BREAKING NEWS/EXCLUSIVE: Blankenship files lawsuit in federal court against City of Crossville, Jesse Kerley and Ivy Gardner

A second lawsuit has now been filed against the City of Crossville in federal court. This lawsuit filed by J. R. Blankenship for the violation of his first amendment rights also names former city councilman Jesse Kerley and Ivy Gardner as individuals.

The suit stems from the charges of distributing unsigned fliers that resulted in a citation to Crossville city court alleging a violation of a city ordinance that led to a $1500 fine levied against Blankenship by city judge Ivy Gardner. The suit points out that such a charge was determined to be a violation of the first amendment in a case decided before the US Supreme Court in 1960. Crossville's ordinance was approved sometime after the 1960 decision.

J. R. Blankenship expressing his opinions in mid 2016

The flier that lead to Blankenship's charges

Jesse Kerley

Ivy Gardner

The 18 page complaint begins by outlining a series of events that lead to the filing of the suit. The story begins with an incident that took place January 2015 at a convenience store involving a dog tied up outside the store and in distress according to Blankenship. Blankenship discussed the dog's situation with the store clerk who, it turned out, owned the dog. The clerk took offense at Blankenship's observation and the ensuing argument lead to a 911 call to police by Blankenship. According to the suit, “the police officer rudely accosted Mr. Blankenship as being the aggressor.”

Blankenship wrote a letter of complaint about the incident to each member of the council in March of 2015 and attended council meetings but his complaint was never addressed. Blankenship addressed his complaint at a March 2016 council meeting and was again ignored according to the complaint. The lawsuit states, “Frustrated that the council ignored his complaint, Mr. Blankenship published a flier in which he offered a $500 reward for photos of any elected or appointed Crossville official doing wrong”

The complaint alleges that then councilman Jesse Kerley sought to have Mr. Blankenship cited under the unconstitutional ordinance and claims that then police chief Rodney Shoap was ordered to do so. The complaint cites Shoap's federal lawsuit that says “on multiple occasions, Kerley demanded that (Shoap), without sufficient evidence or probable cause arrest James Blankenship.” Following an investigation into the flier, Blankenship was cited to city court under the unsigned flier ordinance.

An initial court date on the citation was set for May 10, 2016 was continued to June 28 at Blankenship's request and on June 2 while the case was pending before city judge Ivy Gardner, Gardner appeared in General Sessions Court as an individual seeking a restraining order against Blankenship for “a pattern of conduct to harass and unnecessarily alarm” Gardner. The suit sates that at the time Blankenship did believe he had ever seen or met Gardner and that he believes Gardner's complaint against him was made at the suggestion of Mr. Kerley.

The suit states that the action of Gardner was to retaliate against Blankenship for expressing his free speech and free press rights and to intimidate him. The action is also described in the suit as a “conspiracy with defendant Kerley.” The suit also states that Blankenship believes that Kerley spoke to Gardner between March 24 and June 28 concerning a significant fine for Blankenship.

The suit states that Gardner is not being sued for any of her actions as city judge but only for actions she took as an individual outside of her courtroom.

Blankenship appealed the fine as excessive and that the city's ordinance was unconstitutional that violated his right to free speech. The fine and conviction were dismissed with prejudice by the Circuit Court on November 17, 2016. It should also be noted that since this action took place the city has takne action to remove the unconstitutional ordinance from its books.

Blankenship also appealed the restraining order given to Gardner and filed interrogatories and requests to produce documents to provide information to support her claims of his harassment. Those discovery requests were never answered. Two weeks before a hearing on the appeal was scheduled, Ms. Gardner filed a motion and order of non-suit withdrawing her complaint against Blankenship.

The suit reads, “The issuance of the citation, persecution and conviction of Mr. Blankenship for an unconstitutional and unenforceable Crossville city ordinance caused Mr. Blankenship embarrassment, anxiety, time and money. Defendant Crossville is therefore liable to Mr. Blankenship for the violation of his civil rights under color of law.”

“The first amendment right to criticize public officials is well established and supported by case law and it is also well established that a public official's retaliation against an individual exercising his or her first amendment rights is a violation,” says the lawsuit.

Blankenship's suit is requesting a “declaratory and injunctive relief to declare the earlier actions illegal and enjoin defendants and their agents from otherwise retaliating against him for exercising his first amendment rights either by arresting him or threatening to arrest him and specifically so that he may publish fliers and circular them in Crossville, even if critical of public officials.”

