Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Voter Ratification is a Good Idea: It Makes Judicial Reform a Conversation Starter

“Haslam, Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey and House Speaker Beth Harwell agreed they will push for legislative approval of a constitutional resolution that would go on the 2014 statewide ballot for voter ratification.”

The ballot ratification makes sense: I just told people it will give the people in the state a chance to talk about Judges and the states constitution.

Also, the top 3 legistlatures have signed on so “it’s a done deal”.

Tennessee politicians; Thank you for reasonable and clear thinking.

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Some Say "The War on Judicial Reform is Over" The Good Guys Won. Yes!!! The Judges Agreed to "Good" Change BUT We're Still Waiting for the Judiciary Committee to Meet and Decide on Structure
According to "many" publications it looks like justice is NOW "more" fair in Tennessee.

TN judicial ethics reform will promote impartiality

 January 19th , 2012 12:05 pm      By

We believe a new ethics code for Tennessee judges will help ensure that justice is blind in this state.

The revamped Code of Judicial Conduct, recommended by the Tennessee Bar Association and approved by the state Supreme Court, offers the first major revisions in more than 20 years......

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

The Interent is a Tool to Bring Transparency in the Courts: Aol, Google, Facebook, & Yahoo are "Under Attack" They Need Americans to insist on Freedom of Speech

We must be a nation of FREEDOM!!!

My name is Sharyn Bovat and I whistle blew about discrimination & wasteful spending of taxpayer money: I’ve been able to fight people that have committed fraud by exposing the retaliation I’ve received "online". The internet is a tool for FREEDOM.  Now I'm using the internet/web as a tool to expose problems in the courts. 
I’m asking my members of congress to “change their minds” and support the companies like AOL, Google, Yahoo, Linkedin, Facebook, Mozilla, Twitter and more.   I love America it’s time to stand up for more transparency … “free market societies” … and less government intervention/regulation. 

To sign an “online”petition to promote internet FREEDOM:

Tor read more:

Monday, January 16, 2012

Wonder Why the COJ is in Sunset: Thank Connie Reguli

Here's a presentation made to the COJ that highlights the problems with the current system. To read the "solution" go to

New Website for Tennessee Judicial Reform

This interactive website will connect you to legistlatures: give you up to day information.

Please join us in making the courts more tranpsarent and give EVERY Tennessean the opportunity for justice.

Current COJ Structure

© 2009 by The State of Tennessee
All rights reserved


Title 17  Judges And Chancellors 
Chapter 5  Court of the Judiciary 
Part 2  --Creation and Organization

Tenn. Code Ann. § 17-5-201  (2009)

17-5-201.  Creation of court of the judiciary -- Composition -- Terms of office -- Vacancies -- Hearing panels -- Investigative panels.

  (a) There is created a court that shall be known and designated as the Tennessee court of the judiciary, referred to in this part as "the court." It shall consist of sixteen (16) members as follows:
   (1) Any combination of three (3) judges from the court of appeals and court of criminal appeals to be appointed by the supreme court of Tennessee;
   (2) One (1) trial judge from each grand division to be appointed by the supreme court of Tennessee;
   (3) One (1) practicing attorney from each grand division to be appointed by the board of governors of the Tennessee Bar Association;
   (4) Three (3) public members who are not judges, retired judges, nor licensed attorneys of the state, one (1) to be appointed by the speaker of the senate, one (1) to be appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives, and one (1) to be appointed by the governor;
   (5) One (1) general sessions or juvenile court judge licensed to practice law in this state from each grand division to be appointed by the supreme court. In any event, there shall always be at least one (1) appointee who currently and regularly exercises juvenile court jurisdiction; and
   (6) One (1) municipal court judge licensed to practice law in this state to be appointed by the supreme court.
(b) The court shall select its own presiding judge.
(c) Service on this court by the three (3) appellate judges is mandatory. No trial judge shall be required to serve against the trial judge's will.
(d) Each member of the court shall serve for a term of four (4) years and shall be eligible for reappointment to one (1) additional term. Vacancies on the court for an unexpired term shall be made for the remainder of the term by the appointing power of the original appointment.
(e)  (1) The presiding judge shall divide the court into a hearing panel of twelve (12) members and an investigative panel of three (3) members. Membership on the panels may rotate in a manner determined by the presiding judge; provided, that no members shall sit on both the hearing and investigative panels for the same proceeding.
   (2) A hearing panel has the duty and authority to rule on prehearing motions, conduct hearings on formal charges and make findings, conclusions, and impose sanctions or dismiss the case.
   (3) An investigative panel has the duty and authority to:
      (A) Review the recommendations of disciplinary counsel after preliminary investigation and either authorize a full investigation or dismiss the complaint; and
      (B) Review the recommendations of disciplinary counsel after full investigation and approve, disapprove or modify the recommendations as provided in § 17-5-304.
(f) The supreme court and any other appointing authority, in making its appointments, shall do so with a conscious intention of selecting a body that reflects a diverse mixture with respect to race, including the dominant ethnic minority population, and gender.

