IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE 

  HOOKER, BRUMIT, & GOTTLIEB:          ) JOHN JAY HOOKER, twice the Democratic nominee for     )   Governor, on behalf of himself and under the     )   Attorney’s oath and all qualified   voters both women   )     and men seeking a declaratory judgment  regarding   )   the unlawful appointment of the various members   )   of the Judicial Performance Evaluation       )   Commission, appointed by Lt Gov. Ron Ramsey     )   and House Speaker Beth Harwell.       ) WALTER BRUMIT, a Republican, and Friend of the Constitution,   )     qualified voter,   father/child/family advocate  )     co‐founder, 1995 Dads Against Discrimination,  )     litigant seeking right to appear before     )     The Commission,        )         ANTHONY GOTTLIEB, an Independent and Friend of the     )     Constitution, qualified voter, and      )     former President/Board Member     )     Dads Against Discrimination      )     Public advocate,         )                 )   Applicants for Declaratory Judgment      ) v.                 )           Case No. __________________                 ) LT. GOV. RON RAMSEY       (5 men ‐ 0 women)  ) HOUSE SPEAKER BETH HARWELL   (3 men ‐ 2 women)  )   (Appointing authorities for the members of the    )     Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission)    )                 ) Chair Hon. Robert L. Jones     Columbia, TN    ) Vice‐Chair Michael E. Tant     Franklin, TN    ) Christopher Clem, Esq.       Chattanooga, TN   ) Henrietta Grant        Knoxville, TN    ) J. Gregory Grisham, Esq.      Memphis, TN    ) Hon. Robert Montgomery, Jr.     Blountville, TN    ) Hon. J. Michael Sharp       Cleveland, TN    ) Renata Soto         Nashville, TN    ) Joseph A. Woodruff, Esq.     Nashville, TN    )   (Two Females and Seven Males)        ) General Counsel: David Haines, Esq.        ) Secretary of State Tre Hargett          ) Governor Bill Haslam            ) Attorney General Robert Cooper          ) (Excluding Judges Camille McMullen and Andy Bennett)    )   (On behalf of the Attorney General’s office    )   and on behalf of all Respondents including     )   all Judges approved to be Retention Elected    )   by the Commission),          )                 )   Respondents/Defendants.        ) 

 

2  

  

APPLICATION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND AN INJUNCTION 

 AN APPLICATION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT UNDER T.C.A. 29‐14‐101 et seq. and the Rules of Civil  Procedure,  Rule  57  regarding  the  unlawful  appointment  of  various members  of  the  Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, under T.C.A 17‐4‐101 et seq., TCA 17‐4‐201(b)(6), Supreme Court Rule 27 as these provisions relate to the Appointment of various members which discriminate against females of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission [known hereinafter as the “Commission”] and  the  unlawful  appointments  and  the  unlawful  acceptance  of  said  appointments  by  various Commissioners  in violation of  the   gender population approximation  requirements of  the aforesaid provisions;  

AND an  order  requiring  the  Respondents  to  respond within  10  days  and  an  order  under  Rules  of  Civil Procedure Rule 57 setting a hearing in this matter in 15 days;  

 AND  

an  injunction  prohibiting  any  further  meetings  or  discussions  by  the  Chairman  or  Commission members, until  the Commission  is properly  constituted  in  accordance with  TCA  17‐4‐201(b)(6)  and   Supreme Court Rule 27, 2.02, 2.03 regarding Retention‐Election appointments or denial of a Retention Election appointment and  regarding any  Judicial Retention Election Applications, until a decision  is rendered in this Declaratory Judgment application; 

 AND 

an  application  for  a  Declaratory  Judgment  that  the  Commission  be  required,  under  the  aforesaid provisions to accept  in writing submissions from Qualified Voters and or  litigants to the Commission challenging various  Judges who seek  to be Retention Elected and a Declaratory  Judgment  requiring the  Commission  to  permit  comments  from  qualified  voters  to  address  the  Commission  orally,  in person, under ARTICLE I §1, §23 and ARTICLE XI §16 of the Tennessee Constitution;  

 AND 

an application  for  the Governor Bill Haslam, Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey and  the House Speaker Beth Harwell to disclose in this matter under their oath to support the Constitution, under ARTICLE X §1 & §2,  whether  they  publicly  or  privately  have  claimed  that  the  Retention  Election  Statute  is constitutional or unconstitutional; 

AND an application for a declaratory Judgment that each member of the Commission under their oaths of office  make  an  individual  determination  in  writing  as  to  the    constitutionality  of  the  Retention Election Statute, before exercising any powers under the aforesaid provisions;   

 AND 

a  declaratory  judgment  under  ARTICLE  I  §  19,  and  or  otherwise  regarding  the  confidentiality provisions,    the  Commission  deliberations  under  Supreme  Court  Rule  27  Section  6.,    in  the  Public Interest;  

AND a declaratory Judgment as to the Constitutionality of the Retention Election Statute, TCA 17‐4‐201 and Supreme Court Rule 27 and the so called inherent power of the Supreme Court under ARTCLE I § 1 or otherwise declaring all power is inherent in the people. 

     

3  

BACKGROUND  

1) The Retention Election Statute TCA 17‐4‐101 et seq., TCA 17‐4‐201, and Supreme Court 

Rule 27 are existing Constitutional, statutory and Rule provisions, in full force and effect, under which 

the Commission, under  their oaths of office as  Judges, and or under  their attorney’s oaths,   and or 

under Article X §1,  is operating. Under said provisions the aforementioned Defendants, Lt. Governor 

Ron  Ramsey  and  Speaker  Beth  Harwell  have made  appointments,  notwithstanding  both  Speakers’ 

have both  publicly  and  privately  claimed  that  the Retention  Election  Statute  is unconstitutional, of 

various  appointments  to  the  Commission.  Lt.  Gov.  Ramsey  appointed  only male members  to  the 

Commission  and  Speaker  Harwell  joined  with  Lt  Gov  Ramsey  in  appointing  Chairman  Jones 

notwithstanding  the  gender  imbalance.    The  Defendant  Commission  members,  accepted  said 

appointments in violation of certain of the aforesaid provisions requiring two female appointments to 

the Commission by Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey, in violation of their Oaths of Office under ARTICLE X §1. 

