Lisa O.

Monaco VA Office of the Inspector General

Deputy Attorney General Department of Veterans Affairs Office
Department of Justice of Inspector General
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 717 14th Street, NW, 5th Floor,
Washington, DC 20005
Washington, DC 20530
Phone: (202) 727-2540
1-202-514-2000
Fax: (202) 727-9903
Fax: (202) 616-0271
Email: oig@dc.gov

United States Secretary of the Navy FBI Headquarters

Mister Secretary, Carlos Del Toro FBI Director Christopher Wray
1200 Navy Pentagon 601 4th Street NW
Washington, D. C., 20350-1200 Washington, D. C. 20535
Navy Public Affairs Office (202) 324-3000
Phone: (703) 693-3591 Fax 202-278-2478
Command Senior Chief
seth.a.miles1@navy.mil

Tennessee Supreme Court

Chief Justice Holly Kirby
100 Peabody Place
Memphis, TN 38103
United States
Phone: 901-543-6910
Fax: 901-543-6913

1 Note: This Case Affects All Veterans And Their Homes And Housing And Will Have
2 Severe Repercussions For All Veteran Going Forward If The Courts Do Not Overrule
3 The Atrocities Of What Has Occurred In The Chancery And Appellate Courts.
4
5 Date 8-18-2023
6
7 Current Chancery Court Case Number: 20-CV-50050
8 Previous Appellate Court Case Number: M2021-00487-COA-R3-CV
9 Current Appellate Court Case Number: M2023-00666-COA-R3-CV
10
11 COMPLAINT BY THE PLAINTIFF’S / APPELLANT’S FOR UNLAWFUL DISMISSAL
12 OF THE APPELLANTS APPEAL VIOLATING THE APPELLANTS
13 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND REQUEST FOR
14 CHARGES TO BE FILED AGAINST DEFENDANTS AND OTHER JUDICIAL
15 PARTIES IN THE CHANCERY AND APPELLATE COURTS
16
17
18 TO PUT THIS BLUNTLY – THE SIMPKINS’ LIVES ARE IN GRAVE DANGER!

Page 1 of 55
 1 Note: While creating this document to present to the DOJ, FBI, SECNAV, VA OIG the Simpkins brand
2 new computer which was received on August 4th, 20231, was infiltrated and numerous documents were
3 opened and modified, recordings were opened and apparently reviewed2, and numerus legal files were
4 deleted while Mr. Simpkins was sleeping. Mr. Simpkins fell asleep in his metal chair while still connected
5 to the internet from sheer exhaustion, (constant exposure to various mold species (in the tent where he
6 resides 99% of the time), while working on other documents to present to the Courts and the State and
7 Federal Authorities concerning the computer, phone and email hacking to include that their U.S. Postal
8 Mail is still being stolen by the Defendants and the clear manipulation of a legal proceeding by Officers
9 of the Court committing alleged “Fraud on the Court” since the Simpkins filed their Complaint.
10 Note: Previous Charges filed with the Nashville DOJ, FBI and Franklin, TN, DA’s Office against Judge
11 Hood, which had no response and no action taken against Judge Hood.
12 The charges were filed against Judge Hood for refusing to provide interim damages by law which caused
13 Mr. Simpkins’ left eye to become infected and then ruptured and bled out for three days. This happened
14 within 2 days of the eye Doctor appointment where the Doctor forced Mr. Simpkins to endure the
15 excruciating bright light on a damaged eye with a severe mold infection. The Eye clinic is withholding
16 the test results of the eye swab for mold, but they released that there were no bacteria found in the
17 bacterial test. The infection and eye rupturing caused approximately 50% permanent visions loss. At the
18 time of this writing, Mr. Simpkins has a severe mold infection in his right eye which is extremely painful,
19 and he has no safety at the VA due to the VA;s egregious acts against Mr. Simpkins making false claims
20 and committing fraud on behalf of the Builder. The Builder’s reach is far and wide.
21 But there have been many more health issues that have come close to causing the death of both Mr. and
22 Mrs. Simpkins. On March 20, 2021, three days before the first Hearing on the Case with a Bench Trial
23 with Judge Martin, Mrs. Simpkins succumbed to an instantaneous and overwhelming level of mold spore
24 toxicity due to the tape sealing the Tarps to the Bed frame came apart and the Bed flooded with mold
25 spores and Mrs. Simpkins stopped breathing due to her bronchioles and lungs closing up. It took Mr.
26 Simpkins approximately five minutes to bring Mrs. Simpkins back. The Simpkins sent an email to Mrs.
27 Card, Judge Martin’s assistance to explain what happened. And three days later instead of Judge Martin
28 making the Builder address the mold issue, Judge Martin dismisses the Simpkins’ Complaint with
29 “Prejudice” just after Mrs. Simpkins had just almost died from the mold exposure. What kind of people
30 are running the Court System here in Tennessee. Who are these people who are soulless and heinous
31 actors in a Court of Law? Further, in the Simpkins’ Motion to the Court on November 7th, 2022, on Page
32 4, the notes at the bottom of the page, Mr. Simpkins had presented further health issues for Mr. Simpkins
33 and explained in detail what had happened to Mr. Simpkins. But Judge Hood ignored the warning about
34 the dangers in the property. Judge Hood didn’t even acknowledge that she heard the Simpkins concerning
35 their health and safety. The Simpkins were entitled to “interim damages” then, but she refused, stating
36 that she was not going to award interim damages at this time. Not until after the trial until late next year.
37 Those damages after the Trial are not “interim damages,” they would be an award of damages based on
38 the trial results with a Jury. The Simpkins were and are suffering horribly daily.

1
See Exhibit – ( EX-A300 - Image of New HP Computer)
2
The Simkins are not sure what they would gain from listening to the recordings, which were all of the transcripts and
communications with the Chancery and Appellate Courts. The Simpkins assume they made their own recordings.

Page 2 of 55
 1 From Page 4 Notes in (FINAL - Motion for Court Order Defendants pay Interim Damages 11-7-2022),
2 see below where Mr. Simpkins almost died in 2022 due to the high level of mycotoxins in the property
3 and tent.
4 “Excerpt from A-1 Waterproofing’s, Exhibit L2 “Mycotoxins NIH July 2003.” (Ochratoxin A is
5 a liver toxin, an immune suppressant, a potent teratogen, and a carcinogen (7, 146). Ochratoxin
6 A disturbs cellular physiology in multiple ways, but it seems that the primary effects are
7 associated with the enzymes involved in phenylalanine metabolism, mostly by inhibiting the
8 enzyme involved in the synthesis of the phenylalanine tRNA complex (28, 166). In addition, it
9 inhibits mitochondrial ATP production (174) and stimulates lipid peroxidation).
10
11 (Lipid peroxidation is an autoxidation process initiated by the attack of free radicals (e.g. OH·,
12 O 2 ः - and H 2 O 2) on phospholipids or PUFA of the membranes of cellular or subcellular
13 components, resulting in the formation of various sorts of aldehydes, ketones, alkanes, carboxylic
14 acids and polymerization products). In June of this year, Mr. Simpkins passed out twice, unable
15 to communicate to his Wife what his symptoms were with a loss of memory. Mr. Simpkins ended
16 up in the Emergency room and was discovered that he has ketoacidosis, high levels of “acetone”
17 in his blood stream. This causes, confusion, brain fog, coma, and can lead to death. The level of
18 acetone in his blood stream was the cause of him passing out coming close to entering into a coma
19 state. The mycotoxins that Mr. and Mrs. Simpkins are inundated with 24/7 is so high it is not
20 measurable due to the constant exposure after five years.
21
22 The Courts failure to take the serious life threatening health issues in the Plaintiffs toxic
23 environment is now being seen as intentional harm by the Court against the Plaintiffs. Any further
24 delay in issuing an order for interim damages will be seen as intentional further harm towards the
25 Plaintiffs by the Court and without question an intentional violation of the Plaintiff’s “Rights to
26 Remedies” of which the Plaintiffs have already proven the Plaintiffs are entitled to by law.
27
28 See effects of continuous mycotoxin exposure in the following reports, (SIMP-00A1 - A-1
29 Waterproofing Investigative Property & Mold Inspection Report for Simpkins 7-20-18): Pages 3,
30 17, 19 with references to several Government Scientific Studies of the Effects of Mold and
31 Mycotoxin Exposure. (Exhibit L – NCEZID Fact Sheet – CDC and Fungal Diseases), (Exhibit
32 L1 - NCBI - Chronic Illness Associated with Mold and Mycotoxins), (Exhibit L2 - Mycotoxins
33 NIH July 2003), (Exhibit L3 - Fungal Spores Hazardous to Health).”
34
35 This “Complaint” is to notify all Federal Agencies, of the latest law violations by several parties in the
36 Chancery and the Appellate Courts, proving blatant “Fraud on the Courts,” with a request to take
37 immediate action on behalf of the Plaintiffs / Appellants, for the outright blatant “Fraud on the Courts”
38 to include “Deleting Documents, Falsifying Documents, and Filing Fraudulent Rulings.”
39 The Appellant Court3 illegally dismissed the Plaintiffs / Appellants Case with a fraudulent and contrived
40 ruling after committing several fraudulent criminal acts with restriction / deletion/ preventing filing of
41 specific files, one of which was the key files required, “Statement of Evidence” in violating the following
42 Tennessee State4 and Federal Laws These are Officers of the Court, first the Chancery Court, Judge
43 Hood and Jakob Schwendimann, Clerk and Master. Now the Appellate Court Judges and Appellate Court

See Appellate Court Illegal Filing for Dismissal of the Appellants Case - (Order by Appellate Court Illegally Dismissing Appeal
8-7-2023)
4
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-503. Tampering With or Fabricating Evidence
Federal Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2071(a) Concealment, Removal, or Mutilation of Records

Page 3 of 55
 1 Clerks are willing to destroy our Judicial System, and our Democracy and declare War on the
2 Constitution of our United States of America. I am a Veteran, who has been attacked by not one but two
3 Courts and the Officers of those Courts with a Political Agenda to protect a Builder, John Maher Builders,
4 Inc., which their actions make it extremely obvious of the blatant criminal acts and rulings knowing that
5 the Officers of the Courts will without any reservation break the law.
6 In Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958);
7 Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United
8 States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law
9 of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated
10 that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution
11 without violating his undertaking to support it".
12
13 The Plaintiffs / Appellants proved the following alleged6 criminal acts by all actors in the Chancery
14 Court, the Appellate Court, the Defendants and the Opposing Counsel for conspiracy to commit
15 fraudulent acts in order for the Courts to help their alleged friends / political alliances avoid paying
16 damages to the Simpkins for the Judgment rendered by the Appellate Court in May of 2022 against the
17 Defendants for two (2) counts of civil fraud and two (2) counts of criminal fraud, “fraudulent
18 concealment,” and “fraudulent misrepresentation.” This was accomplished through the following
19 unlawful acts, “Unlawful Manipulation of Court Proceedings” and “False Documentation,”
20 “Manipulation, Holding, or Deletion of Documents Filed with the Appellate Court,7” “Pre-mediated
21 Fraudulent Acts in a Legal Proceeding,” and “Manipulation of Address Switching to Ensure Failure of
22 Notice to the Simpkins of Upcoming Hearings,” “Refusing to address Subject-Matter-Jurisdiction,” and
23 numerous other issues and acts by the Court including “Intentionally Denying a (Change of Venue)
24 unlawfully, by Judge Hood.” Judge Hood also refused to “Recuse8” herself even after admitting to
25 several social interactions with CEO John Maher, (which eliminates all doubt as to the posture and
26 standing of Judge Hood with a definitive bias for the Defendants, JMB, JM, and TM)9.
27 Whereby, the Plaintiffs / Appellants present Federal Statute - 42 U.S.C., Ch, 21, Sub I, § 1983;. . which
28 provides Federal Courts with the jurisdiction to render “declaratory judgment” and “injunctive relief”
29 as well as “monetary relief” over State Judges.

6
Note: All inferences to any references to criminal, conspiracy or other related accusations are all “Alleged” for clarity of this legal
document due to prior complaints that until a Judge makes a ruling otherwise, they can only be “Alleged.” The Plaintiffs beg to
differ when there is factual evidence of the stated acts and admissions by the actors themselves in their rulings or statements. Those
facts, then are not alleged criminal acts, they are definitive factual criminal acts based upon the clear distinct factual evidence of the
admissions or rulings by those parties and others who are complicit with the criminal acts of others.
7
See Exhibit, (Transcript of Kara True Filing Tech Support 8-11-2023) See Transcripts quotes on Page 26 of this document.
8
See Motion for Recusal with eighteen claims against Judge Hood, (FINAL - Plaintiff's Rule 10B Motion for Recusal 1-11-2023).
9
See Judge Hood’s Order denying recusal knowing by law that she was required to recuse herself. (Order Denying Motion to
Recuse 2-1-2023). See Page 9, Judge Hood does not deny her inappropriate behavior in the Court towards John Maher, but
attempts to state the reason she waived and smiled at John Maher is because, “she is a happy person.” But Judge Hood only
waived at John Maher and his Wife in the Court and only smiled at John Maher and his Wife in Court. Judge Hood scowled at the
Simpkins. Judge Hood also admits to several interactions at social events with John Maher, but leaves out the fact that she sat at
tables at these events and ate with both John Maher and his Wife, but attempts to downplay the interactions as insignificant. Any
social interaction creates a “Doubt” in the minds of the public as to “potential bias.” But the bias is proven by the acts of Judge
Hood upon entering the Court Room and numerous eighteen (18) other acts as detailed in the Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal.

Page 4 of 55
 1 Also, under Federal Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (2009), in a Mortgage Fraud case, “Victims in mortgage
2 fraud cases are statutorily entitled to restitution.” It is a mandatory requirement for the victims to
3 be paid for the violations of the law and the blatant frauds against the Simpkins.
4 There is an ongoing stark professional conspiracy of misconduct of the Judges, Lawyers, Chancery and
5 Appellate Court Clerks, and the Defendants committing “Breach of Contract,” “Breach of Warranty
6 Express or Implied,” Fraudulent Concealment,” “Fraudulent Misrepresentation,” “Constructive
7 Fraud,” “Promissory Fraud,” “Fraudulent Inducement,” “Theft,” “Unfair and Deceptive Practices,
8 “ and “Abandonment.” See the term “Abandonment” in the Complaint on Pg 12 lines 8 - 12,
9 (“E) the Builder’s abandonment of the Plaintiff’s one month after purchase, which was malicious
10 Retaliation against the Plaintiffs for reporting warranty issues in accordance with JMB’s own
11 instructions to its customers (See Exhibit SIMP-00A37 – JMB Required Notification of Safety
12 Issues);)

13 Pg 16, line 3, Pg 20, lines 12 – 15, Pg 29, line 18, Pg 8, line 18, Pg 9, line 6, Pg 12 line 8, Pg 15, line
14 11, (Pg 17, lines 34 – 36, and Pg 18, lines 1-6), Pg 19, line 23, Pg 20 line 8, Pg 35, lines 9-19, Pg 34,
15 lines 20 -27, Pg 36, lines 1-8, Pg 41, lines 25 & 26, Pg 42 lines 14 & 15, Pg 47, lines 20 – 27, Pg 53
16 lines 5 – 17. There are forty-nine (49) pages within the one hundred and twenty-six (126) page
17 Complaint referencing “Abandonment” and “Stonewalling” by John Maher Builders, Inc, CEO John
18 Maher and COO Tony Maher.
19 In regards to Judge Hood’s inappropriate behavior, and especially her being on the “Ethics Committee,”
20 Judge Hood shows clear lack of following any of the “Judicial Ethics.” See (State of Tennessee Board
21 of Judicial Conduct, June 26, 2023, Suspension of Judge Perry Stout). See Pages 3 last paragraph line
22 1, (interactions with Gary Marshall and Jane Doe, both of whom had active cases before him. On Page
23 4, Judge Stout having lunch with another litigant with a case before him. The Commission was going to
24 “ an officer of the court…are all attorneys” (People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626
25 [1980]). “Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court,
26 he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121
27 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial
28 machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or
29 perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted
30 or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions
31 of the court have been directly corrupted."

32 Thomas Stasel v. American Home Security Corp., 199 N.E. 798 (Ill. 1935) when any officer of
33 the court has committed "fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void,
34 of no legal force or effect. AMY In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification
35 is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's
36 impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair
37 and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147,
38 1162 (1994). That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any
39 proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888
40 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated
41 that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he
42 has received justice." "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits

Page 5 of 55
 1 in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated
2 circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
3 “Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement,
4 only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847,
5 108 S. Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance);
6 United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985)”

7 initiate formal charges against Judge Stout, but they offered him the option to resign, which he did).
8 (That is a double standard giving special and preferential treatment to a Judge which is in
9 contravention of the law by allowing complete misconduct by an Officer of the Court to go unpunished
10 when the average citizen would have been charged with a crime and be facing time in jail or prison).
11 And now he intends to run for election again so that he can violate yet another woman and the law. So
12 much for a single standard in Justice for “All.”
13 Judge Hood’s involvement with the Mahers, the Defendants, is no different than Judge Stouts
14 involvement with eating lunch with litigants before his Court. Judge Hood should have recused herself
15 and she outright refused. That is not a Judge who is on the Bench for (Justice for All), that is (a Judge
16 ensuring she stays on the case to benefit her alleged friends, the Defendants) When there is not just
17 clear doubt as to Judge Hood’s bias, but clear bias proven by the behavior in a Court of Law, and
18 accusations in a Court of Law by the Judge against the Simpkins for “trying to extort $45 Million dollars
19 out of this good man John Maher,” with her left arm pointing to him, that goes well beyond appearance
20 of partiality, it proves clear partiality by the Judge. Judge Hood also defended Attorney Brewer, but the
21 wording is now different than our notes quoting Judge Hood, (that he was a fine upstanding Attorney in
22 the Community, that he would not send a virus to someone’s computer.) That statement and others were
23 allegedly either modified or removed from the December 13th, 2023 Transcripts. (The only Transcripts
24 the Simpkins received was a copy that came from the Chancery Court). There were several attorneys in
25 the Court that day, on December 13, 2022, who could testify to her statements.

26 The Simpkins demand an answer as to what possible defense could the Defendants, the
27 Builder, JMB, present to a Court or Jury when JMB “Abandoned10 11 the Simpkins”
28 after the very first month of ownership of a two (2) Year / 10 Structural Warranty, and
29 in Violation of the Federal Document, “Warranty of Completion of Construction12,” 13
30 14
and have not been back to the property since the first month of ownership from the
31 day Simpkins purchased the property on August 4th, 2017?

10 Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-510. Prohibited acts. For; Abandonment or willful failure to perform, without justification
11
“Breach of Contract” (“Based upon our review of the record, we find no merit in the Jones brothers’ argument that the
evidence preponderates against the conclusion that they, not the Andersons, breached the contract by abandonment”).
Catherine Smith Bowling, et al. v. Todd Jones, et al. - E2007-01581-COA- R3-CV – (Filed May 16, 2008).
“The abandonment of a contract gives rise to a cause of action for breach.” Gillespie v. Broadway Nat’l. Bank, et al., 68
S.W.2d 479, 482 (Tenn. 1934).
“Warranty of Completion Of Construction.”
13
The actions by JMB, JM and TM falls under the “False VA form 26-1859, form HUD-92544 titled Claims Act,” 31
U.S.C. § 3729(a) False Claims Act
Further Federal Violations; 18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Sec. 1001 - Statements or entries generally), false and fraudulent
“Warranty of Completion of Construction.

