Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Blount County Clerk refuses to issue subpoena


Convicted felon Blount County judicial commissioner Dustin Hatcher

THE DRAGONATER WINS IN TRAFFIC COURT AT DEALS GAP, RAISES SPEED LIMIT TO 65 MPH ON THE DRAGON - NOLLE PROSEQUI BY BLOUNT COUNTY ATTORNEY GENERAL. NO TESTIMONY, HEARING NOR TRIAL WHATSOEVER. 60 MPH SPEEDING TICKET DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, COSTS PAID BY THE STATE, IN BLOUNT COUNTY GENERAL SESSIONS COURT WITH JUDGE BREWER. THP TROOPER RANDALL HUCKEBY ADMITTED ON VIDEOTAPE DURING TRAFFIC STOP THAT ALL SPEEDING TICKETS NORTHBOUND ON US129 AT MILE MARKER 0.5 ARE FEDERAL JURISDICTION, NOT STATE JURISDICTION (VIDEO BY THE DRAGONATER). TDOT ADMITTED IN WRITING THAT THE MANDATORY TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SURVEY SPEED AUDIT WAS NEVER PERFORMED, IN VIOLATION OF TN CODE, THUS THE POSTED 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT ON THE DRAGON REVERTS TO THE DEFAULT 65 MPH IN TN CODE. THE DRAGONATER ALSO MADE VIDEO OF TROOPER HUCKEBY SPEEDING UP TO 60 MPH ON THE DRAGON IN A 30 MPH ZONE, WITHOUT MANDATORY EMERGENCY LIGHTS NOR SIREN, IN VIOLATION OF TN CODE, AND PERJURY IN HIS PERSONNEL FILE, WHICH SHOWED HIS $100,000+ SALARY. 2007 TDOT SAFETY AUDIT REPORT CONFESSED THAT THP'S JOB IS TO BAN ALL COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES ON THE DRAGON, SO THP TICKETS INCREASED 11,400% IN BLOUNT COUNTY. THP'S STALKER RADAR OPERATOR MANUAL CONFESSED THAT RADAR CANNOT MEASURE THE SPEED OF VEHICLES WITHIN 18 MPH OF ACTUAL SPEED. WATCH THIS SPACE FOR FULL EVIDENCE FILE. UPDATE 7 MARCH 2011

UPDATE: The Dragonater has filed a motion in general sessions court for the arrest of Blount County court clerk Tom Hatcher, for felony Official Oppression. See full text of motion at end of post.

Like father like son...

Tennessee Code 39-16-402. Official misconduct.
(a) A public servant commits an offense who, with intent to obtain a benefit or to harm another, intentionally or knowingly:
(3) Refrains from performing a duty that is imposed by law or that is clearly inherent in the nature of the public servant's office or employment;
(4) Violates a law relating to the public servant's office or employment;
(d) An offense under this section is a Class E felony.

Tennessee Code 39-16-402. Official misconduct.
(a) A public servant acting under color of office or employment commits an offense who:
(2) Intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity, when the public servant knows the conduct is unlawful.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class E felony.


MARYVILLE, TENN. -- Blount County Circuit Court Clerk Tom Hatcher is a former deputy sheriff in BC, and has no legal education as a licensed attorney. His son, Dustin Hatcher, was a BC judicial commissioner signing arrest warrants, and had no legal education as a licensed attorney -- unless you count car stereo installation academy.

Little Dustin recently pled guilty to felony rape of a little girl inside the BC Justice Center, which included posting photos of that rape on the walls of the court clerk's office. This crime carried a mandatory 5 year prison sentence. (But did little Dustin get to play on Double Secret Probation?)

Today, a deputy clerk in the BC General Sessions Court Traffic Division office refused to issue a subpoena for The Dragonater, and claimed that under no circumstances can anyone besides a deputy sheriff serve a subpoena.

Example 1 of a govt subpoena form in a REAL court in Tennessee, that names pro se defendants and a non-cop non-attorney "witness" to serve a subpoena. (Blount County Circuit Court subpoenas illegally censor those persons.)

Example 2 of a govt subpoena form in a REAL court in Tennessee, that names pro se defendants and a non-cop non-attorney "witness" to serve a subpoena.

"Section 2 of the act repeals and re-writes T.C.A. §§ 16-15-901 through 16-15-905 to establish procedures for service of process in General Sessions Court. The newly enacted section 16-15-901 provides that, upon the filing of civil warrants, writs and other papers, the clerk of general sessions court shall issue the required process and cause it to be delivered to such person authorized to serve process as may be designated by the person filing the papers or such person’s attorney. This means the parties or their lawyers, not the clerks, make the determination of who serves papers. This authorization for private individuals to serve process in general sessions court applies to civil warrants, attachments or other leading process used to initiate an action in general sessions court, and subpoenas or summons."
-County Technical Advisory Service, University of Tennessee, MAJOR CHANGES MADE IN SHERIFF’S FEES AND PROCEDURES FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS IN GENERAL SESSIONS COURT

TN Code 16-15-901. Issuance and service of civil warrants, writs and other papers. —
(a) Upon filing of civil warrants, writs and other papers, the clerk of the general sessions court in which the civil warrants, writs or other papers are filed, shall issue the required process, writs or other papers, and cause it or them, with necessary copies of the civil warrant, writ or papers, to be delivered for service to the person authorized to serve process as may be designated by the party filing the civil warrant, writ or other papers or the party's attorney if represented by counsel.

TN Code 16-15-903.
The plaintiff shall after issuance by the clerk of the general sessions court furnish the persons making the service with all necessary copies. Service shall be made as follows:
(10) Service by mail of a warrant, writ or other papers upon a defendant may be made by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's attorney or by any person authorized by statute.

TN Code 40-17-107. Issuance of subpoenas by clerk. —
(a) The clerk of the court in which a criminal cause is pending shall issue subpoenas, at any time, to any part of the state, for witnesses as either the district attorney general or the defendant may require.

TN Code 40-17-122. Subpoenas — Rules of Criminal Procedure. —
The provisions of Rule 17 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure shall govern when a clerk or other authorized officer of the court is required to issue a subpoena in a criminal case in criminal court and the consequences of a person's refusal to appear, testify or produce evidence when subpoenaed shall be governed pursuant to that rule. If any local rule of court conflicts with the provisions of Rule 17, the provisions of Rule 17 shall prevail and the clerk or other authorized officer of the court shall issue subpoenas and the judge shall punish the refusal to respond to subpoenas in accordance with the provisions of the rule.

Subpoena - Knox County General Sessions Court


"Shall" means SHALL.

The clerk claimed a $7 cash fee was required to issue a subpoena, and a fee of $22 was required to be paid for a deputy sheriff to serve a subpoena (payable by check naming whichever county sheriff was required with jurisdiction in the county of the subpoenaed witness).

When asked what section of TN Code mandated these "requirements", the clerk had no idea. Tom Hatcher -- the non-lawyer ex-deputy clerk of court -- was nowhere to be found. I wonder what the grand jury will say about that?

The Dragonater's subpoena decus tecum was for a trooper of the Tennessee Highway Patrol to appear in court and bring certain government documents, including:

(1) Copy of TBI or THP certification of the radar instrument in question; (2) all records of calibration relative to the radar instrument used on the 30 day of August, 2010; (3) all maintenance reports/records from the date the radar instrument was placed in use; (4) the last time the radar instrument was taken into TBI, THP or other for servicing; (5) the warranty for the radar instrument; (6) the FCC license for the radar instrument; (7) the operation manual for the radar instrument; (8) the last date of calibration of the instrument; (9) copy of officer’s radar certification by TBI, THP or other; (9) Contact log for the 30 day of August, 2010; (10) all personal notes made by officer regarding above-styled cause on date of arrest.


This case by the Dragonater will raise the speed limit on the Dragon from 30 mph back to 55 mph, or higher.

The Dragonater has previously served subpoenas in half a dozen counties, in criminal or civil lawsuits, as plaintiff or defendant, totalling settlements or verdicts of millions of dollars, both for attorneys and as a pro se, including subpoeas of police officers.

This is the second time BCGS court clerks have illegally refused to issue subpoenas in "Traffic Court". The Dragonater won dismissal, with costs paid by the State, in that previous battle. The BC clerk declared that the Dragonatoer was the first person in world history to be allowed a subpoena in BC General Sessions Court.




Blount County Grand Jury Notice

Notice of Grand Jury Meeting (T.C.A. 40-12-105)

"It is the duty of your Grand Jurors to investigate any public offense which they know or have reason to believe has been committed and which is triable or indictable in this county. Any person having knowledge or proof that such an offense has been committed may apply to testify before the grand jury subject to the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated. The foreman in this county is presently: Penny Piper."

"The grand jury will next meet on Monday, the 10th day of January, 2011, at the Blount County Justice Center in Maryville, Tennessee at 9:00 a.m. You may be prosecuted for perjury for any oral or written statement which you make under oath to the grand jury, when you know the statement to be false, and when the statement touches on a matter material to the point in question."




BLOUNT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT LOCAL RULES

8. Trial preparation.

(b) Subpoenas for local witnesses must be issued and dated by the Clerk
no later than five (5) days before the date of trial. If the witness
resides out of county, the subpoena must be issued by the Clerk and
mailed or otherwise transmitted to the out of county Sheriff or other
authorized person no later than seven (7) days before the date of trial.




TENNESSEE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

RULE 5

SERVICE AND FILING OF PLEADINGS AND OTHER PAPERS

5.02. Service —How Made. — Whenever under these rules service is required or permitted to be made on a party represented by an attorney, the service shall be made upon the attorney unless service upon the party is ordered by the court. Service shall be made pursuant to the methods set forth in (1) or (2).

(1) Service upon the attorney or upon a party shall be made by delivering to him or her a copy of the document to be served, or by mailing it to such person's last known address, or if no address is known, by leaving the copy with the clerk of the court. Delivery of a copy within this rule means: handing it to the attorney or to the party; or leaving it at such person's office with a clerk or other person in charge thereof; or, if there is none in charge, leaving it in a conspicuous place therein; or, if the office is closed or the person to be served has no office, leaving it at the person's dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein. Service by mail is complete upon mailing. Items which may be filed by facsimile transmission pursuant to Rule 5A may be served by facsimile transmission.

5.03. Service —Proof of. — Whenever any pleading or other paper is served under 5.01 and 5.02, proof of the time and manner of such service shall be filed before action is taken thereon by the court or the parties. Proof may be by certificate of a member of the bar of the court or by affidavit of the person who served the papers, or by any other proof satisfactory to the court.

5.05. Filing. — All papers after the complaint required to be served upon a party shall be filed with the court either before service or within a reasonable time thereafter, but the court may on motion of a party or on its own initiative order that depositions upon oral examination; interrogatories; requests for documents; requests for admission; and answers and responses thereto not be filed unless on order of the court or for use in the proceeding. [As amended by order entered January 31, 1984, effective August 20, 1984.]

5.06. Filing with the Court Defined. — The filing of pleadings and other papers with the court as required by these rules shall be made by filing them with the clerk of the court, except that the judge may permit the papers to be filed with the judge, in which event he or she shall note thereon the filing date and forthwith transmit them to the office of the clerk. The clerk shall endorse upon every pleading and other papers filed with the clerk in an action the date and hour of the filing. Recycled paper with the highest feasible percentage postconsumer waste content is recommended and encouraged for all papers filed with the court.

RULE 45

SUBPOENA

45.01. For Attendance of Witnesses —Form —Issuance. — Every subpoena shall be issued by the clerk, shall state the name of the court and the title of the action, and [shall] command each person to whom it is directed to attend and give testimony at the time and place and for the party therein specified. The clerk shall issue a subpoena or a subpoena for the production of documentary evidence, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party requesting it, who shall fill it in before service. [As amended by order entered January 26, 1999, effective July 1, 1999 and by order entered January 28, 2000, effective July 1, 2000.]

45.02. For Production of Documents and Things or Inspection of Premises. — A subpoena may command a person to produce and permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of designated books, papers, documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or inspection of premises with or without commanding the person to appear in person at the place of production or inspection. When appearance is not required, such a subpoena shall also require the person to whom it is directed to swear or affirm that the books, papers, documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things are authentic to the best of that person’s knowledge, information, and belief and to state whether or not all books, papers, documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things responsive to the subpoena have been produced for copying, inspection, testing, or sampling. Copies of the subpoena must be served pursuant to Rule 5 on all parties, and all material produced must be made available for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by all parties. [As amended by order entered December 14, 2009, effective July 1, 2010.]

A party serving a subpoena requiring production of electronically stored information shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena.

An order of the court requiring compliance with a subpoena issued under this rule must provide protection to a person that is neither a party nor a party's officer from undue burden or expense resulting from compliance.

A command to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling may be joined with a command to appear at trial or hearing, or at a deposition, or may be issued separately. A subpoena may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced.

45.03. Service. — A subpoena may be served by any person authorized to serve process, or the witness may acknowledge service in writing on the subpoena. Service of the subpoena shall be made by delivering or offering to deliver a copy thereof to the person to whom it is directed.

45.06. Contempt. — Disobedience or a refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness may be punished as a contempt of the court in which the action is pending.
45.07. Requirement of Trial, Hearing or Deposition. — –With respect to any subpoena issued under this rule the Court, upon motion made promptly and in any event at or before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance therewith, may: (1) quash or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable and oppressive; or (2) condition denial of the motion upon the advancement by the person in whose behalf the subpoena is issued of the reasonable costs of producing the books, papers, documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things.

45.08. Duties in Responding to Subpoena. -- (1) (A) A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents shall produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the demand.

(B) If a subpoena does not specify the form or forms for producing electronically stored information, a person responding to a subpoena must produce the information in a form or forms in which the person ordinarily maintains it or in a form or forms that are reasonably usable.

(C) A person responding to a subpoena need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

(D) A person responding to a subpoena need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or to quash, the person from whom discovery is sought must show that the information sought is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause. The court may specify conditions for the discovery including, but not limited to the allocation of costs pursuant to the guidelines in Rule 26.06.
(2) (A) When information subject to a subpoena is withheld on a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation materials, the claim shall be made expressly and shall be supported by a description of the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced that is sufficient to enable the demanding party to contest the claim.

(B) If information is produced in response to a subpoena that is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has and may not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved. A receiving party may promptly present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. If the receiving party disclosed the information before being notified, it must take reasonable steps to retrieve it. The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.

[As enacted by order entered January 29, 1987, effective August 1, 1987. Amended by order effective July 1, 2005, and by order entered January 8, 2009 and effective July 1, 2009.]

Advisory Commission Comments [2005]. Under prior Rules 45.02 and 45.07, a party seeking the production of books, papers, documents, or tangible things, or inspection of premises, was required to issue a subpoena for the testimony of the custodian. The amendment to Rule 45.02 allows a subpoena for production of documentary evidence without requiring the custodian’s attendance at a deposition. The rule also requires the person responding to provide an affidavit authenticating the documentary evidence produced pursuant to the subpoena and stating whether or not all responsive material has been produced. The rule requires that all parties have access to the material produced pursuant to subpoena. The procedures in this Rule compel the production of documents for review, but do not necessarily authenticate documents pursuant to Rule 902 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. This Rule also provides that a subpoena may command the inspection of a premises.

Advisory Commission Comments [2009]. The amendment to Rule 45.04(1) restates settled law. A deposition subpoena, like a trial subpoena, may be served anywhere in Tennessee.

Rule 45 is amended to conform the provisions for subpoenas to changes in other discovery rules, largely related to discovery of electronically stored information. Rule 45.02 is amended to recognize that electronically stored information can also be sought by subpoena. Rule 45.02 is amended to provide that the subpoena can designate a form or forms for production of electronic data.

Rule 45.02 is also amended to provide that a subpoena is available to permit testing and sampling, as well as inspection and copying. This change recognizes that on occasion the opportunity to perform testing or sampling may be important, both for documents and for electronically stored information.

Inspection or testing of certain types of electronically stored information or of a person's electronic information system may raise issues of confidentiality or privacy. The addition of sampling and testing to Rule 45.02 with regard to documents and electronically stored information is not meant to create a routine right of direct access to a person's electronic information system, although such access might be justified in some circumstances. Courts should guard against undue intrusiveness resulting from inspecting or testing such systems.

Rule 45.02, paragraphs 2 and 3 have been adopted from Rule 10(c) and (d) of the Uniform Rules Relating to Discovery of Electronically Stored Information, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (2007).

New Rule 45.08 authorizes the person served with a subpoena to object to the requested form or forms. In addition, Rule 45.08 provides that if the subpoena does not specify the form or forms for electronically stored information, the person served with the subpoena must produce electronically stored information in a form or forms in which it is usually maintained or in a form or forms that are reasonably usable. Rule 45.08 also provides that the person producing electronically stored information should not have to produce the same information in more than one form unless so ordered by the court for good cause.

Rule 45.08(2), like amended Rule 26.02(5), adds a procedure for assertion of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation materials after production. The receiving party may submit the information to the court for resolution of the privilege claim, as under Rule 26.02(5).

With reference to Rule 45.08(1)(C), Guideline 6 of the Guidelines for State Trial Courts Regarding Discovery of Electronically-Stored Information, Conference of Chief Justices (2006), states: "In the absence of agreement among the parties, a judge should ordinarily require electronically-stored information to be produced in no more than one format and should select the form of production in which the information is ordinarily maintained or in a form that is reasonably usable."

Advisory Commission Comments [2010]. The title of Rule 45.02 is expanded to conform to the language in the rule.




TENNESSEE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

RULE 17. SUBPOENA

(a) Issuance. A subpoena shall be issued by a clerk or other authorized court officer, who shall sign it but otherwise leave it blank. The party requesting the subpoena shall fill in the blanks before the subpoena is served.

(b) Defendants Unable to Pay. On a defendant’s ex parte application, the court shall order that a subpoena be issued for a named witness if the defendant shows an inability to pay the witness fees and that the presence of the witness is necessary for an adequate defense. If the court orders the subpoena to be issued, the process costs and witness fees shall be paid in the same manner as those paid for state witnesses.

(c) Witnesses. A subpoena shall state the court’s name and the title of the proceeding and command each person to whom it is directed to attend and give testimony at the time and place and for the party the subpoena specifies.

(d) Documents and Objects. A subpoena may order a person to produce the books, papers, documents, or other objects the subpoena designates.

(1) Production to Permit Inspection. The court may direct that the designated items be produced in court before trial or before they are to be offered in evidence. When the items arrive, the court may permit the parties and their attorneys to inspect all or part of them.

(2) Compliance Unreasonable. On motion made promptly and in any event by the time specified in the subpoena for compliance therewith, the court may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. The court may condition denial of the motion on the advancement by the party in whose behalf the subpoena is issued of the reasonable cost of producing the books, papers, documents, or other objects.

(f) Service.

(1) Method of Service. A subpoena may be served by any person authorized to serve process, or the witness may acknowledge service in writing on the subpoena. The server shall deliver or offer to deliver a copy of the subpoena to the person to whom it is directed or leave a copy with an adult occupant of the person's usual residence.

(2) Service Within State. A subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness at a hearing or trial may be served any place within Tennessee.

(g) Contempt. When a subpoena is served on a person, the court issuing the subpoena may deem the person’s refusal to obey the subpoena to be contempt of court unless the person has an adequate excuse.

(h) Information not Subject to Subpoena. Statements by witnesses or prospective witnesses may not be subpoenaed from the state or the defendant under this rule, but are subject to production only in accordance with the provisions of Rule 26.2.

Advisory Commission Comment. This rule is an adaptation of the federal rule. The first provision of section (e)(2) is taken from the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 45.04(2). Rule 17(h) is similar to its federal counterpart. This provision only makes it clear that the proper method to secure witness statements from the opposing side–either at trial or at a pretrial hearing under Rule 12(b)–is as set forth in Rule 26.2.




TENNESSEE CODE

Title 16 Courts

Chapter 15 Courts of General Sessions

Part 9 Service of Process

16-15-901. Issuance and service of civil warrants, writs and other papers. —

(a) Upon filing of civil warrants, writs and other papers, the clerk of the general sessions court in which the civil warrants, writs or other papers are filed, shall issue the required process, writs or other papers, and cause it or them, with necessary copies of the civil warrant, writ or papers, to be delivered for service to the person authorized to serve process as may be designated by the party filing the civil warrant, writ or other papers or the party's attorney if represented by counsel. The authorized person shall serve the civil warrant, writ or other papers, and the return endorsed on the warrant, writ or other papers shall be proof of the time and manner of service. A civil warrant, writ or other papers may be issued for service in any county, against any defendant or additional defendants.

(b) A civil warrant, attachment or any other leading process used to initiate an action in general sessions court and subpoenas or summons may be served by any person designated by the party or the party's attorney, if represented by counsel, who is not a party to the action and is not less than eighteen (18) years of age. Service of other process and orders of the courts of this state shall be by sheriffs, constables or as provided by law. The process server must be identified by name and address on the return.

(c) Nothing in this section shall affect existing laws with respect to venue.

[Acts 2002, ch. 794, § 2.]

16-15-902. Return.

(a) Any person serving the process from the general sessions court shall promptly and within the time during which the person is served must respond, make proof of service to the court and shall identify the person served and shall describe the manner of service.

(b) Process shall be served within sixty (60) days of issuance.

(c) When process is served by mail, the original warrant, writ or other papers shall be endorsed by manner of service. In addition, an affidavit of the person making service setting forth the personal compliance of this section and the return receipt shall be sent to and filed with the clerk of the court. The person making service in this manner shall endorse over the signature on the original warrant, writ or other papers the date of mailing a certified copy of the warrant, writ or other papers to the defendant and the date of receipt of return receipt from the defendant. If the return receipt is signed by the defendant or any person designated by this section or by statute, service on the defendant is complete. If not, service by mail may be attempted or any other methods authorized by this section or by statute may be used.

[Acts 2002, ch. 794, § 2; 2008, ch. 608, § 1.]

16-15-903. Service upon defendants in this state.

