Thursday, January 5, 2012

Judge This Tennessee ....... Dhillon vs Dhillon

The below letter is from a Tennessee resident & viewer of Judge This Tennessee: 
To get your judicial experience published email 

I Gursheel S. Dhillon herby certify that a true and exact copy of the above (below) has been forwarded to Virginia Story, attorney for petitioner at 136 Fourth Ave., Franklin, TN.37064 via first class U.S. Postal service postage prepaid to reach its destination on march 13,2011.

To Chief Justice Cornelia Clark
Supreme Court of  The  State of Tennessee

RE: Dhillon vs. Dhillon Appeal . 2011-01614 SC-R11

            I am writing for a review of the ruling of  the trial courts, appellate court and the  actions of the clerks of the appellate courts.

            I was involved in a divorce proceeding in Williamson county where my civil rights , due process was severely violated and private property taken and this has caused a great injustice and requires your intervention. Further, the State Of  Tennessee health Related Boards has acted illegally in a racial and prejudicial manner and fraudulently, to take actions against my medical license, violating federal and state constitutional rights.

            The trial court violated my due process by being biased by pre-judgment, using ex-parte communication;  and abused its   authority to intimidate; coerce and harass me into a settlement, which I informed the court I would not accept, that is completely unjust and statutorily against the law and the doctrine of cases, prevailing law.

            The Trial court Judge incarcerated my attorney when she accused the Judge of “home cooking”, without a trial or any hearing, for contempt when clearly she was making a statement consistent with the Courts failure to hear the evidence.

            The Same Trial Court incarcerated me for contempt, to aid the other parties attorney(who is also from Williamson County) when there was no way of obtaining the information requested and further when the opposing attorney admitted she already had the information. Just Prior to this hearing the opposing attorney told my attorney to get the “F**k out of office” when he was trying to advise her that she already had all the information. I substantially complied with the request and provided the attorney certified copies of the information requested. There was no reason to deprive me of my liberty except to coerce, intimidate and place me under duress

            Then the trial court proceeded to resurrect an asset from an asset that was clearly separate and had been maintained separately. This is in direct violation of statutory law and law of the doctrine of cases, where in Tennessee separate property cannot be divided and property that is dissipated or missing cannot be resurrected. I was threatened with incarceration and when my parents posted a bond which should have remained intact until end of the case the trial court proceeded to divide over eighty percent of the bond to the opposing attorney.

            There is ample evidence that the trial court was prejudiced and engaged in unfair ex-parte contact and further violated my due process and civil liberties by conspiring to alienate my child from me. This led to a near death starvation of my son-because of the mother’s lack of care and when this was brought out at trial the trial court and the appellate court turned a blind eye. When I asked for the Judges recusal it was denied by themselves. Now, every Judge in Williamson County has recused himself, and therefore I am entitled to  have their rulings set aside their rulings and have a new trial that is fair and impartial in all respects, especially in light of the other parties admitted fraud. However, I am being denied this opportunity at both the trial court and appeallate level

            The court deprived me of due process by refusing to continue my trial even when there was statements made by other parties that the trial  should not proceed forward without me having an attorney present.

            The Eighth attorney I had notified the State of Tennessee Attorney General’ office that there was a serious violation of  “due process”, the State Attorney General refused to intervene. However, more importantly the Appellate Court did not feel I had suffered any duress, coercion or intimidation.

            I made it clear that I would never accept any settlement that would award the Franklin House to my ex-wife. My attorney came into court and stated that a settlement was not pending. However, the court ratified “ an agreement” that contained exactly the elements I had clearly articulated. I would not accept. In addition my attorney who had asked to withdraw and not present after depositions signed off on the settlement without authority. The trial court and the clerks office tried to block my appeals rights as I was acting pro-se. However, I faxed a copy to the Appeals Court and documented everything and the appellate court accepted my appeal. After allowing Third party to intervene in the appeal , and there was a clause that allowed “any party to reopen the settlement agreement at any time.” The appellate court erroneously stated I had not requested the Judges recusal, when in fact I had. The Appeallate court further ruled the appeal frivolous and awarded the Apellee attorney fee’s when in fact the appellee had ample ability to pay her own attorney fee’s and this is statutorily incorrect.

            The marital dissolution agreement which was entered, contained an express statement that the parties could re-open the property settlement at any time. The Supreme Court of Tennessee and the appellate courts have clearly stated that the courts will not interpret the contract that parties have entered into, when the language is clear and ambiguous. However, in this case the Appellate court clearly violates, its own previous rulings and turns to interpretation of the intention of the parties.

            The Court awarded my ex-wife who is a physician and came into this country with very little and contributed to the marriage very little, a three quarter and million dollar house, that she herself admitted was bought for the benefit of my parents using their money. This person has the capacity to provide for herself and obtained the benefit of getting an education and improving herself while in the marriage and was never a homemaker This is an egregious violation of statutory law.

