John Jay Hooker Blog

IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY

AT MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

AMENDED COMPLAINT SEEKING A “SPEEDY HEARING” AND

A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND AN INJUNCTION

The Complainant, a voter and qualified candidate, on behalf of himself and others similarly situation who are or will be participating in the August 3, 2006 Democratic Primary Election for the United States Senate, sues Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., who is likewise a candidate for the United States Senate, subject to that primary, for his conduct in the unauthorized solicitation, acceptance and use of non-voter, out-of-state campaign contributions secured to influence the aforesaid election as said contributions debase the “civil rights” of the voters and this candidate in violation of Amendment XVII (two senators—the people); and Article IV, Section IV (Republican form of government) and due process and equal protection provisions of Amendment XIV of the Federal Constitution; and furthermore said contributions are in violation of Article I, Section I (all power inherent in the people); and Article I, Section V (elections—free and equal) and Article IV (qualifications—every person) of the Tennessee Constitution and likewise, said contributions violate T.C.A. §39-16-102 (bribery), and 39-16-106 (exceptions)—see Appendix; and moreover sues Senator Hillary Clinton, a United States Senator from New York, for contributing and soliciting campaign contributions from other out-of-state, non-voter contributors to be used in the aforesaid Tennessee senatorial election, which conduct, taken in conjunction, in combination, and in concert with the conduct of Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., in his official capacity as a candidate for the United States Senate given to him to influence the aforesaid election, violates the provisions set out above (see attached newspaper clipping), and this lawsuit seeks a temporary and permanent injunction and a “speedy” hearing under T.R.C.P. Rules 57 (declaratory judgment) and Rule 65 (injunctions) to prohibit the use of said contributions in the forthcoming election, as said contributions represent more than half of Congressman Harold Ford, Jr.’s reported contributions, and said circumstance violates the sovereignty of the State of Tennessee and the sovereign right of the voters to a “free and equal” election under the Tennessee Constitution and violate the requirement for a “republican form of government” under Article IV, Section 4, of the Federal Constitution. Likewise, the conduct of Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. and Senator Hillary Clinton violates the rights of the individual states under the so-called “great compromise” to elect two United States Senators. It is therefore inconceivable that the founders and the ratifiers could have intended for sitting United States Senators to have the right to participate in the financing of the election of other United States Senators or candidates for the United States Senate as such conduct discriminates against the rights of the challenger to an “election by the people” of the various states.

In essence, the complainant claims that under both the Federal and State Constitutions “if a person cannot vote in an election, a person cannot lawfully make a campaign contribution” – in other words, “can’t vote—can’t contribute,” without violating the property rights of all candidates and voters to “due process and equal protection” under Amendment XIV and Article 1, Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution.

Premises considered, Complainant requests that this court:

1. set a “speedy” hearing on the cause at the earliest convenience of the court,

2. issue a temporary and permanent injunction prohibiting Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. from soliciting, accepting, and/or using out-of-state non-voter campaign contributions in the forthcoming election for the United States Senate, and an order by this Honorable Court requiring said contributions be refunded to Senator Hillary Clinton and other contributors,

3. declare that the solicitation, acceptance, and use of out of state, non voter contributions are unconstitutional and unlawful in the context of the election of a United States Senator for the State of Tennessee, and

4. grant any such other and further relief as this court deems necessary and/or appropriate to protect the integrity of both constitutions and the public interest of the voters of a “free and independent state” which has the “inherent” power to prohibit corruption and/or interference with a “free and equal” election whether by a corporation or any out-of-state, non-voter attempting to influence the election process with campaign contributions.

This the 22^nd day of June, 2006.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ John Jay Hooker_______________

John Jay Hooker (BPR #005118 )

222 Polk Avenue

Nashville, TN 37203

Phone: (615) 244-6723

Cell: (615) 479-6531

Fax: (615) 252-6050

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I have forwarded copies of the Complaint and Amended Complaint to the following as noted, via facsimile and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this the 22^nd of June, 2006:

/s/ John Jay Hooker__________

John Jay Hooker

APPENDIX

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION

Amendment XVII—Section 1. Election of United States Senators: Filling of vacancies; qualifications of electors. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators of each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and such senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

Article IV, Section 4—Guarantee of Republican Government. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Article XIV—Citizenship defined. Privileges of Citizenship. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION

PREAMBLE AND DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

Whereas, the people . . . ordain and establish a constitution or form of government and mutually agreed with each other to form themselves into a free and independent state by the name of the State of Tennessee, . . .

Article I, 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 rights to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

Article I, Section 5. The elections shall be free and equal and the right of suffrage, as hereinafter declared, shall never be denied to any person entitled thereto . . .

Article I, Section 8. That no person shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land.

Article IV, Section 1. Every person, being eighteen years of age, being a citizen of the United States, being a resident of the state for a period of time as prescribed by the General Assembly and being duly registered in the county of residence for a period of time prior to the day of any election as prescribed by the General Assembly, shall be entitled to vote in all federal, state, and local elections held in the county or district in which such person resides. All such requirements shall be equal and uniform and there shall be no qualification attached to the right of suffrage.

TENNESSEE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Rule 57. Declaratory Judgments. The procedure for obtaining a declaratory judgment pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated, Sec. 23-1-101 et seq., shall be in accordance with these rules, and the right to trial by jury may be demanded under the circumstances and in the manner provided in Rules 38 and 39. The existence of another adequate remedy does not necessarily preclude a judgment for declaratory relief in cases where it is appropriate. The court may order a speedy hearing of an action for declaratory judgment and may advance it on the calendar.

Rule 65. Injunctions. Injunctive relief may be obtained by: (1) Restraining order, (2) Temporary injunction, or (3) Permanent injunction and a final judgment. A restraining order shall only restrict the doing of an act. An injunction may restrict or mandatorily direct the doing of an act.

TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED

39-16-102. Bribery of Public Servant.

