The Great Escape!

Some of you may remember in July of 2012 when two inmates form the Humphreys County Jail walked off from a work detail in McEwen while cleaning up at St. Patrick's church after the Irish Picnic? We are revisiting this story to illustrate how in our opinion Sheriff Chris Davis did not properly notify the citizens of Humphreys County of this escape and how also in our opinion the News-Democrat does not always provide the public with all the details on subjects surrounding or concerning Sheriff Davis.

By not properly notify the public, Sheriff Davis placed the safety of every citizen in Humphreys County at risk and denied or limited information to law enforcement they may have received from an alert public that may have helped caught those who escaped long before they made it all the way to Louisiana in a stolen car! There was absolutely no information released to the general public until 48 hours after the escape took place and after WSMV Channel 4 in Nashville began to call and ask questions. WSMV made several phone calls to the Humphreys County Sheriff's Office asking for information concerning the escape and according to their report the Sheriff's Office would not confirm the escape even took place!

In fact, it was not until after WSMV sent an investigative journalist, Carley Gordon, to Humphreys County to investigate was the escape ever confirmed to the media. However, instead of taking the opportunity to speak to the citizens and provide critical information about the escape to the media on camera and in person that could have then be distributed to the public as a whole, Sheriff Davis would only speak via telephone with Ms. Gordon. Once WSMV became involved on August 1st, the Sheriff's Office, 48 hours later remind you, quickly posted mugshots of Dustin Oscar Allen and Dustin Jones on their Facebook page identify them as the individuals who had escaped, both of whom were serving T.D.O.C. (state) time in the county jail.

It is unclear if Sheriff Davis ever provided WSMV with a description of the car that was stolen by the escapees, however it is clear that no description was reported by WSMV in their story nor was any information attached to the mugshots posted by the Sheriff's Office. In fact their is no mention in any media coverage about a stolen car until after their capture in Louisiana by East Baton Rouge deputies.

"Why did Sheriff Davis not address the public personally to ensure the citizens of Humphreys County that they were safe and to explain why he did not release any information to the general public sooner or to provide information that may have resulted in apprehending the escapees before they left the state?!" 

One could argue the reason Sheriff Davis did not speak with the media personally was out of embarrassment. However, even though the escape happened on his watch, he is not responsible for the decisions those two individuals made. They seen and opportunity and they took it! Sheriff Davis would be no more responsible for their escape than he would be for the original charges that landed them in jail to begin with! We all make our own choices!

Yet, one could separately argue that another reason he did not speak with WSMV was still out of embarrassment, however that he in fact hadn't properly notified the public and he knew this was a decision he would and should be asked questions about on camera! A decision he would be responsible for! Why else would Sheriff Davis not want to address the public via an outlet that would allow him access to a large portion on the community where he could in turn distribute key information, such as what kind of car was stolen and who the escapees were, that may have led to a faster capture?

Mr. Allen and Mr. Jones avoided capture for over two weeks and made it all the way to Baton Rouge, La. before they were captured, yet not until after they had time to construct an working meth lab in their car stolen from here in Humphreys County and then ran into a utility pole, overturning it. This is all information as reported by WAFB Channel 9 in Baton Rouge.

"One can not help but wonder if they would have even made it out of Tennessee if Sheriff Davis would have properly notified the public the day the escape took place and provide information that may have helped the public aid law enforcement in their capture?!" 

Of course this is all information that is missing from the News-Democrat article that ran on August 17th, 2012. They make no mention of the 48 hour period between the escape and when the media first informed the public. Nor do they mention any information about the car that was stolen or the meth lab recovered after the escapees crashed it.In fact the Democrat reported that the two were taken into custody without incident after the car they were passengers in had an accident!  Either they did not bother to fact check the story or they intentional left out key information in order to cover for Sheriff Davis' mistakes!

One would think while reporting on a story concerning the capture of two escaped inmates the fact they were captured in a stolen car they drove 530 miles from Humphreys County and set up a meth lab in would be worthy of mentioning in their "news" coverage.  Also worthy would be that the public was not notified of the escape until two days after it took place and the fact the Sheriff's Office would not even confirm to the media that the escape had even took place until after they arrived asking questions!