The Commission members thereby discriminated against the female voters of the State who are not 

properly represented on the Commission.  

2) The Commission comprised of seven males and two  females, notwithstanding the  fact 

that the majority of citizens of Tennessee are female,  in violation of TCA 17‐4‐201(b)(6),   have taken 

certain  action  in  a  series  of meetings,  conducted  by  Chairman  Robert  L.  Jones,  attended  by  all  or 

virtually all of  the members,   either  in person or otherwise, of  the Commission, at which meetings 

various  Commission members  did  unlawfully  authorize,  in  violation  of  their  oaths  of  office  under 

ARTICLE  X  §1,  and  in  the  instance  of  Lawyers,  their Attorney’s  oath when  they  issued  preliminary, 

favorable evaluations of  twenty  Judges and unfavorable evaluations of  three  Judges. Of  the Twenty 

nine appellate Judges, six Judges are retiring and did not seek evaluation.  

3) The applicants for Declaratory Judgment, Hooker a Democrat, Brumit a Republican, and 

Gottlieb  an  Independent,  attended  the  public meeting  of  the  Commission  on  Friday, December  6th 

2013,  in an effort to advise the Commission of the self‐serving conduct, by members of the Supreme 

Court,  in  cases before  them, when  the  Judges had  an  interest  in  the  subject matter of  the  recusal 

motion  involving  Hooker  and  Brumit  in  violation  of  the  Code  of  Judicial  Conduct,  and  the Official 

Oppression and Official Misconduct Statutes  their oaths of office and ARTICLE VI § 11  regarding  the 

disqualification, of said Judges. 

4) However, the request to be heard,  in furtherance of the letters to the General Counsel 

Haines,  by  said  applicants,  in  accordance with  their  constitutional  rights  under  ARTCLE  I  §  1  and 

ARTICLE  I §23, and ARTICLE XI §16, was  ruled out of order by  the distinguished Chairman Robert L. 

Jones notwithstanding the fact that the Chairman, under the Code of Judicial Conduct must know that 

the Commission is sitting de facto and not de jure and that the Commission is not representative of the 

4  

electorate  and  therefore  that  the  Commission  sits  in  violation  of  its  own  rules, without  giving  the 

applicants an opportunity to explain on the record before the Commission, subject to  inquiry, by the 

Commissioners, why  they  had  a  constitutional  right,  as well  as  the  right  under  the  statutory  and 

Supreme Court rules, governing the actions of the Commission, to be heard. This circumstance among 

others occasions this lawsuit to protect the integrity of the Constitution.  

5) Attached  hereto  are  public  statements  made  by  Lt.  Governor  Ramsey  on  various 

occasions regarding the constitutionality of the Retention Election Statute, TCA 17‐4‐101 et seq. and, 

TCA  17‐4‐201  under which,  Lt.  Gov.  Ramsey  and  Speaker  Harwell  appointed  seven men  and  two 

women,  in  violation  of,  TCA  17‐4‐201(b)(6);  Supreme  27;  2.02,  2.03,    and  their  oaths  office  as 

Legislators,  notwithstanding  that  Lt.  Gov.  Ramsey  claimed  that  the,  “Constitution  must  not  be 

ignored”. 

6) This application  for Declaratory  Judgment and an  Injunction, does not directly  involve 

the  issues,  in  the  Hooker  vs.  Haslam  case  presently  pending  before  the  Special  Supreme  Court. 

However, it does involve Governor Haslam’s oath “to see the laws are faithfully executed” ARTICLE III 

§10,  regarding  the  facts  that  the Commission  is  sitting  in violation TCA 17‐4‐201(b)(6) and Supreme 

Court Rule 27; 2.02, 2.03, regarding race and gender. 

ARGUMENT 

1) The Retention‐Election Statute which provides for the appointment of Judges as of Sept 

1st in instances where sitting Judges do not seek re‐election, by the Governor, in lieu of an election by 

the qualified  voters,  “on  the  first  Thursday  in August,”  as  is  required under Article VI  § 3,  § 4  and 

Article VII §4, § 5 is unconstitutional, as Lt. Governor Ramsey likewise says, as did Commissioner Clem 

in effect at  the December 6, 2013, Commission meeting. The  statute  cancels  the election of  Judges 

otherwise mandated  by  those  provisions which  circumstance  has  not  yet  been  ruled  upon  by  any 

Tennessee Court. 

2) Furthermore,  the  statute provides  that  the  Judicial  Performance  Evaluation members 

shall be appointed in accordance with race and gender population requirements, notwithstanding the 

fact that Lt. Governor Ramsey failed to appoint a single female to the Commission when the provision 

mandated  that  the  appointment  of  members  be  in  accordance  with  an  approximation  of  the 

population.    As  a  consequence  the  Commission  is  imbalanced  and  cannot  properly  represent  the 

qualified  voters  of  the  State  of  Tennessee,  which  destroys  the  purpose  of  the  Commission.  This 

unlawful conduct occasions this lawsuit, which challenges the composition of the Commission because 

it  discriminates  against  the  female  voters  of  the  State  who  are  not  lawfully  represented  on  the 

Commission. 

 

5  

3) Consequently,  the Qualified  Voters  of  this  State  are  dependent  upon  this  honorable 

Court  to  enjoin  the  actions  of  the  Commission  so  as  to  provide  the  Qualified  Voters  with  the 

safeguards built  into the aforesaid provisions. These provisions require that applicants for Retention‐

Election shall be  judged by commissioners who are representative of the voting public  in accordance 

with  the  aforesaid  race  and  gender  population  approximation  required  TCA  17‐4‐201(b)(6)  and 

Supreme Court Rule 27; 2.02,2.03.  

4) As  to  the  confidentiality  provision,    the  Qualified  Voters  need  the  vigilance  of  the 

working press under  the  First Amendment,    and ARTICLE  I  §19 of  the  Tennessee Constitution,      to 

oversee the Commission  in their deliberations respecting their procedures and any  information given 

to the Commission which can affect the question of whether Judges shall be subject to Retention, or 

denied Retention‐Election.  

