By David Tulis
Arthur Jay Hirsch, 65, was convicted in December in a Lawrenceburg, Tenn., circuit court of four counts, three of which involved the exercise of his constitutional right to travel by a truck of his choice. The free-ranger user of the public highway was abusively treated by Judge Stella Hargroves, including the engagement in what are called ex parte communications — conversations with one side in a case without the other side being present.
I agreed to enter an affidavit on that point as part of Mr. Hirsch’s pleadings.
The abuse of this simple Christian man is remarkable. But Mr. Hirsch is not letting Judge Hargrove get away with anything as he prepares an appeal on grounds of first impression and an attack on her integrity and judicial ethics.
In a second recusal and disqualification request, he says says she prejudiced his substantial constitutionally protected rights and demands she drop out of all further post-trial proceedings. “Bias and prejudice was plainly shown by denying accused’s constitutionally secured rights to a due process hearing on motions challenging the Court’s jurisdiction, to equal protection of the laws, to know the nature and cause of the accusations, to subpoena witnesses, to forbidding Accused’s use of holy scripture in his defense; by forbidding the Accused from reminding the jurors of their constitutionally secured right to nullify; by presuming jurisdiction without proof from the prosecutor; by disobeying the obligatory rules of the Tennessee Code of Judicial Conduct.”
Mr. Hirsch says Judge Hargrove disregarded supreme court holdings ignored mandatory judicial notice of adjudicative facts, scheduled the trial three days before Christmas and repeatedly told the jury the trial would be short and last only one day, statements that suggested a cut-and-drieed outcome prejudicial to Mr. Hirsch.
“Accused has a right to receive impartial, fair, righteous justice, and to have his constitutionally secured rights recognized and protected by the Court throughout each of the remaining proceedings of his case, including but not limited to sentencing. However, from Judge Hargrove’s bias and prejudice shown at trial the Accused has no expectation, whatsoever, that that will happen, but rather, strongly believes from experience that he will receive vindictive treatment.”
Mr. Hirsch’s primary grievance is that his jurisdictional challenges were carelessly rejected. Had his claims been heard, Judge Hargrove would have dismissed all accusations, one of which pertained to Mr. Hirsch’s pistol. Her conduct “compromises or appears to compromise the independence, integrity, and impartiality of Tennessee judges and undermines public confidence in the judiciary. May it not be said that judicial anarchy reigns in Tennessee, but rather that the rule of law prevails in the courts.”
Mr. Hirsch cites a recent case on jurisdiction: “[T]he objection that a . . . court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, may be raised at any stage in the litigation, even after trial and the entry of judgment.” Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 571 (2004)
Our interest in Mr. Hirsch’s plight stems from his being a victim of state action. More importantly, it stems from my understanding of his defense. He argues, as I have, that administrative law does not trump constitutional rights.
— David Tulis hosts a talk show weekdays in Chattanooga from 9 to 11 a.m. on 1240 AM Hot News Talk Radio, covering local economy and free markets in Chattanooga and beyond. Support this site and his radio station on the real airwaves in Chattanooga, on your smartphone via the TuneIn radio app or at Hotnewstalkradio.com. You back David by patronizing his advertisers with specific reference to him. Even better, encourage independent media by having David run commercials for your business. Also, “buy me a coffee at the tip jar.”
You may also enjoy these related essays by David Tulis and Roger Roots