This is not the first time they have left out information in a story that concerns Sheriff Davis. In fact in the past they have completely ignored stories all together! The Democrat did not mention anything about the deputies who beat Mr. Ring pleading guilty in federal court nor did they print one single word about the Sheriff's affair or his using of county property for personal gain! In our opinion, clearly the News-Democrat needs to spend a little more time reporting the news and a little less time attempting to craft it!

Once again we ask you Sheriff Davis, "If this is your very best, we would hate to see you at your worse!!!"

Links to additional information below:

Louisiana State Police Facebook Press Release concerning Escaped Inmates.

WTVF Channel 5 Nashville Article on Escaped Inmates.

WKRN Channel 2 Nashville Article on Escaped Inmates.

"The Sheriff of Naughty-ham??"

"This is not about the weakness of a man, yet the corruptibility of a public servant!" In most cases, an

affair would be a private issue beyond the reach of public scrutiny and rightfully so. And of course having an

affair is certainly not a criminal activity by any means, however if you are a public official and you

use public property to facilitate or otherwise engage in or further an affair, then under Tennessee state law, it

would stand to reason “Official Misconduct” may have  in fact occurred or be occurring

and thus making it criminal and open to public review!  

Statement from Sheriff Davis: 

"I know I have made a mistake. I am human. I feel that it is between God, my wife, and me. I want the people of Humphreys County to know I am truly embarrassed about my personal life being brought out this way. However, this matter has never interfered with my loyalty to my job, my community, or my oath of office."

Contrary to this statement any use of public property or the use of public provided services or funds for personal gain would be nothing less than an interference with Sheriff Davis' loyalty in every respect he mentions! How can anyone state they are loyal to the public after they have violated the trust of that public by using their provided tax resources to engage in an extra-martial affair?  Not only is this a violation of the public trust and state law, it is a violation of the Humphreys County Code of Ethics as well.

“County Mayor Jessie Wallace did not say a word at Monday's County Commission meeting when citizens demanded action against Davis. The County Commission did not utter a word about the Sheriff. Not one Commissioner suggested it was a topic of county business. Today, the County Mayor wants everyone to know there is a reason for the silence”…They don't have the power and authority," said Wallace."It's an assumption, a misconception. The county commission cannot remove anyone from office. “Wallace said there are reasons why a county commission cannot discipline an elected sheriff. However, an ouster suit would be possible. The only thing the County Attorney could do would be redundant to what is already being done," said Wallace via a WSMV News Story dated November 17th, 2011.

Regardless of Mr. Jessie Wallace's statements to WSMV, he and the County Commissioners do have the power to take action against Sheriff Davis under the Humphreys County Code of Ethics. What they lack is the will to protect the public. However Mr. Wallace and "the Colonel" John Lee Williams do have the will to protect each other! Mr. Wallace's inaction against Sheriff Davis in a prefect example of how he too is part of the problems we face in Humphreys County! By taking no action Mr. Wallace sends the message that it is OK for elected leaders to abuse their positions and it is OK for these same elected leaders to have sex in county buildings! 

After the assault of Mr. Glenn Capps in March of 2012, in-which Mr. Capps has filed a lawsuit against the Humphreys County Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Davis, Capps Lawsuit. Sheriff Davis went on Fox 17 and made a statement that he wanted to ensure the public that we would get the very best from him and his office and that if any wrong doing had occurred it would be handled and not go "untouched". Well Sheriff what about your wrong doing? Do you really believe that using taxpayer resources to meet and have sex outside your marriage is the very best we can expect from you? What about holding yourself responsible for your own actions?!

Six lawsuits, misuse of county funds and property, abuse of authority, violations of civil rights, not notifying the public about escaped inmates who were later caught in Louisiana with a stolen car form Tennessee that had a meth lab in it, taking no action against deputies repeatedly accused of assault, inappropriate conduct with inmates, and the worst betrayal of all, taking bribes to protect drug dealers! IF THIS IS YOUR VERY BEST SHERIFF WE WOULD HATE TO SEE YOU AT YOUR WORSE!!!

