IN THE CHANCERY COURT FOR

THE TWENTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE

Case No. 20CV-50050

)
David Simpkins and Sally Simpkins ) PLAINTIFFS NOTICE AND RESPONSE TO
) CHANCERY COURT’S FALSE CLAIM
Appellants/Plaintiffs, ) FOR FAILURE TO FILE THE DOCKETING
) STATEMENT
v. )
)
JOHN MAHER Builders, Inc., et. al, )
JOHN MAHER and TONY MAHER )
)
Appellees/Defendant )
) FBI Director Christopher Wray
) US Deputy Attorney General, Lisa A. Monaco
) Secretary of the Navy, Carlos Del Toro
) Secretary of Veteran Affairs,
) Honorable Denis Richard McDonough
)

PLAINTIFFS NOTICE AND RESPONSE TO CHANCERY COURT’S FALSE CLAIM

FOR FAILURE TO FILE DOCKETING STATEMENT
1
2
3 AGAINST APPELLEES, JOHN MAHER BUILDERS, INC., et. al,
4 JOHN MAHER AND TONY MAHER INDIVIDUALLY
5
6
7 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)
8 "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we
9 hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
10
11 Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240 – The court below should have applied the rule of
12 Ghadiali v. Delaware State Medical Society, D.C. Del., 48 F. Supp. 789, 790, and Allen v. Corsano,
13 D.C. Del., 56 F. Supp. 169, 170, “that where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for the protection of civil
14 rights the court should endeavor to construe the plaintiff's pleading without regard for technicalities.”

Page 1 of 30
 1
2 Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 - Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se
3 litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
4
5 1) Comes now before the Chancery Court, Pro Se Litigants, David and Sally Simpkins, who
6 are filing this Motion to the Chancery Court, per R. of App. P. 24, and R. of App. P. 5(a) to notify the
7 Chancery Court that the Simpkins mailed the Docketing Statement on May 5th, 2023 to the Chancery
8 Court via US Mail, the same day the Simpkins filed the Amended Notice of Appeal to the Appellate
9 Court. The Plaintiffs will prove the falsity of the statement. See the attached “Docketing Statement,”
10 (Docketing Statement for Civil Appeals 5-5-2023).
11 2) Further the Plaintiffs / Appellants will prove the dangers and dangerous acts of a Court of
12 Law willing to allegedly blatantly violate the “Law,” “Binding Authorities,” “Prior Appellate Court
13 Rulings which are in favor of the Plaintiffs / Appellants,” and “Violate the Plaintiffs / Appellants
14 Constitutional Rights to Redress, Rights to “Due Process of Law,” “Deprivation of Rights to Remedies
15 of Law,” and outright allegedly “Stacking the Deck” against Pro Se Litigants due to their lack of
16 knowledge of the Law.
17 3) Alleged acts by a Court that are to be considered in contravention of the law, when there
18 is clear “Fraud on the Court,” by the Court. “Fraud on the court will, most often, be found where the
19 fraudulent scheme defrauds the “judicial machinery” or is perpetrated by an Officer of the court such that
20 the court cannot perform its function as a neutral arbiter of justice.1 Fraud directed at the “judicial
21 machinery” can mean conduct that fraudulently coerces or influences the court itself or a member of the
22 court, such that the impartial nature of the court has been compromised2. This is proven when an Officer
23 of the Court, is allegedly so focused on destroying one party in a lawsuit in the name of the law, but doing
24 so in a manner inconsistent with the “Judicial Process.” Where the Officer of the Court’s conduct and
25 actions are in complete contradiction of the rules or laws, therefore Trespassing on the Constitution and
26 the subsequent amendments violating a party’s rights. Therefore, the Judge is` acting in their personal
27 capacity, and no longer acting in their judicial capacity, losing the immunity of a Judge who should be
28 acting in their role as a Judiciary upholding the law.
29 Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that
30 species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by
31 officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its
32 impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387
33 F.3d 689 (1968); Illoore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further

1
Martina Theatre Corp. v. Schine Chain Theatres, Inc., 278 F.2d 798, 801 (2d Cir. 1960)
2
Bulloch v. United States, 721 F.2d 713, 718 (10th Cir.1983).

Page 2 of 30
 1 stated, "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and
2 never becomes final."
3
4 Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)
5 Note: By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private
6 individual (in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does
7 not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges' orders are not
8 voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that
9 "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution,
10 he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case
11 stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the
12 consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity
13 from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States." When a judge acts
14 intentionally and knowingly to deprive a person of his constitutional rights he exercises no
15 discretion or individual judgment; he acts no longer as a judge, but as a " minister" of his own
16 prejudices. FTC v. Procter & Gamble Co., 386 U.S. 568 (1967).
17
18 4) The Simpkins have proven and listed some of the “scheming ways” the Chancery Court
19 and the Defendants allegedly performed to thwart the Judicial Process so that a Builder, a favored Party
20 to a “Lawsuit” could prevail, not on the law, but on the premise of contrived and systematic steps to
21 create the appearance of the Court adjudicating the law, all the while to subvert the entire judicial process
22 for one outcome, a win for the Defendants, (who “Abandoned” the Plaintiffs after the first month of
23 ownership), a Builder who has strong political connections, finances, and alliances, and undue influence
24 with several parties that has no business in a Court of Law. This Court has allegedly allowed corruption
25 to run deep into the Judicial aspects of this Court case against two Pro Se litigants who have had to suffer
26 the inequities of this Court of Law, who have had to suffer in incorrigible living conditions so heinous as
27 to disturb the mind of any person in a normal society. These acts, by a Court of Law, are so disturbing as
28 to set one’s mind on a tilt with such an imbalance as to question the entire judicial process and the very
29 subrogation of the law to such depths as to rendered the Judiciary impotent and useless.
30
31 1) Incorporation of All Causes of Actions, Complaints, Appellate Briefs, Filings,
32 Motions, Notices, Pleadings, Memorandums of Law, Responses to Defendants
33 Motions, Response to Court Orders, and Judgements Against the Defendants
34
35 5) The Plaintiffs incorporate every allegation, all evidence and all causes of action contained
36 in all the Simpkins filings to the Chancery Court and the Appellate Court to include the Simpkins
37 complaint against John Mahers Builders Inc, and all motions, memorandums of law, notices, responses
38 and all evidentiary documents filed in the Chancery Court, and all motions, memorandums of law,

Page 3 of 30
 1 notices, responses and all evidentiary documents filed with the Appellate Court to date, to include the
2 Plaintiff’s Appellant Brief and all supporting evidence and exhibits, Appellate Court “Opinion and
3 Judgment” against John Maher Builders, Inc., CEO, John Maher and COO, Tony Maher, as though set
4 forth fully herein for this “Response Motion to the Chancery Court’s False Claim” based on the Courts
5 alleged unlawful R. of Civ. Proc 37 Sanction for “dismissal” of the Plaintiff’s Complaint which was
6 actually based on an alleged retaliatory action by the Officer of the Chancery Court, Judge Hood in
7 violation of the Plaintiff’s rights to “Due Process of Law,” alleged intentional wanton malicious acts to
8 cause further injury and physical, mental, emotional and financial harm against the Plaintiffs, United
9 States Naval Warfare Submarine Veteran, David Simpkins and his Wife, Sally Simpkins.
10 6) Hereafter, the Chancery Court will be consistently referred to the “Chancery Court” or the
11 “Court.” The Appellate Court will be referred to as either the “Appellate Court or “AC.” The Simpkins
12 will be referred to as the “Simpkins,” “Plaintiffs,” or “Appellants.” The “Defendants," the “Appellees’”
13 names may be abbreviated: John Maher Builders, Inc., may be referred to as (“JMB Inc.”, “JMB”, the
14 “Builder”, or the “Defendants”); John Maher, CEO and President of JMB, may be referred to as (“JM”,
15 or “JMB”, or “JMB Inc.”, or the “Builder”, or “Defendants”); and Tony Maher, COO of JMB, may be
16 referred to as (“TM”, or “JMB”, or “JMB Inc.”, or the “Builder”, or “Defendants”). Eddie Savage,
17 Superintendent of JMB, hereinafter may be referred to as (“ES” or “JMB,” or “JMB Inc.,” or the
18 “Builder”).
19
20 II. The Parties And Jurisdiction

21 7) The Plaintiffs David and Sally Simpkins reside and live at 1375 Round Hill Ln, Spring

22 Hill, TN, 37174, in Williamson County. The Defendants JM and TM et. al., place of business, JMB, Inc.,
23 is located at 1109 Kedron Rd, Spring Hill, TN, 37174. JMB Inc. is registered to do business in Williamson

24 County Tennessee. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that each of the

25 Defendants are the agents, servants, employees, representatives, partners, and related or affiliated entities

26 of each other, and are the liable and responsible party as stated in all expert reports and were acting in the

27 course and scope of their agency, employment, or retention with the permission, consent, authority, and

