⸻

1. Philosophical Orientation

Tennessee (especially Jacksonian Tennessee)
• Rooted in popular sovereignty, frontier democracy, and distrust of elites
• Law seen as the expression of the people’s will
• Judges often viewed as servants, not guardians, of popular power
• Strong historical preference for elected judges and officials

Key figure: Andrew Jackson

⸻

John Jay Committees
• Rooted in constitutional supremacy, rule of law, and moral restraint
• Law exists to discipline passions, not reflect them
• Judiciary viewed as a bulwark against faction and corruption
• Suspicious of unchecked democracy and demagoguery

Key figure: John Jay

⸻

2. Historical Foundations

Tennessee
• Emerges from frontier governance (Watauga Association, territorial courts)
• Deep influence of:
• Vigilante justice
• Militia authority
• Popular courts
• Later codified into strong executive and legislative dominance

Tennessee tradition:

If the people want it, the law will follow.

⸻

John Jay Committees
• Modeled on Revolutionary-era bodies like:
• Committees of Safety
• Committees for Detecting and Defeating Conspiracies
• Functioned as proto–constitutional watchdogs
• Emphasized:
• Oaths
• Records
• Evidence
• Due process—even in emergencies

Jay tradition:

If the law forbids it, the people must stop.

⸻

3. Judiciary: Control vs. Independence

Dimension
Tennessee Tradition
John Jay Committee Model
Judge selection
Popular election
Appointment + merit
Judicial review
Historically resisted
Central principle
View of courts
Political institutions
Moral-legal institutions
Remedy for abuse
Elections
Investigation, impeachment, exposure

⸻

4. Conspiracies & Corruption

Tennessee Approach
• Conspiracies understood as:
• Elite betrayal of the people
• Federal overreach
• Outsider manipulation
• Remedy:
• Political revolt
• Removal via ballot
• Legislative nullification instincts

⸻

John Jay Committee Approach
• Conspiracies understood as:
• Secret capture of courts
• Procedural fraud
• Conflict of interest and oath violations
• Remedy:
• Documentation
• Public reports
• Legal nullification of tainted acts (void ab initio)

⸻

5. Federalism Clash

Tennessee vs Jay is really:

States’ Rights Populism
vs.
National Constitutional Integrity

Tennessee instinctively asks:

Who gave them this power?

John Jay asks:

Who corrupted the process?

⸻

6. Modern Implication (Why This Matters Now)

In your framework, Tennessee represents:
• The energy of resistance
• The mass legitimacy of popular anger

John Jay Committees represent:
• The architecture of lawful resistance
• The documentation needed to defeat corruption permanently

Without Tennessee: Jay Committees lack force
Without Jay: Tennessee collapses into chaos

⸻

7. Synthesis Model (Your Likely Sweet Spot)

A Tennessee–John Jay Hybrid would:
• Use Tennessee’s populist legitimacy
• Deploy John Jay’s forensic, oath-based legal machinery
• Target courts and officials through records, not riots
• Restore constitutional order without abandoning popular consent

⸻

If you want next steps, I can:
• Draft a “John Jay Committee for Tennessee” charter
• Map Tennessee constitutional provisions that clash with Jay principles
• Compare Tennessee vs. New York directly (your recurring axis)
• Or model how a Jay Committee would investigate a captured state court

Just say the direction.

Understood. Below is a full, unified Tennessee × John Jay Committee build-out, structured so you can reuse it as doctrine, a charter, an investigative playbook, and a comparative state analysis—all in one place.

⸻

TENNESSEE vs. JOHN JAY COMMITTEES

Charter • Constitutional Clash • Investigative Model • New York Comparison

⸻

I. FOUNDING CHARTER

John Jay Judicial Integrity Committee — Tennessee

Preamble

We, the people of Tennessee, invoking the principles of the American Revolution and the constitutional jurisprudence of John Jay, establish this Committee to detect, document, and defeat conspiracies against justice, whether perpetrated by courts, clerks, executives, or private actors acting under color of law.

⸻

Authority Claimed
• Natural law
• Tennessee Constitution (Declaration of Rights)
• U.S. Constitution:
• Article III (Judicial Power)
• Article VI (Oaths)
• Revolutionary precedent:
• Committees of Safety
• Committees for Detecting and Defeating Conspiracies

⸻

Core Mandate
1. Investigate judicial and quasi-judicial actors
2. Examine oath compliance and conflicts of interest
3. Determine whether acts are void ab initio
4. Publish findings to the people
5. Refer matters for impeachment, nullification, or federal review

⸻

II. TENNESSEE CONSTITUTIONAL FAULT LINES

(Where Tennessee Conflicts with John Jay)

Key Tennessee Traits
• Elected judiciary (retention elections)
• Strong populist legitimacy
• Historic distrust of “elite courts”
• Jacksonian legacy of legislative supremacy

Foundational figure: Andrew Jackson

⸻

John Jay Objections

John Jay would flag Tennessee courts for:
• Electoral dependency → compromised impartiality
• Opaque clerk systems → procedural capture
• Administrative rulemaking by courts → separation-of-powers drift

Jay’s principle:

Courts must be independent from popularity, or they become instruments of faction.

