The saga of J. R. Blankenship, where it stands now,
and how it is sparking further discord in the city council.
What started, according to J. R. Blankenship, as a way “to inform elected officials of something they should be concerned about” has turned into a dispute that stretches across multiple courts, numerous accusations and numerous signs.
This reporter had an exclusive
interview with Mr. Blankenship, has spoken to Crossville Police Chief
Rod Shoap and sat in on Crossville municipal court held June 14 where
motions from Blankenship concerning his citation and fine were heard.
The man, J. R. Blankenship, who gives
his address as 279 Mockingbird Drive first came onto the public radar
when he spoke at the end of the March 10 regular city council meeting
with a very brief statement claiming he had evidence of council
members who were “in breach of their fiduciary duty.”
He continued that
he had “polled 25 law professors” and added that he would make
the information public after he heard back from them.
J. R. Blankenship's comments at March 10 council meeting
Distributing unsigned material
The
next time Mr. Blankenship's name came up was a day or so after the
council meeting when some fliers (and no one seems to be able to
determine exactly how many) were reportedly found posted on downtown
businesses offering “a reward” of up to $500 for photos of any
city elected or appointed official doing something wrong. The flier
promised anonymity for the informant and that the evidence would be
published. The flier was signed “Sam at the Daily Bull” with a
phone number. According to Blankenship, he is known to some people
as Sam.
The "unsigned flier"
The
first reports of the fliers are believed to have come from city
councilman Jesse Kerley who reportedly said he'd had several
complaints about the fliers from downtown businesses. As the
investigation moved forward, there were more emails flying between
councilman Kerley, former city manager David Rutherford, city
attorney Will Ridley and police chief Rod Shoap.
Emails
from Mr. Kerley went to the city attorney and city manager. The city
manager was asked to forward Kerley's email to the police chief
suggesting the perpetrator should be charged with littering.
Kerley's email to Ridley asked if someone distributing fliers needed
a permit. Ridley responded that it appeared the action could be in
violation of two city ordinances and Ridley said he had informed the
police of his findings.
According
to Police Chief Rod Shoap, Mr. Blankenship was quickly developed as a
suspect and a copy of the ordinances was delivered to the house on
Mockingbird Drive. Shoap said that Blankenship called the department
and offered to turn himself in.
In
an exclusive interview between this reporter and Blankenship, he said
he had researched state and federal law before distributing the
fliers but said he had not considered local ordinances. Said
Blankenship, “I had no intention to break the law.”
Blankenship
said that emails between Shoap and Rutherford indicated to him that
Shoap felt there should not be prosecution. An email from Shoap to
Rutherford said, “the culprit has confessed-he understands what he
did was wrong and will be willing accept the cite, however, if we just
warn him I am hoping he does not make a return visit.” Blankenship
concluded that he would not have been cited except for direction by
councilman Kerley.
We
spoke with Chief Shoap and he said Blankenship's conclusion was
inaccurate. According to Shoap, a council member can not direct his
action. Chief Shoap stated that he would not allow that to happen. Shoap stressed
that Blankenship had always been respectful to him and his officers
but he said that he had received a call from a downtown business manager
about the flier. Shoap described the complainant as “put out”
telling the chief that he did not allow anyone to put fliers in his
windows. Shoap said because of that complaint, on March 24, 2016
his department issued a single citation, not 30 citations as has been
reported elsewhere.
Shoap
commented on the situation, “I do want him (Blankenship) treated
fairly.”
Shoap
told this reporter that he only saw one flier and he said four were
actually documented by his department. Shoap also said that
Blankenship himself did not know how many fliers had been
distributed. Shoap told us that he wanted to be very cautious on the
action taken as he felt he needed to consider how charges might
affect other fliers distributed for things such as fundraisers that kids might
put out.
Shoap
added that up to this point he and his officers had spent some 40
hours on the matter of the fliers, time he felt could have been
better spent protecting the public.
Blankenship
stated in our interview that he didn't know how many fliers had been
put out but he had 50 of the fliers printed and he still had a stack
of them at his house.