The plaintiff shall after issuance by the clerk of the general sessions court furnish the persons making the service with all necessary copies. Service shall be made as follows:

(1) Upon an individual other than an unmarried infant incompetent person, by delivering a copy of the warrant, writ or other papers to the individual personally, or if the individual evades or attempts to evade service, by leaving copies of the warrant, writ or other papers at the individual's dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing in the dwelling house or usual place of abode, whose name shall appear on the proof of service, or by delivering the copies to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service on behalf of the individual served;

(2) Upon an unmarried infant or an incompetent person, by delivering a copy of the warrant, writ or other papers to the person's residence guardian or conservator if there is one known to the plaintiff, by delivering the copies to the individual's parent having custody within this state; or if no such parent is within this state, then by delivering the copies to the person within this state having control of the individual. If none of the persons defined and enumerated in this subdivision (2) exists, the court shall appoint a practicing attorney as guardian ad litem to whom the copies shall be delivered. If any of the persons directed by this subdivision (2) to be served is a plaintiff, then the person who is not a plaintiff who stands next in the order named in this subdivision (2) shall be served. In addition to the service provided in this subdivision (2), service shall also be made on an unmarried minor who is fourteen (14) years of age or more and who is not otherwise incompetent;

(3) Upon a partnership or unincorporated association, including a limited liability company, that is named defendant under a common name, by delivering a copy of the warrant, writ or other papers to a partner or managing agent of the partnership, to an officer or managing agent of the association or to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service on behalf of the partnership or association;

(4) Upon a domestic corporation or a foreign corporation doing business in this state, by delivering a copy of the warrant, writ or other papers to an officer or managing agent of the corporation, to the chief agent in the county in which the action is brought, or by delivering the copies to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service on behalf of the corporation;

(5) Upon a nonresident individual who transacts business through an office or agency in this state, or a resident individual who transacts business through an office or agency in a county other than the county in which the resident individual resides, in any action growing out of or connected with the business of that office or agency, by delivering a copy of the warrant, writ or other papers to the person in charge of the office or agency;

(6) Upon the state of Tennessee or any agency of the state, by delivering a copy of the warrant, writ or other papers to the attorney general of the state or to any assistant attorney general and reporter;

(7) Upon a county, by delivering a copy of the warrant, writ or other papers to the county mayor, or if absent from the county, to the county attorney if there is one designated; if not, by delivering the copies to the county court clerk;

(8) Upon a municipality, by delivering a copy of the warrant, writ or other papers to the chief executive officer or to the city attorney;

(9) Upon any governmental or any quasi-government entity, by delivering a copy of the warrant, writ or other papers to any officer or managing agent of the entity; and

(10) Service by mail of a warrant, writ or other papers upon a defendant may be made by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's attorney or by any person authorized by statute. After the complaint, warrant, writ or other papers are filed, the clerk shall, upon request, furnish the original warrant, writ or other papers, a certified copy of the original warrant, writ or other paper and a copy of the filed warrant, writ or other papers to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's attorney or other authorized person for service by mail. Such person shall send, postage prepaid, a certified copy of the warrant, writ or other papers by registered return receipt or certified return receipt mail to the defendant. The original warrant, writ or other papers shall be used for return of service of process. Service by mail shall not be the basis for the entry of a judgment by default unless the record contains a return receipt showing personal acceptance by the defendant or by persons designated by this section. If service by mail is unsuccessful, it may be attempted again or other methods authorized by this title or by statute may be used.

[Acts 2002, ch. 794, § 2; 2003, ch. 90, § 2.]

23-2-105. Service of subpoenas.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or rule of court to the contrary, an attorney licensed to practice law in this state or the attorney's agent shall be authorized to serve subpoenas on witnesses in any civil or criminal case if such service is effectuated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (b) and if such attorney or any member of the attorney's firm is involved in the case for which such subpoenas are issued.

(b) In order for service under the provisions of this section to be effective, the name of both the attorney and the attorney's agent, if any, shall be written on the subpoena and both such persons shall sign the subpoena. Such subpoena shall be served in person by either the attorney or the agent whose names appear on the subpoena, and the person effectuating service shall file with the issuing clerk an affidavit of return stating that the subpoena was served, the identity of the person served, and the date, place and manner of service. An agent may serve a subpoena under the provisions of this section only if such agent is eighteen (18) years of age or older. The attorney shall be responsible for the actions of the attorney's agent serving the subpoena in accordance with generally accepted principles of agency law.

[Acts 1982, ch. 650, §§ 1, 2; 1984, ch. 711, §§ 1, 2.]




SERVING LEGAL PROCESS IN TENNESSEE

by Southeast Tennessee Legal Services

What is Service?

Service of process is making sure the defendant gets a copy of the papers you are
filing. When you are starting a case, your case cannot go forward until the other side is served. Someone who is legally authorized to serve process must physically give a copy of all necessary forms to the defendant against whom you filed a Complaint.

The clerk of the court will issue a Summons when you file your Complaint.
Attach the original copy of the Summons to one copy of all of the forms that you filed with the court (Complaint, Civil Case Cover Sheet, etc.). You must make sure that the Summons is attached to a copy of the Complaint. These papers must be served on the defendant.

Uncontested Cases

If the case is uncontested, and the other side gives you a signed Answer to the
Complaint or a signed Marital Dissolution Agreement (in a divorce case) which you
file at the time you file your Complaint, you do not have to serve process. Just file the Answer or Marital Dissolution Agreement. This can save at least 30 days and expedite the date for a hearing.

Methods of Service

Service can be made in one of several ways. You need to choose the method:

 by a deputy sheriff in your county or another Tennessee county (the
preferred method),
 by private process in Tennessee or outside the state, using a friend or
relative or other adult,
 by the Secretary of State when the defendant lives out of state,
 by certified mail, in Tennessee or outside the state, or
 by publication in a newspaper.

Whichever method you choose, proof that the defendant was served must be filed with
the clerk of the court. A person can be served at home, at work, or anywhere else the person happens to be.

Service by a Deputy Sheriff

You can have a deputy sheriff serve the defendant with the necessary papers for a
fee. The fee for this service is usually about $20.00. (It may be a different amount if the defendant is located in another state. Be sure that the sheriff’s office in the out-of-state county knows you want it to serve process, will do so, gives you the fee schedule, and tells you how to make payment.) If you decide to pay for this service, you can ask the clerk of court what the cost for the service is. It is your responsibility to find out whether or not the defendant has been served. The deputy sheriff will send the clerk a "return of service" to prove he or she served the papers. You may have to call the clerk several times before the defendant is served.

Service by Private Process

This is an inexpensive way to serve someone inside your county, elsewhere in
Tennessee, or outside the state. YOU CANNOT SERVE THE DEFENDANT YOURSELF. The adult serving the papers must give them directly to the defendant. The adult serving the papers may NOT leave the package on the defendant’s doorstep; however, you can leave it at the opposing party's home WITH A ROOMMATE OR WITH A RELATIVE IF THEY ARE OVER 18 AND RESIDE IN THAT HOME. Use discretion, its better to serve someone who is close to the opposing party than someone who is not, even if they live in the same residence.

If serving the opposing party directly, THE SERVICE PACKAGE NEED NOT
BE PLACED IN THE OTHER SIDE’S HANDS. The defendant just needs to be given
notice that he or she is being served and given the documents. Not holding the
documents or dropping them is not a defense to service. The server can leave the
documents at the defendant’s feet. The person who served the other party person must
complete an Affidavit of Service that is usually a part of the Summons. If it is separate, uou must file a separate affidavit of service along with a copy of the Summons with the clerk of the court.

Service by the Secretary of State

The Secretary of State has published a separate booklet on how to serve process
through that office. Please consult it.

Service by Certified Mail

This is an acceptable method of service, whether or not the defendant lives far
from you, in Tennessee or another state. But it can be unsuccessful because it requires that the defendant accept the papers and personally sign the receipt (green card). This is a major disadvantage.

The adult serving the papers (someone other than you) should take the papers to
the Post Office and follow the instructions for mailing by certified mail, restricted delivery, return receipt requested. The adult must fill out an Affidavit of Service indicating that he or she mailed the papers and the other party received them. If the defendant receives the papers, the receipt (green card) will be returned to you with the defendant's signature. Attach the receipt (green card) and a copy of the Summons to the completed Affidavit, and file the Affidavit with the clerk.
There are, however, problems with this type of service. Opposing parties may
refuse to sign for the letters or simply not go to the post office to pick them up. In these cases, other service types such as by deputy sheriff, by private service or by the Secretary of State would be preferable.

If the receipt (green card) is returned with the wrong signature or if the entire
envelope comes back undelivered, you will have to make another attempt at service.
If you have problems serving a defendant by certified mail, you should try one of
the other methods discussed in this booklet.

Service by Publication in a Newspaper

Service by publication is only used when the person who has filed the Complaint
has shown by affidavit that the defendant is a nonresident or the whereabouts of the defendant are unknown. Additionally, the person who has filed should show that
reasonable efforts have been made in good faith to locate the opposing party. After those criteria have been satisfied, the court may order service by publishing the notice at least once a week in each of four successive weeks in one or more newspapers of general circulation published in the county in which the action is pending

Serving a Person in Jail

If the person you are serving is currently incarcerated, you may need his or her
inmate number. You can obtain this by calling the jail or prison. You should not serve an inmate by certified mail. The inmate will not be able to sign for the package and the court may find that the service was not valid. You should serve by a sheriff or private process server. Use service by the Secretary of State if the defendant is a nonresident of Tennessee.

After the Summons is Served

The person served has 30 days to respond to the Complaint.




MAJOR CHANGES MADE IN SHERIFF’S FEES AND PROCEDURES FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS IN GENERAL SESSIONS COURT

County Technical Advisory Service
University of Tennessee

On May 29, 2002, the Governor signed Senate Bill 2413/House Bill 2570, sponsored by Senator Joe Haynes and Representative Frank Buck. The bill was subsequently enacted as 2002 Public Chapter 794 and becomes effective on July 1 of this year. The act completely revises the sheriffs’ fee statute found in 8-21-901. It combines many specific individual fees into fewer major categories and provides generally for fee increases.

The act also amends Title 16 to establish new procedures for service of process in General Sessions Court and allows service of process by private individuals.

These changes are designed for the most part to mirror the Rules of Civil Procedure that apply in Circuit and Chancery Court. As this act is a comprehensive re-write of the entire fee statute and the statutes governing service of process for general sessions courts, it is not possible to summarize all the changes in this brief spotlight. A copy of the full text of the act can be obtained through the state legislature’s website or by contacting CTAS.

Section by Section Summary:

Section 1 of the act repeals the existing statute T.C.A. § 8-21-901 (the Sheriff’s fees statute) and re-writes it, simplifying the fee structure, eliminating population classifications which makes the fees the same in all counties, modernizing the language of the fees and providing for increases in the new fee structure. New language in the act provides that, for the purpose of the service of process fee, all garnishments are considered original garnishments and the sheriff is entitled to the new fee for each garnishment served. Prior law limited the amount of fees that could be charged on subsequent garnishments. Language was also added to clarify that fees for service of process apply separately per each person served. The act also earmarks the revenue from the sheriff’s data processing fee for computerization of the sheriff’s office.

Section 2 of the act repeals and re-writes T.C.A. §§ 16-15-901 through 16-15-905 to establish procedures for service of process in General Sessions Court. The newly enacted section 16-15-901 provides that, upon the filing of civil warrants, writs and other papers, the clerk of general sessions court shall issue the required process and cause it to be delivered to such person authorized to serve process as may be designated by the person filing the papers or such person’s attorney.

This means the parties or their lawyers, not the clerks, make the determination of who serves papers.

The person designated to serve process must be at least 18 years of age and can not be a party to the litigation.

This authorization for private individuals to serve process in general sessions court applies to civil warrants, attachments or other leading process used to initiate an action in general sessions court, and subpoenas or summons.

