This appeal to the U.S. Court of appeals for the 6th circuit court is from a “memorandum opinion and order” in a civil lawsuit case for false arrest, felony assault, false imprisonment, kidnapping, malicious prosecution, Due Process Rights, Constitutional and Civil Rights violations in case No. 1:21-CV-137-DCLC-CHS from the Eastern District of Tennessee Chattanooga Division, from U.S. Judge Clifton L. Corker.
By Michael James
Appellant is aggrieved by the judge several “abuses of discretion” of my federal claims for civil rights violations of 42 USC § 1983 and the constitution’s equal protection clause. The court “abuses its discretion” in several instances one by failing to account for the “Genuine issue as to the essential material facts appellant undisputed FACTS by Deputy City Attorney Mr. Phillip Noblett appellant is a “Law Abiding Citizen” with NO criminal record, has a valid commercial driver license, clean MVR, valid car registration, valid car insurance, valid Legal and Lawful transporting of my legally registered unloaded firearm inside my beretta hard gun case inside my backpack in the “locked trunk” of my car. The Chattanooga police department officers, all 7 caucasian officers on the scene, knew I was a “Law Abiding Citizen” background checked by police dispatcher advising them all over radio dispatch transmission i heard, I had NO criminal record and knew I was the first “Law Abiding Citizen” to call 911 at 4:14 am requesting and directing the Police and E.M.T. to the crash scene for the safety and well being of the juvenile girls and for the safety and well being of anyone else that may have been injured in the business building they negligently on there own crashed into.
All C.P.D. officers and Judge Corker “abused their discretion” in NOT finding me, Mr. James, a Law Abiding Citizen, a “Good Samaritan” more CREDIBLE in analyzing the “Totality of the Circumstances” and ignoring the 4 essential elements facts regarding Tennessee Law of “Mens rea” or guilty mind, abuse and violation of my Due process Rights, Constitutional and Civil Rights of all C.P.D. officers on the scene and the Chief Magistrate Judge Lorrie Miller at the Hamilton County jail Chattanooga, Tenn. Trezevant v. Tampa 741 F.2d 336 ; 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 18863 makes it clear that if one is under arrest and booked and humiliated even for a single minute “Outside of Due Process,” the state or its agent imposes “Irreparable Damage”
The U.S. district court under Judge Clifton Corker “abuses its discretion” in NOT taking “Judicial Notice and Review” of the “Genuine issue as to the essential material FACT” evidence of the lower court dismissal of both false charges, gives credible rise and merit to an “Genuine issue as to the essential material fact”evidence in the record that makes appellant “false arrest” a breach of my federal protected constitutional rights.
Overlooked or misrepresented facts
- The district court “abuse its discretion” again and fails to answer the question of why the appellant a Good citizen, a Truck Driver with no criminal record and a Good Samaritan, threaten the two accusing juveniles with a pistol and, after they recklessly crash their stolen careening car into a business building causing thousands of dollars worth of damages, wait around appellant is first to call 911 at 4:14 am for police and EMTs. There could not reasonably be such a man who would commit a felony threat of assault and then call police to the scene. Appellant notes in his supporting 8 pages “Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss” filed and litigated in the false criminal proceeding of year 2020, on page 7, “MENS REA is an essential element, and innocent intent is written all over this case, even through the eyes of Officer Hughes. His affidavit makes no hint of motive, and leaves the reader baffled as to why accused would commit a felony and moments later call police and EMTs to the scene and wait for their arrival with his report about witnessing the juvenile girls’ erratic and reckless driving and destruction of property and vehicle, causing thousands of dollars worth of damages.”
- Appellant asks this Sixth Circuit Court to take “Judicial Notice and Review” of the fact in this case of dismissal of two false felony assault charges in Hamilton County, Chattanooga, Tenn., General Sessions Court, based partly on an incoherent Lying accuser narrative and partly on the failure of the officers and Hamilton County chief magistrate judge Lorrie Miller to obey state law that requires a sworn and signed affidavit by accuser in person before a magistrate pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-6-203(a), affiants, examination. appellant false arrest is a felony assault, false imprisonment and a kidnapping under federal law Title 18 U.S.C §§ 242 and 241 against appellant by all of the 7 caucasian officers on the scene which 2 were supervisors with the rank of sergeant in what the press outlets in Southeast Tennessee dub the “911 call from hell.” See attached exhibits as evidence.
