You are on page 1of 31

INFORMATION FOR THE GRAND JURY 

Davidson County 
SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 
   
 
                  Photo:  Walter Brumit    
Tennessee Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission 
The photograph taken January 17, 2014 shows the Judicial Performance Evaluation 
Commission meeting, in violation of the Final Order from 1st Circuit Court Davidson 
County, TCA 17‐4‐201(b)(6) and Supreme Court Rule 27, mandating that the appointments 
to the Commission, "approximate the population of the state with respect to race and 
gender." 
 
The Commission, as seated above, is comprised of seven white men, one white woman, 
and one African‐American woman and no African‐American man. 
Information for the DCGJ Page 1 of 31 09/15/2014
INFORMATION FOR THE GRAND JURY


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

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

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

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


Information for the DCGJ Page 2 of 31 09/15/2014
 
 
 

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

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

FINAL ORDER 
  4. This Court finds that all Plaintiffs have standing to seek a 
declaratory judgment as to the validity of the composition of the Judicial 
Performance Evaluation Commission under the provisions of Tenn. Code 
Ann. 17‐4‐201(b)(6) which reads: 
  “The appointing authorities for the judicial performance Evaluation 
Commission shall make appointments that approximate the population of 
the state with respect to race and gender ...the speaker shall receive, but 
shall not be bound by, recommendations from any interested person or 
organization." 
  5. This Court finds that the language of the legislative enabling 
statute for the membership of the nine member Judicial Evaluation 
Commission language is mandatory, not permissive, and requires that the 
Information for the DCGJ Page 3 of 31 09/15/2014
 
 
 
appointing authorities for the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission 
shall make appointments that approximate the population of the state 
with respect to race and gender. 
      This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the 
population of Tennessee, according to the United States Census Bureau for 
2012 is 52% women, 48% men and 17% African‐American, rounded off. 
    This Court finds that the composition of the Judicial 
Performance Evaluation Commission consists of nine men and two women 
and therefore only represents 22% of the female population and 11 % of 
the African‐American population. 
    6. This Court concludes that the composition of the current 
Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission is invalid, ab initio under 
Tenn. Code Ann. 17‐4‐201 (b)(6) and is discriminatory against the female 
and black population of the State of Tennessee, in violation of the Equal 
Protection and Due Process clauses of both the United States and 
Tennessee Constitutions. 

Not wi t hst andi ng J udge Gayden' s Fi nal Or der of J anuar y 17,
2014, t he Commi ssi on unl awf ul l y composed of Seven ( 7) men and
Two ( 2) women met and t ook a vot e, and r ecommended al l t he
af or esai d j udges' names be pl aced on t he bal l ot f or a r et ent i on
el ect i on. The Commi ssi on made t hese r ecommendat i ons i n
“cont empt uous” di sr egar d of J udge Gayden' s or der of J anuar y 15,
2014 and t he or al ar gument of t he pl ai nt i f f s i n t hat case who
r epeat edl y r equest ed t hat t he Commi ssi on be r ecomposed i n
accor dance wi t h t he Tenn. Code Ann. 17- 4- 201( b) ( 6) and Supr eme
Cour t Rul e 27 because t he composi t i on of t he Commi ssi on
consi st i ng of Seven ( 7) men and Two ( 2) women di scr i mi nat ed
agai nst t he women and t he bl ack popul at i on, speci f i cal l y men i n
t he bl ack popul at i on, i n vi ol at i on of t hei r ci vi l r i ght s
Information for the DCGJ Page 4 of 31 09/15/2014
 
 
 
pr ot ect ed by bot h t he Feder al and St at e Const i t ut i ons.
See Appendix

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

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

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

Consequent l y, i t i s cr yst al cl ear t hat t he member s of t he
J PEC and t he member s of t he Supr eme Cour t “abused” t hei r of f i ces
and engaged i n Of f i ci al Mi sconduct Tenn. Code Ann. 39- 16- 402.
Information for the DCGJ Page 5 of 31 09/15/2014
 
 
 
Ther ef or e, under t he “r ul e of l aw” i t i s t he dut y of t hi s Gr and
J ur y t o i ssue t he r epor t t o i nf or mt he publ i c of t hi s f act under
t he Rul es of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e, Rul e 6 based upon t he af or esai d
f act s and t he l aw ci t ed her ei n. See Appendix

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

APPENDIX 
 
RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Rule 6.   THE GRAND JURY 
(e) It is the duty OF THE GRAND JURY to: 
  (1) Inquire into, consider, and act on all criminal cases submitted to it by the 
District Attorney General; 
  (2) Inquire into any report of a criminal offense brought to its attention by a member 
of the Grand Jury, 
  (3) Inquire into the condition and management of prisons and other county buildings 
and institutions within the county; 
  (4) Inquire into the condition of the County Treasury; 
  (5) Inquire into the correctness of sufficiency of county officers bonds; 
  (6) Inquire into any state or local officers abuse and,  
  (7) report the results of its actions to the court. 
    (f) Individual Grand Juror's Duty to Inform. If a member of the grand jury 
knows or has reason to believe that an indictable public offense has been committed in the 
county, he or she shall inform the other jurors, who shall investigate it.  
Information for the DCGJ Page 6 of 31 09/15/2014
IN THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY, TELJt:. ED
JOHN JAY HOOKER, WALTER ) AHI/:48
BRUMIT, and ANTHONY )
GOTTLIEB, )
Plaintiffs,
v.
LT. GOVERNOR RON RAMSEY,
HOUSE SPEAKER BETH HARWELL,
HON. ROBERT JONES, MICHAEL
E. TANT, CHRISTOPHER CLEM,
HENRIETTA GRANT, J. GREGORY
GRISHAM, RON. ROBERT
MONTGOMERY, JR., HON. J
MICHAEL SHARP, RENATASOTO
JOSEPH A. WOODRUFF, DAVID
HAINES, SECRETARY OF STATE
TRE HARGETT" GOVERNOR BILL
HASLAM, and ATTORNEY
GENERAL ROBERT E. COOPER, JR.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINAL ORDER
RICH,l,RD R. ROGKER. ClERK
 