Page 6 of 55
 1 When the Simpkins filed their Motion for Recusal of Judge Hood, with no less than eighteen proven
2 claims against Judge Hood proving both inappropriate behavior as well as incorrect and unlawful rulings
3 as well as violation of the Simpkins’ Constitutional Rights to “Due Process pf Law” and “Deprivation
4 of those Rights to Remedies as allowed by Law, Judge Hood refused to recuse herself. Therefore, the
5 Simpkins’ “FINAL - Plaintiff's Rule 10B Motion for Recusal 1-11-2023), disqualified Judge Hood,
6 again.
7 See Appellate Court Tribunal, hereinafter, (ACT), statement concerning the Simpkins’ evidentiary
8 exhibits. Presiding Judge, Judge Frierson’s Statement concerning the “Authenticity” of the Simpkins’
9 Evidentiary “Exhibits” being “Unquestioned” in Case Law, (David Simpkins, et. al. v. John Maher
10 Builders, et. al. No. M2021-00487-COA-R3-CV (May 4th, 2022)).
11 “We note that exhibits attached to the complaint whose authenticity is unquestioned”
12 may be considered by the trial court without converting the Tennessee Rule of Civil
13 Procedure 12.02(6) motion to dismiss to a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56 motion
14 for summary judgment. Felker v. Felker, No. W2019-01925-COAR3-CV, 2021 WL
15 3507745, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. 22 Aug. 10, 2021).”
16 What Judge Frierson did was to declare that the Simpkins had proven by law, that there was no “genuine
17 dispute” of “material facts” based on the evidence the Simpkins presented to the Appellate Court.
18 Further, Judge Frierson also invoked the “Judicial Notice” on the Simpkins’ preponderance of evidence
19 which under the Tennessee Statute, Tenn. R. Evid. 202 is mandatory. What this means is that “the court
20 will instruct the jury to accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed.” In this case, all of the Simpkins’
21 “evidence” has been “Judicially Noticed.” The jury must accept our factual evidence as conclusive. The
22 Defendants cannot present evidence to contradict the “Judicially Noticed” “factual evidence.” But when
23 Judge Hood ignored Judge Frierson’s instructions, also known as a Court Order from a Superior Court,
24 that is not only grounds for reversible error, (if it was an actual error on the part if the Court), in this case
25 it is not, but it becomes “Fraud on the Court” by the Officer of the Court. In this case, Judge Hood
26 intentionally and with malicious intent, violated the law and the Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights to “Due
27 Process of Law.” Judge Hood also committed further violations of the Law and Federal Laws with
28 “Intentional Interference with a Legal Proceeding,” “Manipulation of the Law,” “Manipulation of a
29 Legal Proceeding to obtain a certain outcome for the Defendants,” to include, “Obstruction of Justice,”
30

31 Appellate Court Clerk (Elizabeth) Concerning the Mandate Not Being Sent Down To The
32 Chancery Court for 5.5 Months
33 The Simpkins had contacted the Appellate Court on September 21st, and 22nd 2022, to determine if the
34 Mandate with the “Opinion had been sent back down to the Chancery Court without the Simpkins being
35 notified due to Attorney Brewer filing a Motion with interrogatories and admissions in opposition to the
36 instructions of Judge Frierson to “Take Judicial Notice” of the Simpkins Exhibits as Evidence in their
37 case, The answer was even more strange and complex based on what Appellate Court Clerk stated. She

18 U.S. Code § 1010 - Sec. 1010 - Department of Housing and Urban Development and Federal Housing Administration
transactions,
18 U.S. Code § 1012 - Sec. 1012 - Department of Housing and Urban Development transactions,
18 U.S. Code § 1031 - Major fraud against the United States), [This Federal Statute, 18 U.S. Code § 1031, Applies due to
the Mortgage is a VA Loan backed by the Federal Government, which is the United States.)

Page 7 of 55
 1 stated that the case was done, it was over, This shocked Mr. Simpkins when he had received a notice
2 from the Court of a Win for “Breach of Contract,” “Breach of Warranty Express or Implied,” “Fraudulent
3 Concealment,” and “Fraudulent Misrepresentation.” See Appellate Court Clerk Elizabeths incredulous
4 statements below15.
5 Transcripts From Elizabeth Of The Appellate Court: Dated September 22, 2022
6 “Please listen to the following options before making your selection. You may make your selection at
7 any time, one, for Court of Criminal Appeals, please press two for the Appellate Court Cost Center,
8 please press three for the Clerk's office.
9 This is Eileen.
10 David Simpkins: Eileen, I called yesterday and I got an answer back that my case has not been remanded
11 back down to the Chancery Court yet. Is that still the same today? Because I got an unusual message
12 from the opposing counsel.
13 Eileen: Let me transfer you. Hold on.
14 David Simpkins: All right.
15 Elizabeth: Appellate Courts. Elizabeth.
16 David Simpkins: Yes, I'm trying to find out if my case is still just in limbo or pending in the Appellate
17 Court.
18 Elizabeth: What’s your case number?
19 David Simpkins: 00487
20 Elizabeth: Yeah, what's your name?
21 David Simpkins : I can barely hear you.
22 Elizabeth: What's your name?
23 David Simpkins: David Simpkins
24 Elizabeth: Uh no, it looks like it's over and done with, there was ah, the petition to rehear was denied
25 back in July 6. That's the last thing we have.
26 David Simpkins: So, there’s, but I mean, it's not been remanded back to the Chancery Court, correct?
27 Elizabeth: No, no.
28 David Simpkins: Okay, and why is that? Is there a reason?
29 Elizabeth: You would have to file something, when it was uh, this case has been disposed of.16

15
Please note that during the conversation, it was obvious that Elizabeth was being guided to make certain statements based
on the changes in her voice as if she were reading from a note pad or someone telling her wat to say. This should be
investigated thoroughly.
Elizabeth has just stated that the case has been disposed of causing a rising panic in Mr. Simpkins. Mr. Simpkins would
learn later that this is a tactic used to make Pro Se Litigants think that their case is over and just walk away from it to never

Page 8 of 55
 1 David Simpkins: Well, it doesn't require me to file anything. By the Rule 43, it's automatically remanded
2 back to the Chancery Court after the opinion and the judgment are filed within eleven days, especially
3 when the opposing counsel is not allowed to file an appeal because of fraud. So, I'm not sure why I'm
4 still in the Appellate court. That's why I filed the motions for relief.
5 Elizabeth: Your not, this was, this was over and done with back in July. So, you're not in the Appellate
6 Court anymore?17 If you want, I can send you a copy of the order if you didn't get it. It was issued, uh
7 July 6.
8 The replies from Appellate Court Clerk Elizabeth get even more outrageous from here on, but Mr.
9 Simpkins is only going to put her statements in here so that the Authorities can see how the Appellate
10 Court was intentionally and unlawfully delaying the Mandate back down to the Chancery Court for 5.5
11 months without any legal or otherwise justification.
12 David Simpkins: Your, but I’ve not been, okay, so I'm not in the Appellate Court anymore, but I’m not, it
13 has not been remanded back to the Chancery Court, correct?
14 Elizabeth: I can't speak for the Chancery court. You would have to call them.
15 Elizabeth: Because the order says, uhm, that the mandate does not start due to untimeliness of the
16 petitioner rehear. The 60 day mandate runs from the opinion date at 07-08 of 22.
17 Elizabeth: It's just not been mandated yet. It might just be that the mandate clerks are busy, and they
18 haven't gotten around to it because the time is, I think it should be by now. So, it just has not been
19 mandated yet18.
20 This proves the collusion and corruption in the Chancery and Appellate Courts along with the collusion
21 between the Courts and Attorney Brewer. This was also proven when Attorney Brewer allegedly wrote,
22 approved and filed an Order on behalf of the Chancery Court illegally and did so with Judge Hood
23 involved. She even makes the claim that she was working in her office that day and was waiting on the
24 file from Attorney Brewer. How would Judge Hood even know that he was going to file the Order that
25 day if they did not work that out before, And how did they both have the exact same timestamp on their
26 respective documents with the same exact time stamp if they were in two different offices at different
27 locations? He answer is patently false. The January 2nd Order proved collusion and Ex Parte
28 communications between Judge Hood and Attorney Brewer. See on Pages 3 and 4, Para 3, description

address it again and the Courts will file an “Abandonment” ruling against the Plaintiffs thus giving an unlawful win to the
Defendants.
Appellate Court Clerk, Elizabeth has just made a clear statement that the Simpkins are not in the Appellate Court
anymore and further that “this was over and done with back in July.” Mr. Simpkins went from panic to an anxiety attack
causing difficulty in breathing.
18
Mr. Simpkins called back later and talked to a different Court Clerk who handled the entry of Appeals and Briefs and
issuing the Mandate back down to the lower Court. When Mr. Simpkins asked how large the backlog on the Appellate
Cases were after an Opinion and Mandate had been issued, the Clerk asked, what do you mean. When Mr. Simpkins
clarified, she stated, we don’t have back logs for remanding cases back down, it is a simple matter of taking the information
from the Tribunal and creating the documents and issuing the Mandate to the lower Court. Mr. Simpkins asked how long
that usually took. The Clerk stated it goes by the rules usually within thirty days. Mr. Simpkins asked why his case was
there for 5.5 months. The clerk looked at the record and stated that someone had incorrectly or intentionally set it that way
from the looks of what she was reading, because if you file for the same rule with an amended filing, the additional time is
not implemented twice for the same issue. She said that the entry was a separate entry by someone else after the entry was
created, she stated this is all wrong here and your mandate should not have taken more than thirty days at most.

Page 9 of 55
 1 of the alleged collusion between Attorney Brewer and Judge Hood in Plaintiff’s Motion for recusal,
2 (FINAL - Plaintiff's Rule 10B Motion for Recusal 1-11-2023).
3 Elizabeth: And it is automatic, it just hasn't been done yet. I mean, there's a tickler in here, just, I think
4 they just probably have a lot of them. They get a little bit backlogged. So, its uh, it just has not been
5 mandated yet19.
6 Elizabeth: But the petition to be here was denied back in July, and it is set to be mandated.20

7 Elizabeth: There's nothing for you to do right now, but just, just sit and wait.

8 Elizabeth: But, yeah, um, but yeah you're done here. It just has not been mandated yet, so it's not in the
9 Chancery Court yet. Uh, I would think that just in the next couple of days, they'll probably get it done, but, but
10 not yet.21

11 Mr. Simpkins will now add back in his statements and replies because it became crystal clear that there
12 were unlawful acts with conspiracy between the Defendants Attorney, Paul Brewer and the Appellate
13 Court.
14 David Simpkins: Okay, well Attorney Brewer filed a Motion and some other documents to the Chancery
15 Court which is why I was trying to determine if the Appellate Court had sent the Mandate and I was not
16 notified.
17 Elizabeth: Oh, he filed his motion then? Already?
18 David Simpkins:: Uh, well, uh, yeah, yesterday. Why?
19 Elizabeth: Well, we will put a rush on the Mandate and get it right down to the Chancery Court.
20 David Simpkins: Wait, were you aware he was filing a motion?
21 Elizabeth: Yes, we were waiting for him to tell us he was going to file it and we were going to send the
22 Mandate down before just before he did that.
23 David Simpkins: Oh, you can do that?
24 Elizabeth: Yes.
25 David Simpkins: Oh, I was not aware of that. Hmm. Uh, okay I guess. But is that allowed that you
26 are in communication with the Attorney and know what his intentions are and that you were holding
27 the Mandate all this time until he was ready to file his motion.

Appellate Court Clerk Elizabeth is now making statements 180 out from what she was stating before, bringing into
question as to whether or not she had been playing Mr. Simpkins all along to get him to make derogatory comments. She
has proven that she has been manipulating Mr. Simpkins all along.
It is crystal clear at this time that Mr. Simpkins is being played and that there is no “petition,” it is an Opinion, with a
Judgment waiting to be mandated back to the Chancery Court.
So, after 5.5 months of unlawfully holding the Simpkins’ “Opinion, Judgment, and Mandate” hostage all of a sudden it
will be sent down within a couple of days! This is clear manipulation by the Appellate Court against the Simpkins violating
their Constitutional Rights to “Due Process of Law,” and a “Deprivation of those Rights to remedies.”

Page 10 of 55
 1 Elizabeth: We will get the Mandate down tomorrow morning. Thank you.22 **Click.**
2 Mr. Simpkins apologizes to the Court for the profanity below, but Mr. Simpkins wasn’t sure he was
3 allowed to modify or delete it. Again, sincere apologies for the profanity. Mr. Simpkins was in slight
4 shock at what he just heard.
5 David Simpkins: Well shit. What the fuck was that about? Oh my God, they are fucking working
6 together. Unbelievable. The corruption just keeps going on and on and on.
7 Image of Date Mandate was issued upon Appellate Court Clerks learning that Attorney Brewer had filed
8 his motion. The Appellate Court Clerks rushed the Mandate down to the Chancery Court the very next
9 morning, after holding the Mandate, “Opinion and the Judgment” unlawfully for 5.5 months with no
10 legal justification to do so.
11 Image of Date of Mandate Issued After 5.5 Months of the App. Ct. Unlawfully Holding the
12 Mandate

13

14 Judge Frierson’s Instruction To Chancery Court to “Take Judicial Notice” of the “Authenticity of
15 the Simpkins’ Preponderance of Evidence” :
16 Judge Frierson also instructed the Chancery Court to “Take Judicial Notice23” on the case due to the
17 preponderance of the evidence as stated above was due to the “authenticity of the exhibits are
18 unquestioned.” Tenn. R. of Evidence 202 is mandatory by law. Once the Appellate Court instructed the
19 Chancery Court to take “Judicial Notice,” and Judge Hood refused to do so and start a large fourteen

22
After hearing that Attorney Brewer had filed “his motion” to the Chancery Court, the Appellate Court sent the Mandate
down to the Chancery Court the very next morning just like Appellate Court Clerk Elizabeth stated. See image on the same
page.
23
Tenn. R. Evid. 202. (Rule 202 - Judicial Notice of Law (a) Mandatory Judicial Notice of Law.)

Page 11 of 55
 1 (14) to sixteen (16) month trial arguing over the evidence, what was in clear contravention of the ACT’s
2 Ruling, specifically Judge Frierson’s instructions, is an intentional violation of the law and a deliberate
3 act to force the Simpkins into a long term litigation that the Court knew that they were unaware that was
4 the intention of the Court. Because of this, Judge Frierson was stating that the evidence did not need to
5 be proven requiring a lengthy trial. Judge Frierson was stating that the Simpkins had already proven their
6 case based on the “preponderance of evidence” whose “authenticity” was “unquestioned.” This was
7 why the Simpkins were shocked that the opposing Counsel sent a motion to the Chancery Court which
8 included interrogatories and admissions (even prior to the Chancery Court having subject-matter-
9 jurisdiction) over the case. The Appellate Court had not to date remanded the case back to the Chancery
10 Court,24 (illegally holding the Simpkins’s Mandate, Opinion and Judgment hostage without legal
11 justification to do so for 5.5 months). This was after the ACT had already established that no Trial was
12 required to make a ruling on the case and to assess damages by law and binding authorities.
13 See below, “An Underappreciated and Misapplied Tool of Efficiency”
14 [Defense Counsel Journal, Judicial Notice: An Underappreciated and Misapplied Tool of
15 Efficiency Volume 84, No. 2, February 07, 2020, Daniel A. Dorfman and Michael C. Zogby]
16

17 “Judicial notice has long-standing roots. Based on the ancient adage “manifesta non indigent
18 probatione,” or “what is known need not be proved,” judicial notice is one of the oldest
19 doctrines in common law history. Originally, judicial notice was a tool of convenience, used by
20 trial judges with broad authority based on their own common knowledge.
21 Eventually, however, Federal Rule 201 and its state counterparts paved the way for judicial
22 notice to focus less on the common knowledge of judges, and more on the source of the fact.
23 This seemingly slight change has broadened the application of the rule, and coupled with the
24 technological revolution, opened the door to an infinite amount of noticeable material.”
25 “The object of this rule is to save time, labor, and expense in securing and introducing evidence
26 on matters which are not ordinarily capable of dispute and are actually not bona fide disputed,
27 and the tenor of which safely be assumed from the tribunal’s general knowledge or from slight
28 research on its part. . . It thus becomes a useful expedient for speeding trials and curing
29 informalities.”25
30 Under federal practice, the court ruling on a motion to dismiss may take judicial notice of matters of
31 public record or similar matters that meet the judicial notice test, without converting the motion to
32 dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. See, e.g., Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.,
33 127 S. Ct. 2499, 2509 (2007). Judge Frierson applied the same application of the Rule to the Simpkins
34 case because of how they presented their claims, causes of actions, and their factual preponderance of
35 evidence which proved their case.
36 Wigmore identified three general classes of matters that were authorized to be judicially
37 noticed:

See Transcripts from Elizabeth, Appellate Court Clerk; (Transcripts App. Ct Elizabeth 9-22-2022).
John Henry Wigmore, The Pocket Code Of The Rules Of Evidence In Trials At Law § 2120 (1910) (emphasis added).

Page 12 of 55
 1 A. Matters which are necessary for exercising the judicial functions and are therefore likely to
2 be already known to the judge by virtue of his office;
3 B. Matters which are actually so notorious in the community that evidence would be
4 unnecessary;
5 C. Matters which are not either necessary for the judge to know nor actually notorious, but are
6 capable of such positive and exact proof, if demanded, that no party would be likely to impose
7 upon the tribunal of a false statement in the presence of an intelligent adversary.
8 This meant a fact could be judicially noticed where it was: (a) already known; (b) obvious;
9 or (c) so easy to prove that no intelligent person would contradict it.
10 “The United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Piper, 91 U.S. 37 (1875), provides a good
11 example of judicial notice during the early common law period. In that case, Piper filed an
12 action to prevent Brown from infringing on his patent for preserving fish using a freezing
13 mixture. Brown denied that Piper held a patent on the freezing mixture, and further denied the
14 novelty of the invention. The circuit court upheld the validity of Piper’s patent.”
15 The Supreme Court reversed. Relying on judicial notice, the Court held that evidence of what
16 is old and in general use at the time of an alleged invention is admissible. In this instance, the
17 Court noted that the freezing mixture was already well-known and used frequently at the time,
18 for example, in preserving a corpse, or in animals which were found undecomposed in the ice
19 of Siberia and “which must have been embalmed in ice for ages26.”
20 The Court added that to require proof of every fact “would be utterly and absolutely absurd,”
21 and that “[c]ourts will take notice of whatever is generally known within the limits of their
22 jurisdiction; and, if the judge’s memory is at fault, he may refresh it by resorting to any means
23 for that purpose which he may deem safe and proper.” This case illustrates a classic example of
24 the benefits of judicial notice, and the obvious results that stem from its application: a freezing
25 mixture used to preserve fish is not novel when anyone can look around to see ice has been
26 used for years to preserve other items.
27 Other areas in which judicial notice has been used include verifiable documents, historical
28 events, well-settled scientific facts, and most commonly, geographic locations. This is “for the
29 obvious reason that geographic locations are facts which are not generally controversial[.]”
30 Other famous, but less obvious examples of judicial notice at common law include Gilbert v.
31 Flint & P.M. Railway 16 N.W. 868, 869 (Mich. 1883) Wolfe v. Missouri Pacific Railway, 11
32 S.W. 49, 51 (Mo. 1889) and Jacob & Flint & PMR Co., 105 Mich. 450, 63 N.W. 502 (Mich.
33 1895)28 (taking notice that an ordinarily prudent person would not jump from a moving train)29.