Other forms of process would still be served by the sheriff or constable. The sheriff or constable would also still serve process on those items that could be served by a private individual if no one is designated by the litigant or his or her attorney. Where private process servers are used, the act provides that a court, in its discretion, may award recovery of fees for service of process as a part of the judgement rendered in the case but such fees cannot exceed the fees authorized for sheriffs or constables.

The newly revised section 16-15-902 establishes procedures for return of process. The new section 16-15-903 establishes procedures for service of process upon defendants in this state while 16-15-904 sets the procedures for service upon defendants outside of the state. Section 16-15-905 allows for constructive service in those cases where statutes permit such service. For the most part, these rules regarding service of process follow the procedures currently in place in circuit and chancery courts under the rules of civil procedure.

Section 3 of the act establishes the effective date for the new law as July 1, 2002. Therefore, after that date, clerks for general sessions court should begin collecting the sheriff’s fees in accordance with the new statute. At that time, the new statutes regarding service of process in general sessions court take effect as well.

As a final note, although this summary has discussed fees for sheriffs and constables, the law provides that officers of the highway patrol or other law enforcement personnel that may serve criminal process are entitled to the same fees listed in T.C.A. § 8-21-901 for sheriffs and constables and such officers will receive the increased fees as well. See T.C.A. §§ 40-25-103 and 55-5-114.




Case citations in TN re proper service of process - Red-light camera tickets and radar camera tickets can be ignored, and no default judgement can be rendered, without hand delivery of the ticket.

State v. Morgan 825 SW2d 113 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991)
Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967)

TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE I. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

§ 9. Rights of accused

That in all criminal prosecutions, the accused hath the right to be heard by himself and his counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof, to meet the witnesses face to face, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and in prosecutions by indictment or presentment, a speedy public trial, by an impartial jury of the County in which the crime shall have been committed, and shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself.






STATE OF TENNESSEE
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

STATE OF TENNESSEE, Plaintiff
v. Docket No. T844442
John Davis Lee II, Defendant
________________________________________________________________________

Issued: ____________________________, ____________
Clerk of the General Sessions Court

by: ____________________________________
Deputy Clerk

on behalf of the State _______ Defendant ________


To the Sheriff of _________ County — Greeting:

We command you to summon:

Sgt Randall Huckaby, Badge No. 181, Tennessee Highway Patrol, District 1
7601 Kingston Pike Knoxville, TN 37919

to appear in the BLOUNT COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER

personally to appear before the Judge of our Criminal Division, Court of General Sessions, for the County of Blount, on 7 February, 2011, at 1:30 p.m., in the City of Maryville, then and there to testify, and the truth to say in behalf of the defendant in the case of the State vs. John Davis Lee II, and to bring with you records evidencing:

(1) Copy of TBI or THP certification of the radar instrument in question; (2) all records of calibration relative to the radar instrument used on the 30 day of August, 2010; (3) all maintenance reports/records from the date the radar instrument was placed in use; (4) the last time the radar instrument was taken into TBI, THP or other for servicing; (5) the warranty for the radar instrument; (6) the FCC license for the radar instrument; (7) the operation manual for the radar instrument; (8) the last date of calibration of the instrument; (9) copy of officer’s radar certification by TBI, THP or other; (9) Contact log for the 30 day of August, 2010; (10) all personal notes made by officer regarding above-styled cause on date of arrest.

NOTICE: If you fail to appear in court, you will be in contempt of court. The punishment for contempt may be by a fine or by imprisonment not to exceed ten (10) days, or both.

Contact _________________________________________________________


SHERIFF’S RETURN: Came hand this date and executed by: ____________________________________
‰ Delivering the within subpoena to the witness named herein
‰ Unable to serve because ________________________________________________________________
Date ________________ Title ________________________






ATTORNEY'S RETURN OF SERVICE:
Attorney’s Name, Address and Telephone Number Designee’s Name, Address and Telephone Number
____________________________________ ________________________________________
____________________________________ ________________________________________
____________________________________ ________________________________________

I certify that on the date indicated below I served a copy of this subpoena on the witness ______________,
by _________________________________
Date:_______________________________
___________________________________
Signature of Attorney/Designee




Sworn to and subscribed before me on _________________________

Notary Public/Deputy Clerk __________________________________
Commission Expires: _____________________________________




IN THE GENERAL SESSIONS COURT FOR BLOUNT COUNTY, TENNESSEE

STATE OF TENNESSEE )
)
v. ) CASE NO. T0061165
)
John D. Lee II )
_________________________________________

DEFENSE MOTION #7
MOTION FOR SUBPOENAS BY PRIVATE PROCESS SERVER
AND/OR MOTION FOR BENCH WARRANT
______________________________________________

COMES THE DEFENDANT and moves this Honorable Court for an Order, for the Blount County Clerk of Court to issue subpoenas for pro se Defendant John Lee to be served by private process servers, and/or, in the alternative, John Lee moves for an arrest warrant issued for Tom Hatcher for Official Oppression in violation of Tennessee Code.

On January 26, 2011, Defendant John Lee filed relevant motions and exhibits with the clerk of general sessions, and applied for issuance of a prepared subpoena decus tecum. The court clerks refused to allow Defendant to serve the subpoena via private process server, and demanded a $27 fee, with $7 in cash for the clerk, and $22 check payable to Knox County Sheriff Office for service of civil process. Defendant could not afford to pay that fee. See attached Motion Exhibit #3 Affidavit.

The clerks' denial of subpoena power violated Tennessee Code, and violated Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 5 SERVICE AND FILING OF PLEADINGS AND OTHER PAPERS, and violated Rule 45 SUBPOENA.

Defendant requires subpoena power of witnesses for due process.

BLOUNT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT LOCAL RULES
8. Trial preparation.
(b) Subpoenas for local witnesses must be issued and dated by the Clerk no later than five (5) days before the date of trial. If the witness resides out of county, the subpoena must be issued by the Clerk and mailed or otherwise transmitted to the out of county Sheriff or other authorized person no later than seven (7) days before the date of trial.

Tennessee Code 16-15-901. Issuance and service of civil warrants, writs and other papers.
(a) Upon filing of civil warrants, writs and other papers, the clerk of the general sessions court in which the civil warrants, writs or other papers are filed, shall issue the required process, writs or other papers, and cause it or them, with necessary copies of the civil warrant, writ or papers, to be delivered for service to the person authorized to serve process as may be designated by the party filing the civil warrant, writ or other papers or the party's attorney if represented by counsel. The authorized person shall serve the civil warrant, writ or other papers, and the return endorsed on the warrant, writ or other papers shall be proof of the time and manner of service. A civil warrant, writ or other papers may be issued for service in any county, against any defendant or additional defendants.
(b) A civil warrant, attachment or any other leading process used to initiate an action in general sessions court and subpoenas or summons may be served by any person designated by the party or the party's attorney, if represented by counsel, who is not a party to the action and is not less than eighteen (18) years of age. Service of other process and orders of the courts of this state shall be by sheriffs, constables or as provided by law. The process server must be identified by name and address on the return.

Tennessee Code 16-15-902. Return.
(a) Any person serving the process from the general sessions court shall promptly and within the time during which the person is served must respond, make proof of service to the court and shall identify the person served and shall describe the manner of service.
(c) When process is served by mail, the original warrant, writ or other papers shall be endorsed by manner of service. In addition, an affidavit of the person making service setting forth the personal compliance of this section and the return receipt shall be sent to and filed with the clerk of the court. The person making service in this manner shall endorse over the signature on the original warrant, writ or other papers the date of mailing a certified copy of the warrant, writ or other papers to the defendant and the date of receipt of return receipt from the defendant. If the return receipt is signed by the defendant or any person designated by this section or by statute, service on the defendant is complete. If not, service by mail may be attempted or any other methods authorized by this section or by statute may be used.

Tennessee Code 16-15-903.
The plaintiff shall after issuance by the clerk of the general sessions court furnish the persons making the service with all necessary copies. Service shall be made as follows:
(10) Service by mail of a warrant, writ or other papers upon a defendant may be made by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's attorney or by any person authorized by statute.

"Section 2 of the act repeals and re-writes T.C.A. §§ 16-15-901 through 16-15-905 to establish procedures for service of process in General Sessions Court. The newly enacted section 16-15-901 provides that, upon the filing of civil warrants, writs and other papers, the clerk of general sessions court shall issue the required process and cause it to be delivered to such person authorized to serve process as may be designated by the person filing the papers or such person’s attorney. This means the parties or their lawyers, not the clerks, make the determination of who serves papers. This authorization for private individuals to serve process in general sessions court applies to civil warrants, attachments or other leading process used to initiate an action in general sessions court, and subpoenas or summons." County Technical Advisory Service, University of Tennessee, "MAJOR CHANGES MADE IN SHERIFF’S FEES AND PROCEDURES FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS IN GENERAL SESSIONS COURT"

Tennessee Code 40-17-107. Issuance of subpoenas by clerk. —
(a) The clerk of the court in which a criminal cause is pending shall issue subpoenas, at any time, to any part of the state, for witnesses as either the district attorney general or the defendant may require.

Tennessee Code 40-17-122. Subpoenas — Rules of Criminal Procedure. —
The provisions of Rule 17 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure shall govern when a clerk or other authorized officer of the court is required to issue a subpoena in a criminal case in criminal court and the consequences of a person's refusal to appear, testify or produce evidence when subpoenaed shall be governed pursuant to that rule. If any local rule of court conflicts with the provisions of Rule 17, the provisions of Rule 17 shall prevail and the clerk or other authorized officer of the court shall issue subpoenas and the judge shall punish the refusal to respond to subpoenas in accordance with the provisions of the rule.

Tennessee Code 39-16-402. Official misconduct.
(a) A public servant commits an offense who, with intent to obtain a benefit or to harm another, intentionally or knowingly:
(3) Refrains from performing a duty that is imposed by law or that is clearly inherent in the nature of the public servant's office or employment;
(4) Violates a law relating to the public servant's office or employment;
(d) An offense under this section is a Class E felony.

Tennessee Code 39-16-402. Official misconduct.
(a) A public servant acting under color of office or employment commits an offense who:
(2) Intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity, when the public servant knows the conduct is unlawful.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class E felony.


Respectfully submitted,

________________________
John D. Lee II, pro se



MOTION EXHIBIT #3

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUBPOENAS BY PRIVATE PROCESS SERVER
AND/OR MOTION FOR BENCH WARRANT
__________________________________________


STATE OF TENNESSEE
COUNTY OF KNOX

I, John D. Lee II, do solemnly swear that I am a resident of the State of Tennessee, and that I have personal knowledge of the facts included herein.
On January 26, 2011, I filed relevant motions and exhibits with the clerk of general sessions in Blount County, and applied for issuance of a prepared subpoena decus tecum for witness/complainant Randall Huckaby. The court clerks refused to allow Defendant to serve the subpoena via private process server, and demanded a $27 fee, with $7 in cash for the clerk, and $22 check payable to Knox County Sheriff Office for service of civil process. I paid the $7 cash fee to the clerk, but could not afford to pay the $22, so I left without the subpoena.
I did return several days later and paid the remainder for the subpoena.
Further the Affiant sayeth not.

______________________
John D. Lee II


Sworn to and subscribed before me, this day________ day of _______________, _____.