Some trying to use the New Johnsonville City Charter to prevent Chief Ellison from running for Sheriff

For those citizens of Humphreys County who are excited about Chief Wayne Ellison running for Sheriff we would like to share some information that clearly displays the nervousness of some who do not want to see him (Ellison) run. Over the past week, we have heard rumors that some of the New Johnsonville City Council members have taking issue with the Chiefs running and they are trying to use a section of the City Charter to express some concerns that Chief Ellison is not eligible to run or must resign as Chief in order to run.

 

After hearing about this, we at the HCIndependent set out to get to the bottom of what appears to us as a political move by some to prevent the Chief from becoming our next Sheriff. Moreover, we have found that the City Charter, specifically the section they are trying to use to prevent city employees from running for office while remaining employees, may very well be in violation of state law.  

 

Below is the section of the Charter we will be discussing.  

                         Link to New Johnsonville City Charter

 

SECTION 3.11. POLITICAL ACTIVITY PROHIBITED. BE ITFURTHER ENACTED, That no employee of the city shall continue in the employment of the city after becoming a candidate for nomination or election to any public office, but this provision shall not apply to the mayor, councilmen, C-17 members of boards or commissions, the city attorney, or other officers of the city. No person shall directly or indirectly give, render or pay any money, service or other valuable consideration to any person for or on account of or in connectionwith employment by the city government. No person shall orally, by letter or otherwise solicit or be in any manner concerned in soliciting any assessment, subscription or contribution from any employee of the city in connection with any city election. An officer or employee of the city, other than the mayor or a member of council, shall not make any contribution to the campaign funds of any candidate in any city election. Any person who by himself or with others willfully or corruptly violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof he shall immediately forfeit and vacate the office or position he holds and be ineligible to hold any office or position of employment in the city government for a period of five years thereafter.

 

After reading this section one might say, “Well the Chief cannot run and remain the Chief of Police”, however, the question we ask is, “Can or does a City Charter have the power to supersede state law or operate in conflict with opinions set forth by the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office?”  We have found that the answer is no! In fact, T.C.A. 7-51-1501 actually supersedes any provision in a City Charter that would bar a city employee from running for state or local office while remaining an employee.  

In addition, does that law protect employees from being fired or asked to resign? To that, we say yes! The only stipulation in T.C.A. 7-51-1501 that would prevent the Chief from remaining employed is that he (Ellison) cannot run for city office, however running for state or other local office is a right guaranteed to him and protected by Tennessee state law.

         T.C.A. 7-51-1501 reads as follows,

   

Rights guaranteed to local government employees. Notwithstanding the provisions of any county, municipal, metropolitan, or other local governmental charter to the contrary, and notwithstanding the provisions of any resolution or ordinance adopted by any such county, municipality or other local governmental unit to the contrary, every employee of every such local governmental unit shall enjoy the same rights of other citizens of Tennessee to be a candidate for any state or local political office, the right to participate in political activities by supporting or opposing political parties, political candidates, and petitions to governmental entities; provided, further, the city, county, municipal, metropolitan or other local government is not required to pay the employee's salary for work not performed for the governmental entity; and provided, further, that unless otherwise authorized by law or local ordinance, an employee of a municipal government or of a metropolitan government shall not be qualified to run for elected office in the local governing body of such local governmental unit in which the employee is employed.

Now we already know what some of you will say and that is, “The language of the law states notwithstanding the provisions of the charter and this simply word makes it legal for a city to bar its employees from running for any political office or allows for the termination or request for resignation of that employee”. Therefore, we at the HCIndependent looked even deeper into the complex labyrinth of our states laws and we found several articles and Attorney General Opinions that clearly state that employees for a governmental subdivision may run for local or state office, just not for office in the governmental subdivision they work.  

The use of the word notwithstanding is meant to convey that while state law clearly allows a governmental subdivision to restrict an employee from running for political office in the subdivision of government they work, they can amend their charter to allow that employee to run for office within that subdivision, if they so choose. It is not a blanket statement set forth to allow a governmental subdivision, is this case the City of New Johnsonville, to completely bar or terminate an employee who wishes to run for other offices within a different governmental subdivision, in this case County Sheriff.  