No. 13C-S012
This cause came on to be heard on January 14, 2014, on the Defendants' Motion
To Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Application for Declaratory Judgment and an Injunction, on
Plaintiffs Motion to Amend the Amended Application to name Holly Spann as a Plaintiff, and on
the Motion to Allow and Accept Amicus Brief of Mr. James D. R. Roberts, Jr. Based 00 the
pleadings of the parties, the arguments of counsel, the applicable law and the record as a whole,
the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Information for the DCGJ Page 7 of 31 09/15/2014
I. This Court finds that Plaintiffs' general challenges to the constitutionality of the
Retention Election Statutes, Tenn. Code Ann 17-4-101, et seq. are currently pending before the
Special Supreme Court in the case of Hooker v. Haslam, No. M2012-01299-SC-Rll-CV, and
therefore, such claims shall be dismissed under the doctrine of prior case pending.
2. TIlls Court finds that Plaintiffs, John Jay Hooker, Walter Brumit and Anthony
Gottlieb have standing to challenge alleged procedural denials of their constitutional right to
present grievances before the Evaluation Commission, to challenge the conduct of any Judge
under Article 1, sect. 23 and Supreme Court Rule 27, Section 2, alleging they were denied that
right, stating a recognizable basis affording them standing both as to subject matter and personal
standing, if true.
This Court also finds that John J. Hooker by reference, is a professed judicial candidate
based on findings in the case of Hooker v. Haslam, No. M2012-01299-SC-RII-CV, and thus
has separate standing.
This Court finds that Plaintiffs' motion to amend to add Holly Spann as a Plaintiff, -
representating women of Tenoessee, is well-taken, and as such she also has standing in her
own behalf and as representative of the female population of the State.
3. This Court finds that the decision of Mander v. Board of Professional Responsibility,
M2012-0079-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 2490576 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jillle 6, 2013) is controlling as to
the issue of the validity ofTeno. Supr. Ct. R. 27, and the Plaintiffs' challenges to the
validity of Rule 27 should be dismissed.
The Court further finds that the Supreme Court has the sole authority to establish the
procedures of its agencies pursuant to Teno. Sup. Ct. R. 27 and the Supreme Court has
established the procedures for the Judicial Perfonnance Evaluation Commission.
The court finds that it is without authority or power to issue injilllctive relief against the
Judicial Evaluation Commission or its members as the sole power to administer the Judicial
Information for the DCGJ Page 8 of 31 09/15/2014
Evaluation Commission lies with the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
4. TIus court finds that all Plaintiffs have standing to seek a declaratory judgment as to
the validity of the composition of the Judicial Perfonnance Evaluation Commission under the
provisions of the Tenn. Code Ann. 17-4-201 (b )(6) which reads: " The appointing authorities for
the judicial performance evaluation commission shall make appointments that approximate the
population of the state with respect to race and gender. . . the speakers shall receive, but shall not
be bound by, recommendations from any interested person or organization."
5. This court finds that the language of the legislative enabling statute for the
membership of the nine member Judicial Evaluation Commission language is
mandatory, not permissive, and requires that the appointing authorities for the Judicial
Performance Evaluation Commission shall make appointments that approximate the population
of the state with respect to race and gender.
Tbis Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the population of Tennessee,
according to the United States Census Bureau for 2012 is 52% women, 48% men
and 17% African- American, rounded off.
This Court finds that the composition of the current Judicial Perfonoance Evaluation
Commission consists of nine men and two women and therefore, only
represents 22% of the female population of this state and 11 % of African- Americans
popUlation.
6. This Court concludes that the composition of the current Judicial Perfonnance
Evaluation Commission is invalid ab initio under Tenn. Code Ann 17-4-201(b)(6) and is
discriminatory against the female and black population of the State of Tennessee. in violation of
the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of both the United
States and Tennessee Constitutions.
7. This Court declines, however, to enjoin any further actions of the
Information for the DCGJ Page 9 of 31 09/15/2014
Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission and denies Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief
nor to declare that the actions of the Judicial Evaluation Commission "null and void", as such
declarations would invade the province of the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:
1. Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' general challenge to the
constitutionality of the Retention Election Statutes is granted;
2. Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' challenge to validity of Tenn. Sup.
Ct. R. 27 is granted;
3. Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Application on the
grounds that Plaintiffs lack standing is denied;
4. Plaintiffs' request for a declaratory judgment as to the validity of the
composition of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission is granted and the Court rules
that the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission is invalid under Tenn. Code Ann. 17-4-
201 (b)(6) and unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United
States and Tennessee Constitutions as being discriminatory toward the female and'black
population of the State of Tennessee;
5. The Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief enjoying any further actions of
the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission is denied; the Plaintiffs' petition for this court
to declare the actions ofthe Judicial Evaluation Conunission "null and void" is denied;
6. That Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend to add Holly Spann as a PJaintiffis
granted;
7. That Mr. Roberts' Motion to File an Amicus Brief is granted; and
8. That all costs are assessed against the Defendants for which execution may
issue.
Information for the DCGJ Page 10 of 31 09/15/2014
IT IS SO ORDERED.
~ 4   4 -
Judge Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.
I hereby certify that an exact and true copy of the foregoing has been mailed to:
Janet Kleinfelter
Deputy Attorney General
Office of Attorney General
P.O. Box 20207
Nashville, TeIUlessee 37202
John Jay Hooker
115 Woodmont Blvd.
Nashville, Tennessee 37205
On this the I ~ y of January, 2014.
Clerk
Information for the DCGJ Page 11 of 31 09/15/2014
-
--- -
Grand Jury
Final Report
April - June 2014
The Honorable Judge Seth W. Norman
Criminal Court of Davidson County, TN
Information for the DCGJ Page 12 of 31 09/15/2014
SEE SPECIAL CASE LAST PAGE
RE: GRAND JURY
APPEARANCE - JOHN JAY HOOKER
WALT BRUMIT - TONY GOTTLIEB
Presentment
We heard one Presentment on June 16, 2014 by Prosecutor Charles Robinson regarding
Defendant Sergio Espinosa and Defendant Joseph Progar.
Our charge was to review the "Police Shooting Disposition - Recommend no indictment ."
The grand jury heard the presentment and decided that the two poli ce officers acted
appropriately and should not be indicted.
Special Case
We were privileged to meet John Jay Hooker, who came to present a concern regarding
appointment of judges in Tennessee. He, along with attorneys Tony Gottlieb and Walter Bruit ,
brought documents from their lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Retention
Election Statues.
They stated that, according to the state constitution, it is unlawful for appellate court judges to
have their name on a ballot without opposition. Judges running unopposed must be
recommended to the governor by the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission. They stated
that the JPEC is not properly seated and is not a balanced commission, and therefore does not
fairly represent the population. They bel ieve because of this practice judges are being
unlawfully appointed by the governor and not truly elected by the public.
The case went to court and it was concluded that the JPEC was unlawfully seated and violated
the State constitution. When presented with this finding, the JPEC declined to take action to
rectify the circumstance, and in violation of the law, recommended all 22 appellate judges who
were seeking to run in a Retention Election without any candidate opposition.
This was a compelling and convincing case, and was very well prepared and presented.
However, due to time constraints by this jury, we were not able to take action. We recommend
that subsequent grand juries allow Hooker, Gottlieb and Bruit to again present their case and
allow time for steps to be taken that will bring about change in the process of electing appellate
judges in Tennessee.
In closing
We all agree that serving on the Grand Jury has been the experience of a life-time. As jurors
together for three months, we bonded as family and have enjoyed getting to know one
another. We recognized the gravity of our responsibilities and we took our charge very
seriously; however, we had a good deal of fun and laughter, and made new friends along the
way.
We were proud to serve on the Grand Jury. We come away with a broader understanding of the
criminal justice system and a deeper appreciation for the individuals who serve our community.
We believe the city of Nashville is in good hands.
Information for the DCGJ Page 13 of 31 09/15/2014
FINAL PAGE -Davidson County Grand Jury
*
* JOHN JAY HOOKER et al, - v- LT. GOVERNOR RON RAMSEY et al
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY Case No. 13C-5012
APPENDIX 
 