- Deputy city attorney Phil Noblett in a deposition of appellant on May 20, 2022, OPENED the door to reference to the false criminal proceedings of chief magistrate judge Lorrie Miller UNLAWFUL assertion of probable cause violating my “Due Process Rights” pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-6-203(a), examination of affiant, hence informants violated Federal Due Process Rights, Constitutional and Civil Rights.
- The U.S. district Court Judge Clifton Corker “abuses its discretion” again in NOT taking “Judicial Notice and Review” to account of the lower court order of dismissal of both false charges against appellant on September 4, 2020. The Honorable court at General Sessions found there was NO probable cause and violation of my Due Process Rights. Yet appellant was forced to endure the harm of false arrest that the constitution of the U.S. and Tennessee are designed to forbid. Had he been convicted of felony assault and sued for a civil rights violation, the court would dismiss on the spot. It is an authentic issue of material consequence that the “false arrest” lacks probable cause. Judge Corker “abuses his discretion” in following the lead of defendants, who work to imply that, somehow, the arrest had a lawful basis at some point. District court “abuses its discretion” to imply there is probable cause in appellant arrest. There is no probable cause. Sessions court dismisses the false criminal charges as having no legal substance or basis and in violation of State law and Federal law, as appellant respectfully argued and litigated before the Hamilton County, General Sessions Court in Chattanooga, Tenn.
- (Appellants previous attorney Mr. Stephen Duggins was “Ineffective Assistance of Counsel” for failing to submit supporting filed documents as EVIDENCE I filed during the false criminal proceedings with the Hamilton County, General Sessions Court / The Honorable Judge Gerald Webb Jr. (1.) My sworn & notarized affidavit 6 pages, (2.) C.P.D. officer Lance Hughes # 826 perjured “Affidavit of Complaint” 3 pages, unsigned and unsworn by the alleged accuser, (3.) My notarized “Motion to Dismiss” 3 pages, (4.) My notarized “Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss” 8 pages (5.) The General Session Court in Hamilton County, Chattanooga, Tennessee presiding over the case in the criminal proceedings titled the “Court Disposition of Case Property Evidence” Dismissal of both cases on September 4, 2020 1 page (6.) The Order of The Honorable Judge Gerald Webb Jr. II presiding General Session Court Judge ordering the Hamilton County criminal court clerk, “The Order for the Expungement of Criminal Offender Record” of Appellant Mr. Michael Bernard James on September 4, 2020 1 page).
- The defendants cannot bring up probable cause now in civil proceedings when there was no probable cause found in the criminal proceedings. District court with Judge Corker “abuses its discretion” again and had a moral and ethical duty to inquire as to the basis for the dismissal of the criminal action, which inquiry would have been dispositive in favor of appellant cause and federal lawsuit claims.
- The district court fails to justly exercise its discretion by failing to examine the dismissal of the criminal charges vs. appellant Sessions court Judge Gerald Webb Jr. dismisses the case on Sept. 4, 2020, in light of appellant’s pointing out “Due Process Rights” violations of the “false arrest” and the VOID nature of the case from its inception. “This Court lacks “SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION” in this case and has a DUTY to dismiss it Ministerially, because it is VOID from inception, there being no actionable instrument to ignite prosecution or adjudication,” appellant litigates to the sessions judge, who agrees there was NO probable cause for his arrest and Court says appellant Pro Se motion and argument for dismissal “are very well written for a Pro Se litigant.” Judge Webb indicates the legal argument raised to clear himself was dispositive, just as these facts of appellant abuse by district Judge Corker should have been dispositive to get appellant a trial by jury on his federal claims. Hamilton County court system expunged the case.
- The district court fails to take into account not just the reasons for the arrest and search of appellant’s car are WITHOUT probable cause, but facts that emerge in the audio recordings of the girls’ use of the homeowner’s phone to falsely make report to the C.P.D. dispatcher about appellant alleged threats. The district court errs on the facts on p. 2 of its order, stating, “The second call to 911 dispatch came in about the same time and was from one of the occupants in the Xterra [Doc. 32, ¶ 2; Doc. 30, 911 call from Juvenile].”
— Appellant called 911 first at 4:14 am. Eight minutes later the owner of the house, an elderly woman in a house to which the girls ran, fleeing the scene from responsibility of their reckless driving joyriding from a parent car they stole and with there own negligence crashed into a business building at 4:14am causing thousands of dollars worth of damages to property and vehicle damage — this elderly woman called 911.
