Judge, DA, public defender intend to bar journalist’s aid of poor woman abused by magistrate, police
Grace Massengale demands criminal court juge Dunn order Lorrie Miller to obey state law in creating arrest warrants, now under ’doggie door’ policy
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn, Sunday, May 26, 2024 – My county's political and legal establishment is up in arms over this local journalist’s fight against usages and abusages that oppress the weak and strip the poor of property and dignity.
By David Tulis
One allegation is that I am engaging in "the unauthorized practice of law." The other is that I am attempting to overthrow policy the illegality of which is accepted by all the local law guild.
Repeatedly in an April 29 hearing in Hamilton County general sessions court, judge Larry Ables expresses belief that I am in breach of UPL, or being in the “law business” without a license.
District Attorney Coty Wamp, who had three ADAs present at the State of Tennessee vs. Tamela Grace Massengale case in which I'm involved, sends me a 4-page “notice and waming from the Hamilton County District Attomey's Office regarding your unauthorized practice of law in case no(s). l94l9l2 and 1941913 in the General Sessions Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee.”
Coty Wamp letter, brief warn me against UPL
Public defender Steve Smith tells Mrs. Massengale, via assistant public defender Mike Little, who takes the job as Mrs. Massengale’s elbow counsel, that I'm liable to be indicted for helping her in court.
[CORRECTION: Mrs. Massengale met with assistant public defender Mike Little, not with public defender Steve Smith, as I’d reported earlier.]
The DA, like the judge, fails to note an essential element of UPL. That is to be in a law business. “‘Law business’ means the advising or counseling for valuable consideration of any person as to any secular law, the drawing or the procuring of or assisting in the drawing for valuable consideration of any paper, document or instrument affecting or relating to secular rights, the doing of any act for valuable consideration in a representative capacity, obtaining or tending to secure for any person any property or property rights whatsoever, or the soliciting of clients directly or indirectly to provide such services” T.C.A. § 23-3-101.
The letter fails to quote the definition of unlicensed practice of law. And as for representative capacity, I sued Gov. Bill Lee and a local official for fraud in the CV-19 scam as the state of Tennessee. In other words, I represented the state itself as relator in that 878 days of combat against state fraud and policy death. I handle all my own legal work in all my cases, in persona propria, and everything I say and do is part of free speech, free press, free association.
Filing papers and speaking in court for onesself or for the state of Tennessee is not unauthorized practice unless it is part of a business serving others.
Law, like any other privileged occupation, must operate under license if it is an occupation or for-profit calling. People who run restaurants, cut hair, drive trucks or cars carrying goods or passengers, podiatrists, public school teachers are all licensed because they are exercising a privilege, and not doing an act of common right.
Wrong-headed atheistic policy challenged
According to Miss Grace's report of a May 20 client meeting, Mr. Little says that he is going to strike motions I drafted in her service that attack the "doggie door" arrest warrant policy run by chief magistrate Lorrie Miller. That would be improper, as she does not consent to that. The petition is before criminal court judge Amanda Dunn, asking her to remove the case from Judge Ables and and deal with the “false imprisonment, false arrest” policy that Mrs. Miller’s practices have become.
Mr. Little tells her there is no due process violation in her “doggie door” arrest warrant, Mrs. Massengale says.
“He made excuses. ‘That's what judges and juries are for, people are falsely arrested every day,’ he said. ‘That's why you have attorneys and judges.’ That was what he said. So he's not concerned that people are falsely arrested every day. That's just the way things are. ‘And so we’re here in the courts to make sure that they get relief, but we're not going to relieve them of the false imprisonment and false arrest.’”
Miss Grace is determined to overthrow the wicked rule that put her and others such as Michael James and Shameca Burt in jail on an unsworn hearsay-only complaint with no first-hand facts.
The law requires that arrest warrants be based on fact, which means that they must be based on sworn eye-witnesses or victims who swear out the criminal complaint. Magistrate Miller forbids any fact witness or victim coming before a magistrate. Hearsay is allowed, but it is used based on an informer’s word the affiant must swear to the reliability of the informant and why he or she is credible to establish probable cause.
Closing the door to the public, Magistrate Miller allows cops and deputies in through a doggie door. Cops and deputies are the only people who have access to the court when it comes to swearing out arrest warrants as they are the most honest, truthful and are notoriously reliable and well intentioned, supposedly.