(a) A person commits an offense who:

(1) offers, confers or agrees to confer any pecuniary benefit upon the public servant with the intent to influence the public servant’s vote, opinion, judgment, exercise of discretion or other action in the public servant’s official capacity; or

(2) while a public servant solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any pecuniary benefit upon an agreement or understanding that the public servant’s vote, opinion, judgment, exercise of discretion or other action as a public servant will thereby be influenced.

(b) It is not defense to prosecution under this section that the person sought to be influenced was not qualified to act in the desired way because the person has not yet assumed office, lacks jurisdiction, or for any other reason.

39-16-106. Exemptions and Defenses.

(a) It is an exception to the application of 39-16-102, 39-16-104, and 39-16-105 that the benefit involved is a fee prescribed by law to be received by a public servant or any other benefit to which the public servant is lawfully entitled.

(b) It is a defense to prosecution, 39-16-102, 39-16-104, 39-16-105 that the benefit involved was: a trivial benefit incidental to personal, professional or other business contacts which involves no substantial risk of undermining official impartiality; or

(2) a lawful contribution made for political campaign of an elected public official when the public official is a candidate for nomination or election to public office.

public servant or any other benefit to which the public servant is lawfully entitled.

(c) It is a defense to prosecution, 39-16-102, 39-16-104, 39-16-105 that the benefit involved was: a trivial benefit incidental to personal, professional or other business contacts which involves no substantial risk of undermining official impartiality; or

(2) a lawful contribution made for political campaign of an elected public official when the public official is a candidate for nomination or election to public office.

(2)

IN THE CHANCERY COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY
AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

John Jay Hooker

v.                            Case No.:  98-2246-III

Ned R. McWherter, et al

A MOTION FILED IN THE HIGHEST PUBLIC INTEREST FOR YOUR HONOR TO RECUSE HERSELF IN THIS MATTER AND A MOTION FOR A SUCCESSOR JUDGE TO BE APPOINTED TO VACATE THE JULY 31, 1998 ORDER IN THIS CAUSE GRANTING THE RULE 12 MOTION AS YOUR HONOR WAS INCOMPETENT TO HEAR THIS CAUSE UNDER ARTICLE VI, SECTION 11 AND THEREBY VIOLATED YOUR OATH OF OFFICE BY FAILING TO DISCLOSE YOUR HONOR’S “INTEREST” IN THE TRIAL OF THE CAUSE

1.    This is a motion under TRCP Rule 60.02(3) and (5) to declare Your Honor’s Order of July 31, 1998 dismissing the Amended Complaint upon a TCA Rule 12.02(6) motion void because Your Honor was incompetent to hear the cause without the “consent” of all of the parties.

2.    There is a cancer so to speak upon the election process in Tennessee.  The system itself is corrupt at the core facilitated by Attorney General Paul Summers and his office who represented various state officials in an effort to cover up their criminal violations.  This includes the election of judicial officers because most judges who have contested elections and others like Justices Anderson and Birch who had retention elections in 1998 which should be considered by the Judicial Evaluation Commission in 2006 and by  District Attorney General Tory Johnson because they violated the criminal laws, including Your Honor, have “personally” “solicited” and “accepted” “directly or indirectly” campaign contributions from lawyers practicing in their courts at campaign events serving “meat, drink, money or otherwise” to lawyers in an effort to be elected.  The fact is most judges, like Your Honor in this cause, do not disclose that fact at or before a trial in violation of Article VI, Section 11, TCA §17-2-101, which requires the mandatory disclosure of the facts under Supreme Court Rule 10, Cannon 3(E) and the “consent” of all parties if “the judge” “may be interested in the event of the cause” or if his/her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”  

3.    Furthermore, the “due process of law” provisions under Article I, Section 8 and Article I, Section 17 require that judges be impartial and that “justice” not be “denied” or “for sale.”  Campaign contributions may or may not be a bribe and may or may not be a “sale” of “justice” depending on the facts, but said contributions have the appearance that they may involve both which requires disclosure or consent or in the alternative, recusal under Supreme Court Rule 10, Cannon 3(E).  Therefore any judge has a duty to make a disclosure of campaign contributions by any lawyer or party to any cause of action.  The lawyers and law firms participating in the cause, likewise, have a duty to opposing counsel to see that the judge makes such a disclosure in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 8.4(f) and in this case, Robert Cooper, formerly of Bass Berry and Sims now general counsel to Governor Bredesen, the lawyer for Justices Anderson and Birch in this cause, and Defendants, George Barrett’s and Jim Neal’s lawyer, James Thomas of Neal and Harwell, did not do so and thereby mistreated this pro se lawyer, as did Your Honor.  
4.    Your Honor, I am told, had political events in 1996 and in 1998 which you did not disclose where Your Honor “personally” attended fundraisers where “meat and drink” were “offered” to lawyers and litigants in Your Honor’s effort to raise campaign contributions “to be elected.”  This appears to be a violation of Supreme Court Rule 10, Cannon 5(C)(2a) and a violation of Article X, Section 3 read in pari materia prohibiting “personal” solicitation where “meat and drink” are “offered” by electors to be elected and likewise, solicitation by a campaign committee is “prohibited by law” under said provisions.

5.    Furthermore, independently of the question of whether the use of political events to raise campaign contributions where “meat and drink” are “offered” to “induce” electors and contributors in violation of Article 10, Section 3 to come to the event in an effort “to be elected,” there is nonetheless a “due process” requirement under Article I, Section 8, Article I, Section 17, and Article VI, Section 11 that limits the right of a judge, without the consent of all of the parties, to take money from a lawyer or a litigant as that could appear to be a “sale” of “justice.”  Furthermore in addition, it is claimed by this pro se lawyer that a judge who accepts campaign contributions from lawyers and/or parties “cannot preside” without disclosing that fact and securing the “consent” of all of the parties to proceed in accordance with Article VI, Section 11 and Supreme Court Rule 10, Cannon 3(E) as aforesaid and the failure of a judge to get that “consent” deprives the court of jurisdiction and consequently the Court’s Orders in this case are void and must not stand as Your Honor’s July 31st Order “covered up” the criminal conduct of Justices Anderson and Birch, who violated Article X, Section 3, and TCA §2-19-126, as did Your Honor in your 1998 election campaign.

