Petitioner John Gentry deals with a head-on rebuke by a practicing attorney and member of the state judiciary who is also a member of the legislature in the Tennessee senate.
Mr. Gentry filed in state house and senate a petition of remonstrance that is an extraordinary stab at what might readily be called the Tennessee deep state, an ownership claim by members of the bar to operate the government in service of their own profession, their corporate sponsors and allies such as the insurance industry, and on behalf of gigantic money laundering operations such as the state child welfare industry, headquartered in the department of children’s services.
Perhaps without thinking his position through, John Stevens, an attorney from Huntington, about 40 miles west of Nashville, lights into what he argues are legal lapses in Mr. Gentry’s claim of standing with which to proceed. This state senator admits that if the general assembly hears Mr. Gentry, it faces thousands of other grievances from members of the public (once people like you and me catch on).
Mr. Gentry knows his law and knows his constitution, and he is having none of it. His work is one of the most significant in the state since the Oak Ridge nuclear bomb project in World War II. Even more so. The sickening radiation of lawyerly emoluments and inurements have sterilized and neutered the people. These have empowered the special interest of bar associations and judges — with jurists routinely are activist and lawless. (Think police roadblocks. Think the obliteration of the travel-transportation distinction. Think mass indictments such as the Chattanooga state RICO case against 54 individuals. Think state acceptance of federal reserve notes as state government’s money of account when the constitution says no state shall make anything but gold and silver a tender in payment of debt.) — David Tulis
By John Gentry, CPA
*** Sen. Stevens should have no voice in this matter since he has pecuniary interest and should disqualify pursuant to Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure (MMLP), § 502, and 522. See Remonstrance: DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS WITH INTEREST DEMANDED, page 8.
Sen. Stevens’ email response provides the members of the houses with a perfect example as to why members of the BAR should disqualify, and or, why their votes should be challenged pursuant to MMLP § 522, ¶ 1.
Sen. Stevens’ email response ignores legislative procedural rules, constitutional provisions, and supporting authority of U.S. Supreme Court opinion presented in remonstrance (See EXCERPT of Remonstrance attached to this email). Petitioner is not surprised since it is a common practice in our courts every day for attorneys and judges to ignore rules and constitutional provisions except when it suits their interests. This fact is incontestable as evidenced in Petitioner’s Remonstrance appendixes, and further evidence to be presented.
Your petitioner respectfully reminds the members of the Senate and House, of his right to freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty, pursuant to Tenn. Const. Art. I, § 19, as follows:
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.
As has been repeatedly stated, your petitioner has no desire for this civic engagement, and no intent of disrespect or belligerence. Your petitioner’s demands and purpose, are merely to restore justice to our courts, and to ensure adherence to fundamental principles of our form of government and constitutional provisions. Accordingly, it is necessary and proper to contest erroneous, and or, false arguments since the doctrine of non-resistance is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind as stated in Tenn. Const. Art I, § 2.
In his email response, Sen. Stevens, erroneously (perhaps falsely) contends that petitioner misunderstands historical and practical implications of remonstrance and that petitioner has no constitutional right to present to the General Assembly, as follows:
You have grossly misunderstood the historical and practical implications of remonstrance. Further, you have misread our rules and Constitution. You have no constitutional right to present to the General Assembly your remonstrance. Our rules apply to the members of the General Assembly.
Sen. John Stevens, Email Correspondence dated January 25, 2019, ¶ 1
Petitioner well understands the historical and practical implications of remonstrance. The right of petition arises from the 1215 Magna Carta. Four-hundred and fifty years later, in 1669, the House of Commons resolved that every commoner in England possessed “the inherent right to prepare and present petitions” to it “in case of grievance”. In 1791, Amendment I was added to our U.S. Const. stating: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the … the right of the people … to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”, affirmed in the Cruikshank and Hague cases. From the 1830 to 1840, petitions against slavery overwhelmed Congress until the House adopted a rule prohibiting anti-slavery petitions, repealed five years later at the urging of John Quincy Adams.
Regarding “practical implications”; Tenn. Const. Art I, § 23, clearly states: “That the citizens have a right, … to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances, or other proper purposes, by address of remonstrance.” ***
U.S. Const. Art IV, §§ 1 and 2, full faith and credit, and privileges and immunities clauses, extend the public acts, records, and proceedings and privileges and immunities of each state to the citizens of the several states. It is fundamental to our union that we are equal amongst all persons of the nation.
The Tennessee constitution, being the “least imperfect” and “most republican” does not limit petition to the General Assembly but grants more broad authority “to apply to those invested with the powers of government.” Clearly petitioner’s remonstrance belongs before the entire General Assembly due to grievances presented on behalf of all Tennesseans. Grievance is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as: An injury, injustice or wrong which gives ground for complaint because it is unjust, discriminatory, and oppressive. 5th edition
In his email response, Sen. Stevens, erroneously (perhaps falsely) contends that petitioner is subject to Rule 9 and 11 of the Senate rules of order as follows:
Although you appear to have read our rules, you have ignored Rule 9 – No one may address the Speaker except a member of the Senate, and Rule 11, which directs members to only direct their comments to the Speaker.
