Defending the family

Share on MeWe Share on Gab E-mail article

Public Advocate VP Mark Clayton Demands Criminal Investigation Into Nashville Public Corruption

Photo Credit: Instagram Post of I'AesHea Myles and Megan Barry Endorsement

Nashville journalistic muckraker and former Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate (2012), Public Advocate Vice President Mark Clayton files a Sworn Statement in a continuing effort to petition for investigations into apparent public corruption in Nashville, Tennessee.

Mark Clayton, Vice-president of Public Advocate Statement

I, Mark Clayton, Vice President of Public Advocate, am requesting an investigation into potential violations of 18 U.S.C. � 242 by I'Aeshea Myles, a public official in Nashville, Tennessee and
former candidate for chancellor (seat on Nashville Court).

Background: On February 1, 2018, I issued a public statement calling for the resignation of then-Nashville Mayor Megan Barry and an investigation into her potential misuse of public funds and official misconduct (see attached statement). This statement prominently featured a criminal accusation against Megan Barry, stating, "Clayton says 'Megan Barry has been accused of also misusing her office to intentionally divert flood water into my home of in violation of T.C.A. 39-14-104(2) for the benefit of a neighbor of mine who has intentionally, in willful violation of Metro Codes, dammed water and flooded my home in ongoing codes violations.'"

Following this, Mayor Barry pled guilty to crimes which I, Mark Clayton, thoroughly enumerated in the request for investigation and which appear, in lay terms, to be the basis for the charges against Megan Barry to which she subsequently pled guilty.

Current Concerns: Upon information and belief, it is not merely possible but probable, given the public record, that I'Aeshea Myles, former candidate for chancellor (seat on Nashville Court) , worked directly with Megan Barry to intentionally divert flood water into my home, curtilage, and driveway in possible criminal violation of T.C.A. 39-14-104(2). This appears to be an act of political retaliation for my successful request for a criminal investigation against I'Aeshea Myles' apparent co-conspirator, Megan Barry.

Notably, Megan Barry openly endorsed I'Aeshea Myles, and I'Aeshea Myles prominently featured Megan Barry's endorsement on her campaign website. Given the indisputable public record, I'Aeshea Myles seems to knowingly and publicly attach her own actions to the conspiracy to defraud me and destroy my property.

Furthermore, there are indications that I'Aeshea Myles, former candidate for chancellor (seat on Nashville Court), may have conspired with election officials to improperly remove her only opposition, Johnny Ellis, as a candidate for chancery judge. As a voter in that election, I was deprived of my right to vote for my chosen candidate due to the Ultra Vires communiques from I'Aeshea Myles' co-conspirators to remove her only election opposition. This candidate removal has no basis in law and should be investigated for violation under 8 U.S.C. � 242, and all parties involved should be investigated and prosecuted, including I'Aeshea Myles; and I am ready to testify under oath against I'Arshea and her co-conspirators in any legal proceeding.

The removal of the candidate, Johnny Ellis, from the ballot runs afoul of (including but not limited to) the public function test established in Chapman v. Higbee Co., 319 F.3d 825 (6th Cir. 2003). The public function test is used to determine whether a private entity's actions constitute state action under Section 1983 and, by extension, Section 242 and the public function test under Chapman v. Higbee as well as the Tennessee state case of Morrison v. Crews, the latter of which is cited in cases nationwide for persuasive authority and specifically deals with judicial elections.

In Chapman, the court held that "a private entity may be held to constitutional standards when its actions so approximate state action that they may be fairly attributed to the state." The court further explained that the public function test is satisfied when "the private entity exercises powers which are traditionally exclusively reserved to the state."

Applying this test to the removal of Johnny Ellis from the ballot should include the following aspects of a thorough criminal investigation into all related co-conspirators:

Conducting elections and regulating access to the ballot are functions traditionally exclusively reserved to the state. The U.S. Constitution grants states the authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections. Deviations from this method not only carry civil penalties with civil remedies, criminal penalties are also in place to prevent fraudulent elections such as I'Aeshea Myles fraudulent theft of the seat of Chancellor in Davidson County, Nashville Tennessee.
If I'Aeshea Myles conspired with election officials to improperly remove Johnny Ellis from the ballot, which the public record plainly demonstrates that she did, this means that a private entity (Myles and her co-conspirators)participating in a traditionally exclusive state function (regulating ballot access). It is not a believable proposition that I'Aeshea Myles had nothing to do with the removal of her only opponent on the ballot, thus rendering the so-called "election" a total fraud, not just from the perspective that someone from Davidson county sent in an Ultra Vires letter to remove Johnny Ellis, but that I'Aeshea Myles is and was, as the public record shows, a part of that conspiracy. I'Aeshea Myles knew that it was illegal to remove her only opposition candidate and she co-conspired anyways to steal the position of Chancellor without a valid election, which I'Aeshea Myles knew to be fraudulent under all applicable civil and criminal laws.
By removing Ellis from the ballot, Myles and the election officials may have deprived voters, including Mark Clayton, of their constitutional right to vote for their chosen candidate.

If a thorough criminal investigation reveals that I'Aeshea Myles former candidate for chancellor (seat on Nashville Court) conspired with election officials to improperly remove Ellis from the ballot, this necessarily satisfies divergence from the public function test under Chapman. Consequently, Myles' actions are then attributed to the state, making her liable for violating voters' constitutional rights under � 242.