____________________________
Notary
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was forwarded by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, or by hand-delivery, to Mike Flynn at the Office of the District Attorney General, Blount County Justice Center, 942 E. Lamar Alexander Parkway, Maryville, TN 37804-5002, phone (865) 273-5600.
on this ____ day of _______________, ______.


______________________
John Davis Lee II, pro se




Morgan clerk Hamby resigns, ordered to repay missing money

18 Feb 2011

WARTBURG, TENN. - Carol Hamby resigned as Morgan County Clerk today immediately after pleading guilty to official misconduct and not depositing public money on a timely basis.

The 40-year-old Coalfield resident received a two-year prison sentence but was placed on supervised probation and granted judicial diversion.

That status will enable her to wipe the criminal conviction off her record should she follow guidelines.

Hamby was also ordered to repay the more than $7,400 found missing from her office and to also pay for the cost of a special state audit in December that uncovered the shortfall.

A theft charge leveled against her by a Morgan County grand jury last month was dismissed.

District Attorney General Russell Johnson said Hamby has already repaid $6,500.

Johnson today expressed regret, both for Morgan County residents and for Hamby.

He said it was clear to him "she became overwhelmed by the responsibilities of her office…"

Still, he said, "her action clearly constitutes official misconduct," Johnson stated.

After concerns about her office's finances arose, the state came in and found a cash shortfall of $54,611.33 in mid-December during its special audit.

The financial checkup also revealed Hamby sometimes waited more than two months before depositing public money. State law requires such funds be deposited within three days.

A Tennessee Bureau of Investigation was launched and during that probe, Hamby deposited $47,200.71, leaving unpaid $7,410.62.

Hamby told auditors she sometimes cashed personal checks from office cash and forgot to reimburse the office.

With Hamby's resignation, Johnson said he wouldn't have to pursue an ouster lawsuit to force her from office.

It'll be up to the 18-member Morgan County Commission to elect someone to fill the interim clerk's position until the next general election in August 2012.

Morgan County Executive Don Edwards said today a special commission meeting would likely be called to start that procedure.

"We will get that vacancy filled as soon as we possibly can," he said.

"We're just sick over the situation," he said. "We just hate that it happened."

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Dicks posing as fake attorneys foil guilty plea



Wasn't this an episode of Castle?

"Don't you need probable cause? You mean you can lie like that? That is so cool!"
-Rick Castle, Nanny McDead


Cool that now every conviction these cops ever worked on will be reversed.

Tennessee Rules of Evidence - Rule 608. Evidence of character and conduct of witness...

Also a good case citation for motion to strike defendant's statement/confession without Miranda during traffic stop detention, which are always "arrests"...if you fail to stop you WILL be killed by police state death squad. Unless you have a very fast vehicle, know how to drive it, have a getaway route, and plan to move to a foreign nation.




Detectives Pose as Fake Lawyers to Secure Guilty Plea

MADISONVILLE, TENN. -- In every profession, there are some who go about their job the right way and some who do not. Unfortunately, those who do their job the wrong way and happen to be in law enforcement have the ability to put the lives and freedom of citizens in serious jeopardy. For a great example of this, look no further than the story of two Monroe County Sheriff's Deputies who fooled criminal suspect John Dawson into believing that the detectives were actually lawyers who represented him and tricked him into pleading guilty on charges of theft, drug-dealing, and burglary.

Reports say that Detectives Doug Brannon and Pat Henry even went as far as concocting fake letters from a fake law firm and sending them to Dawson through his cellmate. Detectives were unfortunately successful in securing the plea, but not surprisingly, Dawson's real lawyer appealed the guilty plea to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. The Court of Criminal Appeals correctly ruled that the circumstances surrounding the plea were a shocking violation of Mr. Dawson's constitutional rights, with Judge James Witt calling the detective's actions "egregious, illegal, and abhorrent."

The aforementioned characterization of the detectives' actions is entirely accurate. Such actions demonstrate an egregious disregard for the constitutions of the United States and the State of Tennessee, and constitute a blatant violation of the rights and civil liberties of criminal defendants. There is no word as of yet regarding whether the detectives will be facing any charges such as felony official misconduct, but their actions certainly fit that offense as it is defined by the statute.

Unfortunately, there are those in law enforcement and the court system who disregard the pursuit of justice as they strive for self-promotion or other goals. The rights of criminal defendants often get lost as other forces come into play. Criminal defendants in Tennessee would do well to join forces with aggressive criminal defense counsel who will protect their rights from those who seek to infringe them.




Detectives posing as fake attorneys foil Monroe Co. guilty plea

KNOXVILLE (WATE) - Documents from the criminal appeals court show Monroe County sheriff's deputies tricked a suspect into believing they were lawyers representing him.

As a result, the Tennessee Court of Appeals last week overturned a guilty plea by John Dawson on charges of theft, burglary and drug dealing.

Records from the court say Detectives Doug Brannon and Pat Henry are accused of sending letters from a fake law firm to Dawson through his cell mate, who was an informant for law enforcement.

The judges found that those actions interfered with efforts by Dawson's court-appointed attorney.

Appellate Judge James Witt had harsh words for Detective Henry, saying his actions were "egregious, illegal and abhorrent."

Dawson was already serving time on unrelated federal charges. He's also accused in the murder of Troy Green which began as a missing person's case in 2006.

Detective Henry is still on staff at the Monroe County Sheriff's Office.

Full text of opinion:

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOHN EDWARD DAWSON - On May 7, 2009, the defendant’s appointed counsel filed a motion for a continuance on the basis of her discovery that a member of the Monroe County Sheriff’s Department had represented himself as two separate attorneys, had pretended to handle parts of the defendant’s case on the defendant’s behalf, and had instructed the defendant to cease communication with appointed counsel. Counsel noted that she had previously requested a mental evaluation of the defendant in January 2009 on the basis of his claiming to be represented by a “federal” attorney. One week later, citing the same grounds, counsel filed a motion to dismiss the indictments in all four cases on the basis that the State had inappropriately interfered with the defendant’s right to counsel. At a May 15, 2009 hearing, the defendant’s counsel stated that despite filing a request for a speedy trial, she had filed two motions to continue based upon the defendant’s failure to cooperate with her. She noted that although the defendant had recently become cooperative, she did not know at that time the full extent of the interference with her representation or what privileged information had been garnered by the State as a result of the fraudulent representation scheme. January 13, 2011


What could possibly go wrong with this picture...



That's why it's illegal for cops to lie, forge, purjure and torture. Governments have slaughtered 100-millions of their own citizens in the past century...

Saturday, January 22, 2011

The Theory of Competition



UPDATE 7 MARCH 2011: NOLLE PROSEQUI BY BLOUNT COUNTY ATTORNEY GENERAL. SPEEDING TICKET DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, COSTS PAID BY THE STATE, IN BLOUNT COUNTY GENERAL SESSIONS COURT WITH JUDGE BREWER. NO HEARING WHATSOEVER. THP TROOPER RANDALL HUCKEBY ADMITTED ON VIDEOTAPE DURING TRAFFIC STOP THAT ALL SPEEDING TICKETS NORTHBOUND AT MILE MARKER 0.5 ARE FEDERAL JURISDICTION, NOT STATE JURISDICTION (VIDEO BY THE DRAGONATER). TDOT ADMITTED IN WRITING THAT THE MANDATORY TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SURVEY SPEED AUDIT WAS NEVER PERFORMED, IN VIOLATION OF TN CODE, THUS THE SPEED LIMIT ON THE DRAGON IS 65 MPH. THE DRAGONATER ALSO MADE VIDEO OF TROOPER HUCKEBY SPEEDING UP TO 60 MPH ON THE DRAGON IN A 30 MPH ZONE, WITHOUT MANDATORY EMERGENCY LIGHTS NOR SIREN, IN VIOLATION OF TN CODE, AND PERJURY IN HIS PERSONNEL FILE. WATCH THIS SPACE FOR FULL EVIDENCE FILE.

Here is the thing that makes life so interesting. The theory of evolution claims only the strong shall survive. Maybe so, maybe so. But the theory of competition says just because they're the strong they can't get their asses kicked. That's right. See what every long shot come from behind underdog will tell you is this. The other guy may in fact be the favorite. The odds may be stacked against you, fair enough. But what the odds don't know, is this isn't a math test. This is a completely different kind of test. One where passion has a funny way of trumping logic. So before you step up to the starting line, before the whistle blows and the clock starts ticking just remember out here the results don't always add up. No matter what the stats may say, or what the experts may think, and the commentators may have predicted, when the race is on ALL bets are off. Don't be surprised if somebody decides to "flip the script" and take a pass on yelling uncle. And then suddenly as the old saying goes, we got ourselves a GAME.

Whether of not you win this thing you have to decide how you are going to walk out of here when it is all said and done. Cause the game is going to go on. And there is only one rule you are going to need to know about. There are no second chances. There is only this moment, and the next moment. Everyone one of those moments is a test, that you get to take one time, and only one time. So if you see an opening, tear into it. If you get a shot at victory make damn sure you take it. Seize that moment. That moment is a crossroads where everything you want will collide with everything standing in your way. You got momentum at your back, fear and doubt are thundering like a freight train straight at you. All you got, the only difference between making history and being history, the only thing, THE ONLY THING you can count on in any given moment is YOU. It's YOU vs. THEM. YOU vs. NO, YOU vs. CAN'T, YOU vs. NEXT YEAR, LAST YEAR, STATISTICS , EXCUSES . It's YOU vs. HISTORY, YOU vs. THE ODDS. It's YOU vs. SECOND place. The clock is ticking. Let's see what you got.


Hacked from Nike ad, which was hacked from Versus, with narrator John Doman.

Just do it. But don't get caught.

Friday, January 21, 2011

The X Life



The X Life - Watch episodes online.

VH1 "music" network has banned music, and replaced it with bikers having sex with supermodels. Who knew? This show is also banned on youtube...brilliant viral marketing.

X Life is produced by Joe Simpson, father of Daisy Duke, whose own marriage was ruined by her daddy's pimpin with 24/7 video cameras.

Sport Wrider mum about paralyzing crash


Did Trev really need a Photoshopped lean angle?

While testing street tires on the street, Andrew Trevitt -- a British editor of British Sport Rider magazine, the only "American" sportbike rag -- t-boned a car that was making an illegal u-turn in Los Angeles. A devastating silence could be heard around the world, regarding what actually happened, and its aftermath.

As usual, Sport Rider mag censored all the good stuff. No review of Trevitt's crashed rider gear that "failed" upon impact (can't piss off the advertisers). Did he wear a back protector, and did it cover the entire spine? No gory crash scene nor hospital photos. No witness statements. No police reports. No arrest reports. No names of perps (illegal aliens?). No legal briefs. No NEWS.

Basically, nothing that's of actual use to riders in the Real World. You'd think he was president of the United States, hiding all his birth certificates.

But lots and lots and lots of tales of woe in rehab. While it's great to see that side of the story -- since magazines always censor the scary stuff -- The Blog would be so much better if it detailed the other 95% of his recovery. How about some video blogs? Ever hear of youtube? Andrew golfing with the Kardashians don't count.



Was Trev criminally charged? If so what exactly was the defense and outcome, with links to all legal docs? Was the cage driver criminally charged? Did Trev sue the cager? Did the cager countersue Trev? Did Trev sue the highway department for a defective road? Did Trev sue the doctors for medical malpractice? Did Trev sue his employers for Workers Comp, and did a lawsuit settlement result in him keeping his job -- or is Trevitt an owner who can't be fired? Did Trev sue his own insurance for non-payment? How much were his total medical bills? How much is rehab costing, and who's paying? This data alone would probably save 100s of lives, just by the Fear Factor.