The U.S. District Court and Judge Clifton Corker knowingly and intentionally “abuse its discretion” noticing that Ella Peters asks the other girl, did she see a gun? Here’s the dialogue with the dispatcher, showing that facts absolve appellant, and that the trial court again “abuse its discretion” intentionally ignoring the facts that give appellant basis for irreparable damages for false arrest, felony assault, false imprisonment, kidnapping, and the other valid federal claims made below.
Hey, ma’am. Me and my friend were getting ready to go and get something to eat and we was at a light and this man, he had flipped us off and we was at the stoplight. And we, he started chasing us. And then we tried to get away. And we ran into this building.
And the man was still following us, and he got a gun and he was trying to shoot us. *** Yes, we are inside this woman’s house. *** No, he was a black male. He was in a brown car, and he is still out here waiting for us to come out here. *** Make sure that door, go lock that door. **** We was at a stoplight, and he’s still in front of the house now.
The dispatcher asks, “Did you see a gun?”
Ella Peters, 14, the caucasian girl, asks her friend the older girl Kaija Anderson, 16 African-American girl in the open phone line: “Did you see a gun?”
This conversation with the dispatcher, in the realm of fact, clearly reveals juveniles concocting a story to extricate themselves from a car they stoled joy riding that ends with damage to family vehicle and a business building belonging to others. These juveniles were not charged, though police filled the scene. They were operating and driving a motor vehicle WITHOUT a valid driver license, no car registration, no car insurance, and without parental permission or supervision.
But there’s NO Statement given at the scene of May 6, 2020, from Kaija Anderson mentioning anything about a gun, Ella Peters friend. Nor is it in Officer Hughes’ perjured “Affidavit of Complaint” 3 pages narrative report of the same date.
“Yes. She saw a gun and we started running, and went into this woman house.” This is also where EVIDENCE will show Ella Peters is also LYING on the 911 call.
Within seconds of this statement in the 911 call, Ella Peters says officers have arrived.
- The defendants’ time to allege or prove lawful cause and probable cause is not in the U.S. district court, but earlier, during the 121 days of the criminal proceedings in a “false arrest” and “Malicious Prosecution” of the appellant which case was dismissed by the lower court. This “Genuine issue as to the essential material facts” is knowingly and intentionally overlooked by judge Corker, and appellant sees district court judge Corker as overeager to accept defendants’ ludacris false speculative assertions by state actors the WRONGDOERs perpetrating a fraud under the color of law knowingly and intentionally in BAD FAITH.
- It is unjust for the judge to note that the criminal charges vs. appellant were dismissed and not ask as to the grounds. Appellant and his attorney Mr. Stephen Duggins parted ways because appellant attorney gave “Ineffective Assistance of Counsel” for not submitting the obvious supportive pertinent EVIDENTIARY documents of EVIDENCE on the MERITS of the Dismissal of the false criminal charges by the Hamilton County General Session Court The Honorable Judge Gerald Webb Jr. II findings of NO probable cause and violation of appellant’s “Due Process Rights,” With NO Objection or Appeal from the Hamilton County, Chattanooga, Tn District Attorney Office.
Errors of law in district court
— Mens rea issue. Appellant insists it is an error of law for a judge to ignore the mens rea requirement in an alleged crime. The U.S. District court Judge Clifton Corker presides in Greenville, Tennessee, ignores the requirement for the accused to act in such a way consistent with guilty mind and a criminal act.
The alleged criminal act in this case is not established in any way according to Tennessee law. The officers are not qualified to make a judicial determination that a crime indeed occurred, given the “totality of the circumstances” and what a fair reading and viewing of the STAGED and ALTERED video and coerced testimony should indicate. They did NOT obtain a Sworn and Signed statement from either girl, before a magistrate, as required in Tennessee law pursuant Tenn. Code. Ann. § 40-6-203(a) Examination of Affiants, hence informants. Officer Lance Hughes, who makes the decision to arrest and charge, has NO credible accuser or witness, only hearsay, and no Sworn or Signed statement from either Juvenile girl.
