A federal lawsuit involving the chief justice of the Tennessee supreme court comes from a radio journalist aggrieved by Roger Page’s false imprisonment and false arrest policy raised as a defense of the court system’s biggest secret.
By David Tulis / NoogaRadio Network
The secret is what judges do behind doors in their Tennessee judicial conference every year. The state has six judicial conferences for various levels of the judicial branch, and the gatherings are more than just about continuing legal education. Judge talk about cases in progress, about their aspirations for the judicial branch of government, about the slow revolution judges and lawyers are bringing to U.S. law and culture.
These goals are developed by the the American Bar Association and other groups.
Justice Page ordains by illegal policy the arrest of this reporter Nov. 6, 2021, covering the Tennessee judicial conference. He has been under my lawsuit in U.S. district court since Nov. 9, 2022, and demands via the attorney general’s office the case should be dismissed on grounds of state sovereign immunity.
Mr. Page, sued in his capacity as administrator and manager of Administrator of the Courts, bars any member of the public from attending a judicial conference, and has imprisoned two journalists for having done so. One of them he threw from the conference, a type of imprisonment. That’s to say, Christopher Sapp, mid-state bureau chief. He arrests me and imposes false imprisonment upon me in 11 instances surrounding his defense of the secrecy barrier, according to my federal complaint.
Roger Page is a lawbreaker as bad as is Bill Lee. The Republican overthrew constitutional government March 12, 2020, with his pseudo-emergency over the erstwhile “Covid-19 pandemic.” Mr. Page, and Gov. Lee, crossed the center line and, in their heavily loaded semi-trailer truck of state, creamed the people in the oncoming car, a small sedan, as it were, destroying the innocent inside and the rights of every Tennessean — who re-elected him Nov. 8, according to published reports.
I have no doubt Justice Page and the other four judges conspire\ well ahead of time in a plan of “what to do in case of a pandemic” under the state’s continuity of government plan authorized under Title 58, the emergency law. Their unconstitutional yielding to executive power and shutting down the courts and joining in CV-19 terror theater arises without a proper warrant or legal reason for the arrest of the entire population, absent a nonfraudulent exigency. The conference is where legal revolution is hatched and nurtured, I believe; the public has a right to attend.
Because we have rights, Justice Page ordains my arrest and humiliation that Saturday morning, though he is not present.
Page violates state, federal law
Here is my rebuttal to his demurrer. In this affidavit and answer, I argue that he is making war upon the law, and pretending to represent the state of Tennessee, which claim is a lie.
- These defendants say they cannot be sued because of the doctrine of state sovereignty, in which they are cloaked in official capacity. Their defense is entirely in terms of each man in his office, as “State Defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity” (brief p. 5).
- Petitioner asks the court to note this complaint is against two men who are causing irreparable harm to the enjoyment of protected rights under color of state employment at TAOC, the Tennessee administrator of the courts. Petitioner sues them as men, identified on Page 1 of the complaint, by given and surnames, men who accept service, men like any other citizen charged with the duty of knowing the law. That the attorney general appears to represent them, maybe erroneously, does not change this intention, nor the common law nature of their offenses.
- In such a common law cause there are only two elements required: The press member was (a) deprived of his enjoyment of protected liberty against his will by Page and Crawford, and (b) that defendants are proximate cause of assault and trespass without lawful basis. The burden ends there for the petitioner and as a matter of law shifts immediately to the defendants to evidence the elements claimed do not exist to avoid their common law assault or trespass.
- It is unknown to plaintiff in what capacity they operate their false imprisonment and false arrest policy scheme to deprive fundamental rights under color of state law while drawing a state paycheck. Causing the deprivation of the enjoyment of fundamental rights without lawful warrant would not be within the scope of any lawful official duty in any regard.