26
Id. at 43 (quoting Tit. “Antiseptic,” 1 AMER. ENCYCLO. 570).
27
16 N.W. 868, 869 (Mich. 1883) (taking notice that a freight car resting on a highway is not likely to frighten horses of
ordinary gentleness).
28
11 S.W. 49, 51 (Mo. 1889) (taking notice of the nature, operation, and ordinary uses of the telephone).
105 Mich. 450, 63 N.W. 502 (Mich. 1895) (taking notice that an ordinarily prudent person would not jump from a moving
train)

Page 13 of 55
 1 But Judge Hood outright ignored the instruction and proceeded to a full blown new trial per her words
2 from the December 13th, 2022 Status Hearing, because she stated that there had never been a trial.
3 Further, incredulously, Judge Hood states that the evidence the Simpkins presented to the Court,
4 “was…. not…. evidence….but allegations” Judge Hood made this shocking statement after Judge
5 Frierson had already stated that the Simpkins’ exhibits,’ (which are “evidence),” the “authenticity was
6 unquestioned.” Is Judge Hood operating from the same Rule Book that everyone else is? Or is there a
7 different Rule Book or Definition of Evidence? Or was she attempting to convince the Simpkins that
8 they were wrong even though Judge Frierson had already stated the Plaintiffs / Appellants were correct?
9

10 Definition of “Exhibits” – (Cornell Law - LII Wex exhibit - A document, photograph, object, animation,
11 or other device formally introduced as evidence in a legal proceeding).
12 Definition of “Exhibits” – (Black’s Law Definition of Exhibit: According to Black’s Law Dictionary
13 (11th ed. 2019), an exhibit (in court) is a “document, record, or other tangible object formally introduced
14 as evidence in court.”)
15 Judge Frierson from the Simpkins’ “ACT Opinion from May 4th, 2022,” (David Simpkins, et. al.
16 v. John Maher Builders, et. al. No. M2021-00487-COA-R3-CV (May 4th, 2022);
17 “We note that exhibits attached to the complaint whose authenticity is unquestioned” may be
18 considered by the trial court without converting the Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6)
19 motion to dismiss to a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56 motion for summary judgment.”
20 Judge Hood’s statement exactly as stated from the (Transcripts of Proceedings 12-13-
21 2022 ); Pag 10, line 25, Pg 11, lines 1 – 6;
22 “What you have filed is not evidence, it's allegations. It is your case. It is what you're
23 wanting to prove at trial. We have not had a hearing. There has been no evidence
24 submitted to this Court, none. It's not evidence. It's your allegation. It is not
25 evidence.”
26

27 TIME FOR ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY THE AUTHORITIES TO CORRECT THE

28 UNLAWFUL ACTS BY THE COURTS AND OFFICERS OF THE COURTS AGAINST THE
29 SIMPKINS
30 The Simpkins have provided the DOJ, FBI, DA, SECNAV and the VA OIG with all the required
31 information needed to prove the Simpkins’ claim against the Chancery Court, and Officers of the Court
32 and the violations of the Tennessee State Statutes and Federal Laws associated with the Simpkins Case.
33 The Simpkins have without any doubt proven the extraordinary lengths the Court is willing to go to, to
34 unlawfully derail and dismiss the Simpkins case to the benefit of the Defendants. This is clear
35 unmitigated “Fraud on the Court” by Judge Hood.
36 All Agencies have been informed of the situation and know the appropriate action to correct the
37 violations of Constitutional Rights of the Plaintiff’s, the Simpkins’ to ensure the law is upheld, and to
38 address the issues for the Simpkins’ Health and Safety, and to address the issues for the entitled “Interim

Page 14 of 55
 1 Damages” by law as presented in this legal document and numerous other motions and notices to the
2 Chancery and Appellate Courts which were outright denied unlawfully to benefit the Defendants.
3 Transcripts From Kara Of True Filing System Tech Support: Dated August 11th, 2023
4 The Simpkins will provide even further proof as if what has already been provided isn’t enough, that the
5 Chancery and Appellate Courts intentionally and maliciously conspired against the Simpkins as the audio
6 recordings and the transcripts will prove. And to ensure the Chancery and Appellate Courts caused
7 intentional delay to demoralize and harm the Simpkins, they waited seventy-one (71) days before they
8 stated that the Simpkins did not file the “Docketing Statement,” but never mentioned that the
9 “Transcripts” or the “Statement of Evidence” were missing. But knowing full and well that the Simpkins
10 filed all required documents on May 5th, 2023 to both the Chancery and the Appellate Courts. Then the
11 Courts did not notify the Simpkins whether or not their June 12th filing had been filed until the Simpkins
12 received a notice from the Appellate Court stating that the Simpkins did not file the “Transcripts” or the
13 “Statement of Evidence.” This was a completely false statement.
14 To prove that the Chancery and Appellate Courts committed fraud on the Courts, the Simpkins have
15 provided an extremely damaging transcript from August 11th, 2023 from the True Filing Tech Support
16 person, Kara. (The name may not be correctly spelled). She stated it clearly that the Appellate Court
17 “had not filed the Simpkins July 28th, 2023 Motion nor any of the Exhibits which is tampering with
18 evidence30, a deliberate act to withhold a damning motion with evidence that proved without question
19 the Simpkins’ Case. But Appellate Court Clerk James Hivner and other Appellate Court Clerks did
20 exactly that, withheld all of the Simpkins’ exhibits which are their evidence for the motion. And
21 somehow deleted or withheld or caused some type of system error to prevent the “Statement of
22 Evidence” from ever being filed, yet once again. This proves that each time the Simpkins filed their
23 Statement of Evidence, it was somehow deleted, destroyed, prevented from being filed. This was a clear
24 wanton, malicious act, to contrive a false reason to dismiss the Simpkins appeal from the Appellate Court
25 illegally. Charges need to be filed against Mr. Hivner for the clear violation of both State and Federal
26 Laws. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-503(a)(1);
27 a. It is unlawful for any person, knowing that an investigation or official proceeding is pending
28 or in progress, to:
29 1, Alter, destroy, or conceal any record, document or thing with intent to impair its verity,
30 legibility, or availability as evidence in the investigation or official proceeding
31 Please note the following statements, several times, by True Filing System Tech Support person, Kara,
32 states that the Simpkins Motion and Exhibits were not filed, (with the exception that the Motion showed
33 as filed, but was not immediately available to the public).

34 Page 3 Line 129: K - You do have an unsubmitted bundle within the history section in your
35 account. (What Kara was referencing as stated in the transcripts is that some files did not get
36 filed. And since the Defendants have access to the Simpkins’ computers, phones, and email, that
37 means the Defendants have all of the Simpkins’ passwords, and each time the Simpkins change
38 their passwords, the perpetrators have the new passwords immediately. Therefore, they have

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-503(a)(1)(b)

Page 15 of 55
 1 access to the Simpkins True Filing System Account and can delete, add or modify anything they
2 choose).
3
4 “Page 5 – Lines 201 – 204: K – Okay I just checked everything and none of the
5 exhibits on the 28th are not filed, the Motion itself is filed. See that status there, if
6 you click on the status it will bring up more information and on the top right you
7 will see they are showing paid, but not filed. That means the files are not viewable
8 by the Court or the public.”
9
10 Page 5 Lines 208 – 210: K – It seems a lot of them are only saying paid,
11 (undecipherable speech), there are certain documents here that, all on the 7, 7 28
12 that are still within the page status that are within the workflow of the Court, the
13 Court never officially filed any of those.
14
15 Page 6 Lines 236 – 237: K – Yeah, paid means it’s in the last status within the workflow
16 of the Court, the Court hasn’t officially filed those docs.
17
18 Page 6 Line 247: K – The ones that you submitted on the 28 of July are not filed and
19 they are in the paid status within the workflow of the Court.
20
21 Page 6 Line 250: DS - Which means what?
22
23 Page 6 Line 252: K – That the Court never filed your documents.
24
25 Page 6 Line 254: DS - Why?
26
27 Page 6 Lines 256 – 257: K – I can’t answer that unfortunately that would be a
28 question for the Court since the Court is the one that is supposed file them, they
29 would be the ones to move it to that file status.
30
31 Page 7 Line 308: K – Yeah, so your motion is not officially filed.
32

33 This shows and proves that the Simpkins July 28th, 2023 Motion and Exhibits were intentionally not
34 filed so that Mr. Hivner could dismiss the case by making a false claim to the Judges that the Simpkins
35 did not file the “Statement of Evidence” as required nor any supporting evidence for the Motion,
36 therefore the Court dismissed the Simpkins’ case illegally due to “Fraud on the Court” via “Tampering
37 of the Filing and Evidence.”
38 The first notification by the Appellate Court was on June 8th, 2023, which was by Lisa Marsh, Appellate
39 Court Clerk. Ms. Marsh stated that the Chancery Court informed her that the Simpkins had not filed the
40 “Docketing Statement.” The Simpkins then resent all the information they sent when they filed the
41 Amended Notice of Appeal with the Amended Statement of Issues, which included the Transcripts and
42 the Statement of Evidence. But the Simpkins did not hear from the Chancery Court whether or not their
43 Notice to the Court concerning the documents were filed.

Page 16 of 55
 1 Then, Jakob Schwendimann, Clerk and Master of the Chancery Court sends an email stating that the
2 Simpkins did not file the “Statement of Evidence,” when they had on 5-5-2023, then again on June 12th,
3 2023, with the Amended Statement of Issues, the Docketing Statement and the Transcripts.
4 Mr. Simpkins states this when calling the Chancery Court after having sent three (3) times the following
5 documents via mail because the Chancery and Appellate Courts had denied the Simpkins the ability to
6 file documents with the Court via email or thumb drive digitally, the Simpkins have been forced to file
7 via paper documents mailed in or via one of the approved E-Filing Systems approved by the Courts. The
8 only Free E-Filing System was the True Filing System which the Simpkins signed up with on May 4th,
9 2023.
10 Conversations Transcript Sections with Clerk and Master, Jakob Schwendimann.
11 Page 1 Lines 19 -20: “DS - Uh, I just responded to your, your email. I'm about as, uh, fit to be tied as
12 can be. Um, we have, we have sent everything we can to you.”
13 Jakob Schwendimann states this from the Transcripts from August 2nd, 2023,
14 Page 1 Lines 22 – 25: “JS - Well, let me tell you, let me tell you, Mr. Simpkins, and I apologize, I don’t feel good
15 about it, but I have to do my job okay, when, when we have an appeals, the Court of Appeals expects us to
16 send them a notice about these certain items on there and we sent that to them, they sent uh, another order
17 granting some more time ..click silence…”

18 The Simpkins believe that this is an admission of guilt by Mr. Schwendimann, (where he is stating, “I
19 don’t feel good about it”), who is accidentally admitting to receiving the documents the Simpkins were
20 required to send to the Channery Court, and then sending them to the Appellate Court, (send them a
21 notice about these certain items on there and we sent that to them), but then stating that the Appellate
22 Court was sending another Order granting more time. Based on what basis, to falsely contrive that the
23 Simpkins were not sending in the documents, to make it appear that the Simpkins were not filing the
24 basic documents? These statements by Mr. Schwendimann the Simpkins believe are clearly an attempt
25 of Mr. Schwendimann’s to clear his conscience.
26 Mr. Schwendimann openly and freely admits that he called and discussed with the Appellate Court what
27 they should do about the Simpkins;
28 “JS - I called them and told them and they said go ahead and send the notice like you normally would, so that’s
29 what I did. And I have to do that, it is not anything against you, it’s just what…”

30 The first question is this, should there even be direct communications between the Chancery Court and
31 the Appellate Court and secondly should the Clerk and Master of the Chancery Court be clearly
32 coordinating with the Appellate Court about the Simpkins? Because Mr. Schwendimann openly admits
33 to calling the Appellate Court and discussing exactly “what?” with the Appellate Court? Is this where
34 they are laughing at the Simpkins and conspiring to keep throwing away or destroying the documents
35 the Simpkins have repeatedly sent to the Chancery and the Appellate Courts? Are they enjoying making
36 the Simpkins’ lives a living hell even further than it already is?
37 The Simpkins respond with these statements to Mr. Schwendimann, Mr. Simpkins meant the Chancery
38 Court but accidentally stated the Appellate Court due to being extremely stressed out and exhausted

Page 17 of 55
 1 because they are restricted to sending all filings through the U.S. Post Office, but that restriction has
2 ensured that the Court cam make the false claims that they are not receiving anything from the Simpkins:
3 Page 1 Lines 34 – 39: DS - I, I, no, I get that. But the, the, the issue that I'm having, my biggest struggle,
4 is we're mailing things to you via US Mail because the last time we sent it digitally in to the Appellate
5 Court, they didn't like the digital, they liked the digital, but they don't want the digital, which I don't
6 understand. So, we were just sending the documents. Now, I will tell you, the, for the first time ever,
7 we received a notice from the Appellate Court on the 20th. We've not received any notices from you,
8 and I've told you this since January of this year. (2023)
9 Mr. Simpkins was clarifying to Mr. Schwendimann that there had been no notices from the Chancery
10 Court concerning the two hearings which were set for March 7th, and April 4th. The only reason the
11 Simpkins learned of the April 4th hearing was due to Mr. Simpkins calling the Chancery Court and
12 speaking to Mr. Schwendimann when Mr. Simpkins stated that the Simpkins had not received any notices
13 from the Court, or from the opposing Counsel and Mr. Schwendimann’s statement was that there had
14 been no filings from the Chancery Court since the January Order on January 2nd, 2023. That brings in
15 the question then, if there had been no filings in the Chancery Court since January 2nd, were the hearings
16 that claimed to have take place on March 7th, and April 4th, actual hearing dates, or were they
17 manufactured hearing dates by the Court to force the Simpkins case out of the legal system unlawfully?
18 Then the Appellate Court sends a notice to the Plaintiffs which is received on July 20th, six (6) days after
19 the date of Notice of July 14th, that the Simpkins did not file “Transcripts” or the “Statement of Evidence”
20 in order to make a false claim the Simpkins did not file those documents as well as the “Docketing
21 Statement.” And again, later claiming that the Simpkins did not file the “Statement of Evidence” at
22 different time at a much later time to drag the case out against the Simpkins, again to force them into
23 foreclosure and to illegally dismiss their case from an Appeals Process.
24 What is worse, the Simpkins, once they received the notice from the Appellate Court on the 20th of July,
25 the Simpkins did file the “Statement of Evidence” again with both the Chancery and the Appellate Courts
26 on July 28th, 2023. But the Chancery Court makes the statement that they did not receive any documents
27 from the Simpkins.
28

29 NOTES: IMPORTANT FOR CONTEXT OF COMPLAINT WITH COMMUNICATIONS AND

30 ONGOING HACKING OF THE SIMPKINS’ PHONES, COMPUTER, EMAILS, AND U.S.
31 POSTAL MAIL AND FEDERAL MORTGAGE FRAUD
32 NOTE 1: The Chancery Court, the Appellate Court, the DOJ, the FBI, the U. S. Postal Inspector and the
33 Williamson County, Franklin, TN District Attorney’s Office have all been notified that the Simpkins mail
34 is being stolen daily. Let us put this in the proper perspective. The Builder has been receiving the
35 Simpkins mail for over two years and not one of the aforementioned Agencies or Judiciary has done
36 anything to stop the “Theft” of the Simpkins’ U. S. Postal Mail.
37

38

39

Page 18 of 55
 1 Image of Exhibit (Address stolen by John Maher Builders as of 9-12-2022)

3 Judge Hood made the incredulous statement that the image above was an envelope and (that the
4 Plaintiffs argument with respect to this matter are “without merit).” And she never says anything about
5 the Audio Recording of the U.S. Postal Customer Service Person, (Sarah), that she also saw the same
6 thing as Mr. Simpkins. In order to ensure that the Simpkins cannot readdress the possible error by the
7 Court, Judge Hood prevents the Simpkins from being able to respond to her intentionally blocking ruling,
8 “and the Court will not reconsider this Order.” That is literally stacking the deck against the Simpkins
9 in clear favor of the Builder, allowing them to continue to intercept and steal the Simpkins mail, making
10 Judge Hood complicit with the alleged Federal Criminal Acts of the Mahers. And Judge Hood proves
11 that with her statements that even if the Simpkins provide evidence to the Court, it is just an allegation.
12 From the (Transcripts of Proceedings 12-13-2022), Pg 20, lines 6 – 16,
13 “You can -- you file about how John Maher Builders is doing all sorts of illegal activities. None of
14 that has been proven to the Court. I'm not going to tell you that you can't allege that they've done
15 illegal things; I'm just telling you until it's proven in court, I'm not finding that they've done
16 anything illegal. You have to prove it in court. I'm not telling you, you can't allege it, but it has not
17 been proven. It is just an allegation, just an allegation.”
18 Does anyone else see an issue here with the fact that above the Simpkins provided two (2) concrete
19 pieces of evidence, an image from the U.S. Postal Website, and an Audio Recording with a U.S. Postal
20 Customer Service Representative, (Sarah) seeing the same thing and stating that Corporate Adress should
21 not be there to begin with and should not be on the Simpkins personal home address! Isn’t the entire idea
22 of presenting “exhibits” to the Court, that it becomes as “evidence” to the Court, WHICH THE
23 SIMPKINS PRESENTED EVIDENCE, but Judge Hood acted as if the Simpkins did not present
24 anything? Are the Simpkins off their rocker here, or is Judge Hood completely out to lunch? This does
25 not just prove complete bias, this proves extreme bias by an Officer of the Court committing open and
26 blatant “Fraud on the Court!”

Page 19 of 55
 1 The Simpkins are very concerned about a Judge, sitting on the Bench, who cannot discern the difference
2 between an envelope and an (image) of a United States Post Office Website. Meaning, Judge Hood knew
3 exactly what she was looking at, but chose to make an alleged false and fraudulent ruling to protect the
4 Builder, her alleged friend.
5 To make matters worse, Judge Hood completely, unprofessional and irresponsibly, made sure that she
6 did not care whether the Simpkins received any notices from the opposing counsel or the Court at all;
7 From the (Transcripts of Proceedings 12-13-2022), Pg 19, lines 9 – 13,
8 “From here on out, anything that is sent to you on this address that's listed on this
9 document and this e-mail address, I don't care whether you received it or not.”
10
11 Judge Hood made it very clear that the Defendants did not have to send any notices to the Simpkins nor
12 was the Court required to send notices, because Judge Hood just allowed failure of notices to the
13 Simpkins to ensure that the opposing Counsel could get away with not sending notices to the Plaintiffs!
14 This is an Officer of the Court telling the Defendant’s Attorney that she will turn a “Blind Eye” if they
15 choose not to send a notice and that the Court will do the same thing as the Defendants. That is collusion,
16 conspiracy to commit “Fraud on the Court,” and violate the Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights openly in a
17 Court of Law!
18
19 Please see the image below from the Chancery Court, (Order From Chancery Court 11-15-2022), Page
20 5 Para 1.

21

22 To make this perfectly clear, the only mail that the Simpkins were receiving, were the Notices from the
23 Appellate Court and some junk mail with other people’s names on them since May of 2023. The
24 Simpkins did receive their first Notice from the opposing Counsel and the Court, after the Simpkins case
25 was dismissed by Judge Hood.
26 As the above (top) image shows, this is the United States Post Office Official Website to determine Zip
27 Code address extensions. What Mr. Simpkins nor the US Postal Support Representative expected to see
28 was the Builder’s Company Name on the Simpkins home address, as it clearly shows above, John Maher
29 Builders, Inc., is on the Simpkins’ property address, instead of the Simpkins’ names, which explains why
30 the Simpkins have not been receiving their mail. Further, even when the Court ordered the Simpkins to
31 get a new P,O, Box address, the Court had to know that the Simpkins were making legitimate claims and
32 that there could be people at the Franklin, TN Post Office that would be willing to do the bidding of the

Page 20 of 55
 1 Builder. John Maher of John Maher Builders, has key people in all the right places so that he can control
2 everything. And he has done that since day one.
3 To Make This Perfectly Clear, Please Do Not Send Mail Or Notices To The Simpkins Home
4 Address, 1375 Round Hill Ln, Via The United States Post Office, or UPS, or FedEx. The Simpkins
5 Will Not Receive Any Letter, Envelope, or Package Sent Directly Through The Aforementioned
6 Services. The Communications Or Other Items Sent Will Be Intercepted.
7 The Only Way To Ensure The Simpkins Receive The Communications From The Tennessee
8 Supreme Court, Tennessee Appellate Court, Tennessee Chancery Court, Federal Agencies Or State
9 Agencies Is By Phone, (931) 398-4085 or Personal Courier.
10 NOTE 2: The Simpkins are requesting “Restraining Orders” to be issued against, John Maher, Tony
11 Maher, all the family members, and all employees of John Maher Builders, Inc., and all Subcontractors
12 of John Maher Builders, Inc., and all friends, of John Maher Builders, Inc., and Realtors and Associates
13 involved in the Marketing, Presentation and Sale of John Maher Builder products for the protection of
14 the Simpkins. The Simpkins’ lives have been threatened repeatedly, harassed by numerous people and
15 neighbors (who admitted John Maher asked them to harass the Simpkins), and the Simpkins firmly
16 believe their lives are in danger. (Especially when the perpetrators have violated the Simpkins’ Network
17 Router, Computers, then copied all files from the computers, then destroyed all computers, evidence, all
18 legal files numerous times, forcing the Simpkins to recreate what they were able to from files attached
19 to emails and obtaining what Motions and Exhibits that the Simpkins had filed with the Courts.
20 Therefore, the reason and need for a comprehensive restraining Order.
21 NOTE 3: The Simpkins’ computers, emails, phones, and network router have all been hacked and the
22 criminal perpetrators have access to everything including theft of the Simpkins’ identities. Since all
23 authorities have been notified, the question becomes, who is addressing any of these issues even though
24 they have been reported to the Chancery Court, the Appellate Court, the DOJ in Nashville, FBI in
25 Nashville, FBI at NTOC, FBI at IC3. Who has taken any action to put a stop to these criminal acts?
26 Therefore, sending emails to the Simpkins will tip off the perpetrators. Until the PROPER Authorities
27 hold the Builder and his associates accountable to the Law this will never stop. Until a Cease and Desist
28 Order is issued to all of the Defendants, the theft of the Simpkins U.S. Mail, will never stop. The
29 Simpkins have put up with the atrocities of John Maher Builders, Inc., John Maher and Tony Maher and
30 their Counselor as well as the Chancery Court Actors and the Appellate Court Actors. Who will hold
31 them all accountable to the law?
32 NOTE 4: This is not just a Civil Case, this is also a Federal Case for Federal Mortgage Fraud, due to the
33 fact that Mr. Simpkins is a United States Naval Warfare Submarine Veteran. And Mr. Simpkins has a VA
34 Loan which is backed by the Federal Government. This is also criminal case by the aforementioned
35 criminal acts committed against the Simpkins by all the parties listed in this document and the Cover
36 Letter. The DOJ and the FBI were notified in 2018 of the Mortgage Fraud. Then both were notified again
37 in 2019. The Simpkins presented two (2) three (3) ring binders filled with a preponderance of evidence.
38 But to date, the FBI has not stated whether or not they performed the investigation or just suppressed the
39 Simpkins’ case in favor of the Builder. The Simpkins believe, five (5) years later when they were told it
40 would take three years to investigate the Mortgage Fraud, proves that the FBI suppressed the Simpkins’
41 case for the benefit of the Builder. It is incredible that the DOJ and FBI are allowing the Builders theft
42 of money from the United States Government, that they work for.