28 ratification of the other Defendants. Jurisdiction is not proper with Judge Hood, or the Chancery Court

29 due to Judge Hood superseding two higher Court binding authorities denying the Plaintiff’s their
30 Constitutional “Rights to Remedies”, violating the Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights to “Due Process

Page 4 of 30
 1 of Law,” and further Judge Hood caused alleged intentional, wanton, malicious, injury and harm to

2 the Simpkins, specifically Mr. Simpkins, causing permanent damage to his left eye, injury to his left

3 kidney and injury to his liver. Judge Hood of the Chancery Court and the Chancery Court no longer

4 have jurisdiction of this case. Further that this Court has never addressed the subject matter jurisdiction

5 challenge by the Plaintiffs to the Court. Venue is not proper in Williamson County, TN because of

6 aforementioned acts against the Simpkins by the Court and the alleged influence of the Builder to parties

7 within Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Hickman, Maury, Marshall and Williamson counties.
8
9 "Jurisdiction, although once obtained, may be lost, and in such case proceedings cannot be
10 validly continued beyond the point at which jurisdiction ceases." Federal Trade Commission v.
11 Raladam Co., 283 U.S. 643, 75 L.Ed. 1324, 51 S.Ct. 587.”
12
13 “Void judgment is one where court lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or entry of
14 order violated due process, U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Triad Energy Corp. v. McNell 110 F.R.D.
15 382 5 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).”
16
17 “In Benedicta Kurunwune Obi V. George Ob, No. M2010-00485-COA-R3-CV - Filed June 1, 20
18 2011; An abuse of discretion is found in the following circumstances: a trial court has applied an
19 incorrect legal standard or reached a decision which is against logic or reasoning that caused an
20 injustice to the party complaining. Henry v. Goins, 104 S. W. 3d at 479 (citing State v. Stevens,
21 78 S. W. 3d 817, 832 (Tenn. 2002) (quotations and additional citations omitted)).”
22
23 "Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them.
24 If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and
25 orders are regarded as nullities; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to
26 reversal." Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 945, 540 12 L. Ed. 1170, 1189 (1850).
27
28 “When a judge acts intentionally and knowingly to deprive a person of his constitutional
29 rights he exercises no discretion or individual judgment; he acts no longer as a judge, but as a
30 "minister" of his own prejudices. [386 U.S. 547, 568];
31
32 III. Statement of the Issues
33 8) One of the requirements when filing an appeal is to notify the Chancery Court and the
34 Appellate Court whether a party requests either evidence or transcripts to be sent to the Appellate Court
35 for review with the Appeal. The Plaintiffs, Pro Se Litigants David and Sally Simpkins filed the Docketing
36 Statement with the check boxes checked for transcripts and evidence to the Chancery Court on May 5th,
37 2023. The Chancery Court has made a claim that the Plaintiffs never filed the Docketing Statement,
38 (which was false) because the Plaintiffs, on June 8th learned from Appellate Court Clerk, Lisa Marsh, that
39 the Chancery Court stated that the Simpkins had not filed the “Docketing Statement.” Mr. Simpkins

Page 5 of 30
1 informed Ms. Marsh that he had. In fact, the Simpkins had filed the required document twice. Mr.
2 Simpkins notified Ms. Marsh that he had filed the “Docketing Statement” to the Chancery Court on May
3 5th, along with sending filing of the document with the original Notice of Appeal information for the May
4 4th, 2023 to the Appellate Court. (See Copy of Certified Mail Receipt 5-4-2023). After speaking with Ms.
5 Marsh, Mr. Simpkins sent it again on May 12th, 2023.
6
7 See below the image of the “Docketing Statement” filed May 4th, 2023 to the Chancery Court.

Page 6 of 30
 1 9) Mr. Simpkins suspects that the “Docketing Statement” was not filed because the Simpkins
2 did not send it via certified mail.
3 10) The Simpkins decided to put it to the test again to see if the Chancery Court would actually
4 not file it again if it was not sent certified mail. As Mr. Jacob Schwendimann’s statement proves, the
5 Chancery Court did not file the document because there was no tracking associated with the document.
6 That is two times the Simpkins sent the document to the Court and two times the document was not filed
7 to cause further injury, harm and delay by the Chancery Court against the Simpkins and to further delay
8 the case to again cause the Simpkins further injury, harm and most especially delay. There are two
9 possibilities for the document not making it to the Chancery Court, a) the document was intercepted
10 because the Simpkins’ mail is still be intercepted by John Maher Builders, Inc., based on the Zip Code
11 Lookup on the US Postal Service Website on September 12, 2022, and the fact that no Court Order was
12 issued either by the Chancery Court nor a Federal Court to stop the Builder from intercepting the
13 Simpkins’ mail. And nothing has changed, any personal mail or bills do not arrive at the Simpkins’ U.S.
14 Residential Postal Mailbox. b) the Chancery Court is receiving the document, but the Chancery Court has
15 failed to file the document in favor of the Builder which the bias is rampant in the Chancery Court for
16 the Builder. A onetime failure to file the “Docketing Statement” can be considered an error, two times
17 proves it was intentional either way.
18 11) Please note the modified date (in the title) of the Docketing Statement, from May 4th, to
19 May 5th, 2023, which was due to the rejection of the online filing attempt, on May 4th, 2023, through the
20 “True Filing System” that failed due to filing being filed to the old case number, (by other parties) who
21 took control of the Simpkins’ computer just after Mr. Simpkins had just signed up with the True Filing
22 System and was just learning how to use it, and filed the documents. Due to the filing being filed with
23 the old Appellate Court Case number, the filing was rejected. Only an Attorney would know how to use
24 the True Filing System so quickly and obviously intentionally filed it incorrectly to thwart the Simpkins
25 from properly filing their case.
26 12) Please note the time stamp of the date of the update to the document, which was updated
27 on June 11th, three days after speaking to Ms. Marsh, Appellate Court Clerk and mailed to the Court on
28 Monday, June 12th, 2023. Please note on Thursday, June 20th, 2023, the Simpkins received a Notice from
29 the Appellate Court, (not the Chancery Court) that the document had not been filed with a request to file
30 the document with the Appellate Court. The Plaintiffs are making this distinction that the Chancery Court
31 did not notify the Plaintiffs that they (had not received) the required document, (the Docketing Statement).
32 The Plaintiffs find that curious since the Appellate Court took the time to notify the Plaintiffs / Appellants.

Page 7 of 30
 1 13) The reason is obvious, the case has now been illegally extended another one hundred and
2 ten (110) days against the Simpkins clearly intentionally to cause the Plaintiffs / Appellants further injury,
3 harm and again, (obvious intentional delay), which is an intentional “Obstruction of a Legal Proceeding,”
4 and “Obstruction of Justice” knowing full well that the Plaintiffs, the Simpkins are living in the harshest
5 possible conditions, and making sure they suffer even more, emotionally, mentally, physically and
6 financially. And it is the Courts that are also allegedly complicit with the actions of the Builder and the
7 Chancery Court. These tactics have been allowed by the Chancery Court and the Appellate Court to cause
8 these unlawful and unjustifiable delays well beyond a reasonable timeframe. The five and a half months
9 (5.5) by the Appellate Court alone was done without any lawful basis to do so. The same with the
10 Chancery Court, it has been one hundred and ten (110) days since the unlawful and retaliatory judgment
11 by the Chancery Court to derail and unlawfully dismiss the Plaintiff’s case. In the legal system it is called
12 “interference with a legal proceeding.”
13 (See the image of the timestamp where the file was updated to select both Evidence and
14 Transcripts within the document, below.)

15
16 14) Within the Docketing Statement, both the Transcripts and Evidence boxes were selected
17 to be sent with the Technical Record because the Court allegedly tampered with Transcripts3, (Transcripts
18 of Proceedings 12-13-2022), which originally contained information that proves that the Transcripts were
19 tampered with and actual accusations by Judge Hood against the Simpkins; “Attempting to extort $45M
20 out of this good man, John Maher,” in a Court of Law showing clear bias against the Simpkins were
21 removed and the statements were modified to change it from an accusation to a theoretical statement of
22 “What if.” There were numerous Attorneys and Witnesses in the Court Room and others who came to
23 the December 13th, 2022 Status Hearing where Judge Hood spent an hour berating and humiliating the
24 Simpkins in a Court of law while defending John Maher, again stating the Simpkins were attempting to

3
Note that the transcripts attached to this Motion were provided by the Chancery Court, they are not the
(Original) Transcripts by the (Court Reporter, Nicole M. DeBartolo of “Elite Brentwood Reporting Services.” These
transcripts are suspected of being tampered with because of the accusations by Judge Hood against the Simpkins are not
in the transcripts. And the Simpkins had written down exactly what Judge Hood had stated. The Simpkins requested the
DOJ to obtain a copy of the Transcripts for future reference in case the transcripts were tampered with by the Court. It is
the Simpkins understanding that the DOJ did obtain a copy of the transcripts from the reporting service.

