Tag Archives: Attorney Leo Haffey

Judge Gloria Dumas, Attorney Leo Haffey, Nashville TN, Political prisoner, Dumas rogue judge?, Nashville corruption, Obama thugs, Disciplinary action

In an effort to get to the truth about the arrest, incarceration and withholding of bond for Nashville attorney Leo Haffey, I have explored the facts and major players surrounding this troubling case. Since one of the players is Gloria Dumas, a Nashville judge, and Leo Haffey requested that she be recused for biased behaviour and we have been at the mercy of so many bad judges, exposing the truth about Judge Dumas became more important.
Someone else investigating this case indicated that Judge Gloria Dumas may have a feminist agenda. Since that is hearsay, I wanted more tangible evidence. First examine the charges filed against Leo Haffey.

Details of Leo Haffey arrest 

The consistent theme in this surreal case is that Leo Haffey has openly spoken out about and questioned Barack Obama. I believe that Haffey wrote the first motion for Orly Taitz. The Haffey family has emphatically stated they were pressured and Harrassed by Obama supporters. Some of these people are involved in the legal profession. When one considers that a very high percentage of attorneys  and law firms voted for and supported Obama, this is more believable. Leo Haffey also spoke out about corruption in Nashville.

Attorney Leo Haffey, arrested based on suspicious affidavits and held without bond and benefit of witnesses and records, prepared this motion in jail and filed it.

 

LeoHaffeyJailMotion2

 

Leo Haffey states in the motion:

  • He was not allowed to call any witnesses.
  • His bond was revoked.
  • He was kept in jail without access to his records.
  • He believes that judge Dumas is biased based on her statements and rulings.
  • He requests that Judge Dumas be recused

So why should anyone believe Leo and Question Judge Dumas?

  • All of those close to this case have consistently stated they were pressured by Obama supporters.
  • A request was submitted to the Nashville District Attorney’s office regarding pressure from legal professionals who suppport Obama.
  • Judge Dumas has supported the Democrat party, including monetary gifts.
  • Judge Dumas, as reported on this blog yesterday, was cited by News Channel 5 for unprofessional and illegal activities.
  • Judge Dumas was presented with formal charges on September 21, 2009 by the Investigative Panel of the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary. Exerpts of the charges are presented below.

JudgeGloriaDumasCharges

The following text was extracted from the PDF file. The original PDF file link below should be used to insure accuracy.

“1. Following a full investigation authorized under the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated 9 17-5-304(b)(3), the three judge investigative panel composed of the Honorable Pamela Reeves, the Honorable Jean A. Stanley, and the Honorable Dwight E. Stokes found, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated 5 17-5-304(d)(2)(A), that there is reasonable cause to believe that the Honorable Gloria Dumas has committed judicial offenses alleged herein in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated 5 17-5-302, and directed disciplinary counsel to file formal charges pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 17-5-304(d)(2) (A).

2. The Honorable Gloria Dumas, at all times relevant herein, was a judge of the General Sessions Court of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, having taken the oath of office following her election in 1998. Therefore, General Sessions Judge Dumas is subject to judicial discipline by the Court of the Judiciary pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated 8 17-5- 102.
Charges
Disciplinary Counsel charges Honorable Gloria Dumas as follows:

Count I

3. The complainant alleges that Judge Gloria Dumas in exercising her authority as a General Sessions Judge of Nashville and Davidson County is persistently late in attending court sessions and fails to open court at 9:00 a.m. or other designated times for the litigants that appear before her.

Count II

4. Judge Dumas has consistently failed to attend her dockets and extensively used special judges to hold her dockets. These special judges were appointed in a fashion that fails to meet Tennessee law. These appointments fail to comply with Tennessee Code Annotated 5 16-1 5-209.
Tennessee Code Annotated $ 16-1 5-209 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:”

 

“(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (e) and (f), a general sessions or juvenile court judge shall have the authority to appoint a special judge as provided in this subsection.
It is alleged that in 2008 that Judge Dumas made at least thirty-three (33) such invalid appointments with multiple appointments being made to one attorney. In 2009 through March, Judge Dumas has made twelve (12) such appointments with many of these appointments being made to the same attorney. All of these 2009 appointments were made after notice to Judge Dumas that such appointments failed to meet state law and evidence intentional misconduct.”

 

“5. Tennessee Code Annotated tj 16-15-5002 provides, in pertinent part, as
follows:
5 16-15-5002. Outside practice of law
(a) All general sessions judges in Class 1,2 or 3 counties shall devote full time to the duties of such office and shall be prohibited from the
practice of law or any other employment which conflicts with the performance of their duties as judge.
It is alleged that by her frequent absence from her duties as General Sessions Judge, Judge Dumas has willfully failed to “devote full time to the duties of such office.. .”
6. The above-described conduct, actions andlor inactions of Judge Dumas set forth in Counts I and 11, inclusive, constitute multiple violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and as such, subject her to the sanctions provided by the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated 5 17-5-30 1, including violation of the following:”

 

“7. In addition, the above-described conduct, actions and/or inactions of Judge Dumas set forth in Counts I and 11, inclusive, constitute multiple statutory violations of Tennessee Code Annotated as hereinabove described, and as such, subject her to sanctions due to the misconduct provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated 5 17-5-302, including violation of the following:
fj 17-5-302. Misconduct
Offenses of which the court may take cognizance shall include the following:
(1) Willful misconduct relating to the official duties of the office;
(2) Willful or persistent failure to perform the duties of the office;
(3) Violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct as set out in the rules of the supreme court of Tennessee;
(5) A persistent pattern of intemperate, irresponsible or injudicious conduct;
(7) A persistent pattern of delay in disposing of pending litigation; and
(8) Any other conduct calculated to bring the judiciary into public disrepute or to adversely affect the administration of justice.”

Count III

“8. It is alleged that in November of 2005 Judge Dumas hired as her court officer her daughter and authorized her to be paid a salary commensurate with her assigned duties when she had no experience or training for this position and this selection was made without competitive consideration of qualified applicants. Judge Dumas’ daughter served in this position for approximately one year.”

“9. The above-described conduct, actions and/or inactions of Judge Dumas set forth in Count I11 constitute multiple violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and as such, subject her to the sanctions provided by the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated tj 17-5-301, including violation of the following:
CANON 3. A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently
C. Administrative Responsibilities.. .”

“10. In addition, the above-described conduct, actions and/or inactions of Judge Dumas set forth in Count 111, subject her to sanctions due to the misconduct provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated $ 17-5-302, including violation of the following:

5 17-5-302. Misconduct

Offenses of which the court may take cognizance shall include the following:
(1) Willful misconduct relating to the official duties of the office;

(3) Violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct as set out in the rules of the supreme court of Tennessee;

(8) Any other conduct calculated to bring the judiciary into public disrepute or to adversely affect the administration of justice.

Read the entire formal charges here:

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/geninfo/COJ/documents/DumasGloria%20Formal%20Charges.pdf

I will be contacting the Tennessee judiciary committee members and Nashville District Attorney’s office to demand that Leo Haffey be released immediately on bond.