Law 101 class for Judge Harris in journalist quiz on authority
Lawrence County's Mike Harris defies longstanding law to prove his ethics in Tennessee
Tennessee judges secretly draft bills, manipulate policy and find ways to shyster the public out of its members’ constitutional rights. Their training is intensive. Every year, according to law, judges attend the judicial conference which is held in secret.
In 2021, then-chief Justice Roger Page ordained my arrest as I attempted to cover a judicial conference occurring at a hotel in Franklin. The secret keynoter was giving a secret talk about “sovereign citizens.”
The gnomes tell me they guess the speaker was from a hate group, probably the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala.
Judge Harris has attended many of these conferences. He is the general session judge in Lawrence County who, under unreviewable and hidden conference policy, steamrolls criminal defendant Arthur Jay Hirsch of Lawrenceburg, a free-traveling private businessman and workman.
Mr. Hirsch cites failure to exhaust administrative remedies as his defense, an unprecedented thesis on well-known law taking commercial government by storm.
At an initial appearance hearing April 6, Judge Harris forbade him to say anything except to enter a plea and agree on a second court hearing one week ahead. Judge Harris pleaded guilty for him. Judge Harris entirely skipped the role of the magistrate in Tenn.R.Crim.P. 5 in which the validity of the charging instrument and evidence supporting it are considered to see if a case actually exists.
Judge Harris has learned how to defeat the operation of the constitution when it comes to the rules of criminal procedure, where the constitution matters more eminently than almost at any other point. The Bill of Rights in article 1 of the constitution focuses heavily on criminal due process.
TAKEAWAY ——————————————
— Subject matter jurisdiction challenge cannot be delyed
— Harris violates ethics rules to consolidate judicial branch’s powers
— Hirsch cites failure to exhaust administrative remedies
At his conferences, where judges throw off their robes and stand about in street clothes to more easily privatize the law, people such as Mr. Hirsch are villifed as enemies of the prosperity of the judicial branch. They deserve to be crushed by similacrum trial court orders and similacrum opinions in the court of appeals
At the Monday hearing Mr. Hirsch demanded dismissal on grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which the conference is working to overthrow as a protective barrier against state action. Judge Harris refused to consider detailed filings about this lack in what his superiors in their rulings call “a threshold issue.”
In a letter sent Wednesday, this NoogaRadio Network reporter asks Judge Harris two questions:
As you are a publicly elected official in judicial office, I respectfully request comment about your authority in setting a second court date in State v. Hirsch.
The authorities on subject matter jurisdiction are numerous and the jurisprudence regarding Tenn.R.Crim.P. 5 is well known.
How do these cases not dictate your actions in this case under your rules for judicial ethics?
Are not the plaintiff state and its lawyer required to jump up on the making of such a challenge and defend the court jurisdiction? Why did you not direct the ADA to make such defense?
My supporting case citations are a legal education better than that possessed by most judges, it appears. Just read why Judge Harris could not lawfully maintain a criminal action in his court when his authority is challenged with not a peep from the district attorney general Brent Cooper employee sitting at his table in the Hirsch hearing.
Any order entered by a court lacking jurisdiction over the subject matter is void. Id. Therefore, subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry, which may be raised at any time in any court. Id.
Johnson v. Hopkins, 432 S.W.3d 840, 844 (Tenn. 2013) (emphasis added)
Defects which may be challenged at any time during the pendency of the proceedings include objections which challenge lack of jurisdiction in the court and those objections contending that the indictment failed to charge an offense. “Lack of jurisdiction” refers to subject matter jurisdiction which a *121 defendant has no power to waive. Pon v. U.S., 168 F.2d 373, 374 (1948) (interpreting Rule 12 of the Fed.R.Crim.P., which is virtually identical to our Rule 12). See also State v. Seagraves, 837 S.W.2d 615, 618 (Tenn.Crim.App.1992). Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and decide a particular type of action.
State v. Nixon, 977 S.W.2d 119, 120–21 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997)
Rule 13(b), Tenn.R.App.P., also provides that an appellate court “may in its discretion consider other issues in order, among other reasons: (1) to prevent needless litigation, (2) to prevent injury to the interests of the public, and (3) to prevent prejudice to the judicial process.” In addition, *618 Rule 52(b), Tenn.R.Crim.P., provides that this Court may notice plain error “at any time, even though not raised in the motion for a new trial or assigned as error on appeal ... where necessary to do substantial justice.”
State v. Seagraves, 837 S.W.2d 615, 617–18 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992)
In order to determine whether the judgment should be set aside, we must determine whether the judgment is void. “A judgment is not void merely because it is erroneous.” *** “A judgment ‘is void only if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or if it acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.’ ”
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 84 F.3d 137, 143 (5th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted) (emphasis added)
As a threshold matter, we are required to determine whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the Plaintiffs’ claims. Subject matter jurisdiction is the “authority of a court to adjudicate a controversy brought before it.” *** In the proceedings below, the issue of the Plaintiffs’ standing to bring this action was the subject of much debate, and was a predominant issue in the various chancery court rulings. In cases in which “a statute creates a cause of action and designates who may bring an action, the issue of standing is interwoven with that of subject matter jurisdiction and becomes a jurisdictional prerequisite.” *** Standing is a necessary prerequisite to the court’s exercise of jurisdiction. Osborn, 127 S.W.3d at 740. Stated differently, in the context of this case, if the Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring the claims asserted below, then this Court and the trial court below are without subject matter jurisdiction to hear them. Id. at 741. Thus, we must join the parties and the trial court in further exploration of the doctrine of standing.
Deselm v. Tennessee Peace Officers Standards And Training Comm’n, No. M200901525COAR3CV, 2010 WL 3959627, at *19–20 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2010) (citations omitted) (emphasis added)
Because the orders and judgments entered by courts without jurisdiction over the subject matter of a dispute are void, issues regarding a court’s subject matter jurisdiction should be considered as a threshold inquiry, and should be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity.
In re Est. of Trigg, 368 S.W.3d 483 (Tenn. 2012) (emphasis added)
Hirsch demands recusal
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