Page 21 of 55
 1 NOTE 5: The Simpkins Won their case the day they filed their Complaint against John Maher Builders,
2 Inc., based on the laws that Judge Martin and Judge Hood both knew about but showed indisputable bias
3 and protection of John Maher Builders, Inc., their friends CEO, John Maher and COO, Tony Maher. It
4 was also proven that the Simpkins’ claims were valid by the May 4th, 2022 Appellate Court Tribunal
5 Ruling with the Opinion and Judgment in favor of the Simpkins for the four counts of fraud against the
6 Defendants,
7 NOTE 6: (Note 5) was proven when the Appellate Court Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the (ACT),
8 ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs / Appellants, Pro Se Litigants, David and Sally Simpkins.
9 The Appellate Court ruled in favor of the Appellants with a Judgment for the following violations;
10 a. “Breach of Contract”
11 b. “Breach of Warranty Express or Implied”
12 c. “Fraudulent Concealment”
13 d. “Fraudulent Misrepresentation”
14 The ACT determined that the Plaintiffs had a “Breach of Contract,” as well as a “Breach of Warranty,”
15 in the “Opinion” on Page 20, Para 1, lines 11-19. Further, the Plaintiffs also proved to the Court that the
16 Plaintiffs had established and met all the requirements for “Fraudulent Concealment” which the ACT
17 covered in the “Opinion” on Page 29, Paras 4 and 5 respectfully.
18 “Accepting the allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaint as true, we determine that Plaintiffs’ factual
19 allegations have satisfied the following elements required to demonstrate fraudulent
20 concealment:
21 (1) Defendants affirmatively concealed and/or failed to disclose material facts regarding a cause
22 of the injury to Plaintiffs’ property despite a duty to do so; (2) Defendants knew that Plaintiffs
23 had been injured and the identity of the wrongdoer; and (3) Defendants concealed material
24 information from Plaintiffs by “‘withholding information or making use of some device to
25 mislead’ the plaintiff in order to exclude suspicion or prevent inquiry.” See Redwing, 363 S.W.3d
26 at 463. Moreover, “[w]hether the plaintiff exercised reasonable care and diligence in discovering
27 the injury or wrong” is typically a fact question for the trier of fact to determine. Wyatt v. A-Best
28 Co., 910 S.W.2d 851, 854 (Tenn. 1995).”
29 “We conclude that a trier of fact could determine that Plaintiffs, in the exercise of reasonable
30 6care and diligence, could not have discovered this potential cause of their injury until
31 January 2018 due to Defendants’ attempts to conceal this cause. If so, the statute of limitations
32 would not have begun to run until that date, rendering Plaintiffs’ claims subject to the three-year
33 statute of limitations timely filed.”

34 Further the Appellate Court did not dismiss the below following claims, which the Simpkins had
35 proven were valid, as Judge Frierson stated in the Opinion referring to the “Authenticity” of the
36 Simpkins’ “Exhibits / Evidence” was “Unquestioned.”
37 The additional claims that were proven by the Appellate Court Upholding the Claims are, (“Constructive
38 Fraud,” “Fraudulent / Intentional Misrepresentation,” “Promissory Fraud,” and “Fraudulent
39 Inducement”). That shows that the Appellate Court agreed that the Simpkins had eight (8) legitimate
40 claims out of the thirteen (13) that they filed. But two of the claims dismissed by the Appellate Court
41 were incorrectly dismissed as other previous Appellate Court Case Law proved for “Unfair and

Page 22 of 55
 1 Deceptive Practices,” and “Theft.” When there is “fraud,” the Appellate Court has stated that there is
2 “theft.” And if there is “fraud” that “Unfair Deceptive Practices” are a natural result of the “fraud.”
3 NOTE 7: When Tennessee provides coverage of a property’s structure for 10 years, the Courts should
4 take this into consideration and give the 10 year warranty on the structure of the property its due when
5 it comes to the Statute of Limitations. The majority of the issues with the Plaintiffs / Appellants property
6 were structural in nature as determined and detailed in the Professional Expert Reports provided by eight
7 different companies.
8

9 Judge Hood’s Alleged False and Fraudulent Claims

10 Further that Judge Hood made the alleged false and fraudulent claim that the Plaintiffs did not introduce
11 anything new31 in their response to Judge Hood’s contrived and unlawful dismissal of the Plaintiff’s
12 Complaint with Prejudice, just like Judge Martin did. Both Judges knowing the fraudulent acts of their
13 dismissal of the Plaintiffs Complaint, when both Judges knew that the Plaintiffs had properly filed their
14 Complaint, with the correct and appropriate “Causes of Actions,” knowing that the Simpkins were not
15 past the “Statute of Limitations,” and further by the proof of the “Abandonment” by JMB, JM and TM
16 after the first month of ownership with an Appellate Court “Opinion” for a ruling in favor of the Plaintiffs
17 / Appellants day one. “Abandonment” in and of itself is a well-known issue in Tennessee Law and
18 numerous case laws address the issues under “Breach of Contract.”
19 The clear “Abandonment” by the Defendants, John Maher Builders, Inc., hereinafter referred to as
20 (JMB), CEO John Maher, hereinafter referred to as (JM), and COO Tony Maher, hereinafter as (TM),
21 after the first month of ownership of the property located at 1375 Round Hill Ln, Spring Hill, TN 37174.
22 The Defendants did not respond or communicate with the Simpkins concerning the Reports the Simpkins
23 submitted to the Defendants as the Defendants requested that the Simpkins provide. The Defendants
24 stated they required the reports so that the Defendants knew what the issues were and what was required
25 to resolve the issue. The Simpkins later learned that it was the responsibility of the Builder to perform
26 the investigation and address all issues under the warranty.
27 “Judge Hood making the statements of no new information when the Simpkins presented the discovery
28 of the pre-existing Tennessee Statutes that literally Won their case upon discovery of the Statutes,” as
29 well as the discovery of “Federal Statutes32” that entitled the Simpkins to immediate restitution as well
30 as coverage for the “Mortgage Fraud” and finally, the failure of Judge Hood to notify the United States
31 District Court of the “Mortgage Fraud” and that the United States District Court had undeniable
32 “Subject-Matter-Jurisdiction” which neither the Chancery Court nor the Appellate Court notified the
33 United States District Court of these facts violating the Plaintiff’s Rights to “Due Process of Law.” See

The Simpkins presented to the Chancery Court the following newly discovered pre-existing Tennessee Statutes that the
Court was aware of and should have by law brought the statute before the Court for a “Fair and Just” legal proceeding, but
instead, (railroaded) the Plaintiff’s Case out of the Court under a contrived and knowingly unlawful ruling.
1. Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-510. Prohibited acts. For; Abandonment or willful failure to perform, without justification;
2. Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-511. False Documentation
3. Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-512. Criminal Penalty, commits a Class A misdemeanor. 32 Each violation is deemed a
separate offense.
32
Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 98 (1945) (quoting legislative history)

Page 23 of 55
 1 Simpkins’ Motion to the Chancery Court, (Response to Court Dismissal of the Simpkins Complaint 4-
2 24-2023), and Plaintiffs / Appellants response to the Defendants which also contained the new
3 information, (Plaintiff's Response to Defendants Frivolous Motion Sanctions Demanded 5-2-2023).
4

5 Federal Laws Bringing Into Question Whether State Courts Ever Had Subject-Matter-
6 Jurisdiction
7 Federal Law showing the United States District Court in Nashville should have “Subject-Matter-
8 Jurisdiction” which the Plaintiffs / Appellants presented to both the Chancery Court and the Appellate
9 Court to properly notify the United States District Court or to transfer all of or the appropriate portion
10 of the case by Federal Law; (18 U.S. Code § 3231 - District courts. “The district courts of the United
11 States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the
12 laws of the United States).”
13 Section 242 is intended to "protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights and furnish the
14 means of their vindication."
15 See Federal Case, Verified Complaint, for “Jurisdiction,” Jane Doe v. WBM, WOM, Ash
16 Bowers, Jimmie Allen, and John Does 1-100, 3:23-cv-00477;
17 The Simpkins claim that the United States District Court has “subject-matter-jurisdiction” based on the
18 following Federal Statutes for the violation of their Constitutional Rights, Deprivation of those Rights,
19 and violation of the 14th Amendment relating to those rights:
20 “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
21 the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
22 abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
23 of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
24 equal protection of the laws.”

25
26
27 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
28
29 1. The United States District Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
30 § 1331 because this action arises under the laws of the United States. This Court also
31 has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
32 2. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (a)–(d) because, inter alia,
33 substantial parts of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the
34 District.” This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 with
35 this Complaint arising under a violation of rights conferred by federal statutes and the
36 Constitution of the United States of America.
37 3. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy
38 Against Rights, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of
39 Law, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245 - Federally Protected Activities, 28 U.S.C. §
40 1343(a)(3) because this action seeks redress for a deprivation of rights, under color of
41 state law, of rights secured to Plaintiff by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
42 Constitution of the United States of America.

Page 24 of 55
 1 4. Plaintiff asserts claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which authorizes action to
2 redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights, privileges, or immunities
3 secured to Plaintiff by the Constitution or laws of the United States of America in
4 actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
5 5. This Court is a proper venue for this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and
6 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because one or more defendants reside in this judicial district
7 and all defendants are residents of the State of Tennessee. Additionally, a substantial
8 part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred within this judicial
9 district.
10
11 The Plaintiffs / Appellants have proof of all that they present in this update. The Simpkins are asking for
12 charges to be filed and arrests to be made against all parties involved based on the indisputable transcripts
13 with (available) audio files and the documented unlawful actions by all parties to commit not alleged,
14 but actual conspiracy to commit “Fraud on the Court,” “Fraud in a Legal Proceeding,” “Setting a
15 hearing date and time on the same day and time that Mr. Simpkins had his first appointment with his
16 new primary care physician,” “a Contrived Hearing Date knowing Mr. Simpkins could not attend even
17 after being notified with proof of his appointment time,” “Manipulation of the address to mail Legal
18 Court Notifications,” by the Court in violation of the Court’s own Order to use the new P.O. Box Address,
19 to an address that the Court and the opposing counsel knew that the Simpkins would not receive such
20 notifications, to their home address which would be intercepted by the Builder, John Maher Builders,
21 Inc.
22

23 I. Transcripts Prove Collaboration Between the Appellate Court and the Opposing Counsel,
24 and Between the Chancery Court Clerk and Master and the Appellate Court, and or Mr.
25 James Hivner
26 The transcripts alone are alarming, audio files that the Simpkins still have will be (available) upon
27 request for the Transcripts Judge Hood had ordered the Simpkins to obtain a “New Physical Address,”
28 knowing that they did not have the funds to do so34. But Judge Hood threatened the Simpkins if they did
29 not get a P.O. Box address to receive Court Notices, Filings, Motions, documents, etc. The Simpkins did
30 as Judge Hood ordered. But after the first month, both the opposing counsel, Attorney Brewer and the
31 Court, Judge Hood, both at the “same exact time,” started sending communications to the Simpkins’
32 home address knowing that they would not receive any communications from the Court because those
33 communications would go to the Builder’s Work or other designated address, they had provided the
34 United States Post Office. They did this for the March and April Hearings. See Plaintiff’s Motions to the
35 Court, (FINAL - Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Damages 10-11-2022 ), (FINAL - Plaintiff's Motion
36 to Reconsider Award of Damages 10-31-2022), and (FINAL - Motion for Court Order Defendants pay
37 Interim Damages 11-7-2022).

Please note that numerous files and recordings were tampered with by unknown parties after they hacked into the
Simpkins Computer before all files and the drive destroyed on the previous HP Computer of the Simpkins. Mrs. Simpkins’
Brother is a Microsoft Expert as well as a Microsoft Security Expert and he was able to restore some of the deleted files,
but some files are missing data or will not open or some audio files either will not play or are not complete audio files
missing some of the audio recording. Many of the files that were too damaged were deleted.
See Exhibit, (Chancery Court Order to Obtain a New Address 10-28-2022).

Page 25 of 55
 1

2 II. Pre-Note: Previous Appellate Court Transgressions and Alleged Tampering of Filed Court
3 Documents
4 Numerous documents that the Simpkins filed with the Court have been edited according to an Adobe
5 Support Technician who declined to write up a report of his findings concerning several PDF files that
6 were edited that are the PDF files open to the public on the Appellate Court Website. These “damaged
7 files” (later to be found out that they were edited in a non Adobe PDF Software which changed the
8 format and made them appear to be damaged). The Appellate Court never addressed the issue of the
9 damaged files. Further, the Chancery Court had tampered with the “Technical Record” which was
10 reported to the Chancery Court with no response and reported four (4) times to the Appellate Court with
11 denial of all their Motions and Notices to the Appellate Court about the “Tampering of Evidence” by the
12 Chancery Court. It is clear they were covering each other by ignoring the Plaintiffs / Appellants because
13 they could do and say what they wanted because they knew no one was going to hold them accountable
14 to their illegal acts. See Motions and Notices to the Appellate Court of the “Tampering of the Technical
15 Record,” See Exhibit, (FINAL 4th Notice to App. Ct. of Evidence Tamp. 10-26-21).
16 A. Alarming Discoveries After Communication With The True Filing Tech Support
17 Person – Kara – Date: August 11th, 2023
18 On August 11th, 2023, talking to True Filing Tech Support person, Kara, in trying to determine why
19 several files were missing that the Simpkins filed, it was discovered that there was a bundle of files that
20 had not made it through the system to be posted, (which Mr. Simpkins has also seen this before as well
21 but was not able to open it), which Kara had the same experience and it is estimated that there were ten
22 (2) files missing from the July 28th, 2023 filing. One of those files was the “Statement of Evidence”
23 which had been filed to the Appellate Court previously with several other files on May 5th, 2023.
24 The following are statements from the Transcripts by Kara35 of True Filing Tech Support. These
25 statements are every telling as to the truth of what happened in the Appellate Court to (Railroad)
26 unlawfully the Simpkins case out of the Court. It is extremely apparent that the Appellate Court Clerks
27 cannot be trusted to have the integrity and ethics required to be employed in a Court.
28 1. Page 3 Line 129: K - You do have an unsubmitted bundle within the history section in your
29 account.
30 2. Page 3 Lines 133 – 135: K – Ahh, when I try to open, when I try to open that bundle, it
31 won’t let me open it, which means it might have already possibly published through, or you
32 might need to refile that specific document.
33 3. Page 4 – Lines 140 -121: K – I can’t send you a direct email, but you can show your history
34 which lets them know there were files bundled of unsubmitted documents were not pushed
35 through…
36 4. Page 4 Line 155: K- History is no longer showing it, it somehow disappeared
37 5. Page 5 Lines 190 – 193: K – Okay, there is another issue here that you don’t seem to be
38 aware of, but your Motion and Notice are not actually filed with the Court. That still like

35
See Transcripts, (Kara True Filing Tech Support Transcripts).

Page 26 of 55
 1 everything here was on the 28 just about these new files and the case status was in the
2 workflow of the Court, not all of it has been officially filed by the Court
3 6. Page 5 – Line 195: DS - What's not filed?
4 7. Page 5 – Lines 197 – 199: K – The docketing statement, address stolen by John somebody,
5 chancery something, Copy of Certified Mail, Court Sending Mail to Home, David Simpkins
6 v. JMB Opinion it looks like, David Simpkins VA Hospital, all these things there are, one
7 second here, one, looks like one
8 8. Page 5 – Lines 201 – 204: K – Okay I just checked everything and none of the exhibits on
9 the 28th are not filed, the Motion itself is filed. See that status there, if you click on the status
10 it will bring up more information and on the top right you will see they are showing paid,
11 but not filed. That means the files are not viewable by the Court or the public.
12 9. Page 5 Line 206: DS - Oh my God, that's my whole case.
13 10. Page 5 Lines 208 – 210: K – It seems a lot of them are only saying paid, (undecipherable
14 speech), there are certain documents here that, all on the 7, 7 28 that are still within the
15 page status that are within the workflow of the Court, the Court never officially filed any
16 of those.
17 11. Page 6 Lines 236 – 237: K – Yeah, paid means it’s in the last status within the workflow of
18 the Court, the Court hasn’t officially filed those docs.
19 12. Page 6 Line 247: K – The ones that you submitted on the 28 of July are not filed and they
20 are in the paid status within the workflow of the Court.
21 13. Page 6 Line 250: DS - Which means what?
22 14. Page 6 Line 252: K – That the Court never filed your documents.
23 15. Page 6 Line 254: DS - Why?
24 16. Page 6 Lines 256 – 257: K – I can’t answer that unfortunately that would be a question for
25 the Court since the Court is the one that is supposed file them, they would be the ones to
26 move it to that file status.
27 17. Page 7 Line 308: K – Yeah, so your motion is not officially filed.
28 18. Page 7 Line 310 – 311: DS - I had no idea. Um, is that wrong on the courts part? Isn't that
29 like, obstruction of justice or something, because that's been several days. And that just
30 cost me my case.
31 There are even more statements by Kara, but the Simpkins think that the point has been made. The
32 Appellate Court appears to have intentionally withheld specific documents and falsely claim that they
33 were not filed, specifically, the “Statement of Evidence,” which is the same document that the Chancery
34 Court claimed several times that the Simpkins never filed that document with the Chancery Court.
35 As the Simpkins stated in previous Motions and Notices to the DOJ, FBI, SECNAV, VA OIG and the
36 Franklin, TN DA’s Office, the Simpkins will never see Justice in the Judicial System in the State of
37 Tennessee.
38
39 B. Appellate Court Clerk James Hivner of the Appellate Court (RAILROADS) The
40 Simpkins Case Out of the Appellate Court Intentionally on Behalf of the Defendants
41 Unlawfully