The juvenile girls have every reason to lie. They are friends, not separate independent witnesses. They are recklessly “joyriding” in Ella Peter’s mother’s car, both of them knowingly and intentionally stoled. The juvenile delinquent girls have NO valid driver license, No valid car registration, No valid car insurance. And a crash for which Ella is responsible for, confronted by a mob of officers and cruisers and flashing lights. Ella has every reason to turn a bad event to the side, to blunt it and justify the high speeds and crash by ascribing it to flight and dread of another person — of appellant, who is a “Law Abiding Citizen and a Good Samaritan” who calls 911 first and foremost to report reckless driving, almost hit appellant car, possible intoxicated driver, possible stolen vehicle. Appellant testifies how young they looked. The law says a citizen can safely follow to get reckless driver car plate number and call authorities; that’s what I witnessed reckless driving and followed safely to get car plate number to report to police and then they crashed of their own negligence into a business building causing thousands of dollars of damages to Ella Mother vehicle and a business owner property, like a “Law Abiding Citizen” as soon as I seen they had crash I immediately called 911 at 4:14 am for the safety and well-being of the juvenile girls and for the safety and well-being of anybody else that may have been hurt or injured in the business building.
Each Juvenile girl Ella Peters 14 and her friend Kaija Anderson 16 each had their own cellphone, yet neither makes an emergency 911 call. If they were an innocent party, with no motive to lie, they would immediately have called police for rescue — but they do not. The girls act as a party with mens rea, and appellant acts throughout this case as one who has no mens rea. His actions are consistent with not just lack of guilt from felony assault, but actual innocence.
Hughes’ arrest report shows the problem of this case. The gap in the narrative as to why the 911 caller would place that call moments after alleged felony armed threats jumps out. Mr. James’ actions immediately after the alleged display of a pistol belie the claim that he waved a gun. Mr. James, a professional Truck Driver, had just dropped off a fellow truck driver by the name of Kevin at approximately 4:00 am at 1409 E. 36th St. in Chattanooga so Kevin could pick up his truck. Appellant was traveling back to his house on 4th avenue when appellant came up upon E. 35th St. the car the juvenile stole driving recklessly almost hitting my car we both now traveling in the same direction on 4th ave about a half mile and come to a redlight by the Interstate I-24 bridge and both cars waited for the light to turn green. The Juvenile at the wheel is below legal age 14 to drive. Her friend, also a Juvenile in appearance.
Judge Corker abuses his discretion when he discounts the fact that the alleged felon is on the phone with police when he, the appellant, slips out of his car to stow his felony pistol back in the trunk of his car, to evade police whom he is calling to bring to the scene of his own felony. See Judge Corker’s ruling, p. 13, which proposes that Mr. James, while having police on the phone to come to the scene, stowed the gun with which he’d just committed a felony. “He insists there was no way he could have remained on the phone and stowed a gun at the same time.” That’s not the issue. The issue is: No MENS REA can be calculated into appellant’s person or actions, despite theorizings by the Judge Corker.
The judge sees “Trustworthy eyewitness statements” p. 10. The judge credits the girls because they are “witnesses [who] stuck to their stories.” The judge says, “Based on trustworthy eyewitness statements endorsed by the mother, officers could reasonably infer that James likely had committed an aggravated assault with a firearm,” p. 10.
The Judge Corker offers this analysis in reaching the “likely had committed” analysis of appellant, in abuse of his discretion.
Two eyewitnesses specifically claimed James displayed a firearm at them and was chasing them down the street, which they claimed ultimately caused the wreck. They claimed he was waiting for them outside the residence [Doc. 30, 911 call from Juvenile]. Far from contradicting each other, each witness’ story corroborated the other. When officers arrived, they found James waiting outside the residence and they found the wrecked Xterra [Doc. 23, L. Hughes 1 at 1:33–1:40].
Pp. 9, 10 (emphasis added)
The comment implies that Mr. James is “waiting outside the residence” so he can open fire on the girls, which theme has no basis in the facts.
The abuse of discretion by the court fails to see this: That appellant is waiting outside the resident lacking mens rea, but acting as a good citizen, waiting in his car with blinkers on for safety, on the phone with police, whom he has called to the scene. The court’s ruling is an exercise in retroactive interpretation of events with a prejudicial blue stripe down the middle of it. The case’s “credible witnesses” would have officers and judge believe that a felon aggressor would “chase” the accusers and call police on himself while he is waiting outside the house, evidently (according to them) to shoot them.
