Greetings:

I am new to BlountViews-I was directed to this site by someone who thought that your comments may be interesting given the fact that I'm the lawyer representing Kathy Wright in the litigation that was publicized by an article in the DT this past Sunday October 28, 2007.

If you have any comments, then let me know, as I do not know if the parameters of lawyer blogging have been fully "ethicsnasized" in Tennessee.

My best.

TFM

Dude! Welcome!

Dude! Welcome!

Wow!

I thought your giving comments to a newspaper was gutsy. Will that result in a change of judge or any sort of sanctions on you? One might predict that life in court won't get any easier for your client. I've heard countless stories like hers. Horrifying.

As I've said before, you can count on justice being meted out equally in Blount County; only problem is, some people are more equal than others.

Unlike the Calixto case

Unlike the Calixto case, there will be no massive campaign to write Letters to the Editor in support of the judge's actions. That alone is the most telling in my view. They, the Machine, have no where to run with this issue.

We, the Women of Blount County deserve better. All women ( and men) seeking justice in Blount County deserve equal treatment.

Please, tell us how we can make this happen.

Gutsy vs. Stupid/Wright v. Wright

Greetings again:

One might believe that there exists a fine line between being "gutsy" and being "stupid."

By way of explanation, and in the spirit of zealously representing my client, Kathy Wright, I did take the chance that my reflected and considered words would enlighten the public to the difficulties that Kathy has faced in Blount County. While I respect the fact that Judge Young has been on the bench for many years and that prior to this case I have tried case(s) in his Court without any controversy, there were issues brought to my attention as to the Wright case that prompted my published responses (albeit with very slight modifications-Craig Garrett has himself has characterized me in court as being "very thorough-and I tried to be thorough in my comments to Rick Laney's questions).

Nevertheless, of course, I attempt to follow the rules of ethics as interpreted individually through ethics opinions and by the courts, and an attorney can comment on pending litigation by pointing to the existing record of the case. My comments were limited to the court record and to what has occurred in the courtroom together with what I have heard in my experiences with other organizations and individuals regarding general comments not associated with the Wright case.

The Knox County Chancery Court file in Wright v. Wright consists of four (4) completely full file folders, all stretched to the maximum. I have had copied the entire file as of August or September of this year and have copies marked "Filed" of all other documents filed recently that were mentioned in the article.

I surmise that the reason that the Wright case escaped public scrutiny is that the Wright file is in Knox County as this is a Knox County case, and if you went to Blount County Justice Center to find the file, you would not find it there.

Rick Laney had access to the entire court file as he had access to what had been copied in the court file in order to verify his reporting.

Rick did an outstanding job of independently comparing the court record to my comments and to Kathy's comments and then making his conclusions that appeared in the article. For example, Rick's review of the transcript of the testimony of the Wright's minor daughter in open Court was made without my guidance or correction, as I had not counted the number of times objections were made, etc. He further extended himself to ask Judge Young for comments, and attorney James Wright for comments, and James Wright's attorney Craig Garrett for comments. Surprisingly, Craig did not respond, as he had apparently responded to previous cases in which he had been involved.

My participation in the article was not made in order to prejudice or influence any hearing in Kathy Wright's case.
I cannot comment on future hearings as to sanctions or change of venue as we have already requested removal of Judge Young and due to Rule 3.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys in Tennessee.

I participated in the article only because I was asked questions and truthfully answered those questions to the best of my ability after consulting Rule 3.6 as to the restrictions on my free speech mandated by the ethics rules. As to comment to Rule 3.6 states: "It is difficult to strike a balance between protecting the right to a fair trial and safeguarding the right of free expression. . ."

I trust that answers your questions. More will be revealed.

TFM

Thomas F. Mabry
P. O. Box 52385
Knoxville, TN 37950

Fax 1-888-215-3119
Phone 1-865-271-9224

Judge Young

Because of problems that we, my husband and i have had with
the blount justice system. We will continue to address the
grand jury in this town and yes Judge young is on our complaints
And we will get to the grand jury . Last month we had an appointment
to meet with grand jury members we figured that there would be some
trick and while we were waiting to see the members .Mr Youngs bailiff
came over to inform us we were on Judge Young's docket that same
morning as our appointment. We did file a dissolvement a few days
before but his secretary was suppost to have informed us of this
appointment but she did not. This was clearly an attempt to keep us from the grand jury .They still have monday to get thru first. Remember the fifth of November what a day Wendy

Thomas F. Mabry P. O. Box

Thomas F. Mabry
P. O. Box 52385
Knoxville, TN 37950

Fax 1-888-215-3119
Phone 1-865-271-9224

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

State .GOV

Wire Reports