6.    Your Honor did not disclose the facts regarding Your Honor’s campaign contributions regarding Your Honor’s use of “meat, drink, money or otherwise” at the time of the elections at the time of the trial of this cause challenging the use of “meat and drink” in the election process.  This circumstance was “a harm” to this pro se lawyer and was therefore a direct violation of the aforesaid provisions and consequently “misconduct” and “official oppression” under TCA § 39-16-402, 403, as Your Honor, as a candidate in 1998, for your “own benefit” deprived this litigant of his civil rights and his voting rights to which I am entitled under both Federal and State laws as a voter.

7.    This motion is occasioned by the fact that this pro se lawyer learned on December 7, 2005 by chance that these contributions have been made to Your Honor according to Your Honor’s filings with the Metropolitan Election Commission.  This pro se lawyer had assumed, apparently erroneously and in reliance on Your Honor’s integrity, that Your Honor in conjunction with the use of “meat, drink, money or otherwise” had received no campaign contributions from the lawyers or the law firms or the defendants or others in this cause since Your Honor did not disclose the facts under Article VI, Section 11 and TCA §17-2-101, which provisions render Your Honor “incompetent” to “preside” without a full disclosure and “consent” from this party  if Your Honor is to be permitted to “preside.”  The fact is Your Honor covered up the facts by not disclosing them in open court which is the reason this motion is being filed now, rather than previously.

8.    This pro se plaintiff continues to pursue a decade old passion to stop campaign corruption in the name of “justice at the ballot box,” notwithstanding the fact that the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility upon application by Your Honor’s spouse, Judge Walter Kurtz, has instigated disciplinary proceedings against this pro se lawyer and has unlawfully, without jurisdiction, sanctioned me in reliance upon Your Honor’s unlawful Order in this case for which he should be held accountable.  As Judge Kurtz’s Order was designed to cover up the conduct of Your Honor and other judges who have acted without jurisdiction in this pro se lawyer’s attempt to stop judicial corruption in support of his order in the Hooker v. Crawford, et al case designed to deprive this lawyer of his right to challenge judicial corruption.  However, said order is not relevant to this motion.  This citizen lawyer has a sworn duty to attempt to “reform” under Article I, Section 1 the corrupt election process and has a right to “resist arbitrary and oppressive conduct” by public officials under Article I, Section 2, as well as the right under Article I, Section 23 to petition any branch of government by an address of “remonstrance.”  The Constitution protects this pro se lawyer’s right to do so under Article I, Section 19 guaranteeing free speech to challenge government action, as does the free speech right protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States to challenge the conduct of Your Honor and Judge Kurtz when you violate your oaths of office by failing to recuse yourselves in a matter in which you have an interest leaving this lawyer with no choice under his oath as a lawyer but to report this matter to the proper authorities.

9.    This filing is also a motion for Your Honor to recuse herself as Your Honor’s July 31, 1998 judgment was void under the aforesaid facts and law, as Your Honor obviously has an “interest” in the subject matter of this motion and Your Honor’s “impartiality” might reasonably be questioned.”  In other words, Your Honor does not have jurisdiction because of the aforesaid and the failure of Your Honor to recuse yourself would deprive this pro se lawyer of his right to due process and his right to have the enumerated. provisions of the Declaration of Rights enforced under Article XI, Section 16.

10.    Moreover, Your Honor’s judgment of July 31, 1998 is the centerpiece of the crisis regarding the judicial election process in Tennessee in 2006 because it misled other judges and the bar generally who relied upon it and this matter should be addressed by the Supreme Court of Tennessee under their oaths in accordance with the attached motion where the appendix sets out the constitutional and statutory provisions relied upon herein.
RELIEF REQUESTED
1.    That Your Honor under your oath recuse herself to hear this motion involving the highest public interest in this cause.

2.    That a successor judge be appointed by the Chief Judge to address the merits of this motion filed under TRCP Rule 60.02(3),(5) to declare Your Honor’s judgment in this matter is void.

3.    That accordingly a competent judge rule that Your Honor’s order of July 31, 1998 is null and void as Your Honor had an “interest” in the subject matter and did not get the “consent” of all of the parties to hear this cause.

4.    That the Court grant general relief and any other appropriate relief.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

Motion for the members of the Court Under their Supervisory Powers to address Judicial Campaign Corruption at a Public Hearing or otherwise and take appropriate action

Introduction

It is a sad fact that there is a cancer on the election process in Tennessee in all three branches of government, which circumstance greatly aggrieves “the people” of the State. Consequently, this lawyer, as an officer of the court, has a duty to bring this matter to the Court’s attention as the integrity of the election process of judges has been destroyed. This due in part to the fact that judges “personally” directly and indirectly offer “meat and drink” in violation of Article X, Section 3, TCA § 2-19-126 by soliciting and accepting campaign contributions while soliciting votes from lawyers who contribute to their campaign in violation of Supreme Court Rule 10, Cannon 5(c)(2)a. These judges fail to disclose in most instances those facts to the lawyers and parties participating in trials before the various courts.

The fact is that the Supreme Court Justices Anderson and Birch in 1998 participated in political events hosted by lawyers at which said judges appeared and “personally” solicited votes and thanked the guests for their contributions who had paid a minimum of $100 to come to the event for their support. Moreover, apparently Judges Anderson and Birch have not disclosed that fact at the time of the hearings in which those lawyers appeared before the court, which conduct consequently violates Article VI, Section 11, TCA §17-2-101, and Supreme Court Rule 10, Cannon 3(E).

When judges personally appear at fundraisers sometimes held in lawyers’ offices, i.e., Chancellor Dinkins’ fundraiser at Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis PLLC law firm in Nashville, TN on December 19, 2005 where “meat and drink” were offered to “electors” in an effort to draw a crowd to the event so that Judge Dinkins could “solicit” votes and thank the contributors for their support in his efforts to be elected in violation of Article X, Section 3 and Supreme Court Rule 10, Cannon 5(c)(2)a, as it is unlawful for the candidate and/or the committees to solicit votes by any method “prohibited by law.” If this Honorable Court does not act it will appear that the members of this Court acquiesce in the conduct.

