Dated July 27, 2023

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

MIDDLE SECTION OF TENNESSEE

NASHVILLE, TN

Case No. M2021-00666-COA-R3-CV

) ON APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY

David Simpkins and Sally Simpkins
Appellants/Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN MAHER Builders, Inc., et. al,
JOHN MAHER and TONY MAHER
Appellees/Defendant
) COURT FOR THE 21st DISTRICT
)
) APPELLANTS EXPEDITED MOTION TO
) THE APPELLATE COURT IN RESPONSE
) TO FALSE CLAIM BY THE CHANCERY
) COURT
)
) SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENTS PER
) RULE OF APP. P. 36(a) SUPPORTING
) STATEMENT OF ISSUES ALREADY
) PRESENTED TO THE APPELLATE COURT
)
)
) FBI Director Christopher Wray
) US Deputy Attorney General, Lisa A. Monaco
) Secretary of the Navy, Carlos Del Toro
) Secretary of Veteran Affairs,
) Honorable Denis Richard McDonough

APPELLANTS EXPEDITED MOTION TO APPELLATE COURT IN RESPONSE TO

FALSE CLAIM BY THE CLERK & MASTER OF THE CHANCERY COURT

SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENTS PER RULE OF APP. P. 36(a) SUPPORTING

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ALREADY PRESENTED TO THE APPELLATE COURT

PORTIONS OF THIS MOTION SHOULD BE PRESENTED BY THE APPELLATE

COURT TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE FEDERAL MORTGAGE
FRAUD BASED ON JUSRIDICTION FOR FEDERAL MORTGAGE FRAUD
1
2
3 AGAINST APPELLEES, JOHN MAHER BUILDERS, INC., et. al,
4 JOHN MAHER AND TONY MAHER INDIVIDUALLY
5

1
 1
2 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)
3 "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we
4 hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
5
6 Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240 – The court below should have applied the rule of
7 Ghadiali v. Delaware State Medical Society, D.C. Del., 48 F. Supp. 789, 790, and Allen v. Corsano,
8 D.C. Del., 56 F. Supp. 169, 170, “that where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for the protection of civil
9 rights the court should endeavor to construe the plaintiff's pleading without regard for technicalities.”
10
11 Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 - Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se
12 litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
13
14 1) Comes now before the Appellate Court, Pro Se Appellants, David and Sally Simpkins,
15 who are filing this Motion to the Appellate Court, per R. of App. P. 22, and R. of App. P. 5(c) to notify
16 the Appellate Court that the Simpkins mailed the Docketing Statement on May 5th, 2023 to the Chancery
17 Court via US Mail, the same day the Simpkins filed the Amended Notice of Appeal to the Appellate
18 Court. The Appellants will prove the falsity of the statement. See the attached “Docketing Statement,”
19 with this motion to the Appellate Court,” filed with the Chancery Court again on July 24th, 2023, to the
20 email address of the Clerk and Master Jakob Schwendimann, then again on July 25, 2023, to the email of
21 Sara Smith, (who never responded to the request of Mr. Simpkins to please file the Notice of the
22 Docketing Statement and the supporting Exhibits, and again on July 26th, 2023 via overnight Certified
23 Mail Signature required for delivery to the Chancery Court on Thursday, July 27th, 2023 (Docketing
24 Statement for Civil Appeals 5-5-2023). See Certified Mail Receipt, (Certified Mail Receipt Signature
25 Required 7-26-2023).
26 2) Further the Plaintiffs / Appellants will prove the dangers and dangerous acts of a Court of
27 Law willing to allegedly blatantly violate the “Law,” “Binding Authorities,” “Prior Appellate Court
28 Rulings which are in favor of the Plaintiffs / Appellants,” and “Violate the Plaintiffs / Appellants
29 Constitutional Rights to Redress, Rights to “Due Process of Law,” “Deprivation of Rights to Remedies
30 of Law,” and outright allegedly “Stacking the Deck” against Pro Se Litigants due to their lack of
31 knowledge of the Law.
32 3) Alleged acts by a Court to be considered to be in contravention of the law. When there is
33 clear “Fraud on the Court,” by the Court. “Fraud on the court will, most often, be found where the
34 fraudulent scheme defrauds the “judicial machinery” or is perpetrated by an Officer of the court such that

2
 1 the court cannot perform its function as a neutral arbiter of justice. 1 Fraud directed at the “judicial
2 machinery” can mean conduct that fraudulently coerces or influences the court itself or a member of the
3 court, such that the impartial nature of the court has been compromised2. This is proven when an Officer
4 of the Court, is allegedly so focused on destroying one party in a lawsuit in the name of the law, but doing
5 so in a manner inconsistent with the “Judicial Process.” Where the Officer of the Court’s conduct and
6 actions are in complete contradiction of the rules or laws, therefore Trespassing on the Constitution and
7 the subsequent amendments violating a party’s rights. Therefore, the Judge is` acting in their personal
8 capacity, and no longer acting in their judicial capacity, losing the immunity of a Judge who should be
9 acting in their role as a Judiciary upholding the law.
10 “Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that
11 species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by
12 officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial
13 task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968);
14 Illoore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated, "a decision
15 produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."
16
17 Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)
18 “Note: By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private
19 individual (in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not
20 follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges' orders are not
21 voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "when a
22 state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into
23 conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official
24 or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual
25 conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme
26 authority of the United States." When a judge acts intentionally and knowingly to deprive a person
27 of his constitutional rights he exercises no discretion or individual judgment; he acts no longer as
28 a judge, but as a " minister" of his own prejudices. FTC v. Procter & Gamble Co., 386 U.S. 568
29 (1967).”
30
31 4) The Simpkins have proven and listed some of the “scheming ways” the Chancery Court
32 and the Defendants allegedly performed to thwart the Judicial Process so that a Builder, a favored Party
33 to a “Lawsuit” could prevail, not on the law, but on the premise of contrived and systematic steps to
34 create the appearance of the Court adjudicating the law, all the while to subvert the entire judicial process
35 for one outcome, a win for the Defendants, (who “Abandoned” the Plaintiffs after the first month of
36 ownership), a Builder who has strong political connections, finances, and alliances, and undue influence
37 with several parties that has no business in a Court of Law. This Court has allowed alleged corruption to
38 run deep into the Judicial Machinery of this Court case against two Pro Se litigants who have had to suffer

1
Martina Theatre Corp. v. Schine Chain Theatres, Inc., 278 F.2d 798, 801 (2d Cir. 1960)
2
Bulloch v. United States, 721 F.2d 713, 718 (10th Cir.1983).

3
 1 the inequities of this Court of Law, who have had to suffer in incorrigible living conditions so heinous as
2 to disturb the mind of any person in a normal society. These acts, by a Court of Law, is so disturbing as
3 to set one’s mind on a tilt with such an imbalance as to question the entire judicial process and the very
4 subrogation of the law to such depths as to render the Judiciary impotent and useless.
5 5) The Simpkins present to the Appellate Court that the Simpkins case is already won, it was
6 won on the day they filed their Complaint / Lawsuit on December 30th, 2020. The Simpkins, after
7 discovering the Tennessee Statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-510. Prohibited acts. For; Abandonment
8 or willful failure to perform, without justification, entitled them to a “Default Judgment” due to the
9 facts, the “unquestioned authenticity” of the Plaintiff’s “Exhibits / Evidence,” proved their case. But also
10 (because the Defendants validated the Plaintiff’s claims when they filed a claim with their insurance
11 Company, Builders Mutual).
12 6) It was also by the fact that Tony Maher admitted to Spring Hill Police Department
13 Detective Robert Carden, that JMB, JM and TM knew that the house had mold in it and other issues with
14 the property including structural issues, but lied and stated that the Contract allowed the Simpkins to get
15 our of the contract, when in fact there was no clause that allowed them to get out of the contract or to get
16 their deposits back on upgrades. The admission by Officers of the Court having prior knowledge of the
17 cause of the action, removes the Corporate Veil and any protection the Officers of the corporation had.
18 “In case law Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Allen, 584 F. Supp. 386 (E.D. Tenn. 1984), the
19 corporate veil is pierced due to the fraud by the Officers of the Corporation. In the Conclusions of
20 Law of Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Allen
21
22 “In addition, when a corporation is dominated by an individual or individuals not only as to finance
23 but also as to policy and business practices so that the corporation has no mind, will, or existence
24 of its own and this domination is used to commit a wrong, or fraud or perpetrate a violation
25 of statutory or positive legal duty, the corporate *398 veil will be pierced. Continental
26 Bankers Life v. Bank of Alamo, 578 S.W.2d 625 (Tenn.1979). Mayo v. Pioneer Bank & Trust
27 Co., 274 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1960).”
28
29 “The Tennessee legislature has barred indemnity in certain cases involving construction as against
30 public policy. Where a covenant, promise, agreement or understanding in connection with a
31 contract relating to the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of a building purporting to
32 indemnify or hold harmless the promisee against liability for damages arising out of bodily injury
33 to persons or damage to property resulting from the sole negligence of the promisee, the promisee's
34 agents or employees, or indemnitee, is against public policy and is void and unenforceable. Tenn.
35 Code. Ann. § 62-6-123: Indemnify or hold harmless agreement invalid. (1997).”
36
37 Michaelis v Benavides (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 681. “Typically, a corporate officer is shielded
38 from liability for the corporation’s unintentional civil wrongdoings when there is only an economic
39 loss. Generally, directors or officers of a corporation do not incur personal liability for torts of the
40 corporation (e.g. negligence) merely by reason of their official corporate position. However, in
41 (Michaelis v Benavides (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 681), the California Appellate court stated: “The