 
 
TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION  
  ARTICLE X, § 1. Oath of office 
Every  person  who  shall  be  chosen  or  appointed  to  any  office  of  trust  or  profit  under  this 
Constitution,  or  any  law  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  shall,  before  entering  on  the  duties 
thereof, take an oath to support the Constitution of this State, and of the United States, and 
an oath of office.  
Oath of Office
I, [Insert Name], do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of
the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Tennessee, that
I will administer justice without respect of persons, and that I will faithfully and
impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon me as Judge of the [Insert
Court & District], of the State of Tennessee, to the best of my skill and ability, so
help me God. This the [Insert Day, Month & Year].
 
SUPREME COURT RULE 10: Canon 1 
  —  A  JUDGE  SHALL  UPHOLD  AND  PROMOTE  THE  INDEPENDENCE,  INTEGRITY,  AND 
IMPARTIALITY  OF  THE  JUDICIARY,  AND  SHALL  AVOID  IMPROPRIETY  AND  THE  APPEARANCE 
OF IMPROPRIETY. 
 RULE 1.1 Compliance with the law 
   A judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct. 
 RULE 1.2 Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary 
   A  judge  shall  act  at  all  times  in  a  manner  that  promotes  public  confidence  in  the 
independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the 
appearance of impropriety. 
RULE 1.3 Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office 
   A  judge  shall  not  abuse  the  prestige  of  judicial  office  to  advance  the  personal  or 
economic interests of the judge or others, or allow others to do so. 
 
Information for the DCGJ Page 14 of 31 09/15/2014
APPENDIX 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT RULE 10: Canon 2 
Rule 2.12 Supervisory Duties 
   (B)  A  judge  with  supervisory  authority  for  the  performance  of  other  judges  shall  take 
reasonable  measures  to  ensure  that  those  judges  properly  discharge  their  judicial 
responsibilities, including the prompt disposition of matters before them. 
 
SUPREME COURT RULE 11: Supervision of the Judicial System. 
  I. General. 
  This Rule is promulgated pursuant to the inherent power of this Court and particularly 
the  following  subsections  of  T.C.A.  §  16‐3‐502,  providing  that  the  Supreme  Court  shall  have 
the power: 
… 
   (5) To take affirmative and appropriate action to correct or alleviate any condition or 
situation adversely affecting the administration of justice within the state. 
 
   (6) To take all such other, further and additional action as may be necessary to the 
orderly administration of justice within the state, whether or not herein or elsewhere 
enumerated.” 
Its purpose is as follows: 
… 
  c. To promote the orderly and efficient administration of justice within the State. 
  II. Functional improvement of judicial system – 
a. The  judicial  system  of  this  State  henceforth  will  function  as  an  integrated  unit  under 
the direction and supervision of the Supreme Court. 
 
SUPREME COURT RULE 27: Judicial Performance Evaluation Program. 
  1.04.  The  Tennessee  General  Assembly  has  enacted  laws  that  establish  a  merit‐based 
process  for  selecting  and  retaining  the  members  of  Tennessee's  three  appellate  courts.  To 
promote  informed  retention  decisions,  Tenn.  Code  Ann.  §  17‐4‐201(c)  requires  the  Judicial 
Performance  Evaluation  Commission  to  publish  reports  concerning  each  appellate  judge 
Information for the DCGJ Page 15 of 31 09/15/2014
APPENDIX 
 
 
 
seeking  election  to  an  unexpired  term  or  election  or  reelection  to  a  full  eight‐year  term.  In 
addition  to  its  primary  purpose  of  self‐improvement,  the  Judicial  Performance  Evaluation 
Program  must  provide  information  that  will  enable  the  Judicial  Performance  Evaluation 
Commission  to  perform  objective  evaluations  and  to  issue  fair  and  accurate  reports 
concerning each appellate judge's performance. 
  1.05. In Tenn. Code Ann. § 17‐4‐201(a)(1), the Tennessee General Assembly has given 
the Tennessee Supreme Court the responsibility to promulgate a rule establishing the judicial 
performance evaluation program for appellate judges. 
 