Reality TV shows cover many of these topics, celebrities in court and sex life in rehab. If print rags want to survive mortal combat against the interwebs, they need to kick it up a few dozen notches.

Yes, it's true that in all legal situations, lawyers and cops agree it's SOP to STFU, especially when there's risk of prison buttrape. California is a Comparative Fault state, which gives individuals a fair chance in court against big bad insurance corporations, but a plaintiff gets nothing who caused 51% of the crash -- including "speed".

However, a nation of legal idiots is a recipe for overthrow of the United States...which of course has been the public policy of the British Empire for over 500 years, and Sport Rider mag.

Compare with Deals Gap Scar Story, by The Dragonater:






Comparative Fault

by the Dolan Law Firm

Everyone has a responsibility to care for themselves. California law analyzes the relative fault of each party involved in an event that produces injury. The Dolan Law Firm works hard to demonstrate that you are not the one responsible for your injury. If your case does not settle before trial, a jury decides what percentage of fault is assigned to each party. (They do it after determining the amount of damages suffered.) If the person injured (the plaintiff) causes his or her own injury, and is 100% at fault and have no right to recover against anyone else involved in the event. If the other party, (the defendant) is 100% at fault, then they bear 100% of the responsibility and, 100% of the costs and damages . If there is shared fault California Law requires that the amount of recovery which the injured party is entitled to is reduced by their percentage of fault. Defendants in a lawsuit are always looking to place blame on the injured party to reduce the amount of compensation that they would have to pay. A great deal of time in any legal proceeding is spent establishing who bears what percentage of fault. California is a pure comparative fault state. This means that an injured party can recover for their damages even if they are greater than 50% at fault (51%-99%). Some states do not allow injured parties to recover if they are more than 50% at fault. The reality, however, is that fault is not a science and juries, when they the plaintiff as being mostly responsible, often give them nothing. Likewise, they often place some blame on the plaintiff just to appease some members of the jury so as to reach a consensus.

THINGS THAT MAKE AN INJURED PARTY AT FAULT

speed- most common
no seat belt
failure to signal
going through yellow light
inattention- cell phone distraction- not looking where you are going
improper safety gear (motorcycles and bicycles)
lack of visibility
running into street (pedestrians)
crossing at a location outside crosswalk (pedestrians)
entering a crosswalk on red hand





Contributory Negligence vs. Comparative Negligence

by the Personal Injury Lawyer Directory

When a claim for damages caused by an accident is filed with a court, the fact-finder (judge or jury, depending on the proceeding) must determine who caused the accident. The person whose negligence caused the accident typically pays for the resulting damage. If more than one person caused the damage, then negligence is distributed between the parties based on state apportionment laws. The fact-finder may determine that actions of the defendant, the plaintiff, or both, caused the accident. Based on the evidence submitted, the judge or jury will then allocate the amount or percentage that each party was negligent. Depending on the jurisdiction, this allocation will directly impact the damages awarded.

Throughout the United States, there are four systems used in establishing damage awards: pure contributory negligence, pure comparative negligence, modified comparative negligence – 50% bar rule, and modified comparative negligence – 51% bar rule.

Contributory Negligence

Historically, contributory negligence was a common law defense available in tort actions. In the past, if two people were in an accident, the injured person could only recover for his/her injuries and damages if they did not contribute to the accident in any way. This approach was based on a policy originally established in England that stated a person who negligently causes harm to another cannot be held liable if that injured individual contributed to his own suffering and injury, even if it was only a very slight factor. For example, if Dave and Debbie were in an accident where Jane was injured, and Jane was only 5% at fault, she would recover nothing. This method of calculating damages is still followed in states with a pure contributory negligence system. In light of the potentially harsh result, most states have moved from the strict nature of a pure contributory negligence system to some form of a comparative negligence system. Currently, only five (5) states, including the District of Columbia, follow the pure contributory negligence rule.

Comparative Negligence

In a comparative negligence system, the injured party may still recover some of his or her damages even if he or she was partially to blame for causing the accident. Plaintiff’s financial recovery may be reduced, or even prohibited, depending how plaintiff’s actions caused or contributed to the accident. In states using a comparative negligence system, a jury or judge determines the proportion of fault to be assigned to each responsible party. Jurisdictions following a comparative negligence system will typically apportion the damages using one of three variations of comparative negligence: pure comparative negligence, modified comparative negligence – 51% rule, or modified comparative negligence – 50% rule.

Presently, thirteen (13) states follow a pure comparative negligence system: Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington. In a pure comparative negligence system, a judge or jury assigns a percentage of fault to each responsible party and then apportions the damage award accordingly. Using this system, an injured person may recover his or her damages even if the injured person was 99% at fault in causing the injury, with those damages reduced by his or her portion of the fault. For example, in a car accident between Dave and Debbie where Debbie was found to be 99% responsible, and the jury found that Debbie suffered $10,000 in damages, that award would be reduced by Debbie’s 99% fault in causing the injury. In the end, Dave would only have to pay 1% of Debbie’s damages, or $100 in this case.

Thirty-three (33) states follow a modified comparative fault system. Similar to a pure comparative negligence system, a judge or jury assigns a percentage of fault to each responsible party and then apportions the damage award accordingly. From that point, depending on how the system is applied, if a plaintiff’s apportioned fault reaches a particular level, he or she may be completely prohibited from recovering a damage award.

Of the thirty-three states following a modified comparative fault system, twelve (12) states follow a 50% rule. In states following a modified comparative fault – 50% rule, an injured party can only recover if it is determined that his or her fault in causing the injury is 49% or less. If the injured party’s fault level reaches 50%, he or she cannot recover any damages resulting from the accident. Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia follow the 50% rule.

Of the thirty-three states following a modified comparative fault system, the remaining twenty-one (21) states follow a 51% rule. In states following a modified comparative fault – 51% rule, an injured party can only recover if it is determined that his or her fault does not reach 51%. If the injured party was 50% or less at fault, he or she may still recover damages. In other words, a plaintiff may have caused half of the accident and still recover damages from the court, but if it is found that the plaintiff’s fault was responsible for more than half of the accident, that plaintiff is barred from receiving any damages determined by the court. Here, as in a pure comparative negligence state, a plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by the degree of his or her fault. Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming follow the 51% rule.

Remember that many exceptions to the standard negligence systems are present in several states. Additionally, some states limit the types of cases to which these negligence systems may apply. The information present in this article and following table should only be used as a guide. Specific questions should be directed to a qualified attorney licensed in your state. Nothing in this summary should be construed as legal advice.

Click here to see a Comparative Fault by State chart that briefly outlines contributory vs. comparative negligence for each state.

For more information on Contributory Negligence vs. Comparative Negligence for a specific state, click on the state below.




California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI)

1207. Strict Liability - Comparative Fault - Contributory Negligence

[Name of defendant] claims that [name of plaintiff]'s harm was caused, in whole or in part, by [name of plaintiff]'s [and/or] [name of third person]'s negligence. To succeed on this claim, [name of defendant] must prove both of the following:

1. [insert one or both of the following:]
[That [name of plaintiff] [and/or] [name of third person] negligently [used/misused/modified] the [product];] [or]
[That [name of plaintiff] [and/or] [name of third person] [was/were] [otherwise] negligent;] nd

2. That this negligence was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]'s harm.

[If the product was misused or modified in a way that was reasonably foreseeable to [name of defendant], [he/she/it] may still succeed on this claim if you find that the misuse or modification was negligent and was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]'s harm.]

If [name of defendant] proves the above, [name of plaintiff]'s damages are reduced by your determination of the percentage of [name of plaintiff]'s [and/or] [name of third person]'s responsibility. I will calculate the actual reduction.

Directions for Use

See also CACI No. 405, Plaintiff's Contributory Negligence, CACI No. 406, Apportionment of Responsibility, and CACI No. 407, Decedent's Contributory Negligence.

Give this instruction only where the defendant has raised the issue of comparative fault.

Sources and Authority

In Daly v. General Motors Corp. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 725, 737 [144 Cal.Rptr. 380, 575 P.2d 1162], the California Supreme Court held that comparative fault applies to strict products liability actions. The court explained: "[W]e do not permit plaintiff's own conduct relative to the product to escape unexamined, and as to that share of plaintiff's damages which flows from his own fault we discern no reason of policy why it should, following Li, be borne by others."

"[A] petitioner's recovery may accordingly be reduced, but not barred, where his lack of reasonable care is shown to have contributed to his injury." (Bradfield v. Trans World Airlines (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 681, 686 [152 Cal.Rptr. 172].)

Secondary Sources

California Products Liability Actions, Ch. 8, Defenses, �� 8.03, 8.04 (Matthew Bender)
40 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 460, Products Liability, �� 460.53, 460.182 (Matthew Bender)
19 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 190, Products Liability (Matthew Bender)
(New September 2003)




405. Plaintiff's Contributory Negligence

[Name of defendant] claims that [name of plaintiff]'s harm was caused in whole or in part by [name of plaintiff]'s own negligence. To succeed on this claim, [name of defendant] must prove both of the following: 1. That [name of plaintiff] was negligent; and 2. That [name of plaintiff]'s negligence was a substantial factor in causing [his/her] harm.

If [name of defendant] proves the above, [name of plaintiff]'s damages are reduced by your determination of the percentage of [name of plaintiff]'s responsibility. I will calculate the actual reduction.

Directions for Use

This instruction should not be given absent substantial evidence that plaintiff was negligent. (Drust v. Drust (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 1, 6 [169 Cal.Rptr. 750].)

This instruction should be used only where the defendant claims that plaintiff was negligent, there is only one defendant, and the defendant does not claim that any other factor caused the harm.

Sources and Authority

In Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804, 810 [119 Cal.Rptr. 858, 532 P.2d 1226], the Court concluded that the "all-or-nothing" rule of contributory negligence should be abandoned in favor of a rule that assesses liability in proportion to fault.
Restatement Second of Torts, section 463, defines "contributory negligence" as "conduct on the part of the plaintiff which falls below the standard to which he should conform for his own protection, and which is a legally contributing cause cooperating with the negligence of the defendant in bringing about the plaintiff's harm."

It is settled that the issue of contributory negligence must be presented to the jury whenever it is asserted as a defense and there is "some evidence of a substantial character" to support it. (Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 530, 548 [138 Cal.Rptr. 705, 564 P.2d 857]; Scott v. Alpha Beta Co. (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 305, 310 [163 Cal.Rptr. 544].)

Courts have found that it is not error to use the phrase "contributory negligence" in a jury instruction on comparative negligence: "The use by the trial court of the phrase 'contributory negligence' in instructing on the concept of comparative negligence is innocuous. Li v. Yellow Cab Co. [citation] abolished the legal doctrine, but not the phrase or the concept of 'contributory negligence.' A claimant's negligence contributing causally to his own injury may be considered now not as a bar to his recovery, but merely as a factor to be considered in measuring the amount thereof." (Bradfield v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 681, 686 [152 Cal.Rptr. 172].)

The defendant has the burden of proving contributory negligence. (Drust, supra, 113 Cal.App.3d at p. 6.)