4
 1 corporate fiction was never intended to insulate officers from liability for their own tortious
2 conduct.”
3
4 Gateway Intl., 360, LLC v Richmond Capital Group, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00008 (1st Dep’t
5 Decided Jan. 4, 2022), holding in relevant part:
6
7 The fact that the alter ego allegations are insufficient does not mean that the causes of action for
8 fraudulent inducement, fraud and conversion should be dismissed. “[A] corporate officer who
9 participates [*3]in the commission of a tort may be held individually liable, regardless of whether
10 the corporate veil is pierced” Fletcher v Dakota, Inc., 99 AD3d 43, 49 [1st Dept 2012]
11
12 7) In addition, Tony Maher and Eddie Savage outright lied about sealing all of the crawlspace
13 utility penetrations to prevent the mold from getting up inside the walls and into the interior of the
14 property. Therefore, John Maher Builders, Inc., CEO John Maher and COO Tony Maher knew the truth
15 of the severity of the condition of the property but willfully, knowingly, with criminal malicious intent
16 sold the property to the Simpkins knowing that the Simpkins would suffer horrifically from the issues
17 with the property but did it anyway for their love of money, not for the health and safety of the public.
18 8) Further, the second criminal act by JMB, and CEO JM, was both a (Tennessee State
19 Criminal Act) and a (Federal Criminal Act), when CEO, John Maher, willfully and knowingly
20 committing “Fraud” against the Simpkins and the United States Government by signing the Federal
21 document, “Warranty of Completion of Construction” Federal document VA Form 26-1859 knowing
22 that he was making a false statement violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-511. False Documentation, and
23 Federal Statute, 18 U.S. Code Chapter 47 - Fraud And False Statements and committing a “Fraudulent
24 Act” and committing “Fraudulent Concealment” by covering up the fifty-eight (58) documented Code
25 Violations and Omissions, (which is a violation of Tennessee Residential Property Disclosure form as
26 required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-5-202), and using damaged materials and violating basic building
27 practices to build in a workmanlike manner and to the current Tennessee and County International
28 Residential Codes. Those acts were knowingly criminal on both a Tennessee State level and a United
29 States Federal level. Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-511. False Documentation
30 9) The fraudulent “Warranty of Completion of Construction” signed by John Maher.
31 10) By Tennessee Law the penalty is a Class A Misdemeanor for each violation
32 11) See, Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-512. Criminal Penalty, commits a Class A misdemeanor.
33 Each violation is deemed a separate offense.
34 12) The Supreme Court of Tennessee in First Nat'l Bank v. Brooks Farms, 821 S.W.2d 925,
35 927 (Tenn. 1991) stated the following to make it clear that when an individuals or entity’s actions are

5
 1 bereft of any morals or ethics in a normal society, or for what is expected in a normal society, but the
2 societal norms are not adhered to, are wholly criminal in nature ;
3 “A person acts maliciously when the person is motivated by ill will, hatred or personal spite.
4 A person acts recklessly when the person is aware of, but consciously disregards, a
5 substantial and unjustifiable risk of such a nature that its disregard constitutes a gross
6 deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all
7 the circumstances. Cf. [Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-302(c) (1991) (criminal definition of
8 'reckless')]. Id.”
9
10
11 13) But in the Plaintiff’s case, the Builder knew that the Court system would protect them so
12 the Builder not only made no effort to perform on the Contract or Warranty, but they knew they would
13 not be held accountable to the law, Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-510. Prohibited acts. For; Abandonment
14 or willful failure to perform, without justification. They were hoping that the Simpkins would succumb
15 to the extremely toxic environment based on the fact that JMB, JM and TM refused to respond to any of
16 the Warranty request letters, where the Plaintiffs were begging for help. Further, the Defendants, nor their
17 Counsel argued against any of the Simpkins claims, (because the Defendants validated the Plaintiff’s
18 claims when they filed a claim with their insurance Company, Builders Mutual).
19 14) The conditions worsened, and then Mr. Simpkins was hospitalized for four (4) days with
20 a mold rash over his entire body due to extreme mold exposure from a Chemical Suit which was supposed
21 to be completely sealed and nonporous, was made incorrectly, and porous, which allowed the mold spores
22 to enter into the suit for fourteen (14) hours while Mr. Simpkins worked to clean the mold off of all the
23 subfloors and joists in the crawlspace.
24 15) The truth is, what has gone on in this case is allegedly beyond criminal by the Fraud on
25 the Court by two different Judiciary’s, first, Judge Martin, and Judge Hood, who broke the law against
26 the Plaintiffs knowing the law that they were required to rule on, (Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-510.
27 Prohibited acts. For; Abandonment or willful failure to perform, without justification), and blatantly
28 violating their Constitutional Rights to “Due Process of Law.” The Appellate Court is respectfully
29 requested to address these issues. Because based on Federal Law for Federal Mortgage Fraud, the United
30 States District Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case if the Appellate Court makes an
31 improper ruling.
32
33 (18 U.S. Code § 3231 - District courts). The district courts of the United States shall
34 have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against
35 the laws of the United States. Based on this Federal Statute, Judge Hood knew she was
36 required to notify the U.S. Federal District Court of the Mortgage Fraud but

6
 1 intentionally did not to protect the Builder from criminal charges, which is in and of
2 itself an alleged Federal Criminal act by Judge Hood for failure to notify the United
3 States District Court of the Federal Mortgage Fraud.
4
5 16) Further, egregious acts that the Simpkins have had to endure on their own. An almost
6 tragic event took place on March 20th, of 2021, when Mrs. Simpkins succumbed to an instantaneous and
7 overwhelming level of mold spores after the tape holding the tarp to the bed came apart, flooding the Bed
8 with mold spores, causing her bronchioles and lungs to close up. Judge Martin of the Chancery Court,
9 the Builder, JMB, and the CEO, JM and the COO, TM, were notified on March 22nd, 2021, just one day
10 before the scheduled hearing, that Mrs. Simpkins had suffocated and succumbed to her bronchioles and
11 lungs closing up due to an instantaneous and overwhelming level of mold spores, and that Mr. Simpkins
12 had to perform immediate resuscitation to bring Mrs. Simpkins back to life.
13 17) This extremely traumatic event took its toll on both Mr. and Mrs. Simpkins for several
14 weeks. Mr. Simpkins notified the Chancery Court, Judge Martin’s Office hoping the case could be
15 delayed. Instead, the notice to the Court was completely ignored. Further, the Court, Judge Martin,
16 outrageously did nothing to hold the Builder accountable, in fact, Judge Martin railroaded the Simpkins
17 and dismissed the Simpkins’ Complaint with Prejudice just three days after Mrs. Simpkins had a near
18 death experience as a result of the conditions with the damaged property sold as new. How can a Judge,
19 knowing what the Builder did, selling a property completely toxic and systemic with mold and termites,
20 not hold the Builder accountable to an event that had Mrs. Simpkins perished, would have been
21 manslaughter? The Builder, John Maher Builders, Inc., the CEO, John Maher nor the COO, Tony Maher,
22 after being notified of what had happened to Mrs. Simpkins, did nothing. They did not contact the Simkins
23 to inquire about how Mrs. Simpkins was doing, or if they could do anything to help. They did nothing,
24 they did not offer to put the Simpkins up in temporary housing, they did not offer to treat the mold as
25 they had promised the day before closing. The Defendants did nothing.
26 18) These acts were criminal, and both the Court and the Defendants acted in such a manner
27 that was completely bereft of any moral compass whatsoever. The day before the Simpkins closed on the
28 property, Eddie Savage and Tony Maher made the statement that there was minor mold in the crawlspace
29 and it would not affect the interior of the home, Tony Maher had stated, that if the mold did affect their
30 health, JMB would pay the Plaintiffs to move into temporary housing and treat the mold to the Simpkins’s
31 satisfaction and treat the property and their household goods. That was a knowingly false statement
32 creating “promissory fraud” committed by both Tony Maher and Eddie Savage. But they never called,

7
 1 never offered to help, never offered to treat the mold, never offered to pay for temporary housing. JMB,
2 JM and TM, incredulously, never even called the Simpkins ever again. Further, in the very beginning,
3 the Defendants “Abandoned” the Plaintiffs after the first month of ownership in their first year of their
4 two year warranty. The Simpkins were stonewalled completely by JMB, JM and TM. A catastrophic
5 event occurs, and neither the Court nor the Builder does anything to protect the Plaintiff’s health and
6 safety or their rights. What kind of people do such horrific acts. What kind of Judge ignores a “Life
7 threatening situation, then does nothing for the injured party, and then dismisses the Plaintiff’s case with
8 “Prejudice?”
9 19) Based on their complete lack of any ethics or morals, and the complete “Abandonment”
10 and “Stonewalling” of the Simpkins for six years, the Simpkins feel that JMB, JM and TM, went from
11 “Reckless” to outright “Criminal” according to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-302(d).
12 “The manufacturer was found by the jury to be guilty of intentional or fraudulent
13 misrepresentation, which is a cause of action based on the common law tort of deceit. See
14 American Law of Products Liability § 25:1. In Haynes v. Cumberland Builders, 546 S.W.2d 228
15 (Tenn. App. 1976), the Court of Appeals set forth the elements of the common law action for fraud
16 and deceit:”
17
18 “When a party intentionally misrepresents a material fact or produces a false impression in
19 order to mislead another or to obtain an undue advantage over him, there is a positive fraud.
20 The representation must have been made with knowledge of its falsity and with a fraudulent intent.
21 The representation must have been to an existing fact which is material and the plaintiff must have
22 reasonably relied upon that representation to his injury. (Citations omitted.) 546 S.W.2d at 232.
23 The evidence supports the jury's finding of fraud against the manufacturer and the award of
24 punitive damages. See Inland Container Corporation v. March, 529 S.W.2d 43, 44-45 (Tenn.
25 1975) ("punitive damages are ... awarded in cases involving fraud"); Telephone and Telegraph
26 Co. v. Shaw, 102 Tenn. 313, 318, 52 S.W. 163 (1889) ("where fraud... intervenes, the law blends
27 the interests of society and of the aggrieved individual and gives damages such as will operate
28 as an example or warning to the parties or others to deter").”
29
30 20) The Plaintiffs have proven their case, and rights to Civil Remedies and Monetary
31 Damages, but, the Plaintiffs believe that by law, that the criminal law applies in full force in these
32 circumstances. See, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-302(d), as well as Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-405.
33 Individual Liability for Corporate Conduct;
34
35 “(d) "Criminal negligence" refers to a person who acts with criminal negligence with respect to
36 the circumstances surrounding that person's conduct or the result of that conduct when the person
37 ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result
38 will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it
39 constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would
40 exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the accused person's standpoint.”
41
42 Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-405. Individual Liability for Corporate Conduct;

8
 1 “A person is criminally liable for conduct constituting an offense that the person performs or
2 causes to be performed in the name of or on behalf of a corporation to the same extent as if the
3 conduct were performed in the person's own name or behalf.”
4
5 21) The Plaintiffs believe that these laws also apply to the Officers of the Court when a person
6 has almost died and did not hold the Builder accountable to the law, but instead attempted to sweep the
7 case under the rug in favor of the alleged “friends,” of the Court, the Defendants. And an Officer of the
8 Court becomes complicit with the acts of the Defendants, (perpetrators) and should be held accountable
9 to the law for his egregious, malicious, soulless actions.
10
11 22) The Plaintiffs also believe that Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-402. Criminal Responsibility
12 for Conduct of Another.
13
14
15 I. Incorporation of All Causes of Actions, Complaints, Appellate Briefs, Filings,
16 Motions, Notices, Pleadings, Memorandums of Law, Responses to Defendants
17 Motions, Response to Court Orders, and Judgements Against the Defendants
18
19 23) The Plaintiffs incorporate every allegation, all evidence and all causes of action contained
20 in all the Simpkins filings to the Chancery Court and the Appellate Court to include the Simpkins
21 complaint against John Mahers Builders Inc, and all motions, memorandums of law, notices, responses
22 and all evidentiary documents filed in the Chancery Court, and all motions, memorandums of law,
23 notices, responses and all evidentiary documents filed with the Appellate Court to date, to include the
24 Plaintiff’s Appellant Brief and all supporting evidence and exhibits, Appellate Court “Opinion and
25 Judgment” against John Maher Builders, Inc., CEO, John Maher and COO, Tony Maher, as though set
26 forth fully herein for this “Response Motion to the Chancery Court’s False Claim” based on the Courts
27 alleged unlawful R. of Civ. Proc 37 Sanction for “dismissal” of the Plaintiff’s Complaint which was
28 actually based on an alleged retaliatory action by the Officer of the Chancery Court, Judge Hood in
29 violation of the Plaintiff’s rights to “Due Process of Law,” alleged intentional wanton malicious acts to
30 cause further injury and physical, mental, emotional and financial harm against the Plaintiffs, United
31 States Naval Warfare Submarine Veteran, David Simpkins and his Wife, Sally Simpkins.
32 24) Hereafter, the Chancery Court will be consistently referred to the “Chancery Court” or
33 the “Court.” The Appellate Court will be referred to as either the “Appellate Court or “AC.” The
34 Simpkins will be referred to as the “Simpkins,” “Plaintiffs,” or “Appellants.” The “Defendants," the