Page 8 of 30
 1 “extort $45 million dollars out of this good man, John Maher, that is not going to happen,” all the while
2 pointing at him with her left arm while making that statement. She further defended Attorney Brewer,
3 stating that “he was a fine upstanding Attorney in the Community” and could not believe that he would
4 send a virus to our computer, when that is exactly what he did do. Without any proof to prove that he did
5 not send the virus, Judge Hood made a definitive determination that he “did not do it” even though there
6 is no way she could have known that without an investigation of which never occurred, intentionally to
7 protect the Builder and the Attorney, J. Paul Brewer. By law according to the DOJ, Judge Hood was
8 required to report the claims by the Simpkins to the DOJ of any potential criminal acts whether or not she
9 felt the claims were baseless. That Judge Hood covered a potential crime that she had no business making
10 that determination without an investigation. Judge Hood refused to do so, stating that all the Simpkins’
11 claims were without merit.
12
13 III. Arguments
14 15) The aforementioned image of the “Docketing Statement,” the image of the “Date and
15 Timestamp,” and the image of the only communications from the Chancery Court through the “Clerk and
16 Master, Jacob Schwendimann,” proves the following.
17 a. That the Plaintiffs filed the Docketing Statement two separate times.
18 b. That the Date and Timestamp prove the efforts of the Plaintiffs to get the “Docketing
19 Statement” filed with the Chancery Court and the Appellate Court on time.
20 c. That there were only two email communications from the Court from February 1st, 2023
21 to the day of the “Judgement” and unlawful “Dismissal” of the Plaintiff’s case, on April
22 4th, 2023, without a proper legal basis to do so. Only a false and contrived basis to appear
23 to be legitimate, when in fact it was false and unlawful. The Plaintiffs “Never Received
24 Any Notice of the Hearings for March 7th, 2023, nor for the April 4th, 2023 hearing via
25 US Postal Mail or Email from the Court orthe Defendants!”
26 d. The images prove that the Plaintiffs received no notification via mail or email of the March
27 7th, 2023 Hearing.
28 e. That the Simpkins received no notice of the April 4th Hearing via mail or email.
29 f. That the phone call made by Mr. Simpkins to the Clerk and Master on February 27th, 2023,
30 to inquire as to any notices or filings from the Court, and to also inform the Clerk and
31 Master, Jacob Schwendimann of the events that took place between January and February
32 for two events that were catastrophic to the Plaintiffs, especially Mr. Simpkins. The first

Page 9 of 30
 1 being that the Simpkins, Router, Printer and Computer were all hacked and destroyed.
2 That when the Simpkins computer was hacked, legal directories were downloaded and
3 then deleted off of the Simpkins’ computer. Then the boot sector was destroyed and then
4 the hard drive was wiped, destroying the Simpkins computer. Then destroying the router
5 to where it no longer worked, and the Simpkins went through a three week process before
6 they could have internet access again through two replacement routers.
7 g. The second issue being that Mr. Simpkins developed an infection in his left eye on
8 February 4th, which caused severe pain and slight loss of vision. The eye had not fully
9 recovered which reemerged on February 26tth, and by March 5th caused the eye, the
10 surrounding sinuses to swell up and caused excruciating debilitating pain. On March 6th,
11 Mr. Simpkins’ eye ruptured and bled out for three days before he could get it under control.
12 Since that time, Mr. Simpkins has lost approximately 50% of his vision and only has
13 blurred vision with no discernability. Further that he has a black spot / no vision on the
14 left side of the eye leaving a large gap in his vision with the left and upper left to right
15 cloudy blurry vision.
16 h. See the three Motions filed to the Chancery Court, the first one on March 9th, 2023, 1)
17 (Motion for Recusal & Charges to Filed Against Judge Hood 3-6-2023), to Judge Johnson
18 (who the Simpkins were told at that time that Judge Johnson was the Presiding Judge over
19 the Chancery Court). It was later discovered that it was an obvious lie to the Simpkins so
20 that they would be delayed in getting any justice in the Chancery Court.
21 i. 2) A handwritten Motion to the Court to remove Judge Hood from the case for clear and
22 distinct alleged violations of the law and the Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights, to “Due
23 Process of Law” to Judge Binkley, (the Simpkins later learned that Judge Binkley was the
24 actual Presiding Judge of the Chancery Court), (Mot. Rmve Judge Hood Frm Case, LSMJ,
25 Chg of Venue 3-29-2023), on March 29th, 2023, as to Mr. Simpkins’ health issues and Left
26 Eye infection again, and 3) that the Simpkins’ Network Router, Computer, and Printer,
27 had all been hacked, corrupted, and destroyed rendering them useless by unknown parties.
28 (But it is clear which parties would have benefited from such diabolical actions), and 4)
29 a request for Change of Venue was presented to the Court in the March 29th Motion
30 because it was clear that the Simpkins would never receive justice in a biased Court all in
31 favor of the Builder who had clear undue influence in the Williamson County, Franklin,
32 TN Chancery Court.

Page 10 of 30
 1 j. And another Motion for Change of Venue to the Chancery Court and removal of Judge
2 Hood from the case due to her clear bias for the Defendants, on April 3rd, 2023, (Motion
3 for Change of Venue and Incompetence Against Judge Hood 4-3-2023).
4
5 16) As proven from the above forementioned motions to the Court, Judge Hood’s actions were
6 witnessed by (others in the Court who were there to bear witness to Judge Hood’s actions), when Judge
7 Hood gave an opinion as to the character of John Maher and Attorney Brewer. Judges are not allowed to
8 make a reference as to someone’s character, because in doing so, the Judge is taking a side, and is showing
9 clear partiality, (Bias) for the other party. Judge Hood has done this several times. On the date of the
10 December 13th Status Hearing, Judge Hood upon entering the Court Room immediately made eye contact
11 with John Maher and she waved with her left had at her waist in a vigorous manner and gave a large
12 personal smile to John Maher, he responded in kind with a personal smile and nodded his head twice
13 almost as a bow to Judge Hood. From that moment on it was clear that some type of inappropriate
14 relationship existed between Judge Hood and John Maher. That is just one of many examples of
15 inappropriate behavior and actions by Judge Hood that do not belong in a Court of Law. That showed
16 clear bias towards John Maher, not a question, but obvious bias and some type of inappropriate
17 relationship existed between Judge Hood and John Maher.
18 17) The Simpkins have attached the “Docketing Statement” to this email for the Chancery
19 Court that was sent to the Chancery Court on May 5th and June 12th 2023. (See Exhibit - Docketing
20 Statement for Civil Appeals 5-5-2023).
21 18) The Simpkins have previously sent many of the other pertinent documents and exhibits
22 pertaining to the alleged retaliation against the Simpkins by the Chancery Court in the previous Statement
23 of Issues to the Appellate Court. But due to learning of new information since the Simpkins filed the
24 Amended Statement of Issues, the Simpkins felt it was important to bring the information to the attention
25 of the Appellate Court.
26
27 IV. Summary
28 19) The Plaintiffs / Appellants are providing the “Docketing Statement” directly to the
29 Chancery Court a third time, through email directly to the Clerk and Master, Jacob Schwendimann, for
30 filing with the Chancery Court, the first being on May 4th, 2023 for the record.
31 20) As previously requested, the Plaintiffs / Appellants are awaiting the Appellate Court to
32 make a ruling on the Amended Expedited Motion with the Amended Statement of Issues since May 12th,

Page 11 of 30
 1 2023. It has been one hundred ten (110) days since the Plaintiffs / Appellant sent an Expedited Motion to
2 the Appellate Court which did not require the “Docketing Statement” to be filed before the Appellate
3 Court could make a ruling based on the facts, evidence and newly discovered Tennessee State Statutes
4 and Federal Laws that proved the Simpkins were entitled to damages immediately based on those State
5 and Federal Laws.
6
7 21) State Laws Judge Hood was required to Rule in Favor of the Plaintiffs but refused to
8 violating the law and the Plaintiff’s rights to “Due Process of Law” and violating their Constitutional
9 Rights to “Remedies” as required by Law.
10
11 Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-510. Prohibited acts. For; Abandonment or willful failure to perform,
12 without justification
13 1. Abandonment or willful failure to perform, without justification, any home improvement
14 contract or project engaged in or undertaken by a contractor or willful deviation from or
15 disregard of plans or specifications in any material respect without the consent of the
16 owners;
17 2. Making any substantial misrepresentation in the procurement of a home improvement
18 contract or making any false promise of character likely to influence, persuade or induce;
19 3. Any fraud in the execution of, or in the material alteration of, any contract, mortgage,
20 promissory note or other document incident to a home improvement transaction;
21 5. Willful or deliberate disregard and violation of the building, sanitary and health laws of this
22 state or of any political subdivision of this state or of the safety, labor, or workers'
23 compensation insurance laws of this state.
24
25 Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-511. False Documentation
26 The fraudulent “Warranty of Completion of Construction” signed by John Maher.
27
28 Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-512. Criminal Penalty, commits a Class A misdemeanor. Each
29 violation is deemed a separate offense.
30
31 22) Federal Laws which proved that Judge Hood was required to report the Simpkins claims
32 to the DOJ and FBI by Law due to the Federal Mortgage Fraud based on the VA Loan backed by the
33 Federal Government
34 1. (18 U.S. Code Chapter 47 - Fraud And False Statements),
35 2. (18 U.S. Code § 1341 - Frauds and swindles, Mail Fraud),
36 3. (18 U.S. Code § 1343 - Frauds and swindles, Wire Fraud),
37 4. (18 U.S. Code § 1344 - Bank fraud), [Interstate trafficking of funds from a
38 Federal Institution]
39 5. (18 U.S. Code § 2314 - Transportation of stolen goods, securities, moneys,
40 fraudulent State tax stamps, or articles used in counterfeiting) [Interstate
41 trafficking of funds from a Federal Institution]