RELIEF 

1) This litigant lawyer Hooker a Democrat, under the Attorney’s Oath, Brumit a Republican, 

and Gottlieb an Independent, all three Friends of the Constitution and, for the Qualified voters of the 

State of Tennessee pray for this Honorable Court to issue a Declaratory Judgment determining that the 

Commission  is  improperly  constituted,  in violation of  the aforesaid  requirements  involving  race and 

gender. Consequently, all  recommendations heretofore made by  the Commission, must be held null 

and void as the commission is in violation of its own rules and specific mandates of the Legislature;  

2) This litigant lawyer Hooker a Democrat, under the Attorney’s Oath, Brumit a Republican, 

and Gottlieb an  Independent, all three Friends of the Constitution and,  for  the Qualified voters pray 

that  the Court enjoin  further actions or discussions by  the Commission, and  its members, until  the 

Commission  is properly appointed and hold void the preliminary recommendations  it had heretofore 

made; 

3) This litigant lawyer Hooker a Democrat, under the Attorney’s Oath, Brumit a Republican, 

and Gottlieb an  Independent, all three Friends of the Constitution and,  for  the Qualified voters pray 

that  the  Court  will  declare  the  Retention  Election  Statute  unconstitutional,  as  it  provides  for 

appointments by the Governor to take effect on September 1st or thereafter in situations where sitting 

judges do not  seek  reelection,  in violation of ARTICLE VII §4 and §5 under which elections must be 

held,  “on the First Thursday in August beginning in 1870 and every eight years thereafter”; 

4) This litigant lawyer Hooker a Democrat, under the Attorney’s Oath, Brumit a Republican, 

and Gottlieb an  Independent, all three Friends of the Constitution, and  for  the Qualified voters pray 

that  this  Honorable  Court  in  this  matter  involving  the  Highest  Public  Interest  will  require  the 

respondents to respond within 10 days and that a hearing be set within 15 days; 

 

6  

5) This litigant lawyer Hooker a Democrat, under the Attorney’s Oath, Brumit a Republican, 

and Gottlieb an Independent, all three Friends of the Constitution, and for the qualified voters pray for 

any further relief that this Honorable Court may deem appropriate to secure the rights of the qualified 

voters of Tennessee under the Constitution and the Rule of Law,  including an order that each of the 

Defendants, under their oath of office to support the Constitution, declare and disclose, through the 

Attorney  General,    whether  each  of  the  Defendants  claim  that  the  Retention  Election  Statute  is 

constitutional or unconstitutional. 

             Respectfully submitted:               _____________________________             JOHN JAY HOOKER, Pro‐Se BPR #005118             115 Woodmont Blvd.             Nashville, Tennessee 37205             Phone (615) 269‐6558             Cell (615) 479‐6531             Fax (615) 383‐6036             johnjayhooker@hpeprint.com                            __________________________             WALTER BRUMIT, Pro‐Se             30 East Dale Court             Greeneville TN  37745              Phone 423‐823‐0157             Fax 866‐366‐0043             waltbrumit@aol.com                                          _________________________             ANTHONY GOTTLIEB, Pro‐Se             PO Box 1770             Hendersonville TN 37077             Phone 615‐824‐9439             Fax 615‐262‐6050             tonygottlieb@aol.com      

7  

  

ADDENDUM  

Tenn. Const. Art. I, § 1   That  all  power  is  inherent  in  the  people,  and  all  free  governments  are  founded  on  their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all  times, an unalienable and  indefeasible right  to alter,  reform, or abolish  the government  in such manner as they may think proper.    Tenn. Const. Art. I, § 19   That  the  printing  press  shall  be  free  to  every  person  to  examine  the  proceedings  of  the Legislature; or of any branch or officer of the government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions, is one of the invaluable rights of man and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that  liberty.  But  in  prosecutions  for  the  publication  of  papers  investigating  the  official  conduct  of officers, or men in public capacity, the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and in all indictments for libel, the jury shall have a right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other criminal cases.  Tenn. Const. Art. I, § 23   That the citizens have a right,  in a peaceable manner, to assemble together  for their common good, to  instruct their representatives, and to apply to those  invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances, or other proper purposes, by address of remonstrance.  Tenn. Const. Art. III, § 10   He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.  Tenn. Const. Art. VI, § 3   The  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  shall  be  elected  by  the  qualified  voters  of  the  state.  The Legislature shall have power to prescribe such rules as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of section two of this article. Every judge of the Supreme Court shall be thirty‐five years of age, and shall before his election have been a  resident of  the state  for  five years. His  term of service  shall be eight years.  Tenn. Const. Art. VI, §4. The  Judges of  the Circuit and Chancery Courts, and of other  Inferior Courts, shall be elected by the qualified voters of the district or circuit to which they are to be assigned. Every judge of such courts shall be thirty years of age, and shall before his election, have been a resident of the state for five years, and of the circuit or district one year. His term of service shall be eight years.  Tenn. Const. Art. VI, §11. No  judge of the Supreme or  Inferior Courts shall preside on the  trial of any cause in the event of which he may be interested, or where either of the parties shall be connected with him by affinity of consanguinity, within such degrees as may be prescribed by  law, or  in which he may have been of counsel, or  in which he may have presided  in any Inferior Court, except by consent of all the  parties.  In  case  all  or  any  of  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  shall  thus  be  disqualified  from presiding on the trial of any cause or causes, the court or the  judges thereof, shall certify the same to the governor of the state, and he shall forthwith specially commission the requisite number of men, of law  knowledge,  for  the  trial  and  determination  thereof.  The  Legislature may  by  general  laws make provision that special judges may be appointed, to hold any courts the judge of which shall be unable or fail to attend or sit; or to hear any cause in which the judge may be incompetent. 

 Tenn. Const. Art. VII, §4.  