Secondary Sources

6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, �� 1049-1058, pp. 446-457
1 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 4, Comparative Negligence, Assumption of the Risk, and Related Defenses, � 4.04 (Matthew Bender)
California Tort Guide (Cont.Ed.Bar 1996) �� 1.38-1.39
4 California Trial Guide, Unit 90, Closing Argument, � 90.91 (Matthew Bender)
33 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 380, Negligence (Matthew Bender)
16 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 165, Negligence, � 165.380 (Matthew Bender)
(New September 2003)




407. Decedent's Contributory Negligence

[Name of defendant] claims that [name of decedent]'s death was caused in whole or in part by [name of decedent]'s own negligence. To succeed on this claim, [name of defendant] must prove both of the following: 1. That [name of decedent] was negligent; and 2. That [name of decedent]'s negligence was a substantial factor in causing [his/her] death.

If [name of defendant] proves the above, [name of plaintiff]'s damages are reduced by your determination of the percentage of [name of decedent]'s responsibility. I will calculate the actual reduction.

Directions for Use

This instruction should not be given absent evidence that the decedent was negligent. (Drust v. Drust (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 1, 6 [169 Cal.Rptr. 750].)

Sources and Authority

"[P]rinciples of comparative fault and equitable indemnification support an apportionment of liability among those responsible for the loss, including the decedent, whether it be for personal injury or wrongful death." (Horwich v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 272, 285 [87 Cal.Rptr.2d 222, 980 P.2d 927].)

"[I]n wrongful death actions, the fault of the decedent is attributable to the surviving heirs whose recovery must be offset by the same percentage. [Citation.]" (Atkins v. Strayhorn (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1380, 1395 [273 Cal.Rptr. 231].)

Secondary Sources

6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, � 1214, p. 650
1 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 4, Comparative Negligence, Assumption of the Risk, and Related Defenses, � 4.07 (Matthew Bender)
4 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 55, Death and Survival Actions, � 55.05 (Matthew Bender)
15 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 181, Death and Survival Actions (Matthew Bender)
6 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 66, Death and Survival Actions (Matthew Bender)

(New September 2003)


American History X: German Nazi Queen of the 53-nation British Commonwealth Empire has annexed USA via the North Amerikan Soviet Union

Thursday, January 20, 2011

TN prosecutor demands sex for traffic tickets



A civil lawsuit by 8 women is apparently in the works.

Note to DA Dickus: Not every woman is Barbie Cummings.






West TN attorney fired after alleged sexual misconduct

BOLIVAR, TN (WMC-TV) - A prominent Mid-South prosecutor was fired after allegations of sexual misconduct.

A TBI spokesperson said she was told Assistant District Attorney for Tennessee's 25th District Terry Dycus has been fired from his job. Dycus was let go shortly after TBI agents began investigating what went on inside the Hardeman County Courthouse.

Two weeks ago, two female defendants with cases in court wound up reporting Dycus to the Bolivar police chief. According to their attorney, both women claim Dycus was trying to coerce them into having sex in exchange for getting their cases thrown out of court.

The women also claimed Dycus touched them inappropriately while court was in recess.

Bolivar's police chief confirmed he took statements from the two women, but he could not provide the allegations of sexual misconduct because he had to turn the information over to the TBI.

Kristin Helm with the TBI said the agents in her office are investigating Dycus for allegations of official misconduct. They will turn over their findings to Paul Hagerman, special prosecutor from the Shelby County District Attorney's office, who has been assigned to the case.

One of Dycus' female accusers is a registered sex offender. The other, according to her attorney, was in court on a violation for illegally hunting on someone else's property.

Dycus' boss, District Attorney Mike Dunavant, could not comment on the case. He did say Dycus was no longer with his office.

The women who made the claims against Dycus were unavailable for comment.




Attorney accused of sexual misconduct has long history with state

BOLIVAR, TN (WMC-TV) - Earlier this week, Action News 5 broke the story about a West Tennessee district attorney who's now accused of sexual misconduct. But what's Terry Dycus' history with the state?

Dycus began his career of public service in 1991 as an employee of the Tennessee Department of Human Services. He then moved into the courtroom.

"His greatest time was with the Public Defenders from June 1991 'till April 2001," said Guy Jones with the Tennessee District Attorney's General Conference.

From April 2001 to February 2002, Dycus served as an Assistant District Attorney in the 13th Judicial District in middle Tennessee.

Until recently, Dycus served as an assistant to Mike Dunavant in the 25th Judicial District in West Tennessee.

"The DA apparently has taken action there. Mr. Dycus is no longer employed and there may be allegations that may need to be looked at by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation," Jones said.

Two weeks ago, two female defendants with cases in court in Hardeman County wound up reporting Dycus to the Bolivar Police Chief.

According to their attorney, both women claim Dycus was trying to coerce them into having sex in exchange for getting their cases thrown out of court.

They also claim Dycus touched them inappropriately while court was in recess.

The TBI is looking into these allegations. They will then turn Dycus' case over to special prosecutor Paul Hagerman of Shelby County.

"It's essentially no different, the way its done, is no different that if it were a conflict case for instance if someone in the office had a family member accused of a crime," Jones said.

Action News 5 contacted the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility, which announces disciplinary actions taken by the Tennessee Supreme Court against attorneys.

They said there had never been any disciplinary action taken against Terry Dycus.




Another fine example of govt employees getting fired, while the rest of us get arrested, prosecuted, tried and sentenced to jail.

Extorting sex bribes is the felony of extortion under TN Code.

Friday, January 14, 2011

Meet Lockheed Martin...your Cylon Overlord



Is Lockheed Martin Shadowing You?

"I find it very revealing that Lockheed Martin, one of the biggest manufacturers of red light cameras in the U.S., has included clauses in their contracts that prohibit city engineers from applying engineering practices that improve compliance and reduce accidents, apparently to maintain the flow of ticket camera revenue. Lockheed Martin specifically prohibits cities, such as San Diego, California, from changing the timing of yellow lights in intersections that host their cameras, even though increasing the yellow light time has proven to dramatically decrease red light violations. And, ticket cameras have definitely shown a profit. California recently raised their red light violation fines to $271 per ticket (Lockheed Martin receives $70 of that). Washington DC has started using photo enforcement and has stated it expects to receive $160 million in traffic fines by 2004."
-National Motorists Association, Revenue Drives Red Light Cameras, Not Safety

"When KPRC-TV in Houston, which is owned by The Washington Post Co., discovered a secret drone air show for dozens of officers at a remote location 70 miles from Houston, police officials were forced to call a hasty news conference to explain their interest in the technology. A senior officer in Houston then mentioned to reporters that drones might ultimately be used for recording traffic violations."
-Washington’s Blog, Drones Becoming Pervasive INSIDE America, May 18, 2011



Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

Have you noticed that Lockheed Martin, the giant weapons corporation, is shadowing you? No? Then you haven't been paying much attention. Let me put it this way: If you have a life, Lockheed Martin is likely a part of it.


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

True, Lockheed Martin doesn't actually run the US government, but sometimes it seems as if it might as well. After all, it received $36 billion in government contracts in 2008 alone, more than any company in history. It now does work for more than two dozen government agencies from the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency. It's involved in surveillance and information processing for the CIA, the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the National Security Agency (NSA), the Pentagon, the Census Bureau, and the Postal Service.


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

Oh, and Lockheed Martin has even helped train those friendly Transportation Security Administration agents who pat you down at the airport. Naturally, the company produces cluster bombs, designs nuclear weapons, and makes the F-35 Lightning (an overpriced, behind-schedule, underperforming combat aircraft that is slated to be bought by customers in more than a dozen countries)—and when it comes to weaponry, that's just the start of a long list. In recent times, though, it's moved beyond anything usually associated with a weapons corporation and has been virtually running its own foreign policy, doing everything from hiring interrogators for US overseas prisons (including at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and Abu Ghraib in Iraq) to managing a private intelligence network in Pakistan and helping write the Afghan constitution.


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

A For-Profit Government-in-the-Making

If you want to feel a tad more intimidated, consider Lockheed Martin's sheer size for a moment. After all, the company receives one of every 14 dollars doled out by the Pentagon. In fact, its government contracts, thought about another way, amount to a "Lockheed Martin tax" of $260 per taxpaying household in the United States, and no weapons contractor has more power or money to wield to defend its turf. It spent $12 million on congressional lobbying and campaign contributions in 2009 alone. Not surprisingly, it's the top contributor to the incoming House Armed Services Committee chairman, Republican Howard P. "Buck" McKeon of California, giving more than $50,000 in the most recent election cycle. It also tops the list of donors to Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), the powerful chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and the self-described "#1 earmarks guy in the US Congress."


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

Add to all that its 140,000 employees and its claim to have facilities in 46 states, and the scale of its clout starts to become clearer. While the bulk of its influence-peddling activities may be perfectly legal, the company also has quite a track record when it comes to law-breaking: it ranks number one on the "contractor misconduct" database maintained by the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington-DC-based watchdog group.


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

How in the world did Lockheed Martin become more than just a military contractor? Its first significant foray outside the world of weaponry came in the early 1990s when plain old Lockheed (not yet merged with Martin Marietta) bought Datacom Inc., a company specializing in providing services for state and city governments, and turned it into the foundation for a new business unit called Lockheed Information Management Services (IMS). In turn, IMS managed to win contracts in 44 states and several foreign countries for tasks ranging from collecting parking fines and tolls to tracking down "deadbeat dads" and running "welfare to work" job-training programs. The result was a number of high profile failures, but hey, you can't do everything right, can you?


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

Under pressure from Wall Street to concentrate on its core business—implements of destruction—Lockheed Martin sold IMS in 2001. By then, however, it had developed a taste for non-weapons work, especially when it came to data collection and processing. So it turned to the federal government where it promptly racked up deals with the IRS, the Census Bureau, and the US Postal Service, among other agencies.


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

As a result, Lockheed Martin is now involved in nearly every interaction you have with the government. Paying your taxes? Lockheed Martin is all over it. The company is even creating a system that provides comprehensive data on every contact taxpayers have with the IRS from phone calls to face-to-face meetings.


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

Want to stand up and be counted by the US Census? Lockheed Martin will take care of it. The company runs three centers—in Baltimore, Phoenix, and Jeffersonville, Indiana—that processed up to 18 tractor-trailers full of mail per day at the height of the 2010 Census count. For $500 million it is developing the Decennial Response Information Service (DRIS), which will collect and analyze information gathered from any source, from phone calls or the Internet to personal visits. According to Preston Waite, associate director of the Census, the DRIS will be a "big catch net, catching all the data that comes in no matter where it comes from."


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

Need to get a package across the country? Lockheed Martin cameras will scan bar codes and recognize addresses, so your package can be sorted "without human intervention," as the company's web site puts it.


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

Plan on committing a crime? Think twice. Lockheed Martin is in charge of the FBI's Integrated Automatic Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), a database of 55 million sets of fingerprints. The company also produces biometric identification devices that will know who you are by scanning your iris, recognizing your face, or coming up with novel ways of collecting your fingerprints or DNA. As the company likes to say, it's in the business of making everyone's lives (and so personal data) an "open book," which is, of course, of great benefit to us all. "Thanks to biometric technology," the company proclaims, "people don't have to worry about forgetting a password or bringing multiple forms of identification. Things just got a little easier."