Section 2. Judicial Performance Evaluation Program. 
 
  2.01. In accordance with this Court's inherent supervisory authority over the court 
system and the judges, and pursuant to Tenn. S. Ct. R. 11, Tenn. Code Ann. § 16‐3‐501 and 
Tenn. Code Ann. § 17‐4‐201(a)(1), there is hereby established a Judicial Performance 
Evaluation Program as part of the judicial branch of state government. 
 
  2.02. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Program shall be administered by the 
Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission established by Tenn. Code Ann. § 17‐4‐201(b). 
 
  2.03. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission shall have the responsibility for 
the design, the implementation, and the day‐to‐day operation of the Judicial Performance 
Evaluation Program. The Commission's decisions shall be consistent with this rule, and the 
Commission has no power to waive or to modify any provision of this rule. 
Section 4. Evaluation Procedure for Appellate Judges. 
 
  4.01. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Program shall include the regular evaluation 
of the performance of appellate judges. The evaluations shall be carried out using 
professionally accepted methods to provide objective and reliable evaluations and to reduce 
the risk of unfair ratings and statistical comparisons. Evaluations shall be based on sufficient 
data to ensure the statistical reliability of the evaluation information. 
 
  4.02. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Program for appellate judges, in addition to 
being used for self‐improvement purposes, shall also be used for the evaluation required of 
appellate judges seeking election to an unexpired term or election or re‐election to a full 
eight‐year term under Tenn. Code Ann § 17‐4‐201(b). 
 
Section 5. Evaluation Procedure for Appellate Judges for Retention Recommendations. 
Information for the DCGJ Page 16 of 31 09/15/2014
APPENDIX 
 
 
 
 
  5.01. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission created by Tenn. Code Ann. 
§ 17‐4‐201(b) shall perform evaluations of all appellate judges seeking election to an 
unexpired term or election or reelection to a full eight (8) year term for the purpose of aiding 
the public in evaluating the performance of the appellate judges in accordance with the 
provisions of this rule. 
 
  5.02. (a) The Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission's evaluation shall be 
consistent with the criteria in Section 3.01 and shall be based on the results of the evaluation 
surveys, on the personal information contained in an approved self‐reporting form, and on 
such other comments and information as the Commission shall receive from any source. 
(b)  If,  because  of  gubernatorial  appointment,  an  appellate  judge  holds  office  less  than  one 
year before the filing deadline of a declaration of candidacy for either an unexpired term or a 
full  eight‐year  term,  and  evaluation  surveys  are  not  available,  the  Judicial  Performance 
Evaluation  Commission  shall  conduct  an  evaluation  and  make  a  retention  recommendation 
using an approved self‐reporting form, the judge's application, and other reliable information. 
 
  5.03.  The  Judicial  Performance  Evaluation  Commission,  or  a  panel  thereof,  shall 
conduct  a  public  interview  with  each  appellate  judge  seeking  election  to  an  unexpired  term 
or re‐election to a full eight‐year term. The Commission's meetings and deliberations shall be 
public. 
 
  5.04.  The  Judicial  Performance  Evaluation  Commission  may  accept,  and  in  its 
discretion,  may  solicit  public  comments  concerning  the  performance  of  the  appellate  judges 
seeking  election  to  an  expired  term  or  election  or  re‐election  to  a  full  eight‐year  term.  The 
Commission  shall  provide  each  appellate  judge  with  a  reasonable  opportunity  to  respond  to 
any  information  or  comment  received  by  the  Commission  regarding  that  judge  prior  to  the 
preparation of the Commission's evaluation of that judge. 
 
TCA §17‐4‐115 Declaration of candidacy for reelection for full term –  
 
    (a)  (1) An incumbent appellate judge who seeks election or re‐election for a full eight‐
year  term  must  qualify  by  filing  with  the  state  election  commission  a  written  declaration  of 
candidacy…. 
Information for the DCGJ Page 17 of 31 09/15/2014
APPENDIX 
 
 
 
…   (b)  (1) If  the  declaration  of  candidacy  is  timely  filed,  only  the  name  of  the  candidate, 
without  party  designation,  shall  be  submitted  to  the  electorate  in  this  state  in  the  regular 
August election. Each county election commission of the state shall cause the following to be 
placed on the ballot: 
TCA §17‐4‐201  
  (a)  (1) By  rule,  the  Supreme  Court  shall  establish  a  judicial  performance  evaluation 
program for appellate court judges. The purpose of the program shall be to assist the public in 
evaluating  the  performance  of  incumbent  appellate  court  judges.  The  judicial  performance 
evaluation  commission,  established  pursuant  to  subsection  (b),  shall  perform  the  required 
evaluations.  The  commission  shall  make  a  recommendation  either  "for  retention"  or  "for 
replacement" of each appellate court judge; provided, that the commission shall not evaluate 
or  make  any  retention  recommendation  with  regard  to  any  appellate  judge  whose  term  of 
office  is  abbreviated  because  of  death,  resignation  or  removal.  Furthermore,  the  commission 
shall  not  include  within  the  final  report,  publicly  disclosed  pursuant  to  subsection  (c),  an 
evaluation  or  retention  recommendation  for  any  appellate  judge  whose  term  of  office  is 
abbreviated because of death, resignation or removal or who fails to timely file a declaration 
of candidacy as required by § 17‐4‐114(a) or § 17‐4‐115(a), unless the judge is a candidate for 
another office subject to evaluation under this section. 
 
      (B) As soon as is reasonably practicable under the circumstances, but not less than three 
(3) days prior to the deadline for filing a declaration of candidacy required by § 17‐4‐114(a) (2) 
or § 17‐4‐115(a) (2), the judicial performance evaluation commission shall provide an 
incumbent appellate judge with a draft of the commission's evaluation and shall provide the 
judge with a reasonable opportunity to comment or respond either personally or in writing. 
 