Damages listed in the suit include legal and court costs, embarrassment, mental anguish and anxiety, fear of future reprisal, being deprived of his right to exercise First Amendment freedoms of speech and press and attorney and litigation costs of these proceedings. The suit asks that a jury award damages to compensate his harm in a reasonable amount.

The suit asks for punitive damages against Mr. Kerley “because his actions were malicious and done with intent to intimidate and harm Mr. Blankenship.”

The law suit is filed on behalf of Mr. Blankenship by attorneys Edmund J. Schmidt III and Joseph H. Johnston, both of Nashville.

June Interview with J. R. Blankenship  

City of Crossville has "No Comment" on employee charged with theft of signs and the connection to the Crossville airport.

A request for an official statement by the city of Crossville on city employee Jerry Kerley being summonsed to court on theft charges in connection with missing political signs from a house on Mockingbird Drive, part of which was caught on video, the connection to the Crossville airport shown by city security cameras there and the confirmation by the district attorney that the signs were recovered on the airport property was "no comment."

An email was sent to the city's marketing and PR director Bill Loggins over the weekend and with no response by the end of the day Monday, we stopped by city hall Tuesday and spoke with interim city manager Steve Hill.  Hill explained that the email had been forwarded to him by Loggins and he had forwarded it to Crossville city attorney Will Ridley who, according to Hill, advised that the city should not make a comment.





Crossville water resources director Jerry Kerley and Crossville airport employee William Harwell will face theft charges in general session court on Thursday November 10.  According to the clerks office both men are represented by attorney Jimmy Smith.

Neighbor's cell phone video image

The alleged theft took place on the morning of September 30 and a neighbor captured video of two men leaving the Mockingbird Drive property after removing a number of political charged signs critical of Crossville city councilman Jesse Kerley who is the son of suspect Jerry Kerley.

First story on sign theft with exclusive video captured by neighbor.

Charges filed against Kerley and Harwell in sign theft

A freedom of information request was filed requesting security camera videos from the Crossville airport for the morning of the incident and they revealed the truck owned by Jerry Kerley and the suspects Kerley and Harwell met at the airport, left there just prior to the alleged theft then returned to the airport.

Crossville airport security camera image

Jesse Kerley has previously stated at several council meeting that he and airport manager and fixed base operator Chris Bennett are friends.

Airport security videos raise questions about sign theft incident.

One Man's Trash--My take on the critical importance of Freedom of the Press to the political process

Editor's note: "One Man's Trash" is the name I used for the columns I wrote from time to time in the Chronicle.  The second line of the quote is "is another man's treasure."  I always let the readers decide which it was for them.  I'll pull one out and dust it off from time to time here on the blog.  After hearing presidential candidate Donald Trump tear into the news media, I thought this was a good time to revisit this piece.  This is Trump, the guy who was thrilled with all the headlines and publicity until reporters and the media started to look under the hair he coifs so carefully and find problems with his statements and his organization.  Read on for a word about why the media is called "The Fourth Estate" and why you can not separate media from politics.  This is technically an editorial.  Read on if you want.

(Every so often I read about people who think that there is too much freedom of the press. One of those surveys led to this column. As a reporter, my right to look at public records or attend public meetings is no more or no less then any US citizen reading this! I find it difficult to understand those who feel freedom of the press should be curtailed in any way.)

I've been a reporter covering local news here in Cumberland County since July 1985, first on radio, a time with Lyle Lipke's Citizen Press Box, 20 years writing for the Crossville Chronicle and now on the this blog and Facebook. I enjoy the work that I do and I enjoy sharing what I've learned with the public. I've reported both good and bad news over the years and I try to be as objective as I can when reporting no matter what my personal feelings may be about a subject.

While objectivity is usually the goal for most reporters, it is impossible to be absolutely and totally objective because when you approach any subject, you do so based on all the past experiences you've had, all the way back to childhood.

As I mentioned in a previous column, I ran for city council once, back in the early 1980's before I did any local reporting. While I received a credible number of votes, out-polling all the incumbents, I didn't get elected (Whew--that WAS close!). For many years after that, people came to me and encouraged me to put my name back on the ballot for city council. I always turned them down, even though I did think about it for, maybe a second or two.

