Justice is blind, but gagged?

[Police Moderator]

Justice is blind, but gagged?
by David Cook

Gag (verb) to restrict use of the mouth by inserting a gag; to prevent from exercising freedom of speech or expression. — Merriam-Webster Dictionary

On Friday, at 1 p.m., I was scheduled to meet with a prisoner at the Hamilton County Jail. He had placed me on his visitation list. His attorney knew. Officials at the jail emailed approval.

And today's column was supposed to relay to you — the public, the reader — portions of that meeting.

The prisoner was — to use a legal term — gagged.

And that means you were, too.

Read more whiny ass, sanctimonious, I'm-the-sole-arbiter-of-the-truth-opinion-and-deliverer-to-the-ignorant-masses drivel: times free press opinion section

*********************************************

"Then the Hamilton County district attorney's office found out. And the meeting got canceled."

Mr. Cook is telling us the Hamilton County DA has sources at the Times Free Press? Those double edged swords can be a bitch, I reckon. (You think I wrote this entire opposing opinion this morning?)

Mr. Cook seems to think he is an integral part of the 'justice' system. Let us look at another definition....

jus·tice (jsts)
noun (Some say an abstract noun)

• 1. The quality of being just; fairness.
  
• 2. (a) The principle of moral rightness; equity. (b) Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
  
• 3. (a) The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law. (b) Law, the administration and procedure of law.
  
• 4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.
  
• 5. Abbr. J. Law (a) A judge. (b) A justice of the peace.
  Idiom: do justice to; To treat adequately, fairly, or with full appreciation.

In not one definition of 'Justice', 'Justice System' or 'Court of Law' did I find the mere mention of the necessity of a member of the 'Opinion' section to be involved.

(I did find several 'Blind' references, but that is another story)

Nor did I find mention of the 'Obituary Writers' or 'Fashion Section'; although, I think they do a fine job and I read them every day. I did find mention of the need that trials (Especially 'death penalty' trials) be fairly, accurately, and in a timely manner be reported to the reading, viewing and listening public that could not go to the entire trial themselves.

I have complete faith that our local news reporters, from every news media outlet, will do their very best to report, and convey, in an unbiased demeanor, what is happening throughout this upcoming trial.

"What if Mathews said to me — in the interview that wasn't — he would take life without parole immediately, instead of a death penalty trial? What if he said he would kill again as soon as he got the chance? Or confessed to other crimes, or professed a jailhouse religious conversion?"

What if he did, did not, or maybe did not, or any other hypothetical mumbo-jumbo-hocus-pocus mojo you could dream up in the interview that wasn't? Are you trying to make yourself a witness, Mr. Cook?

Then, you'd be creating the 'news' and just as integral part of it as Mr. Mathews.

You'd be, by your own admission and desire, influencing the very 'news' you claim to be reporting an 'opinion' of. You'd be injecting yourself (For whatever agenda the rest of us could hypothetically dream up before/after the interview that wasn't!) into an integral part of the story you claim to desire to be 'reporting' on?

Confusing? Usually happens when you mix opinions and facts and assorted pre-disposed opinions reporting unproven facts in the Court of Innuendos and Allegations.

Obviously, neither of the participants of this 'interview' would be under oath, or subject to cross examination by skilled and highly trained professionals, in open court, in full view of the public, via our esteemed news reporting media. Nor, would the conversation be recorded for the rest of us to listen to, unedited, and form an assessment of our own. If you get the 'interview', are you going to post it, in it's entirety, for the rest of to view and study? I am sure you would, since you wouldn't want to gag us, or anything.

Neither of the participants would be under oath to say what is true, what is objectively accurate or subjectively honest, or both or, in other intricate foreign terms, 'voir dire'... (Look it up in your fancy definition book!)

Would you be reporting, or opining (I'll leave you to look up those definitions, also!)

None of those people, ideas, thesis or prosecution/defense strategies you should hypothetically choose to discuss or discover, in any manner of wrong-doing, right-doing or nothing-doing, would ever be allowed to confront their 'accusers' as "You don't pick a quarrel with a man who buys his ink by the barrel."

The media will be allowed, en masse, to attend the legal process (the whole 'Justice system' thing) and REPORT to us simple minded, supposedly gagged and uninformed imbeciles (Unless filtered by you, particularly, Mr. Cook.)

The actual real, hard working and diligent 'Reporters' will have virtually unimpeded access to information that even our esteemed jurors do not have!

Wonder why we do the "Jury of our Peers' versus a "Trial by the Letters to The Editor"?

Ever wonder why all jurors, in any court, at every potty break, smoke break, lunch break and conjugal visit break are ordered, by force of law, NOT TO read, view, discuss, listen absorb or process any media report?

Heinous mistrials, at great expense to the taxpayers, who Mr. Cook superciliously claims to speak for, have occurred simply because a single juror innocently walked by a newsstand... Probably on the way to the aforementioned conjugal visit break (And the subsequent smoke break, after the conjugal visit break?)