9
 1 “Appellees’” names may be abbreviated: John Maher Builders, Inc., may be referred to as (“JMB Inc.”,
2 “JMB”, the “Builder”, or the “Defendants”); John Maher, CEO and President of JMB, may be referred
3 to as (“JM”, or “JMB”, or “JMB Inc.”, or the “Builder”, or “Defendants”); and Tony Maher, COO of
4 JMB, may be referred to as (“TM”, or “JMB”, or “JMB Inc.”, or the “Builder”, or “Defendants”). Eddie
5 Savage, Superintendent of JMB, hereinafter may be referred to as (“ES” or “JMB,” or “JMB Inc.,” or
6 the “Builder”).
7
8 II. The Parties And Jurisdiction
9 The Appellants David and Sally Simpkins reside and live at 1375 Round Hill Ln, Spring Hill, TN,
10 37174, in Williamson County. The Appellees JM and TM et. al., place of business, JMB, Inc., is located
11 at 1109 Kedron Rd, Spring Hill, TN, 37174. JMB Inc. is registered to do business in Williamson County
12 Tennessee. Appellants are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that each of the Appellees /
13 Defendants are the agents, servants, employees, representatives, partners, and related or affiliated entities
14 of each other, , and are the liable and responsible party as stated in all expert reports and were acting in
15 the course and scope of their agency, employment, or retention with the permission, consent, authority,
16 and ratification of the other Defendants. Jurisdiction is proper for the Nashville Appeals Court because
17 the Appellants filed an appeal with the Nashville Appeals Court in Davidson County. Jurisdiction is
18 proper because the Williamson Count, TN. Chancery Court ruled for a “Final Judgement” with
19 “prejudice.” “A final judgment is one that resolves all the issues in the case, ‘leaving nothing else for the
20 trial court to do.” “In re Estate of Henderson, 121 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tenn. 2003) (quoting State ex rel.
21 McAllister v. Goode, 968 S.W.2d 834, 840 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997)). Venue is proper in Davidson County,
22 because the Court of Appeals hears all matters for Middle Districts of Tennessee, and the Williamson
23 County, TN. Chancery Court operates within the 21st District of the Middle Section of Tennessee and the
24 Chancery Court stated it no longer has jurisdiction over the case by issuing a final Judgment on April 4th,
25 2023.
26 III. Statement of the Issues
27 25) One of the requirements when filing an appeal is to notify the Chancery Court and the
28 Appellate Court whether a party requests either evidence or transcripts to be sent to the Appellate Court
29 for review with the Appeal. The Plaintiffs, Pro Se Litigants David and Sally Simpkins filed the Docketing
30 Statement with the check boxes checked for transcripts and evidence to the Chancery Court on May 5th,
31 2023. The Chancery Court has made a claim that the Plaintiffs never filed the Docketing Statement,
32 (which was false). The Plaintiffs, on June 8th learned from Appellate Court Clerk, Lisa Marsh, that the

10
1 Chancery Court stated that the Simpkins had not filed the “Docketing Statement.” Mr. Simpkins informed
2 Ms. Marsh that he had. Mr. Simpkins notified Ms. Marsh that he had filed the “Docketing Statement” to
3 the Chancery Court on May 5th, along with sending filing of the document with the original Notice of
4 Appeal information for the May 4th, 2023 to the Appellate Court. (See Copy of Certified Mail Receipt 5-
5 4-2023). After speaking with Ms. Marsh, Mr. Simpkins sent it again on May 12th, 2023
6 See below the image of the “Docketing Statement” filed May 4th, 2023 to the Chancery Court.

11
 1 26) Mr. Simpkins suspects that the “Docketing Statement” was not filed because the Simpkins
2 did not send it via certified mail to the Chancery Court.
3 27) The Simpkins decided to put it to the test again to see if the Chancery Court would actually
4 not file it again if it was not sent certified mail. As Mr. Jakob Schwendimann’s statement proves, the
5 Chancery Court did not file the document because there was no tracking associated with the document.
6 That is two times the Simpkins sent the document to the Court and two times the document was not filed
7 to cause further injury, harm and delay by the Chancery Court against the Simpkins and to further delay
8 the case to again cause the Simpkins further injury, harm and most especially delay. There are two
9 possibilities for the document not making it to the Chancery Court, a) the document was intercepted
10 because the Simpkins’ mail is still being intercepted by John Maher Builders, Inc., based on the Zip Code
11 Lookup on the US Postal Service Website in September 12, 2022, and the fact that no Court Order was
12 issued either by the Chancery Court nor a Federal Court to stop the Builder from intercepting the
13 Simpkins’ mail. And nothing has changed, any personal mail or bills do not arrive at the\\ Simpkins’ U.S.
14 Residential Postal Mailbox. b) the Chancery Court is receiving the document, but the Chancery Court has
15 failed to file the document in violation of the Plaintiff’s rights to “Due Process of Law.” A onetime failure
16 to file the “Docketing Statement” can be considered an error, two times indicates it was intentional either
17 way.
18 28) Please note the modified date (in the title) of the Docketing Statement, from May 4th, to
19 May 5th, 2023, which was due to the rejection of the online filing attempt, on May 4th, 2023, through the
20 “True Filing System” that failed due to filing being filed to the old case number, (by other parties) who
21 took control of the Simpkins’ computer just after Mr. Simpkins had just signed up with the True Filing
22 System and was just learning how to use it, and other party filed the documents knowingly incorrectly.
23 Due to the filing being filed with the old Appellate Court Case number, the filing was rejected. Only an
24 Attorney would know how to use the True Filing System so quickly and obviously intentionally filed it
25 incorrectly to thwart the Simpkins from properly filing their case.
26 29) Please note the time stamp of the date of the update to the document, which was updated
27 on June 11th, three days after speaking to Ms. Marsh, Appellate Court Clerk and mailed to the Court on
28 Monday, June 12th, 2023. Please note on Thursday, June 20th, 2023, the Simpkins received a Notice from
29 the Appellate Court, (not the Chancery Court) that the document had not been filed with a request to file
30 the document with the Appellate Court. The Plaintiffs are making this distinction that the Chancery Court
31 did not notify the Plaintiffs that they (had not received) the required document, (the Docketing Statement).

12
 1 The Plaintiffs find that curious since, the Appellate Court took the time to notify the Plaintiffs /
2 Appellants.
3 30) The reason is obvious, the case has now been illegally extended another one hundred and
4 ten (110) days against the Simpkins clearly intentionally to cause the Plaintiffs / Appellants further injury,
5 harm and again, (obvious intentional delay), which is an intentional “Obstruction of a Legal Proceeding,”
6 and “Obstruction of Justice” knowing full well that the Plaintiffs, the Simpkins are living in the harshest
7 possible conditions, and making sure they suffer even more, emotionally, mentally, physically and
8 financially. And it is the Courts that are also allegedly complicit with the actions of the Builder and the
9 Chancery Court. These tactics have been allowed by the Chancery Court and the Appellate Court to cause
10 these unlawful and unjustifiable delays well beyond reasonable timeframe. The five and a half months
11 (5.5) by the Appellate Court alone was done without any lawful basis to do so. The same with the
12 Chancery Court, it has been one hundred and ten (1110) days since the unlawful and retaliatory judgment
13 by the Chancery Court to derail and unlawfully dismiss the Plaintiff’s case. In the legal system it is called
14 “interference with a legal proceeding.”
15 (See the image of the timestamp where the file was updated to select both Evidence and
16 Transcripts within the document, below.)

17
18 31) Within the Docketing Statement, both the Transcripts and Evidence boxes were selected
19 to be sent with the Technical Record because the Court allegedly tampered with Transcripts3, (Transcripts
20 of Proceedings 12-13-2022), which originally contained information that proves that the Transcripts were
21 tampered with and actual accusations by Judge Hood against the Simpkins; “Attempting to extort $45M
22 out of this good man, John Maher,” in a Court of Law showing clear bias against the Simpkins were
23 removed and the statements were modified to change it from an accusation to a theoretical statement of
24 “What if.” There were numerous Attorneys and Witnesses in the Court Room and others who came to

3
Note that the transcripts attached to this Motion were provided by the Chancery Court, they are not the
(Original) Transcripts by the (Court Reporter, Nicole M. DeBartolo of “Elite Brentwood Reporting Services.” These
transcripts are suspected of being tampered with because of the accusations by Judge Hood against the Simpkins are not
in the transcripts. And the Simpkins had written down exactly what Judge Hood had stated. The Simpkins requested the
DOJ to obtain a copy of the Transcripts for future reference in case the transcripts were tampered with by the Court. It is
the Simpkins understanding that the DOJ did obtain a copy of the transcripts from the reporting service.