  (b)    (1) the judicial performance evaluation commission shall be composed of nine 
(9) members. 
 
       (2) The speaker of the senate shall appoint four (4) of the members, of whom 
one (1) shall be a state court judge, two (2) shall be attorney members and one (1) shall be a 
non‐attorney. No more than two (2) of those appointed shall reside in the same grand 
division. 
 
       (3) The speaker of the House of Representatives shall appoint four (4) of the 
members, of whom one (1) shall be a state court judge, one (1) shall be an attorney, and two 
(2) shall be non‐attorney members. No more than two (2) of those appointed shall reside in 
Information for the DCGJ Page 18 of 31 09/15/2014
APPENDIX 
 
 
 
the same grand division. 
 
       (4) The speaker of the senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives 
shall jointly appoint one (1) state court judge. 
 
       (5) The Supreme Court’s evaluation procedure may permit the judicial 
performance evaluation commission to perform an evaluation with less than the full 
membership in panels, but the full commission shall approve the evaluation. 
 
       (6) The appointing authorities for the judicial performance evaluation 
commission shall make appointments that approximate the population of the state with 
respect to race and gender. In appointing attorneys to the commission, the speakers shall 
receive, but shall not be bound by, recommendations from any interested person or 
organization. 
 
TCA 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:  
(1) commits  an  act  relating  to  the  servant’s  office  or  employment  that  constitutes  an 
unauthorized exercise of official power;  
(2) commits an act under color of office or employment that exceeds the servant’s official 
power; 
(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; or  
(5) Receives any benefit not otherwise authorized by law. … 
 (d)  an offense under this section is a class E felony  

Information for the DCGJ Page 19 of 31 09/15/2014
July 18
th
 2014 
 
Arnett Bodenhamer 
Grand Jury Foreman 
Davidson County Grand Jury 
Washington Square Bldg. 
Suite 500 
222 2
nd
 Ave. North 
Nashville TN 37201 
 
Dear Mr. Foreman: 
  I  would  like  to  officially  request  that  Walt  Brumit,  Tony  Gottlieb, 
Holly  Spann  and  I  be  permitted  to  come  before  your  Grand  Jury 
regarding a matter of the highest public interest as soon as possible as 
suggested  in  the  report  of  the  previous  Davidson  County  Grand  Jury, 
before  whom  we  appeared.    Their  report  made  the  following 
observations,  regarding  the  August  7
th
  2014  election  for  appellate 
judges. 
  For your convenience the Grand Jury report said: 
…The case [Hooker, Brumit, Gottlieb &
Spann vs. Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey et
al] went to court and it was concluded
that the JPEC was unlawfully seated
and violated the State constitution.
When presented with this finding, the
JPEC declined to take action to
rectify the circumstance, and in
violation of the law, recommended all
22 appellate judges who were seeking
Information for the DCGJ Page 20 of 31 09/15/2014
to run in a Retention Election without
any candidate opposition.

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

However, due to time constraints by
this jury, we were not able to take
action. We recommend that subsequent
grand juries allow Hooker, Gottlieb
and Bruit to again present their case
and allow time for steps to be taken
that will bring about change in the
process of electing appellate judges
in Tennessee. 
   
  We  are  requesting  a  hearing  as  soon  as  possible  because  the 
election on August   7
th
 will violate The People’s rights to a legitimate 
election. 
  We subsequently have filed with the Board of Judicial Conduct the 
attached  document  and  we  are  likewise  attaching  to  this  letter  a 
document  we  filed  with  the  previous  Grand  Jury.  [Information  for  the 
Grand Jury] 
  We  believe  as  the  aforesaid  documents  reflect  that  all  the  22 
appellate Judges have violated the Official Misconduct Statute TCA §39‐
16‐402,  because  they  sought  and  received  an  unlawful 
Information for the DCGJ Page 21 of 31 09/15/2014
recommendation from the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission 
[JPEC],  well  knowing  that  they  we  violating  TCA  §17‐4‐101,  TCA  §17‐4‐
201 and Supreme Court Rule 27 for their own “economic benefit,” and 
consequently, as aforesaid, violated the criminal law.  
  They  accepted  said  recommendations  notwithstanding  the  fact 
that  the  Supreme  Court,  under  its  supervisory  powers,  Supreme  Court 
Rule  11,  had  the  duty  to  require  the  JPEC  to  operate  according  to  the 
aforesaid laws. 
  The  fact  is  in  an  effort  to  be  fair  to  the  judges  when  we  went 
before  the  Grand  Jury  we  did  not  seek  an  indictment,  despite  the  fact 
we  do  believe  that  because  of  their  criminal  conduct  the  people  of 
Tennessee  are  going  to  be  confronted  with  an  unlawful  election  on 
August  7
th
  2014,  due  to  the  fact  that  the  22  Judges  were  unlawfully 
recommended  when  the  JPEC  had  “no  power”  to  do  so  because  the 
Commission  was  mal‐apportioned  and  the  Commission  therefore  had 
“no  power”  to  make  any  recommendation  under  Supreme  Court  Rule 
27 Section 2.01, 2.03 which provides: 
Section 2. Judicial Performance Evaluation Program. 
 
…. 
2.02. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Program shall 
be administered by the Judicial Performance Evaluation 
Commission established by Tenn. Code Ann. § 17‐4‐
201(b) [(6) race and gender]. 
 
