Harber v. City of Clinton, Tennessee federal civil rights lawsuit for wrongful arrest in public meeting

"Ideas have consequences," as my political theory professor, Jose Sorzano, taught at Georgetown,

Our Founders enacted the First Amendment to protect our rights to free speech and free thought.

The idea that a government official can silence a citizen from speaking at a government meeting is repugnant to our democracy, and the ideals for which generations of Americans fought and died, commencing in 1775.

The Mayor of Clinton, Tennessee had my law school classmate, J. Phillip Harber, arrested in retaliation for speaking at a public meeting.  He sued.  The case settled in six weeks.

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us."  West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

At the October 15, 2019 meeting of the St. Augustine Port, Waterway and Beach District Commission the seemingly "high and petty" showed their animus and their affinity for asininity:

• Port Chairman BARRY MARK BENJAMIN ordered a police officer to eject citizen Thomas F. Reynolds in retaliation for his asking for public comment on the first-ever attorney contract before District lawyer JAMES EDWIN BEDSOLE, who encumbered the position for ten (10) years without a written contract. Citizens have a right to speak in public comment before actions are taken. BENJAMIN said Mr. Reynolds could speak after it.
• Port Chairman BENJAMIN and Vice Chair THOMAS RIVERS (St. Johns County Republican State Commeitteeman) took it upon themselves to denounce First Amendment protected activity by citizens and Commissioner Sandy Flowers, with RIVERS rudely demanding I stop filing open records requests, then after the meeting concluded, telling Kenneth Crowder that Commissioner Flowers and I were "a couple of nutcases."

For those crazy coots currently encumbering the Chair and Vice Chair seats on the St. Augustine Port, Waterway and Beach District (or anyone else) who have or would like to, abuse their powers to suppress free speech rights here in God's Country: don't even think about doing it again.

The United States Supreme Court last year decided the case of Fane Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, 138 S.Ct. 1945 (2018), remanding for trial the case of an activist wrongfully arrested for speaking at a meeting.

Before Lozman, the Harber v. City of Clinton, Tennessee federal court civil rights case was swiftly settled in 2003, within six (6) weeks of being filed.

Federal court juries and insurance companies don't cotton to government officials who violate public rights to speak out in meetings.

Thanks to the teachable moment in the Phil Harber case, even East Tennessee redneck peckerwoods now know better, thanks to Harber v. City of Clinton, Tennessee did in this case.

If a federal or state court jury ever got to hear about the corruption in St. Johns County, any citizen so maltreated by our local governments would win damages and injunctive relief. It would not help tourism and it would probably raise our governments' insurance rates.

In 1775, Virginia legislator Patrick Henry said, "“Tarquin and Caesar had each his Brutus, Charles the First had his Cromwell, and George the Third …” At that point many legislators, recognizing the implications of Henry’s remarks, interrupted him with shouts of “treason!” Henry paused briefly, and then resumed: “… and George the Third may profit by their example.”

Reading the complaint in Harber v. City of Clinton, Tennessee, perhaps our St. Augustine Port, Waterway and Beach District Chairman, BARRY MARK BENJAMIN, and Vice Chairman, THOMAS RIVERS, will "profit from their example."

There's no guarantee that insurance will cover a judgment, where the Port Chairman is abusing his government position for the purpose of violating the rights of people criticizing unethical conduct.

A model of good legal draftsmanship, here's the federal civil rights complaint filed on behalf of my Memphis law school classmate, J. Phil Harber, who was very ably represented by my East Tennessee civil rights lawyers, Messrs. Herbert S. Moncier of Knoxville and David A. Stuart of Clinton in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE

JOHN PHILLIP HARBER,                                         )       Case No.   3:03-cv-259
Plaintiff,                                                                       ).      JURY DEMANDED
v.                                                                                  )
MICHAEL JONES                      )

     in his individual             )
     and in his official           )
     capacity as a police officer  )
     the City of Clinton Tennessee;)

WINFRED E. SHOOPMAN                )
     in his individual             )
     and in his official capacities)
     as Mayor for                  )
     the City of Clinton Tennessee;)

in his individual
and in his official capacities     )
as City Administrator for          )
the City of Clinton Tennessee;     )