In an opinion that was wrote by Tennessee Attorney General Robert Cooper in August 2010, (Opinion No. 10-94) the General opined that T.C.A. 7-51-1501 effectively overrules every local governmental charter provision or ordinance that purports to limit the listed political activities of its employees. Including the right to run for or be a candidate for any state or local elective office. The General further opined that pursuant to this statute, local employees are not prohibited by any city or county charter provision from running for elective office. However, unless authorized by law or local ordinance, an employee of a governmental body is not qualified to run for elected office in the local governing body in which the employee is employed.
                              Link to Tennessee Attorney General Opinion 10-94

 

This is where the simply meaning of the word notwithstanding comes into play again and the use of it to convey while a governmental subdivision may and can bar its employees from running for office within that subdivision, it may also amend its charter to allow its employees to run for elected office within that subdivision, if they so choose. (See also Opinion 96-106)

A governmental subdivision cannot design within the framework of its charter any policy, provision, section or ordinance that would seek to or does degrade or limited any state law unless that state law itself has design within its own framework to allow those policy, provision, sections or ordinances as with the notwithstanding provision of T.C.A. 7-51-1501.

Now, the fact that the City of New Johnsonville’s Charter states that employees may not run for any public office and remain an employee is in clear violation of a state law that guarantees that employee the rights and freedoms enjoyed by any other citizen of the state who wishes to seek public office. Moreover, the fact that T.C.A. 7-51-1501 supersedes any provision of any charter that would attempt to deny an employee their right to seek a political office outside their governmental subdivision of employment, in our opinion, nullifies most of Section 3.11 of the New Johnsonville City Charter.  

Based on this nullification by a superseding state law, It is our opinion any attempt to terminate an employee or ask them to resign for running for public office outside their governmental subdivision of employment, while using a public policy, in this case the City Charter, is in violation of state law and may be considered wrongful termination. This could open the city to liability and damages under civil court proceedings.

We have heard from some citizens of New Johnsonville that Chief Ellison has support among some of the Council members. However, we understand that several of the New Johnsonville City Counsel members are friends of our current Sheriff or they work for him at the Sheriff’s Department (Councilmen/Sheriff’s Office Capt. Rob Edwards) and it is not hard to figure out why some of them may be pushing the subject.

Now we are not saying that Sheriff Davis is behind this move however, we have heard that the idea of running against the Chief makes him (Davis) and others very nervous and rightfully so.  With a record like his (Davis) going up against the record the Chief has, we surmises there are some sleepless nights going on at the Davis residence.  

In addition, if there has been some kind of political move on the part of those who would like to see Sheriff Davis remain in office so he (Davis) may continue his reign of “alleged” corruption and moral deviancy, or because you are afraid you will be out when he (Davis) is, we say nice try and better luck next time. Just remember that change is coming and we are watching this election very close and all the old political tactics and tricks used in the past will be meet head on using the law and common sense.  

We encourage the residences of New Johnsonville who support the Chief becoming our next Sheriff to contact their City Counsel Person and/or Mayor and ask them to seek clarification of the law and if clarification confirms to them the City Charter is in violation of state law, to correct the issue as soon as possible.  

To Chief Ellison we have a simple message. Keep your chin up, your head level, put your knees in the breeze, drive-on to the Ranger objective, sir, and always remember Rangers lead the way! This county needs you and from the amount of messages we have received about you running for Sheriff, they want you as well.  We will be following this issue extremely close!!!!!!!!!

   

InterView Clip1A: Bribe Allegations.

This is a clip from an interview with an individual who alleges he paid Sheriff Chris Davis $5000.00 to protect him and to give him advanced notification of pending law enforcement actions. Due to the seriousness of the allegations and information contained in the full interview, we will not be releasing the name of the individual who gave this interview or the entire interview itself. We will be releasing additional edited clips in the future.

We would like to note that Sheriff Davis is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and all the subjects discussed in the interview clip are allegations. We do invite Sheriff Davis to post any response to these allegations however if he chooses not to we understand that it is his right not to do so. We would also like to invite Sheriff Davis to join others and us in requesting a special prosecutor to investigate these allegations.

DA Alsobrooks refuses to investigation Sheriff Davis for bribery!!!