Information for the DCGJ Page 22 of 31 09/15/2014
…2.03. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission 
shall have the responsibility for the design, the 
implementation, and the day‐to‐day operation of the 
Judicial Performance Evaluation Program. The 
Commission's decisions shall be consistent with this 
rule, and the Commission has no power to waive or to 
modify any provision of this rule. 
  We feel as private citizens, under Article I Section 1, 23 and Article 
XI Section 16 of the Tennessee Constitution, we have a right to protect 
our  voting  right  and  the  voting  rights  of  all  other  citizens  from  the 
conduct of those judges who apparently determined to seek re‐election 
notwithstanding,  the  fact,  that  they  well  know  that  their  names  are 
unlawfully  on  the  ballot  in  violation  of  TCA  §17‐4‐101,  201  and 
Supreme Court 27.  
  We  come  to  the  Grand  Jury  because  the  appellate  Judges  of  the 
Courts of this State have been unable to deal with the problem in view 
of  the  fact  that  under  the  Constitution  they  have  been  “disqualified” 
because they have an “interest” in the subject matter of the case under 
Article VI Section 11. 
  As  aforesaid  we  did  not  seek  an  indictment  before  the  previous 
Grand Jury in the hopes that the Judges would announce to the public, 
and  to  the  election  officials,  that  are  no  longer  candidates  due  to  the 
fact that they know they have no right to file a declaration of candidacy 
based  upon  an  unlawful  recommendation  and  that  to  do  so  for  their 
“own benefit” made them subject to an indictment for a Class E felony 
under the Official Misconduct Statute.  
Information for the DCGJ Page 23 of 31 09/15/2014
Information for the DCGJ Page 24 of 31 09/15/2014
For the Information of the Grand Jury    
June 23, 2014 
   
   
  We promise you that if you will listen to us and read the documents we are going to give 
you  that  you  can  understand  what  we  are  saying  as  well  as  anybody,  lawyer  /  non‐lawyer  or 
whomever, this is a matter where the choice is between right and wrong.  
 
  We  have  come  here  this  morning  having  brought  a  lawsuit  to  challenge  the 
recommendation  of  the  appellate  Court  judges  to  have  their  name  on  a  ballot  without 
opposition in  August  7th  2014  the  purpose of  that  lawsuit  was  to  protect  the  people  from  an 
unlawful  election.  We  have  likewise  attempted  to  get  the  Legislature  to  be  involved  in  this 
matter  for  the  same  purpose.  This  is  not  a  partisan  or  political  conflict  this  is  a  moral  issue. 
There is a conflict between those who ignore the law and the Rule of Law.  
 
  We  have  come  here  on  a  citizen  to  citizen  basis  because  in  the  final  analysis  the 
members of the Grand Jury picked at random from the citizenry are the people’s best defense 
against  criminal  conduct.  It  is  the  Grand  Jury  that  has  the  power  to  indict  misbehaving  public 
officials or in the alternative to write reports that expose to the public their misconduct for the 
benefit of the public. 
 
  We  do  not  come  here  for  the  purpose  of  seeking  an  indictment  but  rather  for  the 
purpose of explaining the judicial crisis that confronts us in the hopes that the members of this 
Grand  Jury,  who  are  the  People’s  ultimate  protector  more  than  any  other  public  officials,  will 
consider the facts in this situation and protect the People’s right to a lawful election, so there 
will  be  no  need  to  indict  the  Judges  for  Official  Misconduct  or  otherwise,  TCA  §39‐16‐402. 
However,  if  the  Grand  Jury  were  to  subpoena  them,  they  would  soon  ascertain  that  all  the 
appellate  Judges  who  have  accepted  the  unlawful  recommendations  hereinafter  described, 
violated the law for their own economic benefit.  
 
  Unfortunately  in  the  election  of  August  7
th
  2014  ‐  22  Judges  will  be  unlawfully  on  the 
ballot,  because  in  order  to  run  in  an  election  without  any  opposition,  the  Judges  must  be 
recommended  by  a  Commission  popularly  known  as  JPEC  which  stands  for  Judicial 
Performance  Evaluation  Commission.    That  Commission  is  the  creature  of  the  law,  passed  by 
the Legislature and it must be conducted under the rules set out by the Legislature and by Rule 
11 and Rule 27 of the Tennessee Supreme Court.  
 
  In fact JPEC is part of the Judicial Branch of Government and subject to the supervisory 
power  of  the  Supreme  Court  itself.  Under  the  aforesaid  provisions  and  supervisory  powers  of 
the Supreme Court, some of which are inherent powers and others that are statutorily granted, 
the  Supreme  Court  had  a  duty  to  see  that  the  JPEC  was  properly  seated,  because  under  the 
Rules of the Supreme Court, the Commission has “no power to waive or modify any provision 
Information for the DCGJ Page 25 of 31 09/15/2014
For the Information of the Grand Jury 
June 23, 2014                                                                                                                                                                               2 
 

 
of the rule,” including the requirements for race and gender approximation. The rule is set out 
in TCA §17‐4‐201, which statute is attached hereto, as is Supreme Court Rule 27 which created 
the  JPEC,  and  Supreme  Court  Rule  11  which  gives  the  Supreme  Court  the  power  and  the 
responsibility to oversee any judicial circumstance that needs attention and gives the Court the 
power under Rule 11 (5), “to take affirmative and appropriate action to correct or alleviate any 
condition or situation adversely affecting the administration of justice within this State.”  
   
  Unfortunately,  the  Speakers  of  both  Houses  of  the  Legislature  failed  in  their 
responsibilities  under  TCA  §17‐4‐201(b)(6)  and  the  Rule  27  Sections  2.01,  2.02,    2.03  and 
Sections 4.02, 5.01, 5.02, 5.03 and 5.04,  which requires the Commission be balanced as to race 
and gender, so that all the people are equally represented. Instead, the Speakers appointed 7 
men and 2 women when in fact there are more women who live in Tennessee than men, and 
consequently  the  Speakers  obviously  violated  the  law  and  “discriminated”  against  women 
when they appointed the Commission. Therefore more than half the voters of the State are not 
properly represented by the Commission. 
 
  That circumstance occasioned by the lawsuit of Hooker, Brumit, Gottlieb and Spann vs. 
Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey et al that challenged the legality of that situation.  
 
