Petition demands low-cost reform, end of lawyer-judge collusion

John Gentry, seen here as a visitor, stands in the Tennessee senate chamber. He filed his petition for remonstrance Monday. (Photo John Gentry)

The filing of a petition of remonstrance in Nashville this week by John Gentry is a remarkable development. But the proper perspective to take is one of skepticism of the willingness of the white political and legal establishment to hear it, or to care. So what? its sponsors and beneficiaries will say. What difference does it make? Mr. Gentry’s research and labors presumes that law matters, that government limited by constitution matters, that substance of just laws is the true desire of those employed by or getting paychecks from the State of Tennessee. As I have seen in my work of transportation administrative notice, local heads of government do not care that the law in their jurisdiction is ignored, that cops abuse people outside the scope, that ultra vires enforcement is the rule of the day and keeps the county jail full. Not even the people’s elected representatives believe — or care. Neither, probably, would the grand jury of Hamilton County.

Still, we can only excited about Mr. Gentry’s filings, and his intention to overturn the moneychangers’ carts in the halls of justice. — DJT

By John Gentry, CPA

It is acknowledged that few, if any members of the House and Senate, neither recognize that fundamental rights are routinely denied for corrupt purpose, nor comprehend the great harm and cost to individuals and to society. This unfortunate circumstance is not the fault of any person, but the result of passage of time causing us to forget the lessons of our past, and a largely complacent and uninformed society.

Fundamental rights of due process, equal protection, and right to petition redress of grievance caused by state  officials have been usurped. The facts proving this assertion are incontrovertible. These rights are as precious to us as our right to bear arms, and our right of free speech. Indeed, arguably more so, as one cannot defend a right of free speech or right to bear arms without the constitutionally protected rights of due process, equal protection and right to petition government for redress of grievances.

This Petition of Remonstrance DEMANDS simple, low-cost or no-cost reforms be put in place to ensure that fundamental principles of our form of government, and fundamental rights be restored, and that oversight of our judiciary in collusion with attorneys who perpetrate crimes under color of law be provided. ****

What is remonstrance? Petition?

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.

1. A presentation of reasons for opposition or grievance. 2. A formal document stating reasons for opposition or grievance, 3. A formal complaint or protest against governmental policy, actions, or officials. Black’s Law Dictionary 10th Edition.1

Petition ‡ is defined as follows: A written address, embodying an application or prayer from the person or persons preferring it, to the power, body, or person to whom it is presented, for the exercise of his or their authority in the redress of some wrong, or the grant of some favor, privilege, or license. A formal written request addressed to some governmental authority. The right of the people to petition for redress of grievances is guaranteed by the First Amendment, U.S. Constitution. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition.

A formal written request to a court or other official body. Black’s Law Dictionary 10th Edition.

Disqualification of members ‘with interest’ demanded

Pursuant to Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure, § 522, ¶ 1, It is the general rule that no members can vote on a question in which they have a direct personal or pecuniary interest and § 502 affirms:

Every member entitled to vote should be counted in determining whether a quorum is present, but members disqualified on account of interest from voting on any question cannot be counted for the purpose of making a quorum to act on that question.

Petitioner respectfully requests members of the House and Senate who are also members of the BAR or attorneys, or who have close familial ties who are members of the BAR or attorneys, disqualify themselves from consideration and voting on thism atter.

This Petition of Remonstrance essentially; (1) challenges unconstitutional conduct of the judiciary and legal profession, (2) challenges statutes as unconstitutional thatgrant emolument, provide false immunity, or confound due process, and (3) demands protections be provided THE PEOPLE from unconstitutional conduct of the judiciary and legal profession.

The clerk of the state senate stamps a copy of John Gentry’s petition of remonstrance. It is 90 pages in length with 600 pages of appendices. (Photo John Gentry)

It is common sense that attorneys and members of the BAR have a clear conflict of interest pertaining to this remonstration and should willingly disqualify.

‘It costs too much’

As a perfect example, Petitioner recently met with Representative Garrett, who is an attorney. During the meeting, Petitioner informed Rep. Garrett of DEMAND foraudio/visual to be installed in all courtrooms w/ live and recorded proceedings to be made available to the public. Despite being a first term representative, and having never served on the Finance, Ways and Means Committee, and without any idea of the potential cost, and likely without knowledge of finance options available to the state, and or, financial or budgetary resources available to the state, Rep. Garrett quickly responded, “It costs too much”.

Without having basis for such a statement as, “It costs too much,” strongly suggests a conflict of interest, and a predisposition to ensure that courts are allowed to continue to conduct proceedings without transparency. ****

In a nutshell: Republican gov’t

This Petition of Remonstrance is presented on behalf of the Citizens, PEOPLE,and government of the State of Tennessee, in demand for return to the republican principles upon which this state and our nation were founded. Testing whether THE PEOPLE retain rights constitutionally protected, of due process, equal protection, open courts, trial by jury, and for redress of grievances against government policy, and state officials. In the case, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 23 – Sup. Ct, 1876 (at 553), the Supreme Court stated: “the very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right of its citizens to petition for redress of grievances.”

Here before the 111th Congressional Session and General Assembly for the State of Tennessee is an opportunity to be recorded in history as the legislative body that began a great healing of our State, and indeed our Republic. Petitioner implores the qualified members of the General Assembly to embrace this opportunity and stand in defense of our Constitution and Republic (U.S. Const., Art. IV, § 4: The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government. 4 Governor Carroll is credited with initiating numerous legal reforms.)