- Defendants Page and Crawford prefer to be sued in official capacity. They indicate by brief they (1) act under a state policy, in “official capacity,” (2) are not implicated as men (“personal capacity”), and, (3) that their conduct in plaintiff’s false imprisonment is state policy. By seeing the complaint as lodged against them in official capacity, they misrepresent that to which they are subject — (1) Tenn. const. Art. 1, sect. 19 (regarding press freedoms), (2) Tenn. const. art. 11, sect. 16 with its prohibition of “pretense,” conduct offending (3) the first amendment to the U.S. constitution regarding freedom of the press and speech. Further, they imply, contrary to the facts creating the cause for this case, they comply with (4) the Tennessee open meetings act at T.C.A. § 8-44-101 (“The general assembly hereby declares it to be the policy of this state that the formation of public policy and decisions is public business and shall not be conducted in secret”) (emphasis added) and (5) the leading state case on open meetings, Dorrier v. Dark, 537 S.W.2d 888 (Tenn. 1976). Despite these misrepresentations to the court, evidenced in the false imprisonment, assault or trespass upon the enjoyment of the press to an open meeting, they indicate the court must dismiss the complaint as barred by sovereign immunity, since they pretend to obey laws subject to this immunity.
- The “official capacity only” defense misrepresents Tennessee law, and denies the possibility that state policy — as they pretend it to be by their design and intent — abrogates federally guaranteed rights under the 14th amendment and the 1st amendment applicable to state governments and state government employees.
- “Plaintiff has sued Chief Justice Page, Mr. Crawford, and AOC Does in their official capacities,” (brief p. 5), the voluntary admission being that their actions are, from vantage of their offices, state policy, custom and usage.
- Page and Crawford say “plaintiff does not assert that State Defendants are committing an ongoing violation of federal law” and that “[r]ather, he limits his allegations to one arrest at a judicial conference” (Page/Crawford brief, p. 6). This statement is factually wrong. It misleads the court evidenced by the fact of the “relief sought” section at complaint p. 12, to the ongoing violation of federal law needing, at least, immediate equity relief, allowed pursuant to federal statute, for the irreparable harms being caused under color of state authority, and evidenced by the complaint.
- But these irreparable harms to protected fundamental rights, or to their enjoyment are universally against law. The harms are imposed by two administrators under the “pretense” prohibited in Tenn. const. art 11, sect. 16, and prohibited by the federal first amendment barring the federal congress and pursuant to the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the states (Tennessee) from making law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances,” if the Tennessee constitution providing the same protection were not enough, or to remove these defendants acting under color from within the scope of any lawful agency.
- The attorney general says repeatedly plaintiff is suing “Chief Justice Roger Page.” This identification is erroneous. Plaintiff is suing Roger Page in his managerial, administrative and employment capacity as AOC overseer. Plaintiff expresses and has no intention of suing him as a judge or in any judicial authority or capacity. Plaintiff gives Page an eight-page legal notice dated Oct. 18, 2021, sent by certified U.S. mail, addressing him solely in is ministerial, administrative and managerial capacity. His filings say nothing indicating otherwise. To misrepresent the case in this way is improper, and possibly sanctionable.
- Defendants operate a long-term and never-before challenged fraudulent secrecy shield of their work as judges, in violation of state and federal law. The defendants’ operative offensive mechanism is a false imprisonment and false arrest operation to seize any member of the public listening in on their continuing education of public interest and concern. The complaint claims an ongoing illegal policy at AOC at defendants’ direction which needs to be enjoined, the relief provided in federal law; it seeks,
orders prohibiting of all future policies, programs, customs and usages that violate the first amendment of the U.S. constitution” and that defendants’ “Feb. 1, 2022, policy, No. 3.04, ‘Subject: Attendance at AOC Conferences,’ *** be ruled unconstitutional, null and void, and that defendants be commanded, or any subsequent authority, to halt abuses like those complained of in this case.
Complaint pp. 12, 13
- These demands arise because the Page/Crawford false imprisonment policy continues today in sturdy written form, in their pretended official capacities, to serve ongoing breach, harm, wrongdoing and abuse in pretended lawful policy.