8  

  The election of officers, and the filling of all vacancies not otherwise directed or provided by this Constitution, shall be made in such manner as the Legislature shall direct.  Tenn. Const. Art. VII,§5.    Elections  for  judicial and other civil officers shall be held on  the  first Thursday  in August, one thousand  eight  hundred  and  seventy,  and  forever  thereafter  on  the  first  Thursday  in  August  next preceding the expiration of their respective terms of service. The term of each officer so elected shall be computed  from  the  first  day  of  September  next  succeeding  his  election.  The  term  of  office  of  the governor and other executive officers  shall be computed  from  the  fifteenth of  January next after  the election  of  the  governor.  No  appointment  or  election  to  fill  a  vacancy  shall  be made  for  a  period extending beyond the unexpired term. Every officer shall hold his office until his successor is elected or appointed,  and  qualified. No  special  election  shall  be  held  to  fill  a  vacancy  in  the  office  of  judge  or district attorney, but a the time herein fixed for the biennial election of civil officers, and such vacancy shall be filled at the next biennial election recurring more than thirty days after the vacancy occurs.  Tenn. Const. Art. X, §1.    Every person who shall be chosen or appointed to any office of trust or profit under this Constitution, or any law made in pursuance thereof, shall, before entering on the duties thereof, take an oath to support the Constitution of this state, and of the United States, and an oath of office.  Tenn. Const. Art. X, §2.    Each  member  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives,  shall  before  they  proceed  to business take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of this state, and of the United States and also  the  following oath:  I_____________do  solemnly  swear  (or affirm)  that as a member of  this General Assembly, I will, in all appointments, vote without favor, affection, partiality, or prejudice; and that I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people, or consent to any act or thing, whatever, that shall have a tendency to  lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared by the Constitution of this state. 

 Tenn. Const. Art. XI, §16   The declaration of rights hereto prefixed is declared to be a part of the Constitution of the state, and shall never be violated on any pretense whatever. And  to guard against transgression of the high powers we have delegated, we declare that everything in the bill of rights contained, is excepted out of the general powers of the government, and shall forever remain inviolate.  Tenn. Code Ann. § 29‐1‐101 (2013) 

    The provisions of this Code relating to injunctions, appointment of receivers, and other extraordinary process, apply equally to equity proceedings in any court… 

  Tenn. Code Ann. § 17‐4‐101 (2013) 

    It is the declared purpose and intent of the general assembly by the passage of this chapter to:     (1) Assist the governor in finding and appointing the best qualified persons available for service on the appellate courts of this state, and to assist the electorate of this state in electing the best qualified persons to the courts;     (2) Better insulate the judges of the courts from political influence and pressure;     (3) Improve the administration of justice;  

9  

   (4) Enhance the prestige of and respect for the courts by minimizing the necessity of political activities by appellate judges; and     (5) Make the courts less political.… 

 Tenn. Code Ann. § 17‐4‐201  (2013) 

17‐4‐201.  Judicial performance evaluation program.    (a)  (1) By rule, the supreme court shall establish a judicial performance evaluation program for appellate court judges. The purpose of the program shall be to assist the public in evaluating the performance of incumbent appellate court judges. The judicial performance evaluation commission, established pursuant to subsection (b), shall perform the required evaluations. The commission shall make a recommendation either "for retention" or "for replacement" of each appellate court judge; provided, that the commission shall not evaluate or make any retention recommendation with regard to any appellate judge whose term of office is abbreviated because of death, resignation or removal. Furthermore, the commission shall not include within the final report, publicly disclosed pursuant to subsection (c), an evaluation or retention recommendation for any appellate judge whose term of office is abbreviated because of death, resignation or removal or who fails to timely file a declaration of candidacy as required by § 17‐4‐114(a) or § 17‐4‐115(a), unless the judge is a candidate for another office subject to evaluation under this section.     (2) If an incumbent appellate judge holds office for one (1) year or more preceding the deadline for filing the required declaration of candidacy for either an unexpired term or a full eight‐year term, then evaluation procedures shall be based on the results of any evaluations performed throughout the judge's service on the appellate bench, evaluation surveys, personal information contained in an approved self‐reporting form and such other comments and documents as the commission receives from any other reliable source. However, if an incumbent judge holds office for less than one (1) year preceding the deadline, then evaluation procedures shall be based on personal information contained in the self‐reporting form, the judge's application to the judicial nominating commission and such other comments and documents as the commission receives from any other reliable source.     (3) Information collected pursuant to subdivision (a)(2) shall be confidential and shall be publicly disclosed only in the manner permitted by subsection (c). Upon request, each member of the judicial performance evaluation commission shall be given complete access to any individual survey, form, application, comment and document submitted, conveyed or compiled for the purpose of judicial evaluation; however, each such member must protect the confidentiality of the information as well as the anonymity of survey respondents.     (4)  (A) At least thirty (30) days prior to the deadline for filing a declaration of candidacy required by § 17‐4‐114(a)(1) or § 17‐4‐115(a)(1), the judicial performance evaluation commission shall provide an incumbent appellate judge with a draft of the commission's evaluation and shall provide the judge with a reasonable opportunity to comment or respond either personally or in writing.        (B) As soon as is reasonably practicable under the circumstances, but not less than three (3) days prior to the deadline for filing a declaration of candidacy required by § 17‐4‐114(a)(2) or § 17‐4‐115(a)(2), the judicial performance evaluation commission shall provide an incumbent appellate judge with a draft of the commission's evaluation and shall provide the judge with a reasonable opportunity to comment or respond either personally or in writing.  