13
 1 the December 13th, 2022 Status Hearing where Judge Hood spent an hour berating and humiliating the
2 Simpkins in a Court of law while defending John Maher, again stating the Simpkins were attempting to
3 “extort $45 million dollars out of this good man, John Maher, that is not going to happen,” all the while
4 pointing at him with her left arm while making that statement. She further defended Attorney Brewer,
5 stating that “he was a fine upstanding Attorney in the Community” and could not believe that he would
6 send a virus to our computer, when that is exactly what he did do. Without any proof to prove that he did
7 not send the virus, Judge Hood made a definitive determination that he “did not do it” even though there
8 is no way she could have known that without an investigation of which never occurred, intentionally to
9 protect the Builder and the Attorney, J. Paul Brewer. By law according to the DOJ, Judge Hood was
10 required to report the claims by the Simpkins to the DOJ of any potential criminal acts whether or not she
11 felt the claims were baseless. That Judge Hood covered a potential crime that she had no business making
12 that determination without an investigation. Judge Hood refused to do so, stating that all the Simpkins’
13 claims were without merit.
14
15 IV. Arguments
16 32) The aforementioned image of the “Docketing Statement,” the image of the “Date and
17 Timestamp,” and the image of the only communications from the Chancery Court through the “Clerk and
18 Master, Jakob Schwendimann,” proves the following.
19 a. That the Plaintiffs filed the Docketing Statement two separate times.
20 b. That the Date and Timestamp prove the efforts of the Plaintiffs to get the “Docketing
21 Statement” filed with the Chancery Court and the Appellate Court on time.
22 c. That there were only two email communications from the Court from February 1st,
23 2023 to the day of the “Judgement” and unlawful “Dismissal” of the Plaintiff’s case,
24 on April 4th, 2023, without a proper legal basis to do so. Only a false and contrived
25 basis to appear to be legitimate, when in fact it was false and unlawful. The Plaintiffs
26 “Never Received Any Notice of the Hearings for March 7th, 2023, nor for the April
27 4th, 2023 hearing via US Postal Mail or Email from the C\ourt or the Defendants!”
28 d. The images prove that the Plaintiffs received no notification via mail email of the
29 March 7th, 2023 Hearing.
30 e. That the Simpkins received no notice of the April 4th Hearing via mail or email.
31 f. That the phone call made by Mr. Simpkins to the Clerk and Master on February 27th,
32 2023, to inquire as to any notices or filings from the Court, and to also inform the

14
 1 Clerk and Master, Jakob Schwendimann of the events that took place between January
2 and February for two events that were catastrophic to the Plaintiffs, especially Mr.
3 Simpkins. The first being that the Simpkins, Router, Printer and Computer were all
4 hacked and destroyed. That when the Simpkins computer was hacked, legal directories
5 were downloaded and then deleted off of the Simpkins’ computer. Then the boot sector
6 was destroyed and then the hard drive was wiped, destroying the Simpkins computer.
7 Then destroying the router to where it no longer worked, and the Simpkins went
8 through a three week process before they could have internet access again through two
9 replacement routers.
10 g. The second issue being that Mr. Simpkins developed an infection in his left eye on
11 February 4th, which caused severe pain and slight loss of vision. The eye had not fully
12 recovered which reemerged on February 26tth, and by March 5th caused the eye, the
13 surrounding sinuses to swell up and caused excruciating debilitating pain. On March
14 6th, Mr. Simpkins’ eye ruptured and bled out for three days before he could get it under
15 control. Since that time, Mr. Simpkins has lost approximately 50% of his vision and
16 only has blurred vision with no discernability. Further that he has a black spot / no
17 vision on the left side of the eye leaving a large gap in his vision with the left and
18 upper left to right cloudy blurry vision.
19 h. See the three Motions filed to the Chancery Court, the first one on March 9th, 2023, 1)
20 (Motion for Recusal & Charges to Filed Against Judge Hood 3-6-2023), to Judge
21 Johnson (who the Simpkins were told at that time that Judge Johnson was the
22 Presiding Judge over the Chancery Court). It was later Discovered that it was an
23 obvious lie to the Simpkins so that they would be delayed in getting any justice in the
24 Chancery Court.
25 i. 2) A handwritten Motion to the Court to remove Judge Hood from the case for clear
26 and distinct violations of the law and the Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights, to “Due
27 Process of Law” to Judge Binkley, (the Simpkins later learned that Judge Binkley was
28 the actual Presiding Judge of the Chancery Court), (Mot. Rmve Judge Hood Frm
29 Case, LSMJ, Chg of Venue 3-29-2023), on March 29th, 2023, as to Mr. Simpkins’
30 health issues and Left Eye infection again, and 3) that the Simpkins’ Network Router,
31 Computer, and Printer, had all been hacked, corrupted, and destroyed rendering them
32 useless by unknown parties. (But it is clear which parties would have benefited from

15
 1 such diabolical actions), and 4) a request for Change of Venue was presented to the
2 Court because it was clear that the Simpkins would never receive justice in a biased
3 Court all in favor of the Builder who had clear undue influence in the Williamson
4 County, Franklin, TN Chancery Court.
5 j. And another Motion for Change of Venue to the Chancery Court and removal of Judge
6 Hood from the case due to her clear bias for the Defendants, on April 3rd, 2023,
7 (Motion for Change of Venue and Incompetence Against Judge Hood 4-3-2023).
8
9 33) As proven from the above forementioned motions to the Court, Judge Hood’s actions were
10 not in accordance with the Rules of the Court, the Laws of the State of Tennessee and in direct and
11 intentional violation of the Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights to railroad their case out of the Court allegedly
12 illegally to the benefit of John Maher Builders, Inc., CEO John Maher, and COO Tony Maher, as
13 witnessed by (others in the Court who were there to witness Judge Hood’s actions), when Judge Hood
14 gave an opinion as to the character of John Maher and Attorney Brewer. Judges are not allowed to make
15 a reference as to someone’s character, because in doing so, the Judge is taking a side, and is showing
16 clear partiality, (bias) for the other party. Judge Hood has done this several times. On the date of the
17 December 13th Status Hearing, Judge Hood upon entering the Court Room immediately made eye contact
18 with John Maher and she waved with her left had at her waist in a vigorous manner and gave a large
19 personal smile to John Maher, he responded in kind with a personal smile and nodded his head twice
20 almost as a bow to Judge Hood. From that moment on it was clear that some type of inappropriate
21 relationship existed between Judge Hood and John Maher. That is just one of many examples of
22 inappropriate behavior and actions by Judge Hood that do not belong in a Court of Law. That showed
23 clear bias towards John Maher, not a question, but obvious bias and some type of inappropriate
24 relationship existed between Judge Hood and John Maher.
25 34) The Simpkins have attached the “Docketing Statement” for the Appellate Court that was
26 sent to the Chancery Court on May 5th and June 12th 2023. (See Exhibit - Docketing Statement for Civil
27 Appeals 5-5-2023).
28 35) The Simpkins have previously sent many of the other pertinent documents and exhibits
29 pertaining to the alleged retaliation against the Simpkins by the Chancery Court in the previous Statement
30 of Issues to the Appellate Court. But due to learning of new information since the Simpkins filed the
31 Amended Statement of Issues, the Simpkins felt it was important to bring the information to the attention
32 of the Appellate Court.

16
 1
2 V. Summary
3 36) The Plaintiffs / Appellants are providing the “Docketing Statement” directly to the
4 Chancery Court a third time, through email directly to the Clerk and Master, Jacob Schwendimann, for
5 filing with the Chancery Court, the first being on May 4th, 2023 for the record.
6 37) As previously requested, the Appellants are awaiting the Appellate Court to make a ruling
7 on the Amended Expedited Motion with the Amended Statement of Issues since May 12th, 2023. It has
8 been one hundred ten (110) days since the Plaintiffs / Appellant sent an Expedited Motion to the Appellate
9 Court which did not require the “Docketing Statement” to be filed before the Appellate Court could make
10 a ruling based on the facts, evidence and newly discovered Tennessee State Statutes and Federal Laws
11 that proved the Simpkins were entitled to damages immediately based on those State and Federal Law
12
13 State Laws Judge Hood was required to Rule on in favor of the Plaintiffs but refused to
14 violating the law and the Plaintiff’s rights to “Due Process of Law” and violating their
15 Constitutional Rights to “Remedies” as required by Law.
16
17 Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-510. Prohibited acts. For; Abandonment or willful failure to perform,
18 without justification
19 1. Abandonment or willful failure to perform, without justification, any home improvement
20 contract or project engaged in or undertaken by a contractor or willful deviation from or
21 disregard of plans or specifications in any material respect without the consent of the
22 owners;
23 2. Making any substantial misrepresentation in the procurement of a home improvement
24 contract or making any false promise of character likely to influence, persuade or induce;
25 3. Any fraud in the execution of, or in the material alteration of, any contract, mortgage,
26 promissory note or other document incident to a home improvement transaction;
27 5. Willful or deliberate disregard and violation of the building, sanitary and health laws of this
28 state or of any political subdivision of this state or of the safety, labor, or workers'
29 compensation insurance laws of this state.
30
31 Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-511. False Documentation
32 The fraudulent “Warranty of Completion of Construction” signed by John Maher.
33
34 Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-512. Criminal Penalty, commits a Class A misdemeanor. Each
35 violation is deemed a separate offense.
36
37 38) Federal Laws which proved that Judge Hood was required to report the Simpkins claims to
38 the DOJ and FBI by Law due to the Federal Mortgage Fraud based on the VA Loan backed
39 by the Federal Government
40 1. (18 U.S. Code Chapter 47 - Fraud And False Statements),

17
 1 2. (18 U.S. Code § 1341 - Frauds and swindles, Mail Fraud),
2 3. (18 U.S. Code § 1343 - Frauds and swindles, Wire Fraud),
3 4. (18 U.S. Code § 1344 - Bank fraud), [Interstate trafficking of funds from a
4 Federal Institution]
5 5. (18 U.S. Code § 2314 - Transportation of stolen goods, securities, moneys,
6 fraudulent State tax stamps, or articles used in counterfeiting) [Interstate
7 trafficking of funds from a Federal Institution]
8 6. (18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Sec. 1001 - Statements or entries generally), false and
9 fraudulent “Warranty of Completion of Construction.
10 7. (18 U.S. Code § 1010 - Sec. 1010 - Department of Housing and Urban
11 Development and Federal Housing Administration transactions),
12 8. (18 U.S. Code § 1012 - Sec. 1012 - Department of Housing and Urban
13 Development transactions),
14 9. (18 U.S. Code § 1031 - Major fraud against the United States), [This Federal
15 Statute, 18 U.S. Code § 1031, may apply because of the Loan is a VA Loan backed
16 by the Federal Government, which is the United States.)
17 10. (18 U.S.C. § 3663A (2009) Mandatory restitution to victims of certain crimes.) Therefore,
18 restitution is available immediately based on United States v. Lindsey, 850 F.3d 1009,
19 1011 (9th Cir. 2017).
20 11. (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) False Claims Act) by John Maher when he signed the
21 “Warranty of Completion of Construction” making it a “Fraudulent” act knowing
22 the falsity of his claim that the property was completed, when knowing full well that
23 it was not and also knowing that it is systemic with mold.
24 12. (18 U.S.C. § 1014 the offense of making a false statement). This Federal Statute also
25 applies to the fraudulent “Warranty of Completion of Construction” Federal
26 Document for Mortgage Fraud.
27 13. 18 U.S. Code § 1324c - Penalties for document fraud. “Warranty of Completion of
28 Construction” making it a Federal “Fraudulent” act.
29 14. Mortgage Fraud falls under the 2009 Fraud Enforcement and Recover Act,
30 (FERA).
31 15. (18 U.S. Code § 3231 - District courts). The district courts of the United States shall
32 have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against
33 the laws of the United States. Based on this Federal Statute, Judge Hood knew she was
34 required to notify the U.S. Federal District Court of the Mortgage Fraud but
35 intentionally did not to protect the Builder from criminal charges, which is in and of
36 itself an alleged Federal Criminal act by Judge Hood for failure to notify the United
37 States District Court of the Federal Mortgage Fraud.
38 16. (38 U.S. Code § 3705 –Warranties), and penalties for failure to perform or comply
39 17. (42 U.S. Code § 1320d–5 - General penalty for failure to comply with
40 requirements and standards); 3(C), (D).
41
42 39) The Simpkins are filing within this Motion the Amended Statement of Issues as well as
43 requesting a ruling on the Expedited Motion for Relief based on Tennessee Statutes ignored by the