Had appellant allegedly accused of waving a gun, Ella Peters 14 would not have jumped her car through the red light, made a U-turn and come back past appellant. She reasonably would have gone straight — to flee for safety. They claim he held a gun out the left hand window that was officer Hughes coercing the girls what to say. But appellant is right handed. Good citizen Mr. James appellant follows them safely at a distance less than 2 minutes to try to get their license plate number in the public interest, not on their tail, but at a distance enough to witness them negligently crash into the business building, it is NOT illegal for a citizen to follow and get a license plate number of a reckless or drunk driver the law encourages law abiding citizen motorist to do so and call 911 once you get the plate number.
It is not reasonable for a man who has allegedly made an armed threat to two Juveniles would have called 911 when arriving at the crash scene. Appellant pulls to the side of the road to observe the situation, having seen the girls flee the accident scene for a nearby house. He places the 911 call at 4:14 a.m. to Police and E.M.T. as soon as he sees the crash. He sits in his car about 100 feet away, the whole time waiting for the police to arrive still on the phone with 911 dispatcher the whole time directing police to the scene. Appellant is a 54 year old man whose a “Law Abiding Citizen” commercial over-the-road Truck Driver by trade with a clean MVR and NO criminal record appellant has an interest in safe and proper use of the road: Consistently, I have my 4-way hazard blinker lights on waiting for police while still talking on the phone with the 911 police dispathch giving them my full name, car description and the cross street where the juveniles crashed at, and the house the banged on the door to description to the 911 dispatcher.
Why would a man who had two minutes before — back at the red light intersection where the “flipping off” finger play initiated by the juvenile girls — have followed the juveniles in the car and called police had he committed an assaultive act? The case has NO guilty mind or Mens rea on the part of appellant, again a law-abiding citizen with NO criminal record. Appellant’s actions are consistent with those of an honorable citizen. The girls’ actions are entirely consistent with lying and fibbing to get out of a jam of their making. They violate the Tennessee false report act at § 39-16-502.
The key thing Judge Clifton Corker misses is the federal and state due process violation of there being no sworn witness. He makes no effort to take the girls to magistrate Lorrie Miller to swear out a complaint. Any swearing he does is not dispositive and is legally insufficient. They refuse to sign and make a sworn statement of accusation before a magistrate, pursuant T.C.A. § 40-6-203(a), and so there is no accuser in the case, with in Tennessee law police reports not being evidence and no officer a witness to what allegedly transpired.
— Court ignores Tennessee statute law requirements. Tennessee law allows for warrantless arrest for felony at T.C.A. § 40-7-103. Arrest for felony, still, must allow for “Due Process”, including the right to a valid charging instrument and for a swearing and signing by an accuser or witness. The officer should have used his discretion, let the appellant go (since he knows his address, etc.), go to the magistrate, get the girl to swear out a warrant, and then come arrest appellant. That would have been best, given his protections to be free from arrest without a warrant. Given the questionable circumstances, Officer Hughes and his myriad colleagues should have done nothing to touch Mr. James’ person until he had a sworn statement by the pretended witness. Getting a sworn statement — given the lack of mens rea in the totality of circumstances — should have upheld constitutional rights and avoided injuring appellant.
An officer who has not witnessed an alleged crime cannot, on his own authority, create a criminal case. Video evidence of officers’ interactions with the two girls indicates no effort is made to take either or both before the magistrate. Law requires at the accuser reduce her accusation to writing and swear it is true.
(a) Upon information made to any magistrate of the commission of a public offense, the magistrate shall examine, on oath, the affiant or affiants, reduce the examination to writing, and cause the examination to be signed by the person making it.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-203
The video evidence indicates the officers gave no thought to taking either girl before the magistrate to swear out a warrant to secure appellant’s rights to due process. Their allegations to the officer, who swears his report but is hearsay witness, are without substance and force until sworn, which step was not done.
The officers, in deference to state and federal constitutions, should have sought to secure justice in the matter while respecting the rights of the one they intended to accuse. They already had all of appellant’s information, his valid CDL license, auto VIN, home address. They had a duty, since there was a cloud over the girls’ allegations, to release him — just as the magistrate released him on his own recognizance. No arrest should have taken place, in light of the no probable mens rea visible in appellant in the “totality of the circumstances,” and suspicions voiced among the officers about the girls’ miscreancy (see Hughes video no. 1, 38:00, where an officer says, “It sounds like the kids were fishing for an excuse for why they wrecked into that building”).