Page 27 of 55
 1 What Is Most Disturbing is that Appellate Court Clerk James Hivner dismissed the Simpkins’ Appeal
2 in its entirety (RAILROADING) the Simpkins case unlawfully from the Appellate Court based on the
3 lack of only one document, the “Statement of Evidence.” This is especially questionable when there was
4 “no inexcusable neglect” that occurred to warrant a dismissal with prejudice. This shows a clearly
5 contrived and unlawful ruling when the Simpkins had already for the fifth time submitted the appropriate
6 documents to both the Chancery Court and the Appellate Court. (These are SIMPLE DOCUMENTS
7 which were filed several times with both Courts allegedly scheming to claim otherwise to DISMISS
8 THE SIMPKINS APPEAL UNLAWFULLY). Further, now that it has been established the Appellate
9 Court Clerks have the power and ability to “DENY ANY DOCUMENT FILED,” this means that the
10 “Statement of Evidence” was more than likely denied by the Appellate Court in order to have a false
11 basis to unlawfully dismiss the Simpkins’ Appeal according to the discoveries of Kara, True Filing Tech
12 Support.
13 This is not surprising since what occurred by Mr. Hivner last year when Mr. Hivner openly admitted to
14 deleting the Memorandum of Law and all exhibits of a R. of App. Procedure 36(a) Motion for “Relief,”
15 which Mr. Hivner admitted to intentionally interpreting the Motion as a R. of App. Procedure 39 Motion
16 to “Rehear the Opinion,” which the Simpkins clearly did not file. See Simpkins filings regarding the
17 violations by Mr. Hivner, (FINAL - Amended Rule 36 Motion to Appellate Court 10-5-2021), (FINAL -
18 Appellants Amended Rule 36 Memorandum of Law 10-5-2021), (Exhibit 11A - Email Communications
19 Between the Appellate Court and Mr. J), (Exhibit 11C - Cover Letter For Mailing Violation of USC 242
20 7-1-2022), (Exhibit 11D - Notice to App. Ct. Violation of Fed Law Title 18 U.S.C. Sec 242),
21 The question is, why would Mr. Hivner rush to dismiss the Appellant’s case when the Simpkins provided
22 both of the Transcripts, why wouldn’t Mr. Simpkins have not provided the required “Statement of
23 Evidence” at the same time? The Simpkins did, and Mr. Hivner knew that Mr. Simpkins had also filed
24 the “Statement of Evidence” as well. The Simpkins can only file the files through the True Filing System,
25 whether or not they actually make it through, the Simpkins would not know until the Appellate Court,
26 has the power to “Hold, Review, then Approve or Deny” the filed documents. Failure to file the
27 documents comes under Tennessee Statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-50336;
28 “In order to convict the Defendant of tampering with evidence as charged here, the State was
29 required to show that, knowing that an investigation or official proceeding is pending or in
30 progress, the Defendant altered or destroyed a record with the intent to impair its availability as
31 evidence in the investigation. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-503(a)(1)(b).”
32
33 b. It is unlawful for any person, knowing that an investigation or official proceeding
34 is pending or in progress, to:
35 1. Alter, destroy, or conceal any record, document or thing with intent to impair
36 its verity, legibility, or availability as evidence in the investigation or official
37 proceeding; or
38 2. Make, present, or use any record, document or thing with knowledge of its
39 falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation or
40 official proceeding.
41 c. A violation of this section is a Class C felony.
42

State Of Tennessee v John Christopher Schubert, No. E2019-01257-CCA-R3-CD, (Tenn March 9, 2021)

Page 28 of 55
 1 Proof that there were unbundled documents that disappeared before the Tech Support person’s
2 eyes of which she had never seen happen before.
3
4
5 Tampering with or fabricating evidence under Federal Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2071(a): Concealment,
6 Removal, or Mutilation of Records
7 “This section provides that whoever: willfully and unlawfully; conceals, removes, mutilates,
8 obliterates or destroys; or attempts to conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate or destroy; or carries
9 away with intent to conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate or destroy; any record, proceeding, map,
10 book, paper, document or other thing deposited in any public office may be punished by
11 imprisonment for three years, a $2, 000 fine, or both.”37 38
12
13 C. Appellate Court Has The Ability To Deny Any File From Being Filed Through The
14 True Filing System:
15 Even More Disturbing, Kara stated that the Court could disapprove of any document filed through the
16 True Filing System and it will not show up in the filed documents. (That means it is NOT a True Filing
17 System when the Appellate Court Clerks are the GATEKEEPRS and can deny any file they choose)!
18 The question is, is that what happened to the (2) files that were missing from the July 28th, 2023 filing?
19 Kara also stated that if anyone had our passwords (which they have all of them), then they could change,
20 substitute or delete the files that were filed in the True Filing System. The Simpkins have a computer
21 still alive but infected with viruses from the perpetrators. The Simpkins were told the level of hacking is
22 at the NSA, FBI level. Does that explain why the DOJ and FBI have not investigated the hacking of the
23 Simpkins’ computers, phones, and emails? Are they the ones who performed all the invasions and
24 destruction of the Simpkins’ computers? That would be eight (8) computers now destroyed in (2) years.
25

26 Most Recent Events By The Chancery And Appellate Court

27 The Chancery Court fails to file Docketing Statement, Statement of Issues, Transcripts and Statement of
28 Evidence, making the false claim to the Appellate Court that the Simpkins have not met the requirement
29 for Tenn. Rule of App. P. 24 and Rule of App. P. 5. The claim was knowingly false and perpetrated to
30 delay the start of the Appellate Review. This was not done once but three times. These are wanton
31 malicious acts by a Court of Law to cause injury and harm against the Simpkins, again timing it so that
32 the Mortgage Company would start “Foreclosure” proceedings again, even though the Statute of
33 Limitations had already been exceeded by Tennessee Law. See attached letter to Jacob Miller of the VA
34 and to Freedom Mortgage Loss Mitigation Department.
35 1) On June 8th, Mr. Simpkins speaks to Appellate Court Clerk Lisa Marsh, (Audio Recording
36 available), and learns that the Chancery Court has made a false claim that the Simpkins did not file the
37 “Docketing Statement.” Mr. Simpkins informed Ms. Marsh that he did file the Docketing Statement. She
38 says the Chancery Court claims otherwise. The Simpkins sent the Docketing Statement via mail again
39 on June 12th, 2023. Again the “Docketing Statement” was apparently not filed. See the information sent

37
United States v. Simpson, 460 F.2d 515, 518 (9th Cir. 1972)
United States v. DeGroat, 30 F. 764, 765 (E.D.Mich. 1887)

Page 29 of 55
 1 to the Chancery and Appellate Courts concerning this falsely made issue. From the Simpkins’ Notice to
2 the Chancery Court, (Response Notice to Ch. Ct's False Claim to App. Ct. 7-23-2023)
3
4 “The Chancery Court has made a claim that the Plaintiffs never filed the Docketing Statement,
5 (which was false) because the Plaintiffs, on June 8th learned from Appellate Court Clerk, Lisa
6 Marsh, that the Chancery Court stated that the Simpkins had not filed the “Docketing Statement.”
7 Mr. Simpkins informed Ms. Marsh that he had. In fact, the Simpkins had filed the required
8 document twice. Mr. Simpkins notified Ms. Marsh that he had filed the “Docketing Statement”
9 to the Chancery Court on May 5th, along with sending filing of the document with the original
10 Notice of Appeal information for the May 4th, 2023 to the Appellate Court. See (Copy of Certified
11 Mail Receipt 5-4-2023). After speaking with Ms. Marsh, Mr. Simpkins sent it again on May 12th,
12 2023.
13
14 Along with the Docketing Statement were the following documents;
15 a. Transcripts of the December 13th, 2023 Hearing, (allegedly tampered with by an unknown
16 party).
17 b. Transcripts of the September 22nd, conversation with Appellate Court Elizabeth.
18 c. Amended Statement of the Issues
19 d. Statement of the Evidence (what the Simpkins requested to be sent to the Appellate Court
20 so that the Appellate Court Tribunal could have all of the evidence which had been
21 illegally deleted in April of 2023 by Order of Appellate Court Clerk James Hivner without
22 any Judges Signature included with the Notice / Order from the Appellate Court in
23 violation of Tenn Statutes;
24 i. (Tenn. Code Ann. § 18-1-202, Courts Records Retention Schedule),
25 ii. (Tenn. Code Ann. § 18-1-202, Disposition of Documents and Evidence)
26 The Justice system appears to be rampant with alleged corruption and fraud. The Tribunal System needs
27 to be reinstated in all Court Systems in order for anyone to really have any opportunity at a fair and just
28 Trial. What has been allowed to occur is a tragedy for my Wife and I. The current situation has proven
29 the fallibility of the Justice System having a single Judge who can clearly be allegedly bought and paid
30 for by whatever the means even it is just a “favor,” and various Court Clerks willing to violate the “LAW”
31 for “friends” or “undue influence” of the Court.
32 What this means is that the injured party, the Simpkins, the Plaintiffs, have had to suffer for six years
33 without any support or monetary award for damages with no legal basis by the Builder or the Courts to
34 do so, while JMB and the Courts violated the law and the Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights depriving the
35 Simpkins of their “Rights to those Laws and Lawful Remedies." During all these violations, the Simpkins
36 were entitled to reparations by the Builder, and several Judges have participated in the suppression of
37 Justice in opposition of the purpose of the legal system and the very laws that provided the Simpkins the
38 needed restitution. The standard Operating Procedure used by JMB the Simpkins found out is doing this
39 to everyone and the Judges back the Defendants and protect the Defendants by manipulation of the law
40 while abusing their power and authority for a criminal Builder. And further the previous cases involving
41 the Builder are sealed or expunged from the Court Records which is illegal. This is also why no one can
42 find anything negative about JMB which misleads Buyers while enticing them to purchase from JMB.
43 The ongoing Computer hacking. Our latest router is supposedly encrypted by AT&T, with their highest
44 level of encryption. Yet the Simpkins router has somehow been compromised again and the loaner

Page 30 of 55
 1 computer is now infected with a virus pr viruses that are undetectable and unknown how to be removed
2 which have been deleting wholesale legal files again.
3 Please note the below images showing that the directories are unavailable and have been deleted as well
4 as the files within the directories, the “Critical Update” to the DOJ, FBI, SECNAV and the VA OIG has
5 also been deleted. This is on a new computer, which has already been hacked after only 1 day of
6 ownership. These are criminal acts which go on unimpeded because Judge Hood stated that the Simpkins
7 claims, had no merit.

8
9

10

11

12
13 See in the image below that the Simpkins’ second Notice to the Court, August 2nd, 2023, of the
14 Filing of the “Transcripts” and “Statement of Evidence” plus additional documents were NOT FILED.
15

16 Image of August 2nd Filing, showing that it was incoming, but was never filed publicly.

17
18 And this was proven by Tech Support Person, Kara, who identified that only the Notice was filed in the
19 system but not approved to be released to the Court. Please note that in the System the August 2nd,
20 2023 Notice showed filed by the Appellate Court. But note that it does not appear to the public as
21 shown in the image above. This proved what Kara stated, the Motion or Notice may be filed, but unless
22 all documents are filed or they finalize each file as being “filed,” they will not be available to the Court

Page 31 of 55
 1 or the Public. Please also note that none of the evidentiary exhibits were filed so that the Appellate
2 Court could make the false claim that the Simpkins again, failed to follow the rules and procedures,
3 which is blatantly and patently false and the Appellate Court conspired to create the appearance that
4 the Appellants, the Simpkins did not file those documents when they had been filed several times to
5 the Chancery Court and the Appellate Court. It is clear the heinous and alleged criminal acts that have
6 occurred to suppress the Appellants, Simpkins’ case to the “Sole Benefit of the Defendants
7 Unlawfully!39”
8
9 The Simpkins believe that the July 28th, 2023 Expedited Motion to the Appellate Court was not filed due
10 to the evidence being extremely damaging to the Defendants, as well as the Court Judges, and Court
11 Clerks, and this is not the first time that Fraud has been Committed on the Court. This is deliberate
12 “Interference with a Legal Case,” “Obstruction of Justice,” “Tampering of Evidence,” are alleged illegal
13 acts to not file the Motion and the Notice to make a false claim that the Simpkins did not file the
14 appropriate documents when they indeed had performed those tasks as required by the Appellate Court
15 Rules.
16 Please see the Motion to the Appellate Court Below, which had files missing along with the
17 “Statement of Evidence.” Note that the Simpkins only filed the (Judgment by App Ct against JMB 5-
18 4-2022) one time through the True Filing System. But notice that it is filed twice with two different
19 numbers in the spreadsheet to make the appearance that all files were filed when they were not.
20 Specifically, the “Statement of Evidence.”

21

22 Note: In the image below, it shows three (3) of the six (6) files filed with the App. Ct., but only one file
23 of the August 2nd, 2023 (Notice of the “Statement of Evidence”) was filed in the back end of the True
24 Filing System but its status was not changed to allow the public to see the filing with the App. Ct. per

25

39
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-503, Federal Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2071(a)

Page 32 of 55
 1 Kara of ETF Tech Support, but was not made available to the public to again ensure two more times
2 that the Simpkins’ filings would be in “error” so that their Appeal could be dismissed.

3 Notice that the “Statement of Evidence” does not appear on the record to the Court where the Judges
4 would normally see the documents. Without the documents being visible, the Judges would make a
5 ruling against the Simpkins on the belief that the Simpkins failed to meet the requirements of the
6 Appellate Court Rules. These are clear violations of Tennessee State Law and Federal Statutes for
7 “Tempering of Evidence” by preventing the availability of the evidence. Kara stated that if the files are
8 not marked with the status of filed, then the files are not filed in the system and not public, which
9 means neither the Judges nor the Public will be able to see those files nor have access to those files.
10

11 Further Alleged Heinous Criminal Acts Against the Simpkins To Attempt To Cause Physical
12 Permanent Harm To Mrs. Simpkins
13 Please see below the images that show an AC Unit which its main purpose is to supply “air” to the sealed
14 bed for air supply for Mrs. Simpkins. Its secondary purpose is to supply cool air to cool the bathroom
15 and the bed. What the Simpkins have recently started experiencing was someone has hacked the Wifi of
16 the AC Unit and have been shutting the AC Unit off. (The Simpkins have lost all control of the Wifi of
17 the AC Unit). These alleged criminals do this at night while Mrs. Simpkins is sleeping and also during
18 the day to prevent any cooling in the bathroom or Bed. When the colling stops, the temperature goes up
19 and causes massive mold sporing. Any change in temperature or humidity causes sporing. (Remember
20 it is not the spores that cause the damage, tumors, cancer and death in humans, it is the mycotoxins that
21 cause all the health issues in humans. See Exhibits, (World Health Organization - Mycotoxins Oct 2011),
22 (Exhibit L1 - NCBI - Chronic Illness Associated with Mold and Mycotoxins), (Exhibit L2 - Mycotoxins
23 NIH July 2003), (Exhibit L3 - Fungal Spores Hazardous to Health).
24 But the importance of this is that there is no air supply to the bed with the AC Unit turned off, Mrs.
25 Simpkins could suffocate in the bed without the AC Unit running. This is a hate crime, but more
26 importantly this is an attempt on Mrs. Simpkins’ life. The Simpkins consider this an intentional wanton,
27 malicious, heinous act which is not acceptable in a normal society. Mrs. Simpkins life is in danger and
28 has been for years as well as Mr. Simpkins and the local authorities and Judiciary have not held the
29 Defendants accountable to the law. All parties will be held accountable to the law regardless that they
30 allegedly work for the law if anything happens to Mr. or Mrs. Simpkins.
31 Please note in the image below that the AC Unit is in the Master Closet with Cardboard above the Unit
32 tapped to the wall to catch and minimize the fallout from the mold infested disintegrating materials of
33 the ceiling drywall. The purpose is to minimize the infiltration of ceiling debris and mold spores into the
34 bed through the tube. Also note the carbon filter on the front face of the grill of the AC Unit with Duct
35 Tape sealing off around the edges of the carbon filter and sealing up the entire front panel of the AC Unit
36 to prevent intrusion of mold spores.
37 (The carbon filter is replaced every two weeks or as needed on an earlier basis).

Page 33 of 55
1 AC Unit in Master Closet Air Tube Supplying Air to Master Bed

3 Air Tube Supplying Air to Master Bed

Page 34 of 55
 1 Please note the towel on the floor next to the bed. The towel was a crème color a week before. In just
2 one week, this is how much debris rains down from the ceilings into the air and onto the floors. This is
3 why the Simpkins are constantly having burning skin rashes and burning nasal passages, bronchioles,
4 lungs and eyes. JMB has harmed thousands of homeowners and the State of Tennessee is allegedly in
5 league with the Builders and provides protection for the Builders. Under the towel are several layers of
6 six (6) mil polyurethane plastic vapor barrier that supposedly stops mold from promulgating. It is an
7 absolute fallacy. The six (6) mil polyurethane does not stop mold spores from coming through. There are
8 only three (3) products on the market that have been designed to stop mold and in the multi-layered 15
9 to 20 mil thickness is a mold killing gel that stops the mold from getting through the materials.
10 Mr. Simpkins has an (Audio Recording) of Steve West, Investigator for the State Attorney General’s
11 Office, stating that they will not hold the Builders accountable. It couldn’t be clearer why the Simpkins’
12 case has been treated unjustly and railroaded by the State Agencies followed by the unlawful Court
13 Systems. The Judges manipulated and abused both their power and authority to thwart the legal system
14 in opposition of what it was designed to do, which is provide Justice for all, not just the wealthy who
15 can buy whatever they want. The Justice system in Tennessee is currently set up to ensure that Courts
16 with a single Judge on the bench can be manipulated to bend or break the law for the sole benefit of
17 those who are the guilty party so that they can get away with their criminal acts. Because there is no
18 other Judge reviewing the case and to uphold the law to keep the “Law” as the focus for each and all
19 Legal Matters. But the Judges of the Court took this to a whole new level by not just violating the
20 Plaintiffs / Appellant’s Constitutional Rights, the Judges have actually manipulated the situation,
21 manipulated and abused the laws and their authority over the Court, and further violated those laws to
22 ensure that the Simpkins will not receive a proper ruling in their favor. The Simpkins have proven
23 through the “Abandonment by the Defendants” and the “Unquestioned Authenticity of the Exhibits of
24 the Preponderance of Evidence” that the Plaintiffs / Appellants have Won their case since the Complaint
25 was filed.
26 The Builder, JMB, “Abandoned” the Simpkins after the first month of ownership and committed
27 malicious acts since abandoning the Simpkins to cause them great distress, anguish, physical and mental
28 injury, and harm as well as maliciously caused financial ruin to include loss of their home based Health
29 Consulting Business. These acts are allegedly criminal by law and both the Judge, and the Attorney for
30 the Defendants allowed the breach of Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6, and 8.4.

