Chief District Court Judge Travis McDonough recently entered an order1 requiring the drafting and submission of letters, with specific deadlines, content instructions, and other detailed requirements set forth in the order.2 Those requirements were all unconstitutional.
The attorney ordered to submit those letters filed a motion for correction/amendment, pointing out the problems with the Court’s order. However, instead of acknowledging his mistake and amending his order, Judge McDonough instead chose to deny the motion to correct his order. McDonough instead enter another order asserting that court orders from his Court using the term “Ordered to” and including specific deadlines and instructions, really mean “an opportunity” that is optional. His denial of the motion to correct his order left the unconstitutional mandates in place.
McDonough’s assertion represents a shocking new legal precedent in the Eastern District of TN. The undeniable fact is that Court’s have universally used the term “ordered to” to indicate mandatory instructions. This was again pointed out to the Court in yet another motion to correct and Judge McDonough the second time refused to acknowledge the filing of the second motion, stating that no relief from the unconstitutional order would be granted.
So, can any individual who is subject to a court order from the Eastern District of Tennessee that uses the term “ordered to,” now cite this precedent from the Court to assert that they decline to accept the Court’s “opportunity”?
Here is the citation to McDonough’s order: TNED Case#1:24-dm-007, R.121, Or. Denying Mtn. to Amd. at PageID#3184; referring to R.114 at PageID#3168-9, and R.118.
- This order was in a disciplinary action where McDonough was simultaneously the accuser, fact witness, director of prosecution, ultimate fact-finder and presiding judge. The fundamentally unconstitutional proceeding and order is currently under appeal in the 6th circuit. ↩︎
- This order was especially egregious because the listed persons who were to be sent apology letters either committed sanctionable behavior during the cases, committed perjury on the stand or were otherwise part of the conspiracy to harass citizens in retaliation for free speech (see The high cost of free speech in east TN). McDonough either ignored all of this during both “Trew” and “Athens” or refused to let evidence reach a jury. ↩︎
Comments are closed