HISTORY: [Acts 1979, ch. 356, § 4; T.C.A., § 17-804; Acts 1981, ch. 425, §§ 1, 2; 1995, ch. 208, §§ 3-5, 18; 1999, ch. 151, § 1; 2004, ch. 914, §§ 3b, 3c.]

NOTES: Cross-References.
Grand divisions, title 4, ch. 1, part 2.
Law Reviews.
Ethical Obligations of Judges (Joe G. Riley), 23 Mem. St. U.L. Rev. 507 (1993).

 1. Constitutionality.
 1. Constitutionality.
The legislative purpose expressed in § 17-5-101 prevents the court of the judiciary from being subject to Tenn. Const., art. VI, § 4. It is not a circuit or chancery court or other inferior court and it is not "assigned" any district in this state. It is clearly and completely outside the state court system as established by art. VI of the constitution.  In re Murphy, 726 S.W.2d 509, 1987 Tenn. LEXIS 858 (Tenn. 1987).

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Ron Ramsey Says the COJ Needs to Change

Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey says the body that judges judges, the Court of Judiciary, needs to be shut down and built anew. He made the comments from his Capitol Hill office in Nashville on Dec. 15, 2011. For more, go to

TN Democrat Caucus Chair Says his Party is Onboard with COJ Changes

Tennessee House of Representative's Democratic Caucus Chairman Mike Turner says his party is on board with calling for reforms from the Court of the Judiciary which polices judges, but says Republicans will shut the court down if it doesn't act soon to show it's serious about disciplining judges.

Could Change be Happening...... The New Recusal Guidelines are Good: What is Needed NOW is More Independence in COJ Committee.

“.....Tennessee, overnight, has one of the best policies in the nation,” said Charles Hall of Justice at Stake, a Washington-based campaign to reduce the influence of money and politics in state and federal courts...."  from Tennessean article link below

New ethics code for TN judges draws praise, concerns The Tennessean  Jan. 12, 2012 Brandon Gee

....The new code, which takes effect in July, provides more specific guidance on when a judge should step down from a case, including when a judge has received a level of campaign support from a litigant that would cause a reasonable person to question whether the judge can be fair. Judges also will be required to step down from a case if they have previously presided over a judicial settlement conference or mediation in the same matter.

Monday, January 9, 2012

Donald Paine Shares His Favorite Judicial Impeachment

History is important: Donald Paine provides it.  
Another "share" from a viewer: 
About the writer:  Donald F. Paine graduated from The University of Tennessee in 1963 (B.A.,M.A.,LL.B.). Thereafter he served three years in the Army. He was the original author of Tennessee Law of Evidence, and he writes a monthly column for the Tennessee Bar Journal. Mr. Paine lectures for the Tennessee Law Institute, BAR/BRI Bar Review, The Tennessee Judicial Conference, and The University of Tennessee College of Law. He is Reporter to the Supreme Court Advisory Commission on Rules of Practice and Procedure. In 1983 he was President of the Knoxville Bar Association and in 1986-87 President of the Tennessee Bar Association. Mr. Paine was elected to membership in the American Law Institute and the American College of Trial Lawyers.


Impeachment of Judges in Tennessee

By Donald F. Paine

The first judge impeached (twice) but not convicted was David Campbell. He served on the Superior Court, predecessor of our Supreme Court. He had been chief justice of the State of Franklin.

Judge Campbell got crosswise with John Sevier and William Blount, his former friends and allies, concerning a ruling in a damage suit brought by Blount. In 1798 he was impeached by the House. Blount presided as Senate Speaker — at a time when he was under indictment in Congress. Campbell was acquitted. He was impeached and tried and acquitted again in 1803 on a bribery charge.

The first magistrate convicted and removed from office was Judge William Cocke. He was close to Governor Sevier and Judge Campbell. Cocke presided over the First Circuit.

A federal marshal threw him in jail for failing to ante up on a guaranty. One of his impeachable sins was not showing up to preside as judge. Obviously he couldn’t, and the Senate cut him some slack on that article. But they ousted him in 1812 anyway for blatant partiality to a litigant.