31 The Simpkins (AGAIN) demand an answer as to what possible defense could the
32 Builder, JMB, present to a Court or Jury when JMB “Abandoned the Simpkins” after
33 the very first month of ownership, and have not been back to the property since the first
34 month of ownership from the day Simpkins purchased the property on August 4th,
35 2017?
36 In fact, JMB at the one and only warranty meeting on August 29th, 2017, told the Simpkins that if they
37 wanted things repaired that the Simpkins would have to provide a report that detailed the issues and
38 provide a resolution to correct the issues. The Simpkins did exactly what was asked at great cost to the
39 Simpkins and provided the Expert Reports as requested by JMB. But JMB never once addressed the
40 issues or even attempted to investigate the issues themselves. The scheme was to defraud the Simpkins

Page 35 of 55
 1 of more of their monies, to force the Simpkins to endure expenses to break the Simpkins financially over
2 time of which JMB achieved.
3 Then on July 23rd, 2018, the Simpkins sent a Demand Letter to JMB to pay back the monies the Simpkins
4 paid for the property and also demanded restitution to cover their losses on their furniture and clothes at
5 that time totaling $647,000 with the purchase of the property at $479,429.52 and the remainder for
6 $167,570.48 to cover the household goods losses, clothing losses, the moving expenses, storage fees,
7 deposits, hotel expenses, etc. But this did not cover the Simpkins’ actual losses. The amount that the
8 Simpkins were actually entitled to was an additional $347,527.00 and did not contain penalties that the
9 Simpkins were entitled to by law.
10 The Simpkins were told by four different Law Firms based on the number of issues and code violations
11 that the Simpkins at that time had discovered through the Expert Reports that the house was not a safe
12 house due to the number of structurally identified issues. And based on the Expert Reports, it would cost
13 approximately $326,000 to $425,000 to completely repair the property. This was devastating to the
14 Simpkins and mind boggling that the property even passed any of the inspections. The Simpkins later
15 found out that John Maher has an arrangement with the City and there are no Inspections.
16 The Law Firms explained to the Simpkins based on the number of code violations and the property was
17 not structurally safe and had both mold and termite infestation, the Simpkins were looking at reparations
18 of $3.3M to $4.8M in early 2018. They also stated to track all expenses because those expenses added
19 up over time and that the Pre-Interest would also add to the amount owed to the Simpkins for the
20 Builder’s failure to build the property in a “workmanlike manner.” The Attorneys explained that the
21 property by itself was the $3.3M to $4.8M, but that there could be punitive damages, emotional distress
22 damages, further damages for any health related injuries, and treble damages due to the concealment of
23 the issues, then further damages for “Abandonment” and further damages for the “Breach of Contract,
24 “Breach of Warranty,” “Fraudulent Concealment,” “Unfair and Deceptive Practices,” “Fraudulent
25 Misrepresentation,” and “Theft” of our monies. They stated the numbers could easily exceed $10M in
26 damages by piercing the Corporate Veil and then all the other Tennessee Laws would come into the
27 picture as stated previously compounding the damages. They felt because of JMB already being aware
28 of all the issues including the mold and termites prior to the sale of the property, but not disclosing them
29 by law, would pierce the Corporate Veil which they projected that JMB would settle out of Court to avoid
30 the Treble Damages because they also could be sued individually. They were wrong on the settlement
31 out of Court but correct on everything else.
32 From the Simpkins’ Motion, (Src File - Spec Consid R. App. P. 22 10-5-2021);
33 “In case law Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Allen, 584 F. Supp. 386 (E.D. Tenn. 1984), the corporate veil
34 is pierced due to the fraud by the Officers of the Corporation. In the Conclusions of Law of Federal
35 Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Allen on Pg. 14, Paras 3, 4, 5 detail of how the Officers of the Corporation were
36 stripped of their corporate cloak when any fraud or illegality or injustice was committed in contravention
37 of public policy. Based on this information, when Tony Maher admitted to Spring Hill Police Detective
38 Carden that he had sold the property “with mold” he was admitting knowledge of wrongful conduct and
39 acted knowingly and intentionally reckless proving that the corporation was engaged in deceptive
40 practices along with intentional avoidance of the truth. Further proof was the fraudulent concealment
41 and fraudulent misrepresentation that the “utility penetrations” in the crawlspace had been sealed when
42 the Officers of the Corporation knew that they weren’t sealed. Further Tony Maher stated he had verified

Page 36 of 55
 1 that the utility penetrations” had been sealed, knowing the falsity of the statement, and knowing that the
2 Appellants would rely on that statement as true, and knowing that the open penetrations would allow
3 continuous and ongoing damage to the occupant’s health and to the property.”
4 “In addition, when a corporation is dominated by an individual or individuals not only as to
5 finance but also as to policy and business practices so that the corporation has no mind, will, or
6 existence of its own and this domination is used to commit a wrong, or fraud or perpetrate a
7 violation of statutory or positive legal duty, the corporate *398 veil will be pierced. Continental
8 Bankers Life v. Bank of Alamo, 578 S.W.2d 625 (Tenn.1979). Mayo v. Pioneer Bank & Trust
9 Co., 274 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1960).”
10 “The Appellate Court should clearly see that JMB, and its officers have maintained a “win-at-all-costs”
11 strategy so they can continue the public charade of “being innocent” of all of the wrongdoing. The
12 “costs” in this case have not just been JMB’s alleged undue influence on the Spring Hill Building Codes
13 Department, the Spring Hill Police Detective, the Contractors Board, and the Chancery Court, and
14 several others, but JMB’s win-at-all-costs strategy has meant JMB, and its officers were willing to
15 deliberately harm a homeowner, the Simpkins, and do so illicitly and unrelentingly in order to cause the
16 homeowner to give up and quash any negative public exposure for the Builder. The Builder in four (4)
17 years’ time has never acted reasonably and offered any repair, or payment of restitution, or offered to
18 buy back the property. The Appellees, JMB, Inc., are well aware that the subject property is endangering
19 the homeowners/occupants. JMB’s officers, and both the Chancery and Appellate Courts, are also
20 informed of the fact that a Mold Expert required the Builder to fund substitute housing for the safety of
21 the homeowners/occupants back in 2018. It has been over three (3) years since the Mold Expert’s first
22 of several advisories, but neither JMB nor the Courts have acted on the stated requirements by a mold
23 expert. In the Simpkins case, Mold Expert Mr. James Gafford issued such an advisory several times,
24 which the Simpkins previously noted for the Chancery Court and the Appellate Court. No funds for
25 Substitute Housing have been ordered by the Chancery Court nor by the Appellate Court to date, even
26 in this egregious case. The Appellate Court is forcing the Simpkins to endure a lengthy appeal process
27 before any enforcement action and restitution may be ordered by a Court of Law. The Simpkins have
28 been due, at minimum, the funds for substitute housing since July 2018 when this action was first
29 required by the Mold Expert, Mr. James Gafford reference page eighty-seven (87) starting at line 32 of
30 the Memorandum of Law, (See Exhibit - SIMP-00A91 – A-1 Waterproofing Suppl Invest Inspection by
31 Inspector James Gafford, 10-30-20), (See Vol 5, Pg. 636, Exhibit Pg. 8, Para 4).
32
33 “I do not normally make these recommendations or statements in my report, but this has gone
34 too far for any normal situation. Based on the scientific studies listed above and those I referenced
35 in my January 2019 report, there is a clear toxic health effect on humans of mycotoxins from mold
36 spores, I am requesting that the State of Tennessee, or Federal Law Enforcement or a Court of
37 Law mandate that the Builder immediately and sufficiently compensate the Simpkins in order that
38 the Simpkins are able to immediately move into substitute housing arrangements of their selection
39 (to ensure a mold-free environment) that provides them with a safe and healthy living
40 environment.””
41 That was in April of 2018 what the Law Firms were recommending, then the subsequent Expert Reports
42 in 2019. This is June of 2023. Five (5) years have gone by since that time and the increase of expenses
43 and costs and losses of business income have increased the base damages substantially. Today on base
44 compensatory damages alone come to an amount of $20,648,060.12 assessed against the entity of John
45 Maher Builders, Inc., and CEO, John Maher, and COO, Tony Maher individually, for an amount of
46 $61,944,180.36. The Pre-Interest by Tennessee Statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-123 is $12,801,797,17
47 x3 is $33,449,857.39. The combined amount for damages and pre-interest for the three parties is
48 $100,349,572.39. Treble damages as allowed by Tennessee Statutes, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-

Page 37 of 55
 1 109)(a)(3), bring the amount to $301,048,716.51. This does not include Punitive Damages, Tenn. Code
2 Ann. § 29-39-104, or Emotional Distress Damages as allowed by law. The Appellate Court allowed the
3 Simpkins to sue the Officers of the Court individually due to the fact that Tony Maher admitted to
4 Detective Carden that they knew about the mold exiting prior to the sale but that they were not going to
5 do anything about it.
6 The Simpkins ask the DOJ and the FBI to explain where in federal law where it states that the
7 Simpkins are not entitled to reparations and restitution by the law immediately? Because the
8 Simpkins found Federal Laws that made it (Mandatory) to pay the Simpkins Restitution. “Victims in
9 mortgage fraud cases are statutorily entitled to restitution. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (2009).”
10 It has been six (6) torturous years that the Simpkins have had to endure daily pain and suffering while
11 allegedly the Courts and the DOJ and FBI are protecting the Builder and suppressing the Simpkins’ case.
12 This means that the DOJ and FBI are allegedly complicit with the criminal acts of the Builder. Therefore,
13 they are also responsible to pay reparations to the Simpkins for causing intentional harm to the Simpkins
14 for six egregious and horrific years. The local DA, DOJ, and the FBI have had five (5) years to press
15 charges for Mortgage Fraud by JMB, but instead, they allegedly suppressed the Simpkins complaints
16 and claims to benefit the Builder, the Defendants. What incentive were they provided to do that?
17 For the record, both the local DOJ and FBI stated that there were no laws that could provide restitution
18 for the Simpkins for the Mortgage Fraud. Yet, Mr. Simpkins found not only Federal Statutes that prove
19 their statements were intentionally false, but that the Simpkins could have been paid restitution years
20 ago by both Tennessee Statutes and Federal Statutes. Tennessee does not have a legal system; it has a
21 Tariff System that only allows Justice for those who pay the Tariff to have a win for their case. That is
22 criminal in and of itself. The Simpkins have proven their case with their evidence, by State Statutes, and
23 by Federal Laws. There is no excuse that the DA, DOJ or the FBI can make to correct the damage that
24 they have caused the Simpkins.
25 Based on the stark preponderance of evidence, the previous positive ruling in favor of the Simpkins by
26 the Appellate Court, on May 4th, 2022, the Simpkins request that the DOJ and FBI take into account the
27 seriousness of the Simpkins circumstances with the latest health development and act immediately to
28 provide the overdue monetary damages for relief by both Tennessee State Laws and Federal Laws for
29 Mortgage Fraud and violation of the Contract, Warranty of the property, and the Fraudulent
30 Concealment, and Theft of their monies and lives for the last six(6) years illegally by the Builder, the
31 Defendants. The Mortgage Fraud falls under the 2009 Fraud Enforcement and Recover Act, (FERA),
32 and also falls under the following Federal Laws; to where the District Court now has jurisdiction
33 according to Federal Law;
34 18 U.S. Code § 3231 - District courts. The district courts of the United States shall have original
35 jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.
36 Therefore, the District Court supersedes the Chancery and Appellate Courts based on the Mortgage Fraud
37 and the alleged fraud and criminal acts by the Builder, JMB, and the Judges violating the Simpkins’
38 Constitutional Rights to “Due Process of Law” and “Rights to Remedies” under those laws. Further, the
39 Judges knew by the law and constitutional violations along with the various criminal acts and mortgage,
40 that they did not have Subject Matter Jurisdiction due to the Mortgage Fraud. The DOJ and the FBI knew
41 it as well. But forced the Simpkins to suffer without just cause, or any legal basis whatsoever.

Page 38 of 55
 1 United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
2 1) (18 U.S. Code Chapter 47 - Fraud And False Statements),
3 2) (18 U.S. Code § 1341 - Frauds and swindles, Mail Fraud),
4 3) (18 U.S. Code § 1343 - Frauds and swindles, Wire Fraud),
5 4) (18 U.S. Code § 1344 - Bank fraud), [Interstate trafficking of funds from a Federal
6 Institution]
7 5) (18 U.S. Code § 2314 - Transportation of stolen goods, securities, moneys, fraudulent State
8 tax stamps, or articles used in counterfeiting) [Interstate trafficking of funds from a Federal
9 Institution]
10 6) (18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Sec. 1001 - Statements or entries generally), false and fraudulent
11 “Warranty of Completion of Construction.
12 7) (18 U.S. Code § 1010 - Sec. 1010 - Department of Housing and Urban Development and
13 Federal Housing Administration transactions),
14 8) (18 U.S. Code § 1012 - Sec. 1012 - Department of Housing and Urban Development
15 transactions),
16 9) (18 U.S. Code § 1031 - Major fraud against the United States), [This Federal Statute, 18 U.S.
17 Code § 1031, may apply because of the Loan is a VA Loan backed by the Federal Government,
18 which is the United States.)
19 “Victims in mortgage fraud cases are statutorily entitled to restitution. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (2009).
20 Unlike loss calculations for purposes of sentencing, which are determined based on a "reasonable
21 estimate of loss" within broad ranges, courts typically require something more concrete for
22 restitution orders in terms of a provable amount based on evidence proven by a preponderance
23 of the evidence. Generally, this will require cooperation and information from the victims. In
24 the context of victim institutions (some of which may be in receivership or may have been sold),
25 early identification and contact is critical. It may also be necessary to explain differences between
26 compensable restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act and compensable damages
27 in a civil action (which remain available even after a criminal restitution order).” By Joseph T.
28 Dixon, III, Deputy Criminal Chief, Fraud and Public Corruption Section, District of Minnesota.
29 Under 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (2009) Mandatory restitution to victims of certain crimes. Therefore, restitution is
30 available immediately based on United States v. Lindsey, 850 F.3d 1009, 1011 (9th Cir. 2017).

31 (a)
32 (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense
33 described in subsection (c), the court shall order, in addition to, or in the case of a misdemeanor, in
34 addition to or in lieu of, any other penalty authorized by law, that the defendant make restitution to the
35 victim of the offense or, if the victim is deceased, to the victim’s estate.
36 (2) For the purposes of this section, the term “victim” means a person directly and proximately harmed
37 as a result of the commission of an offense for which restitution may be ordered including, in the case
38 of an offense that involves as an element a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal activity, any
39 person directly harmed by the defendant’s criminal conduct in the course of the scheme, conspiracy, or
40 pattern. In the case of a victim who is under 18 years of age, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, the
41 legal guardian of the victim or representative of the victim’s estate, another family member, or any other
42 person appointed as suitable by the court, may assume the victim’s rights under this section, but in no
43 event shall the defendant be named as such representative or guardian.

Page 39 of 55
 1 (3) The court shall also order, if agreed to by the parties in a plea agreement, restitution to persons other
2 than the victim of the offense.
3 (b) The order of restitution shall require that such defendant—
4 (1) in the case of an offense resulting in damage to or loss or destruction of property of a victim of the
5 offense—
6 (A) return the property to the owner of the property or someone designated by the owner; or
7 (B) if return of the property under subparagraph (A) is impossible, impracticable, or inadequate, pay an
8 amount equal to— or
9 (i) the greater of—
10 (I) the value of the property on the date of the damage, loss, or destruction; or
11 (II) the value of the property on the date of sentencing, less
12 (ii) the value (as of the date the property is returned) of any part of the property that is
13 returned;
14 (2) in the case of an offense resulting in bodily injury to a victim—
15 (A) pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary medical and related professional services and
16 devices relating to physical, psychiatric, and psychological care, including nonmedical care and
17 treatment rendered in accordance with a method of healing recognized by the law of the place of
18 treatment;
19 (B) pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary physical and occupational therapy and
20 rehabilitation; and
21 (C) reimburse the victim for income lost by such victim as a result of such offense;

Page 40 of 55
 1 By the very fact, the John Maher [knew] he was committing fraud as Tony Maher told the Simpkins,
2 that they do this to people all the time and that the Simpkins could not touch them, they were protected
3 and could do anything they wanted. What the Simpkins realize now, six years later, is that Tony Maher
4 was admitting that they knowingly committed fraud on every residential property they sell. Knowing
5 that they were harming every Buyer that they sold to. That is willful, knowing, malicious, intentional
6 reckless negligence to harm all Buyers! That is completely criminal, yet, JMB has been allowed to
7 continue to operate and sell thousands more houses to the unsuspecting public while the Williamson
8 County District Attorney in 2018, Tristan Poorman, the Attorney General’s Office, the DOJ and the FBI
9 had been informed of what was going on since 2018. All Agencies were provided two, three (3) ring
10 binders full of startling preponderance of factual evidence and Expert Reports concerning the “Mortgage
11 Fraud” by the Defendants. Yet the DOJ and the FBI locally in Nashville, TN, both suppressed the
12 information on behalf of the Builder. The question that needs to be answered, is why would either Federal
13 Agency protect the Builder who as the two Special Agents of the FBI both stated, the Simpkins had
14 presented substantial evidence, the likes of they had never seen so well organized and documented, that
15 they could practically walk into a Federal Court and probably get an immediate ruling after the
16 information was verified. They were extremely impressed with what the Simpkins had put together. (See
17 images below of the Binder of Evidence provided to the Nashville FBI which they still have the two (2),
18 three (3) ring binders to this day.

19

20 John Maher, CEO of John Maher Builders, Inc., knowingly committed fraud, and fraudulent
21 concealment, when he signed the Federal Document, VA form 26-1859, form HUD-92544 titled
22 “Warranty of Completion Of Construction.” John Maher had knowledge that they did not conform to
23 the standards of the 2012 International Construction Codes, (ICC), nor the 2012 International Residential
24 Construction Codes, (IRC) nor the 2009 International Energy Conservation Codes, (IECC). But still he
25 signed the Federal Document “Warranty of Completion Of Construction” knowing that the property

Page 41 of 55
 1 had numerous issues, new that there was mold and termites present in the property in both the crawlspace
2 and the interior of the dwelling. He knew this, because as JMB’s Standard Operating Procedure, (SOP)
3 JMB does not use a foam vapor barrier under the sill plate against the concrete block foundation of the
4 structural frame (which is mandatory by IRC 2012 Codes), which allows air, water, and bug intrusions
5 into the crawlspace. The actions by JMB, JM and TM falls under the “False Claims Act,” 31 U.S.C. §
6 3729(a) False Claims Act as well.
7 2nd Binder, Notebook of Evidence #2

9 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) – False Claims Act;

10 (a) Liability for Certain Acts.—
11 (1) In general.—Subject to paragraph (2), any person who—
12 (A) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or
13 approval;
14 (B) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to
15 a false or fraudulent claim;
16 (C) conspires to commit a violation of subparagraph (A), (B), (D), (E), (F), or (G);
17 (D) has possession, custody, or control of property or money used, or to be used, by the
18 Government and knowingly delivers, or causes to be delivered, less than all of that money or
19 property;

Page 42 of 55
 1 (E) is authorized to make or deliver a document certifying receipt of property used, or to be used,
2 by the Government and, intending to defraud the Government, makes or delivers the receipt
3 without completely knowing that the information on the receipt is true;
4 (F) knowingly buys, or receives as a pledge of an obligation or debt, public property from an
5 officer or employee of the Government, or a member of the Armed Forces, who lawfully may not
6 sell or pledge property; or
7 (G) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to
8 an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government, or knowingly conceals or
9 knowingly and improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property
10 to the Government,
11 is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not less than $5,000 and not more
12 than $10,000, as adjusted by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (28
13 U.S.C. 2461 note; Public Law 104–410 [1]), plus 3 times the amount of damages which the
14 Government sustains because of the act of that person.

15 Furthermore, John Maher knew that as their SOP, they do not foam or caulk the utility penetrations from
16 the crawlspace into the interior of the walls, subfloors, intermediate flooring between the first and second
17 floor. All of what is described here can be seen today, right now of the current new builds in progress.
18 This information was stated to the DOJ and the FBI to where they could just come out to the construction
19 site and immediately see all the visible code violations. But they refused to do so. Why would the DOJ
20 and FBI not want to prove the Simpkins claims and facts?
21 John Maher further knew as their SOP that they did not caulk around the electrical outlets in the exterior
22 walls or the electrical light switches on exterior walls. Further, he knew that the HVAC Systems being
23 installed were not the required proper rating for the size of the property due to the load on the system for
24 the size of the property. Furthermore, John Maher knew that they bypassed the electrical cutoff switch
25 of the Air Handler Unit to save money on the cost of the switches. This was recorded on a Video by Lee
26 Company, Governor Lees previous Company. (See Exhibit - SIMP-00A104 - Air Handler Unit Power
27 Safety Switch Missing). Therefore, if there is a fire in the Air Handler Unit, the normal sensor response
28 to shut off the power from the door interlock switch will never happen because it is no longer a switch
29 but hard wired. Therefore, if there is a fire, the blower motor will fan the flames and force feed the fire
30 through the duct system and potentially accelerate the fire throughout the property possibly preventing
31 the inhabitants from having proper notification to egress from the Residential Property to Safety. This is
32 an alleged intentional act to ensure that if there is a fire that the entire building will be consumed to cover
33 up the failure of the Builder to build the property not only NOT TO CODE but also NOT IN A
34 WORKMANLIKE MANNER!
35 These are just a few of the many problems, and code violations, intentional omissions of key
36 components to the structure, such as the missing “hurricane clips” which are “mandatory” to hold the
37 roof on but were never installed. Or the “collar ties” that are mandatory and are required to be spaced
38 evenly at every forth rafter but were hit or miss and not enough were installed. Or the joist hangers for
39 the spanner floor joists, which is “mandatory” to lock the spanner joists to the rim joists to prevent
40 movement of the floors, walls, and entire structure.
41 “Residential mortgage fraud” is committed by a person who, knowingly and with intent to
42 defraud, presents, causes to be presented, or prepares with knowledge or belief that it will be used

Page 43 of 55
 1 in soliciting an applicant for, applying for, underwriting or closing a residential mortgage loan, or
2 filing with a county clerk of any county in the state arising out of and related to the closing of a
3 residential mortgage loan, any written statement which:
4 1. contains materially false information concerning any fact material thereto; or
5 2. conceals, for the purpose of misleading, information concerning any fact material thereto.

