Tonight at the Blount County Commission, citizens witnessed a shameful act.
At the motion of Commissioner Steve Samples, the Blount County Commission suspended the rules to consider a vulgar resolution.

Commissioner Samples introduced a motion of support for Judge Young's actions regarding the recent controversy in the papers where a woman claims to have been deniged due process in a court action seeking a protection decree.

After several commissioners voice support for Judge Young's actions, Commissioner Reeves was recognized. She explained that it is important for women or men, at risk of abuse by spouses, to be protected by the law, as is provide by law. She also clarified that, contrary the rumors circulating; the woman at the center of the controversy regarding Judge Young is a legal immigrant. This was clearly reported by the Daily Times.
Commissioner Samples could be heard to mutter something to the effect of, Oh, I didn't know that.

Commissioner Reeves observation changed the nature of the discussion and for several commissioners it appears her observation provided the information which persuaded them to support tabling this vulgar motion.
I am paraphrasing, but as I recall.

Commissioner Murrell explained that now that she understood the immigrant status she could not support the motion.

Commissioner French also spoke up and said that they should not vote until they knew the facts.

With out the actions of Commissioner Reeves on the Blount County Commission, tonight a vulgar, uninformed resolution would likely have been passed, to the shame of Blount County.

At the end of the meeting there was a time for public comment and I read my quickly composed message as follows:

I had not intended to speak tonight, but sadly many commissioners were quick to suspend the rules to make a statement about a Latin American immigrant and to endorse the clearly reported failure of a judge to offer a human being protection from physical abuse by the denial of due process.
142 years ago, Black persons could be owned as property in Blount County.
81 years ago, women were not voting citizens.
Sadly, now in Blount County the protection of the law does not apply to all humans.
Persons who presumptuously judge another not by there humanity but by the color of their skin or by there gender or by there ethnicity or even their immigrant status, shame our county.

This was the best I could to in the time I had.

I urge all Blount County citizens to correct their errant commissioners. Tell them that equal protection applies to all persons. It is not OK for citizens to abuse legal or illegal immigrants nor for them to abuse one another. Our duly enacted laws do not turn a blind eye to such abuse and neither should our judges. If they due, they should be condemned.

You can find the County Commissioners and their phone numbers at this link:

To be silent is to be condoning the vulgar act of which the judge is accused.

Forrest Erickson


Lots more on this!

Before we fry David Ballard- I hope he will come in and give us his thoughts on this.

This was more than a vulgar act. Had Samples read the old commssion meeting minutes he would have known he was seeking to overturn a resolution the Commission passed in Feb of 2003.


And for those of you just joining us, this goes with this post (link...)


Why would you fry DB.....? Because he voted against the table?.....remember tabling an action is not always the best way to defeat it, ofter it simply puts it off until later.

I am not frying David.

I am not frying Ballard. I know darn well why he voted no on the motion to table- he had to have wanted to kill it right then and there. I just want him to come in and say it. ( Hello Commissioner... come out and talk to us )

Was Samples seeking to over turn the Bill of Rights?

Was Samples seeking to overturn the Bill of Rights?

Blount County PASSED a resolution SUPPORTING every Blount County Citizen's rights. This was presented in Feb 2003 and passed!


in part but well worth reading the entire resolution.

BE IT RESOLVED, that this Blount County Commission affirms that the collective Oath of office of its members, and its strong opposition to terrorism, but also affirms that any effort to end terrorism not be used as a pretext to Infringe upon God given rights and liberties of the people of Blount County, Tennessee recognized in the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

Are they people of Blount

Are they people of Blount County is they are not legal citzens?

Dollars and Sense

Mr. Erickson,

Are you willing to pay for all the services the illegal immigrans require? It is not about the color of person's skin. This country has grown up enough to understand that the color of a person' skin does not determine their worth. They are speaking towards immigrant status.

I do beleive you are wrong about judging someone on their immigrant status. It does not shame this country. Now please hear me out on this one, if they are in this country illegally, they are breaking the law (no doubt about it). We can judge someone based on a set of laws. That is how we judge people in the first place. If is not, then what is the point of the laws. Think about it for a just one second. If the are illegal, we should judge them. That is only logical, anything else is irrational.

We (you and I) as law-abiding, taxpaying citizens of the United States have to pay for the illegal aliens in this country. I for one do not want to pay.

Now, I will say something else. I am not questioning anyone's heart. I do think the United States is the best country in the world. I have had the opportunity to work a man from Latin American descent. He was the hardest working man I ahve ever seen. It wasn't till after I left that I found out he was illegal. It is a hard situation. However, there are laws that specify how to become a legal citizen. If you are in this country and have not followed the law to become a citizen, you are ILLEGAL!