Had one or both girls appeared before the magistrate, who “shall examine” the girl “on oath” and with the affiant “reduce the examination to writing,” appellant could then have lawfully been arrested. The criminal case was VOID from inception, its voidness extended each day the girls absented themselves from relating their complaint and swearing before Hamilton County, Tn., chief magistrate judge Lorrie Miller or one of her three fellow judicial commissioners.
The dismissal gives merit to appellant’s federal claims for a civil rights abuse. The district court of Judge Corker “abuses its discretion” again and again by making alive again the details of the arrest in a case determined as a “matter of law” to have been VOID, lacking any sworn witness statement.
The lower court ruling of NO probable cause is the lens through which the record should be reviewed by the district court Judge Clifton Corker. Instead of watching the STAGED and ALTERED videos knowing that the girls would refuse to testify, the court abuses his plenary powers to create a different case than the one that went down in flames in Hamilton County, Tennessee General Sessions Court in a HONORABLE just judgment by Judge Gerald Webb Jr. based on Tennessee law’s clear requirements for a sworn complaint by an accuser.
The district court overlooks the duty of police and the courts to not arrest a citizen without probable cause or a warrant. In Tennessee, as appellant explained and litigated to the General Sessions Court, the officer is required to strongly respect the right of the citizen to be free from arrest.
This petition is filed by an African-American, one for whose race the 14th amendment was ratified by the states on July 9, 1868. He claims his federal constitutional rights under this law, specifically under the protections that still remain for police abuse under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Appellant requests the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reverse district court Judge Corker order of dismissal and reinstate my federal claims for a Trial by Jury in the U.S. district court in Chattanooga, Tenn., NOT in Greenville, Tn.
Respectfully submitted by,
Mr. Michael James
(1.) The Order for the Expungement of Criminal Offender Record, Sept. 4, 2020, 1 page
(2.) Court disposition Dismissal of case property/evidence (returning Beretta handgun, and all other unlawfully seized property of appellant), 1 page
(3.) Sworn and Notarized Affidavit of Michael James on August 24, 2020 6 pages
(4.) Appellant “Motion to Dismiss”, 3 pages
(5.) Appellant “Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss”, showing Due Process violation, void case, 8 pages
(6.) Officer Lance Hughes Perjured Sworn “Affidavit of Complaint” 3 pages
(7.) Affidavit of Michael James, Encounter with Hamilton County Chief Magistrate Judge / Lorrie Miller on May 6, 2020, in false arrest case, 2 pages
False imprisonment is a huge offense due to the high regard the law has for liberty. In Chitty’s Practice of the Law it states:
“The infraction of personal liberty has ever been regarded as one of the greatest injuries. The injuries to liberty are principally termed false imprisonments, or malicious prosecutions.“
Unlawful detention or deprivation of liberty is the basis of an action for the tort of false imprisonment. Actual seizure or the laying on of hands is not necessary to constitute an unlawful detention.
Thus the only essential elements of the action are:
(1) Detention or restraint against one’s will; and
(2) The unlawfulness of such detention or restraint.”
In his Treatise on the Law of Torts, Judge Cooley states:
False imprisonment is a wrong akin to the wrongs of assault and battery, and consists in imposing, by force or threats, an unlawful restraint upon a man’s freedom of locomotion.’
Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Law, (3 Bl. Comm. 127) states on this matter:
Every confinement of the person is an imprisonment, whether it be in a common prison, or in a private house, or in the stocks, or even by forcibly detaining one in the public streets.
Seems that the problem here is that the actual Law pertaining to the situation is just too simple and clear. While making it obvious to anyone that the CPD and the courts of Hamilton county are about as corrupt as attorneys can make them.
This false arrest/imprisonment is just too simple, it is amazing that so much has been spent on more criminals to muck it up to the point it will be totally F.U.B.A.R.
Leave it to an attorney like Judge Corker to be bringing up moot points to avoid a trial, this arrest was found to be, necessarily “void ab initio”, and the so-called judge is attempting to influence a jury as to the UN-established, and non-existent “facts” of Michael James re-stashing a lawfully possessed firearm.
No, if this were allowed to come to a trial, the entire criminal organization of corporate government could become exposed to the regular People that are the Lawful Authorities for everything, within the Tennessee Republic.
Thanks, Big Jon, for your very intelligent analysis. One has to STAND in their proper person and intelligently fight to assert their God-given, unalienable rights.