To get your judicial experience published email Sharynbovat@aol.com
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.
Respectfully
Gursheel S. Dhillon
P.O.Box 722Tullahoma, 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.
Signed
Gursheel S Dhillon
Pro-se
112 Plainview Dr.
Estill Springs, TN.37330
931-588-1525
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
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
Hixson, TN 37343 Kingsport 37663
Brent Gees, The Tennessean
IN
THE TWENTY FIRST JUDICAL DISTRICT
CHANCERY
COURT STATE OF TENNESSEE,
FRANKLIN,
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
RENNEE DHILLON Mother/Petitioner Docket 33026
Vs Gursheel Dhillon Father/Respondent
EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY MODIFICATION OF
PERMANENT
PARENTING PLAN PENDING APPEAL
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.
Signed
Gursheel S DhillonPro-se
No comments:
Post a Comment