Attorney-legislator sees honor in disqualifying self on remonstrance

Rep. Johnny Garrett, second from right, has disqualified himself from dealing with the public remonstrance in the General Assembly regarding abusive influence by attorneys and numerous violations of the people’s rights. The attorney is a graduate of Nashville School of Law. (Photo Johnny Garrett on FB)

John Gentry fires back at objections to a proposed trial before the general assembly of his indictment of unjust influence and illegal control of the general assembly and the whole of Tennessee state government by attorneys and judges. This series of rebuttals is from a letter sent to legislators and members of the press. Jan. 30. — DJT

By John Gentry

Your petitioner respectfully implores the non-attorney members of the bodies to read for yourselves, the jurisdictional statement (P5), oral argument demanded (P7), and disqualification of members with interest demanded (P8) sections of the petition of remonstrance presented to both houses. Citations therein of our constitutions, and procedural rules of the House and Senate and those in Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure are not difficult to understand.

Trust in your own conscience *** and comprehend the wisdom of the framers of our constitutions and legislative rules.

Weigh carefully the “counsel” of attorney members of the bodies, due to the fact that they have clear pecuniary interest against this Petition of Remonstrance, and because in their roles as members of the bar, and as attorneys, they are subject to the judiciary to which this petition of remonstrance, in part, seeks long-overdue oversight.

Garrett first legislator to disqualify

On Jan. 29 it was communicated verbally to petitioner by his Rep. Johnny Garrett that he would disqualify himself from this matter. Such disqualification is proper and required by legislative procedural rules, substantiating petitioner’s demand for disqualification, and so too should all members of the BAR disqualify.

Since disqualification is proper and required, their voices should have no say in how to proceed in this matter before the bodies. How to proceed in this matter should be determined by the remaining qualified members, according to constitutional provisions, procedural rules, and to ensure justice prevails.

Objections answered

The concerns and suggestions of bar members of the legislature, of which petitioner has been made aware are:


A remonstrance is formal protest against the policy or conduct of the government, or of certain officials drawn up and presented by aggrieved citizens. Petitioner draws attention to the key phrase “aggrieved citizens.” A grievance is defined: An injury, injustice or wrong which gives ground for compliant because it is unjust, discriminatory, and oppressive. Surely the honorable members of the joint houses would desire to redress injury, injustice, or wrong that is unjust, discriminatory, and oppressive!

If there are systemic problems causing aggrieved citizens to number in the hundreds, perhaps thousands, surely the honorable members of the joint houses would desire to correct such systemic problems rather than ignore them as suggested by members of the bar. It is certain,hat most grievances are due to the very grievances presented by petitioner and by properly redressing grievances now, will minimize or eliminate the necessity of future remonstrances.

Please take further note, that an injury, injustice or wrong which gives ground for compliant because it is unjust, discriminatory, and oppressive dramatically narrows the field for future remonstrances to the legislative bodies, and few, if any petitioners, will desire to address the joint houses.

Worthless alternatives


Your petitioner has unfortunately heard this “suggestion” from members of the bar and Clerk’s Office repeatedly. Frankly stated, this is a preposterous suggestion!

A remonstrance is a protest against government policy or government officials. As part of this remonstrance, petitioner has included proposed articles of impeachment for bad actor judges evidenced of crimes. It is irrational to suggest proposed legislation, or introduction of a bill to impeach bad actor judges. Indeed, one can well agree such a suggestion is not only irrational but ridiculous. Evidence of crimes should be brought before the House, and qualified members should vote to impeach under Art. V, remove under Art. VI, or dismiss the complaints.

Right to instruct reps

Tennessee Constitution, Article I, § 23 is clear in its language. Citizens have a right to instruct their representatives, and apply to the government for redress of grievance, by address of remonstrance. The Tenn. Const. does not suggest to redress grievance by proposing legislation or introducing bills.

Yet again, such suggestion is irrational and ridiculous, and suggests intent by members of the BAR to deceive and deprive rights.

Petitioner’s duty is clear. The doctrine of non-resistance is absurd. “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

Petitioner’s duty is demand reform and present redress and reform sought after. It is the duty of the House and Senate to consider demands and redress, and whether to grant or deny.


