Lisa O.

Monaco VA Office of the Inspector General

Department of Veterans Affairs Office
Deputy Attorney General
of Inspector General
Department of Justice
717 14th Street, NW, 5th Floor,
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20005
Washington, DC 2053 Phone: (202) 727-2540
1-202-514-2000 Fax: (202) 727-9903
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov Email: oig@dc.gov

U.S. Navy Office of Information FBI Headquarters

Chief of Information 601 4th Street NW
Attn: US Navy Washington, D. C. 20535
1200 Navy Pentagon (202) 324-3000
Washington DC 20350-1200
Navy Public Affairs Office – (703) 693-3591 Date: 6-28-2022

Appellate Court Case Number: M2021-00487-COA-R3-CV

Chancery Court Case Number: 20-CV-50050M

To Ms. Lisa O. Monaco U.S. DOJ, VA OIG Inspector General, Chief of Information U.S.
Navy, and Christopher Wray, FBI Director:

UPDATE: The Simpkins filed a R. of App. P. “Amended” Emergency Motion under Rule
36(a) for “RELIEF” directly to Judge Clement, yet the Amended Emergency Motion was
not filed by the Appellate Court on Monday, June 27, 2021, creating another “Obstruction
of Justice” and showing discrimination by the Appellate Court and especially by the
Appellate Court Presiding Judge, Judge Clement.

This update to the DOJ, et al, concerns further deliberate interference by the Nashville Appellate
Court, the Presiding Judge, Judge Clement and James Hivner intentionally preventing the filing
of the Simpkins “Amended” Emergency Motion and Memorandum of Law with the twenty (20)
supportive evidentiary documents. This is clear “Deprivation of Rights” to “Due Process of Law”
and a clear “Deprivation of those Remedies” that the Simpkins are entitled to.

See below email from Friday, June 24th, 2022, to Judge Clement at the Appellate Court to please
file the Simpkins Amended Emergency Motion.

Please see below the image showing that as of 12:35PM Tuesday, June 28, 2022, the Simpkins
“Amended” Emergency Motion and Memorandum of Law with the twenty (20) Supportive
Evidentiary documents has not been filed.

Page 1 of 6
Further, The Simpkins discovered this email late Monday afternoon from Appellate Court Clerk,
Mr. James Hivner which his statement is both in violation of the Rules of the Appellate Court, a
Violation of the Simpkins Rights to “Due Process of Law,” a deliberate “Obstruction of Justice
and clear “Discrimination” by the Appellate Court Clerks’ Office and directly by Mr. James
Hivner from last Friday, June 24, 2022. Further, the fact that Judge Clement was provided the R.
of App. P. 36(a) Emergency Motion and Memorandum of Law last Friday and had been made
aware of what Mr. Hivner was doing before Mr. Hivner denied the Simpkins’ Emergency Motion
on Thursday, on a completely false basis based by interpreting a Rule 36(a) Motion as a
completely different rule, E. of App. P. 39 (Motion to Rehear), was a deliberate action of sedition
and a violation of the Simpkins Constitutional Rights to “Due Process of Law,” a clear
“Deprivation of Rights” to the “Due Process Clause,” and a clear “Obstruction of Justice” and
clear “Tampering of an Amended Emergency Motion” by both Judge Clement and Appellate
Court Clerk James Hivner.

URGENT NOTE: This email From James Hivner Friday June 24, 2022 – Denying the Simpkins
their “Right” to E-File any Motions, Notices, Pleadings, Memorandums of Law or any document
to the Court directly. This is clear “Prejudice” and “Discrimination
and a wanton malicious act by James Hivner, by forcing the Simpkins to file via mail which
means that he can claim the Court never received the documents or filings and he is forcing the
Simpkins to expend additional costs in ink and paper for which the Simpkins do not have the
money for in order for us to file. These are pure manipulative discriminatory abusive acts by a
Court of Law. The Simpkins again request to file charges against Mr. James Hivner and arrest
him for clear violation of the Simpkins continuous “Constitutional Rights” to “Due Process of
Law!”

These are nothing more than wanton malicious stall tactics to allow the Builder to get away with
not having to pay the Simpkins any monetary damages even after he has received a letter from
Mr. Simpkins’ Primary Care Physician to do so!

