This was filed with the Court as part of the per-sentencing report. The investigator instructed me to be honest. I guess she forgot that we were dealing with the 'justice' in rural Tennessee.
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT CONCERNING THE OFFENSE:
(Give your version of the offense and your reasons for being involved.)
Imagine, if you can, that you are a pawn in the middle of a checker game.
On behalf of Ms Tidwell, a private citizen, the Hardeman County Sheriff's Department choose sides and stuck their nose in Central Bank's foreclosure and eviction business because the victim is a "Friend of the Sheriff’s Department.
The Hardeman County Sheriff's Chief Investigator, Deputy Joy, knowingly filed a false affidavit with unfounded charges based on a verbal report filed with the Sheriff' by Ms. Tidwell. Motive for charges - "like I said, my biggest concern was him getting that Detainer to cover her' and 'if she had got her property back we wouldn't even be here," (Chief Joy)
Cook was bound over to the Hardeman County Grand Jury without a finding of Probable Cause on the basic elements of the criminal charges. Even the fact of if a crime had been committed would have to be determined by the Circuit Court Judge relating to a detainer warrant. The Judge did find that "there are some questions of fact, which are matters that are going to have to be determined by a jury" and "it will be a question of law for the Circuit Judge to determine whether or not the unlawful detainer warrant was required in this case."
It has been confirmed, verified and documented by reliable sources that no criminal intent ever existed and no criminal act ever took place. The criminal charges are unfounded and most everyone, including the ADA, Chairman of the Board, Lee Lackey, and the President/CEO, Robert Atkisson, of Central Bank, has known or should have known it since the arrest and put in jail thing took place and before.
It is universally recognized that - - "the good faith and office of a Judge . . . cannot be called in question but his knowledge of the law, or facts of the case, may be."
For me to infer malice on the part of the Judges in their handling of my cases would be childish and would unduly elevate the importance to the world of my cases, but it is of awesome importance to me. Of such importance is it that I have undertaken the unspeakable - - - to go as a layman to the law books, - - to somehow ease the nagging gut feeling that something, beside my layman's naivete', is wrong in the handling of my case . . . All the way from Chief Investigator Joy's false affidavit to the preliminary hearing, the Grand Jury indictment and subsequent "trial." Something in the nature of such a injustice, as to constitute no justice at all, which just may be of interest to the world.
The legal fraternity of judges, prosecutors and lawyers advised defendants and the public that laymen dote on technicality, whereas Courts and lawyers deal with form and substance. If true, the public needs educating by the legal profession. From Biblical time, through Shakespeare to date, the average mind considers "the letter of the law" and the legendary "loop-hole" the provinces of lawyers and courts. Is there a double standard? Is technicality in the hands of the laity a laugh - - but in the hands of lawyers a delight? If I am technical in my approach, I march to the drum fashioned by the legal profession and after all, I did not write the technology.
To apologize for the form of presentations, would be to apologize for being a layman, which warrants no apology. I do, however, regret inconvenience to any reader, who is accustomed to reading in specialized legal format. This case is a classic examples of what happens when those responsible for the administration of the criminal justice system, for whatever reason, abuse and/or ignore the checks and balances built into our criminal justice system to protect the citizens and their rights from the abuse of police powers without first establishing real probable cause for use of the state's powers of arrest and prosecution.
The nexus of these charges relate to a foreclosure and eviction by property owner/landlord, or in this case Central Bank in Hardin County, Tennessee and their acknowledged representative, dealing with the personal property, aka. ‘tenant trash' or ‘abandoned property,' that remained on the real property after the tenant, in this case a "Grifter," had voluntarily surrendered the foreclosed property.
My nature is to fight back and that is why I have taken such a steady beating – I understands what the prosecutors judges are doing and refuses to let them get away with it.
Theodore G. Cook
October ____, 2013