It is understandable that the members of the body do not know how to properly proceed. Long has the muscle of the legislature atrophied due to lack of use, and unwise reliance on members of the bar for counsel.

The first step is to assemble the quorum and properly hear the matter according to procedural rules and constitutional provisions. Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure, Section 148 provides the process for Petitions. Section 148, ¶ 5 provides the necessary guidance: If required, any decision on a communication or petition that would have more than a temporary effect should be made by the adoption of the resolution or other formal proposal embodying the determination or decision.

A resolution is defined as a formal expression of the opinion or will of an official body or a public assembly, adopted by vote: as a legislative resolution. Such may be either a simple, joint or concurrent resolution. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition.

The questions presented to the General Assembly and demands and redress sought are detailed in Remonstrance beginning on page 64 in the section “reforms demanded & redress of grievances”.

Collectively, we don’t know what resolution of this matter looks like until the quorum is assembled and the matter is heard. Likely some of the demands and redresses can be decided on the floor according to vote at time of presentation. Other demands and redresses may require the normal legislative process. Still other matters may require investigative hearings or the assembly of committees for study and consideration, with findings of those committees later presented to the bodies.

The republican character and form or our government has slowly decayed over several decades. This healing process is going to take time and must be accomplished through careful consideration and proper action. As a longtime businessman, entrepreneur, certified public accountant, and veteran, your petitioner stands ready to serve and assist however desired by the members of this General Assembly.

Does Gentry have standing?


Again, Petitioner directs the members to his remonstrance “Oral Argument Demanded” (page 7), and Mason’s Manual § 148. Section 148 ¶ 1 affirms right of petition is constitutionally guaranteed. Section 148 ¶ 2 requires petitions be addressed to the to the legislative body in which it is to be presented, and this remonstrance was addressed to the General Assembly for good cause. Pursuant to ¶3, this is a public petition. Section 148 ¶ 4 states: “A petition is presented to the body by the petitioners themselves.

Public reading required

As stated in previous email correspondence, Rules 15 of the House and 22 of the Senate, state much the same: “Before any petition or memorial addressed to the House/Senate shall be received and read at the table…” Clearly the House and Senate Rules require the Petition of Remonstrance be “read at the table”.

*** To his great credit, Rep. Garrett has taken the time to read the Petition of Remonstrance, and has voluntarily disqualified himself from this matter. Petitioner expresses his gratitude to representative Garrett for his honorable conduct, and for his taking the time to hear petitioner’s concerns.

Now that petitioner’s district representative has disqualified himself from these proceedings, and thus far petitioner’s district 18 senator has remained silent and not communicated directly with petitioner – who is to present on behalf of petitioner? Further consider requirement to read at the table, a 71-page Petition of Remonstrance as required by Rule 15 and 22 of the House and Senate. Surely presentation by petitioner is more efficient and proper.

Still further consider, Tennessee Constitution, Article I, § 1, that power is inherent in the people, and the people have an unalienable and indefeasible right to reform the government in such manner as they may think proper. It is petitioner’s strong assertion, that this government will only reform through proper hearing of the matter and oral argument. The need for reform is undeniable, and your petitioner stands before you as the only voice of the people before the houses. To deny oral argument, is to defease the people’s right to be heard, and to defease their unalienable right to reform their government.

Contemplating the facts, that petitioner has a right of due process that includes a right to be heard, and that petitions shall be read at the table, and the petitioners present their petitions, and the people have an unalienable right to reform their government begs the questions: Why not? Why not permit this matter to be properly presented? Why not engage in a more productive and efficient presentation of remonstrance? The only answer it seems, is that like our judiciary, there is a desire to conceal the misconduct that routinely occurs in our courts.

Let us address this matter with the proper consideration and attention it deserves and according to rules and constitutional provisions.

Petitioner implores the members of the bodies to review the reforms demanded and redress of grievances sought. The reforms and redresses sought are more than reasonable and proper.

More on Tennessee remonstrance project

John A Gentry, CPA, can be reached at 615-351-2649 or at

Leave a Comment

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