I was encouraged to discover recently that a formal complaint was filed against Judge Gloria Dumas on September 21, 2009 by the Disciplinary Counsel for the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary. We will await the results and hope for justice in that matter. However, what is protecting defendants such as attorney Leo Haffey, from statements and rulings by Judge Dumas? I contacted the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary and spoke to Mr. Joseph S. Daniels about this problem. He informed me that it was not their duty. I spoke to a friendly press liason from the Nashville District Attorney’s office today. She was not aware of the complaint filed against Judge Dumas. Well, now they have no excuse. From the Nashville District Attorney’s office, headed by Victor S. (Torry) Johnson III.

“He is to judge between THE PEOPLE and the government; he is to be THE SAFEGUARD of the one and the advocate for the rights of the other; he ought not to suffer the innocent to be oppressed or vexatiously harassed, anymore than those who deserve prosecution to escape; HE IS TO PURSUE GUILT; he is to protect innocence; he is to judge the circumstances, and, according to their true complexion, to combine the public welfare and the safety of the citizens, preserving both, and not impairing either; he is to decline the use of individual passions, and individual malevolence, when he cannot use them for the advantage of the public; he is to lay hold of them where public justice, in sound discretion, requires it.”

Catherine Fout vs. State of Tennessee, 4 Tenn. 98 (1816)

http://da.nashville.gov/portal/page/portal/da/home/

The district attorneys and prosecutors are officers of the court and their duty and obligation is to seek justice.

From a legal dictionary:

“officer of the court n. any person who has an obligation to promote justice and effective operation of the judicial system, including judges, the attorneys who appear in court, bailiffs, clerks, and other personnel. As officers of the court lawyers have an absolute ethical duty to tell judges the truth, including avoiding dishonesty or evasion about reasons the attorney or his/her client is not appearing, the location of documents and other matters related to conduct of the courts.”

The Nashville District Attorney’s office is now aware of the formal complaint filed against Judge Gloria Dumas on September 21, 2009 by the Disciplinary Counsel for the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary. I notified them today, Friday, October 9, 2009. Joseph S. Daniels of the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary, is now aware that Judge Dumas presided over Leo Haffey’s hearing a few days before the complaint was filed. Once again, here is the handwritten motion written by Leo Haffey in jail.

Here is the formal complaint filed by the Disciplinary Counsel for the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary against Judge Gloria Dumas for judicial misconduct.

 “1. Following a full investigation authorized under the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated 9 17-5-304(b)(3), the three judge investigative panel composed of the Honorable Pamela Reeves, the Honorable Jean A. Stanley, and the Honorable Dwight E. Stokes found, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated 5 17-5-304(d)(2)(A), that there is reasonable cause to believe that the Honorable Gloria Dumas has committed judicial offenses alleged herein in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated 5 17-5-302, and directed disciplinary counsel to file formal charges pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 17 -5-304(d)(2) (A).”

Read the entire complaint

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/geninfo/COJ/documents/DumasGloria%20Formal%20Charges.pdf

The more I read and experience the judicial system in Nashville and Tennessee, the more concerned I become for this nation and for citizens like Leo Haffey.

From the Chattanooga times Free Press, June 21, 2008:

“Study: State low in judge disciplineARTICLE TOOLS”
“Tennessee’s system of evaluating judicial misconduct is too secretive and does not include enough ordinary citizens in the process of disciplining judges, according to a new study by a legal watchdog group.

“Judges are being allowed to judge other judges in Tennessee when it comes to ethical breaches,” said attorney Suzanne M.

Blonder, senior counsel for Halt Inc., a Washington, D.C.-based, nonpartisan group that monitors accountability in the

judicial system. “That gives the appearance of impropriety and makes the system seem self-protective.

Tennessee’s commission responsible for overseeing judicial ethics is a 16-member panel called the Court of the Judiciary.

Halt’s 2008 judicial accountability report card, released this week, ranked the state’s procedures for disciplining

judges as 31st in the nation based on criteria such as public participation and transparency. Washington state’s system

of judicial oversight ranked first in the study, while those in Maine and Mississippi tied for last place.”

“Ms. Blonder said the problem with Tennessee’s private letters of reprimand is that “they’re so lenient that they do not

adequately deter judges from abusing their power on the bench.”

The most egregious actions, however, lead to public reprimands, Judge Daniel pointed out. In rare instances, a judge may

elect to go through a trial to dispute allegations of misconduct.”

Read more:

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2008/jun/21/study-state-low-judge-discipline/
The District Attorney of Nashville, TN has an obligation, as an officer of the court, to promote justice.

Once again, to quote the Nashville District Attorney’s office:

“He is to judge between THE PEOPLE and the government; he is to be THE SAFEGUARD of the one and the advocate for the rights of the other; he ought not to suffer the innocent to be oppressed or vexatiously harassed, anymore than those who deserve prosecution to escape; HE IS TO PURSUE GUILT; he is to protect innocence; he is to judge the circumstances, and, according to their true complexion, to combine the public welfare and the safety of the citizens, preserving both, and not impairing either; he is to decline the use of individual passions, and individual malevolence, when he cannot use them for the advantage of the public; he is to lay hold of them where public justice, in sound discretion, requires it.”

The Nashville District Attorney’s office must immediately grant attorney Leo Haffey an emergency hearing to set bond and promote justice. Anything short of this is abject hypocrisy and dereliction of duty.