  That  case  went  to  court  and  the  Court  concluded  that  the  JPEC  was  indeed  unlawfully 
seated in violation of the aforesaid statutes and Supreme Court Rules and likewise violated the 
Due  Process  Clause  and  Equal  Protection  Clause  of  both  the  Federal  and  State  Constitutions. 
That case was decided by Judge Hamilton Gayden of the First Circuit Court of Davidson County 
on  January  15
th
  2014.  Thereafter  on  January  17
th
  armed  with  his  opinion,  which  is  attached 
hereto  for  your  reading,  the  four  Plaintiffs  in  that  case  appeared  before  the  JPEC  and 
requested the JPEC to acknowledge that the Commission was unlawfully seated, an accordingly 
take  action  to  rectify  that  circumstance  before  the  Commission  recommended  any  Judges  for 
retention election.  
 
  The Commission astonishingly declined, and in violation of the law recommended all 22 
Appellate  Judges  who  were  seeking  to  run  in  a  Retention  Election,  without  any  candidate 
opposition  on  August  7
th
  2014,  notwithstanding,  the  fact  that  the  Commission  was  obviously 
unlawfully composed. 
 
  However,  despite  the  unlawful  conduct  of  the  Speakers  in  making  the  unlawful 
appointments,  and  despite  the  unlawful  conduct  of  the  JPEC  in  making  the  unlawful 
recommendations,  the  ultimate  judicial  crisis  was  created  by  the  fact  that  all  the  members  of 
the  appellate  Courts,  in  reliance  upon  the  unlawful  recommendations  of  JPEC,  filed  a 
Declaration of Candidacy to put their names on the ballot, in direct violation of Supreme Court 
Rule  11,  27,  and  TCA  17‐4‐201.  In  other  words,  it  is  the  Supreme  Court  itself  in  accepting 
Information for the DCGJ Page 26 of 31 09/15/2014
For the Information of the Grand Jury 
June 23, 2014                                                                                                                                                                               3 
 

 
unlawful recommendations to be on the ballot when the Court had the supervisory powers to 
require  that  the  Commission  to  act  in  a  lawful  manner  that  is  the  culprit  that  has  caused  the 
judicial  crisis  in  this  State.  That  circumstance  is  ultimately  responsible  for  the  fact  that  the 
election  on  August  7
th
  2014  will  be  in  direct  violation  of  the  law.  A  Judge  cannot  run  in  a 
Retention Election  unless the  Judge  meets the  Constitutional requirements regarding  age  and 
residency.  In  addition  a  Judge  to  run  in  a  retention  election  must  be  lawfully  recommended 
under the aforesaid rules as otherwise the Commission has “no power to waive or modify any 
provision of the Rules,” [Supreme Court Rule 27, 2.03]. 
 
  We have come here this morning to answer any question that you may have in the firm 
belief  that  each  of  you  have  the  facility  to  understand  this  circumstance  and  the  sense  of 
responsibility to do something about it.  
 
  For  all  practical  purposes  in  this  instance  your  authority  to  address  this  matter  and 
report upon it, is the People’s best hope to have the matter fairly addressed so as to prevent a 
corrupt  election,  depriving  the  people  of  their  basic  constitutional  rights,  particularly  the 
women of this State who in many instances have different issues than men, and who under the 
law  are  entitled  to  equal  representation.  The  women  of  this  State  are  entitled  to  their  full 
representation.  There  are  many  examples  where  women’s  rights  are  violated  but  none  more 
obvious than this situation that obviously discriminates against women.  
 
  We are here because we believe in the integrity and intelligence and the love of justice 
which has made each of you willing to serve on this Grand Jury.  We are therefore hopeful that 
you  will  take  the  appropriate  action  regarding  the  conduct  of  the  aforesaid  law  violators, 
because we believe that you believe that the Judges of this State cannot themselves be above 
the  law,  and  must  be  accountable  under  the  Rule  of  Law  if  we  are  to  restore  justice  in  this 
State.   
 
/// 
   
Information for the DCGJ Page 27 of 31 09/15/2014
For the Information of the Grand Jury 
June 23, 2014                                                                                                                                                                               4 
 

 
 
 
 
 
________________________ 
John Jay Hooker 
115 Woodmont Blvd. 
Nashville TN 37205 
615‐269‐6558 
johnjayhooker@hpeprint.com 
 
 
 
________________________ 
Tony Gottlieb 
4108 Brush Hill Road 
Nashville, TN 37216 
615‐405‐8083 
tonygottlieb@aol.com 
 
 
_____________________ 
Holly Spann 
21 Vaughns Gap 
Nashville, TN 37205 
615‐812‐2551 
hollyspann@hotmail.com 
 
 
 