Page 12 of 30
 1 6. (18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Sec. 1001 - Statements or entries generally), false and
2 fraudulent “Warranty of Completion of Construction.
3 7. (18 U.S. Code § 1010 - Sec. 1010 - Department of Housing and Urban
4 Development and Federal Housing Administration transactions),
5 8. (18 U.S. Code § 1012 - Sec. 1012 - Department of Housing and Urban
6 Development transactions),
7 9. (18 U.S. Code § 1031 - Major fraud against the United States), [This Federal
8 Statute, 18 U.S. Code § 1031, may apply because of the Loan is a VA Loan backed
9 by the Federal Government, which is the United States.)
10 10. (18 U.S.C. § 3663A (2009) Mandatory restitution to victims of certain crimes.) Therefore,
11 restitution is available immediately based on United States v. Lindsey, 850 F.3d 1009,
12 1011 (9th Cir. 2017).
13 11. (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) False Claims Act) by John Maher when he signed the
14 “Warranty of Completion of Construction” making it a “Fraudulent” act knowing
15 the falsity of his claim that the property was completed, when knowing full well that
16 it was not and also knowing that it is systemic with mold.
17 12. (18 U.S.C. § 1014 the offense of making a false statement). This Federal Statute also
18 applies to the fraudulent “Warranty of Completion of Construction” Federal
19 Document for Mortgage Fraud.
20 13. 18 U.S. Code § 1324c - Penalties for document fraud. “Warranty of Completion
21 of Construction” making it a Federal “Fraudulent” act.
22 14. Mortgage Fraud falls under the 2009 Fraud Enforcement and Recover Act,
23 (FERA).
24 15. (18 U.S. Code § 3231 - District courts). The district courts of the United States shall
25 have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against
26 the laws of the United States. Based on this Federal Statute, Judge Hood knew she was
27 required to notify the U.S. Federal District Court of the Mortgage Fraud but
28 intentionally did not to protect the Builder from criminal charges, which is in and of
29 itself an alleged Federal Criminal act by Judge Hood for failure to notify the United
30 States District Court of the Federal Mortgage Fraud.
31 16. (38 U.S. Code § 3705 –Warranties), and penalties for failure to perform or comply
32 17. (42 U.S. Code § 1320d–5 - General penalty for failure to comply with
33 requirements and standards); 3(C), (D).
34
35 23) The Simpkins will be filing an Amended Statement of Issues as well as a Motion for Relief
36 to the Appellate Court based on Tennessee Statutes ignored by the Chancery Court and based on Federal
37 Statutes that proves the Simpkins were entitled to monetary damages from Federal Statutes as well based
38 on the false and fraudulent “Warranty of Completion of Construction” signed by CEO John Maher.

Page 13 of 30
 1 24) Further, the Simpkins proved the reason the Plaintiffs did not receive any notices from the
2 Court concerning the hearings, and that the Court and the Defendants were using the Simpkins home
3 mailing address instead of the P.O. Box address, P.O. Box 682971, Franklin, TN, 37068, as Ordered by
4 the Court, Judge Hood to ensure that the Simpkins “would not receive the notifications” and supposedly
5 emailed a copy of the notice to the Simpkins’ old email hacked account, dms.consultant@gmx.com which
6 the Court had already been notified of. The Simpkins state supposedly, only because the old email address
7 is listed in both the Court’s and the Defendant Counselor’s Notices. It couldn’t be more obvious that both
8 the Defendants Counsel and the Court at the very same time changed the address and the email address
9 based on what Mr. Jacob Schwendimann sent to the Simpkins On April 4th, 2023, which was the Order
10 to “Dismiss the Simpkins’ Complaint with Prejudice,” (past the March and April hearing dates) so that
11 the Simpkins could at least have a copy of what the Court supposedly sent out. See below image showing
12 the dates of receipt of emails from Clerk and Master, Jacob Schwendimann and dates that Mr. Simpkins
13 sent emails to Mr. Jacob Schwendimann for requested filing: (Note: That emails from Jacob
14 Schwendimann are in the left side of the page with his name, any emails sent from Mr. Simpkins will
15 show as (me).

16
17 25) Please note the highlighted emails from Mr. Jacob Schwendimann, the February 1st email and the
18 April 4th email. The April 4th email contained the Order from the Court to dismiss the Simpkins’ complaint. This
19 Order was issued without the Court addressing the Motion to the Court for a change of Venue filed on April 3 rd,
20 2023. The Court did not acknowledge or respond to that Motion. These communications from the Court Clerk and

Page 14 of 30
 1 Master are the only communications from the Court between the dates of February 1 st, 2023, and April 4th, 2023.
2 The Simpkins find it both interesting and disturbing that the Court Clerk and Master could send the Order from the
3 Court to the Simpkins correct email address to notify the Simpkins of the horrible news that their Case had been
4 “DIMISSED” yet again with “PREJUDICE.” But the same Court Clerk and Master could not email the Simpkins
5 the Notice of a Hearing for March 7th and did not email the second Notice of a Hearing for April 4th. The last
6 communication from the Court Clerk and Master, was the last communication from the Chancery Court via email
7 on February 1st, which was clearly prior to the March 7th hearing which the Simpkins were never made aware of.
8 That is without question intentional. The February Order was the Order denying the Simpkins’ justified Motion to
9 Recuse Judge Hood, as proven by Judge Hood’s latest alleged violations of the Law and the Plaintiff’s
10 Constitutional Rights to “Due Process of Law” and the “Deprivation of those Rights to Remedies” as allowed by
11 Law, but Judge Hood intentionally ruling in contravention of those laws in favor of the Defendants. This proves
12 yet again clear bias for the Defendants against the Plaintiffs, David and Sally Simpkins.
13 26) Reiterated partially here to the Appellate Court as in the Amended Statement of Issues,
14 which contained Tennessee Statutes and Federal Statutes that were discovered after the case was
15 dismissed by the Court on April 4th, 2023, in alleged retaliation by the Chancery Court for the Simpkins
16 filing charges against Judge Hood, the Defendants and the Defendant’s Counsel for causing intentional
17 injury and harm to the Simpkins even after requesting the Court to address the health issues before it
18 caused permanent injury to Mr. Simpkins’ left eye. The newly discovered pre-existing laws are listed
19 below that were not addressed by the Court. Those laws provided the Appellants the protection for the
20 “Abandonment and Willful Failure to Perform Without Justification,” perpetrated by the Builder, JMB,
21 CEO, John Maher, COO, Tony Maher, in violation of those Tennessee Laws, which allowed for criminal
22 penalties to be charged against the Defendants and allowed for an award of monetary damages to the
23 Appellants. The Chancery Court, Judge Hood, Officer of the Court presiding over the case allegedly
24 unlawfully and in complete contravention of those laws, refused to even acknowledge those laws and
25 refused to apply those laws as required by “LAW,” and actually made the false statement in the May 3rd,
26 2023 Order, starting on the last line of Pg 1, second half of the line, as follows:
27 “Having read all of the pleadings filed after entry of the Court’s April 4th, 2023 Order, the Court finds no
28 basis in law or fact upon which to alter or amend its Order.”
29
30 27) Incredibly, the Judge Hood goes on to say the following on Pg 2, lines 2-7:
31 “Plaintiffs have demonstrated in prior filings their ignorance of the distinction between a Rule 59.04
32 Motion and a Rule 60.02 motion. Although Rule of Civil Procedure 59.04 is applicable to these
33 circumstances, the Court finds there is no basis to grant relief pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil
34 Procedure 60.02 as an alternative theory. The Plaintiffs have failed to show that any of the reasons for
35 which the Court may relieve a party from its order apply in this case.”
36

