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.