7 In Gwen Fayne Et Al. v. Teresa Vincent Et Al. 301 S.W.3d 162 (Tenn. 2009);
8 “Our conclusion that an act need not be knowing or intentional to be considered deceptive for the
9 purpose of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act is bolstered by the federal courts' interpretation of
10 Section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 45(a)(1) (West 2009). The federal
11 courts have concluded that intent is not necessary to establish a violation of Section 5 of the Federal
12 Trade Commission Act. See, e.g., FTC v. Bay Area Bus. Council, Inc., 423 F.3d 627, 635 (7th Cir.2005);
13 FTC v. Freecom Commc'ns, Inc., 401 F.3d 1192, 1202 (10th Cir.2005); FTC v. World Travel Vacation
14 Brokers, Inc., 861 F.2d 1020, 1029 (7th Cir.1988). The United States Supreme Court has held that
15 “innocence of motive” did not relieve sellers of liability because “there is a kind of fraud, as courts of
16 equity have long perceived, in clinging to a benefit which is the product of misrepresentation, however
17 innocently made.” FTC v. Algoma Lumber Co., 291 U.S. 67, 81, 54 S.Ct. 315, 78 L.Ed. 655 (1934).
18 The rationale for this is that “[t]he purpose of the statute is protection of the public, not punishment of a
19 wrongdoer.” Gimbel Bros. v. FTC, 116 F.2d 578, 579 (2d Cir.1941) (finding that “[w]hether or not the
20 advertiser knows the representations to be false, the deception of purchasers ․ is the same”); accord FTC
21 v. Freecom Commc'ns, Inc., 401 F.3d at 1202. Therefore, a violation is judged by the likely effect on
22 consumers rather than the intention of those making misrepresentations. FTC v. Freecom Commc'ns,
23 Inc., 401 F.3d at 1202.”
24 “Other states have likewise declined to require intent on the part of the seller in finding violations of
25 state consumer protection acts. See, e.g., Kenai Chrysler Ctr., Inc. v. Denison, 167 P.3d 1240, 1255
26 (Alaska 2007); Cheshire Mortgage Serv., Inc. v. Montes, 223 Conn. 80, 612 A.2d 1130, 1144 (1992);
27 State ex rel. Miller v. Pace, 677 N.W.2d 761, 771 (Iowa 2004) (noting that statute required no intent to
28 deceive or knowledge of falsity, but did require intent that others rely on omissions); State v.
29 Weinschenk, 868 A.2d 200, 206 (Me.2005) (act may be deceptive regardless of good faith or lack of
30 intent to deceive); Gray v. N.C. Ins. Underwriting Ass'n, 352 N.C. 61, 529 S.E.2d 676, 681 (2000)
31 (good faith is not a defense); Carter v. Gugliuzzi, 168 Vt. 48, 716 A.2d 17, 24-25 (1998) (lack of intent
32 and good faith not defenses); Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 166 Wash.2d 27, 204 P.3d 885, 894
33 (2009) (en banc); see also Consumer Protection and the Law § 3:10, at 3-10 to 3-12, n. 23 (listing cases).”
34 Therefore, based on the above case law, collectively they clearly establish several factors on the Plaintiffs
35 / Appellant’s Case as the Appellate Court has stated correctly in the above case law, but the ACT made
36 an inadvertent error in dismissing the two claims, Unfair and Deceptive Practices, and Theft. The
37 Plaintiffs / Appellants are entitled to both and claim so heretofore and they will apply as the law has
38 already been establish with binding authority, Gwen Fayne Et Al. v. Teresa Vincent Et Al. Due to the
39 fact there is no defense for Statute of Limitations when there is “Fraud” as stated in (Tenn. Code Ann. §
40 28-3-205. Limitation Not Defense),
41

Page 44 of 55
 1 a. The limitation provided by this part is not available as a defense to any person
2 who has been guilty of fraud in performing or furnishing the design, planning,
3 supervision, observation of construction, construction of, or land surveying, in
4 connection with an improvement, or to any person who wrongfully conceals any
5 such cause of action.
6
7 therefore the Plaintiffs / Appellants proved that the Defendants in all respects should have been
8 immediately held accountable to the law for the ruling by the Appellate Court for the “Breach of
9 Contract,” “Breach of Warranty Express or Implied,” “Fraudulent Concealment,” “Fraudulent
10 Misrepresentation,” “Constructive Fraud,” “Promissory Fraud,” and “Fraudulent Inducement”)
11 based on the newly discovered Tennessee Statutes and Federal Statutes due to the
12 “Abandonment” of the Simpkins after the first month of ownership, in August of 2017,
13 “Abandonment” occurred three weeks after closing and the Builder never came out to the
14 property or responded to investigate any of the Expert Professional Reports.
15
16 Tennessee Statutes Newly Discovered in April of 2023;
17 1. Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-510. Prohibited acts. For; Abandonment or willful failure to
18 perform, without justification;
19 2. Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-511. False Documentation
20 3. Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-512. Criminal Penalty, commits a Class A misdemeanor. Each
21 violation is deemed a separate offense.
22
23 Federal Statutes Newly Discovered in April of 2023;
24 Under TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241, unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure,
25 oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district
26 Under TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or
27 custom, willfully 31 subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District
28 to 32 the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the 33
29 Constitution or laws of the United States
30 Under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245 - Federally Protected Activities
31 Under 18 U.S.C. § 1014 the offense of making a false statement include:
32 1. Making a false statement or willfully overvaluing property or security knowing the same to be
33 false,
34 2. for the purpose of influencing in any way the action,
35 3. of the enumerated agencies and organizations.
36 Under 18 U.S. Code § 1324c - Penalties for document fraud include:
37 (a) Activities prohibited
38 It is unlawful for any person or entity knowingly—
39 (1) to forge, counterfeit, alter, or falsely make any document for the purpose of satisfying a
40 requirement of this chapter or to obtain a benefit under this chapter,
41
42 (2) to use, attempt to use, possess, obtain, accept, or receive or to provide any forged, counterfeit,
43 altered, or falsely made document in order to satisfy any requirement of this chapter or to obtain a
44 benefit under this chapter,
45
46 The Simpkins have provided substantial evidence of Federal Mortgage Fraud due to Simpkins’ Mortgage
47 is a VA Loan. Both the Simpkins and the United States Government have been defrauded of their monies
48 by a corrupt and unlawful Builder, John Maher Builders, Inc., (JMB), CEO John Maher, (JM), and COO,

Page 45 of 55
 1 Tony Maher, (TM). The question that comes in, why would the Nashville DOJ and FBI
2 allegedly also wanted to help defraud the United States Government? There is no excuse
3 whatsoever for the DOJ or the FBI not investigating the Mortgage Fraud when the evidence proved
4 mortgage fraud before the Appellate Court Ruling on May 4th, 2022. Therefore, the DOJ and FBI are
5 also being held responsible for the corrupt acts of the Builder and allowing further harm to come not
6 just to the Simpkins, but to the Public, violating Public Policy by Federal Statutes. Who does a person
7 go to in order to sue the very Agencies that are supposed to uphold the law but instead protected the
8 Builder and violated the Simpkins’ Constitutional Rights to “Due Process of Law?” This seems to be a
9 habit by all authorities in the State of Tennessee.
10
11 Further, the Appellate Court on May 4th, 2022, issued an “Opinion” and a “Judgment” In Favor of the
12 Plaintiffs / Appellants, David and Sally Simpkins that the Builder, JMB, CEO, JM, and COO TM,
13 committed “fraud” in a “Breach of Contract,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-109(a)(3), “Breach of Warranty
14 Express or Implied,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-314. Implied warranty -- Merchantability -- Usage of
15 Trade. The Appellate Court Tribunal even stated that the Simpkins had proven the requirements
16 for “Fraudulent Concealment” perpetrated by the Defendants, John Maher Builders, Inc., CEO John
17 Maher, and COO Tony Maher. (See below).
18
19 In (Binding Authority), David Simpkins, et. al. v. John Maher Builders, et. al. No. M2021-00487-
20 COA-R3-CV (May 4th, 2022), Page 29, Paras 4 and 5;
21
22 “Accepting the allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaint as true, we determine that Plaintiffs’ factual
23 allegations have satisfied the following elements required to demonstrate fraudulent
24 concealment:
25 (1) Defendants affirmatively concealed and/or failed to disclose material facts regarding a cause
26 of the injury to Plaintiffs’ property despite a duty to do so;
27 (2) Defendants knew that Plaintiffs had been injured and the identity of the wrongdoer; and
28 (3) Defendants concealed material information from Plaintiffs by “‘withholding information or
29 making use of some device to mislead’ the plaintiff in order to exclude suspicion or prevent
30 inquiry.” See Redwing v. Catholic Bishop, 363 S.W.3d at 463 (Tenn. Feb 2012).
31
32 “Moreover, “[w]hether the plaintiff exercised reasonable care and diligence in discovering the
33 injury or wrong” is typically a fact question for the trier of fact to determine. Wyatt v. A-Best Co.,
34 910 S.W.2d 851, 854 (Tenn. 1995).”
35
36 We conclude that a trier of fact could determine that Plaintiffs, in the exercise of reasonable
37 care and diligence, could not have discovered this potential cause of their injury until January
38 2018 due to Defendants’ attempts to conceal this cause. If so, the statute of limitations would
39 not have begun to run until that date, rendering Plaintiffs’ claims subject to the three-year
40 statute of limitations timely filed.”
41
42 Therefore, the Simpkins’ case has been proven by the Appellate Court Ruling in the Opinion and the
43 Judgment as of May 4th, 2022, and all acts of aggression, suppression and subversive criminal acts
44 committing “Fraud on the Court,” and by the Courts and the Defendants and their Counsel also
45 committing “Fraud on the Court,” the Simpkins are entitled by Law to a Final Judgement in their favor
46 based on all of the “Judicially Noticed Evidence.”

Page 46 of 55
 1 The Simpkins have provided the full list of laws supporting the Simpkins case for Compensatory
2 Damages, Punitive Damages, Treble Damages, Incidental and Consequential Damages, Emotional
3 Distress Damages with Pre and Post Interest are at the end of this document and have been updated to
4 June 13, 2023.
5
6 The damages are based on the Simpkins’ actual cumulative expenses and losses with both Pre and Post
7 Interest calculated and included. (See Exhibit - SIMP-00A131 - 1375 Round Hill Ln Mit. of Damages
8 Expenses - FINAL 8-18-2023).
9 The Simpkins have presented both State and Federal Law where the Simpkins, the Plaintiffs and also
10 now as the Appellants have been entitled to monetary damages since the filing of their Complaint, see
11 attached, (Complaint Against John Maher Builders Final 12-30-2020). See the Tennessee Statutes that
12 back up the Simpkins’ complaint. (In the Simpkins response to Judge Hood’s alleged unlawful and
13 malicious manipulation of the law to railroad the Simpkins Compliant out of the Court to cause
14 intentional further injury, harm, and delay to obviously benefit the Builder, JMB. (Response to Court
15 Dismissal of the Simpkins Complaint 4-24-2023).
16
17 Prayer for Relief
18 The Simpkins respectfully request a Federal Court to award “Interim Damages,” to be paid immediately
19 as stated in Prayer for Relief in their (Response To Court’s Dismissal Of Plaintiffs Complaint Without
20 Proper Cause), (amount of damages have been updated to reflect up to June, 2023). Minimum
21 Compensatory Damages per Corporation and each Officer of the Corporation, John Maher and Tony
22 Maher, no less than $20,648,060.12 dollars, plus Pre-Interest by Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-123, of
23 $12,801,797,17, combined Compensatory Damages and Pre-Interest is $33,449,857.39 for a total of
24 $100,349,572.39 Compensatory Damages with Pre-Interest for all three. And with Treble Damages of
25 $301,048,716.51 dollars, plus Punitive Damages of $200,699,144.34, by Tennessee Statute, Tenn. Code
26 Ann. § 29-39-104 Punitive Damages, plus Emotional Distress Damages of $102,000,000 for a total of
27 $603,747,660.84. Plus $51,207,881.06 Post Interest by Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-123, , therefore, the
28 Simpkins are entitled to a Final Judgment for a total for a total of $629,421,793.27 dollars for Full
29 Damages by Tennessee law.
30
31 Interim Damages required at a minimum of $100,349,572.39 for the base damages by all three parties.
32
33 Adding in the additional Federal Damages as allowed by law, either $27,000,000 + $629,421,793.27 for
34 a total of $656,421,793.27 or if the $52,000,000 is allowed due to the egregiousness and malicious
35 intentions by the Builder, JMB, then the total due to the Simpkins is, $52,000,000 + $629,421,793.27
36 for a total of $681,421,793.27.
37
38 Link to all Evidence is here:
39 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/zhfsy2zal9o939gxf4d0b/h?rlkey=kegewzjoafz7fcgwqrzvgtwpp&dl=0
40
41 Sincerely,
42
43 David M. Simpkins
44 United States Naval Warfare Submarine Service
45 USS Will Rogers SSBN 659 (GOLD) CREW
46 Phone: (931) 398-4085

Page 47 of 55
 1 Email: d.simpkins.consultant@gmail.com

2
3
4 Primary Document for Update (This Document):
5 Critical Update to DOJ, FBI, SECNAV, VA OIG 8-18-2023
6
7 Primary Immediate Read Supporting Documents:
8 1. Cov. Let. to DOJ FBI VA OIG SON Critical Update 8-18-2023 (12 Pgs)
9 2. Critical Update to DOJ FBI SECNAV VA OIG 8-18-2023 (55 Pgs)
10 3. Address stolen by John Maher Builders as of 9-12-2022 (1 Pg)
11 4. Copy of Certified Mail Receipt 5-4-2023 (1 Pg)
12 5. Court Sending Mail to Home Address, not P.O. Box Address (1 Pg)
13 6. David Simpkins v. JMB Opinion 5-4-2022 (39 Pgs)
14 7. David Simpkins VA Hospital Appt. 4-4-2023 (1 Pg)
15 8. Exhibit 11A - Email Communications Between the Appellate Court and Mr. James Hivner 6-22-
16 2022 (14 Pgs)
17 9. Exhibit 11B - Email Comms Between the Simpkins & Mr. James Hivner 6-24-2022 (3 Pgs)
18 10. EXHIBIT EX-A110 Supporting Mot. for Rec. & Charges Filed (3 Pgs)
19 11. FINAL - Motion to App. Ct. Failure to Abide by the Rules and Law 8-8-2022 (38 Pgs)
20 12. FINAL - Plaintiff's Rule 10B Motion for Recusal 1-11-2023 (19 Pgs)
21 13. Judge Hood Denying Damages from 1st Motion 10-19-2022 (1 Pg)
22 14. Judgment by App Ct against JMB 5-4-2022 (1 Pg)
23 15. Mandate issued on 9-23-2022 by App Ct. (1 Pg)
24 16. Motion to App. Ct's Request to File Dckt. Stmt. v2 7-23-2023 (39 Pgs)
25 17. Notice to Appellate Court of Stat. of Evid. App. Ct. 8-2-2023 (5 Pgs)
26 18. Plaintiff's Response to Defendants Frivolous Motion Sanctions Demanded 5-2-2023 (36)
27 19. Response to Court Dismissal of the Simpkins Complaint 4-24-2023 (52 Pgs)
28 20. Structure of Motion Filed to App. Ct. on 7-28-2023 (2 Pgs)
29 21. Transcript of Kara True Filing Tech Support 8-11-2023 (9 Pgs)
30 22. Transcripts App. Ct Elizabeth 9-22-2022 (3 Pgs)
31 23. Transcript of Jakob Schwendimann 8-2-2023 (7 Pgs)
32
33 Total Pages in first group = 337
34
35

Page 48 of 55
 1 Department of Justice, (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigations, (FBI), Franklin, TN, District
2 Attorney’s Office, (FTNDA), Secretary of the Navy, (SECNAV), Veterans Association, Office of
3 the Inspector General, VA-OIG) List of Updates and Failure to act on those Updates:
4 1. Department of Justice Notification and Request of Status Final 4-20-2022
5 2. Department of Justice Update and New Developments as of 5-17-2022
6 3. Department of Justice Update and No Relief as of 5-27-2022
7 4. Department of Justice Update and No Relief as of 5-31-2022
8 5. Sally's 2nd Email to DOJ, FBI, and VAOIG 6-2-2022
9 6. Sally's 3rd Email to the DOJ, FBI, VAOIG 6-2-2022
10 7. Sally's Department of Justice Update as of 6-4-2022
11 8. Department of Justice Update and No Relief as of 6-21-2022
12 9. Department of Justice Update James Hivner Destruction of Court & Federal Documents 6-28-2022
13 10. Statement of the Case for Charges to Be Filed by the DOJ, FBI, DA 8-8-2022
14 11. October Complaint Sent to DOJ on 10-10-21
15 12. READ ME FIRST Cvr Ltr for FBI Constitutional Violations 11-23-2022
16 13. READ ME FIRST US Navy Constitutional Violations 11-23-2022
17 14. Department of Justice Update Judge Hood Violated Const. Rights Completely 11-21-2022
18 15. Dpmt of Just Updt Judge Hood Vio Const. Rits Completely 12-9-2022
19 16. UPDATE - DOJ, FBI, USN, VA OIG Update R. 10B Mot. for Recusal Judge Hood 1-11-2022
20 17. Update to DOJ, FBI, VA OIG, SON Jdg Hood Denies Motion to Recuse 2-3-2023
21 18. Update to DOJ, FBI, VA OIG, SON Extreme Health Affects Due to Mold 2-16-2023
22 19. Cover Letter to DOJ, FBI, VA OIG, SON Extreme Health Affects Due to Mold 2-28-2023
23 20. Update Concern Life Threaten Health Isssues to DOJ or Taylor Phillips V2 3-13-2023
24 21. Update on Unlawful Acts and Constitutional Rights Violations 4-9-2023
25 22. Update on Unlawful Acts and Constitutional Rights Violations 4-14-2023
26 23. Update on Unlawful Acts and Constitutional Rights Violations 4-24-2023
27 24. URGENT Update to DOJ, FBI, SON, DA, VA OIG 5-2-2023
28 25. URGENT Update to DOJ, FBI, SON, DA, VA OIG 5-9-2023
29 26. URGENT Update to DOJ, FBI, SON, DA, VA OIG 6-1-2023
30 27. URGENT Update to DOJ, FBI, SON, DA, VA OIG 6-13-2023
31
32 List of Documents Attached as Evidentiary Exhibits:
33
34 1. Address stolen by John Maher Builders as of 9-12-2022
35 2. Chancery Court Order to Obtain a New Address 10-28-2022
36 3. Complaint Against John Maher Builders Final 12-30-20 (126 Pgs)
37 4. Copy of Certified Mail Receipt 5-4-2023
38 5. David Simpkins, et. al. v. John Maher Builders, et. al. No. M2021-00487-COA-R3-CV (May 4th,
39 2022
40 6. EX-A300 - Image of New HP Computer (1 Pg)
41 7. Exhibit - SIMP-00A104 - Air Handler Unit Power Safety Switch Missing
42 8. Exhibit 11A - Email Communications Between the Appellate Court and Mr. J
43 9. Exhibit 11C - Cover Letter For Mailing Violation of U.S.C. 242 7-1-2022
44 10. Exhibit 11D - Notice to App. Ct. Violation of Fed Law Title 18 U.S.C. Sec 242
45 11. Exhibit L – NCEZID Fact Sheet – CDC and Fungal Diseases
46 12. Exhibit L1 - NCBI - Chronic Illness Associated with Mold and Mycotoxins
47 13. Exhibit L2 - Mycotoxins NIH July 2003),
48 14. Exhibit L3 - Fungal Spores Hazardous to Health