That Mrs. Miller prizes oaths of cops and deputies and no other violates the 3rd commandment against taking the Lord's name in vain. She insists on oath-bound affidavits of people whose oath means little as they have no first-hand facts. County policy is, on its face, atheistic.
Mrs. Miller's hearsay-only arrest warrant scheme violates the constitution, the rules of criminal procedure and T.C.A. § 40-6-205, which says hearsay is allowed if there is “substantial basis for believing the source of the hearsay to be credible and for believing that there is a factual basis.” The criminal complaint against Mrs. Massengale comes from a phone call and an unsworn statement by an accuser in a disputed dog sale. Cop Brandi Siler did not interview the accused. Mrs. Massengale, 60, disabled 100 percent, widow, was stopped traveling in her auto and seized and jailed under city cop Siler’s warrant.
The toll upon Miss Grace is mounting. She lost her car to a wrecker service, unable to pay the redemption bill. She cannot get her Section 8 federal government housing voucher renewed until her case is over. In an eviction, she is homeless June 1. Officer Siler personally is personally liable for the tort against Mrs. Massengale under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but has powerful qualified immunity protections that insulate her carelessness from consequence.
Rights of remonstrance, address
The fact of my assisting Mrs. Massengale as next friend has outraged the legal establishment, even public defender Smith’s office. You would think the one who stands up for the weak and the poor would be intuitively on my side as against due process violations against such people as Miss Grace.
The unauthorized practice of law is to run a business, solicit clients come provide legal advice and legal filings and papers and documents illegal nature all for “valuable consideration.” If you don't have a functioning business giving legal advice, you cannot be charged criminally or sued civilly by the bar association for UPL
Lawyering is simply paid petitioning upon those vested with the authority of government. A lawyer does most of his work in front of the judges in the judicial branch. A lobbyist does most of his paid petitioning before the legislature or the governor. Both business professionals must obtain license for their respective callings.
What anybody does as a Christian mercy is beyond the reach of the criminal law and is not a tort against anybody nor an injury to anybody. Its duty is required of all Christians, citing Isaiah 1: 17. Its role is recognized in the Tennessee constitution in Art. 1, sect. 23 “[t]hat 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 or remonstrance.”
My role as next friend is speaking with Mrs. Massengale and for her when necessary, as she has rights of her own to counsel of her choice.
Suing me over UPL might violate anti-SLAPP law
The lawyer cartel can sue me only if it acts in good faith, and not with malice, according to the UPL law. ‡ Any civil claims such cranks might file would face a defense under the new law protecting against “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” originally crafted to defend activists from corporate and police harassment.
Such suits are filed to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition
The law is at T.C.A. § 20-17-104, described as “Petition to dismiss legal action filed in response to party's exercise of the right of free speech, right to petition, or right of association — Response — Stay of discovery.”
(a) If a legal action is filed in response to a party's exercise of the right of free speech, right to petition, or right of association, that party may petition the court to dismiss the legal action.
(b) Such a petition may be filed within sixty (60) calendar days from the date of service of the legal action or, in the court's discretion, at any later time that the court deems proper.
(c) A response to the petition, including any opposing affidavits, may be served and filed by the opposing party no less than five (5) days before the hearing or, in the court's discretion, at any earlier time that the court deems proper.
(d) All discovery in the legal action is stayed upon the filing of a petition under this section. The stay of discovery remains in effect until the entry of an order ruling on the petition. The court may allow specified and limited discovery relevant to the petition upon a showing of good cause.
Acts 2019, ch. 185, § 1.
Its purpose is inspiring: “[T]o encourage and safeguard the constitutional rights of persons to petition, to speak freely, to associate freely, and to participate in government to the fullest extent permitted by law and, at the same time, protect the rights of persons to file meritorious lawsuits for demonstrable injury. This chapter is consistent with and necessary to implement the rights protected by the Constitution of Tennessee, Article I, §§ 19 and 23, as well as by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and shall be construed broadly to effectuate its purposes and intent” (emphasis added)
‡ Here’s wording of this requirement:
Any bar association bringing suit under this section is presumed to be acting in good faith and is granted a qualified immunity for the suit and the consequences of the suit. The presumption of good faith is rebuttable upon a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the suit was brought for a malicious purpose.
23-3-103. Unlawful practice prohibited -- Penalty (emphasis added)