- The court has subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) because the case presents federal rights issues abused by two parties acting outside their offices, under mere color of office of state while in their private persons, to harm plaintiff. The court is the proper venue in which to petition for grant of relief under Rule 12(b)(6) because evidence enumerated in the complaint, with supplement exhibits below, shows them to be the proximate harm complained of, and that they are parties able to give redress for damages and able to give equity relief from future irreparable harm upon press member claimant covering the Tennessee judicial conference.
- Page and Crawford claim immunity by misrepresenting the action as targeting them only in official capacity. The 14th amendment applies the bill of rights to states and their agents, and they cannot justly abrogate federal 1st amendment rights. There is no immunity, in this regard, otherwise the protected enjoyment is a nullity.
- Plaintiff demands the court not let them escape as defendants in the interest of equity and justice, and consider them under suit as men, as souls wrapped in bodies (as C.S. Lewis says) in person and flesh apart from office, as necessary, to secure them for examination by the jury as to facts in dispute or recompense due. The obligations and duties of any state office do not allow such conduct but for fraudulent affront or pretense. Equity principles require in keeping status quo the immediate protection of the fundamental rights deprived by defendants in whatever capacity.
- No court in Tennessee could hear this case impartially, as Roger Page, overseer of AOC, is defendant; hence the only venue available for relief is the U.S. district court middle Tennessee district.
- If this cause does not cross its way into the court under § 1983 or § 1985, petitioner asks the court to declare which other law applies to give the court jurisdiction, or to declare what other principle might apply to allow the case to proceed. Plaintiff has real harms and rights in equity, allowing an amendment. Defendants’ liability is not limited to § 1983 and § 1985, laws that are guidelines and not dispositive of plaintiff’s right to remedy.
1. Tenn. const. Art. 11, sect. 16, says The declaration of rights hereto prefixed is declared to be a part of the Constitution of the state, and shall never be violated on any pretense whatever. And to guard against transgression of the high powers we have delegated, we declare that everything in the bill of rights contained, is excepted out of the general powers of the government, and shall forever remain inviolate. [emphasis added]
2. The Tennessee supreme court says the purpose of the open meetings act is to open government operations broadly to public interest and presence.
“It is clear that for the purpose of this Act, the Legislature intended to include any board, commission, committee, agency, authority or any other body, by whatever name, whose origin and authority may be traced to State, City or County legislative action and whose members have authority to make decisions or recommendations on policy or administration affecting the conduct of the business of the people in the governmental sector.” Dorrier v. Dark, 537 S.W.2d 888, 892 (Tenn. 1976)
Dorrier marks the court’s defense of the open records law from an attack claiming that terms such as “governing body,” “public body,” “governmental” and the verb “to deliberate” are ambiguous, imprecise, undefined and unconstitutionally vague.
“We are aware that the Open Meetings Act has far reaching implications, and that there are many well informed persons in addition to appellant who insist that in certain respects it is detrimental to the public interest that closed meetings cannot be held for certain deliberations and decisions.” Dorrier v. Dark, 537 S.W.2d 888, 895–96 (Tenn. 1976)
The court says some matters are subject to officials’ justly going into a closed session (nonpublic) — “meetings involving pending or prospective litigation, disciplinary hearings, promotion and demotion decisions, prospective land purchases, labor negotiations, etc.” — but that “it is the Legislature, not the Judiciary, that must balance the benefits and detriments and make such changes as will serve the people and express their will.”
The court indicates that benefits of open government activity under article 1, section 9, of the constitution far outweigh the “detriments” that occur when secrecy and privacy are not available.
Radio reporter demands case go to trial
Roger Page claims sovereign immunity
Keep insisting to be a citizen under the 14th amendment and you will continue to lose.
These renegades have no delegation of authority from the People of Tennessee, who are the actual Sovereign People, immune to government outside of themselves, AKA, “sovereign immunity.”