_____________________ 
Walter Brumit 
30 East Dale Court 
Greeneville TN  37745  
423‐23‐0157 
waltbrumit@aol.com 
 
Information for the DCGJ Page 28 of 31 09/15/2014
Frank Daniels III, fdanielsiii@tennessean.com 7:08 a.m. CDT July 18, 2014
Board of Judicial Conduct complaint accuses judges of violating rules and oaths
Complaint against Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission and all judges running for retention election on Aug. 7(Photo: file)
Tennessee's judicial election season just keeps getting more interesting, and complicated.
We are so worried about the "politics" and whether we will "keep Tennessee courts fair," that we ignore serious questions about whether the August 7
elections are legal.
I do not think they are.
Judicial conduct
Thursday, J ohn J ay Hooker, Anthony Gottlieb, Walter Brumit and Holly Spann filed a complaint with the Board of J udicial Conduct against three judges
(http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1223132/complaint-to-bjc.pdf) who were appointed to the J udicial Performance Evaluation Commission (J PEC)
accusing them of violating a valid court order by deciding to proceed with evaluations and recommendations for retention elections for 22 appellate
judges.
The judges accused of misconduct are J PEC chairman Robert L. J ones, Robert Montgomery J r. and J . Michael Sharp.
Hooker et al were the plaintiffs in a suit against Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, Speaker Beth Harwell and the members of the J PEC accusing the commission of
being seated in violation of the statutory requirement that it represent the state's population in proportion to "race and gender" (TCA 17-4-201 (b)(6)). The
state is 52 percent women, but Ramsey and Harwell agreed to seat just two women and seven white men.
Ramsey and Harwell did, of course, abide by the statutory requirement appointing 3, 3, 3 – judges, lawyers and lay people; so we know they can count.
JPEC is mal-apportioned
On J anuary 15, J udge Hamilton Gayden ruled: "This Court concludes that the composition of the current J udicial Performance Evaluation Commission is
invalid ab initio under Tenn. Code Ann 17-4-201(b)(6) and is discriminatory against the female and black population of the State ofTennessee.in violation
of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of both the United States and Tennessee Constitutions."
On J anuary 17, the J PEC met to hear appeals from two judges who received preliminary do not retain recommendations from the commission. Though
the commission was comprised of six lawyers, three of whom are judges, they asked Deputy Attorney General J anet Kleinfelter to tell them whether they
could continue with their business in the face of J udge Gayden's order. I guess that since she had lost the case to Hooker et al she was an impartial
(Photo: The Tennessean)
Buy Photo
Are August 7 judicial elections legal? http://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/columnists/frank-daniels/2014...
1 of 4 7/18/2014 8:32 AM
Information for the DCGJ Page 29 of 31 09/15/2014
advisor.
Gayden refused to enjoin the J PEC, saying in open court that "his friend" J udge J ones is a responsible fellow member of the bench and would know what
to do.
Judges have rules
Gayden also knows that the Rules of J udicial Conduct forbid judges from acting in ways that undermine the "independence, integrity, and impartiality of
the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety." Quoting from Supreme Court Rule 10 Canon 1.
J ones, Montgomery and Sharp have a sworn duty to uphold the rules of conduct, and the constitutions of Tennessee and the USA.
This is the oath they each took:
"I, [Insert Name], do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Tennessee,
that I will administer justice without respect of persons, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon me as J udge of the
[Insert Court & District], of the State of Tennessee, to the best of my skill and ability, so help me God."
They did not abide by their oath. Did they?
So help me…
They did not follow their oath or the rules they swore to uphold. They allowed the J PEC to continue meeting and issue determinations that all 22 appellate
judges could place their names on the August 7 ballot unopposed.
The J PECs actions are not valid. The ballot is not valid. And we have to question whether the 22 judges who filed for retention in this environment are
themselves in violation of the Rules of Conduct.
Hooker et al make that claim in their filing too.
We should quit worrying about Democrats versus Republicans, and start worrying about a system that flouts the very foundations of its legitimacy.
Frank Daniels is the community conversations editor of The Tennessean, 615-881-7039, or @fdanielsiii
4 7/18/2014 8:32 AM
Information for the DCGJ Page 30 of 31 09/15/2014
John Jay Hooker 11:02 p.m. CDT July 28, 2014
In this retention election, the real culprit is the Supreme Court whose members' have "dishonored" their oaths of
office.
Frank Daniels III has made a great contribution by ably explaining the fact that all three branches of our state
government have been involved in the corrupt practice of having our Supreme Court "appointed" instead of
"elected."
Respectfully, however, the illegitimate election now in process must be laid at the feet of the five members of
the Supreme Court who had a responsibility to require that the J udicial Performance Evaluation Commission be
properly organized under TCA 17-4-201(b)(6) and under Supreme Court Rule 27.
That provision provides the commission shall have "no power to waive or modify any provision of the rule."
Notwithstanding, J PEC disregarded the requirement that it be seated in accordance with "race and gender"
population. Instead, the commission with seven men and two women unlawfully recommended all appellate
judges for retention election, well knowing that their recommendations were in violation of J udge Hamilton
Gayden's order, in the case of Hooker, Brumit, Gottlieb and Spann vs. Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey et al. That order
held:
"This Court concludes that the composition of the current J udicial Performance Evaluation Commission is invalid ab initio under Tenn. Code Ann
17-4-201(b)(6) and is discriminatory against the female and black population of the State of Tennessee, in violation of the Equal Protection and Due
Process Clauses of both the United States and Tennessee Constitutions."
In addition to J udge Gayden's order, Supreme Court Rule 11 provides for the "inherent power of the Court":
"To take affirmative and appropriate action to correct or alleviate any condition or situation adversely affecting the administration of justice within the
state."
When the Supreme Court failed to act, it violated the Official Misconduct statute, TCA 39-16-402, for the economic "benefit" of the judges seeking
retention election, which is a Class-E felony, well knowing that the voters were being "harmed" and deprived of their legal rights.
In 1962, I became the general counsel for The Tennessean, shortly before J ohn Seigenthaler became its editor. The newspaper under his leadership was
highly aggressive in the public interest. I represented The Tennessean in the famous case of McNabb vs. The Tennessean, where the newspaper was
sued for alleged libel in conjunction with an "unlawful election," and we won. We won because we were right, and because we knew the law. We were
right then, and I am right now, and I am writing this article in memory of my great friend and great editor.
Consequently, I want to challenge any of these judges to debate the matter, or, in the alternative, I would like to challenge Gov. Bill Haslam, Speaker Beth
Harwell or Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, all of whom have violated their oaths of office in conjunction with this election. It is particularly noteworthy that I have
challenged Gov. Haslam as an independent candidate this election year for the sole purpose of pointing out to the people of Tennessee that Haslam has
violated his oath of office under Article X, Section 3, to "see that the laws be faithfully executed."
But make no mistake: The real culprit is the state Supreme Court, whose members have dishonored their oaths of office and misled the people of
Tennessee for their political benefit.
I have said what I have said out of a sense of duty in the hope that you will vote against all these appellate judges and for the rule of law.
J ohn J ay Hooker is a "retired" lawyer who has opposed the Tennessee Plan for judicial selection and retention for over 40 years.
Read or Share this story: http://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/2014/07/29/justices-responsible-bad-election/13256267/
(Photo: handout)
J ustices are responsible for bad election http://www.tennessean.com/
1 of 2 7/29/2014 7:54 AM
Information for the DCGJ Page 31 of 31 09/15/2014