10  

(b)  (1) The judicial performance evaluation commission shall be composed of nine (9) members.     (2) The speaker of the senate shall appoint four (4) of the members, of whom one (1) shall be a state court judge, two (2) shall be attorney members and one (1) shall be a non‐attorney. No more than two (2) of those appointed shall reside in the same grand division.     (3) The speaker of the house of representatives shall appoint four (4) of the members, of whom one (1) shall be a state court judge, one (1) shall be an attorney, and two (2) shall be non‐attorney members. No more than two (2) of those appointed shall reside in the same grand division.     (4) The speaker of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives shall jointly appoint one (1) state court judge.     (5) The supreme court's evaluation procedure may permit the judicial performance evaluation commission to perform an evaluation with less than the full membership in panels, but the full commission shall approve the evaluation.     (6) The appointing authorities for the judicial performance evaluation commission shall make appointments that approximate the population of the state with respect to race and gender. In appointing attorneys to the commission, the speakers shall receive, but shall not be bound by, recommendations from any interested person or organization.     (7) To stagger the terms of judicial performance evaluation commission members, beginning July 1, 2009, the three (3) non‐attorney members on the commission shall serve six‐year transition terms, the three (3) state court judges on the commission shall serve four‐year transition terms, and the three (3) attorney members on the commission shall serve two‐year transition terms. At the conclusion of the transition terms, each regular term of a commission member shall be six (6) years. A vacancy on the commission shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment for the remainder of the unexpired term.     (8) No commission member shall serve more than two (2) terms, including any partial term.     (9) A member of the judicial performance evaluation commission is not eligible to seek an appellate judgeship that becomes available as a result of, or related to, the commission's recommendation for replacement of an incumbent appellate judge as set out in subsection (a).  (c)  (1) The judicial performance evaluation program shall require publication and disclosure of a final report. The final report shall not include any individual record or evaluation, but may include, for each appellate judge, the individual final scores for the survey results. The final report shall be made available for public inspection on the first Thursday in March preceding the regular August election. On the first Sunday in July preceding the regular August election, the final report shall be published in a daily newspaper of general circulation in the Tri‐Cities area, Knoxville, Chattanooga, Nashville, Jackson and Memphis. The final report for each appellate court judge may not exceed six hundred (600) words.     (2) As soon as is reasonably practicable under the circumstances, in order to assist the public in electing the best qualified persons to the appellate courts, the commission shall cause supplemental final reports to be published as may be necessitated by the filing of declarations of candidacy, required by § 17‐4‐114(a)(2) or § 17‐4‐115(a)(2).  (d) The judicial performance evaluation program, including the public report and the ballot 

11  

information, shall apply to each appellate court judge who seeks to serve a complete term after July 1, 2009. 

   TCA § 39‐16‐402. Official misconduct.    

    (a)  A public servant commits an offense who, with intent to obtain a benefit or to harm another, intentionally or knowingly:              (1)  Commits an act relating to the servant's office or employment that constitutes an unauthorized exercise of official power;              (2)  Commits an act under color of office or employment that exceeds the servant's official power;             (3)  Refrains from performing a duty that is imposed by law or that is clearly inherent in the nature of the public servant's office or employment;              (4)  Violates a law relating to the public servant's office or employment; or             (5)  Receives any benefit not otherwise authorized by law.         (b)  For purposes of subdivision (a)(2), a public servant commits an act under color of office or employment who acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of the actual or purported capacity.         (c)  It is a defense to prosecution for this offense that the benefit involved was a trivial benefit incidental to personal, professional or business contact, and involved no substantial risk of undermining official impartiality.         (d)  An offense under this section is a Class E felony.         (e)  Charges for official misconduct may be brought only by indictment, presentment or criminal information; provided, that nothing in this section shall deny a person from pursuing other criminal charges by affidavit of complaint.     

 39‐16‐403. Official oppression.   

    (a)  A public servant acting under color of office or employment commits an offense who:              (1)  Intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, stop, frisk, halt, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment or lien when the public servant knows the conduct is unlawful; or              (2)  Intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity, when the public servant knows the conduct is unlawful.        (b)  For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of office or employment if the public servant acts, or purports to act, in an official capacity or takes advantage of the actual or purported capacity.         (c)  An offense under this section is a Class E felony.         (d)  Charges for official oppression may be brought only by indictment, presentment or criminal information; provided, that nothing in this section shall deny a person from pursuing other criminal charges by affidavit of complaint.         

 SUPREME COURT Rule 6: Admission of Attorneys. 

(4) Each applicant for admission shall take the following oath: I, ___________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Tennessee, and that I will truly and honestly demean myself in the practice of my profession to the best of my skill and abilities, so help me God. 

      

12  

SUPREME COURT  Rule 27: Judicial Performance Evaluation Program. Section 1. Statement of Purpose. 1.01. The work of Tennessee's appellate judges touches the lives of everyone who lives and works in Tennessee. The quality of justice available in Tennessee's appellate courts hinges, in large measure, on the performance of the judges who administer the system. Accordingly, the public, the bar, and the judicial system have a vital interest in a responsive and respected appellate judiciary.  1.02. Tennessee's appellate judiciary consists of persons who strive to administer justice to the best of their abilities and to discharge the duties of their offices impartially and efficiently. Tennessee's appellate judges also share in common a commitment to improve their own judicial skills and to improve the quality of justice administered by Tennessee's appellate courts.  1.03. Improving the administration of justice in Tennessee's appellate courts can best be accomplished by instituting a program of continuous self‐improvement that has the broad‐based support of Tennessee's appellate judges and attorneys and empowers the appellate judges, with the assistance of their peers, to enhance and to broaden their own judicial skills.  1.04. The Tennessee General Assembly has enacted laws that establish a merit‐based process for selecting and retaining the members of Tennessee's three appellate courts. To promote informed retention decisions, Tenn. Code Ann. § 17‐4‐201(c) requires the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission to publish reports concerning each appellate judge seeking election to an unexpired term or election or reelection to a full eight‐year term. In addition to its primary purpose of self‐improvement, the Judicial Performance Evaluation Program must provide information that will enable the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission to perform objective evaluations and to issue fair and accurate reports concerning each appellate judge's performance. 1.05. In Tenn. Code Ann. § 17‐4‐201(a)(1), the Tennessee General Assembly has given the Tennessee Supreme Court the responsibility to promulgate a rule establishing the judicial performance evaluation program for appellate judges.  Section 2. Judicial Performance Evaluation Program.  2.01. In accordance with this Court's inherent supervisory authority over the court system and the judges, and pursuant to Tenn. S. Ct. R. 1 1, Tenn. Code Ann. § 16‐3‐501 and Tenn. Code Ann. § 17‐4‐201(a)(1), there is hereby established a Judicial Performance Evaluation Program as part of the judicial branch of state government.  2.02. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Program shall be administered by the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission established by Tenn. Code Ann. § 17‐4‐201(b).  2.03. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission shall have the responsibility for the design, the implementation, and the day‐to‐day operation of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Program. The Commission's decisions shall be consistent with this rule, and the Commission has no power to waive or to modify any provision of this rule.  2.04. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission shall be administratively attached to the Administrative Office of the Courts, but for all purposes other than administration, it shall be considered independent of the Administrative Office of the Courts. The Administrative Office of the Courts shall provide staff assistance to the Commission, and the Commission may, to the extent that funds are available, retain other experts and consultants to assist with any part of its duties. 