The 2006 election campaigns for trial judges across the state have already begun and many of the trial judges in Tennessee are participating directly and indirectly and “personally” in campaign events wherein lawyers who have cases in their courts are solicited and campaign contributions are accepted. While Supreme Court Rule 10, Cannon 5(c)(2)a, formerly Cannon 7, permits lawyers to be appointed to a committee to solicit and accept campaign contributions for judges, it specifically prohibits judges from “personally” being involved in the solicitation and acceptance of campaign contributions. However, it is obvious that judges who “personally” attend these campaign events and solicit votes and thank the voters for their votes and contributions are participating in fact in the solicitation and acceptance of the money and to say otherwise would appear to be sophistic.

Consequently, the members of this Honorable Court have a duty under your supervisory powers to address this circumstance and the Court’s failure to do so would thereby condone what appears to be unlawful conduct and place the members of this Court in violation of its own rules.

Therefore, this lawyer has filed this Motion in an effort to reform “the government” under Article I, Section 1, under my rights under Article I, Section 17, 19, 23 to seek “redress on behalf of the “people” and consequently this lawyer moves the members of the Court to address this circumstance at a public hearing so that the people may be informed and/or take other appropriate action.

This matter is of such crucial importance, there is no time to go through the Court of Judiciary or the Tennessee Professional Board of Responsibility and consequently, extraordinary relief is required in this matter involving the highest public interest.
Respectfully submitted,
John Jay Hooker

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

IN RE: JOHN JAY HOOKER, FILE NUMBER 28656-5-SG

RESPONSE AND MOTION

I stand by my letter to Judge Birch, which I believe to be truthful and my response to the charges against me which I desire to make public under Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 25, is as set out in my letter to Attorney General Torry Johnson (see previous post) , attached, hereto, and my letter to Judge Birch that I have previously copied to you. And I ask my accusers to recuse themselves if they have given money to judges and/or accepted food and “drink” in the election process in violation of Article I, Section 17 and Article XI, Section 3.

Moreover, let me respectfully move the Board to advise me forthwith why under the First amendment and under the Tennessee Constitution Article I, Section 1, 2, 19, and Article XI, Section 16, why I am no entitled to do precisely what I have done as a citizen under the authority of the aforesaid provisions. In other words, as a preliminary matter, I move the Board of Professional Responsibility and each individual member thereof who has made charges against me to inform me why under the law a lawyer has any less constitutional rights than any other citizen to try to “reform” the government by examining the actions of public officials and their corrupt practices which are an abuse of power. Article I, Section 1, Article I, Section 19.

In the alternative, I move that the Board enter an order that permits me forthwith to take the depositions of Judge Birch and his co-conspirator and lawyer, Attorney General Paul Summers, as well as, the deposition of my accusers on this board if they claim that have not violated a law by failing to report under Supreme Court Rule 8.3 judges who have not disclosed campaign contributions in their cases under Supreme Court Rule 8.4(f).

As a lawyer, I am sorry to embarrass any fellow lawyer or any judge, but I have a sworn duty as a lawyer to challenge the conduct of those who would foul “the temples of justice” and deprive any citizens of their sacred rights to free speech.

Respectfully submitted,

John Jay Hooker

Open Letter to:
District Attorney Torry Johnson
222 2^nd Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37201

Dear Torry:

I certainly appreciate the courtesy of your November 2^nd reply. However, when justice is at stake, in my view, one must in the words of Winston Churchill, “never, never, never surrender”. And I must not withstanding that I have accusers who want to have me disbarred and disciplined. Consequently, I would like to address hereinafter the contents of your letter. I, under Supreme Court Rule 8.3 which is my responsibility, request that you take the appropriate action.

But first, let me present for your official action an even greater problem for you to consider which problem underpins my letter to Judge Birch, which I sent to you setting out my views as to why he has violated the constitution and the criminal laws. I hereby adopt and reiterate the content of that letter and reaffirm the charges herein and by copy of this letter to the Tennessee board of Professional Responsibility and the court of the judiciary, I likewise request that they take the appropriate action.

In my view, Campaign contributions solicited by a lawyer on behalf of a Judge under Supreme Court Rule 10, Cannon 5C(2)© are unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Tennessee Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 (due process), 17 (open court) and Article XI, Section 16 (inviolate) as they destroy the integrity of the election process and the integrity of the office of judge itself. The judicial power of the state is invested in each individual judge under Article XI, Section 16, and consequently, both the judges and the lawyers who have given and received campaign contributions are subject to the charge that they have violated the criminal laws under TCA 39-16-102 and TCA 39-16-106 does not protect unlawful campaign contributions.

In the alternative, these campaign contributions, unless disclosed to all of the parties at the time of the trial by the judge, so as to give any party to the matter before the court has the opportunity to ask the judges to disqualify themselves under Supreme Court Rule 10.3(E) violated the official misconduct and official oppression statues. TCA 39-16-402, 403. However, it is my understanding that the judges and the court do not follow this procedure and are therefore subject to indictment for violation of the aforesaid provisions as they have acted without jurisdiction, both in civil and criminal matters. And therefore, there exists a crisis in the enforcement of the criminal laws as a consequence of the actions of judges and the lawyers who make campaign contributions and fail to disclose them for the benefit of all the parties.

The corruption in the election process in Tennessee is so deep that the Tennessee Board of Professional responsibility seeks to discipline me for reporting Judge Birch’s criminal conduct and violating the aforesaid provisions as well as Article X Section 3 of the Tennessee Constitution which are criminal under TCA 2-19-126as a result of the fact that Judge Birch served “meat and drink” and other foods to electors in his 1998 campaign in his efforts to “induce voters to vote and/or to be elected.”

General, I am likewise sure of your sincerity and appreciate your acknowledging mine. I am advised, so please inform me if I am in error, that you likewise have used “meat and drink” and other foods in your efforts to raise campaign contributions “to be elected”.

However, I believe you are an honest man, and because I do, I want to ask you to let me explain in honestly where you are wrong under your oath in not enforcing Article X, Section 3 and TCA 2-19-126 as neither you or my old friend and classmate, Tommy Shriver, have addressed my argument.