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

Are you a New York City resident concerned about a "suspicious package" finding its way onto the subway platform? Lockheed Martin tried to do something about that, too, thanks to a contract from the city's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to install 3,000 security cameras and motion sensors that would spot such packages, as well as the people carrying them, and notify the authorities. Only problem: the cameras didn't work as advertised and the MTA axed Lockheed Martin and cancelled the $212 million contract.


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

Collecting Intelligence on You

If it seems a little creepy to you that the same company making ballistic missiles is also processing your taxes, accessing your fingerprints, scanning your packages, ensuring that it's easier than ever to collect your DNA, and counting you for the census, rest assured: Lockheed Martin's interest in getting inside your private life via intelligence collection and surveillance has remained remarkably undiminished in the twenty-first century.


Your taxdollars at work with Lockheed Martin

Tim Shorrock, author of the seminal book Spies for Hire, has described Lockheed Martin as "the largest defense contractor and private intelligence force in the world." As far back as 2002, the company plunged into the "Total Information Awareness" (TIA) program that was former National Security Advisor Admiral John Poindexter's pet project. A giant database to collect telephone numbers, credit cards, and reams of other personal data from US citizens in the name of fighting terrorism, the program was de-funded by Congress the following year, but concerns remain that the National Security Agency is now running a similar secret program.


Lockheed Martin wants to nuke and gaterape you, your wife, your momma and your kids

In the meantime, since at least 2004, Lockheed Martin has been involved in the Pentagon's Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), which collected personal data on American citizens for storage in a database known as "Threat and Local Observation Notice" (and far more dramatically by the acronym TALON). While Congress shut down the domestic spying aspect of the program in 2007 (assuming, that is, that the Pentagon followed orders), CIFA itself continues to operate.


Lockheed Martin wants to nuke and gaterape you, your wife, your momma and your kids

In 2005, Washington Post military and intelligence expert William Arkin revealed that, while the database was theoretically being used to track anyone suspected of terrorism, drug trafficking, or espionage, "some military gumshoe or overzealous commander just has to decide someone is a ‘threat to the military'" for it to be brought into play. Among the "threatening" citizens actually tracked by CIFA were members of antiwar groups. As part of its role in CIFA, Lockheed Martin was not only monitoring intelligence, but also "estimating future threats." (Not exactly inconvenient for a giant weapons outfit that might see antiwar activism as a threat!)


Lockheed Martin wants to nuke and gaterape you, your wife, your momma and your kids

Lockheed Martin is also intimately bound up in the workings of the National Security Agency, America's largest spy outfit. In addition to producing spy satellites for the NSA, the company is in charge of "Project Groundbreaker," a $5 billion, 10-year effort to upgrade the agency's internal telephone and computer networks.


Lockheed Martin wants to nuke and gaterape you, your wife, your momma and your kids

While Lockheed Martin may well be watching you at home—it's my personal nominee for twenty-first-century "Big Brother"—it has also been involved in questionable activities abroad that go well beyond supplying weapons to regions in conflict. There were, of course, those interrogators it recruited for America's offshore prison system from Guantanamo Bay to Afghanistan (and the charges of abuses that so naturally went with them), but the real scandal the company has been embroiled in involves overseeing an assassination program in Pakistan. Initially, it was billed as an information gathering operation using private companies to generate data the CIA and other US intelligence agencies allegedly could not get on their own. Instead, the companies turned out to be supplying targeting information used by US Army Special Forces troops to locate and kill suspected Taliban leaders.


Lockheed Martin wants to nuke and gaterape you, your wife, your momma and your kids

The private firms involved were managed by Lockheed Martin under a $22 million contract from the US Army. As Mark Mazetti of the New York Times has reported, there were just two small problems with the effort: "The American military is largely prohibited from operating in Pakistan. And under Pentagon rules, the army is not allowed to hire contractors for spying." Much as in the Iran/Contra scandal of the 1980s, when Oliver North set up a network of shell companies to evade the laws against arming right-wing paramilitaries in Nicaragua, the Army used Lockheed Martin to do an end run around rules limiting US military and intelligence activities in Pakistan. It should not, then, be too surprising that one of the people involved in the Lockheed-Martin-managed network was Duane "Dewey" Claridge, an ex-CIA man who had once been knee deep in the Iran/Contra affair.


Lockheed Martin wants to nuke and gaterape you, your wife, your momma and your kids

A Twenty-First Century Big Brother

There has also been a softer side to Lockheed Martin's foreign policy efforts. It has involved contracts for services that range from recruiting election monitors for Bosnia and the Ukraine and attempting to reform Liberia's justice system to providing personnel involved in drafting the Afghan constitution. Most of these projects have been carried out by the company's PAE unit, the successor to a formerly independent firm, Pacific Architects and Engineers, that made its fortune building and maintaining military bases during the Vietnam War.


Lockheed Martin wants to nuke and gaterape you, your wife, your momma and your kids

However, the "soft power" side of Lockheed Martin's operations (as described on its web site) may soon diminish substantially as the company has put PAE up for sale. Still, the revenues garnered from these activities will undoubtedly be more than offset by a new $5 billion, multi-year contract awarded by the US Army to provide logistics support for US Special Forces in dozens of countries.


Lockheed Martin wants to nuke and gaterape you, your wife, your momma and your kids

Consider all this but a Lockheed Martin précis. A full accounting of its "shadow government" would fill volumes. After all, it's the number-one contractor not only for the Pentagon, but also for the Department of Energy. It ranks number two for the Department of State, number three for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and number four for the Departments of Justice and Housing and Urban Development. Even listing the government and quasi-governmental agencies the company has contracts with is a daunting task, but here's just a partial run-down: the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Land Management, the Census Bureau, the Coast Guard, the Department of Defense (including the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force and the Missile Defense Agency), the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Technology Department, the Food and Drug Administration, the General Services Administration, the Geological Survey, the Department of Homeland Security, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Internal Revenue Service, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of State, the Social Security Administration, the US Customs Service, the US Postal Service, the Department of Transportation, the Transportation Security Agency, and the Department of Veterans Affairs.



When President Eisenhower warned 50 years ago this month of the dangers of "unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex," he could never have dreamed that one for-profit weapons outfit would so fully insinuate itself into so many aspects of American life. Lockheed Martin has helped turn Eisenhower's dismal mid-twentieth-century vision into a for-profit military-industrial-surveillance complex fit for the twenty-first century, one in which no governmental activity is now beyond its reach.

I feel safer already.

William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation and the author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex (Nation Books, January 2011). To listen to Timothy MacBain's latest TomCast audio interview in which Hartung discusses the unsettling reach of Lockheed Martin, click here or, to download it to your iPod, here.

Lockheed Martin's Shadow Government

Trackback comments




Drones Becoming Pervasive INSIDE America

Washington's Blog, May 18, 2011


AP noted last year:


Unmanned aircraft have proved their usefulness and reliability in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the pressure’s on to allow them in the skies over the United States.


The Federal Aviation Administration has been asked to issue flying rights for a range of pilotless planes to carry out civilian and law-enforcement functions but has been hesitant to act.



The Washington Post reported in January:


The operation outside Austin presaged what could prove to be one of the most far-reaching and potentially controversial uses of drones: as a new and relatively cheap surveillance tool in domestic law enforcement.


For now, the use of drones for high-risk operations is exceedingly rare. The Federal Aviation Administration – which controls the national airspace – requires the few police departments with drones to seek emergency authorization if they want to deploy one in an actual operation. Because of concerns about safety, it only occasionally grants permission.


But by 2013, the FAA expects to have formulated new rules that would allow police across the country to routinely fly lightweight, unarmed drones up to 400 feet above the ground – high enough for them to be largely invisible eyes in the sky.


***


But when drones come to perch in numbers over American communities, they will drive fresh debates about the boundaries of privacy. The sheer power of some of the cameras that can be mounted on them is likely to bring fresh search-and-seizure cases before the courts, and concern about the technology’s potential misuse could unsettle the public.


***


When KPRC-TV in Houston, which is owned by The Washington Post Co., discovered a secret drone air show for dozens of officers at a remote location 70 miles from Houston, police officials were forced to call a hasty news conference to explain their interest in the technology.


A senior officer in Houston then mentioned to reporters that drones might ultimately be used for recording traffic violations.


Campers may soon be able to regularly see something bigger and badder when climbing the High Peaks: Reaper drones flown by the New York Air National Guard’s 174th Fighter Wing based in Syracuse, New York.


And drones aren’t just buzzing over the Adirondacks. The proposal to begin training missions there is part of a bigger push to build a drone infrastructure for flying missions throughout the United States. So new drone bases are being built. The FAA is setting aside airspace for drone flights.


***


The latest example is the amendment proposed by Senators Charles Schumer (D-New York) and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) to the “FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Act” (S.223) that would increase the number of “National Airspace System” test sites from four to ten. At least one of these sites would have to include a “significant portion” of public land.


***


Although it is hard to predict where the drone infrastructure will grow, if other defense contracting projects are a reliable guide, the drone-ification of America will probably continue until there is a drone aerodrome in every state …



Given that the national security apparatus has been hijacked to serve the needs of big business and to crush dissent, it’s not far-fetched to think that information gained from drones will be used for purposes that are not necessarily in the best interests of the American people.


And as I noted earlier today, the U.S. is allowing military operations within the United States.


Remember also that Obama has authorized “targeted assassinations” against U.S. citizens.


And when John Yoo was asked last year whether drones could kill people within the United States, he replied yes – if we were in a time of war:



Of course, since the U.S. has declared a perpetual war (and see this), drones will always be in fashion.


And remember that Department of Defense training manuals consider protest to be “low-level terrorism”. And see this, this and this. And an FBI memo also labels peace protesters as “terrorists”.






Think it can't happen here in Tennessee...?






Or Rise Up...

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Racing, sex, drugs and 33 stewardesses in 14 days


MotorsportsRetro.com - Hunt and Sheene: When Playboys Ruled the World



Sir James Hunt Manho of the British Empire

Turbo charged by lust

How Formula One womaniser James Hunt slept with 33 BA stewardesses before race that made him world champ. He had spent the two weeks leading up to the race on a round-the-clock alcohol, ­cannabis and cocaine binge with his friend Barry Sheene, who was world motorcycle champion that year.

While Jackie Stewart famously abstained from sex a week before a motor race, Hunt would often have sex minutes before climbing into the cockpit.

Nothing could have prepared Patrick Head, now co-owner of the Williams F1 team but then a young car designer, for the morning when he inadvertently walked into the wrong pit garage.

He found Hunt inside, with his racing overalls around his ankles, cavorting with a Japanese girl. Hunt laughed when he saw the interloper, who left, not quite believing what he had seen.

A few minutes later, Hunt left the garage and went around the side to carry out his pre-race ritual of vomiting — the result of extreme nerves combined with overindulgence.

Finally ready for action, Hunt went out to drive the race of his life... and won the 1976 world championship, beating his nearest rival by one point."

At the circuit, he had been behaving bizarrely — at one point dropping his overalls and urinating in full view of the crowds in the grandstand.

The ­spectators, many of whom had ­powerful binoculars trained on him, applauded once he had finished.

He famously wore a tee shirt under his racing overalls that read Sex - Breakfast of Champions.

But that's not all, he ended up selling his wife too, to Richard Burton...for $1,000,000!

Thereafter he carved out a career as a TV commentator only to die prematurely from a heart attack at the age of 45.





How James Hunt really won the World Championship, "thanks to Niki Lauda's face":