13  

 2.05. (a) All evaluations and final reports must be approved by the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, but the Commission may, in its discretion, use panels to prepare interim or preliminary reports or recommendations for consideration by the membership of the Commission. (b) Five (5) members of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of any business to come before the Commission except for the final decision to recommend the retention or replacement of an appellate judge. With regard to the recommendation to retain or to replace an appellate judge, the quorum shall be seven (7) or more Commission members, and the recommendation either to retain or to replace an appellate judge shall require the assent of five (5) or more members. (c) A Commission member who is unavoidably absent from any meeting of the Commission may participate by teleconference or by video conference if these facilities are reasonably available. Commission members participating by teleconference or video conference shall be considered present for the purpose of establishing a quorum.  Section 3. Evaluation Criteria.  3.01. Appellate judges shall be evaluated based on the following specific criteria: (A) Integrity.  In addition to other appropriate performance measures, the Commission shall consider: (1) avoidance of impropriety and appearance of impropriety;  (2) freedom from personal bias;  (3) ability to decide issues based on the law and the facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel, or the popularity of the decision and without concern for or fear of criticism;  (4) impartiality of actions; and  (5) compliance with the Code of Judicial Conduct contained in Tenn. S. Ct. R. 10. (B) Knowledge and understanding of the law.  In addition to other appropriate performance measures, the Commission shall consider: (1) understanding of substantive, procedural, and evidentiary law;  (2) attentiveness to factual and legal issues before the court; and  (3) proper application of judicial precedents and other appropriate sources of authority. (C) Ability to communicate.  In addition to other appropriate performance measures, the Commission shall consider: (1) clarity of bench rulings and other oral communications;  (2) quality of written opinions with specific focus on clarity and logic, and the ability to explain clearly the facts of the case and the legal precedents at issue; and  (3) sensitivity to the impact of demeanor and other nonverbal communications. (d) Preparation and attentiveness.  In addition to other appropriate performance measures, the Commission shall consider: (1) judicial temperament, including courtesy to all parties and participants; and  (2) willingness to permit every person legally interested in a proceeding to be heard, unless precluded by law or rules of court. 

14  

(e) Service to the profession and the public.  In addition to other appropriate performance measures, the Commission shall consider: (1) efficient administration of caseload;  (2) attendance at and participation in judicial and continuing legal education programs;  (3) participation in organizations which are devoted to improving the administration of justice;  (4) efforts to ensure that the court is serving the public and the justice system to the best of its ability and in such a manner as to instill confidence in the court system; and  (5) service in leadership positions and within the organizations of the judicial branch of government. (f) Effectiveness in working with other judges and court personnel.  In addition to other appropriate performance measures, the Commission shall consider: (1) exchanging ideas and opinions with other judges during the decision‐making process;  (2) commenting on the work of colleagues;  (3) facilitating the performance of the administrative responsibilities of other judges; and  (4) working effectively with court staff. Section 4. Evaluation Procedure for Appellate Judges.  4.01. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Program shall include the regular evaluation of the performance of appellate judges. The evaluations shall be carried out using professionally accepted methods to provide objective and reliable evaluations and to reduce the risk of unfair ratings and statistical comparisons. Evaluations shall be based on sufficient data to ensure the statistical reliability of the evaluation information.  4.02. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Program for appellate judges, in addition to being used for self‐improvement purposes, shall also be used for the evaluation required of appellate judges seeking election to an unexpired term or election or re‐election to a full eight‐year term under Tenn. Code Ann § 17‐4‐201(b).  Section 5. Evaluation Procedure for Appellate Judges for Retention Recommendations.  5.01. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission created by Tenn. Code Ann. § 17‐4‐201(b) shall perform evaluations of all appellate judges seeking election to an unexpired term or or election or reelection to a full eight (8) year term for the purpose of aiding the public in evaluating the performance of the appellate judges in accordance with the provisions of this rule.  5.02. (a) The Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission's evaluation shall be consistent with the criteria in Section 3.01 and shall be based on the results of the evaluation surveys, on the personal information contained in an approved self‐reporting form, and on such other comments and information as the Commission shall receive from any source. (b) If, because of gubernatorial appointment, an appellate judge holds office less than one year before the filing deadline of a declaration of candidacy for either an unexpired term or a full eight‐year term, and evaluation surveys are not available, the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission shall conduct an evaluation and make a retention recommendation using an approved self‐reporting form, the judge's application, and other reliable information. 