The Independent has received copies of a request made to District Attorney Dan Alsobrooks by a citizen asking a special prosecutor conduct an investigation concerning allegations Sheriff Davis has violated state and federal law in concert with the Humphreys County Code of Ethics. We have also received a copy of the DA’s response denying Mr. Hamm’s request. Click here for DA Alsobrooks letter refusing to investigate

Many of the allegations in Mr. Hamm’s request to be investigated are the same as those contained in his request for an ethics investigation that was ignored by “the Colonel” Mr. John Lee Williams and Humphreys County. However, there is a new allegation that Sheriff Davis was paid by an individual for protection and to give them advance notification of any pending law enforcement action involving their meth operation.

Along with the copies of Mr. Hamm’s request and the DA’s response, we have received copies of the interviews with the individual who calms to have paid Sheriff Davis for protection. The Independent has reviewed these interviews however, in order to protect the individual and their family we will not be releasing them at this time.

This individual also calms that they paid another Humphreys County Sheriff’s deputy to pick them up and transport them out of Humphreys County.  Not only did this deputy transport this individual, they transported the materials to manufacture meth across the county line, in a county patrol car, to prevent or delay the individuals’ arrest or questioning.

This individual also calms this deputy gave them the radio frequencies to law enforcement in Humphreys County so they could monitor radio traffic to further protect their meth operation. In fact, during a search of a meth lab operated by this individual a radio was found that was programed with Humphreys County radio frequencies.

Other topics of conversation in these interviews are whether Sheriff Davis used stolen property during a fundraiser while running for office, the abortion of a female inmate in the Humphreys County Jail, whether Sheriff Davis notified others that law enforcement were on their way to question them about violations of the law and whether Sheriff Davis was “busted” for selling marijuana before going into law enforcement.

Given this information, it is shocking that the DA and Humphreys County are so resistant to investigating Sheriff Davis. It would certainly appear as if they were protecting Sheriff Davis and not the best interests of the public. Any allegation that a member of law enforcement is providing protection and information to those manufacturing meth should be taking extremely serious and investigated. Why is the DA, Mr. John Lee Williams and the Humphreys County Commission giving Sheriff Davis a “free pass”?

If none of these allegations are true then an independent investigation would certainly prove that, so why prevent it? If Sheriff Davis is innocent then it would make sense he would invite this investigation to clear his name. So why is he hiding behind the DA and “the Colonel” Mr. John Lee Williams? Could this investigation reveal the participation of others and could that be another reason they refuse to investigate?

 Click here to read Mr. Hamm's request for Special Prosecutor

(All reference to criminal conduct or other activities in this post are alleged and all individuals are innocent until proving guilty)

Stolen Trailers and a Waverly Police Department Report

In the video above, Sheriff Chris Davis “misrepresents” the facts about a stolen trailer that was recovered on the property of Mr. Lemuel Palk, a friend of Sheriff Davis who had served as his (Davis) campaign treasurer. According to Sheriff Davis, he does not remember how he came about the information concerning this stolen trailer and that he and Investigator Ronnie Toungette went to Mr. Palks’ property and recovered it. However, we believe Sheriff Davis is not being 100% accurate about certain facts surrounding the actual recovery of this stolen trailer.

In a deposition given by Inv. Tougette, he states that he (Toungette) made Sheriff Davis aware he had information there could be stolen items on Mr. Palks’ property and that he and Sheriff Davis did go to Mr. Palks’ property in late 2006 based upon his (Toungette) request and information. However, Inv. Toungette further states there was no recovery made of any stolen property on that occasion, that Sheriff Davis spoke with Mr. Palk by cellphone, and that he (Mr. Palk) was going to bring all the suspected stolen property to the Sheriff’s Office. Click here for Deposition given by Ronnie Toungette

Despite the arrangement Sheriff Davis made with Mr. Palk, the property was not brought to the Sheriff’s Office.  Sheriff Davis was made aware of this and called Mr. Palk again. After this call, Sheriff Davis stated once again that Mr. Palk would be turning in the property. Yet, the property was never brought to the Sheriff’s Office. Inv. Toungette even spoke with the DA’s office (ADA Billy Miller and Inv. John Ethridge) about what was happening, yet no help was offered.

