Carol Gaddy has filed a petition asking a judge to review the continuing abuse of process against her and her ownership with her husband, Thomas, of a house on Main Street in the peaceful little Tennessee town of Dunlap. She is being held in jail by a judge who takes personal umbrage at her refusal to voluntarily consent to an “inspection” or search under an ordinance that has no criminal penalties attached to its civil claims.
Judge Thomas Graham runs chancery court in Sequatchie County and is jailing Mrs. Gaddy, 70, indefinitely until she voluntarily relents and gives permission to a search of the house. Mrs. Gaddy’s son, Kelly, has filed claims to undo the chains of abuse with the county’s circuit court, his petition for writ of habeas corpus being directed against the sheriff, Ronnie Hitchcock, that he might produce Mrs. Gaddy’s person before the circuit bar so that it might undo a bizarre legal process that clearly violates God-given constitutional protections of the individual.
Petition for writ of habeas corpus
Petitioner Carol Gaddy moves this court to inquire into the action of Sequatchie County sheriff working under orders of chancery court and Dunlap city government under a pretended authority that lacks basis in law and is oppressing the exercise of the God-given, inherent, inalienable and constitutionally guaranteed rights of these two Sequatchie County residents.
Mrs. Gaddy, 70, is being held in Sequatchie County jail on civil contempt claims by chancery Judge Thomas Graham because she refuses to grant permission to search her house at 1271 Main St. in Dunlap. The demand for a search is being pressed against the couple despite any allegation of a crime having been committed, and without probable cause or a warrant. Because petitioner and her husband, Thomas, refuse to grant permission to search under the pretended guise of an “inspection,” Judge Graham issued a warrant for their arrest under the pretense that municipal and administrative necessity trumps constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Mrs. Gaddy is jailed in violation of the Tennessee official oppression statute (TCA 39-16-403); her rights under Tennessee constitution article 1, section 7, barring unreasonable searches and seizures; in abuse of her U.S. constitution 4th amendment rights; and her rights to due process. The actions against her are oppressive, are exerted in and by a court without subject matter jurisdiction, and are pursued in bad faith against her lawful, innocent, private, personal, noncommercial and harmless use of her house and property and her personal liberty.
- The record shows that this civil case was filed in the wrong court and that the city sought a judicial remedy before it had exhausted administrative remedies under private law through the town commission. That process would have involved demand letters, a hearing and final administrative determinations about the alleged threat or danger of the Gaddy house — and would have protected the private property rights of Mr. and Mrs. Gaddy had it been exercised.
- The city of Dunlap charter Article 16, section 1, states, “That there be and hereby is established and constituted for said City of Dunlap, Tennessee, a City Court with jurisdiction to try all offenses for violation of the City ordinances and bylaws; The City Court shall be presided over by a City Judge. The City Judge shall have jurisdiction in and over all cases for the violation of and all cases arising under the laws and ordinances of the city”
- The initial complaint in the case, filed in court by Mayor Dwain Land, involves an alleged violation of City Ordinance 88.
- The complaint against defendants was erroneously filed in chancery court instead of in the Dunlap municipal court where it belongs, pursuant to Dunlap charter Article 16, section 1.
- Plaintiffs request this court to take mandatory judicial notice pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Evidence, Rule 201 (d), (f) of the fact that where the court is without jurisdiction, it has no authority to do anything other than to dismiss the case. A judgment beyond a court’s jurisdiction is not merely voidable, but void. Brown v. Brown, 281 S.W.2d 492, 497 (Tenn. 1955).
- Time is of the essence, as petitioner is in jail since Aug. 21, 2017, Monday. The sheriff’s department is at 351 Fredonia Road, Ste A, Dunlap, TN 37327.
- The plaintiff is in jail because of an order of contempt against her by Judge Graham, who demands she give consent for an “inspection” of her house, absent a warrant, a finding of criminal probable cause or any lawful authority.
- Municipal authority for “inspection” under on health, safety and welfare grounds must be reinforced by a sworn warrant if a homeowner invokes her rights or lessor demands a warrant before entry. No authority to inspect exists if the homeowner refuses to allow an inspector and no authority is granted by a sworn warrant. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967).
- For Judge Graham to claim the authority to jail the petitioner on the pretense she is in contempt is to act falsely against an innocent citizen invoking her rights, to act in his own personal capacity, outside judicial immunity, in bad faith in combination with others, to deprive the petitioner of constitutionally guaranteed rights, as protected under 42 U.S. Code § 1983. And “Denial of Due Process of Laws”
- Petitioner demands her release and a stay against any further action against her that would injure her by way of an illicit and unlawful jailing.
THEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons the petitioner Carol Gaddy, demands to know the nature and cause of her arrest and confinement as against the above respondent, and others in Sequatchie County who have acted to oppress one who seeks to live peaceably and unmolested.