            In post -judgment hearings the trial court continued to harass, intimidate and coerce me by failing to listen to any of the things I presented and further the trial court held me in contempt of the authority of the court and the same trial judge presided over the hearing. This is a violation of due process. It is clear that a Judge holding a person in contempt to vindicate the authority of the court should not preside over the hearing himself. However in my case the trial judge presided over the hearing and then violated my due process by denying my hearing for a habeus corpus appeal and failed to grant me bond.

            The Trial court has acted in conspiracy with the opposing counsel, also from the same town to deprive my family and I of what is rightfully ours and given it to someone who never made any contribution to the assets and kept her assets separately. This involves illegal seizure of private property, which is a constitutional violation of United States and Tennessee. How can a piece of property belonging to seventy four year old cancer patients be awarded to a physician who is young, and never contributed a dime to the property. It is simply unjust. The Court elected to displace three elderly persons all over the age of sixty five for one person who has the ability to provide for herself.

             This is clear evidence that the trial judge had become emotionally involved was prejudiced and should have recused himself. The Appellate court failed to find any error even though it has stated in an opinion that the substance of a pro-se litigant should be the determinative factor in reviewing the appeal not the form. For third party who have been residents of Tennessee since 1993, there is gross corruption and injustice by the Williamson County Courts. This opinion is not unique.

            Since then all the Judges have recused themselves and continue to pass on my motions for a new trial. When I filed a Rule 3 application which is a “Right of Appeal- the Appellate Court simply dismissed the appeal without reviewing the trial court record and sent a letter to the Williamson County Clerks office that the appeal had been dismissed and the record did not need to be sent. However, a Rule 3 application is to be conducted upon the review of the record and is an appeal of right. Further, a motion to dismiss by opposing party is limited to ten days or fifteen days and clearly in this case, the Appellee filed a motion which was titled as a response to a previous appeal, and had the docket number of the current appeal almost thirty days later. In other words the Appellate Court has shut its door and this is a violation of my right to appeal.

            In another matter where the trial court dismissed my appeal without addressing any of the issues where there is a clear violation of constitutional and civil rights and due process by the Health Related Boards-the Court dismissed my Writ of Certiorari and Writ of Mandamus;  the opposing party did not file a single document to defend against the accusations. The fact that the Health Related Boards attorney did not file a single response and the court dismissed the case- again without reviewing any of the record- makes me believe the Appellate Court engaged in ex-parte communication and told the Health Related Boards to not worry as the issue would be subject to dismissal without consideration.

            The Health Related Boards engaged an expert- that was not qualified under its own rules and was under investigation himself. Though he had numerous violations- he was fined two thousand dollars and allowed to continue to work. He received a payment as expert witness essentially reimbursing him for  the fine. There was a clear racial overtone in the Health Related Boards panel and ex-parte communication between the panel members. The trial court; the appellate court; and the Supreme court have looked the other way.

            As the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Initiative of access to justice I am seeking a review under Appellate Court Rule 2 where there is a suspension of the rules- in the interest of Justice  and this Court will serve to provide justice- where there is a flagrant abuse of civil and constitutional rights.

            This court cannot allow such deviation from statutory law; and doctrine of case law which is a clear violation of due process and clear violation of civil rights in which the Williamson County courts and the State Medical Agency is acting to deny my most fundamental civil and constitutional  right to  due process, judicial access and work and live in this state.


Gursheel S. Dhillon
P.O.Box 722
Tullahoma, TN.37388

Certificate Of Service

I  Gursheel S. Dhillon herby certify that a true and exact copy of the above has been forwarded to Virginia Story, attorney for petitioner at 136 Fourth Ave., Franklin, TN.37064 via first class U.S. Postal service postage prepaid to reach its destination on march 13,2011.


Gursheel S Dhillon


112 Plainview Dr.

Estill Springs, TN.37330


c.c        Sen. Mike Bell                                              Sen. Mae Beavers

            301 6th Avenue North            Suite 7                         301 6th Avenue North Suite 302
            Legislative Plaza                                             War Memorial Building

            Nashville, TN.37243                                                Nashville, TN.37243

            Sen. Bo Watson                                             Rep. Tony Shipley

            1607 Gunston Hall Road                                P.O. Box 6173
            Hixson, TN 37343                                          Kingsport 37663

Brent Gees, The Tennessean

                                        FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY

RENNEE DHILLON       Mother/Petitioner          Docket 33026
Gursheel  Dhillon            Father/Respondent            


            Comes now, Gursheel S. Dhillon , pro-se father and moves this court to stay any orders  modifying the permanent parenting plan,  pending appeal. As a basis for such relief the movant would show that  he is likely to prevail on the merits of the appeal; he will suffer irreparable injury if the stay is denied; the other party will not be substantially harmed by the stay; and the public interest will be served by granting the stay.


            Further the father would show the following:

1)      That the presiding judge has violated judicial ethical, public policy that is the legislative intent of the law makers and the current law of this state. Further this Judge was selected by his predecessor, and initially declined to hear the case but now hears the case and displays obvious prejudice and engages in ex-parte communication with opposing counsel.

2)      The presiding judge initially declined to hear this case to its conclusion, and this judge has had ex-parte communication with opposing counsel, third party, and has a prejudice and bias against this movant.

3)      There is no emergency need to modify a parenting plan that was agreed by the mother, as there has been no showing of harm to the minor child.