Inv. Toungette goes on to state in his deposition that it was not until almost a year later after a drug raid on Mr. Palks’ property was the trailer actually recovered. Inv. Toungettes’ statement is backed up by a Waverly Police Department report from September 2007 (which The Independent has obtained. concerning that drug raid. Click here for Waverly Police Department Report

This report confirms that the trailer was not recovered until after this drug raid and directly conflicts with Sheriff Davis’ statements. It also confirms what Inv. Toungette stated in his deposition about how he came into work and found the trailer in the parking lot after a drug raid almost a year after he and Sheriff Davis went to Mr. Palks’ property. This report further states that Sheriff Davis had information the trailer was stolen at the time of the raid.

Why does a Waverly Police Department report state that Sheriff Davis had information concerning a stolen trailer located on Mr. Palks’ property in September 2007 when he (Sheriff Davis) calms under oath in a deposition to have recovered it in late 2006, months before the raid ever happened? Better yet what is the trailer doing there if Sheriff Davis recovered it like he stated?

How much of what Sheriff Davis is telling in his deposition is fact or misrepresentation?  

FACT. Both Inv. Toungette and Sheriff Davis confirm they went to Mr. Palk’s property.                                      

FACT. Both suspected the trailer was stolen.                                                                                

MISREPERSENTATION. Sheriff Davis and Inv. Toungette recovered the stolen trailer when they went to Mr.Palk’s property.     

FACT. A Waverly Police Department report from September 2007 confirms Inv. Toungette and Sheriff Davis did not recover the trailer as sworn to under oath by Sheriff Davis.

So in our opinion, Sheriff Davis is not only “misrepresenting” the facts, he is blatantly doing so!

Alsobrooks will not investigate bribery acusations against Sheriff Davis!

We have received some very interesting information and evidence against Sheriff Davis and other individuals. We have had time to review much of the information and listen to a few interviews of an individual who has “alleged” they paid Sheriff Davis to protect their drug operation. We will not be releasing those recordings to the public yet for we have been asked to hold them until the Federal government has had ample to review them and to investigate this matter. The individual who furnished the Independent with this information has turned them over to the Federal government as well and has asked DA Alsobrooks to request a Special Prosecutor to investigate the “allegations.” While we have complete confidence in the Justice Department, we have been told that DA Alsobrooks has refused to review the matter. It would be a great help if the public contacted DA Alsobrooks and asked him why is he "allegedly" protecting Sheriff Davis concerning these accusations? We will be releasing what we can over the next few days. Stay tuned Humphreys County and stay safe!

Citizens First! Well after me of course!

1985 News Democrat Article

This article discusses "allegations" that the County Attorney John Lee "the Colonel" Williams used his position to have Ogden Road repaved ahead of other county roads that needed it more. Surely "the Colonel" would never use his position to benefit himself or others. Look at how fast he has acted upon a citizens request for an ethics investigation concerning Sheriff Davis. Maybe this is  another example of "good-ole boys" just doing what they do!!!

Acticle on Benjie Lee's Motion to Dismiss.

Article in the Tennessean

This is an article that ran in the Tennessean where Benjie Lee's attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the charges against Mr. Lee due to the sequestration. It is doubtful this motion will be successful and frankly is a joke! However, desperate times call for desperate measures. The fact that Mr. Lee's attorneys have had over a year to prepare for the first trial and since the date for the new trial has been moved to October they have more than ample time to prepare for it. Our opinion is that if Mr. Lee's attorneys truly want to help their client they would advice him to cooperate with the Justice Department and tell them the exact level of involvement Sheriff Davis played in the second beating of Darrin in the jail and what happened after the video of Darrin's beating on the scene stopped. If the roles were reversed we have little doubt that Sheriff Davis would throw him under a bus to save his own butt. It is sad that Mr. Lee would rather face ten years in prison away from his family to protect an "alleged" corrupt Sheriff.