Page 49 of 55
 1 15. False VA form 26-1859, form HUD-92544 titled Claims Act,” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) False Claims
2 Act
3 16. FINAL - Amended Rule 36 Motion to Appellate Court 10-5-2021
4 17. FINAL - Appellants Amended Rule 36 Memorandum of Law 10-5-2021
5 18. FINAL - Motion for Court Order Defendants pay Interim Damages 11-7-2022
6 19. FINAL - Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Damages 10-11-2022 ,
7 20. FINAL - Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Award of Damages 10-31-2022
8 21. FINAL - Plaintiff's Rule 10B Motion for Recusal 1-11-2023
9 22. FINAL 4th Notice to App. Ct. of Evidence Tamp. 10-26-21
10 23. Jane Doe v. WBM, WOM, Ash Bowers, Jimmie Allen, and John Does 1-100, 3:23-cv-00477
11 24. Judgment by App Ct against JMB 5-4-2022
12 25. Kara True Filing Tech Support Transcripts
13 26. Order by Appellate Court Illegally Dismissing Appeal 8-7-2023
14 27. Order Denying Motion to Recuse 2-1-2023
15 28. Order From Chancery Court 11-15-2022
16 29. Plaintiff's Response to Defendants Frivolous Motion Sanctions Demanded 5-2-2023
17 30. Response Notice to Ch. Ct's False Claim to App. Ct. 7-23-2023
18 31. Response to Court Dismissal of the Simpkins Complaint 4-24-2023
19 32. SIMP-00A104 - Air Handler Unit Power Safety Switch Missing
20 33. SIMP-00A131 - 1375 Round Hill Ln Mit. of Damages Expenses - FINAL 6-13-2023
21 34. SIMP-00A91 – A-1 Waterproofing Suppl Invest Inspection by Inspector James Gafford, 10-30-20
22 35. Src File - Spec Consid R. App. P. 22 10-5-2021
23 36. State of Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct, June 26, 2023, Suspension of Judge Perry Stout
24 37. Transcript of Kara True Filing Tech Support 8-11-2023
25 38. Transcripts App. Ct Elizabeth 9-22-2022
26 39. Transcript of Jakob Schwendimann 8-2-2023
27 40. Transcripts of Proceedings 12-13-2022
28 41. VA form 26-1859, form HUD-92544 titled Warranty of Completion Of Construction
29 42. World Health Organization - Mycotoxins Oct 2011
30
31
32 Case Laws Used In This Critical Update:
33 1. Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985)Carter v. Gugliuzzi, 168 Vt. 48,
34 716 A.2d 17, 24-25 (1998)
35 2. Carter v. Gugliuzzi, 168 Vt. 48, 716 A.2d 17, 24-25 (1998)
36 3. Catherine Smith Bowling, et al. v. Todd Jones, et al. - E2007-01581-COA- R3-CV – (Filed May
37 16, 2008)
38 4. Cheshire Mortgage Serv., Inc. v. Montes, 223 Conn. 80, 612 A.2d 1130, 1144 (1992)
39 5. Continental Bankers Life v. Bank of Alamo, 578 S.W.2d 625 (Tenn.1979)
40 6. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)
41 7. David Simpkins, et. al. v. John Maher Builders, et. al. No. M2021-00487-COA-R3-CV (May
42 4th, 2022
43 8. Felker v. Felker, No. W2019-01925-COAR3-CV, 2021 WL 3507745, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. 22
44 Aug. 10, 2021
45 9. Gilbert v. Flint & P.M. Railway 16 N.W. 868, 869 (Mich. 1883)
46 10. Gillespie v. Broadway Nat’l. Bank, et al., 68 S.W.2d 479, 482 (Tenn. 1934).
47 11. Gray v. N.C. Ins. Underwriting Ass'n, 352 N.C. 61, 529 S.E.2d 676, 681 (2000)
48 12. Gwen Fayne Et Al. v. Teresa Vincent Et Al. 301 S.W.3d 162 (Tenn. 2009)

Page 50 of 55
 1 13. Jacob & Flint & PMR Co., 105 Mich. 450, 63 N.W. 502 (Mich. 1895)
2 14. Jane Doe v. WBM, WOM, Ash Bowers, Jimmie Allen, and John Does 1-100, 3:23-cv-00477
3 15. Kenai Chrysler Ctr., Inc. v. Denison, 167 P.3d 1240, 1255 (Alaska 2007)
4 16. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. 486 U.S. 847, 108 S. Ct. 2194 (1988)
5 17. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
6 18. Mayo v. Pioneer Bank & Trust Co., 274 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1960)
7 19. Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash
8 20. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 [1980])
9 21. Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972)
10 22. Redwing v. Catholic Bishop, 363 S.W.3d at 463 (Tenn. Feb 2012)
11 23. State ex rel. Miller v. Pace, 677 N.W.2d 761, 771 (Iowa 2004)
12 24. State Of Tennessee v John Christopher Schubert, No. E2019-01257-CCA-R3-CD,
13 25. State v. Weinschenk, 868 A.2d 200, 206 (Me.2005)
14 26. Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
15 27. Thomas Stasel v. American Home Security Corp., 199 N.E. 798 (Ill. 1935)
16 28. United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985)
17 29. Wolfe v. Missouri Pacific Railway, 11 S.W. 49, 51 (Mo. 1889)
18 30. Wyatt v. A-Best Co., 910 S.W.2d 851, 854 (Tenn. 1995)
19
20 Case Law Referenced For Specific Points in various Motions & Memorandums of Law:
21 1. Bowling v. Jones, 300 S.W.3d 288, 291 (Tenn.Ct.App.2008)
22 2. Brenda Benz-Elliott v. Barrett Enterprises, Lp Et. al.
23 3. Bush v. Cathey 598 S.W.2d 777 (1979)
24 4. Carey v. Piphus March 21 1978
25 5. Carpenter v. Donohoe 154 Colo. 78 (Colo. 1964)
26 6. Concrete Spaces, Inc. v. Sender 2 S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. 1999)
27 7. Connie Givens v. Ed Mullikin - W1999-01783-COA-R9-CV - Filed November 28, 2000
28 8. Dianne Lutzak v. Phoenix Dev. Part. M2015-02117-COA-R3-CV-(10-18-2017)
29 9. Doe v. Sundquist, 106 F.3d 702 (1997)
30 10. Fayne vs Vincent No. E2007-00642-COA-R3-CV, (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2008)
31 11. Federal Ins. Co. v. Winters. - 354 S.W.3d 287 (Tenn. 2011)
32 12. Felker v. Felker, No. W2019-01925 WL 3507745, at 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2021)
33 13. Finchum v. Ace USA E2003-00982-COA-R3-CV. 8-23-2004
34 14. First Nat. Bank of Louisville v. Brooks Farms, 821 S.W.2d 925 (Tenn. 1991)
35 15. Forrest Construction v JL Lauglin II v Thomas B, No. M2008-01566-COA-R3-CV - Filed
36 December 9, 2009
37 16. Holladay v. Speed 208 S.W.3d 408 Tenn. Ct. App. 8-21-2006
38 17. Joseph Riccardi V. Carl Little Construction, 7-26-2021
39 18. Murvin v. Cofer, 968 S.W.2D 304 (TENN. CT. APP. 1997)
40 19. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)
41 20. Pro Se Litigant Filing Guide Revised 3-2010
42 21. Ralph Hall Et Al. v. Jimmy D. Tabb Et Al. (March 25, 2021)
43 22. Realty Shop, Inc. v. RR Westminster Holding, Inc
44 23. Restatement 402A
45 24. Riccardi V. Carl Little Const. Co. No. E2020-00678-COA-R3-CV – (July 26, 2021)
46 25. Scott Campbell, Et Al. v. William H. Teague, Et Al. (March 31, 2010)
47 26. Smith v. UHS of Lakeside, Inc
48 27. TSC Industries, Inc. v. Tomlin

Page 51 of 55
 1 28. Wilson v. Dealy 434 S.W.2d 835 (1968)
2 29. Winkler v. Interim Services, Inc., 36 F. Supp. 2d 1026 (M.D. Tenn. 1999)
3 30. 13 Am.Jur.2d Building and Construction Contracts § 10 (2000)
4 31. 17A Am.Jur.2d Contracts § 612 (2011)
5 32. Mireles v. Waco 502 US 9, 116 L Ed 2d 9, 14, 112 S Ct 286 (US 1991)
6 33. 261 Kan. at 862
7 34. 37 Creighton L. Rev. 493, 502 (2004)
8 35. Alisa Leigh Eldrige, et al. v. Lee Savage M2012-00973-COA-R3-CV (Ct. of App, December 28,
9 2012)
10 36. Allen v. Corsano, D.C. Del., 56 F. Supp. 169, 170
11 37. Blanchard v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., C.A.5 (Fla.) 1965, 341 F.2d 351
12 38. Bodne v. Austin, 156 Tenn. 366, 2 S.W.2d 104 (Tenn. 1928)
13 39. Boro v. Hidell, 122 Tenn. 80, 120 S.W. 961 (Tenn. 1909)
14 40. Bowden, 27 S.W.3d at 916, (Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913 (Tenn. 2000)
15 41. Bowling v. Jones, 300 S.W.3d 288, 291 (Tenn.Ct.App.2008)
16 42. Brungard v. Caprice Wreckers, Inc., 608 S.W.2d 585, 590 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980)]." 812 S.W.2d at
17 592
18 43. Carter v. Krueguer, 916 S.W.2d 932 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995)
19 44. Cole v. Wyndchase Aspen Grove Acquisition Corp., No. 3:05-0558, 2006 WL 2827452, at *4
20 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 28, 2006)
21 45. Coleman v. Daystar Energy, Inc., No. E2007-00226-COA-R3-CV, 2007
22 46. Concrete Spaces, Inc. v. Sender, 2 S.W.3d 901, 904 n.1 (Tenn. 1999)
23 47. Custom Built Homes by Ed Harris v. McNamara, M2004-02703-COA-R3-CV, (2006)
24 48. Dailey v. Bateman, 937 S.W.2d 927, 930 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996)
25 49. Dixon v. Mountain City Constr. Co., 632 S.W.2d 538, 541 (Tenn. 1982)
26 50. Dobbs v. Guenther, 846 S.W.2d 270, 274 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993)
27 51. Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tenn.1999)
28 52. Edwards v. Travelers Ins. of Hartford, 563 F.2d 105, 112 (6th Cir. 1977)
29 53. Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)
30 54. Federal Ins. Co. v. Winters, 354 S.W.3d 287 (2011)
31 55. First Nat’l Bank of Louisville v. Brooks Farms, 821 S.W.2d 925, 927 (Tenn. 1991)
32 56. FTC v. Algoma Lumber Co., 291 U.S. 67, 81 (1934)
33 57. Gillespie v. Broadway Nat’l. Bank, et al., 68 S.W.2d 479, 482 (Tenn. 1934)
34 58. Greeter Const. Co. v. Tice, 11 S.W.3d 907, 910-11 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999)
35 59. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)
36 60. Hardcastle, 170 S.W.2d at 80
37 61. Haynes v. Cumberland Builders, Inc., 546 S.W.2d 228, 232 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976)
38 62. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 245-246 (1944)
39 63. Henry v. Goins, 104 S. W. 3d at 479 (Tenn. Sup. Ct. 2003)
40 64. Hodge v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325, 342 (Tenn. 2012)
41 65. Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896, 901 (Tenn. 1992)
42 66. Holladay v. Speed, 208 S.W.3d 408, 415 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)
43 67. Holt v. American Progressive Life Ins. Co., 7[31 S.W.2d 923, 927 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987)
44 68. Houseboating Corp. v. Marshall, 553 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tenn.1977)
45 69. Howell v. Davis, 43 Tenn. App. 52, 60, 306 S.W.2d 9, 12-13 (1957)
46 70. Hurley v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 922 S.W.2d 887, 892 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995)
47 71. In Re Estate of Greenamyre, 219 S.W.3d 877, 886 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)
48 72. In re Estate of Henderson, 121 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tenn. 2003)

Page 52 of 55
 1 73. In re Estate of Sylvia Marlene Tolbert, et al., v. State of Tennessee, No. M2017-00862-COA-R3-
2 CV)
3 74. Jones v. Prof’l Motorcycle Escort Serv., L.L.C., 193 S.W.3d 564, 572 (Tenn. 2006)
4 75. Karash v. Pigott, 530 S.W.2d 775, 777 (Tenn. 1975)
5 76. Keith v. Murfreesboro Livestock Market, Inc., [780 S.W.2d 751 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989)
6 77. Lavy v. Carroll, M2006-00805-COAR3-CV, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 809, at **9-10 (Tenn. Ct.
7 App. Dec. 26, 2007)
8 78. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S. Ct. 2194 (1988)
9 79. Macon Cty. Livestock Mkt. Inc. v. Ky. State Bank, Inc., 724 S.W.2d 343, 349 (Tenn. Ct. App.
10 1986)
11 80. Maddox v. Olshan Found. Repair & Waterproofing Co. of Nashville, L.P., No. M2018-00892-
12 COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 4464816, at *17 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2019)
13 81. Marquette Corp. v. Priester, D.C.S.C. 1964, 234 F. Supp. 799
14 82. McAllister v. Goode, 968 S.W.2d 834, 840 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997))
15 83. McClain v. Kimbrough Constr. Co., Inc., 806 S.W.2d 194, 198 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990)
16 84. Morrow v. Jones, 166 S.W.3d 254 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004)
17 85. Murvin v. Cofer, 968 S.W.2d 304 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997)
18 86. Nobes v. Earhart, 769 S.W.2d 868, 874 (Tenn. Ct. App.1988)
19 87. Parrott v. Parrott, 48 Tenn. 681, 687 (1870))." 42 S.W.3d at 67-68
20 88. Patel v. Bayliff, 121 Macon Cty. Livestock Mkt. Inc. v. Ky. State Bank, Inc., 724 S.W.2d 343, 349
21 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986)
22 89. Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240
23 90. Price v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 06-2216, 2008 WL 2910610, at *5 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 6,
24 2008)
25 91. Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233
26 92. Ralph Hall Et Al. v. Jimmy D. Tabb Et Al. W2020-00740-COA-R3-CV (March 25, 2021)
27 93. Ray v. Williams, No. W2000-03000-COA-R3-CV, 2002 WL 974671, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 9,
28 2002)
29 94. Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for Diocese of Memphis, 363 S.W.3d at 457 (Tenn. 2012)
30 95. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 205 1979)
31 96. Restatement § 402A Special Liability Of Seller Of Product For Physical Harm To User Or Cons
32 97. Scott Campbell, Et Al. v. William H. Teague, Et Al. No. W2009-00529-COA -R3-CV (March 31,
33 2010)
34 98. Simmons v. Evans, 185 Tenn. 282, 206 S.W.2d 295, 296 (1947)
35 99. Sostchin v. Doll Enters., Inc., 847 So.2d 1123, 1128 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)
36 100. Southern Coal & Coke Co. v. Beach Grove Mining Co., 381 S.W.2d 299, 302 (Tenn. 1963)
37 101. Stacks v. Saunders, 812 S.W.2d 587 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990)
38 102. State v. Stevens, 78 S. W. 3d 817, 832 (Tenn. 2002)
39 103. Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tenn.1997)
40 104. Tartera v. Palumbo, [453 S.W.2d 780, 782 (Tenn. 1970)
41 105. TSC Indus., Inc. v. Tomlin, 743 S.W.2d 169, 173 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987)
42 106. U.S. v. $3,216.59 in U.S. Currency, D.C.S.C.1967, 41 F.R.D. 433
43 107. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Triad Energy Corp. v. McNell 110 F.R.D. 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)
44 108. U.S.S. v. Cirami, C.A.2 (N.Y) 1977, 563 F.2d 26
45 109. United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985)
46 110. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996)
47 111. Valley v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 ( 1920 )
48 112. Vic Davis Constr., Inc. v. Lauren Engineers & Constructors, Inc., No. E2017-00844-COA-R3-

Page 53 of 55
 1 CV, 2019 WL 1300935, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2019)
2 113. Wallace v. Nat’l Bank of Commerce, 938 S.W.2d 684, 686 (Tenn. 1996)
3 114. Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 432 (Tenn. 2011)
4 115. Whaley v. Perkins, 197 S.W.3d 665, 670 (Tenn. 2006)
5 116. Whitaker, 32 S.W.3d at 230
6 117. Williamson v. Berry, How. 945, 540 12 L. Ed. 1170, 1189 ( 1850 )
7 118. Young v. Enerpac, 299 S.W.3d 815, 817 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009)
8 119. Yvonne M. Hampshire v. Ricky L. Hampshire 934 P.2d 58, 254-261 Kan. at 862, (March 7,
9 1997)
10
11
12 Federal Statutes Referenced:
13 1. 18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Sec. 1001 - Statements or entries generally), false and fraudulent “Warranty
14 of Completion of Construction.
15 2. 18 U.S. Code § 1010 - Sec. 1010 - Department of Housing and Urban Development and Federal
16 Housing Administration transactions
17 3. 18 U.S. Code § 1012 - Sec. 1012 - Department of Housing and Urban Development transactions
18 4. 18 U.S. Code § 1031 - Major fraud against the United States), This Federal Statute, 18 U.S. Code §
19 1031, Applies due to the Mortgage is a VA Loan backed by the Federal Government, which is the
20 United States.
21 5. 18 U.S. Code § 1324c - Penalties for document fraud
22 6. 18 U.S. Code § 1341 - Frauds and swindles, Mail Fraud,
23 7. 18 U.S. Code § 1343 - Frauds and swindles, Wire Fraud,
24 8. 18 U.S. Code § 1344 - Bank fraud), [Interstate trafficking of funds from a Federal Institution
25 9. 18 U.S. Code § 2314 - Transportation of stolen goods, securities, moneys, fraudulent State tax
26 stamps, or articles used in counterfeiting) [Interstate trafficking of funds from a Federal Institution
27 10. 18 U.S. Code § 3231 - District courts. “The district courts of the United States shall have original
28 jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United
29 States
30 11. 18 U.S. Code Chapter 47 - Fraud And False Statements,
31 12. 18 U.S.C. § 1014 the offense of making a false statement
32 13. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (2009), in a Mortgage Fraud case, “Victims in mortgage fraud cases are
33 statutorily entitled to restitution.”
34 14. 18 U.S.C. § 2071(a) Concealment, Removal, or Mutilation of Records
35 15. 18 U.S.C. Sec 241
36 16. 18 U.S.C. Sec 242
37 17. 18 U.S.C. Sec 245
38 18. 18 U.S.C. Sec 249
39 19. 28 U.S.C. § 1331
40 20. 28 U.S.C. § 1367
41 21. 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (a)–(d)
42 22. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) False Claims Act
43 23. 42 U.S.C., Ch, 21, Sub I, § 1983;. . which provides Federal Courts with the jurisdiction to render
44 “declaratory judgment” and “injunctive relief” as well as “monetary relief” over State Judges.
45
46
47
48

Page 54 of 55
 1 Tennessee Statutes & Constitution Referenced:
2 1. Tennessee Constitution Article I, § VIII
3 2. Tennessee Constitution Article I, § XVII 39-14-154. Actions by Home Improvement Services
4 Provider That Constitute Offense
5 3. 47-2-715 Buyer's Incidental and Consequential Damages 2021
6 4. 47-14-123. Prejudgment interest
7 5. Tenn. Code Ann. § 18-1-202 (2021)Documents Disposable
8 6. Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-510, Prohibited acts.
9 7. Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-511. False Documentation
10 8. Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-512. Home Improvement Criminal Penalty
11 9. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-503. Tampering With or Fabricating Evidence
12 10. Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-205. Limitation Not Defense
13 11. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-103 - Limitation of actions — Exception
14 12. Tennessee_Construction_Compendium_2017
15 13. Tennessee_USLAW-Construction_Compendium_2021
16 14. Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-105
17 15. Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-109
18 16. Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202
19 17. Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-205
20 18. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-103
21 19. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-154
22 20. Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-101
23 21. Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-104
24 22. Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-109
25 23. Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-314
26 24. Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-715
27 25. Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-5-202

Page 55 of 55