I agree with you in modern days “meat and drink” and other foods are not used to buy votes like they were in the past. But these gifts are used as a reward in “appreciation” to “induce” voters to come to political events to hear and see the candidates who seeks their votes and campaign contributions, “to be elected”. In other words, Torry, it is the “offer” by the candidate “directly or indirectly” of “meat and drink” and other foods to “induce electors” to come to a political meeting where the candidate seeks their votes “to be elected” that is the offense and the offense has nothing to do with whether or not the electors actually vote. So there is no quid pro quo required. The offense by the candidate and/or his agents is the “offer” to “induce” the elector “to vote” and such conduct plainly violates the aforesaid provisions.

Therefore, when you in your November 2^nd letter to me, postulate that “candidates only seek a forum to generate a crowd to present their views” and that “such a gathering is not to buy votes but rather to show appreciation to those who attend”, such conduct violates TCA 2-19-126 and Article X, Section 3. Because it is not necessary that the candidate give the meat and drink in “exchange” for a vote. The fact is the crime is committed when a candidate “directly or indirectly” serves “meat and drink” and other foods to “electors” as part of soliciting and/or “inducing” “electors” to vote “to be elected”. See Attorney General, Paul Summer’s opinion attached hereto of June 10, 2002 where Attorney General Summers opines that the crime is committed when there is “an offering of something of value to a voter to vote in violation of the statute”.

Despite my respect for you, as I told you I plan to run for District Attorney against you, notwithstanding the fact that you will certainly beat me because I feel a duty to do so in order to acquaint the public with the facts and advise them that the integrity of our beloved democracy depends upon the enforcement of the constitution and the election laws. Accordingly, in the name “ justice at the ballot box”, I hope you will debate me regarding this matter before the Nashville Bar Association and other groups so that they will have the benefit of better understanding the constitution and stop the practice of lawyers giving money to judges which on its face appears to be corrupt.

I know and respect many of the lawyers who are soliciting money for the campaign of Matt Sweeney, who I also respect. But they, likewise, apparently have no considered the authorities herein set out and consequently, I am sending them a copy of this letter so that they may consider the matter for themselves.

Moreover, hopefully the Tennessean newspaper in its effort to promote honesty in government with the ethics reform will weigh in on this matter that is a centerpiece of campaign corruption in Tennessee. And hopefully, the distinguished lawyers to whom I am sending a copy of this letter will likewise reconsider and do the same as we lawyers have the sworn duty to be the guardians of the constitution and as a consequence, I am making the effort to honor my oath as a lawyer to support the Constitution.

God Bless,

John Jay Hooker

Ms. Sandra Roberts
THE TENNESSEAN
1100 Broadway
Nashville, TN 37203

Dear Sandra:

Attached is a copy of my recent Open Letter to Torry Johnson, which I hope you will publish.

I am right about this matter, and if you will discuss it with any lawyer of competence, I believe you will be informed that the massive violation of the bribery statute (T.C.A. 2-19-126) is occasioned by the fact that there is a conspiracy, either spoken or unspoken, by all of those who violate it to see that it is not enforced. Unfortunately, many of the leading lawyers at the Nashville Bar and statewide are involved in this conspiracy.

I am convinced that you and your newspaper want to stop campaign corruption. If we would just enforce the laws on the books, namely T.C.A. 2-19-126, it would solve 90% of the ethical problem that permeates the Tennessee Legislature and the Metropolitan Council, right here under our noses, and nobody does a damn thing about the unlawful campaign fundraisers that finance the corruption.

God bless,

John Jay Hooker

Hon. Torry Johnson

District Attorney

222 Second Avenue, N.

Nashville, Tennessee  37201

Dear Torry:

I have tried diligently for years to get you to enforce the election laws.  I tried to get you to bring a quo warranto case regarding the constitutionality of retention elections as they are blatantly unconstitutional, and I have tried to get you to stop the practice of giving food and “drink” to voters “in an effort” to get them to make campaign contributions and to vote. 

In my opinion, the ethics crisis in Tennessee is the direct result of the fact that many of the trial and appellate judges have violated Article X, Section 3 (“meat and drink”), and T.C.A. 2-19-126(1) (“induce to vote”) by serving food and “drink” to lawyers who practice in their courts as a part of their efforts to raise campaign contributions and get votes.  As a consequence, the Legislators and gubernatorial candidates have done the same thing, believing they are immune from indictment as a consequence of the judges’ conduct.  This circumstance is a common disgrace, and what’s likewise pitiful is that the District Attorneys of this state have permitted this circumstance to occur and fester by not indicting the political law violators.

I have been told that in your prior elections, you likewise used food and “drink” as an inducement to raise campaign contributions in your effort to get votes and “to be elected.”  Perhaps that is the reason you have declined my request to enforce Article X, Section 3, and T.C.A. 2-19-126.  Therefore, I am going to be a candidate against you in the General Election in 2006 and raise these issues.  Likewise, I am going to try to find someone who I think is electable to run against you in the Primary who will also challenge your conduct regarding the enforcement of the election laws. 

I am now 75 years old, but before I die, I would like to be of service to the integrity of our republican form of government.  Therefore, until the day I die, I am going to do what I can, regardless of the cost to me, to try to stop this awful corruption that is destroying our beloved democracy.  Unfortunately, the corruption involving the aforesaid provisions is indulged in by almost all public officials including many District Attorneys of Tennessee who have likewise sat idly by.  Consequently, the FBI came in and did what you and all the other District Attorneys should have done to protect the integrity of the election process. 

I am going forthwith and ask one of the Commissioners to issue an arrest warrant against Gov. Bredesen for using barbecue suppers as a method to “induce” voters to vote for him in direct violation of T.C.A. 2-19-126.  Hopefully, the Commissioner will find that there is probable cause that the Governor violated said provision and, consequently, issue the arrest warrant.  I wanted to advise you of this circumstance in the event that you or your office would like to resist my efforts.