Page 15 of 30
 1 28) It clearly states in R. of Civ. Proc., the following:
2 Rule 60.02 - Mistakes - Inadvertence - Excusable Neglect - Fraud, etc.
3 On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or the party's legal
4 representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons:
5 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect;
6 (2) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other
7 misconduct of an adverse party;
8 (3) the judgment is void;
9 (4) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is
10 based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that a judgment
11 should have prospective application; or
12 (5) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The motion shall be
13 made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1) and (2) not more than one year after
14 the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this Rule 60.02
15 does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation, but the court may enter
16 an order suspending the operation of the judgment upon such terms as to bond and notice
17 as to it shall seem proper pending the hearing of such motion. This rule does not limit
18 the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a
19 judgment, order or proceeding, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court.
20 Writs of error coram nobis, bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review are
21 abolished, and the procedure for obtaining relief from a judgment shall be by motion as
22 prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.
23
24 29) The Plaintiffs did provide both a “basis in law” and “facts” which the Court, Judge Hood
25 intentionally made an egregiously false statement to “Railroad” the Simpkins’ case out of the Court
26 unlawfully in clear violation of the Plaintiff’s constitutional Rights to “Due Process of Law” under color
27 of Law, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 -
28 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245 - Federally Protected
29 Activities, Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1983 - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights. Charges should be
30 filed against Judge Hood for the abuse of her authority and clear abusive violation of the Plaintiff’s /
31 Appellant’s rights to “Due Process of Law.” Under the “Due Process Clause,” not the 144 Clause.
32
33 V. Clear Evidence Proving Judge Hood’s Statements Patently False
34 30) Tennessee puts out a document annually titled, “Tennessee Construction Compendium,”
35 hereinafter referred to as the (TCC), for each year. Within the TCC, Tennessee Law Firms contribute
36 both law and case law (binding authorities) that provide Attorneys updated information pertaining to new
37 rulings by either the Tennessee Supreme Court or the Tennessee Appellate Court. The purpose of the
38 TCC is to ensure that pertinent information such as Tennessee Statutes and Case Law, (binding
39 authorities) are updated and presented so that Attorneys are as up to date as possible of changes in rulings
40 or laws. One of the Case Laws in the TCC referred to the following Tennessee Statutes, “State laws” for

Page 16 of 30
 1 contractor’s responsibilities and penalties for breach against Buyers or Homeowners, that were
2 discovered in April of 2023 after the unlawful dismissal of the Plaintiff’s case by Judge Hood of the
3 Chancery Court. The following laws prove that the Abandonment and Failure to Honor the 2 year
4 Warranty, was a criminal act by John Maher Builders, Inc, CEO, John Maher and COO, Tony Maher,
5 and therefore the Chancery Court, Judge Hood, had the “Legal” obligation by law to make a ruling in
6 favor of the Simpkins upon the presentation of the laws and the facts of the case pertaining to the
7 unquestioned authenticity of the Plaintiffs evidence as stated by ACT, Judge Frierson in the Simpkins’
8 “Opinion”: David Simpkins, et. al. v. John Maher Builders, et. al. No. M2021-00487-COA-R3-CV
9 (May 4th, 2022), where the Appellate Court found in favor of the Plaintiffs /Appellants proving that the
10 Simpkins clearly had a “Breach of Contract,” “Breach of Express or Implied Warranty,” “Fraudulent
11 Concealment,” and “Fraudulent Misrepresentation.” The last two “frauds” being clearly criminal in
12 nature.
13 31) Those laws listed below were presented to the Chancery Court in the following two
14 motions; (Response to Court Dismissal of the Simpkins Complaint 4-24-2023), and (Plaintiff's
15 Response to Defendants Frivolous Motion Sanctions Demanded 5-2-2023), before the Chancery Court,
16 where Judge Hood of the Chancery Court knowingly, willfully, with malicious intent, stating here again
17 quotes from the unlawful Order by Judge Hood, from Pg 8 above, lines 2 through 14, made the following
18 patently false statements;
19
20 “Having read all of the pleadings filed after entry of the Court’s April 4th, 2023 Order, the Court finds no
21 basis in law or fact upon which to alter or amend its Order.”
22
23 32) Incredibly, the Judge Hood goes on to say the following on Pg 2, lines 2-7:
24 “Plaintiffs have demonstrated in prior filings their ignorance of the distinction between a Rule 59.04
25 Motion and a Rule 60.02 motion. Although Rule of Civil Procedure 59.04 is applicable to these
26 circumstances, the Court finds there is no basis to grant relief pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil
27 Procedure 60.02 as an alternative theory. The Plaintiffs have failed to show that any of the reasons for
28 which the Court may relieve a party from its order apply in this case.”
29
30 33) The Plaintiffs / Appellants, again present the following Tennessee Statutes, (Laws) that Judge
31 Hood refused to acknowledge or address and therefore failed to apply as required by law.
32
33 Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-510. Prohibited acts. For; Abandonment or willful failure to perform,
34 without justification
35 4. Abandonment or willful failure to perform, without justification, any home improvement
36 contract or project engaged in or undertaken by a contractor or willful deviation from or
37 disregard of plans or specifications in any material respect without the consent of the
38 owners;
39 5. Making any substantial misrepresentation in the procurement of a home improvement
40 contract or making any false promise of character likely to influence, persuade or induce;

Page 17 of 30
 1 6. Any fraud in the execution of, or in the material alteration of, any contract, mortgage,
2 promissory note or other document incident to a home improvement transaction;
3 6. Willful or deliberate disregard and violation of the building, sanitary and health laws of this
4 state or of any political subdivision of this state or of the safety, labor, or workers'
5 compensation insurance laws of this state.
6
7 Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-511. False Documentation
8 The fraudulent “Warranty of Completion of Construction” signed by John Maher.
9
10 Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-512. Criminal Penalty, commits a Class A misdemeanor. Each
11 violation is deemed a separate offense.
12
13
14 34) Legal Basis For Striking the Chancery Court’s Order From The Record For Being
15 Null And Void By Law.
16
17 a. Argument For A Clear Legal Basis For An Immediate Ruling For the Plaintiffs /
18 Appellants in the Appellate Court
19 35) As shown in the previous Appellant Brief proving the Simpkins’ case. The Builder sold a

20 Brand-New Home Incomplete With Fifty-Eight (58) Documented Code Violations, Omissions, And

21 Damaged Materials Infested With Termites And Mold, and substandard materials that were already

22 cracked or split or damaged in some way but JMB, JM and TM, still installed the damaged materials

23 regardless of their condition.

24 36) (See Appellate Court Tribunal, (ACT), Presiding Judge, Judge Frierson’s Statement

25 concerning the “Authenticity” of the Simpkins’ Evidentiary “Exhibits” being “Unquestioned” in,

26 David Simpkins, et. al. v. John Maher Builders, et. al. No. M2021-00487-COA-R3-CV (May 4th,

27 2022).

28 37) “We note that “exhibits attached to the complaint whose authenticity is unquestioned”

29 may be considered by the trial court without converting the Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure

30 12.02(6) motion to dismiss to a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56 motion for summary

31 judgment. Felker v. Felker, No. W2019-01925-COAR3-CV, 2021 WL 3507745, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App.

32 Aug. 10, 2021).”

33 (See the Following Reports that “prove these facts.”

34 SIMP-00A1 - A-1 Waterproofing Investigative Property & Mold Inspection Report for
35 Simpkins 7-20-18

36 SIMP-00A2 - Lee Company Investigative Service Report with Pricing

Page 18 of 30
 1 SIMP-00A3 - Simpkins Failed Carpet Report 1-1-18

2 SIMP-00A4 - 1375 Round Hill Ln HIR 7-13-17

3 SIMP-00A5 - SE&I Engineering Report

4 SIMP-00A15 - A-1 WP Investigative Property & Mold Inspection Report

5 SIMP-00A16 - MTMR Highlighted Inspection Report & Contract 1-16-18

6 SIMP-00A68 – Agape Invoice Drywall Dust Still Coming out of Carpet 10-3-17

7 SIMP-00A70 - Pro Painter Affidavit of no Primer on any walls in entire property 9-12-17

8 SIMP-00A91 - A-1 Waterproofing Suppl Invest Inspect by Inspector James Gafford 10-30-20

10 38) Then the Builder, John Maher Builders, Inc., “Abandoned” the Simpkins after the first

11 month of ownership. By abandoning the Simpkins after the first month, they violated the Contract and

12 the Warranty and failed to perform on either the contract or the warranty without any legal or other

13 justification, other than Tony Maher’s statement that they could do as they pleased because they are

14 protected all the way to the top of the Government of the State of Tennessee. The “Abandonment and

15 Failure to Perform Without any Justification,” immediately leads to Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-510.

16 Prohibited acts. For; Abandonment or willful failure to perform, without justification, and, again, this

17 occurred almost one month after the Plaintiffs / Appellants had purchased the property. But to this day,

18 not one Judge in the Chancery Court or the Appellate Court has issued orders to have the Builder pay

19 restitution to the Simpkins, which the Plaintiffs / Appellants have been entitled to since JMB abandoned
20 the Plaintiffs / Appellants after the first month.