As for Judge Young and this situation, I would have to agree with the majority of the commission. I need to know the facts as to whether or not this woman is a legal immigrant. Listen just because the DT says she is legal doesn't mean she is. I understand there is an investigation into this situation. I will wait to hear the results from that.

Although I will add this question, what was the status of her greencard?
Does anyone know?

Thanks and God Bless!

Who says she wants a

Who says she wants a greencard? Who says she wants to live here permanently?

Green Card, officially known as a Permanent Resident Card, is evidence of lawful permanent resident status in the United States.

I have a dear friend with one of these. No way does her family intend to give up their rights to their county of birth just because they live and work in the US. And for the record, her husband is a well known researcher and we are very lucky he is in the USA doing his work.

Liberty and Justice for All, unless....

Dear Anonymous,

Consider what you are defending.

You are defending the presumption that a Latin American person is here illegally unless proven otherwise. Do you judge this by the color of their skin or the sound of their name?

You are defending that Judge Young be allowed, at a whim, to disregard the laws that he is sworn to up hold. By US law, even an illegal person is entitled to due process. You are advocating that the judge disregard a law simply because he (or you) does not like the law. Does this place you firmly on the side of what would be fairly called Judicial Activism? If you do not like the laws, which protect all persons, you should work to change the laws. You should not advocate that a Judge abandon the laws.

You are defending the idea our legal system need not intervene in a situation such as this where a woman has asks for protection. Where does this stop? Is this not equivalent to saying you advocate a system where it is OK for some people to be threatened or physical abused, or perhaps killed so long as they are Latin American.

You are defending an idea which is very contrary to a phrase I admire, “Inasmuch as you have done these things for the least among you, you have done them for me”

Consider the last five words in the Pledge of Allegiance. They are, "Liberty and Justice for All".

I must ask, what part of "all" do you not understand?

Forrest Erickson

I would defend the idea that

I would defend the idea that our laws should be upheld. Everyone has the right to Due Process. However, if our laws were upheld, this would not apply to illegal aliens, because they would not be in this country.

Liberty and Justice for All.

a) If Young or anyone else

a) If Young or anyone else has evidence that she is here illegally, wouldn't the proper course of action be to have her arrested and turned over to ICE for deportation proceedings?

b) I believe the point has been made, even in the MDT, that all persons have basic civil rights, including the right to due process, in U.S. courts when they are on U.S. soil, regardless of immigration status or anything else (which is why we have Guantanamo -- to create a quasi-legal environment for bypassing the Constitution).


Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the US Congress give sweeping amnesty to illegal immigrants in the mid to late 1980s? They failed to provide any firm provisions in this deal to punish businesses willing to pay for cheap, illegal labor under the table, thus in multiplying numbers in the years since, migrant workers (some legal, some not) have poured across the borders to fill this labor pool.

This is a simple example of our supply and demand economy.

Now ask yourself this question: Why are "we" here?

"We" excludes the Native Americans who actually settled this country and the African Americans who weren't given a choice in the matter.

Our forefathers and ancestors came here in search of a better life. Can you blame them or anyone for that?

The question of legal status in this country applies to all who seek to come here, and I don't pretend for a minute that is doesn't.

However, what burns me the most about all this illegal immigrant spin is that the first step to fixing the problem is not to send them all back, but to put a stop to what is attracting! And you don't think there is a heavy handed, back door lobby by big business to not find a solution to all this mess.

Now that they have you all worked up and distracted over this, they "casually" start moving the good paying jobs you and I are seeking, overseas to Asia and calling it "globalization". As the news stirs up about how these jobs are pouring over the borders out of the country, the conversion is spun to what is visually quantified in our everyday life, the increasing number of “illegal” immigrants pouring in to the country.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain....

Correct me if I'm

Correct me if I'm wrong

Sounds about right. Corporations have been exploiting cheap immigrant labor for decades. Now their conservative supporters and beneficiaries are the ones crying the loudest over the very situation they created.

The U.S. Constitution gives

The U.S. Constitution gives the right to due process to every person on US soil, regardless of his or her status, race, or any and everything else. Whether the woman at the center of this is here "legally" or not is not relevant and no judge has the right to deny due process to anyone.

The petitioner was asking for something she is absolutely entitled to, that is, to be heard and treated fairly by the judge. She does not have the right to get a protective order just by asking, but she sure has the right to petition the court and be heard...the right to due process.

Apparently not even the commissioners who voted to table this obnoxious motion understand that the woman's legal status does not have anything to do with her right to be protected by the due process of the legal system.