18
 1 Chancery Court and based on Federal Statutes that proves the Simpkins were entitled to monetary
2 damages from Federal Statutes as well based on the false and fraudulent “Completion of Warranty of
3 Construction” signed by CEO John Maher.
4 40) Further, the Simpkins proved the reason the Plaintiffs did not receive any notices from the
5 Court concerning the hearings, and that the Court and the Defendants were using the Simpkins home
6 mailing address instead of the P.O. Box address, P.O. Box 682971, Franklin, TN, 37068, as Ordered by
7 the Court, Judge Hood, to ensure that the Simpkins “would not receive the notifications” and supposedly
8 emailed a copy of the notice to the Simpkins’ old email hacked account, dms.consultant@gmx.com which
9 the Court had already been notified of, but the Chancery Court and the Defendants Counsel sent emails
10 there anyway knowing that the Plaintiffs would never see them, and therefore never know of the Hearing
11 Dates. All of this knowing that the Simpkins would not receive the Notices for the March 7th Hearing and
12 the April 4th Hearing set for 10:30AM. These are wanton malicious acts by an Officer of the Court. That
13 is alleged “Fraud on the Court,” by the Officer of the Court. Mr. Simpkins’ appointment was at 10:30
14 AM on April 4th and had been set three (3) months in advance which the Court was made aware of in
15 January of 2023 motion. (See Exhibit - David Simpkins VA Hospital Appt. 4-4-2023).
16 41) It couldn’t be more obvious that both the Defendants Counsel and the Court at the very
17 same time changed the address and the email address from the Court Ordered address to the Simpkins
18 (Home Residential Address that they knew that all U.S. Postal Mail went to John Maher Builders, Inc,
19 and to an email address that had been hacked, (dms.consultant@gmx.com), and the Simpkins did not
20 have access to and had not been using that email address for several months. The changing of the
21 addresses was discovered in the Order that Mr. Jakob Schwendimann sent to the Simpkins On April 4th,
22 2023, which was the Chancery Court Order to “Dismiss the Simpkins Complaint with Prejudice,” (which
23 was after the March and April hearing dates). This shows and proves that the Simpkins would not have
24 a copy of what the Court supposedly sent out via U.S. Postal mail. The question that needs to be asked,
25 why did Mr. Jakob Schwendimann choose to only email the Order from the Court, and not the two
26 previous hearing dates? The answer is obvious. Mr. Schwendimann chose not to or was in on what was
27 going on with the Court and was ordered not to send those notices for the hearings. Either way, this was
28 intentional on the part of the Chancery Court and the opposing Counsel (who both somehow coordinated
29 to change the mailing address and the email address at the same time) to ensure the Simpkins would
30 not be aware of said hearings and therefore would not be able to respond or appear. (These actions were
31 premeditated and coordinated between the Court and the Defendants Counsel). This is completely
32 Machiavellian. See below image showing the dates of receipt of emails (highlighted in yellow), from the

19
 1 Clerk and Master, Jakob Schwendimann and dates that Mr. Simpkins sent emails to Mr. Jakob
2 Schwendimann for requested filings: (Note: That emails from Jakob Schwendimann are in the left side
3 of the page with his name, any emails sent from Mr. Simpkins will show as (me).

4
5 42) Please note the highlighted email from Mr. Jakob Schwendimann, the February 1st email and the
6 April 4th email. The April 4th email contained the Order from the Court to dismiss the Simpkins’ complaint. This
7 Order was issued without the Court addressing the Motion to the Court for a change of Venue filed on April 3rd,
8 2023. The Court did not acknowledge or respond to that Motion. These communications from the Court Clerk and
9 Master are the only communications from the Court between the dates of February 1 st, 2023, and April 4th, 2023.
10 The Simpkins find it both interesting and disturbing that the Court Clerk and Master could send the Order from the
11 Court to the Simpkins correct email address to notify the Simpkins of the horrible news that their Case had been
12 “DIMISSED” yet again with “PREJUDICE.” But the same Court Clerk and Master could not email the Simpkins
13 the Notice of a Hearing for March 7th, and did not email the second Notice of a Hearing for April 4th. The last
14 communication from the Court Clerk and Master, was the last communication from the Chancery Court via email
15 on February 1st, which was clearly prior to the March 7th hearing which the Simpkins were never made aware of.
16 That is without question intentional. The February Order was the Order denying the Simpkins’ justified Motion to
17 Recuse Judge Hood, as proven by Judge Hood’s latest alleged violations of the Law and the Plaintiff’s
18 Constitutional Rights to “Due Process of Law” and the “Deprivation of those Rights to Remedies” as allowed by
19 Law, but Judge Hood intentionally ruling in contravention of those laws in favor of the Defendants. This proves
20 yet again clear bias for the Defendants against the Plaintiffs, David and Sally Simpkins.

20
 1 43) Reiterated partially here, as in the Amended Statement of Issues, which contained
2 Tennessee Statutes and Federal Statutes that were discovered after the case was dismissed by the Court
3 on April 4th, 2023, in alleged retaliation for the Simpkins filing charges against Judge Hood, the
4 Defendants and the Defendant’s Counsel for causing intentional injury and harm to the Simpkins even
5 after requesting the Court to address the issue before it caused permanent injury to Mr. Simpkins’ left
6 eye. The newly discovered pre-existing laws are listed below that were not addressed by the Court. Those
7 laws provided the Appellants the protection for the “Abandonment and Willful Failure to Perform
8 Without Justification,” perpetrated by the Builder, JMB, CEO, John Maher, COO, Tony Maher, in
9 violation of those Tennessee Laws, which allowed for criminal penalties to be charged against the
10 Defendants and allowed for an award of monetary damages to the Appellants. The Chancery Court, Judge
11 Hood, Officer of the Court presiding over the case allegedly unlawfully and in complete contravention
12 of those laws, refused to even acknowledge those laws and refused to apply those laws as required by
13 “Law,” and actually made the false statement in the May 3rd, 2023 Order, starting on the last line of Pg
14 1, second half of the line, as follows:
15 “Having read all of the pleadings filed after entry of the Court’s April 4th, 2023 Order, the Court finds no
16 basis in law or fact upon which to alter or amend its Order.”
17
18 44) Incredibly, the Judge Hood goes on to say the following on Pg 2, lines 2-7:
19 “Plaintiffs have demonstrated in prior filings their ignorance of the distinction between a Rule 59.04
20 Motion and a Rule 60.02 motion. Although Rule of Civil Procedure 59.04 is applicable to these
21 circumstances, the Court finds there is no basis to grant relief pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil
22 Procedure 60.02 as an alternative theory. The Plaintiffs have failed to show that any of the reasons for
23 which the Court may relieve a party from its order apply in this case.”
24
25 45) What is most astounding is that the Plaintiffs. The Simpkins never brought up or presented
26 any “theory” about Rule 60.02. Or Rule 60.02 at all. The opposing party, Attorney Brewer discussed Rule
27 of Civil Procedure 60.02 in his Response Motion to the Court, in response to the Simpkins Response
28 Motion to the Court’s unlawful dismissal of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. The subterfuge and clear alleged
29 coordination between the parties, (the Court and the Defendants Counsel) is unmistakable.
30 46) The Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 clearly states the following:
31 Rule 60.02 - Mistakes - Inadvertence - Excusable Neglect - Fraud, etc.
32 On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or the party's legal
33 representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons:
34 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect;
35 (2) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other
36 misconduct of an adverse party;
37 (3) the judgment is void;

21
 1 (4) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is
2 based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that a judgment
3 should have prospective application; or
4 (5) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The motion shall be
5 made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1) and (2) not more than one year after
6 the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this Rule 60.02
7 does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation, but the court may enter
8 an order suspending the operation of the judgment upon such terms as to bond and notice
9 as to it shall seem proper pending the hearing of such motion. This rule does not limit
10 the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a
11 judgment, order or proceeding, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court.
12 Writs of error coram nobis, bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review are
13 abolished, and the procedure for obtaining relief from a judgment shall be by motion as
14 prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.
15
16 47) The Plaintiffs did provide both a “basis in law” and “facts” which the Court, Judge Hood
17 intentionally made an egregiously false statement to “Railroad” the Simpkins’ case out of the Court
18 unlawfully in clear violation of the Plaintiff’s constitutional Rights to “Due Process of Law” under Color
19 of Law, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 -
20 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245 - Federally Protected
21 Activities, Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1983 - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights. Charges should be
22 filed against Judge Hood for the abuse of her authority and clear abusive violation of the Plaintiff’s /
23 Appellant’s rights to “Due Process of Law.” Under the “Due Process Clause,” not the 144 Clause.
24
25 VI. Clear Evidence Proving Judge Hood’s Statements Patently False
26 48) Tennessee puts out a document annually titled, “Tennessee Construction Compendium,”
27 hereinafter referred to as the (TCC), for each year. Within the TCC, Tennessee Law Firms contribute
28 both law and case law (binding authorities) that provide Attorneys updated information pertaining to new
29 rulings by either the Tennessee Supreme Court or the Tennessee Appellate Court. The purpose of the
30 TCC is to ensure that pertinent information such as Tennessee Statutes and Case Law, (binding
31 authorities) are updated and presented so that Attorneys are as up to date as possible of changes in rulings
32 or laws. One of the Case Laws in the TCC referred to the following Tennessee Statutes, “State laws” for
33 contractor’s responsibilities and penalties for breach against Buyers or Homeowners, that were
34 discovered in April of 2023 after the unlawful dismissal of the Plaintiff’s case by Judge Hood of the
35 Chancery Court. The following laws prove that the Abandonment and Failure to Honor the 2 year
36 Warranty, was a criminal act by John Maher Builders, Inc, CEO, John Maher and COO, Tony Maher,
37 and therefore the Chancery Court, Judge Hood, had the “Legal” obligation by law to make a ruling in