The fact is that the Davidson County District Attorney should, in my judgment, bring a quo warranto proceeding against Bredesen because he has violated Article X, Section 3, by having barbecue suppers in 2002 in an effort to “induce” voters to vote for him.  Incidentally, the Attorney General’s Opinion attached hereto, given in 2002, shows without doubt that Gov. Bredesen committed a Class C felony by violating T.C.A. 2-19-126 and, consequently, he violated Article X, Section 3.  The Governor is not above the law and for the same reason that the District Attorney in Austin, Texas, indicted Tom Delay, you should indict Phil Bredesen because they both violated state laws.  

The plain fact is that T.C.A. 2-19-126 prohibits the use of food and “drink” as an inducement to get voters to vote, etc..  Therefore, it would appear that Gov. Bredesen and many other public officials, both federal and state, have violated the statute when they food and “drink” to voters while seeking their votes, whether at a fundraiser or some other public event.  Your failure to take this circumstance to the Grand Jury whereupon they should be indicted, in my judgment, is a violation of your responsibility and official misconduct within the context of T.C.A. 39-16-401. 

Torry, while I like you personally, I dislike the fact that you are not enforcing the election laws and I am hopeful, as a gentleman, you will agree to debate me about this matter before various groups in Nashville in the context of the 2006 election.  The ethics problems begin with the fact that District Attorneys do not enforce the election laws.  If you would simply enforce the laws on the books, we would solve 90% of the ethical problems.

I regret having to run against you because you won’t enforce the law, but, in good conscious, I have no choice as a lawyer sworn to support the Constitution and the law and as a citizen who loves justice at the ballot box, as well as justice in the courthouse.

                                                            Sincerely,

                                                            John Jay Hooker

Dear Mr. Justice Birch:

I write this letter in opposition to the Criminal Justice Center being named after you, notwithstanding the fact that I have spent a lifetime as a Civil Rights advocate and would greatly like to see a public building named after a black man.  I do this with regret because I believe you to be an intelligent, charming man, who has had a distinguished public career and who would ordinarily deserve the honor of having the Criminal Justice Center named after you.  I have always liked you.  You will remember that I gave $1000 to one of your campaigns at the request of John Seigenthaler when he was the Editor of THE TENNESSEAN.

However, you determined to run for reelection in 1998 under the “Tennessee Plan,” T.C.A. 17-4-101, et seq., and 17-4-201, et seq., that is blatantly unconstitutional because it deprives the voters of a “choice” of candidates under Article VI, and further deprives the voters of a “free and equal election” under Article I, Section 5

Article I, Section 5, states:  “The elections shall be free and equal, and the right of suffrage, as hereinafter declared, shall never be denied to any person entitled thereto, except upon conviction by a jury of some infamous crime, previously ascertained and declared by law, and judgment thereon by court of competent jurisdiction.”
 , of the Constitution as the “Tennessee Plan” requires an additional qualification to be a candidate, i.e., one has to be an appellate judge to seek election as an appellate judge, and this circumstance violates Article I, Section 4
 Article I, Section 4, states:  “No political or religious test, other than an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of this state, shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state., outlawing additional qualifications.  This was unjust as your conduct deprived others who were constitutionally qualified for the right to run for the Supreme Court.

Even more importantly, you decided in your reelection campaign in 1998 to serve food and “drink” to lawyers who were practicing in the Supreme Court and thereby violated Article I, Section 17
 Article I, Section 17, states:  “All courts shall be open and every man, for an injury done to him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.  Suits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as the Legislature may direct.”, of the Declaration of Rights outlawing the “sale of justice” and/or the “appearance of the sale of justice.”  In addition, you served food and “drink” to voters and contributors in your effort “to be elected” in direct violation of Article X, Section 3
Article X, Section 3, states: “Any elector who shall receive any gift or reward for his vote, in meat, drink, money or otherwise, shall suffer such punishment as the law shall direct.  And any person who shall directly or indirectly give, promise or bestow any such reward to be elected, shall thereby be rendered incapable, for six years, to serve in the office for which he was elected, and be subject to such further punishment as the Legislature may direct.”
 , which prohibits such conduct.  You did this in concert with some of Nashville’s most prominent lawyers, who should repent as you and they were obviously guilty of unethical conduct when they hosted a fundraiser for you at the Sheraton Hotel in 1998 to help you solicit votes and raise campaign contributions “to be elected.” 

Judge, under my oath before God Almighty, I believe that you committed a felony when you had that fundraiser at the Sheraton Hotel, but I feel I have a duty to ask you if you have any honest explanation as to why you did not commit a felony and violate Article X, Section 3, when you had a fundraiser to solicit votes and raise campaign contributions “to be elected” on that occasion.  The Attorney General was successful in getting my case against you dismissed on the fraudulent basis under T.R.C.P. Rule 12 that no set of facts could be proved which would show that you violated Article X, Section 3, on that occasion. 

Therefore, I am now compelled to ask you, citizen to citizen, lawyer to lawyer, and as an officer in your Court I am entitled to an answer, can you give me any honest reason why your conduct did not violate Article X, Section 3, and T.C.A. 2-19-126(1)?  Otherwise, you should resign from the Supreme Court.  In the alternative, you could be impeached except that most of the Legislators, like Lt. Gov. Wilder and Speaker Naifeh, in keeping with your example, are doing the same thing.  I participated as a lawyer with Jack Norman, Sr., in 1958 and we impeached Judge Ralston Schoolfield and convicted him in the Senate for taking gratuities from lawyers who practiced in his court.  It seems to me that your situation is no different.  It pains me to defame you, but it pains me more for you to defile the Constitution.
 
It would be a disgrace at a time when ethical conduct in the election process is on the agenda to reward any man for his violation of the rules of ethical conduct.  Moreover, your conduct was not only unethical, but also in direct violation of the Constitution as aforesaid (Article X, Section 3).  Further, by giving food and “drink” to voters in the election process in “an effort to induce their votes,” you violated the Criminal Statute T.C.A. 2-19-126(1)
T.C.A. 2-19-126(1) states: “It is unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, personally or through any other person to: (1) Pay, loan, contribute or offer or promise to pay, loan or contribute any money, property or other valuable thing, to or for any voter, or to or for any other person to induce such voter or any voter to vote or refrain from voting at any such convention, primary or final election for or against any particular person or measure, or on account of any voter having voted for or against any particular person or measure, or having gone to or remained away from the polls at any such convention, primary or final election …”
 , mandated by Article X, Section 3.  You made a mockery of the constitutional requirement of “justice at the ballot box.” 