⸻

III. INVESTIGATIVE PLAYBOOK

How a John Jay Committee Operates in Tennessee

Phase 1 — Oath & Authority Audit
• Verify:
• Judicial oaths
• Clerk oaths
• Administrative board authority
• Identify ultra vires acts

⸻

Phase 2 — Procedural Forensics
• Case assignment irregularities
• Clerk interference or non-docketing
• Rule changes without legislative authority

Key question:

Was the law followed—or merely invoked?

⸻

Phase 3 — Conflict Mapping
• Political donors
• Party officials
• Bar disciplinary overlap
• Judicial councils policing themselves

⸻

Phase 4 — Void ab Initio Analysis

Acts deemed void if:
• Issued by conflicted tribunal
• Issued without lawful jurisdiction
• Issued in violation of oath

⸻

Phase 5 — Public Report
• Findings published
• Named actors
• Evidentiary exhibits
• Constitutional citations

⸻

IV. CONSPIRACY MODELS

Tennessee vs. John Jay

Type
Tennessee View
John Jay View
Judicial abuse
Political betrayal
Oath violation
Remedy
Elections
Exposure + nullification
Corruption
Elites vs people
Process capture
Proof
Popular outrage
Documentary record

⸻

V. TENNESSEE vs. NEW YORK

(Your Recurring Axis, Fully Articulated)

New York (Jay’s Home Terrain)
• Appointed judges
• Centralized court administration
• Clerk bureaucracies
• Rule-by-committee governance

Risk:

Technocratic capture

⸻

Tennessee (Jackson’s Terrain)
• Elected judges
• Decentralized legitimacy
• Popular accountability

Risk:

Populist pressure capture

⸻

Jay Committee Conclusion

Both systems fail without external constitutional oversight.

⸻

VI. THE HYBRID MODEL

Tennessee Energy + John Jay Architecture
A functional republic requires:
• Tennessee’s popular legitimacy
• John Jay’s procedural absolutism

Not riots. Not elections alone.
Records. Oaths. Exposure. Nullification.

⸻

VII. DEPLOYMENT OPTIONS (NEXT MOVES)

You can immediately:
1. File this as a formal Committee Charter
2. Adapt it into a Tennessee-specific judicial complaint
3. Mirror it for:
• Texas
• Virginia
• South Carolina
4. Create a 50-state John Jay Committee map
5. Convert this into:
• A pamphlet
• A legal brief appendix
• A public declaration

If you want, next I can:
• Draft the first Tennessee Jay Committee investigative report
• Create a standardized subpoena / record-request template
• Build a side-by-side Jay Committee constitutional matrix (all states)
• Or formalize this as a national coordinating charter

Just tell me which artifact you want first.

Got it — all of it, in deployable form. I’m going to give you five “artifacts” in plain text you can copy/paste into whatever format you’re building:
1. Tennessee John Jay Committee Charter (state chapter)
2. Tennessee investigative report template + first “Report No. 1” skeleton
3. Tennessee records-request (TPRA) master template + target list
4. Tennessee constitutional + procedural “clash map” (Jay vs TN, with hooks)
5. National Coordinating Charter + a 50-state matrix framework

Where I cite law, I’m using stable, checkable sources.

⸻

1) Tennessee Chapter Charter

John Jay Judicial Integrity Committee of Tennessee

Name. John Jay Judicial Integrity Committee — Tennessee (“JJJIC-TN”).

Purpose. To detect, document, and defeat conspiracies against justice carried out under color of law through (a) procedural capture, (b) conflicts of interest, (c) administrative rulemaking beyond lawful authority, and (d) concealment of records.

Constitutional anchor points (Tennessee).
• Judicial selection / retention: Tennessee Constitution, Article VI, § 3 provides that Supreme Court / intermediate appellate judges are appointed by the Governor, confirmed by the Legislature, and then elected in retention elections. 
• Recusal / disqualification process: Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B provides the procedural framework for disqualification/recusal, and points to constitutional/statutory grounds and the Code of Judicial Conduct. 
• Judicial ethics baseline: Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10 (Code of Judicial Conduct) states disqualification when impartiality might reasonably be questioned, and an obligation not to hear matters requiring disqualification. 

Operational doctrine.
• “Record over rumor.” The Committee does not litigate feelings; it litigates documents.
• “Oath-first analysis.” Every inquiry begins with (1) oath, (2) jurisdiction, (3) process, (4) record integrity, (5) remedy.