ROBERT C. HILL,                    )
GARRY WHITLEY,                     )
PATSY A. MEREDITH                  )
JERRY H. SHATTUCK                  )
HARRY E. PATTON                    )

in their individual                )

and in their official              )
capacity as City                   )
Councilpersons for                 )
the City of Clinton Tennessee;     )

and
ANDERSON COUNTY TENNESSEE

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Comes now Plaintiff, John Philip Harber, and sue Defendants and for his cause of action against them says:

                           JURISDICTION

1. This is an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1988 for violations of Plaintiffs’ Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights guaranteed them under the United States Constitution.
2. Plaintiffs also bring pendent state claims in this action for false arrest, false imprisonment assault and battery, and state statutory violations.
3. The acts complained of occurred in Anderson County Tennessee in the Eastern District of Tennessee. This Court has jurisdiction over the statutory and constitutional claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 and over the state claims pursuant to pendent jurisdiction recognized in federal law and in Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
THE PARTIES
4. Plaintiff JOHN PHILIP HARBER is a resident of Anderson County Tennessee.
5. Defendant STEVE JONES is the City Manager for the City of Clinton Tennessee and is sued in his individual capacity and his official capacity as City Manager for the City of Clinton Tennessee.
6. Defendant MICHAEL JONES is a police officer for the City of Clinton Tennessee and is sued in his individual capacity and his official capacity as a police officer the City of Clinton Tennessee.

2

7. Defendant WINFRED E. SHOOPMAN is the Mayor for the City of Clinton Tennessee and is sued in his individual capacity and his official capacity as Mayor for the City of Clinton Tennessee.
8. Defendants ROBERT C. HILL, GARRY WHITLEY, JERRY H. SHATTUCK, PATSY MEREDITH and HARRY E. PATTON are members of the City Council for the City of Clinton Tennessee and are each sued in their individual capacities and in their official capacities as City Council members for the City of Clinton Tennessee.
9. Defendant CITY OF CLINTON TENNESSEE is an incorporated municipality organized and authorized under the laws of the State of Tennessee.
10. Defendant ANDERSON COUNTY TENNESSEE is a political subdivision of the State of Tennessee.

                         FACTUAL AVERMENTS

11. On April 21, 2003 Plaintiff appeared before Defendant, CITY OF CLINTON TENNESSEE, at a meeting of its City Council to seek redress for restrictions placed upon Plaintiff’s statutory and constitutional rights to access to public records in the City of Clinton Municipal Court.
12. Plaintiff was invited to speak to the City Council as a member of the public.
13. Plaintiff stated his grievances to the City Council regarding his disparate treatment for access to Public Records.

3

14. Plaintiff stated his grievance to the City Council that others who request public records of the City of Clinton Municipal Court are not required to follow the procedures or pay the same monies for access to public records as the City of Clinton required of Plaintiff.
15. Plaintiff stated that he would not pay the City of Clinton for researching his request for access to public records and that he would sue before he would do so.
16. Defendant SHOOPMAN and Defendant HILL interrupted Plaintiff’s grievance to City Counsel.
17. Defendant SHOOPMAN stated that if Plaintiff was going to sue “us” then “we” don’t need to go any further and listen to any of Plaintiff’s grievances.
18. Plaintiff responded by saying “thank you” and proceeded to leave.
19. Defendant HILL's wife grabbed Plaintiff by the arm as Plaintiff was leaving.
20. Plaintiff instructed Defendant HILL’S wife to take her hands off of him and protested being grabbed.

21. Plaintiff committed no violation of the law.
22. Plaintiff left the meeting.
23. Defendant SHOOPMAN instructed Defendant STEVE

JONES to contact the Chief of Clinton Police Department.
24. Defendant STEVE JONES, pursuant to the instructions of Defendant SHOOPMAN, caused a chain of events that

resulted in Plaintiff to be arrested.