22
 1 favor of the Simpkins upon the presentation of the laws and the facts of the case pertaining to the
2 “unquestioned authenticity of the Plaintiffs evidence” as stated by ACT, Judge Frierson in the Simpkins’
3 “Opinion”: David Simpkins, et. al. v. John Maher Builders, et. al. No. M2021-00487-COA-R3-CV
4 (May 4th, 2022), where the Appellate Court found in favor of the Plaintiffs /Appellants proving that the
5 Simpkins clearly had a “Breach of Contract,” “Breach of Express or Implied Warranty,” “Fraudulent
6 Concealment,” and “Fraudulent Misrepresentation.” The last two “frauds” being clearly criminal in
7 nature.
8 49) The Tennessee State Laws listed below were presented to the Chancery Court in the
9 following two motions; (Response to Court Dismissal of the Simpkins Complaint 4-24-2023), and
10 (Plaintiff's Response to Defendants Frivolous Motion Sanctions Demanded 5-2-2023), before the
11 Chancery Court, where Judge Hood of the Chancery Court knowingly, willfully, with malicious intent,
12 stating them again from Pg 8 above, lines 2 through 14, made the following patently false statements;
13
14 “Having read all of the pleadings filed after entry of the Court’s April 4th, 2023 Order, the Court finds no
15 basis in law or fact upon which to alter or amend its Order.”
16
17 50) Incredibly, the Judge Hood goes on to say the following on Pg 2, lines 2-7:
18 “Plaintiffs have demonstrated in prior filings their ignorance of the distinction between a Rule 59.04
19 Motion and a Rule 60.02 motion. Although Rule of Civil Procedure 59.04 is applicable to these
20 circumstances, the Court finds there is no basis to grant relief pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil
21 Procedure 60.02 as an alternative theory. The Plaintiffs have failed to show that any of the reasons for
22 which the Court may relieve a party from its order apply in this case.”
23
24 51) The Plaintiffs / Appellants, again present the following Tennessee Statutes, (Laws) that Judge
25 Hood refused to acknowledge or address and therefore failed to apply as required by law.
26
27 Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-510. Prohibited acts. For; Abandonment or willful failure to perform,
28 without justification
29 4. Abandonment or willful failure to perform, without justification, any home improvement
30 contract or project engaged in or undertaken by a contractor or willful deviation from or
31 disregard of plans or specifications in any material respect without the consent of the
32 owners;
33 5. Making any substantial misrepresentation in the procurement of a home improvement
34 contract or making any false promise of character likely to influence, persuade or induce;
35 6. Any fraud in the execution of, or in the material alteration of, any contract, mortgage,
36 promissory note or other document incident to a home improvement transaction;
37 6. Willful or deliberate disregard and violation of the building, sanitary and health laws of this
38 state or of any political subdivision of this state or of the safety, labor, or workers'
39 compensation insurance laws of this state.
40
41 Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-511. False Documentation
42 The fraudulent “Warranty of Completion of Construction” signed by John Maher.
43

23
 1 Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-512. Criminal Penalty, commits a Class A misdemeanor. Each
2 violation is deemed a separate offense.
3
4
5 Legal Basis For Striking the Chancery Court’s Order From The Record For Being
6 Null And Void By Law.
7
8 a. Argument For A Clear Legal Basis For An Immediate Ruling For the Plaintiffs
9 / Appellants in the Appellate Court
10 52) As shown in the previous Appellant Brief proving the Simpkins’ case. The Builder sold a

11 Brand-New Home Incomplete With Fifty-Eight (58) Documented Code Violations, Omissions, And

12 Damaged Materials Infested With Termites And Mold, and substandard materials that were already

13 cracked or split or damaged in some way but JMB, JM and TM, still installed the damaged materials

14 regardless of their condition.

15 53) (See Appellate Court Tribunal, (ACT), Presiding Judge, Judge Frierson’s Statement

16 concerning the “Authenticity” of the Simpkins’ Evidentiary “Exhibits” being “Unquestioned” in,

17 David Simpkins, et. al. v. John Maher Builders, et. al. No. M2021-00487-COA-R3-CV (May 4th,

18 2022).

19 54) “We note that “exhibits attached to the complaint whose authenticity is unquestioned”

20 may be considered by the trial court without converting the Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure

21 12.02(6) motion to dismiss to a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56 motion for summary

22 judgment. Felker v. Felker, No. W2019-01925-COAR3-CV, 2021 WL 3507745, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App.

23 Aug. 10, 2021).”

24 (See the Following Reports that “prove these facts.”

25 SIMP-00A1 - A-1 Waterproofing Investigative Property & Mold Inspection Report for

26 Simpkins 7-20-18

27 SIMP-00A2 - Lee Company Investigative Service Report with Pricing

28 SIMP-00A3 - Simpkins Failed Carpet Report 1-1-18

29 SIMP-00A4 - 1375 Round Hill Ln HIR 7-13-17

30 SIMP-00A5 - SE&I Engineering Report

31 SIMP-00A15 - A-1 WP Investigative Property & Mold Inspection Report

24
 1 SIMP-00A16 - MTMR Highlighted Inspection Report & Contract 1-16-18

2 SIMP-00A68 – Agape Invoice Drywall Dust Still Coming out of Carpet 10-3-17

3 SIMP-00A70 - Pro Painter Affidavit of no Primer on any walls in entire property 9-12-17

4 SIMP-00A91 - A-1 Waterproofing Suppl Invest Inspect by Inspector James Gafford 10-30-20

6 55) Then the Builder, John Maher Builders, Inc., “Abandoned” the Simpkins after the first

7 month of ownership. By abandoning the Simpkins after the first month, they violated the Contract and

8 the Warranty and failed to perform on either the contract or the warranty without any legal or other

9 justification, other than Tony Maher’s statement that they could do as they pleased because they are
10 protected all the way to the top of the Government of the State of Tennessee. The “Abandonment and

11 Failure to Perform Without any Justification,” immediately leads to Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-510.

12 Prohibited acts. For; Abandonment or willful failure to perform, without justification, and, again, this

13 occurred almost one month after the Plaintiffs / Appellants had purchased the property. But to this day,

14 not one Judge in the Chancery Court or the Appellate Court has issued orders to have the Builder pay

15 restitution to the Simpkins, which the Plaintiffs / Appellants have been entitled to since JMB abandoned

16 the Plaintiffs / Appellants after the first month.

17 56) Then the JMB “Stonewalled” the Simpkins for the next six (6) years.

18 57) By the “Abandonment,” of JMB, by JMB “Stonewalling” the Simpkins for the next six

19 years, never contacting the Plaintiffs / Appellants, never investigating the Expert Reports provided by
20 the Plaintiffs / Appellants as requested by JMB in the first month of ownership, August of 2017, and by

21 JMB filing an Insurance Claim with Builders Mutual, (validating the Plaintiff’s / Appellant’s Claims

22 by filing an insurance claim with their insurance company), after failing to answer the Plaintiff’s /

23 Appellant’s Demand Letters, JMB cannot provide any legal basis for failing to abide by the Contract or

24 the Warranty. Therefore, JMB is in “Default” of the Contract and Warranty by Tennessee Statutes;

25
26 A. Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-510. Prohibited acts. For; Abandonment or willful failure to
27 perform, without justification
28
29 B. Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-205; Limitation Not Defense Under Certain Circumstances.

25
 1
2 C. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-154. Actions by home improvement services provider that
3 constitute offense
4
5 D. Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-511. False Documentation. The “Warranty of Completion of
6 Construction” signed by John Maher making John Maher’s signing of the document a
7 “Fraudulent” Federal Criminal Act.
8
9 E. Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-512. Criminal Penalty, commits a Class A misdemeanor.
10 Each violation is deemed a separate offense.
11
12 F. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-103 – Products Liability Limitation of actions — Exception
13
14 G. Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-109 - Limitations On Actions For Defective Improvement
15 Of Real Estate
16
17 H. Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202 - Limitations on Actions for Defective Improvement of
18 Real Estate
19
20 58) Due to the “Fraud” committed by the Builder as the Appellate Court previously ruled on

21 for “Breach of Contract,” “Breach of Warranty, Express or Implied,” “Fraudulent Concealment,” and

22 “Fraudulent Misrepresentation,” the Defendants cannot use the Statue of Limitations as an excuse to get

23 out of the accumulation of the Class A Misdemeanors due to their failure to perform during the two years

24 of warranty and thereafter in violation of the laws of the State of Tennessee, leaving the Appellants to

25 suffer for six years in a hostile and toxic environment suffering daily from various mold species. The

26 above Tennessee Statute governs the “Abandonment of a Project, with (willful failure to perform)

27 (without justification). And JMB cannot use the Statue of Limitations as a defense for dragging the case

28 out for six (6) years on their failure to perform on the Contract and Warranty. See Tenn. Code Ann. §

29 28-3-205; Limitation Not Defense Under Certain Circumstances.

30
31 “The limitation provided by this part is not available as a defense to any person who has
32 been guilty of fraud in performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision,
33 observation of construction, construction of, or land surveying, in connection with an
34 improvement, or to any person who wrongfully conceals any such cause of action.”
35
36 See Joseph Riccardi v. Carl Little Construction Co., Inc., et al., 2021 WL 3137251 (Tenn.
37 App. July 26, 2021);
38 “The Appellate Court found that Plaintiff could not have reasonably known he had an
39 actionable claim in 2011 as a result of Defendant’s continued assurances and repairs and to

26
 1 hold otherwise would be to “penalize” Plaintiff for attempting to comply with the warranty of
2 his new residence without resorting to litigation.”
3
4 See Federal Ins. v. Winters, 354 S.W.3d at 293-96 (Tenn, Oct 25, 2011) ;
5 The Tennessee Supreme Court recently held that contractors have an implied duty to perform
6 services required by their contract with homeowners in a skillful, careful, diligent and
7 workmanlike manner, even in the absence of a written agreement. Winters, 354 S.W.3d at293.
8 The Court further held that the delegation of performance of a contract to a subcontractor does
9 not relieve the contractor from the duties implicit in the original contract. Winters, 354 S.W.3d
10 at 293-96.
11
12 See “Hutson v. Cummins Carolinas, Inc., 280 S.C. 552, 314 S.E.2d 19, 23
13 (S.C.Ct.App.1984)
14 (“[W]here a person holds himself out as specially qualified to perform work of a particular
15 character, there is an implied warranty that the work ... shall be of proper workmanship and
16 reasonably fitted for its intended purpose.”); see also Waggoner v. Midwestern Dev., Inc., 83
17 S.D. 57, 154 N.W.2d 803, 807 (1967).”
18
19 59) After six (6) years the penalties add up to 4,248 Class A Misdemeanors. Due to the
20 “Fraud” committed by the Defendants, the “Theft” of the Appellant’s Monies, falls under Tenn. Code
21 Ann. § 28-3-205; Limitation Not Defense Under Certain Circumstances. There is already a single
22 Class A Felony for “Theft” of the Simpkins’ monies of over $250,000 by Tennessee Law. Tenn. Code
23 Ann. § 39-14-154. Actions by home improvement services provider that constitute offense. The Plaintiffs
24 paid $479,429.52 for the property. (See Exhibit SIMP-00A69 - Final Closing Disclosure Total Costs
25 $479,429.52).
26
27 Chapter 14 - Offenses Against Property; Part 1 – Theft; § 39-14-105. Grading of Theft
28 A Class A felony if the value of the property or services obtained is two hundred fifty thousand
29 dollars ($250,000) or more.
30
31 60) Further, the Appellate Court has the power and authority under R. of App. Proc. 36(a) to
32 address these violations of the law by the Court and make a final determination as proven in the following
33 Supreme and Appellate Court case laws:
34 First Tennessee Bank v. Hurd Lock & Mfg. Co., 816 S.W.2d 38, 40 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991)
35 (Tennessee Appellate Court)
36 “To avoid any further delay in the entry of a final order in this case, we hereby direct that this
37 opinion be filed in the trial court along with the order filed contemporaneously herewith and that
38 they be treated as the final order in this case consistent with the March 29, 2001, mandate of the
39 Tennessee Supreme Court.”
40
41 “Toomey v. Atyoe, 95 Tenn. 373, 381-82, 32 S.W. 254, 256 (1895) (Tennessee Supreme Court)
42 This responsibility includes entering judgments based on the preponderance of the evidence and the
43 applicable law. See Roberts v. Robertson County Bd. of Educ., 692 S.W.2d 863, 874 (Tenn. Ct. App.