21 39) Then the JMB “Stonewalled” the Simpkins for the next six (6) years.

22 40) By the “Abandonment,” of JMB, by JMB “Stonewalling” the Simpkins for the next six

23 years, never contacting the Plaintiffs / Appellants, never investigating the Expert Reports provided by

24 the Plaintiffs / Appellants as requested by JMB in the first month of ownership, August of 2017, and by

25 JMB filing an Insurance Claim with Builders Mutual, (validating the Plaintiff’s / Appellant’s Claims

26 by filing an insurance claim with their insurance company), after failing to answer the Plaintiff’s /

Page 19 of 30
 1 Appellant’s Demand Letters, JMB cannot provide any legal basis for failing to abide by the Contract or

2 the Warranty. Therefore, JMB is in “Default” of the Contract and Warranty by Tennessee Statutes;

3
4 A. Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-510. Prohibited acts. For; Abandonment or willful failure to
5 perform, without justification
6
7 B. Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-205; Limitation Not Defense Under Certain Circumstances.
8
9 C. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-154. Actions by home improvement services provider that
10 constitute offense
11
12 D. Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-511. False Documentation. The “Warranty of Completion of
13 Construction” signed by John Maher making John Maher’s signing of the document a
14 “Fraudulent” Federal Criminal Act.
15
16 E. Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-512. Criminal Penalty, commits a Class A misdemeanor.
17 Each violation is deemed a separate offense.
18
19 F. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-103 – Products Liability Limitation of actions — Exception
20
21 G. Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-109 - Limitations On Actions For Defective Improvement
22 Of Real Estate
23
24 H. Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202 - Limitations on Actions for Defective Improvement of
25 Real Estate
26
27 41) Due to the “Fraud” committed by the Builder as the Appellate Court previously ruled on

28 for “Breach of Contract,” “Breach of Warranty, Express or Implied,” “Fraudulent Concealment,” and

29 “Fraudulent Misrepresentation,” the Defendants cannot use the Statue of Limitations as an excuse to get

30 out of the accumulation of the Class A Misdemeanors due to their failure to perform during the two years

31 of warranty and thereafter in violation of the laws of the State of Tennessee, leaving the Appellants to

32 suffer for six years in a hostile and toxic environment suffering daily from various mold species. The

33 above Tennessee Statute governs the “Abandonment of a Project, with (willful failure to perform)

34 (without justification). And JMB cannot use the Statue of Limitations as a defense for dragging the case

35 out for six (6) years on their failure to perform on the Contract and Warranty. See Tenn. Code Ann. §
36 28-3-205; Limitation Not Defense Under Certain Circumstances.
37

Page 20 of 30
 1 “The limitation provided by this part is not available as a defense to any person who has
2 been guilty of fraud in performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision,
3 observation of construction, construction of, or land surveying, in connection with an
4 improvement, or to any person who wrongfully conceals any such cause of action.”
5
6 See Joseph Riccardi v. Carl Little Construction Co., Inc., et al., 2021 WL 3137251 (Tenn.
7 App. July 26, 2021);
8 “The Appellate Court found that Plaintiff could not have reasonably known he had an
9 actionable claim in 2011 as a result of Defendant’s continued assurances and repairs and to
10 hold otherwise would be to “penalize” Plaintiff for attempting to comply with the warranty of
11 his new residence without resorting to litigation.”
12
13 See Federal Ins. v. Winters, 354 S.W.3d at 293-96 (Tenn, Oct 25, 2011) ;
14 The Tennessee Supreme Court recently held that contractors have an implied duty to perform
15 services required by their contract with homeowners in a skillful, careful, diligent and
16 workmanlike manner, even in the absence of a written agreement. Winters, 354 S.W.3d at293.
17 The Court further held that the delegation of performance of a contract to a subcontractor does
18 not relieve the contractor from the duties implicit in the original contract. Winters, 354 S.W.3d
19 at 293-96.
20
21 See “Hutson v. Cummins Carolinas, Inc., 280 S.C. 552, 314 S.E.2d 19, 23
22 (S.C.Ct.App.1984)
23 (“[W]here a person holds himself out as specially qualified to perform work of a particular
24 character, there is an implied warranty that the work ... shall be of proper workmanship and
25 reasonably fitted for its intended purpose.”); see also Waggoner v. Midwestern Dev., Inc., 83
26 S.D. 57, 154 N.W.2d 803, 807 (1967).”
27
28 42) After six (6) years the penalties add up to 4,248 Class A Misdemeanors. Due to the
29 “Fraud” committed by the Defendants, the “Theft” of the Appellant’s Monies, falls under Tenn. Code
30 Ann. § 28-3-205; Limitation Not Defense Under Certain Circumstances. There is already a single
31 Class A Felony for “Theft” of the Simpkins’ monies of over $250,000 by Tennessee Law. Tenn. Code
32 Ann. § 39-14-154. Actions by home improvement services provider that constitute offense. The Plaintiffs
33 paid $479,429.52 for the property. (See Exhibit SIMP-00A69 - Final Closing Disclosure Total Costs
34 $479,429.52).
35
36 Chapter 14 - Offenses Against Property; Part 1 – Theft; § 39-14-105. Grading of Theft
37 A Class A felony if the value of the property or services obtained is two hundred fifty thousand
38 dollars ($250,000) or more.
39
40 43) Further, the Appellate Court has the power and authority under R. of App. Proc. 36(a) to
41 address these violations of the law by the Court and make a final determination as proven in the following
42 Supreme and Appellate Court case laws:
43 First Tennessee Bank v. Hurd Lock & Mfg. Co., 816 S.W.2d 38, 40 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991)
44 (Tennessee Appellate Court)

Page 21 of 30
 1 “To avoid any further delay in the entry of a final order in this case, we hereby direct that this
2 opinion be filed in the trial court along with the order filed contemporaneously herewith and that
3 they be treated as the final order in this case consistent with the March 29, 2001, mandate of the
4 Tennessee Supreme Court.”
5
6 “Toomey v. Atyoe, 95 Tenn. 373, 381-82, 32 S.W. 254, 256 (1895) (Tennessee Supreme Court)
7 This responsibility includes entering judgments based on the preponderance of the evidence and the
8 applicable law. See Roberts v. Robertson County Bd. of Educ., 692 S.W.2d 863, 874 (Tenn. Ct. App.
9 1985). Thus, as Judge Tomlin has noted, we may elect to wrestle with the octopus rather than remand
10 the case for further time-consuming and costly wrestling in the trial court.”
11
12 “Realty Shop, Inc. v. RR Westminster Holding, Inc., 01A01-9609-CH-00418 (June 4, 1999)
13 (Tennessee Appellate Court)
14 Tenn. R. App. P. 13 and 36 control the proper scope of appellate review. While Tenn. R. App. P.
15 13(b) ordinarily limits the scope of review to the issues raised by the parties themselves, it also permits
16 appellate courts to consider issues not raised by the parties to prevent needless litigation, to prevent
17 injury to the interests of the public, or to prevent prejudice to the judicial process. In addition,
18 Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a) empowers appellate courts to “grant the relief on the law and facts to which
19 the party is entitled or the proceeding otherwise requires . . ..”
20 We find no basis for declining to render a final judgment between the parties based on the facts
21 in this record.”
22
23
24 Perry v. Carter, 188 Tenn. 409, 411-12, 219 S.W.2d 905, 906 (1949)
25 Tennessee’s appellate courts have long had the responsibility to render the judgment that the
26 trial court, sitting as the trier-of-fact, should have rendered.
27
28 VI. Conclusions:
29 44) The Plaintiffs filed the docketing statement twice with the Chancery Court. But it was not
30 filed as requested. The Plaintiffs are filing it now with both the Chancery Court and the Appellate Court
31 so that they have a copy of what was not filed by the Chancery Court. The Plaintiffs have also filed the
32 two separate transcripts with the Appellate Court.
33 45) The Plaintiffs have shown that by law the Court is to follow the rules, the laws and any
34 binding authorities that have been determined by either the Supreme Court of Tennessee or the Appellate
35 Court of Tennessee. Based on those premises, the Chancery Court failed to adhere to the rules regarding
36 subject matter jurisdiction.
37 46) Further, the Chancery Court failed to review and apply the newly discovered pre-existing
38 laws as presented by the Plaintiffs and the Court failed to render a proper and legal ruling based on those
39 laws causing an injustice and further injury, harm and delay against the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the
40 Chancery Court again lost subject matter jurisdiction.