4)      This Trial Judge failed to abide by the current laws of this state which state the following that there is a substantial and material change that affects the welfare of the child and is the best interest of the child. In this case the Trial court considered mother’s hearsay testimony that was impeached, and was contrary to her previous request to be a part time mother.

5)      The law has changed and  requires the court to articulate as to each of the following, however this court has concerned itself with providing relief to the mother when there is proof, evidence and testimony that has shown the mother will take to the streets if she was not provided a house, despite her income of $135,000 ;mother’s blame of the father when the child becomes sick at school, the mother caused malnourishment and testified the child’s pediatrician had noted volitional vomiting in presence of mother who was causing this child anxiety, and mother does not  want to come pick up the child after visitation with the grandparents and the father, which requires minimal travel and was a result of this court’s action; and further mother’s  abusive behavior towards father and paternal grandmother; abnormal behavior in public setting and providing support for her family.

(1) The parent's ability to instruct, inspire, and encourage the child to prepare for a life of service and to compete successfully in the society which the child faces as an adult;

(2) The relative strength, nature, and stability of the child's relationship with each parent, including whether a parent has taken a greater responsibility for performing parenting responsibilities relating to the daily needs of the child;

(3) The willingness and ability of each of the parents to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent, consistent with the bests interests of the child;

(4) Willful refusal to attend a court-ordered parent education seminar may be considered by the court as evidence of that parent's lack of good faith in the proceedings;

(5) The disposition of each parent to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care, education, and other necessary care;

(6) The degree to which a parent has been the primary caregiver, defined as the parent which has taken greater responsibility for performing parental responsibilities;

(7) The love, affection, and emotional ties existing between each parent and the child;

(8) The emotional needs and developmental level of the child;

(9) The character and physical and emotional fitness of each parent as it relates to his or her ability to parent or as it relates to the welfare of the child;

(10) The child's interaction and interrelationships with siblings and with significant adults, as well as the child's involvement with his or her physical surroundings, school, or other significant activities;

(11) The importance of continuity in the child's life and the length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment;

(12) Evidence of physical or emotional abuse to the child, to the other parent, or to any other person;

(13) The character and behavior of any other person who resides in or frequents the home of a parent and such person's interaction with the child;

(14) The reasonable preference of the child if it is twelve (12) years of age or older. The court may hear the preference of a younger child upon request. The preference of older children should normally be given greater weight than the preference of younger children;

(15) Each parent's employment schedule, and the court may make accommodations consistent with those schedules; and

(16) Any other factors deemed relevant by the court.

(6)         There is no material change that was not anticipated at the time the parties entered the agreed order the mother knew the father resided in Franklin County and “ Westahaven” and travel would be part of the circumstances. Further, mother failed to show that there was any adverse, affect on the child.

                        The Father has shown that as the child’s age has changed , his desire to be with the father and spend more time doing activities with father has changed and father has caused no disruption in the child’s education or extracurricular activities. Estes v. Estes, No. M2010-02554-COA-R3-CV.

                        Here the courts failure to consider equal parenting time, perhaps by adding additional time during summer, and requiring the father to provide all the transportation when mother was allowed by this court to buy a “new Mercedes” for travel to pick up the child, is abuse of discretion, and demonstrates a clear an palpable bias, and prejudice towards this father.

(7)        In re Keely, No. M2010-01703-COA-R3-JV, 2011 WL 3566980, (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2011), where the mother continuously tried to paint  the father and frustrate the fathers visitation the mother had not acted in the best interest of the child.

(8)        The New law requires the courts to order custody arrangements in the best interests of the children that permit both parents to enjoy the “maximum participation possible”. In this case the mother’s attorney testified that the father “lives at West haven….and has a business a car wash in Franklin”. So the Trial court finding that distance was an issue was pulled out of thin air and that was against the weight of the evidence.

(9)        The father was never properly served with the motions and pre-trial briefing as required by local rules and law.

(10)      The Mother has testified she has made an income of $135000 and benefitted and additional $43000 from living mortgage free. The Mother has filed and stated the father has no income possibility other than to work at McDonalds. Father has been required to engage in additional travel and child care and seeks immediate relief in terms of temporary child support based on the number of days of custody this year.

Wherefore for premises seen and considered this father requests that this court find it appropriate to grant the relief requested:

1)      An order an immediate stay pending appeal of the modification of the permanent parenting plan.

2)      The father be compensated for any missed days as a result of the hearing regarding the change in modification of the parenting plan which was instituted emergently without cause.

3)      The Father be provided immediate child support based on the income of the two parties and the number of days spent with each parent in the year 2011.

4)      Any other relief deemed just and appropriate.

Filed and entered by Gursheel S Dhillon on December 22, 2011.

Certificate Of Service

I  Gursheel S. Dhillon herby certify that a true and exact copy of the above has been forwarded to Virginia Story, attorney for petitioner at 136 Fourth Ave., Franklin, TN.37064 via first class U.S. Postal service postage prepaid to reach its destination on march 13,2011.

Gursheel S Dhillon

No comments:

Post a Comment