This video was taken from a camera inside a private citizen’s vehicle in Dickson County, TN. The citizen decided to go to Waffle House after putting his infant child to sleep. However before he could reach the Cheese Streak, he was after. A deputy from the Dickson County Sheriff’s Office stops him for “loud” music and/or mufflers.  However, in the video, you see this citizen pass the deputy on a different traffic stop and there is no “Phantom Soundtrack” of muffler and music blaring as they pass each other. This citizen is on probation and being so he has limited rights against searches preformed when stopped by the police. However, other civil rights remain whole and intact. Either they must know you are on probation and conduct the search or preform a legal stop and then ID you has being on probation. However, it is clear the deputy did not know this citizen was on probation until he received the information over his radio, so it goes back to having no probable cause or reasonable suspension to make the stop and then conducting what he felt was a valid search. The deputy confirms that fact when he “misrepresents” the cause for making the stop to begin with!

Proof Wallace, Williams, Davis and 5 Present Commisioners Knew about the Code of Ethics

Link to Documents

These two documents prove several things. One is that when Mr. Wallace told the public of Humphreys County there was nothing that he or the Commissioners could do about Sheriff Davis, he was not being 100 percent accurate. It proves that at least five of the present Commissioners were aware that the county had put a Code of Ethics in place to deal with misconduct. It proves that Mr. Wallace knew this as well. In addition, “the Colonel” was present at this meeting, so he too was aware. Moreover, even though Sheriff Davis denied he knew of any rule that would prevent him from letting family members use county property, he too may not have been 100 percent accurate!  Now do you believe everything you are being told about what the county can do about Sheriff Davis? On the other hand, are you like us and have the suspicion that the public is being lied to!

Humphreys Sheriff Discusses Allegations While Under Oath - WSMV Channel 4

This is the WSMV story on Sheriff Davis’ depositions where he admits to allowing his family to use county property, prevents the recovery of stolen property and is questioned about having sex inside the courthouse.  We will answer one question that Sheriff Davis could not about whether there are any ethical rules governing the use of county property for private or personal use. “YES, THERE ARE!” It is called the Humphreys County Code of Ethics and you, Sheriff Davis were there the night it was voted on by the County Commission. However after watching the entire video deposition, it is clear that when it comes to answering questions about possible violations of the law, ethical rules or just plain common sense your memory doesn’t work to well. What ever happened to that lawsuit Sheriff Davis filed against Mr. Lockert?

I will be objective,but I think he is innocent! ;)

As you look at this photograph, we would like you to ask yourself, “Does “the Colonel” Mr. Williams have a conflict of interest in conducting an ethics investigation requested by a citizen of Humphreys County?” This photograph proves that he is a public supporter of Sheriff Davis. Is that not a conflict of interest? If you have read the letters from Mr. Hamm, you will see that he requested Mr. Williams remove himself from that investigation due to several conflicts of interest and ask for the TBI or State Attorney General to conduct it. However, in a response letter from the “the Colonel” he refused to do so, stating that he did not feel there was a conflict. Well imagine that! Mr. Hamm even asked the County Commission request Mr. Williams step aside and put this matter on the agenda to be discussed. However, no such discussion has been placed on any agenda, nor any request made to “the Colonel” and it appears, in our opinion, they are ignoring him in hope he will just go away! Now you tell us that protectionism is not “allegedly” going on in Humphreys County and it is perpetrated from the very top! We have an idea Colonel, just ask the Sheriff to conduct the investigation. After all the outcome would be the same as if you did it! This is further proof a change needs to happen in Humphreys County and those in elected positions to govern this county are dictated what to do by those who "allegedly" are more interesting in protecting each other than the public trust!

WSMV Second Story on Sheriff Davis Affair/Story Where Mr. Wallace Lies to the Public of Humphreys County.