You seriously, and in all candor, believe that an hour or two (or even a day, or two) in a locked down cell, with a man with an agenda much weightier than yours, could proffer the citizens of Hamilton County a infinitesimal fraction of what the upcoming trial is going to provide us?

Well, as long as you REPORT the news, instead of trying to create it, mold it and then presume facts not in evidence, about the thing, I'd probably be cool with it. That does not appear to be the case here. (That is my opinion.)

I am not bashing the media here, at all, just one OPINION PIECE WRITER.

Please share with us, Mr. Cook, how your OPINION, based on very little fact, absolutely no evidence recorded beyond a reasonable doubt, anecdotes, pithy comments or asides; and a short up-close-and-personal 'interview', that hasn't happened, will enlighten us 'gagged' folks as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Mathews? (I am 'gagging' alright, after reading your latest opinion, so you got that going for you.)

A career opinionator meeting an already proven career criminal? Both personalities with a lot to say and one with barrels of ink and a camera. What could go wrong, here?

"I would understand if the trial was next week. But it's scheduled for next January, and jury selection will happen in Nashville. It's not as if my interview would make you sympathize with Mathews. The odds are quite good he'll be found guilty."

Mr. Cook is already predicting the outcome of this trial, months before it even begins? I have not seen this height of arrogance in quite some time. (And you haven't even talked to the man, yet?)

Are you, Mr. Cook, alleging you are already fully within the grasp of all the facts, having, apparently, talked to all the witnesses, cross-examined all those witnesses, examined and cross-examined all the facts, discovered evidence (On both sides), legally challenged and scrutinized all heretofore unheard, unprinted and/or unthought and/or unsubstantiated allegations willing? You seem to be ready to make a judgment on a man's life based on your meeting that wasn't? That should inspire some confidence.

Not the first substantive argument has been raised in this case (Until you brought one up), not the first witnesses has been called, not the first offer of proof, evidence (Or lack, thereof), mitigating or extenuating circumstances proposed and you are claiming you already know the likely outcome? All based on a not-so-likely 'interview' between the two of you? All in the interest of 'Blind Justice?'

"Is it because they don't want any extra spotlight on Mathews? Hardly. By seeking the death penalty, the DA has ensured Mathews will receive more attention over the years to come than anyone may realize."

I would think, and fervently hope, Mr. Cook, that as a society, when we demand the ultimate price, we'd demand the ultimate "ATTENTION." I was thinking that was the whole point?

"Gagging is the protocol of totalitarianism."

And totalitarianism is based, at it's core, in presenting, afterwards, or beforewards, 'opinions', sans the 'facts', expressed by those in power (Dudes with barrels of ink and guns) directed, schemed at, conjured (Based on potential Gulag Archipelago interviews that weren't) and then generated as fact on some Minsk Opinion 'Breaking News' page.

I believe that Mr. Mathews will be most ably defended by forthright, skilled, experienced and the most knowledgeable defense counsels I have ever known, read about or come up against.

I believe the State of Tennessee will be most ably represented by forthright, skilled, experienced and the most knowledgeable prosecutors I have ever known, read about or come up for (And against!)

I believe that these proficient and eloquent professionals will present their respective cases before an Honorable Jury, one of Mr. Mathews' peers, agreed to by both sides. All under the rule of our ever evolving current law.

This entire process (It is usually referred to as the 'Justice System'), to date, is being presided over by yet another forthright, skilled, experienced and knowledgeable Judge and, as a result, some sense of justice will prevail.

Whether you, Mr. Cook, or I, agree, or not, with the final verdict rendered by this pre-planned synchronicity, we'll live with it.

I hate to break it to you, Mr. Cook, but neither your, nor my, opinion of things, really matters doodly squat, in the great scheme of this thing.

And that is why, Mr. Cook, our 'Justice System', as flawed as we sometimes are led to believe it is, is the best, to date.

Here is your flag, Mr. Cook...... Carry it well, and with honor. You said it, might as well own it......

Disclaimer: I wrote this as my anonymous, lawful, off duty and personal opinion (Based on over 794 years of argued law {Look up 'Magna Carta', Mr. Cook}), 30 years of being a part of the 'System.'

It was typed in response to Mr. Cook's opinion (As flawed as it is.)

I represent no government agency, nor do I speak for same. I just needed something to do to help me get so bored to death so I can get some sleep.

[pepper]

PM broke out his dictionary and used $5.00 words and now I am confused! I think maybe I can paraphrase this for all us non big word using folks.

Paraphrase: Mr. Cook is a F&^$ing idiot who is out to make a name for himself and has nothing of interest to say that anyone wants to hear.

Did I get that right in 30 words or less PM?

[Police Moderator]

Did I get that right in 30 words or less PM?

Yea. Ho. Hum.