Judges and state officials have been given tremendous power. Preventing abuse of that power is necessary to the imperative, to preserve the state’s republican character, to ensure the physical, emotional, and financial health and well-being of the state’s Citizenry and PEOPLE, and to ensure overall economic stability.

In the year 1822, Tennessee’s 3rd governor, William Carroll, stated to the general assembly: “A well-regulated and independent judiciary is so essential to the character of the State… that it has a strong claim upon your attention at all times.” In Tennessee today, there is no objective oversight of our judiciary, and Tennesseans are routinely subjected to federal law and rights violations, and have no means to seek redress, and no means to enforce constitutionally protected rights. The government of the State of Tennessee has so far departed from the principles upon which our country was founded, the State has forsaken its republican character  and subjects its people to despotism. The facts proving this assertion are undisputed, and one need only consider objectively to see this fact. In the case, Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 US 118, 32 – Sup. Ct., 1912, our highest court stated:

… to afford no method of testing the rightful character of the state government, would be to render people of a particular State hopeless in case of a wrongful government. (at 146)

In routine practice, throughout the courts of Tennessee, judges in collusion with attorneys and other agents and agencies of the state, conspire to deprive rights and perpetrate crimes under color of law with impunity. Color of law is defined as follows:

The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right.

Deprivation of rights under color of law

Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state, is action taken under “color of law”. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition. These crimes routinely perpetrated upon THE PEOPLE under COLOR OF LAW, include, but are not limited to:

18 U.S.C § 241 – Conspiracy against rights; If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law. Whoever, under color of any law, …, willfully subjects any person in any State, … to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, …shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-112 – Extortion; (a) A person commits extortion who uses coercion upon another person with the intent to: (1) Obtain property, services, any advantage or immunity;

Respected members of the judiciary have warned of the great peril we find ourselves facing today. Speaking at a conference sponsored by the BAR at Columbia Univ., as reported on May 28, 1977, by The New York Times, Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger warned: “but the harsh truth is that if we do not devise substitutes for the courtroom processes, and do not do it rather quickly, we may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts, and brigades of judges in numbers never before contemplated.”

In his book, THE FRATERNITY, Lawyers and Judges in Collusion, ParagonHouse, 2004, endorsed by Senator John McCain and other legislators and dignitaries, Judge John Fitzgerald Molloy tells us that the legal profession must change lest chaos consume our courts.

But, caution! If we are to move away from the potentially fatal favoritism that the Fraternity has achieved for itself, it will require delicate tailoring because the present system is still working – and, in some respects, well. But, change course we must, for we are on the “edge of chaos,” as an objective observer of this system has concluded.

Changing course does not necessarily mean throwing away a precious baby with the bathwater. There is great good in parts of our system – proven by our standard of living and freedom from tyranny, oppression, and discrimination. But the legal system that achieved this is simply not the same legal system that we have today, as it has been massaged to the benefit of the few – the Fraternity. Changes as fundamental as now needed should be achieved in increments, keeping always to the twin objectives of providing a judicial system that will effectively reveal the truth and that will discourage forces that are anti-social, i.e., discourage burglary, rape, murder, etc. And it is in this category of the “anti–social” that the dominance of our society by the Fraternity should be placed. This means that every opportunity should be taken to sever the Fraternity into its two constituent parts – lawyers and judges – so as to deprecate the awesome strength that it obtains by having the bench and the bar as one fraternal organization. This separation should take place in as many ways as possible and whenever possible. The Fraternity “Lawyers and Judges in Collusion, p. 227-228

Consider a judge who is a “jury of one”, easily corrupted, who often sees the same attorneys in case after case, day in and day out, and often fraternizing together outside the courtroom. Consider how that circumstance alone facilitates attorneys and judges in collusion, the opportunity to “strategize” in each case for corrupt purpose, and especially with the attorneys knowing the exact financial resources of both parties – to the penny.

Vexatious litigation, show trials

Add to that “recipe”, the legal profession’s solid organization, high intelligence, and convenience of unconstitutional statutes that provide them false immunities, special privileges, and statutes and court rules that confound due process and deprive protected rights; and it becomes a simple matter for attorneys and judges in collusion to “orchestrate” proceedings, through various “dog-whistle” and cue phrases, to extract all financial resources from the parties. These unfortunate circumstances result in “mock trials” which our founders declared an act of tyranny in our Declaration of Independence.

Our courts are no longer on the “edge of chaos” as quoted by Judge Molloy, but rather in a state of chaos! Perjury is suborned of their clients by attorneys so as to perpetuate vexatious litigation and generate unnecessary billable hours. Obvious perjurious testimony is routinely used as basis of decision, and when perjury is proven; perjury statutes are not enforced, neither in the trial courts, nor in our appellate courts. Our courts now serve the primary purpose of generating as much revenue as possible for the legal profession, without regard for fairness or justice, causing great emotional, and financial harm to the parties of the case, their children, and to the economy overall.

Source: Petition for Remonstrance pp. 5-13

‡ It is worth noting the change in definition   of “remonstrance” between the Fifth and Tenth Editions of Black’s Law dictionary. Clearly, “drawn up and presented by aggrieved citizens” is language removed from the Tenth edition for corrupt purpose. This change in definition reflects the sentiment of Thomas Jefferson regarding the judiciary and legal profession: “…an irresponsible body, working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day & a little tomorrow, and  advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction…” National Archives: Letter from Thomas Jefferson to C. Hammond, August 18, 1821.

Closeup of the copy of the John Gentry remonstrance petition filed with the Tennessee senate.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.