Finally, let me be perfectly clear that neither you nor any other judge nor any public official who uses food and “drink” at fundraisers “to be elected” should be honored by having a public building named after them.  Unfortunately, the truth is that your fellow members of the Supreme Court, who condoned your conduct in 1998, as well as the Attorney General of Tennessee who represented you in my lawsuit trying to prohibit you from violating the aforesaid, are equally guilty.

If we are to truly address the ethics question in Tennessee, we must begin by honoring the Constitution and the existing laws.  The Tennessee election process is a disgrace.  We no longer have government “of the people, by the people and for the people,” but rather government “of the money, by the money and for the money” provided at unlawful fundraisers where candidates like you serve food and “drink” to contributors “to be elected.”  True reform must begin with the lawyers and judges who have a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.  Naming the Justice Center after you when you intentionally violated Article X, Section 3, and your oath of office and deprived others of “justice at the ballot box” is to mock justice itself.  Unlawful fundraisers are at the core of ethical problems in Tennessee, and your conduct as a member of the Supreme Court was a discredit to the judicial system.

Judge Walter Kurtz has reported me to the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility in an effort to have me disciplined and/or disbarred in addition to having sanctioned me to pay $4500.00 regarding my efforts to stop other judges and other public officials from doing precisely what you have done.  Ironically, one of the judges, Chancellor Ellen Lyle, the spouse of Judge Kurtz, likewise used food and “drink” in her reelection efforts “to be elected” and, without recusing herself in violation of Article VI, Section 11 (“may be interested”) and Supreme Court Rule 10, Canon 3(E)
 Supreme Court Rule 10, Canon 3(E) states:   “(1)  A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned…” (“impartiality/may reasonably be questioned”), dismissed my lawsuit against you.  Chancellor Lyle’s conduct was unethical and fraudulent as she had a duty to recuse herself in the matter because she “may be interested” in the subject matter of the lawsuit (Article VI, Section 11
Article VI, Section 11, states:  “No Judge of the Supreme or Inferior Court 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…”
 ).  Likewise, Judge Kurtz sanctioned me and accused me of bringing a frivolous lawsuit and limited my access to the courts which was an attempt to “cover up” the corruption in the election process in Tennessee.

Sir, just ask any ordinary voter who can read Article X, Section 3, and they will tell you that the use of food and “drink” by you or anyone else “to be elected” violates Article X, Section 3.  Consequently, ethics reform, if we are to have it, must begin with that reality and, therefore, it would be unseemly to name the Justice Center the “A. A. Birch Justice Center” when you, after having been put on notice by me, proceeded to violate the law. 

As a fellow citizen, I regret having to write this letter to you, and I regret it even more as a lawyer.  However, under my oath to support the Constitution, I have a duty to seek to stop with my best efforts the corruption that is destroying our democratic-republican form of government.  I am seventy-five years old, but I will continue my efforts until the day I die, even under threat that the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility could take my law license away from me, which wrongful threat, in and of itself, is a common disgrace to the administration of justice and should be an embarrassment to the Board Members who voted to proceed against me.  However, I have a right under the First Amendment and Article I, Section 19
Article I, Section 19 states:  “. . . The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. . .”    (“freedom of speech”) of the Tennessee Constitution to challenge their conduct.  I hope THE TENNESSEAN, under its new leadership which has shown a great interest in promoting honest government, will investigate this abuse of power.

The time has come for District Attorney Torry Johnson to indict someone who has violated T.C.A. 2-19-126(1) and Article X, Section 3, perhaps the Governor, who is the most prominent violator of all with his barbecue suppers and political events seeking votes.  However, I am advised unhappily that District Attorney Johnson has, in the election process, likewise violated the aforesaid provisions.  If that is so, the District Attorney should recuse himself from this matter and let a Criminal Court Judge appoint a District Attorney pro tempore to investigate this circumstance. 

Consequently, I am sending a copy of this letter to the District Attorney and to Attorney General Paul Summers, who persists in representing people like yourself, including Gov. Sundquist, Lt. Gov. Wilder, Speaker Naifeh and judges who will not recuse themselves in situations where their impartiality might “reasonably be questioned” under Supreme Court Rule 10, Canon 3(E), who are likewise violating the law.  If virtually all public officials weren’t in what appears to be a conspiracy, we could have stopped this outrageous conduct with an indictment a long time ago!

A.A., regretfully, I think the ethical thing for you to do is to ask the Mayor and the Metro Council to rescind the action naming the Criminal Justice Center after you as it would be an embarrassment to your friends on the Council to have to embarrass you by changing their position; otherwise, they would have to condone your conduct for which they will be criticized because your conduct was not only unethical, it was unconstitutional and criminal.  Worst of all, it was an example to others as how to operate “above the law.”  Consequently, if you run for reelection in 2006, I am going to sue you again under Article I, Section 1
Article I, Section 1, states:  “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. (“right to reform”) and any others who follow your lead to use food and “drink” in your efforts “to be elected” as I have no other choice under my oath to support the Constitution which mandates that there be – both at the ballot box and in the courthouse – JUSTICE.