15  

 5.03. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, or a panel thereof, shall conduct a public interview with each appellate judge seeking election to an unexpired term or re‐election to a full eight‐year term. The Commission's meetings and deliberations shall be public.  5.04. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission may accept, and in its discretion, may solicit public comments concerning the performance of the appellate judges seeking election to an expired term or election or re‐election to a full eight‐year term. The Commission shall provide each appellate judge with a reasonable opportunity to respond to any information or comment received by the Commission regarding that judge prior to the preparation of the Commission's evaluation of that judge.  5.05. The Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission shall provide each appellate judge seeking election to an unexpired term or election or re‐election to a full eight‐year term with a draft of its evaluation and shall provide the appellate judge with a reasonable opportunity to comment or respond either personally or in writing before the publication of the final report or supplemental report required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 17‐4‐201(c). 5.06. The final public report or supplemental report required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 17‐4‐ 201(c) shall, at the appellate judge's request, include the judge's response to the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission's evaluation. The judge's response, which shall be in addition to the Commission's report or supplemental report, shall not exceed 600 words.  Section 6. Confidentiality.  6.01. Evaluations conducted as part of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Program must be conducted candidly and in strict confidence so that they may be based on reliable information and so that the areas for improvement may be determined fairly. The disclosure of evaluation information other than in the manner permitted by this rule or by Tenn. Code Ann. § 17‐4‐201(c) would be counterproductive to the goals of the performance program and would reduce the free flow of information and responses.  6.02. All records and information obtained and maintained by the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission concerning the performance of individual judges shall be strictly confidential and shall not be disclosed except as provided by statute or this rule. The Commission shall ensure the confidentiality of information regarding the performance of all judges and shall preserve the anonymity of all persons who may be requested to furnish evaluation information.  6.03. Records and information pertaining to the performance and evaluation of judges shall not be disclosed except as follows: (a) Only the individual judge being evaluated and the person or persons selected to present the data to the judge shall be permitted to know to which judge particular information applies.  (b) The Commission may provide aggregate statistical information that does not identify specific judges to the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Tennessee Judicial Conference for use in the development of judicial education programs.  6.04. Except when publicly disclosed in accordance with Section 6.03, all information, questionnaires, notes, memoranda, or other data declared confidential by this rule shall not be admissible as evidence, nor discoverable in any action of any kind in any court or before any tribunal, board, agency, or persons. 

16  

 6.05. All records pertaining to a particular judge maintained by the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission shall be destroyed six months after the judge's death or retirement. The records shall not be destroyed if the judge applies for or is certified as a senior judge in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 17‐2‐302.  

 SUPREME COURT Rule 57: Declaratory Judgments. 

The procedure  for obtaining a declaratory  judgment pursuant  to Tennessee Code Annotated, §29‐14‐101 et seq., shall be in accordance with these rules, and the right to trial by jury may be demanded  under  the  circumstances  and  in  the  manner  provided  in  Rules  38  and  39.  The existence of another adequate remedy does not necessarily preclude a judgment for declaratory relief  in cases where  it  is appropriate. The court may order a speedy hearing of an action for a declaratory judgment and may advance it on the calendar. 

     

17  

 

5TH NOVEMBER 2013 TN REPORTS Interview with Lt Gov. Ron Ramsey     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K‐vNRO5jK8s 

Reporter: You had indicated earlier that you weren't going to be doing similar for the judicial nomination element.

Ramsey: That I won't be raising money for them?

Reporter: Well …it suggests that, basically you were going to be doing different things, I think is the way he phrased it

Ramsey: Ha! Well, I will vote for it because I think that it is better than it is now, but I have been very open and upfront about the fact that I think the system we have now for appointing Judges is the best way, but that is not what is on the ballot. I do think that what we are doing now is against the Constitution where it is says the Judges shall be elected by the qualified voters of the State, they should elected by the qualified voters of the State. So that needs to be taken out.

If I had designed this amendment and worked towards this amendment it probably wouldn't be exactly like it is right now I do think I am giving up some of the Legislative powers to the Gubernatorial power, but will I vote for it in the end? Yes. Because I do think that what we are doing now is unconstitutional.

Reporter: You don't think the Legislature will have more power given that they can then reject the nominees especially in some distant day, a Democrat is in the Governor's office?

Ramsey: You could look at it that way …… but see right now as Speaker, speaking personally about this, I get eight nominations to the Judicial Nominating Committee, the Speaker of the House gets eight nominations so we help control or at least set an acts in place the three names are sent to the governor. And so, I’ll be honest, I’ll be very happy with that to make sure that we have good conservative judges that want to interpret the law and not make the law and I think that if we listen to the judges that come through our Judicial Nominating Commission the last couple of years in particular, in the last year in particular, I think they’ve been very good, qualified people. And before, while we’re on that subject, the other . . . the selection commission that was there before the

18  

nominating commission actually played games with this, we all know this, that Jimmy Naifeh would pick out the one he wanted and send one good one and two bad ones. And I don’t do that and I send them three good ones. For example when the last Appellate Court was there or next to last now I suppose, Mike Falk was on that panel but there were three or two other people with him and he ended up not getting there. So we sent three good people to the Governor every time.

Reporter: If Tennessee voters reject the constitutional amendment on judicial selection would you support any legislation like that would make it the law of the land when the Constitution says that judges need the Supreme Court and Appellate Court judges need to be elected?

Ramsey: You know, as I’ve said before I’ve gone through a statewide election, I know what it takes to run those campaigns, really all you’re doing is raising money the whole time, that’s not something that I feel the judges need to do, so I don’t think that’s the best way of doing it. I think if that would fail on the ballot I’d work toward another way of making what we’re doing now constitutional.

Reporter: The constitutional amendment sort of leaves open whether there should be a judicial evaluation commission that just says retention elections uh and that’s in wind down now, do you anticipate renewing that?

Ramsey: I do. I think that’s something I’d really want to do when we come back in. Of course the governor renewed it but just by executive order.

Reporter: No, no that’s the nominating commission.

Ramsey: . . . evaluation commission. I’m sorry I was not listening closely.

Reporter: But I will admit, I was going to ask the other one too.

Ramsey: Okay. . .

19  

Laughing. . . .

Ramsey: I was not listening closely. We were talking about this. So I’m sorry. You got the jpeg . . . I think both ought to be reinstituted but it’ll be done in a different fashion. Even though I think for the first time in the history of the performance evaluation commission they’d just reject three candidates that they felt weren’t doing their job. That’s what they’re supposed to be doing. And I understand there’s a campaign now maybe put one of those others back on. And I don’t agree with that. Why was he not good week before last and then they get ten phone calls and suddenly he’s good again? And so, just do your job, evaluate logically and fairly as they think they did when they went through there and don’t let political pressure force you to put somebody back.

Reporter: When you say that you would like to see all three of those judges depart?