From
Council to Court to yard signs
Blankenship's
anger is generally directed at councilman Kerley who he feels has
pushed the prosecution of him through his position on the council and
friends that, according to Blankenship, include city judge Ivy
Gardner. Blankenship's feelings come through in the yard signs at
the Mockingbird Drive house and the signs he has brought to city
council meetings in the back of a pickup truck. In our interview he
described Kerley's actions in the flier case as “official
misconduct and oppression.” His comments mirror comments in a memo
from councilman Pete Souza to city attorney Will Ridley dated June 1,
2016 that questions the actions taken in the case against Mr.
Blankenship and Mr. Kerley's involvement.
Two page memo to city attorney Will Ridley outlining Pete Souza's concerns about Kerley's actions
It
appears that some of the animosity currently between Councilman
Kerley and Councilman Souza stem from this issue as well with Kerley
accusing Souza of assisting Blankenship with the plywood signs he put
up in his yard on Mockingbird Drive. Souza has also sent a letter to
the Tennessee Open Records office after Blankenship filed several
open records requests and received no information. Form letter
responses indicate there are “No such records exist.”
Letter from councilman Pete Souza to State Open Records office
Blankenship
faced his citation on the fliers May 10 in Crossville city court
before city judge Ivy Gardner. After hearing about the case, Gardner
found Blankenship guilty of 30 counts of “distributing unsigned
material” from a single citation and fined the maximum $50 fine on
each count totaling $1500. Blankenship also has questioned the
ordinance under which he was cited and it appears that no one except
Mr. Blankenship has ever been charged with the offense since the
ordinance has been on the city books since the 1960's.
As
this situation has further played out, city judge Ivy Gardner has
filed a request for a restraining order against Blankenship claiming
in a court filing that he “has engaged in a pattern of conduct to
harass and unnecessarily alarm” Ms. Gardner. The action was filed
for Ms. Garner by attorney Kevin Bryant.
Complaint against Blankenship (left) filed by city judge Ivy Gardner and temporary restraining order pending the next court date of July 7, 2016
Prior
to the initial hearing on the matter, a temporary restraining order
was issued by General Sessions Judge Larry Warner. At the court
appearance, a continuance was granted for Blankenship to hire an
attorney to defend him. The next court date on the mater is July 7
at 1 PM.
It
appears that the restraining order request
comes from the sign in Blankenship's yard on Mockingbird Drive that
says, “Twerley Trash=Quid Pro Quo 107 143 68” The numbers
correspond to house numbers of property owned by councilman Jesse
Kerley, his brother Joseph Kerley and a house owned by Joe B.
Gardner, Jr.
279 Mockingbird Drive with yard signs including one some perceive as a threat
When
asked about the numbers on his sign, Mr. Blankenship said it was a
joke and they were the combination to his safe. He said he was
willing to let anyone contact the man who keeps his safe. Crossville
Police Chief Rod Shoap said that a safe combination was also what
Blankenship told him the numbers represented.
Blankenship's
Latest Court Appearance
Even
though he is under a temporary restraining order, J. R. Blankenship
appeared before Crossville city judge Ivy Gardner in Crossville city
court on June 14 concerning motions he made following his guilty
finding on distributing unsigned material and fined $1500.
Blankenship filed a motion for discovery seeking documents, records
and more related to his case. In addition Blankenship is seeking
written “finding of facts” and “conclusion of law” for his
case related to Judge Gardner's decision on her refusal to recuse
herself, dismissal of Blankenship's counter claim and the fine
imposed.
Gardner
told Blankenship that her court was a municipal court and was not a
court of record meaning that civil procedures do not apply and she
was not required to provide the information he was requesting.
Stated Gardner, “If a higher court tells me to do so I will do it
gladly.” She said that she currently has no jurisdiction on the
case as it was on appeal to a higher court.
Blankenship
also asked that Gardner recuse her self from the case saying she
“bore false witness against me.”
The
city court fine has been appealed to circuit court and is scheduled
be heard by Judge Jonathan Young on August 29, 2016.
Blankenship Appeal Notice to Circuit Court
Vandalism
of Blankenship's Yard signs
Blankenship
shared an image from the infrared camera in his yard that shows a
person wearing a hoodie, shorts and tennis shoes wielding what Mr.
Blankenship says is a sledge hammer that was used to knock down the
signs that were nailed to a tree. While the face is unclear,
Blankenship would like to know who the person is that damaged his
property
Unidentified vandal in Blankenship's yard destroying signs
No comments:
Post a Comment