27
 1 1985). Thus, as Judge Tomlin has noted, we may elect to wrestle with the octopus rather than remand
2 the case for further time-consuming and costly wrestling in the trial court.”
3
4 “Realty Shop, Inc. v. RR Westminster Holding, Inc., 01A01-9609-CH-00418 (June 4, 1999)
5 (Tennessee Appellate Court)
6 Tenn. R. App. P. 13 and 36 control the proper scope of appellate review. While Tenn. R. App. P.
7 13(b) ordinarily limits the scope of review to the issues raised by the parties themselves, it also permits
8 appellate courts to consider issues not raised by the parties to prevent needless litigation, to prevent
9 injury to the interests of the public, or to prevent prejudice to the judicial process. In addition,
10 Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a) empowers appellate courts to “grant the relief on the law and facts to which
11 the party is entitled or the proceeding otherwise requires . . ..”
12 We find no basis for declining to render a final judgment between the parties based on the facts
13 in this record.”
14
15
16 Perry v. Carter, 188 Tenn. 409, 411-12, 219 S.W.2d 905, 906 (1949)
17 Tennessee’s appellate courts have long had the responsibility to render the judgment that the
18 trial court, sitting as the trier-of-fact, should have rendered.
19
20 V. Conclusions:
21 61) The Plaintiffs filed the docketing statement twice with the Chancery Court. But it was not
22 filed as requested. The Plaintiffs are filing it now with both the Chancery Court and the Appellate Court
23 so that they have a copy of what was not filed by the Chancery Court. The Plaintiffs have also filed the
24 two separate transcripts with the Appellate Court.
25 62) The Plaintiffs have shown that by law the Court is to follow the rules, the laws and any
26 binding authorities that have been determined by either the Supreme Court of Tennessee or the Appellate
27 Court of Tennessee. Based on those premises, the Chancery Court failed to adhere to the rules regarding
28 subject matter jurisdiction.
29 63) Further, the Chancery Court failed to review and apply the newly discovered pre-existing
30 laws as presented by the Plaintiffs and the Court failed to render a proper and legal ruling based on those
31 laws causing an injustice and further injury, harm and delay against the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the
32 Chancery Court again lost subject matter jurisdiction.
33 64) Further, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a ruling by the Appellate Court based on the R. of
34 App. P. 36(a) as shown in previous binding authorities by the Appellate Court as listed above for at
35 minimum “interim damages.”
36 65) Therefore, based on the Appellate Court Ruling and Judgement on May 4th of 2022, and
37 the stark, “unquestioned authenticity” of the Simpkins “preponderance of evidence”, as stated by ACT
38 Presiding Judge, Judge Frierson, and the laws of the State of Tennessee and the Federal and Constitutional
39 Law violations, by all parties to include the Courts and Officers of the Courts, the Simpkins are entitled

28
 1 to at minimum “interim damages” of no less than $30,289,434.47 per the entity, John Maher Builders,
2 Inc., and each individual, CEO, John Maher, and COO, Tony Maher, x3 for a total of $90,868,303.41.
3 This does not include the Federal Violations that the Simpkins are entitled to.
4 66) See the following case laws proving that the Plaintiffs / Appellants are entitled to the
5 damages claimed by law. Under “Noneconomic Damages,” the Plaintiffs had egregious pain and
6 suffering by the Builder, John Maher Builders, Inc., John Maher and Tony Maher. The Plaintiffs are
7 therefore entitled to claim all of the following for damages:
8 Physical and emotional pain
9 Suffering
10 Mental anguish
11 Emotional distress
12 Loss of society, companionship, and consortium
13 Loss of enjoyment of normal activities, benefits and pleasures of life and loss of mental or
14 physical health, well-being or bodily functions
15
16 A. Scott Campbell, Et Al. v. William H. Teague, Et Al. No. W2009-00529-COA-R3-
17 CV (March 31, 2010) – Compensatory, Consequential and Incidental
18 Damages, Punitive Damages, Treble Damages
19
20 “In order to recover under the TCPA, the plaintiff must prove: (1) that the
21 defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice declared unlawful by
22 the TCPA and (2) that the defendant's conduct caused an “ascertainable loss of
23 money or property, real, personal, or mixed, or any other article, commodity,
24 or thing of value wherever situated....” Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-109(a)(1). As
25 discussed below, the defendant's conduct need not be willful or even knowing
26 however, if it is, the TCPA permits the trial court to award treble damages.
27 Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-109(a)(3); Concrete Spaces, Inc. v. Sender, 2 S.W.3d
28 901, 910 n. 13 (Tenn.1999); Haverlah v. Memphis Aviation, Inc., 674 S.W.2d
29 297, 306 (Tenn. Ct. App.1984).”
30
31 “A deceptive act or practice is one that causes or tends to cause a consumer to
32 believe what is false or that misleads or tends to mislead a consumer as to a matter
33 of fact. FN10 Thus, for the purposes of the TCPA and other little FTC acts, the
34 essence of deception is misleading consumers by a merchant's statements, silence,
35 or actions. Jonathan Sheldon & Carolyn L. Carter, Unfair and Deceptive Acts
36 and Practices § 4.2.3.1, at 118-19 (5th ed.2001) [hereinafter Unfair and Deceptive
37 Acts and Practices]. The concept of unfairness is even broader than the concept of
38 deceptiveness, and it applies to various abusive business practices that are not
39 necessarily deceptive. Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices § 4.3.3.1, at 156.

29
 1 In the 1994 legislation reauthorizing the Federal Trade Commission, Congress
2 undertook to codify the Commission's policy statement on unfairness by stating
3 that an act or practice should not be deemed unfair “unless the act or practice
4 causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably
5 avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits
6 to consumers or to competition.” 15 U.S.C.A. § 45(n). Following the mandate of
7 Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-115, we will use this description of unfairness to guide
8 our interpretation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-104(a). Tucker v. Sierra Builders,
9 180 S.W.3d 116-117 (footnotes omitted).”
10
11 “Perhaps most egregious is the fact that, despite giving the Campbells a one-
12 year express warranty when they purchased the home, the Teagues
13 repeatedly refused to honor that agreement, even though they knew of the
14 safety concerns and code violations.”
15
16 “In addition to damages associated with diminution in value and cost of repairs, courts
17 may also award all damages that are the normal and foreseeable result of a breach of
18 contract. Holladay v. Speed, 208 S.W.3d 408, 415 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Morrow
19 v. Jones, 166 S.W.3d 254 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004)). These types of damages include
20 reasonably foreseeable consequential and incidental damages. Id. In the present case, the
21 parties stipulated that the Campbells did not need to prove a breach of contract in order to
22 recover consequential damages. Consequently, the only issue the trial court had to
23 determine was the amount of the consequential damages to which the Campbells are
24 entitled. In Isaacs v. Bokor, 566 S.W.2d 532, 536 (Tenn. 1978), a case involving
25 rescission and restitution, our Supreme Court approved a jury’s award of purchase
26 payments, interest payments, and other incidental expenses to the purchaser of a
27 residence. Relying upon its previous holding in Isaacs, our Supreme Court, in Mills v.
28 Brown, 568 S.W.2d 100, 103 (Tenn. 1978), held that “a purchaser who has been the
29 victim of fraud or mistake may recover, in addition to the purchase price, other
30 damages which he may have incurred in good faith by reason of mistake, such as cost
31 of improvements and the like.” In fact, the range of potentially recoverable consequential
32 and incidental damages is very broad and varies from case to case.”
33
34 Murvin V. Cofer, 968 S.W.2D 304 (TENN. CT. APP. 1997) – Treble Damages
35 “In an action of this nature under the Consumer Protection Act, TCA 14-18-109 provides
36 that the Court may award treble damages for a violation of the Act if the Court finds that
37 the unfair or deceptive act or practice was a willful or knowing violation of the Act. In
38 this case, the Court does find that there was a willful or knowing violation of the
39 Act.”
40
41 Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896, 901 (Tenn. 1992). – Punitive Damages
42 “In Tennessee, therefore, a court may henceforth award punitive damages only if it finds
43 a defendant has acted either (1) intentionally, (2) fraudulently, (3) maliciously, or (4)
44 recklessly." 833 S.W.2d at 901
45

30
 1 67) A person acts intentionally when it is the person's conscious objective or desire to
2 engage in the conduct or cause the result. Cf. [Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-302(a) (1991) (criminal
3 definition of 'intentional')]. A person acts fraudulently when (1) the person intentionally
4 misrepresents an existing, material fact or produces a false impression, in order to mislead
5 another or to obtain an undue advantage, and (2) another is injured because of reasonable reliance
6 on that misrepresentation. See First Nat'l Bank v. Brooks Farms, 821 S.W.2d 925, 927 (Tenn. 1991).
7 “A person acts maliciously when the person is motivated by ill will, hatred or personal
8 spite. A person acts recklessly when the person is aware of, but consciously
9 disregards, a substantial and unjustifiable risk of such a nature that its disregard
10 constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would
11 exercise under all the circumstances. Cf. [Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-302(c) (1991)
12 (criminal definition of 'reckless')]. Id.
13
14 Further, because punitive damages are to be awarded only in the most egregious of cases,
15 a plaintiff must prove the defendant's intentional, fraudulent, malicious, or reckless
16 conduct by clear and convincing evidence.FN3 This higher standard of proof is appropriate
17 given the twin purposes of punishment and deterrence: fairness requires that a defendant's
18 wrong be clearly established before punishment, as such, is imposed; awarding punitive
19 damages only in clearly appropriate cases better effects deterrence. FN3 Clear and
20 convincing evidence means evidence in which there is no serious or substantial doubt
21 about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence."
22
23 Sharon B. Pollard v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours, Inc. No. 95-3010 Ml (August 27, 2003.) –
24 Compensatory, Emotional Distress Damages, Punitive Damages
25
26 “On remand, this Court determined the issue of liability for the state tort of intentional
27 infliction of emotional distress in favor of Plaintiff. After holding a hearing on front pay
28 and compensatory damages, the Court awarded Plaintiff $853,215.00 in front pay and
29 made a total award of compensatory damages in the amount of $1,250,000.001. The Court
30 also determined, based on clear and convincing evidence, that an award of punitive
31 damages was appropriate in this case because DuPont intentionally or recklessly
32 disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk to Plaintiff that she would suffer
33 severe emotional distress as a result of the treatment of her coworkers.”
34
35 68) In Mr. Gafford’s Report, (SIMP-00A91 - A-1 Waterproofing Suppl Invest Inspect by
36 Inspector James Gafford 10-30-2020), on pages 17-21 details the situation and on page 17, Mr. Gafford
37 states: “I classify the actions by John Maher Builders, Inc. at the level of Gross Negligence. If there
38 was a level of violation of “Extreme Gross Negligence” in the standards used today, I would use that
39 standard as the overall assessment considering the number code violations from different independent
40 Investigations.”