Ramsey: Yeah, yes . . . absolutely. Because I mean they know if the performance evaluation commission says they aren’t doing their job, let me assure they are doing their job. Cause it takes a lot for them to say no. As a matter of fact I think that these are the first three that were rejected in the history of the performance evaluation commission. So yes I’d like to see all three of them. . .um, well I don’t want to say, let’s put it this way, if they don’t resign then they’d be in a contested election and if I had the opportunity to vote for them I would vote no.

Reporter: On the nominating commission when you said that we sent up quality nominations did you lobby the commission to send up particular people?

Ramsey: There are times that I talked to my commissioners that and said that I think that these are qualified people and make up your own mind. Yes, I mean I would . . . . I’d be less than honest if I didn’t call and say I served with Mike Falk, a good honest guy, hard working legislator, a great guy, I think he’d make a great judge. Rob Montgomery in my area, has been friends of mine literally since high school, talk about a great guy and a good honest family man, great judge, yes. If they would ask my opinion I will tell them even sometimes when they didn’t ask my opinion, yes I would tell them. Honestly I didn’t get a vote, but I wasn’t bashful about telling somebody when I thought they were a good judge. I don’t see anything wrong with that. And in both cases, well Mike Falk makes two

20  

times, but the judge agreed with me. And I do think honestly that the first time around the Appellate Court you don’t start in the major leagues and Mike had never been a lower court judge, I think he would have been an excellent Appellate Court judge when you look at the qualifications of the three that went up, the governor made the right choice there too.

21  

Transcript excerpt Stacey Campfield Interview with Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey regarding judicial retention/election and its constitutionality

Posted: August 12th 2009 Campfield: Obviously there is a move on to popularly elect instead… Do you support the people being able to vote popularly elected Supreme Court Justices, not a yes / no vote but Joe Smith is running against Ben Smith, You know whoever, you know Do you support popularly electing Supreme Court justices? Ramsey: I will be honest, I have gone back and forth on this. Right now, if you noticed I am leading the charge to change the way we do this. It's been all over the newspapers the last week or two. It's even being called the Ramsey plan. Because the way we are doing it right now is absolutely wrong. This will take me just a few minutes to explain this. It is kind of two separate issues. Issue number one. How do we appoint a vacancy of Supreme Court Justice or if an Appellate Court Justice resigns or retires or removes from office? Under the current system, we have what's called the Judicial Selection Commission. Seventeen attorneys, well actually fifteen out of seventeen let's be accurate about it. Fifteen out of seventeen attorneys sit on a panel. If you want to go you have to apply to this panel, a self perpetuating board, who decides who their next member is. I've had to appoint these, I know. And then, they send up a list of three to the governor meet behind closed doors and do that. I am adamantly opposed to that. For 120 years the Governor got to pick whoever he wanted to go on during a vacancy. But when Winfield Dunn got elected back in 1971 they came up with this Judicial Selection Commission. That says seventeen attorneys know better than the people of State of Tennessee that elected the Governor. I am adamantly opposed to that. Now that's the issue of how you put on an appointment.

22  

Now what do you do from there? And I can say I have struggled with this I have prayed about this and I have thought about this and things changed from 1870 to 2009. Do we really want Supreme Court Justice running in contested elections where you have to raise millions of dollars and to be honest who wins? I mean, I want conservative judges on the bench. Now, trial lawyers have proven and I have tried to study this issue that they will fund these. Because, it takes millions of dollars to run a statewide elections. So, in my opinion the ideal situation is we do away with the Judicial Selection Commission. Hopefully, elect an Republican Governor next time get some conservative judges in there. Then we’re going to put up a constitutional amendment. But there is one thing I absolutely positively believe that what we are doing right now is unconstitutional. Our constitution says quote. Be "Judges shall elected by the qualified voters of the state." They are not. Now In 1973 our State Supreme Court, in a decision, that in my opinion they wrote the back page of the decision first then figured out how to fill it in and make it work. They have declared that this retention ballot is Constitutional. Man, if you can say that Stacey, you can say anything's Constitutional. Elected by the qualified voters of the state, how much plainer does it get? So what do we do? We put a Constitutional amendment to the people. That's what I am doing, promoting right now I don't know how far were getting with this. Because of the House, to be honest, I can pass it in the Senate. This is going to be the issue in the next few weeks in the Legislature in my opinion. So, we put a Constitutional amendment up to the people and change a few things in that Constitutional amendment. Number one: Assuming that it doesn't pass, if doesn't pass to allow the people to vote and we still have the retention ballot were going take their terms from 8 years back to 4 years. Because, that way if that a Judge makes some crazy decision you don't have to wait seven maybe 7 years to vote them out of office. Instead of yes/no on the ballot I

23  

prefer to have retain /reject. That tells people what they are really really doing. Now there's going to be some that's going say, ”vote this constitutional amendment down.” That makes what we’re doing Constitutional therefore, we popularly elect Judges I can understand that side of it I really can. But I have set and studied about this and thought about this, this is what I have deliberated more than anything else in the Legislature this year and I have come to the conclusion that we don't necessarily want Supreme Court Justices running statewide in expensive contested elections. But I think that conservatives lose on that but to go with a constitutional amendment that I'd have. That will cut their terms back to 4 year and have retain/reject on the ballot as I say this is not something you can explain in two minutes. It is a tough issue. It is a tough tough issue. And I don't have a problem with people saying we need to popularly elect judges. But I am going to tell you, look at what you’re doing? What is your goal what is your goal? I mean, do you want to get conservative judges elected, or just the principle of things, because you lose on the principle of things. But I do believe from the bottom of my heart that we got elected, Stacey you got elected, I got elected, held up your right hand that I am going to uphold the Constitution of the State of Tennessee and I can't in good conscience sit there and do this knowing in my opinion it's unconstitutional. You can have a dozen attorneys walk in here and argue that it is Simply, because the Supreme Court said it was and I get that side of it. But the Supreme Court didn't do it, by the ways it was a special panel that they appointed. Once again this is an issue I am passionate about. Because this you and I both know that judges. You and I can pass any law we want to and it'd be what we think is the best law in the world and it'd go to a judge and they'd strike it down so. The judicial branch is just as important as the Legislative and executive branch.