It always came back to the fact that if I served on the council I couldn't report even slightly objectively on the council's actions. I also thought then as I do now, that I have as much or maybe more influence on the local political process as a reporter then as a councilman with only one out of five votes.

Which finally brings me to the topic of my column. Every so often you will hear people refer to the media as the "Fourth Estate." This phrase originally came from England way back in the mid 1700's when the power of the press first started to be felt by those who held political power.

Around this time, the first newspapers had begun to flourish and people became informed about things that were happening in the halls of power. Those who held the power began to recognize the power of the press, which is really the power of the people. Nothing changes just because a reporter writes it. The changes come because citizens demand them.

Early on, the government officials tried to slow down the growing influence of press. For a time it was illegal to write down any notes while attending a session of the British Parliament. Reporters had to have good memories to report details of the debates of the day. Some reporters could recall entire portions of the debate and write it down after leaving the visitors' gallery.

The English government of the time was made up of the Three estates that held the political power. The First Estate was the Lords Spiritual or the Clergy, a political force to be reckoned with in those days for their power over their flock and influence with those in power. The Lords Temporal was the Second Estate, made up of the landed gentry, Lords and Earls, whose titles handed down from the father to eldest son. The first two Estates made up the House of Lords, the upper body of Parliament. The House of Commons was the Third Estate, made up of members who were elected to office by those who were allowed to vote.

The term Fourth Estate generally is attributed to Edmund Burke, a British politician of the middle and late 1700's. He was quoted in an 1841 book written by Thomas Carlyle called "Heroes and Hero Worship in History."

In his book, Carlyle wrote, "Burke said that there were three Estates in Parliament, but in the reporter's gallery yonder, there sat a fourth Estate more important far than they all."

Something else was going on about this same time in history. A small colony of England was beginning to govern its self and breaking away from one of the most powerful countries in the world at that time. It seems that the Forefathers of the United States of America had seen how those in power in England manipulated information about the political process and apparently felt that it was wrong.

I come to that conclusion because one of the first rights ratified in the Bill of Rights concerns the freedom of the press. That freedom is there to make sure that every citizen who wants to know what is going on in the halls of power can know. Freedom of the press is really one of the most important freedoms granted to individual citizens by the Constitution, the freedom to be informed about what your government is doing. Such an important freedom needs to be protected and respected by everyone who benefits from it.

Souza says ACLU Complaint filed over public comments at May 12 Council meeting--Council shuts down free speech disucssion

Normally minutes of the Crossville city council meetings are handled in the consent agenda without discussion or controversy. That was not the case during the June regular meeting.

Council member Pete Souza requested that the minutes be pulled from the consent agenda and acted upon separately. Minutes for May 17 and 23 meeting were approved with no discussion and councilman Jesse Kerley moved to approve the minuets of the regular May meeting held on May 12.

Souza addressed the minutes saying the city attorney Will Ridley had looked into the matter of paraphrasing the actions at the meeting in the minutes. Souza added that there was nothing wrong with that practice. “However,” Souza continued, “there are some omissions in exactly what was said.”

Souza said a constituent came to him and showed a complaint that was turned over to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on an alleged violation of First Amendment rights and that was the reason for his pulling the matter aside to discuss.

“What comes of that (complaint), I don't know,” said Souza. “I'm not involved with it. So basically, at this point I want to make a comment that the contents of May 12 are not inclusive of everything that was said at that meeting.”

A roll call vote on approving the minutes passed unanimously with council member Pamala Harris absent.

Near the end of the agenda, Mr. Souza had requested an item to discuss what was captioned as “Discussion and possible action on failure to comply with the standard rules and Robert's Rules of Order during the May 12, 2016 regular scheduled meeting, and violation of first amendment rights.”

The main thrust of the first amendment complaint is that council members interrupted a public comment by Jeff Dahlberg at the end of the May 12 meeting during his three minutes telling him that he could not make public attacks against any council members during his time to speak. Dahlberg was speaking on behalf of the Crossville Recall and Crossville Citizens for Good Government website.

Souza started out on the item saying he was requesting three minutes to address the issues involved and after comments from Mr. Kerley about what procedure should be followed, Souza moved that he be allowed the time he requested and the matter was supported by Mayor Mayberry. Kerley stressed that any discussion should be on the motion only and not Mr. Souza's comments. A vote on the motion to allow Souza to speak was quickly voted down in another tie vote with Souza and Mayberry in favor, Wyatt and Kerley opposed.