....... And I just realized I wasted 2 hours, a former good media source and 6 beers typing a brilliant piece of commentary that took pepper 3 days, 35.5 beers, an advanced Ancient Greek thesaurus, a can of pink crime scene paint and a knock-off Bic lighter to boil down the gist of the issue at hand.

I now feel true, and freely expressed, testament is dead.

I will now heed the words of my dear departed Mother, after I wrote my first opinion work in Ms. Maas' Fourth Grade Creative Writing Module regarding the newly announced 4^th Grade Recess Rules.

Mr. Penn pretty much sums up what I was told by Ms. Maas, and my Mother, upon publication of said Letter to The Editor of the ECS Student Chronicle......

(I should have listened.)

I apologize, in advance, for spurring pepper's forthcoming, "The PM said, "Balls", in obvious reference to my 'testament ' wording.

[TNBear]

Once again PM, I must warn you about keeping things bottled up inside you.

[Police Moderator]

Chattanooga Times Free Press asks for gag order to be lifted on Jesse Mathews trial
by Todd South

A Chattanooga Times Free Press attorney has asked a local judge to lift or alter his recent order that bars anyone, including the defendant, to talk to the media about a pending death penalty trial in the death of a Chattanooga police officer.

Anthony "Bud" Jackson filed the motion with Judge Barry Steelman on Monday, asking that a hearing be scheduled for arguments against the gag order. The order has "hampered" the newspaper's "ability to investigate and report on various matters of public concern," Jackson wrote.

He also asserted in his motion that the gag order violates freedom of speech and the press.

Times Free Press metro columnist David Cook received approval to interview Hamilton County Jail inmate Jesse Mathews from the defendant and had a scheduled appointment for Aug. 17.

Read more: times free press

TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING ON MOTION TO RESTRICT PUBLICITY; produced by: Abigail M. Pearce

In the interest of the public's "Right To Know", why was the motion filed by the attorney for the TFP (Anthony "Bud" Jackson) not provided to us allegedly gagged readers? I mean, we should be privy to each and every scintilla, detail and whim, about this case according to Mr. Cook, right?

[Police Moderator]

From the original opinion piece...

"That word "public" matters. Because this, ultimately, is your case. Your district attorney. Your judge, your courtroom, your tax dollars. And, in a way, your newspaper, too."

Mr. Cook's exaggerated self-opinion (Without out legal substance) claims to represent us all and alleges he is answerable to us all, as it is our newspaper, correct?

In this one (1) sentence, Mr. Cook is alleging that since this is our, "case", we should, by some Narnia-dreamed-up-ivory-tower-non-existent law, or 'Right', control, or have immediate and free access to what happens in the case.

And how it proceeds. And how it happens. And who talked to whom. And what input any of us should have in the outcome of the case at hand. And, how the case is played out, outside a court of law, in the 'Opinion' pages of the TFP. That is how we are going effect 'Justice, in this case?"

Since it 'our" paper, and all, we should be able to dictate, decide, and render legal, emotional or editorial verdicts on anything remotely connected to the Chapin case. All without the knowledge of the court certified facts, after only being exposed to the TFP filtered evidence, pre-trial? Now, I see why they ended opinion/comment on 'News' section of their publication.

Mr. Cook is stating, as I read his printed words, that we, the public, should have input in not only the upcoming trial, but the limits and extent of the obviously, now admitted and biased TFP coverage of said trial, and the events leading up to it.

"Because this, ultimately, is your case. Your district attorney. Your judge, your courtroom, your tax dollars. And, in a way, your newspaper, too."

Seems the David-Cook-Claimed-Owners-of-the-TFP jury is in and it has spoken, by way of 464 readers* (at 66%) against his stated 'opinion.'

Reckon Mr. Cook will bow to the the input of the people he alleges he is responsible and answerable to?

The TFP has a demonstrably abysmal, intrusive and slanted record regarding their 'coverage' of this entire tragic case.

From contacting the aggrieved widow, minutes after she received word that her, and her children's life, perspective and world view had been forever altered... to the pious, sanctimonious and printed by a TFP opnionater, since fired, of a unretracted, offensive, inappropriate and ill-timed 'opinion.'

Mr. Cook's presumptuous conjecture provides a disservice to the citizens, taxpayers and property owners of Hamilton County, Tennessee, the Defendant, our court system, the advocates on either side of this case, the Judge and, most importantly, the jury.

*At posting time.

[pepper]

Once again I have gathered up my tool kit previously mentioned by the PM “35.5 beers, an advanced Ancient Greek thesaurus, a can of pink crime scene paint and a knock-off Bic lighter” and am prepared to paraphrase his latest posting on this subject.

Paraphrase: David Cook is an idiot who is out of touch with reality. Aka ASSHAT of the year.

PM you should have called me to save you some time typing.

[beth]

Is the "gag order" a new concept for Mr. Cook? He sounds shocked that such a thing exists.

[LimitedRecourse]

I'm sure people have gagged around him previously.