4

25. Defendant STEVE JONES provided Defendant MICHAEL JONES false information that was intended to and did cause the Plaintiff’s arrest.
26. Defendant STEVE JONES instructed Defendant MICHAEL JONES to arrest Plaintiff.
27. Defendant MICHAEL JONES acting on the false information received from Defendant STEVE JONES, and as a Police Officer for the City of Clinton Tennessee, made a custodial arrest of Plaintiff for the commission of an alleged misdemeanor that was not committed in his presence.
28. Defendant SHOOPMAN stated during the City Council Meeting that actions were taken because Plaintiff came down to “threaten us with a lawsuit”.
29. Defendants STEVE JONES, HILL, WHITLEY, SHATTUCK, MEREDITH and PATTON acquiesced in actions and statements of Defendant SHOOPMAN and Defendant STEVE JONES.
30. Plaintiff was taken by Defendant MICHAEL JONES to Defendant ANDERSON COUNTY TENNESSEE and placed in the custody of the Anderson County Detention Facility without a mittimus, without a warrant, and without judicial authority.
31. Plaintiff was held in the Anderson County Detention Facility for approximately three hours.
32. On April 22, 2003, the day after Plaintiff had served three hours in jail, Defendant MICHAEL JONES appeared before a deputy court clerk and made to an application for a warrant charging Plaintiff with "Disrupting a Meeting or Procession - T.C.A. § 39-17-306" by "yelling and cursing" after

5

Plaintiff "threatened to sue the city . . .[and was] told that the discussion was over and that he needed to leave.”
33. The allegations of the affidavit of complaint were
false.
34. On April 28, 2003 the charge was dismissed against Plaintiff.
35. The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated into the following counts as if fully set forth therein:

                            COUNT ONE:
             VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988

36. Defendants, acting individually and in joint concert with each other, and under color of state law, violated the following clearly established constitutional rights guaranteed Plaintiff by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Untitled States Constitution for which Defendants are individually and jointly liable to Plaintiff pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for injunctive relief and damages.

       I.   First Amendment Denial of Redress For Grievances

37. Defendant SHOOPMAN and Defendants HILL, WHITLEY, SHATTUCK, MEREDITH and PATTON invite and permit members of the public to speak to the Mayor and City Council at its regularly scheduled meetings.
38. Plaintiff having been invited and permitted to speak to Defendant SHOOPMAN and Defendants HILL, WHITLEY,

6

SHATTUCK, MEREDITH and PATTON was thereafter denied his clearly established constitutional right under the First Amendment to petition government for redress of grievances by being instructed by Defendant SHOOPMAN that Plaintiff could not tell Defendant CITY OF CLINTON TENNESSEE that he would sue rather than pay for research of his request for access to public records and by Defendant SHOOPMAN suppressing Plaintiffs grievances under the color of the authority of Defendant SHOOPMAN as Mayor of the City of Clinton and of Defendants HILL, WHITLEY, SHATTUCK, MEREDITH and PATTON as City of Clinton Council members.

            II.  First Amendment Denial of Free Speech

39. Defendant SHOOPMAN and Defendants HILL, WHITLEY, SHATTUCK, MEREDITH and PATTON invite and permit members of the public to speak to the Mayor and City Council at its regularly scheduled meetings.
40. Plaintiff having been invited and permitted to speak to Defendant SHOOPMAN and Defendants HILL, WHITLEY, SHATTUCK, MEREDITH and PATTON was thereafter denied his clearly established constitutional right under the First Amendment to free speech by being instructed by Defendant SHOOPMAN that Plaintiff could not tell Defendant CITY OF CLINTON TENNESSEE that he would sue rather than pay for research of his request for access to public records and by Defendant SHOOPMAN suppressing Plaintiff’s speech under the color of the authority of Defendant SHOOPMAN as Mayor of the City of Clinton and of Defendants HILL, WHITLEY, SHATTUCK, MEREDITH and PATTON as City of Clinton Council members.

7

8

  III. Fourteenth Amendment Denial of Equal Protection of the Law

41. The State of Tennessee has provided to its citizens pursuant to Article I, Section 17 of the Tennessee Constitution a fundamental right to seek redress from the courts for wrongs done them.
42. Plaintiff was denied his clearly established right to Equal Protection of Tennessee's Constitution Article I, Section 17 right to redress from the Courts for wrongs done him by being instructed by Defendant SHOOPMAN that Plaintiff could not tell Defendant CITY OF CLINTON TENNESSEE that he would sue rather than pay for research of his request for access to public records.

  IV.  First Amendment Chilling Effect On the Exercise of Freedom
                of Speech and Redress of Grievances

43. Statements made by and acquiesced and agreed to by Defendants during a public meeting of the City of Clinton Council are made under color of state law and have a substantial effect on the rights and privileges of persons subject to the authority of that body including Plaintiff.
44. The statements of Defendant SHOOPMAN acquiesced and agreed to by Defendants HILL, WHITLEY, SHATTUCK, MEREDITH and PATTON that they would not permit Plaintiff to state at a public forum that Plaintiff will sue Defendant CITY OF CLINTON TENNESSEE creates a chilling effect on Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights and the rights of the public under the First Amendment of Freedom of Speech and Redress of Grievances for which injunctive relief is appropriate.

9

     V.   Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment False Arrest

45. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution creates a clearly established constitutional right to be free from arrest and seizure except upon probable cause.
46. Defendants STEVEN JONES and MICHAEL JONES arrested, seized and imprisoned Plaintiff without probable cause and thereby violated Plaintiff’s clearly established rights guaranteed him pursuant to the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

        VI.  Fourteenth Amendment Unlawful Custodial Arrest

47. T.C.A. § 40-7-118 provides persons arrested for specified misdemeanors in Tennessee a fundamental right to be cited to court in lieu of a custodial arrest.
48. By making a custodial arrest of Plaintiff, Defendants STEVEN JONES and MICHAEL JONES violated Plaintiff’s clearly established rights guaranteed him pursuant to Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to the equal protection of Tennessee Laws as provided in T.C.A. § 40-7-118 requiring the issuance of a citation in lieu of custodial arrest.

   VII. Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment Summary Punishment

49. The Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution provide persons a clearly established right not to be punished prior to being provided due process of law and a fair trial.
50. Defendants STEVEN JONES and MICHAEL JONES imposed summary punishment on Plaintiff by a custodial arrest and thereby

10

violated Plaintiff’s clearly established rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process of law prior to being denied his liberty.

 VIII.     Fourteenth Amendment Denial of Equal Protection of the
                  Law to Access to Public Records

51. T.C.A. § 10-7-503 provides all citizens of Tennessee a fundamental right of access to public records during normal business hours.
52. Defendant CITY OF CLINTON TENNESSEE imposed restrictions on Plaintiff's fundamental right to access public records of the City of Clinton Tennessee not imposed on other citizens.
53. The disparate restrictions placed on Plaintiff’s fundamental right of access to public records violated Plaintiff's clearly established constitutional right to the equal protection of the law guaranteed him by the Fourteenth Amendment.

                            COUNT TWO:
             VIOLATIONS OF THE TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION

54. Each of the acts asserted in Count One, Paragraphs I - VIII are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
55. In doing said acts Defendant MICHAEL JONES and Anderson County deputy sheriffs violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights guaranteed Plaintiff by Article I, Sections 7, 8, 13 and 16 for which wrongs Plaintiff is guaranteed a remedy at law pursuant to Article I, Section 17.
COUNT THREE:

11

FALSE ARREST
56. Defendants, acting individually and in joint concert with one another, falsely arrested Plaintiff without probable cause.

                            COUNT FOUR:
                        FALSE IMPRISONMENT

57. Defendants, acting individually and in joint concert with one another, falsely imprisoned Plaintiff without a mittimus and without probable cause.

                            COUNT FIVE:
                     UNLAWFUL CUSTODIAL ARREST

58. T.C.A. § 40-7-118 required that Defendant MICHAEL JONES issue a citation to Plaintiff in lieu of Plaintiff’s custodial arrest.
59. Defendant STEVE JONES and MICHAEL JONES, acting individually and in joint concert and in agreement with one another, unlawfully denied Plaintiff his rights under T.C.A. § 40-7-118 and unlawfully made a custodial arrest of Plaintiff; unlawful seized Plaintiff; and unlawfully caused Plaintiff to be jailed.

12

                            COUNT SIX:
         LIABILITY OF DEFENDANT CITY OF CLINTON TENNESSEE

60. The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
61. Defendants' actions were operational in nature for which Defendant CITY OF CLINTON TENNESSEE is liable.
62. At all material times, Defendants were acting pursuant to the policies, practices and customs created and established by Defendant CITY OF CLINTON TENNESSEE for which Defendant CITY OF CLINTON TENNESSEE is liable.
63. At all material times, Defendants were sufficiently high-ranking officers of the City of Clinton Tennessee to make their decisions and acts the policy of Defendant City of Clinton Tennessee for which Defendant CITY OF CLINTON TENNESSEE is liable.
64. Employees of Defendant CITY OF CLINTON TENNESSEE including but not limited to the named Defendants, were negligent in failing to prevent the unlawful custodial arrest of Plaintiff and permitting the false imprisonment of plaintiff without a mittimus, for which negligence Defendant CITY OF CLINTON TENNESSEE is liable under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act.

                           COUNT SEVEN:
         LIABILITY OF DEFENDANT ANDERSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE

13

65. At all material times, Defendant ANDERSON COUNTY TENNESSEE had policies, practices and customs that were in joint concert with and coordinated with the policies, practices and customs of Defendant CITY OF CLINTON TENNESSEE that permitted the violations of Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state rights of Plaintiff for which Defendant ANDERSON COUNTY TENNESSEE is liable.
66. Defendant ANDERSON COUNTY TENNESSEE has a policy and procedure to take custody of persons arrested by Defendant CITY OF CLINTON TENNESSEE without a warrant, a mittimus or judicial authority of any kind and is thereby jointly liable with Defendant CITY OF CLINTON TENNESSEE for the false arrest and imprisonment of Plaintiff without a mittimus.
67. Defendant ANDERSON COUNTY TENNESSEE has a policy and procedure to take custody of persons arrested by police officers of the Defendant CITY OF CLINTON TENNESSEE without said police officers complying with T.C.A. § § 40-7-118 and is thereby jointly liable with Defendant CITY OF CLINTON TENNESSEE for the false arrest and imprisonment of Plaintiff without a mittimus.
COUNT EIGHT

                      OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT AND
           INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

68. Plaintiff avers that Defendants SHOOMAN, STEVE JONES, and MICHAEL JONES participated in and engaged in conduct that was so outrageous, extreme, and shocking to the conscience that it is not to be tolerated in a civilized society.

14

69. Plaintiffs aver that as a proximate result of the extreme and outrageous conduct of said Defendants, acting individually and in concert with one and another, Plaintiff sustained serious and severe emotional injuries.

                            COUNT NINE
        CIVIL RIGHTS INTIMIDATION AND MALICIOUS HARASSMENT

70. T.C.A. § 39-17-309 prohibits and makes it a felony for a person to intimidate others from exercising civil rights by injuring or coercing another to intimidate them from the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the State of Tennessee.
71. T.C.A. § 4-21-701 provides a civil right of action for damages and attorney fees and costs and punitive damages for the malicious harassment of another as prescribed by T.C.A. § 39- 17-309.
72. Plaintiff avers that Defendants SHOOPMAN, STEVEN JONES and MICHAEL JONES in doing the acts herein specified violated T.C.A. § 39-17-309 and T.C.A. § 4-21-701.
73. Plaintiff asserts by qui tam action that Defendants SHOOPMAN, STEVEN JONES and MICHAEL JONES, individually, and in joint concert with one another, did the acts specified in this complaint in violation of the provisions of T.C.A. § 39-17-309 and that upon being found liable for said acts in this case, this Court should report the judgment to the Grand Jury for Anderson County Tennessee for presentment.