Additionay, throughout the entire process, Johnny Ellis may have violated Tennessee Code Annotated �� 23-3-105 and 23-3-107 against Mark Clayton. However, since this is a criminal matter and even though I, Mark Clayton, identify as the victim in this crime, Johnny Ellis is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and should have the rights which Johnny Ellis conspired to deprive of Mark Clayton during his successful victory criminal defense; therefore Johnny Ellis, although ethically and morally unfit to hold the office of Chancellor, legally had the right to run for the office of Chancellor as the only opposition to fraudulent candidate and fraudulently seated so-called "Chancellor" I'Aeshea Myles.

Request: I, Mark Clayton, formally request a thorough criminal investigation by the appropriate authorities into whether I'Aeshea Myles and Megan Barry aligned co-conspirators, acting under color of law, willfully subjected me and other voters to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. � 242 and T.C.A. 39-14-104(2).

Additionally, Johnny Ellis should be criminally investigated for violations of Tennessee Code Annotated �� 23-3-105 and 23-3-107 against Mark Clayton, who is the victim and that I, Mark Clayton testify to a grand jury, presenting facts and evidence regarding Johnny Ellis' criminal violations.

Specifically, I request an investigation into:

I'Aeshea Myles',former candidate for chancellor (seat on Nashville Court), role in the intentional diversion of flood water into my property, potentially in retaliation for my lawful actions, and her public ties to Megan Barry, whom I, Mark Clayton, publicly accused of the same continuing violation starting in 2018. This is all part of one conspiratorial political vendetta and has far crossed over the line of criminal activity.

I'Aeshea Myles' publicly documented conspiracy with election officials to improperly remove a candidate from the ballot, infringes upon voters' rights and violates � 242.

A thorough criminal investigation into the conspiracy involving both former Nashville Mayor Megan Barry who pled guilty to a felony under the authority of a legal memorandum drafted by Mark Clayton and sent to the Nashville District attorney, Amy Hunter (Megan Barry best friend) who is a DUI drunk Nashville District Attorney who supervised and ordered false facts as a person and not an attorney during her failed prosecution of Mark Clayton, and I'Aeshea Myles who seeks with her co-conspirators to continue in violation of � 242 to defraud Mark Clayton of his civil rights and property rights in retaliation for Mark Clayton's public and thoroughly well-documented expertise and efforts to prevent frauds such as I'Aesha Myles from removing qualified candidates from the ballot so that she could "win" her fake election to become a fake chancellor by removing the only opposition candidate. (Note: Fraudulent Judge/Chancellor I'Aeshea Myles has the audacity to hold herself out as the "first black" woman elected as a Tennessee Chancellor when she herself participated in the conspiracy in violation of the Klu Klux Klan Act to remove the only opposition candidate, Johnny Ellis, who has not yet been prosecuted for Tennessee Code Annotated �� 23-3-105 and 23-3-107 violations, and was therefore technically, albeit ethically and morally unfit, qualified to run for Chancellor.

Attorney Johnny Ellis' conduct, by representing both sides in the same legal matter, violates Tennessee Code Annotated �� 23-3-105 and 23-3-107 of the Tennessee Code Annotated. These statutes collectively aim to maintain high ethical standards and prevent conflicts of interest in the practice of law. The penalties of Johnny Ellis' rejection of testimony, misdemeanor charges, and disbarment, should not be met with incredulity and a cover-up by his colleagues. Johnny Ellis knew exactly what he was doing when he did it and thought that he would get away with it and not get caught. Furthermore, Johnny Ellis conspired with Mark Clayton's counsel in the criminal case against Mark Clayton which DUI drunk Amy Hunter both brought lost for the State of Tennessee (while personally fabricating evidence and supressing exculpatory evidence) to have Mark Clayton's attorney withdraw in a vain attempt to cripple Mark Clayton's ability to defend himself, while during the entire process Johnny Ellis himself was in possession of a vast tome of exculpatory evidence for the related matter (and instead of presenting the exculpatory evidence Johnny Ellis knowingly on the public record in front of God and everybody swore out false testimony on the public record against Mark Clayton)

We demand that I'Aesha Myles publicly apoligize for violating the Klu Klux Klan act against Nashville, Davidson County voters in her criminal and fraudulent so-called "election" to Chancellor and to turn herself in to the authorities for Section 242 criminal violations.

We demand that all facts be presented to a grand jury regarding Johnny Ellis' Tennessee Code Annotated �� 23-3-105 and 23-3-107 violations and that I, Mark Clayton be afforded the right to present facts and exhibits to the grand jury regarding the criminal acts of Johnny Ellis against Mark Clayton. Additionally, Johnny Ellis has also sent sexually harassing communiques to Mark Clayton and should be independently investigated and sanctioned for this.

I am prepared to provide any further information or evidence to assist in this investigation. Thank you for your attention to this serious matter.


Sincerely, Mark Clayton Vice President, Public Advocate



Attachment: Public Advocate Statement, February 1, 2018 (Note: Article was reposted with a new date to discuss the applicability of the Tennessee AG opinion as persuasive authority for the state of Georgia to adopt regarding the misuse of funds - article is for educational use regarding misuse of public funds and the potential criminal penalties for public officials who do so).