer who has opposed the Tennessee Plan for judicial selection and retention for over 40 years.
Read or Share this story: http://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/2014/07/29/justices-responsible-bad-election/13256267/
(Photo: handout)
J ustices are responsible for bad election http://www.tennessean.com/
1 of 2 7/29/2014 7:54 AM

Presentation of Info To The DCGJ Sept 16 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Presentation of Info To The DCGJ Sept 16 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATIONFORTHEGRANDJURY

pr ot ect ed by bot h t he Feder al and St at e Const i t ut i ons.

Ther ef or e, under t he r ul e of l aw i t i s t he dut y of t hi s Gr and

Information for the DCGJ Page 14 of 31 09/15/2014

seeking election to an unexpired term or election or reelection to a full eightyear term. In

5.03. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, or a panel thereof, shall

Information for the DCGJ Page 22 of 31 09/15/2014

Unfortunately in the election of August 7

Information for the DCGJ Page 28 of 31 09/15/2014

You might also like