Letter from John Jay Hooker to the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission; December 3, 2013:
David Haines, Esq.
General Counsel Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission
Dear Mr Haines:
I am writing to request that you advise all the members of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission that as a litigant in the case of, In Re: John Jay Hooker, before the Supreme Court, I would like to have an opportunity to personally appear before the Commission on Friday December 6th or anytime thereafter before the Commission makes its final evaluation at a time convenient to the Commission here or at any other location, regarding whether or not the Supreme Court Judges should be Retention-Elected. Respectfully, I believe that I and other citizens who have grievances towards various judges, for various reasons, have a constitutional right to be heard under Article I §1, Article I §23, Article XI §16, (see addendum,) to reform the Government
In my opinion the members of the Supreme Court should not be Retention-Elected as a consequence of the decision in the aforesaid case. Based on my personal knowledge under my attorney’s oath I want to inform the commission that the five members of the Supreme Court, in my case, in accordance with the Commission’s evaluation criteria, set out in Supreme Court Rule 27 §3.01 showed a lack of integrity, were guilty of impropriety, personal bias, and did not decide the case based on the law and the facts. They were not impartial and they did not comply with the Code of Judicial Conduct, regarding a Judge’s duty to recuse if an objective person would question the impartiality of the Judge, Supreme Court Rule 10-Rule 2.11(a), Disqualification.
The objection that I have regarding all five members of the Supreme Court, who declined to “disqualify” themselves in the, In Re: Hooker, case is based on the fact that the members of the Court had an “interest” in the subject matter of a Motion in that case. Nonetheless, the members of the Court declined to “disqualify” themselves under Article VI §11 and therefore acted without jurisdiction. While they denied my Motion to disqualify for their own benefit, in In Re: Hooker, claiming that a litigant cannot challenge the manner by which Judges are elected, however the Court reversed itself on that issue in the case of John Jay Hooker vs. Governor Haslam pending before the Special Supreme Court.
Under our Constitution, every litigant is entitled to “Due Process of Law” and this litigant was deprived of “Due Process of Law,” because the Members of the Court were manifestly “prejudiced” against this lawyer because of my long efforts in the Courts, before the Legislature and in public forums, sometimes, reported in various newspapers, to get the Retention-Election Statute declared “unconstitutional.”
I sought relief in the public interest on behalf of the qualified voters of the State or district, because the Retention-Election Statute provides for the “appointment” of Judges by the Governor when the Constitution specifically provides that “Judges shall be elected by the qualified voters.”
May I suggest that the file in the, In Re: Hooker case should be procured by the Commission. The file will reveal the totality of my claims. My claim includes the fact that the Court put down an order prohibiting me from filing any further papers in that case, which order is still effective as of this day and therefore I request the Commission to ask the Clerk of the Appellate Court, Mr. Michael Catalano to have the file made available to the Commission. The order depriving this litigant of the right to file papers in that case was and is blatantly unconstitutional. Furthermore, that Order was put down for the benefit of the Members of the Court, and for the purpose of harming this lawyer. Consequently, that Order deprived this litigant of my constitutional right to access to an open court, (see attached letter from the Clerk).
That action violated the Official Misconduct statute, for which technically the Judges were subject to criminal liability. Simply put the members of the Supreme Court, who decided my case, were guilty of an abuse of power for their own benefit, in an effort to deprive this lawyer of my Constitutional right to request said Judges to disqualify themselves. The fact is these Judges declined to do so because they were prejudiced against me for my efforts to remove them office. Furthermore, these self serving Judges declined to do so in order to keep this lawyer from challenging the constitutionality of the Act under which they were appointed.
However, subsequently the members of the Court in the case of John Jay Hooker vs. Governor Haslam, did recuse themselves on the basis that the had an interest in the subject matter of the case, which interest was the same interest, the Judges had when they declined to disqualify themselves in the disciplinary case. The result was, they suspended this lawyer’s law license in, In Re: Hooker, when under the decision in the Hooker vs. Haslam case, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to do so. That conduct proves said Judges should not be Retention elected, and should be put in situation where they have to answer in public, in a contested election.
The reason I ask the Commission to procure the file, In Re: Hooker, is that I have received the attached letter this week, from the Clerk, which reflects that the members of the Court have again violated my constitutional rights to file a motion in that case, in an effort for this lawyer to bring the file to this Commission. Judges have no right to prohibit any litigant to file papers in an effort to support the Constitution.
Thank you sir, in advance, for requesting the Commission to give me an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the constitutional rights of those who desire to seek redress of grievances under Article I §23. I would like do so on Friday December 6th if possible, or in the alternative thereafter at the convenience of the Commission at any location of the Commission’s choice.
So that I can comply with the form usually employed by the evaluation process, please send me a copy of the survey form that others who have responded to inquiries by the Commission have received. Incidentally, notwithstanding the fact that I had the aforesaid case before the Supreme Court, I did not receive any inquiry from the commission to which I could have responded setting out my complaint.
Permit me to say with great sincerity, under my attorney’s oath that I have a firm belief that the all the members of the regular Supreme Court are “not fit” to be retention elected because they abused their power for their own benefit and to harm a lawyer that they are prejudiced against for challenging their jurisdiction and the manner by which they were appointed and subsequently retention-elected.
Thanks for your assistance:
John Jay Hooker
cc: Distributed to the Press and to the Regular Members of the Supreme Court
Declaration of Rights
Section 1. That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.
Section 23. That the citizens have a right, in a peaceable manner, to assemble together for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances, or other proper purposes, by address of remonstrance.
Section 11. No judge of the Supreme or Inferior Courts shall preside on the trial of any cause in the event of which he may be interested, or where either of the parties shall be connected with him by affinity of consanguinity, within such degrees as may be prescribed by law, or in which he may have been of counsel, or in which he may have presided in any Inferior Court, except by consent of all the parties. In case all or any of the judges of the Supreme Court shall thus be disqualified from presiding on the trial of any cause or causes, the court or the judges thereof, shall certify the same to the governor of the state, and he shall forthwith specially commission the requisite number of men, of law knowledge, for the trial and determination thereof. The Legislature may by general laws make provision that special judges may be appointed, to hold any courts the judge of which shall be unable or fail to attend or sit; or to hear any cause in which the judge may be incompetent.
Section 16. 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.
TN Supreme Court Rules
Rule 27 Section 3. Evaluation Criteria
3.01. Appellate judges shall be evaluated based on the following specific criteria:
(A) Integrity. In addition to other appropriate performance measures, the Commission shall consider:
(1) avoidance of impropriety and appearance of impropriety;
(2) freedom from personal bias;
(3) ability to decide issues based on the law and the facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel, or the popularity of the decision and without concern for or fear of criticism;
(4) impartiality of actions; and
(5) compliance with the Code of Judicial Conduct contained in Tenn. S. Ct. R. 10.
Supreme Court Rule 10-Rule 2.11(a) Disqualification A Judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the Judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned…