Who were the defense attorneys in this trial?

2 very young attorneys from Murfreesboro both of these dealers were from Smyrna.

"By the way, try to research and find whether the general fund for the City, County, State or US Government received the near $48,000 confiscated in the raid that is the predicate for these cases."

let me start, carl, by saying this was some of your best work. thought provoking. i cannot offer any insight into most of it, but money is usually pretty easy. in this case it was as simple as just asking. $2,203 was returned to those from whom it was confiscated. $13,649 went to the 17th judicial district drug task force, $13,649 went to the TBI, $16,890 went to the police equipment fund of shelbyville, and $1,477 has not yet been distributed to anyone.

Ah, Mr. McClanahan:

Another fine job of reporting the 'facts'.

The cankerous aroma of hypocrisy eminating from the Bedford County Courthouse cannot even be overcome by the 'chicken plant' or, our own waste treatment facility.

If gambling is illegal in our good State, then might it not be reasonable to wonder:

a) Why would the State send an enterprising citizen to jail for simply owning a machine of chance while allowing any drugstore, service station, discount mart or other retailer to distribute untold numbers of dice sets, poker cards and, countless other 'games of chance'?

b) Why does the State enforceably prohibit gambling casinos on State land yet allow Chucky Cheeze to overtly entice toddlers into their gambling dens?

c) Why do we never see Country Club golf professionals prosecuted for running weekend gambling events?

Oh well, enough is enough. Ye shan't be bored with d) through z). But, by the way, doesn't the State run a pretty big gambling game itself?

P.S. This vicious rumor, Mr. McClanahan, that you were considering leaving the blogging scene, needs to be squelched immediately. Tell us it is not so!

Lazarus....Thanks for your thoughtful comments...I realize the distribution of the money to various agencies is easy to find. My point: Where is the Legislative oversight as to how the money is spent within the agencies? This money is spent within the various agencies totally off-budget regarding their budgetary allotment as determined by the approiate legislative body.

Garhawk.....I see you have been listening....You are exactly correct in your observances. The Tennessee gambling law states, "Gambling means risking anything of value for a profit whose return is to any degree contingent on chance, but does not include a lawful business transaction." (TCA 39-17-501(1)) Also "Gambling device or record means anything designed for use in gambling, intended for use in gambling, or used for gambling." (TCA 39-17-501(3)) From these definitions one can clearly see that the kiddy games in Chuck E Cheese fit the definitions to a tee. Also the various "crane" type machines around are clearly, clearly gambling devices and their operation is gambling. The British have found problems with youth gambling on what they euphamistically call "Amusements With Prizes" I would defy anyone to name an activity that does not envolve a "degree of chance." Also, the items you mentioned clearly fit the definition in that they were "designed" for use in gambling. You are also correct that any tournament that requires an entry fee, (something of value), a degree of chance, and winning more than the bet. (for a profit whose return is to any degree contingent on chance) Even though several games including golf, tennis, baseball, football, basketball, et al, are clearly games that require a great deal of skill, the outcome of each game/tournament often turns on a chance event. Before you start, please research the statute and tell me anywhere the word skill in used. There is an exception allowed under Tennessee law for IRS 501C(3) operations, by following specific procedures and registrations and permission may offer a raffle, tournement or other gambling scheme once a year. These statutes are so vague and broadly written, it allows police and prosecutors to decide on an ad hoc basis what is gambling and what is not. This is unconstitutional and goes way beyond discretion. While law enforcement and prosecutor may use discretion as to how they will allocate their resources, they do not have the descretion to decide what is gambling and what is not.

Here in Shelbyville, at least 3 people are Federal felons and served time in a Federal prison for operating "poker" machines, yet one person has them all over town as we speak and has had for years with total impunity. I guess Justunjust queried the department's legislative section and decided these other forms of gambling attrach only desireable people and should be given dispensation to freely violate the law.

As to leaving the blog, that's still an open question. I don't appreciate being censored in a most selective manner when unidentified and cowardly people can shoot away. I also don't like ultimatums...

Please forgive syntax. I wrote quickly it the comment box and didn't check spelling et al.

Carl

Thanks for your "opinion". By the way I looked up the word opinion and found that it is "a belief or conclusion formed in the mind, and held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof".

By reading your blog it seems your "opinion" of yourself along with the importance of your expert credentials may be larger than life!

Mr. McClanahan:

Since you seem to think I misled the jury in my closing argument, I thought I would correct some misleading facts in your blog.

You are correct that each defendant was convicted of a class E felony, and that the range of punishment for a class E felony is from one to six years. However, your blog failed to mention the fact that the one to six year range is broken down into four sub ranges (conveniently labeled range one, range two, range three and range four). Since the defendants have no prior felony convictions, they will be sentenced as range one offenders. The sentence for a range one offender is from ONE TO TWO years, and each defendant will be eligible for probation. Therefore the maximum exposure for these defendants is less than what the Tuckers face in U.S. District Court. So my statement to the jury was in no way misleading, unlike some of the statements in your blog.

I agree completely with Evil Monkey. I wish more people (even you, Mr. McClanahan) would come to court to hear what goes on. Brian Mosely does an outstanding job covering stories from the court house, but there is no substitute for the public hearing something for themselves.

I realize by responding I open myself up for more pot shots and criticism. That's okay. I have a pretty tough hide. I couldn't have done this job for the past eleven years if I didn't. In the meantime I will be sitting down at the end of the bench with the water boy waiting for my number to be called. While no one has ever confused me with the cream of the crop, I take comfort in the fact that I don't earn money from the drug dealers, murderers and rapists I remove from the streets.

Thank you for attending the trial. Please come again.

Mike Randles

By the way, the DA's office feels no need to apologize for prosecuting someone for something the legislature has deemed to be a crime. In fact, that's our job.

mr randles, i appreciate your being willing to post on here with additional information. carl doesnt strike me as the sort to be intentionally misleading, but often a story sounds a lot different with all the facts. as far as being on the receiving end of pot shots and criticism goes... isnt that part of the job description?

writeattitude......How is the weather in the bushes. Afraid to come out? I have had two Federal District Judges and many trial court judges all over Tennessee and other states as well as people such as Senior Partner of Williams Connelly of Washington, DC., the former State Attorney General and Governor of Mississippi as well as lawyers from many places as well as the TBI and some FBI agents accept me as an expert and so ordered in open Court. And I knew everyone of them's name and what they looked like.

You won't get mad at me will you if I take the collective word of these people rather than your's?

"By the way, the DA's office feels no need to apologize for prosecuting someone for something the legislature has deemed to be a crime. In fact, that's our job."

-- Posted by mrandles on Fri, Oct 2, 2009, at 4:10 PM

I agree that if an act was found to be a crime then you are obligated to prosecute to the fullest extent of your capabilities...within the realistic realms of that crime. If you have done that, then your conscience should be clear and the opinions on this blog should hold no consequence to you. However, if you have not done that, then I pray you will remember this case the next time you are in court and learn from it. I am in no way siding on this issue.

Per your post--

"While no one has ever confused me with the cream of the crop, I take comfort in the fact that I don't earn money from the drug dealers, murderers and rapists I remove from the streets."

If it is truly your intention to serve and protect the people for selfless reasons, then I applaud your convictions...may they remain impartial...I mean that sincerly.

Carl--

Please don't let malicious attacks sway your convictions. In America we are entitled to certain basic freedoms (at least until they are stripped from us), of which a right to uncensored speech and opinion rank highest. GOD BLESS THE USA.

Just for fun, here is a little lawyer joke for you all in the field that my father told me:

What's the difference between a catfish and a lawyer?

One is a scum-sucking bottom feeder, and the other is a fish...LOL!

Carl you wrote..."writeattitude......How is the weather in the bushes. Afraid to come out? I have had two Federal District Judges and many trial court judges all over Tennessee and other states as well as people such as Senior Partner of Williams Connelly of Washington, DC., the former State Attorney General and Governor of Mississippi as well as lawyers from many places as well as the TBI and some FBI agents accept me as an expert and so ordered in open Court. And I knew every one of them's name and what they looked like.

You won't get mad at me will you if I take the collective word of these people rather than your's?"

Based on that statement I have a few questions that someone of your mental capacity, intellect, community stature and learnedness should be able to answer without expending a single brain cell.

My understanding from law firms in Nashville such as Bass Berry and Sims, reading many case laws, participating as a spectator in court and watching a lot of Law and Order and LA Law reruns is that being accepted as an expert is simple. You having your attorney take you before a Judge and you recite what you have learn, from where and that you have a better than average understanding of the subject matter at hand. The Judge then based on law or the "local rule" will determine if you are qualified as an expert. Is this true?

Have you study law or do you have a degree? What specific history do you have that allows you to deem anything valid or invalid in this or any other case? Have you been published in any law journals or cited in any law making cases (that you would care to share)?

Next you state, "Before I am attacked by all the know-nothing pundits I will reveal my interest in this case." First, what was your interest? Sounded like a resume to me. Oh your interest was to once again try and sound ....what ? Smart?

Sounds to me like you have your on agenda. It sounds like you wanted to be all up in this case (far from your "stated" interest).It probably would not matter which side. It is obvious from your statement that you wish to color the ability of anyone to doubt your word or "opinion". How smug are you to assume your "pundits" are "know-nothing(s)" and in some way impaired.

So help an old dirt turner barely High School Educated understand in my limited mental capacity to comprehend such an intellectual giant as yourself. Did you go to the young attorneys and offer your self proclaimed expertise only to be told they will not or could not meet your price? Did you run to the Assistant DA Randles and offer to quantify their case with your opinion as if it were manna from heaven?

You stated your objective was to point out what, that the defense should have objected to a statement in the closing arguments to the jury so the case could possibly be appealed? Can you even object once the closing argument begins to be presented to the jury?Why did you not pass a note or ease out side and whisper your pearls of wisdom to someone who could rush in and save the day?

Does your "opinion" mean that all others should bow before the great and powerful OZ oh Lazarus I mean?

What it comes down to it The District Attorney and the Defense Attorneys in this town are not as stupid an inept as you would like the world to think. Each side takes the information or evidence presented to them by enforcement and does the best they can within the limits of the laws according to the Tennessee Code Annotated not the Carl school of law. And for the record no public official should be "accepted" as having our interest above all else that is why God allowed Lawyers to be made. People are not perfect. They will make mistakes. Sometimes they get beat in court when they do.

Now Carl you won't get mad at me if I take the word of your pundits over a bunch of individuals, Government Agencies and Lawyers who either paid you to say what they wanted to hear or paid you to say the other expert in the cases opinion was wrong. You see where I come from everyone has an opinion just like other things everyone has on their body. They are usually personal to their own needs and beliefs and more often than not stink.

Now I will add this when it comes to your statement "How is the weather in the bushes. Afraid to come out?" If the paper wants to give me a blank slate to attack anyone I choose and claim it is in the interest of journalism I will be glad to publish my name. If thats not good enough why don't you just wade out into the bushes...nothing out here but a bunch of "know-nothing pundits". You really need to get over yourself and lighten up.

Golly! Shazham! Ever wonder why the Woman holding the Scales of Justice is Blindfolded?

Lawyers know very little about the law. De jure law that is. De jure law is the supreme law of the land. They only know de facto laws, which are "unlawful, unjust and unconstitutional" according to Black's Law Dictionary.

-> De facto is a Latin expression that means "by [the] fact". In law, it is meant to mean "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but without being officially established". It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means "concerning the law") - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

De jure law is (Common Law) or Constitutional Article III courts that can advocate law, where as the Shelbyville court is an administrative court and not a court that can advocate in matters of de jure law. This is why judges will not hear anything about the constitution.

Our High Courts have ruled: "All actions of government are legal actions, though they may NOT BE LAWFUL ACTIONS, AND unless THE action is TIMELY and SPECIFICALLY OBJECTED TO, it is presumed to be lawful actions."

"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of respect for the law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance."

U.S. v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted...

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

16 Am Jur 2d, Constitutional Law, §818 Definiteness or Vagueness of Laws, Regulations and Orders, states: "It is a general principle of statutory law that a statute must be definite to be valid."

These are de jure laws and the supreme law of the land.

Equity courts, which were instituted to provide relief to litigants in cases where common-law relief was unavailable, also merged with common-law courts.

Then we have the Uniform Commercial Code and later Statutory law.

Statutory law differs from common law which is that law which is announced in court decisions or case laws. Statutory law constituted a small part of our law compared to common law during the early years of the development of our nation. Since that time statutory law has expanded considerably by codifying, or arranging topically, common law doctrines through the enactment of statutes.

So, while statutory law provides the framework by which our judicial system operates, it coexists in a way that allows interpretation even of these laws and forms the basis of common law.

In spite of all these changes and supplemental laws and codes, Common Law is still the supreme law of the land.

16 Am Jur 2d, Constitutional Law, §818 Definiteness or Vagueness of Laws, Regulations and Orders, states:

"It is a general principle of statutory law that a statute must be definite to be valid."

Lawyers are officers of the court (First) then they will protect your (interests, but not your rights). Constitutional Rights can not be claimed by an attorney nor a solicitor. They must be claimed by a beligerant claiment in person.

However it is different with the Prosecuting Attorney! If the prosecutor has any information that might sway the jury to a not guilty verdict it is a "Brady violation" to not disclose it, even if the defendant doesn't ask for it.

And Now, we can look forward to a One World Judicial System soon.

carl The weather is fine out here on the farm. The sun is shining the crops are growing and little birds sing songs of joy. Why don't you come out sometime? And Thank you as well, you made my point. Your lack of a response to a single question speaks loudly. I think your soap box is cracking.

I have one more question that will probably go unanswered. Are Carl and Lazarus the same person or related? I think his lobbing efforts were under the Lazarus Group or something like that. Just a question.

outonthefarm........Perhaps you can inform those who are interested why you feel folks on these blogs exist only to answer your questions? Sounds a lot like hubris to me.

There's a lot to be said for fresh air and living out on the farm. I believe brain cells grow and thrive better there. Mr. Randles may even be a farm boy, because after reading his response, I really felt like the cream had risen to the top! I sure hope that Mr. Randles read right over the accusations that he in some way ruined these poor young men's lives. Their individual choices put them in this predictament and prior bad choices (DUI convictions) hindered them from being able to accept the same deal the others got. Just had to give a thumbs up for Mr. Randles and his willingness to take the stand in defense of himself and his noble profession. Now I retreat back into the bushes with all the other no-nothing pundits who lack any expertise in any field. . . I may even take a trip out to the farm and let the fresh air clear my head of all this legal jargon and just let a little common sense penetrate my thoughts it sure seems to work for outonthefarm!

Carl you wrote "outonthefarm.......Perhaps you can inform those who are interested why you feel folks on these blogs exist only to answer your questions? Sounds a lot like hubris to me"

First, yes I can inform or answer your questions even though you will not respond to mine? My interest is in getting to your true reason for being so interested in the dilemma in which these two gentlemen found themselves.

The balance of my answer remains in the, yet to be answered, questions I dared to pose to you from the safety of the bushes. I guess I am such a know nothing that I can't find my way to the big city. I just wish I could follow a path or maybe a colorful road.

Now, if you were really asking ,why I think I have the right to ask you to validate yourself? That should be obvious to your keen wit and intellectual mind. You have placed yourself in the public eye or lime light of the "forum" and maintained your expertise in the field of gambling and proclaimed yourself the wizard of this OZ.

So, if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. Or are you so narcissistic that you believe all us dirt turners should just bow to the great and powerful OZ and accept your word as the gospel. Were all those cases you testified in successful? Did you save the day for any of your clients? These are simple questions from which us know nothing readers and purchasers of the paper may form an opinion of our own.

Next being from out on the farm and devoid of the intellectual and linguistic pallet and brain pan you purport to have I looked up a definition of hubris. The definition i find reads

".Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance:...".

I think you have transposed our positions. Remember, by your own words I and those like me are just pundits, a group of know nothing cowards lurking in the safety of the bushes. You see, I chose to join that group and be like all those you so dubbed in your attempt to predispose of anyone who would dare ask a question or have a different opinion of that of the great and powerful OZ. I also doubt very seriously if anyone actually fears you in the press. It's just us pundits don't have a weekly forum from which to push our own agenda.

But to keep with being a simple know nothing pundit I offer that your opinion's read more like Bovine Scatology. And being from out on the farm it is typical for me to scrape such things off my feet before entering into my home. You seem a little sensitive to being ask questions. Wonder why?

I await your next quick witted and whimsical response with my dictionary open and my feet upon on the stool. Until then life is good out on the farm.

Carl,

Reading all of this minutia regarding your blog gives me motivation to weigh in on it myself. What I see from you is a truck load of self-serving and flagrantly arrogant - love me, I'm Carl McClannahan, talk.

"Mr. Randles.......I sincerely appreciate your candid comments. I appaud you for "taking me on."

I mean, did you really have to go there? Are you saying that your lack of formal education in the law in any way compares to the knowledge of the law possessed by a pedigreed attorney who has been practicing law, every day, for the past eleven years? That the willingness of Mike Randles to "take you on", in any way gives you a higher level of credibility on such topics as legal jurisprudence?

It is actually embarrassing to watch you embellish your credentials and over emphasize all of your so called "expertise," then later agree with yourself as the third person "lazarus."

"let me start, carl, by saying this was some of your best work. thought provoking. ..."

-- Posted by lazarus on Fri, Oct 2, 2009, at 8:06 AM

"Lazarus....Thanks for your thoughtful comments..."

-- Posted by cmcclanahan on Fri, Oct 2, 2009, at 11:51 AM

Get real Carl, if you google your name, out pops political contributions in the name of Lazarus. Everyone here knows that your number one blogging audience is yourself. Do you really believe that your wisdom and intellectual superiority is something to be shared with the masses, or do you just like to hear yourself talking?

I can assume that the "know-nothing pundits" you make reference to, would include anyone who would disagree with your opinions. An intelligent person would have issued an apology to Mr. Randles, once he corrected you on your misguided opinion that formed the basis of your original thesis. But not you Carl, an apology may have been prudent, but it wouldn't have allowed for further intelligent and descriptive dialogue between you and you.