Page 22 of 30
 1 47) Further, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a ruling by the Appellate Court based on the R. of
2 App. P. 36(a) as shown in previous binding authorities by the Appellate Court as listed above for at
3 minimum “interim damages.”
4 48) Therefore, based on the Appellate Court Ruling and Judgement on May 4th of 2022, and
5 the stark, “unquestioned authenticity” of the Simpkins “preponderance of evidence”, as stated by ACT
6 Presiding Judge, Judge Frierson, and the laws of the State of Tennessee and the Federal and Constitutional
7 Law violations, by all parties to include the Courts and Officers of the Courts, the Simpkins are entitled
8 to at minimum “interim damages” of no less than $30,289,434.47 per the entity, John Maher Builders,
9 Inc., and each individual, CEO, John Maher, and COO, Tony Maher, x3 for a total of $90,868,303.41.
10 This does not include the Federal Violations that the Simpkins are entitled to.
11 49) See the following case laws proving that the Plaintiffs / Appellants are entitled to the
12 damages claimed by law. Under “Noneconomic Damages,” the Plaintiffs had egregious pain and
13 suffering by the Builder, John Maher Builders, Inc., John Maher and Tony Maher. The Plaintiffs are
14 therefore entitled to claim all of the following for damages:
15 Physical and emotional pain
16 Suffering
17 Mental anguish
18 Emotional distress
19 Loss of society, companionship, and consortium
20 Loss of enjoyment of normal activities, benefits and pleasures of life and loss of mental or
21 physical health, well-being or bodily functions
22
23 A. Scott Campbell, Et Al. v. William H. Teague, Et Al. No. W2009-00529-COA-R3-
24 CV (March 31, 2010) – Compensatory, Consequential and Incidental
25 Damages, Punitive Damages, Treble Damages
26
27 “In order to recover under the TCPA, the plaintiff must prove: (1) that the
28 defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice declared unlawful by
29 the TCPA and (2) that the defendant's conduct caused an “ascertainable loss of
30 money or property, real, personal, or mixed, or any other article, commodity,
31 or thing of value wherever situated....” Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-109(a)(1). As
32 discussed below, the defendant's conduct need not be willful or even knowing
33 however, if it is, the TCPA permits the trial court to award treble damages.
34 Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-109(a)(3); Concrete Spaces, Inc. v. Sender, 2 S.W.3d
35 901, 910 n. 13 (Tenn.1999); Haverlah v. Memphis Aviation, Inc., 674 S.W.2d
36 297, 306 (Tenn. Ct. App.1984).”

Page 23 of 30
 1
2 “A deceptive act or practice is one that causes or tends to cause a consumer to
3 believe what is false or that misleads or tends to mislead a consumer as to a matter
4 of fact. FN10 Thus, for the purposes of the TCPA and other little FTC acts, the
5 essence of deception is misleading consumers by a merchant's statements, silence,
6 or actions. Jonathan Sheldon & Carolyn L. Carter, Unfair and Deceptive Acts
7 and Practices § 4.2.3.1, at 118-19 (5th ed.2001) [hereinafter Unfair and Deceptive
8 Acts and Practices]. The concept of unfairness is even broader than the concept of
9 deceptiveness, and it applies to various abusive business practices that are not
10 necessarily deceptive. Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices § 4.3.3.1, at 156.
11 In the 1994 legislation reauthorizing the Federal Trade Commission, Congress
12 undertook to codify the Commission's policy statement on unfairness by stating
13 that an act or practice should not be deemed unfair “unless the act or practice
14 causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably
15 avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits
16 to consumers or to competition.” 15 U.S.C.A. § 45(n). Following the mandate of
17 Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-115, we will use this description of unfairness to guide
18 our interpretation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-104(a). Tucker v. Sierra Builders,
19 180 S.W.3d 116-117 (footnotes omitted).”
20
21 “Perhaps most egregious is the fact that, despite giving the Campbells a one-
22 year express warranty when they purchased the home, the Teagues
23 repeatedly refused to honor that agreement, even though they knew of the
24 safety concerns and code violations.”
25
26 “In addition to damages associated with diminution in value and cost of repairs, courts
27 may also award all damages that are the normal and foreseeable result of a breach of
28 contract. Holladay v. Speed, 208 S.W.3d 408, 415 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Morrow
29 v. Jones, 166 S.W.3d 254 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004)). These types of damages include
30 reasonably foreseeable consequential and incidental damages. Id. In the present case, the
31 parties stipulated that the Campbells did not need to prove a breach of contract in order to
32 recover consequential damages. Consequently, the only issue the trial court had to
33 determine was the amount of the consequential damages to which the Campbells are
34 entitled. In Isaacs v. Bokor, 566 S.W.2d 532, 536 (Tenn. 1978), a case involving
35 rescission and restitution, our Supreme Court approved a jury’s award of purchase
36 payments, interest payments, and other incidental expenses to the purchaser of a
37 residence. Relying upon its previous holding in Isaacs, our Supreme Court, in Mills v.
38 Brown, 568 S.W.2d 100, 103 (Tenn. 1978), held that “a purchaser who has been the
39 victim of fraud or mistake may recover, in addition to the purchase price, other
40 damages which he may have incurred in good faith by reason of mistake, such as cost
41 of improvements and the like.” In fact, the range of potentially recoverable consequential
42 and incidental damages is very broad and varies from case to case.”
43
44 Murvin V. Cofer, 968 S.W.2D 304 (TENN. CT. APP. 1997) – Treble Damages

Page 24 of 30
 1 “In an action of this nature under the Consumer Protection Act, TCA 14-18-109 provides
2 that the Court may award treble damages for a violation of the Act if the Court finds that
3 the unfair or deceptive act or practice was a willful or knowing violation of the Act. In
4 this case, the Court does find that there was a willful or knowing violation of the
5 Act.”
6
7 Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896, 901 (Tenn. 1992). – Punitive Damages
8 “In Tennessee, therefore, a court may henceforth award punitive damages only if it finds
9 a defendant has acted either (1) intentionally, (2) fraudulently, (3) maliciously, or (4)
10 recklessly." 833 S.W.2d at 901
11
12 50) A person acts intentionally when it is the person's conscious objective or desire to
13 engage in the conduct or cause the result. Cf. [Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-302(a) (1991) (criminal
14 definition of 'intentional')]. A person acts fraudulently when (1) the person intentionally
15 misrepresents an existing, material fact or produces a false impression, in order to mislead
16 another or to obtain an undue advantage, and (2) another is injured because of reasonable reliance
17 on that misrepresentation. See First Nat'l Bank v. Brooks Farms, 821 S.W.2d 925, 927 (Tenn. 1991).
18 “A person acts maliciously when the person is motivated by ill will, hatred or personal
19 spite. A person acts recklessly when the person is aware of, but consciously
20 disregards, a substantial and unjustifiable risk of such a nature that its disregard
21 constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would
22 exercise under all the circumstances. Cf. [Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-302(c) (1991)
23 (criminal definition of 'reckless')]. Id.
24
25 Further, because punitive damages are to be awarded only in the most egregious of cases,
26 a plaintiff must prove the defendant's intentional, fraudulent, malicious, or reckless
27 conduct by clear and convincing evidence.FN3 This higher standard of proof is appropriate
28 given the twin purposes of punishment and deterrence: fairness requires that a defendant's
29 wrong be clearly established before punishment, as such, is imposed; awarding punitive
30 damages only in clearly appropriate cases better effects deterrence. FN3 Clear and
31 convincing evidence means evidence in which there is no serious or substantial doubt
32 about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence."
33
34 Sharon B. Pollard v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours, Inc. No. 95-3010 Ml (August 27, 2003.) –
35 Compensatory, Emotional Distress Damages, Punitive Damages
36
37 “On remand, this Court determined the issue of liability for the state tort of intentional
38 infliction of emotional distress in favor of Plaintiff. After holding a hearing on front pay
39 and compensatory damages, the Court awarded Plaintiff $853,215.00 in front pay and
40 made a total award of compensatory damages in the amount of $1,250,000.001. The Court
41 also determined, based on clear and convincing evidence, that an award of punitive