Page 2 of 6
As stated in a previous email to the DOJ, FBI, Mr. Hivner deliberately misconstrued the
Simpkins’ Emergency Motion to a R. of App. P. 39 for “Petition to Rehear” when Simpkins’
Emergency Motion was clearly a R. of App. P. 36(a) Emergency Motion for “RELIEF.” Mr.
Hivner clearly did this to ensure that the Simpkins would not receive any relief. This is intentional
to cause further harm to Mr. Simpkins knowing that Mr. Simpkins is suffering in the heat in the
Tent, and this will willful, knowing, intent to cause physical bodily injury and harm to Mr.
Simpkins and emotional distress to Mr. and Mrs. Simpkins.

Please See Included “Email Communications” from Senior Appellate Court Clerk Mr. James
Hivner to Mr. Simpkins blatantly discriminating against Mr. Simpkins and violating his
Constitutional Rights from this blatant “Retaliatory Act!, and Judge Clement allowing this to
happen is also a co-conspirator in this action by Mr. James Hiver. I am requesting charges to be
filed against both parties for violating the Simpkins Constitutional Rights for failure to properly
adjudicate the Simpkins filings and then “retaliating” when the Simpkins were requesting that
Mr. Hivner cease and desist on “tampering” with legal filings and “destruction of evidence.”

appellatecourtclerk Fri, Jun 24, 10:50 AM

to me

Mr. Simpkins:

We will review what you have submitted and attempt to ensure that what has been filed is
correct. If you believe that your filing is incorrect, you can deliver a paper copy of what you
want filed to my office and re-file it as an amended filing. For your benefit and to avoid your
need to continue to badger me through email, all future filings by you should be printed
and delivered or mailed to my office for filing. We will not be accepting any future filings
from you through email.

Have a nice day.

Jim Hivner

James M. Hivner
Clerk of the TN Supreme Court
401 7th Avenue N.
Nashville, TN 37219
(615) 741-1314

First off, Mr. Simpkins was not badgering Mr. Hivner, Mr. Simpkins was rightfully calling out
Mr. Hiver for manipulating and “tampering” with Mr. Simpkins’ filings and “destroying
evidence” to include “federal documents”. Mr. Hivner is now demanding that the Simpkins have
to mail all filings which will delay the Simpkins filings even further! These are malicious acts by

Page 3 of 6
a “Court of Law!” And an “Officer of that Court of Law!” Who is clearly acting in a
“Prejudicial” and “Retaliatory” fashion which is purely for “harassment” purposes and not in
any way in his “Judiciary” capacity. This is clear “interference with access to the Court” and
this fallacious wanton and intentional delay is a violation of the Simpkins Constitutional Rights
under the First Amendment for Petition to the Court. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996), to
press a claim of interference with access to courts.

“When the claim is of retaliation resulting from legitimate access to courts, the harm requirement
falls away and the prisoner need only show that the adverse consequences flowed from the
constitutionally protected activity. Cf. Hines v. Gomes, 108 F.3d 265 (9th Cir. 1997), cert.
denied, 118 S.Ct. 2339 (1998), Dixon v. Brown, 38 F.3d 379 (8th Cir. 1994). The court
explained that "the retaliation in itself is a violation of the constitution."

“By the Supreme Court in Ruttan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990). Whether
a harassment campaign is sufficient to state a claim under § 1983 is a question of fact, not
dismissible as a matter of law.”

The Simpkins are demanding that the DOJ, the FBI, and the VAOIG file charges against Mr.
Hiver for violating the rules and law and acting in a “Discriminatory manner” against the Veteran
because if he is requiring the Simpkins to file paper copies, then he has to require everyone else
making filing motions or notices or pleadings via mail as well. And he most assuredly is not
doing that. His actions are “Retaliatory” in nature and a flagrant violation of the Law and a
flagrant violation of the Simpkins Constitutional Rights to the First Amendment for “Petition to
the Court.”.

The Simpkins filed the Rule of App. P. 36(a) “Amended” Emergency Motion and Memorandum
of Law and the twenty (20) supporting evidentiary documents that accompanied this Motion and
Memorandum of Law to Judge Clement on Friday, June 24, 2022, and he has not filed the
Simpkins Rule of App. P. 36(a) “Amended” Emergency Motion and Memorandum of Law
either, this is a conspiracy by the Appellate Court, two perpetrators to derail the Simpkins right
to “Due Process of Law” as has been the treatment of the Simpkins by the Appellate Court all
along. The Simpkins are demanding action by the DOJ and the FBI to file charges and arrest
Judge Clement and James Hivner for “Treason” against the United Stated Constitution and this
Veteran’s Constitutional Rights to Due Process of Law, the Deprivation of those inalienable
Rights, and the Deprivation of those Remedies, R. of App. P. 36(a) “Amended” Emergency
Motion and Memorandum of Law and the twenty (20) supporting evidentiary documents.