                             COUNT TEN
                        OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT

15

74. Article I, Section 35 of Tennessee’s Constitution provides Plaintiff a fundamental right to restitution for persons who commits a crime against Plaintiff.
75. T.C.A. § 39-16-402 provides that it is a felony for a public servant to commit an act relating to the servant’s office that constitutes an unauthorized exercise of official power.
76. T.C.A. § 39-16-402 provides that it is a felony for a public servant to commit an act that exceeds the servant’s official power.
77. T.C.A. § 39-16-403 provide that it is a felony for a public servant to deny or impede another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, or power.
78. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants SHOOPMAN, STEVE JONES AND MICHAEL JONES, individually, and in joint concert with one another, by doing the acts specified in this complaint, violated the provisions of T.C.A. § 39-16-402(1) through (3) and T.C.A. § 39-16-403, and that Plaintiff is the victim of said crimes for which Plaintiff is provided a constitutional right to restitution for damages done to Plaintiff as specified hereinafter.
79. Plaintiff asserts by qui tam action that Defendants SHOOPMAN, STEVEN JONES and MICHAEL JONES individually, and in joint concert with one another, did the acts specified in this complaint in violation of the provisions of T.C.A. § 39-16- 402 (1) through (3) and T.C.A. § 39-16-403 and that upon being found liable for said acts in this case, this Court should report

16

the judgment to the Grand Jury for Anderson County Tennessee for presentment and subject Defendants to removal from office pursuant to T.C.A. § 39-16-406.

17

                       COMPENSATORY DAMAGES

80. The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
81. As a proximate cause of Defendant’s actions Plaintiff’s good name and reputation has been injured; Plaintiff has suffered serous and severe mental and emotional injury; Plaintiff has incurred legal fees for his defense for the unfounded charges; and Plaintiff’s earning capacity has been impaired.

                         PUNITIVE DAMAGES

82. The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
83. Plaintiff avers that a substantial award of punitive damages is necessary and appropriate to punish Defendants for their intentional, fraudulent, malicious and reckless conduct, and to deter such conduct by Defendants and others in the future.

                         INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

84. Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant CITY OF CLINTON TENNESSEE to provide equal access to Plaintiff, and to other residents of Tennessee, to the non-confidential records of the City of Clinton Tennessee.
85. Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant CITY OF CLINTON TENNESSEE to provide Plaintiff, and to other citizens, the right of free speech and redress for grievances against the City of Clinton Tennessee.

18

86. Plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting Defendants from further retaliating against Plaintiff or against any citizen for making a statement that they will exercise their constitutional right to sue Defendant CITY OF CLINTON TENNESSEE.
87. Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant CITY OF CLINTON TENNESSEE to train and require its officers to comply with the mandatory requirements of T.C.A. § 40-7-118 for the issuance of citations in lieu of custodial arrest and the requirement for an officer to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a person for an alleged misdemeanor that was not committed in the officer’s presence.
88. Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant ANDERSON COUNTY TENNESSEE to train and require its officers to comply with the mandatory requirements of T.C.A. § 40-7-118 for the issuance of citations in lieu of a custodial arrest and the requirement of judicial authority to imprison a person arrested by the City of Clinton Tennessee.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff brings this action for the following relief:
1. Plaintiff demands a jury in this case and that the jury be selected from impartial persons that have no financial interest as a Clinton or Anderson County taxpayer in the verdict in this case; that have no political interest in the actions of their public officials who are Defendants; that have no political interest in the elected Anderson County Law Director who will defend Defendants; and that have no information from the publicity regarding the parties or their attorneys.

19

2. That Plaintiff John Philip Harber have compensatory damages against Defendants in an amount not to exceed Five Hundred Thousand ($500,000.00) dollars.
3. That Plaintiff John Philip Harber have punitive damages against Defendants in an amount not to exceed One Million ($1,000,000.00) dollars.

          4.   That the injunctive relief requested be granted.

          5.   That   Plaintiff   recover   attorney   fees   and
litigation costs against Defendants pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §
1988.

Herbert S. Moncier
Attorney for Defendant
Suite 775 Bank of America Center
550 Main Avenue
Knoxville, TN  37902
Phone     (865)546-7746
TBPR #001910

David A. Stuart, P.C.
Attorney for Defendant
300 Market Street
Clinton, Tennessee  37716
Phone     (865)457-6414
Fax  (865)457-6409

TBPR #006770

David A. Stuart
Attorney for Plaintiff