                    Sincerely,

                    John Jay Hooker

__________________
Article I, Section 5, states:  “The elections shall be free and equal, and the right of suffrage, as hereinafter declared, shall never be denied to any person entitled thereto, except upon conviction by a jury of some infamous crime, previously ascertained and declared by law, and judgment thereon by court of competent jurisdiction.”
 
iiArticle I, Section 4, states:  “No political or religious test, other than an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of this state, shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state.”

iiiArticle I, Section 17, states:  “All courts shall be open and every man, for an injury done to him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.  Suits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as the Legislature may direct.”

ivArticle X, Section 3, states: “Any elector who shall receive any gift or reward for his vote, in meat, drink, money or otherwise, shall suffer such punishment as the law shall direct.  And any person who shall directly or indirectly give, promise or bestow any such reward to be elected, shall thereby be rendered incapable, for six years, to serve in the office for which he was elected, and be subject to such further punishment as the Legislature may direct.”
 

vT.C.A. 2-19-126(1) states: “It is unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, personally or through any other person to: (1) Pay, loan, contribute or offer or promise to pay, loan or contribute any money, property or other valuable thing, to or for any voter, or to or for any other person to induce such voter or any voter to vote or refrain from voting at any such convention, primary or final election for or against any particular person or measure, or on account of any voter having voted for or against any particular person or measure, or having gone to or remained away from the polls at any such convention, primary or final election …”

 vi Supreme Court Rule 10, Canon 3(E) states:   “(1)  A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned…”

viiArticle VI, Section 11, states:  “No Judge of the Supreme or Inferior Court 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…”
 
viiiArticle I, Section 19 states:  “. . . The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. . .”  

ixArticle I, Section 1, states:  “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.”

To the Tennessee Commission on Ethics:

The fundamental ethics problem  in Tennessee begins with the bribery which, in large measure, emanates from the fact that there are non-voter campaign contributions permitted which are given given by lobbyist and special interests who try to influence the candidates and public officials. Many of these contributions are either outright bribes or appear to be bribes in that these contributions are given by special interests for the purpose of influencing the candidates as exemplified by the so-called "Tennessee Waltz" and the arrests of various legislators. 

The basic reform needed in Tennessee, and for that matter nationwide, is a law that limits campaign contributions to voters and prohibits all non-voter campaign contributions.  Non-voter campaign contributions are at the core of the ethical political crisis in Tennessee which crisis is not unique to Tennessee but is likewise a nationwide problem.  At the present time there is no legislation prohibiting non-voter campaign contributions. 

However, the Tennessee Constitution outlaws non-voter campaign contributions in that Article I Section 5 of the Constitution declares that all elections shall be "free and equal". Notwithstanding, this provision is not enforced.   Elections cannot be "free and equal" among the voters if non-voters can participate in trying to influence the election through campaign contributions.  An election is not "free" to the voters if it can be influenced by non-voter campaign contributions. 

One of the problems with non-voter campaign contributions is that they permit the special interests to participate in the election process in helping to finance a candidate to the disadvantage of the voter.  Both the federal and state constitutions envision elections that are to be determined entirely by voters as opposed to non-voters, otherwise the integrity of the election process is subverted.  The federal constitution relies upon the states to conduct the election process under the state constitution.

Furthermore non-voter campaign contributions from lobbyists who do not live in the district or the state and who cannot vote, advantage the incumbent who has the power of the incumbency to the disadvantage of the challengers.  This circumstance has made it so that the leadership in the Tennessee legislature, in large measure due to these non-voter campaign contributions, has become entrenched to the detriment of any challenger which accounts for the tenure in the legislature of the various leaders.  The ethics crisis in Tennessee would be in large measure solved by simply getting rid of non-voter campaign contributions which contribute to corruption. 

These non-voter campaign contributions, in large measure, are given and received at fundraisers for and by candidates in all three branches of government.  At these fundraisers  the candidate either "directly or indirectly" uses food and "drink" to induce voters and lobbyists to come to the fundraisers and make contributions in direct violation of Tennessee Constitution provision Article X Section 3 and TCA 2-19-126 which criminalizes such conduct.     

At the core of the ethics problem in Tennessee is the circumstance that certain Supreme Court Judges and many other judges in the election process have "cocktail parties" and solicit money from lawyers who have cases in their courts.  This practice violates Article X Section 3 and is criminal conduct under TCA 2-19-126 which the judges have been unwilling to enforce as there is apparently a conspiracy between the judges and the Attorney General for the purpose of permitting the corruption to continue.  These various judges proceed as if they are "above the law".  This "above the law" mentality, likewise, is indulged in by the governors and the legislators who have fundraisers using food and "drink" in the election process. 

Consequently, "Above the law" mentality has occasioned the need for ethics reform in Tennessee and it is submitted that a prohibition against non-voter campaign contributions would greatly enhance the voters' Constitutional right to a "free and equal" election not polluted by non-voter money.

TENNESSEAN Article, August 9, 2005, by BONNA DE LA CRUZ

John Jay Hooker, a Nashville lawyer and two-time Democratic nominee for governor, plans to challenge Gov. Phil Bredesen in the party primary next year.

His fellow Democrat has been "awful" in his handling of TennCare and ethics, Hooker said, citing instances when Bredesen's staff shredded sexual harassment files and handed out honorary trooper badges. And he faults the governor for accepting campaign funds from out-of-state donors and political action committees, a common fundraising practice.

Hooker said he would raise taxes or impose a state income tax to keep people enrolled on TennCare.

"I'm going to raise hell about this corruption and how he's let down people who need TennCare, and I believe I'll get a lot of votes," Hooker said.

The primary is Aug. 3, 2006.

Hooker is calling his campaign "The Spirit of 76" in honor of the year the Declaration of Independence was ratified, as well as a nod to his age once his Aug. 24 birthday passes. He said he will accept only donations of $76 or less from Tennessee voters.

Hooker was the Democratic nominee for governor in 1970. But by the 1990s, he began using political campaigns as platforms to file lawsuits, most challenging the constitutionality of campaign financing. He was again the Democratic nominee for governor in 1998, but not seriously considered, and then ran as an Independent in the 2002 governor's race, which Bredesen won.

"He is a perennial candidate for offices of all shapes and sizes, so it comes as no surprise that he would throw his stove-pipe hat into
the ring," said Will Pinkston, spokesman for the Tennessee Democratic Party. Bredesen has beefed up the state's ethics policy and his staff has stopped shredding files, Pinkston said.

Hooker said he also planned to run as an Independent in the November 2006 U.S. Senate race to fill the seat Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is giving up.

— BONNA DE LA CRUZ