Sen. John Stevens, Email correspondence dated January 25, 2019, ¶ 1
Petitioner neither seeks to address the speaker, nor is he a member required to direct his comments to the speaker. Petitioner is an aggrieved citizen exercising his right to petition the General Assembly by address of remonstrance.
Due to the fact that Petitioner also has a right to remedy by due course of law, and justice cannot be denied pursuant to Tenn. Const. Art I, § 17, he has a right to be heard. Again, see attached EXCERPT of Remonstrance proving this assertion.
‘Shall be received, read’
Sen. Stevens completely ignores:
- (1) Rules 15 of the House and 22 of the Senate, which state the same: PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. “Before any petition or memorial addressed to the Senate shall be received and read at the table…”, which means the petition must be read at the table,
- (2) MMLP, Section 148, A petition is presented to the body by the petitioners themselves., (self-explanatory)
- (3) MMLP, Section 518 A Legislative Body cannot delegate its powers, so hearing of this matter cannot be delegated to any committee, etc.
Since Sen. Stevens argued irrelevant rules while ignoring pertinent rules, it is either true that Sen. Stevens did not read petitioner’s remonstrance, and or, does not understand procedural rules, or it is true, that as a member of the BAR he sought to deceive fellow members and clerk copied on his email response (see below originating email). Petitioner remains hopeful the first is true and not the latter.
Sen. Stevens’ following statement should be disturbing to the Honorable Members of the 111th General Assembly and to the citizens of Tennessee and especially his constituency:
‘Hundreds, thousands filed’
To think otherwise is absurd. The citizens of Tennessee, nor any republic, would not stand for the expenditure of their resources by their elected representatives if our legislative attention was diverted from legislative deliberation to, instead, sitting through the presentation of such remonstrances by individual citizens. There could be hundreds if not thousands filed. It is absolutely ludicrous to even consider that the drafters of our constitution, let alone the citizens who approved its adoption, would spend the time to create a system of representative government only to completely eviscerate its operation through some supposed right of remonstrance which included the right of a citizen or citizens to commandeer its members of the General Assembly for the reading of the entire remonstrance by the chief clerk or to even require said “petitioner” to gain the undivided attention of all 132 members at the same time or of each individual body at the same time.
Sen. John Stevens, Email Correspondence dated January 25, 2019, ¶ 2
Consider the phrase, “There could be hundreds if not thousands filed.” Astoundingly. here is prima facia evidence of knowledge of “hundreds if not thousands” of aggrieved citizens ignored. Clearly, if we have hundreds, perhaps thousands, of aggrieved citizens, evidences a profound need of reform, and proper hearing of this remonstrance. It is precisely due to this fact, that this petitioner has remonstrated to the entire General Assembly.
To state, “There could be hundreds if not thousands filed.”, is to state that: “Since there are so many, we will ignore them all.” which is the very definition of tyranny and oppression of the WE THE PEOPLE and such conduct cannot be lawfully accepted. These words are treasonous to the constitution, and to the fundamental principles upon which this nation was so conceived!
‘Supposed right of remonstrance’
Also consider the phrase “supposed right of remonstrance”. “Supposed right”? REALLY?!? The right to redress of grievance by address of remonstrance is not a “supposed right”! It is a right as precious to us as a right of free speech, a right to bear arms, a right to trial by jury! These words too are treasonous to the constitution, and to the fundamental principles upon which this nation was so conceived! When one right of THE PEOPLE is trampled upon, then all rights are put into question! Honorable members of the Senate and House, REBUKE those words of your fellow member.
The framers were so adamant about preserving our declaration of rights, in Art XI, they placed the declaration of rights beyond the reach of government and forever inviolate.
Sen. Stevens statement, “The citizens of Tennessee have the right guaranteed in Art. I, Section 23 to express their opposition or support of proposed legislative action, government conduct or policy,” clearly misconstrues the intent of our framers. Art. I, § 23 reads as follows:
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.
Remonstrance is defined as follows:
A formal protest against the policy or conduct of the government or of certain officials drawn up and presented by aggrieved citizens.
Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition.
Consider the further statement by Sen. Stevens that: “The citizens of Tennessee, nor any republic, would not stand for the expenditure of their resources by their elected representatives if our legislative attention was diverted from legislative deliberation to, instead, sitting through the presentation of such remonstrances by individual citizens.”
There can be no doubt that the citizens of Tennessee would be grateful of a government finally hearing their concerns and redressing their grievances. THE PEOPLE do not want, nor do they desire further legislation that panders to special interests like the legal profession, or that lessens their rights and privileges such as the recent amendment to T.C.A. 24-9-101 exempting licensed clinical social workers from subpoena to trial.
Indeed, this is exactly what ptioner was referring to in remonstrance that this General Assembly has an opportunity to affect a great healing upon Tennessee and the nation. Imagine, citizens being heard and learning to once again find trust in their government. Imagine the joy when loving parents are reunited with their children. Imagine a great justice sweeping our nation – a new rebirth of freedom! To affect this great healing is not difficult. The house of cards upon which the tyranny of our courts and legal profession exist is easily tumbled. The redresses sought in remonstrance are humble and reasonable. Should this General Assembly choose the path of righteous reform, the 111th General Assembly will be known as those who gifted a rebirth to a nation conceived in equality and liberty. Embrace this opportunity.
John A. Gentry, CPA, 208 Navajo Court, Goodlettsville, TN 37072