Skip to content
A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Struck

The Tennessee Court of Appeals struck a pro se brief and dismissed the appeal in an access to public records case

Even though Ms. Ferkin was similarly cautioned by this Court in her 10B appeal, and she was expressly warned  that“[o]rdinarily such statements would be grounds for striking her petition and dismissing the appeal,” she did not heed our warning. Her brief in this appeal alleges “gross misconduct in [Tennessee’s] court system . . . and . . . a judiciary that has abrogated its oath to obey the law and the commands of both the federal and state constitutions.” Ms. Ferkin states that from her “experience with the Tennessee judiciary, it is clear that judges routinely ignore what the law commands, and if they are caught ignoring the law, they simply lie to avoid confronting their own or their colleagues’ misconduct.” She alleges “lawless [] conduct of judges.” In fact, Ms. Ferkin argued that “the malfeasance and mendacity of the judiciary in Tennessee permeates every court – dishonesty is systemic and the preferred method  denying citizens access to legal redress having nothing to do with justice and everything to do with the perverse interests of the legal profession.” She further asserts an “ongoing conspiracy” involving certain attorneys, judges, and justices of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Ms. Ferkin’s brief describes one particular trial judge’s conduct as illegal, “dishonest, arrogant, and ignorant,” “showing a broad contempt for the law,” and she describes this judge as “unfit[] to have ever sat on the bench.” She describes another judge as “sloppy . . . arrogant and dishonest” and engaging in “oath-defying conduct.” She claims that yet another judge has demonstrated a “willingness to lie,” “does not know the law,” and is “not competent enough in the law to check [] citations.” For yet another judge, she alleges “gross misconduct” and “obstruction of justice.” Ms. Ferkin alleges that one particular judge is protecting another from “illegal conduct – an act offensive to justice in-and-of-itself and worthy of disqualification if not disbarment.” She also refers to certain prosecutors as “childishly malicious” and accuses them of illegal behavior. She attacks certain members of this Court and asserts that their decision in a particular case was so “deficient in legal reasoning” that it “must have its source in something outside the law”
and “[t]he judges should have the decency to tell the public what their extra-judicial interest in writing such an opinion would be,” as they “pretend to follow the law all the while ignoring it” and displaying “fundamental dishonesty.” Ms. Ferkin describes the same decision as “an opinion not worthy of the name” and states that a pro se litigant “should expect at least some effort on the part of the Court to recognize the law and precedent” rather than “the same self-interested lies.” After discussing various decisions by this Court, she alleges that “[t]here is a fundamental dishonesty lurking beneath the rulings – a mendacity pervasive and systematic.” She also describes the Board of Judicial Conduct as “an intentional fraud perpetrated against the people of this state.” She claims that “the Tennessee Courts, in their general abrogation of their Constitutional duty to follow the law, effectively extorted money—in the way of court fees and taxes—from Petitioner by  fraudulently claiming that the Courts will give her, a pro se litigant, a fair hearing.” Even after Ms. Bell noted this disrespectful language in her brief on appeal and asked that it be stricken, Ms. Ferkin’s reply brief went on to argue that a particular trial court, the Tennessee Court of Appeals, and the Tennessee Supreme Court all meet the definition of a “kangaroo court,” and she refers to members of the Court of Criminal Appeals as “miscreant colleagues.”

Thus

Despite this Court’s recent caution to Ms. Ferkin, she has filed yet another brief and reply brief showing blatant disrespect and contempt for numerous Tennessee courts and various members of the judiciary. Thus, we deem her briefs stricken.

(Mike Frisch)