The anti-immigrant (and almost always racist) mob is usually the same bunch braying about law and order. Adherence to basic principles of the US Constitution is about as law and order as it gets.

But we digress...

I think we all understand most of the conservative agenda is hypocritical wingnut stuff in the first degree, however...

Can we please leave the plight of the immigrants (from whatever country for whatever reason) to another conversation. The issue at hand here is the actions of Judge Young. Period. The issue is whether his actions were prejudicial or not. Did facts and the law guide Judge Young's actions ? If the facts as presented by the DT are accurate then I believe a case can be made that Judge Young's actions were guided by his own personal beliefs rather than fact and law. And if that's the case... a bigger question may be how will the judicial review process handle a case of prejudicial judgement from a sitting judge in the state of Tennessee ?


Commissioners interviewed by WVLT

I just got confirmation that at least two of our County Commissioners were interviewed by WVLT regarding last night's commission meeting.

Can't say for a fact when or if the interviews will air but they were interviewed.

This is the real issue at

This is the real issue at hand.
Judge Young has the right, as every American, to have his personal opinions and biases. We all have them.
His job is to uphold the law of the land, not express his personal opinions. I could care less about his personal prejudices. He should abide by the law as we citizens are required to do.

mr erickson

>you want to quote the pledge of allegiance but you go and change the wording to fit your anti-god beliefs. not under god but under constitutional. so go be it. you can change what our fore fathers made but then you go and change what you wanted. I may not believe every single line that the DT prints, since it is edited to change someone's comments to start controversy. Instead of what was tried to be done at the commission meeting, the court case should haved been recessed to clear the illegalities of it. check to see the status of her AND his citizenship. Furthermore, it was also stated that she has filed for protection before. well even judge judy would tell her that she was an idiot and wasting courts time for even going back to him. so who is dumber there?

I'm beginning to question

I'm beginning to question the decision to allow anonymous comments here.

I swear

I wish I could rubber stamp some of these oddball posts with red letter warnings simply saying TOADY! The same folks pop up all over the area blogs to support the party line. Once you begin to recognize them, it becomes rather funny in a very sad sort of way.

I think the anonymous

I think the anonymous comments are a constructive way to view other viewpoints. Granted some are seriously disturbed, but guess what; that is what makes up this country. There are all kinds of people her in America and we have to live with all of them.

Officier Election

I find it interesting that nothing was mentioned about the County Commission officier elections this same night...

Maybe I'm not progressive

Maybe I'm not progressive enough for this site, but isn't someone innocent until proven guilty? I'm speaking of Judge Young here, ladies and gentlemen. Isn't anyone concerned about all the conflicting stories about what happened that day?

Immigration is a touchy subject these days, so it's possible that this story has gotten blown out of proportion. I prefer to wait until everything is investigated until I advocate deporting someone or stripping Judge Young of his duties.

I don't know Judge Young personally, but I met him several years ago when my ex-husband and I were finalizing issues concerning our son. I found him to be professional, respectful and concerned. This was my one and only interaction with him, but since he's being painted black, I think it's important for people to hear this. When I read the original DT story, I was shocked. Based on my own experience, and the fact that Judge Young has served Blount County for years without a hint of scandal, I have always held him in the highest regard. Since that first story, there have been enough conflicting accounts circulating that I think it's prudent and rational to wait on the results of the investigation before calling for Judge Young's head. Don't you?

Oops...meant to include my name

I meant to include my name on "Maybe I'm not progressive". If I'm going to say something, I'm going to take credit for it. Anyway, my name is Kristin Pryor.

Anonymity vs. pseudonymity


The home of South Knox Bubba is hardly a place where anyone would complain about your remaining anonymous, but we do appreciate it when people register and pick a pseudonym, because it's tough to tell "Anonymous" from "Anonymous", particularly when they post in the same thread.

BTW, registration is great. It has features that keep track of what comments you've read and which are new to you. You also have the ability to send private messages when it seems appropriate or to keep track of your postings.

What I am picking up on in

What I am picking up on in the defense of Judge Young is that he is a good person. He is not being investigated for being a bad person. He is being investigated for doing a bad thing.
What is happening is the fault of Judge Young, no one else's.
He brought this on himself.
He must have assumed no one would care.
He must have assumed no one would speak out.
He must have assumed that in his court he could make his own laws.
He was wrong on all counts.

Did you notice that no place

Did you notice that no place in the Hickman LTTE did he ever say anything about Rick Laney's article being false?

Think about it. He was there, he heard and he never said in the LTTE that these things did not happen. Oh, he did go on to make Ana look like she was at fault for not responding to the divorce complaint but he never, ever said there was anything wrong with the original Laney article.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Local .GOV

Wire Reports