Simpkins monetary damages for Temporary Housing to include the tear down and
rebuilding of his property. (This would include many other damages associated with the
property).

Mr. Hivner’s acts are wanton, intentional, malicious acts against the Simpkins and he has
violated the Simpkins Constitutional Rights to “Due Process of Law,” and deprivation of the

Page 4 of 6
Remedies of those Rights and a Deprivation of “Due Process Clause,” and “Tampered with
Evidence” on both a “Civil” and “Federal” level.

Civil “Tampering of Evidence.”

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-503. Tampering with or fabricating evidence.
(a) It is unlawful for any person, knowing that an investigation or official proceeding is pending
or in progress, to:
(1) Alter, destroy, or conceal any record, document or thing with intent to impair its verity,
legibility, or availability as evidence in the investigation or official proceeding;
(2) Make, present, or use any record, document or thing with knowledge of its falsity and
with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation or official proceeding.
(b) A violation of this section is a Class C felony.
T.C.A. § 39-16-503
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1.

Therefore, Mr James Hivner allegedly committed a criminal act against the Simpkins to cause
wanton, intentional harm, injury, and further delay of the Simpkins case when he filed the Motion,
but again left out the Memorandum of Law “intentionally,” and further left out several key
evidentiary documents on Thursday June 23rd, 2022. It is not an accident to ensure that the
Simpkins motions were filed and unsupported by the missing documents, as it would be denied
on its face with a quick ruling that could be performed by an Appellate Court Judge to deny the
Simpkins Emergency Motion in its entirety. This is beyond Machiavellian; this is intentional
cruelty to cause emotional distress and cause further delay against the Simpkins when they are
already suffering egregiously. (See Image Below showing single document filed).

Public Case History of the Simpkins Case Located at this Appellate Court Website Address:
https://www.tncourts.gov/PublicCaseHistory/CaseDetails.aspx?id=82323&Party=True

The Simpkins are requesting the DOJ, FBI, VAOIG to ensure that the Appellate Court properly
files our Emergency Motions, back dates the date to the official date of filing, address the issue
of conspiratorial acts by Judge Clement for “Obstruction of Justice” with Mr. James Hivner for
“Fraud” “Tampering of Evidence,” “Tampering with Federal Evidence,” and that the Appellate
Court upholds the Law. The Simpkins have submitted their request to the Appellate Court to issue
orders for full payment of $379,985,796.00 for all damages which the damages were updated to
the current month which increased the damages of which they were entitled to five years ago, and
the Simpkins have requested that relief through Rule of App. P. 36(a), Relief.

The Simpkins are entitled to “Relief” and award of damages of no less than $379,985,796
immediately.

Page 5 of 6
 The Simpkins are “again” officially requesting that Federal charges for “Mortgage Fraud”
be filed against John Maher Builders, Inc., John Maher and Tony Maher.

The Simpkins are officially requesting that the DOJ and FBI to file criminal charges
against John Maher Builders, Inc., John Maher and Tony Maher for “fraudulent concealment”
and “intentional / fraudulent misrepresentation,” which is a violation of Mr. Simpkins’
Constitutional Rights, a Deprivation of those Rights, and a Deprivation of the Remedies to those
Rights. John Maher Builders, Inc., John Maher and Tony Maher have discriminated against this
Veteran for over five years.

The Simpkins have requested that the Appellate Court correct the Opinion for making
false rulings against the following Tennessee Statutes in the R. of App. P. 36(a) Emergency
Motion and Memorandum of Law.

Therefore, in conclusion, it is clearly apparent that the Simpkins will not receive an
impartial hearing or ruling on the Tenn. Appellate Court in Nashville, TN., as has been happening
over the entire one (1) year period the Simpkins have been in the Nashville, Appellate Court and
the Simpkins are requesting that the DOJ, FBI and VAOIG to files charges, arrest the
perpetrators, overrule the false ruling by the Appellate Court in Nashville and Order the Damages
to be paid in full immediately!

Sincerely,

David M. Simpkins
Veteran U.S. Naval Warfare Submarine Unit
USS Will Rogers SSBN 659 (GOLD) CREW
And Sally E. Simpkins
Phone: (980) 443-0224
Email: d.simpkins.consultant@gmail.com

Page 6 of 6