Link to Humphreys County Code of Ethics

This is a second story on Sheriff Davis’ affair. In this story Mr. Jessie Wallace, the County Executive, "ALLEGEDLY" lies to the public and states that the County Commissioners do not have the power to do anything about the unprofessional conduct and misuses of county resources by Sheriff Davis. The Humphreys County Code of Ethics, which Mr. Wallace voted on and signed in 2007, does give the county the power to initiate an investigation and to remove the Sheriff if misconduct is proven, which “allegedly” would not be hard to prove.  There is a link posted to that Code of Ethics and we suggest everyone read it. Why are Mr. Wallace and the County Commissioners ignoring their duty to the public of Humphreys County? Now, as with the Sheriff’s Office not having all bad deputies, we feel that maybe some on the Commissioners are concerned about the direction Mr. Wallace and “the Colonel” Mr. Williams are taking our community. However, being concerned and doing something to change the status-quo are two different things and in their positions as stewards of the public trust if they see a problem and ignore it, they become part of the problem! “Any Middle Tennessee Sheriff should be held to the highest possible moral standard”, “They have to be above any approach, I think, I think any law enforcement officer should be above that. As I said, we are judged to a higher standard and rightfully so and we should live up to that standard”, said Sheriff Jeff Long, President of the Tennessee Sheriff’s Association. Sheriff Long also states that if any of his officers did anything like what Sheriff Davis has done they would be fired. Sheriff Long goes on to say that, “everyone knows that conduct is not right”. Well Sheriff Long, everyone except the leadership of Humphreys County! We can only assume since they refuse to take action, they think what Sheriff Davis has done is “a-ok”. What does that say about them? We wonder when they go to church and pray for strength to do the right things and to live a righteous life, if they leave out the parts about Sheriff Davis and doing their jobs to protect the public? We also understand that Sheriff Davis asked for forgiveness for his transgressions at his church and we think that is wonderful. However, our question is, “Did he repent for all his “alleged” sins or is he going on a case by case basis?”

Resignation Letters of Dep. Flowers

Link to Dep. Flowers Resignation and POST Letters

A concerned citizen who felt the truth about Dep. Flowers resignation was not being told sent these documents to us. These two documents do seem to hint at that. After reading Mr. Ballinger’s letter in reference to the “alleged” assault perpetrated against him by Dep. Flowers, it is clear that Mr. Ballinger would not file charges if Dep. Flowers were never allowed to work in law enforcement again.  Allowing Dep. Flowers to resign stating that he was continuing his education simply is not true. However, it will allow him to work for another department if he wants.  Another interesting fact is that in the letter to the POST Commission Dep. Flowers was allowed to state the same reason for his resignation and this document is signed by Sheriff Davis himself, even though he “allegedly” knew the true reason for Dep. Flowers resignation was not to continue his education, yet because he “allegedly” assaulted a citizen. Is that another “alleged” example of Mr. Davis sacrificing the truth to protect one of his own regardless whether he has "allegedly" attacked a citizen in a drunken rage? In the course of receiving these documents, we were informed that this is not the first time Dep. Flowers has been in trouble for “allegedly” assaulting someone and that Sheriff Davis “allegedly” knew Dep. Flowers had been arrested for assault in the past before he "allegedly" attacked Mr. Ballinger. Sheriff Davis, even “allegedly”  knowing that Dep. Flowers had been arrested for assault, wrote a letter to Walter State where he recommended Dep. Flowers without reservation and stated that Dep. Flowers had good moral character and he (Davis) took great pleasure in recommending him and he would hiring him without hesitation.  Maybe that is the trouble with Mr. Davis; he does not hesitate enough when it comes to protecting the public by hiring better morally qualified individuals or making professional decisions about the appropriate use of taxpayer provided resources and buildings. Mr. Davis has hired individuals who have been arrested for assault, investigated for rape and “allegedly” committed civil rights violations. We wonder how this information will affect the newest lawsuit filed against the county in which Dep. Flowers in named as one of two Humphreys County Sheriff's deputies who, without probable cause, arrested and "allegedly" assaulted Mr. Glenn Capps. A suit that "alleges" the county is at fault for not taking action against Mr. Davis or others who "allegedly" commit misconduct and break the law. While the Humphreys County Sheriff’s Office has some outstanding deputies and employees, in our opinion, it is the individuals like Flowers, Phelps, Lee, Hedge, Ross, Edwards and a few others, as well as Mr. Davis himself, that make the entire department look bad.  What makes the entire county look bad is the fact that we have individuals like Mr. Wallace and “the Colonel” Mr. Williams who have the power to change things and protect the public safety and resources yet “allegedly”  turn their backs on common sense and the law for the sake of the “good-ole-boy” system. At least "the Colonel" does not try to hide his support for Mr. Davis. After all he has a "We support our Sheriff" sign on both sides of his mailbox. Those signs should read, "We don't support criminals. Unless your one of us!" We will be releasing additional information concerning incidents of “alleged” unlawful activities soon. Stay safe Humphreys County!