The knotty arrest of an investigative reporter highlights the cartel nature of the Tennessee judiciary in the twilight era of commercial government.
The arrest of this reporter Nov. 6 at the TN judicial conference in a hotel conference room in Franklin, Tenn., is illegal by several standards. The reporter and his 96.9 FM bureau chief Christopher Sapp were there by right under the constitution, the open meetings act and under the statute creating the judicial conference as a governmental body subject to press reporting.
The arrest smells strongly of a larger violation, that against the covenant between the state and the people, no less breached than the agreement between the people and God, who is suppressing Americans as he did the Israelites under the Philistines and Midianites.
Mr. Sapp and I were at Embassy Suites hotel south of Nashville to cover the secretive gatherings that for more than two weeks we had petitioned to be allowed to cover. But Judge Roger Page’s refusal to respond, and his willingness to have me arrested for exercising my God-given rights smack of the confidence of one who is unreachable by complaint, lawsuit or grievance.
The unidentified national speaker at the event — speaking Saturday about “sovereign citizens,” is perhaps talking about people like me. People who care about the law and use it in defense of themselves and others.
“There’s a reason they don’t want the public there,” says Levi Thurston, the gnome of Middle Tennessee.
That’s because they’re literally engaging in closed union shop conspiracy against members of the public that is the target, and they want to make sure everybody operates in the same manner toward that All you have to do is put a label on ’em and then everybody closes ranks and mistreats them. *** There’s no terminology in the statute which allows them to go and identify people in that manner and then act toward them in that manner, as they ‘re talking about doing. At the most, people who sign their paperwork like that, that’s just political dissent. That’s not a criminal act. It’s not threatening behavior or anything else. The statute covers criminal. It doesn’t cover political dissent.
Mr. Thurston and I consulted closely with my daughter Abigail in preparation for her trial on a reckless driving charge in Virginia, and in helping her with her appeal to Richmond. Mr. Thurston is a tradesman who in past weeks has been doing cotton field labor in Texas, where he has gone to get a driver license and studying to file a petition for writ of mandamus.
‘Despotic rule of men in black robes’?
Says Mr. Sapp, “If employees of the Supreme Court cannot be expected to obey the law or to follow the Constitution in respecting our rights, what of the Courts and the judiciary? If we do not have the rule of law, we are left with the despotic rule of men in black robes. We either have a justice system or we have a ‘Just Us’ system that serves only those in or attached to the justice system. I think that we really DO need to make a Federal Case out of this if for no other purpose than to shine the light on the depth of corruption here in our Tennessee courts.”
Mr. Thurston is indignant at how the judicial so violently seeks to cloak its activity from public review.
“They’re all on board as a lynch mob,” he says. “They’re going to find against people without any opportunity for explaining how they would come up with such a finding. That’s one thing if a person signs their paperwork as ‘sovereign citizen.’ *** Shoot, it’s a meaningless term. It’s almost self-contradictory. If anything, it’s a typographical error — it’s a terminology error. So it has no effect. Y’know, people put their hopes in it — ‘If I say that, they’ll back up.’ It’s basically superstitious.
But now when it comes to whatever the merits are, now they’re saying, they’re going to do character assassination and ignore the merits of whatever’s in front of them. This is what the supreme court said. You might have a very bad man who has a very good case. You’re here to judge the case and not the man. They’re turning that upside down. They’re judging the man, not the case. It’s a conspiracy, straight up.
“The bar association is going out here and committing character assassination terminology for people they don’t like,” Mr. Thurston says.
The lie they’re going to use is: If you don’t use one of their union members to come in before another union member over an issue in a closed union shop setting, then they’re going to gang up on you,” ignoring merits of a case. This is done outside the law, to enrich themselves.
As I was awaiting to be taken from the room, I spoke to the judges and asked them if any one of them was going to intervene to prevent a crime from being committed against me by lawless officers with no basis in law for the arrest, as I was not involved in a “public offense” or a “threat of a breach of the peace” in T.C.A. 40-7-103. They ran their phones.
“They are showing how they are corrupted in their position. When a crime is taking place in front of them, they’re making video for their own entertainment,” Mr. Thurston says. “They will not stop it.”
“These people are mocking their victims for the evil they they are imposing on them. This is a seared conscience, criminality of these people. That closed conference means that when they abuse these people, there’s absolutely no possible way that a person can get any justice out of that group because they agree to work in concert to *** take down the individual. We’re not here for the merits.
The secrecy of the meetings allows for their training in prejudice to never see the light of day. “You put that label on them, you can do whatever you want.”