Page 25 of 30
 1 damages was appropriate in this case because DuPont intentionally or recklessly
2 disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk to Plaintiff that she would suffer
3 severe emotional distress as a result of the treatment of her coworkers.”
4
5 51) In Mr. Gafford’s Report, (SIMP-00A91 - A-1 Waterproofing Suppl Invest Inspect by
6 Inspector James Gafford 10-30-2020), on pages 17-21 details the situation and on page 17, Mr. Gafford
7 states: “I classify the actions by John Maher Builders, Inc. at the level of Gross Negligence. If there
8 was a level of violation of “Extreme Gross Negligence” in the standards used today, I would use that
9 standard as the overall assessment considering the number code violations from different independent
10 Investigations.”
11 52) Further, on Page 18, Mr. Gafford states: “The indisputable fact that the Builder new
12 about the mold, and still sold the property to the Simpkins with a hazardous condition, then
13 intentionally did not communicate, nor attempt to inspect, investigate, or perform any repairs to the
14 property after receiving independent reports detailing the multitude of issues and code violations, I
15 classify as knowing, willful malicious intent by the Builder against the Simpkins.”
16 53) The damages are based on the Simpkins’ actual cumulative expenses and losses with both
17 Pre and Post Interest calculated and included. (See Exhibit - SIMP-00A131 - 1375 Round Hill Ln Mit. of
18 Damages Expenses - FINAL 6-13-2023).
19 54) The Simpkins have presented both State and Federal Law where the Simpkins, the
20 Plaintiffs and also now as the Appellants have been entitled to monetary damages since the filing of their
21 Complaint, see attached, (Complaint Against John Maher Builders Final 1-1-21). See the Tennessee
22 Statutes that back up the Plaintiffs complaint. (In the Plaintiffs response to Judge Hood’s alleged unlawful
23 and malicious manipulation of the law to railroad the Simpkins Compliant out of the Court to cause
24 intentional further injury, harm, and delay to obviously benefit the Builder, JMB. (Response to Court
25 Dismissal of the Simpkins Complaint 4-24-2023).
26 55) Further, the Plaintiffs had filed two separate Motions and requested a change of Venue
27 and Judge Hood never addressed the requests in any way, she completely ignored the requests and
28 dismissed the Simpkins’ Complaint allegedly unlawfully under a false legal basis which was based on
29 Sanctions by R. of Civ. Proc. 37 for failure to appear for the April 4th hearing. Which the hearing was set
30 for the same time as Mr. Simpkins’ first meeting with his new Primary Care Physician to intentionally
31 make Mr. Simpkins miss the hearing. (See Exhibits - Mot. Rmve Judge Hood Frm Case, LSMJ, Chg of
32 Venue 3-29-2023), and (Filed Copy of Motion to Chg Ven & Intent Harm 4-4-2023).

Page 26 of 30
 1 56) Further, the Simpkins never received any Official Notice of the Hearing for the
2 aforementioned reason. Judge Hood in violating her own Order to use the P.O. Box address, P.O. Box
3 682971, Franklin, TN, 37068, as Ordered by the Court, Judge Hood, to ensure that the Simpkins “would
4 not receive the notifications” and supposedly emailed a copy of the notice to the Simpkins’ old email
5 hacked account, dms.consultant@gmx.com which the Court had already been notified of, but sent emails
6 there anyway. All of this knowing that the Simpkins would not receive the Notices of the March 7th
7 Hearing and the April 4th Hearing set for 10:30AM. These are wanton malicious acts by an Officer of the
8 Court. That is alleged “Fraud on the Court,” by the Officer of the Court. Mr. Simpkins’ appointment was
9 at 10:30 AM on April 4th and had been set three (3) months in advance which the Court was made aware
10 of in January of 2023 motion. (See Exhibit - David Simpkins VA Hospital Appt. 4-4-2023).
11 57) Therefore, the Appellate Court has the power and authority to make a final judgement for the
12 failure of the Chancery Court to adhere to the previous ruling of the Appellate Court which the Chancery Court
13 has caused undeniable and intentional injury, delay and harm, (a harsh and unnecessary eleven (11) additional
14 months of hardship with no legal basis to do so) to the Plaintiffs / Appellants as well as malicious physical harm
15 to the Plaintiffs / Appellants willfully and knowingly after being informed of the dire circumstances that the
16 Plaintiffs were being forced to endure by the Court unjustly.
17 58) This concludes the Plaintiff / Appellants remarks to the Court concerning the presentation of the
18 laws ignored both in a Tennessee State level and a United Stated Federal level by this Court in violation of the
19 laws, rules and the Plaintiffs / Appellants Constitutional Rights and Deprivation of those Rights, and outright bias
20 for the Defendants.
21
22 “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed on this 25th day
23 of July 2023, Respectfully submitted,
24
25 s/David M. Simpkins, s/ Sally E. Simpkins
26 David M. Simpkins, Sally E. Simpkins, Pro Se
27 1375 Round Hill Ln.
28 Spring Hill, TN 37174
29 Phone: 980-443-0224
30 d.simpkins.consultant@gmail.com
31
32
33
34
35

Page 27 of 30
 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2 I hereby certify that on this 25th, day of July 2023, I caused to be served this Plaintiffs Notice And
3 Response To Chancery Court’s False Claim For Failure To File Docketing Statement via email upon the
4 Chancery Court Clerk & Master::

5 Clerk and Master

6 Jacob Schwendimann
7 Chancery Court
8 135 4th Avenue South, Room 236
9 Franklin, TN 37064
10 jakob.schwendimann@tncourts.gov
11 (615)790-5428
12
13 Department of Justice
14 Attn: Deputy Attorney General, Lisa Monaco
15 950 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
16 Washington, D.C. 20530
17 AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
18
19

20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

21 I hereby certify that on this 25th, day of July 2023, I caused to be served this Plaintiffs Notice And
22 Response To Chancery Court’s False Claim For Failure To File Docketing Statement by postage prepaid,
23 first class mail, upon the following counsel:

24 Department of Veterans Affairs

25 Office of the Inspector General
26 Attn: Legal Department
27 717 14th Street NW, 5th Floor
28 Washington, D.C. 20005
29
30 J. Paul Brewer, Attorney for the Defendants / Appellees
31 P.O. Box 198349
32 Nashville, TN 37219
33 Phone (615) 499-7279
34
35
36 s/David M. Simpkins, s/ Sally E. Simpkins
37 David M. Simpkins, Sally E. Simpkins, Pro Se
38 1375 Round Hill Ln.
39 Spring Hill, TN 37174
40 Phone: 980-443-0224
41 d.simpkins.consultant@gmail.com

Page 28 of 30
 1
2
3
4 ORIGINAL filed and COPY
5 of the foregoing served on this 25th, day of July 2023
6 F.B.I. Headquarters
7 Attn: FBI Director, Christopher Wray
8 601 4th Street N.W.
9 Washington, D.C. 20535
10
11 Department of Justice
12 Attn: Deputy Attorney General, Lisa Monaco
13 950 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
14 Washington, D.C. 20530
15
16 United States Navy
17 Attn: Mr. Secretary Carlos Del Toro
18 1200 Navy Pentagon
19 Washington, D.C. 20350-1200
20
21 J. Paul Brewer, Attorney for the Appellees
22 201 4th Ave. N, Suite 1400
23 Nashville, TN 37219
24 Phone (615) 499-7279
25
26 List of Notices Attached:
27 Response Notice to Ch. Ct's False Claim to App. Ct.s 7-23-2023
28 List of Attached Exhibits With the Exception of SIMP-00A1 to SIMP-00A914:
29 1. Docketing Statement for Civil Appeals 5-5-2023
30 2. Copy of Certified Mail Receipt 5-4-2023
31 3. Transcripts of Proceedings 12-13-2022
32 4. Chancery Ct's Order Deny Plaintiff's Resp Mot to Ct's Dismissal 5-3-2023
33 5. David Simpkins, et. al. v. John Maher Builders, et. al. No. M2021-00487-COA-R3-CV (May
34 4th, 2022)
35 6. Judgment by App Ct against JMB 5-4-2022
36 7. SIMP-00A1 - A-1 Waterproofing Investigative Property & Mold Inspection Report for
37 Simpkins 7-20-18
38 8. SIMP-00A2 - Lee Company Investigative Service Report with Pricing
39 9. SIMP-00A3 - Simpkins Failed Carpet Report 1-1-18
40 10. SIMP-00A4 - 1375 Round Hill Ln HIR 7-13-17
41 11. SIMP-00A5 - SE&I Engineering Report
42 12. SIMP-00A15 - A-1 WP Investigative Property & Mold Inspection Report
43 13. SIMP-00A16 - MTMR Highlighted Inspection Report & Contract 1-16-18

4
All exhibits SIMP-00A1 to SIMP-00A91

Page 29 of 30
 1 14. SIMP-00A68 – Agape Invoice Drywall Dust Still Coming out of Carpet 10-3-17
2 15. SIMP-00A70 - Pro Painter Affidavit of no Primer on any walls in entire property 9-12-17
3 16. SIMP-00A91 - A-1 Waterproofing Suppl Invest Inspect by Inspector James Gafford 10-30-20
4 17. Exhibit - SIMP-00A131 - 1375 Round Hill Ln Mit. of Damages Expenses - FINAL 6-13-2023
5 18. Complaint Against John Maher Builders Final 1-1-21
6 19. Response to Court Dismissal of the Simpkins Complaint 4-24-2023
7 20. Plaintiff's Response to Defendants Frivolous Motion Sanctions Demanded 5-2-2023
8 21. Mot. Rmve Judge Hood Frm Case, LSMJ, Chg of Venue 3-29-2023
9 22. Motion to Chg Ven & Intent Harm 4-4-2023
10 23. Exhibit - David Simpkins VA Hospital Appt. 4-4-2023
11 24. Address stolen by John Maher Builders as of 9-12-2022
12 25. Court Sending Mail to Home Address, not P.O. Box Address

13

Page 30 of 30