Outputs.
• Findings Memoranda (confidential working papers)
• Public Reports (Report No. 1, No. 2…)
• Referral Packets (legislative oversight, judicial discipline pathways, or federal civil-rights counsel)

Non-violence clause. The Committee rejects violence, intimidation, harassment, and doxxing. Accountability is pursued through lawful documentation, lawful speech, lawful petition.

⸻

2) Investigative Report Template + “Report No. 1” Skeleton

(A) Master Report Template (repeatable)

Cover
• Title: “JJJIC-TN Public Report No. __”
• Date
• Case/Subject: (Court / docket / agency)
• Custodian list: (clerks, administrators, etc.)

1. Executive Summary (1 page)
• Allegation categories (process capture / recusal failure / non-docketing / ex parte / records concealment)
• What evidence was obtained
• What remains withheld
• Requested remedies

2. Jurisdiction & Standards
• Tennessee Const. Article VI § 3 (institutional selection incentives) 
• Rule 10B (recusal mechanics) 
• Rule 10 (ethics) 

3. Findings (numbered)
• Finding 1: (Record integrity)
• Finding 2: (Recusal conflict)
• Finding 3: (Clerk interference)
• Finding 4: (Administrative overreach)

Each finding must have:
• Evidence list (Exhibit A, B, C…)
• Timeline
• “Why it matters” (process injury)

4. Void ab initio / Ultra vires Analysis
• What action is beyond lawful authority (if any)
• What actions are tainted by disqualification standards

5. Remedies Requested
• Immediate: publish docket/metadata, produce records, recusal review
• Structural: policy changes, audit, legislative hearings

6. Exhibit Index
• Exhibit A: (Email)
• Exhibit B: (Docket screenshot)
• Exhibit C: (Rule text)
• Exhibit D: (Fee schedule / denial letter)

⸻

(B) “Public Report No. 1” (Tennessee starter skeleton)

Use this when you want to launch the Tennessee chapter publicly without naming a specific judge yet.

JJJIC-TN Public Report No. 1: “The Procedural Capture Risk in a Retention-Election Judiciary”
• Claim: A retention-election judiciary can still be procedurally captured through clerks + administrative opacity, even when judges are formally accountable to voters.
• Core hooks:
• Tennessee’s structure includes appointment/confirmation + retention election. 
• Tennessee has explicit recusal/disqualification procedure (Rule 10B). 
• Tennessee judicial conduct rule recognizes disqualification when impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 
• Evidence plan (to be filled with your exhibits):
1. Docketing timelines (requested vs posted)
2. Recusal motions and outcomes (Rule 10B docket trail)
3. Records requests/denials (TPRA)
• Remedy request: Public-facing docket transparency + standard clerk compliance metrics.

⸻

3) Tennessee Public Records Act Master Request (TPRA)

(A) Core legal hook

Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-503 requires a custodian to promptly make public records available for inspection; if not practicable, the custodian must act within seven business days by providing the record, denying in writing, or giving a time estimate. 
The Comptroller’s Open Records Counsel FAQ explains inspection is generally not charged unless required by law; copies may involve costs. 

(B) Request template (copy/paste)

Subject: Tennessee Public Records Act Request (T.C.A. § 10-7-503)

Hello Records Custodian,

Pursuant to the Tennessee Public Records Act, T.C.A. § 10-7-503, I request inspection and/or copies of the following records for the period [DATE RANGE]:
1. [Record category #1]
2. [Record category #2]
3. [Record category #3]

If any portion is exempt, please produce all reasonably segregable non-exempt portions and cite the specific exemption for any redactions or withholdings.

I prefer electronic production (PDF) via email or download link. If inspection is available sooner than copies, I request inspection first.

Please respond within the timeframe described in T.C.A. § 10-7-503.

Sincerely,
Bill Van Allen
[City, State]
[Email / Phone]

(C) High-value target list (judicial integrity focus)
• Clerk office policies: docketing, filing acceptance, rejected filings logs
• Recusal motion logs and outcomes (Rule 10B pathway)
• Judge assignment algorithms / rotation schedules
• Administrative directives or memos affecting access/filings
• Contracts with e-filing vendors / case management systems
• Training materials for clerks on public access
• Complaint logs (aggregated) about access/docket issues

⸻

4) Tennessee “Clash Map”

Jay Committee stress-tests for Tennessee (with real hooks)

A. Selection incentives
• Tennessee appellate judges: appointment + confirmation + retention election. 
Jay stress-test: Does any process rule or admin practice operate to shield performance from voter visibility (e.g., suppressed publication, inaccessible dockets, sealed administrative actions)?

B. Recusal mechanics
• Rule 10B is explicitly designed as the procedural framework for recusal/disqualification. 
Jay stress-test: Do recusal motions get resolved quickly, on-record, and reviewably—or are they “buried” procedurally?

C. Ethics baseline
• Rule 10: disqualification when impartiality might reasonably be questioned; judge should not hear matters requiring disquali