My favorite judicial impeachment is that of Nathaniel Williams, the “sleeper,” in 1829. One article alleged that “while an attorney was arguing before him, Judge Williams carelessly, negligently, and unlawfully slept for an hour, and upon waking from his sleep, inquired what suit it was — and being told by said attorney, said he was related to some of the parties and could not sit in that cause.”

This article was dropped, but there were others. On two the vote was 12 to 5 for conviction. Twenty senators were members, but only 17 were present. Must the two-thirds constitutional majority take into account all elected senators, or only those voting? The Senate went with the former proposition,
1 so Judge Williams escaped removal by one vote.

The last impeachment trial in Tennessee was held in 1958. Judge Raulston Schoolfield sat as a criminal court judge in Hamilton County for 10 years. He was impeached on 24 articles and convicted on three: accepting a Pontiac as a bribe, unseemly political activities, and injudicious conduct in and out of the courtroom.

Although stripped of his judgeship, Schoolfield was not disqualified by the senate from holding office in the future. A disbarment proceeding took his law license, but in olden days a general sessions judge didn’t need licensure. Consequently, Schoolfield could be — and was — elected sessions judge in Chattanooga.

Impeachment of judges is a thing of the past in Tennessee. Nowadays the legislature uses Article VII, Section 6, permitting removal for cause by a two-thirds vote in each house. That’s how we got rid of Judge David Lanier.


1. The decision is odd in light of Article V, Section 2: “No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the senators sworn to try the officer impeached.” The U.S. Constitution at Article I, Section 3, refers to two-thirds of the “members present.”

Tea Party Supporter Says Issues of Constitutional Rights & the Judiciary Unite Americans

This was sent by a viewer & originally posted in the Alabama Policy Institute.  If you have an article to share email

Unconstitutional Appointments Violate Oath of Office
by Gary Palmer | January 6, 2012

The primary focus of the 2012 election has been the economy, but there is another major issue that should be on voters' minds in November ... the blatant disrespect and disregard of the Constitution.

With President Barack Obama's appointment of Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the President brushed aside the Constitution's requirement for all presidential appointees to be approved by the United States Senate. In addition to appointing Cordray, Obama also bypassed the Senate by appointing three new members to the National Labor Relations Board.

The Obama Administration attempts to justify these appointments by claiming that the Constitution provides for a president to make appointments while Congress is in recess. It should be noted that
Congress is not in recess because the Republicans specifically wanted to block these and other Obama appointments. It should also be noted that the Democrats used the same tactics to block President George W. Bush's appointees.

According to Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution, Congress cannot be in recess for more than three days without the consent of both chambers. Neither chamber passed an adjournment resolution, therefore, Congress is not in recess and in fact, continues to hold pro-forma session.

Despite this fact, the Obama Administration has argued that Congress is not doing any work and is therefore not in session. Because the Constitution requires that both the House and the Senate pass adjournment resolutions, it doesn't matter whether or not Congress is actually doing business or even if a majority of members are present. According to the Constitution, they are still in session.

During the Bush Administration, Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid kept the Senate in pro-forma session to prevent Bush from making any recess appointments. As a member of the Senate, Obama supported this tactic. And even though President Bush was urged to ignore the pro-forma sessions and make recess appointments anyway, he refused to do so.

In an effort to justify Obama's appointments, some argue that Bush did the same thing when he appointed former Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor to the 11th Circuit Court during an "intrasession" recess. That argument was whether or not the President could make appointments during an "intrasession" recess instead of an "intersession" recess and doesn't apply here because Congress is not in recess.

On January 5th, The Wall Street Journal editors wrote, "These appointments are brazen enough that they have the smell of a deliberate, and politically motivated, provocation." The Obama campaign has made it clear that running against Congress will be central to their re-election strategy. However, by running rough shod over the Senate's advise and consent authority for presidential appointees, the Obama Administration has made the Constitution a major election issue.

Restoring constitutional government is a mainstay of the Tea Party Movement agenda. It was a major element in the 2010 elections that resulted in the Democrats losing control of the House of Representatives and almost losing the majority in the Senate. Voters in that election were outraged by the perceived abuses of the Constitution in everything from environmental policy to the passage of Obamacare.

Considering that a November 2011 Rasmussen survey reported that 69 percent of Americans believe that the federal government no longer has the consent of the governed, brushing aside the Constitution and making these appointments only reinforces that perception. It is the political equivalent of throwing more fuel on a political fire that burns hot, not only with Tea Party members, but also with millions of others who are concerned that the Constitution is being violated.

In the meantime, it remains to be seen whether or not the Republicans in Congress will stand and fight for the Constitution. After all, they did take an oath to uphold and defend it.

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