31
 1 69) Further, on Page 18, Mr. Gafford states: “The indisputable fact that the Builder new
2 about the mold, and still sold the property to the Simpkins with a hazardous condition, then
3 intentionally did not communicate, nor attempt to inspect, investigate, or perform any repairs to the
4 property after receiving independent reports detailing the multitude of issues and code violations, I
5 classify as knowing, willful malicious intent by the Builder against the Simpkins.”
6 70) The damages are based on the Simpkins’ actual cumulative expenses and losses with both
7 Pre and Post Interest calculated and included. (See Exhibit - SIMP-00A131 - 1375 Round Hill Ln Mit. of
8 Damages Expenses - FINAL 6-13-2023).
9 71) The Simpkins have presented both State and Federal Law where the Simpkins, the
10 Plaintiffs and also now as the Appellants have been entitled to monetary damages since the filing of their
11 Complaint, see attached, (Complaint Against John Maher Builders Final 1-1-21). See the Tennessee
12 Statutes that back up the Plaintiffs complaint. (In the Plaintiffs response to Judge Hood’s alleged unlawful
13 and malicious manipulation of the law to railroad the Simpkins Compliant out of the Court to cause
14 intentional further injury, harm, and delay to obviously benefit the Builder, JMB. (Response to Court
15 Dismissal of the Simpkins Complaint 4-24-2023).
16 72) Further, the Plaintiffs had filed two separate Motions and requested a change of Venue
17 and Judge Hood never addressed the requests in any way, she completely ignored the requests and
18 dismissed the Simpkins’ Complaint allegedly unlawfully under a false legal basis which was based on
19 Sanctions by R. of Civ. Proc. 37 for failure to appear for the April 4th hearing. Which the hearing was set
20 for the same time as Mr. Simpkins’ first meeting with his new Primary Care Physician to intentionally
21 make Mr. Simpkins miss the hearing. (See Exhibits - Mot. Rmve Judge Hood Frm Case, LSMJ, Chg of
22 Venue 3-29-2023), and (Filed Copy of Motion to Chg Ven & Intent Harm 4-4-2023).
23 73) Further, the Simpkins never received any Official Notice of the Hearing for the
24 aforementioned reason. Judge Hood in violating her own Order to use the P.O. Box address, P.O. Box
25 682971, Franklin, TN, 37068, as Ordered by the Court, Judge Hood, to ensure that the Simpkins “would
26 not receive the notifications” and supposedly emailed a copy of the notice to the Simpkins’ old email
27 hacked account, dms.consultant@gmx.com which the Court had already been notified of, but sent emails
28 there anyway. All of this knowing that the Simpkins would not receive the Notices of the March 7th
29 Hearing and the April 4th Hearing set for 10:30AM. These are wanton malicious acts by an Officer of the
30 Court. That is alleged “Fraud on the Court,” by the Officer of the Court. Mr. Simpkins’ appointment was
31 at 10:30 AM on April 4th and had been set three (3) months in advance which the Court was made aware
32 of in January of 2023 motion. (See Exhibit - David Simpkins VA Hospital Appt. 4-4-2023).

32
 1 74) Therefore, the Appellate Court has the power and authority to make a final judgement for the
2 failure of the Chancery Court to adhere to the previous ruling of the Appellate Court which the Chancery Court
3 has caused undeniable and intentional injury, delay and harm, (a harsh and unnecessary eleven (11) additional
4 months of hardship with no legal basis to do so) to the Plaintiffs / Appellants as well as malicious physical harm
5 to the Plaintiffs / Appellants willfully and knowingly after being informed of the dire circumstances that the
6 Plaintiffs were being forced to endure by the Court unjustly.
7 75) This concludes the Plaintiff / Appellants remarks to the Court concerning the presentation of the
8 laws ignored both in a Tennessee State level and a United Stated Federal level by this Court in violation of the
9 laws, rules and the Plaintiffs / Appellants Constitutional Rights and Deprivation of those Rights, and outright bias
10 for the Defendants.
11
12 I. Prayer For Relief
13 WHEREFORE, Respectfully, the Plaintiffs pray for relief from the Chancery Court for “Interim
14 or Full Award of Damages” with “Prejudice” against the Defendants based on the preponderance of
15 evidence, the Appellate Court Tribunal “Opinion” and “Judgment” against John Maher Builders, Inc.,
16 John Maher, and Tony Maher individually. That due to the egregious, willful, knowing, intentional,
17 negligent, wanton, malicious acts committed in a heinously reckless manner, that they treated the
18 Plaintiffs with, and that due to such outrageous acts which are not acceptable in a normal Society, with
19 no justification legal or otherwise, that the Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of “Interim or Full Award
20 of Damages,” there is no legal basis or just cause for delay. The Plaintiffs have been egregiously harmed
21 for over six (6) years. Further, that the Chancery Court is justified in awarding all damages incurred, as
22 well as costs, interests, Pro Se hours worked for their case in lieu of attorney’s fees and any other such
23 relief as this court deems just and appropriate as proven by law and authorities presented by the Plaintiffs
24 in this motion and as follows:
25
26 1. For an immediate ruling for “Interim or Default or Final Damages” with “Prejudice” and
27 for relief by law for the determinations made by the Appellate Court Tribunal for “Breach
28 of Contract,” “Breach of Express or Implied Warranty,” “Fraudulent Concealment,” and
29 “Fraudulent / Intentional Misrepresentation,” against John Maher Builders, Inc., John
30 Maher and Tony Maher individually in the Plaintiffs Complaint with pre and post interest
31 as allowed by Tennessee Statutes, for Compensatory Damages, for Buyer’s Incidental and
32 Consequential Damages, for Treble Damages, for Punitive Damages, and for Emotional
33 Distress and Mental Anguish Damages. “Tennessee Supreme Court has allowed the

33
 1 recovery of emotional injury damages that stemmed from injury to real property where
2 misrepresentations had been made.” See Whaley v. Perkins, 197 S.W.3d 665, 670 (Tenn.
3 2008).
4 2. Damages to be ordered by the Chancery Court to be paid to the Plaintiffs in an amount not
5 less than $18,879,637.44 plus pre-interest of $11,705,375.21 and post interest of
6 $15,472,338.52, which all three (3) defendants are liable for. The base compensatory
7 damages with pre and post interest that the Plaintiffs are entitled to immediately is
8 $46,057,351.13 per each entity and individual for a total of $138,172,053.39. (Note:
9 Monetary damages increase daily as each month goes by until the case is finalized).
10 The Plaintiffs are entitled to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-39-104 Punitive Damages = 2x
11 Compensatory = $183,510,075.89 and treble damages by law, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-
12 109(a)(3) = 414,516,160.17 + Punitive, $183,510,075.89 = $598,026,236.06. The
13 Plaintiffs are entitled to Mental anguish and Emotional distress damages by Tenn. Code
14 Ann. § 29-39-104 for an amount to be determined by Statute. $34,000,000 x3 =
15 $102,000,000. Emotional Distress + Compensatory, Punitive, and Treble Damages =
16 $102,000,000 + $598,026,236.06 = $700,026,236.06. Plus Post Interest of $37,370,993.27
17 = $737,397,229.33.
18 3. Damages to be ordered by the Court to be paid to the Plaintiffs for the loss of the Plaintiffs
19 Home Based Business grossing approximately $480,000 per year based on an hourly rate
20 of $250/hr. “After the fact of damages has been established, less certainty is required with
21 regard to the amount of the damages. The amount of lost profits damages may be based
22 on estimates.” Sostchin v. Doll Enters., Inc., 847 So.2d 1123, 1128 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
23 2003).”
24 4. Damages to be ordered by the Court to be paid to the Plaintiffs for the $820,000 difference
25 between the price the Plaintiffs paid for their property in 2017 in comparison to the
26 property JMB recently sold property with the same square footage as the Simpkins
27 property.
28 5. The lot value has increased substantially, and the Plaintiffs are entitled to the difference
29 in the original lot price to the current average value of the lots in today’s market for
30 subdivisions near the coveted Summit High School is, $242,000.
31 6. Damages to be ordered by the Court to be paid to the Plaintiffs for the $325,450.00 for
32 substitute housing for eighteen months while the Plaintiffs resolve their current property

34
 1 issue with a tear down of the property and rebuild if allowed after lot inspections. T.C.A.
2 §47-2-715. Buyer's incidental and consequential damages.
3 7. Damages to be ordered by the Court to be paid to the Plaintiffs for the loss of the current
4 property and cost to payoff mortgage of $613,532.78, with the mortgage arrearages of
5 $165,821.26. Scott Campbell, Et Al. V. William H. Teague, Et Al. No. W2009-00529-
6 COA-R3-CV (March 31, 2010).
7 8. Damages to be ordered by the Court to be paid to the Plaintiffs for tear down of the
8 property estimate of $218,000. If actual costs are higher than estimate for unforeseen
9 issues, Defendants are ordered to pay the invoiced difference immediately upon receipt of
10 invoice within forty-eight hours to Plaintiffs.
11 9. Damages to be ordered by the Court to be paid to the Plaintiffs for Personal Property
12 Losses of estimated $450,000.
13 10. Damages to be ordered by the Court to be paid to the Plaintiffs for a new Suburban to
14 replace the ruined one due to mold cross contamination from the property to the vehicle
15 because of the Builder’s failure to address mold in the property, $101,709.
16 11. For two thousand five hundred and forty-nine (2,549) days of emotional distress damages
17 from August 22, 2017, to April 24, 2023.
18 12. Plaintiffs request the Court to allow and order costs of suit for Plaintiff’s time incurred in
19 this action as Pro Se.
20 13. The Plaintiffs request that the Court rule on all claims allowed against JMB and award
21 monetary damages according to the law or to the level of egregious acts.
22 14. The Plaintiffs request that the Court Order John Maher Builders, John Maher, and Tony
23 Maher to pay the taxes on the award of damages due to forcing the Simpkins to endure the
24 harshest of conditions for six (6) plus years.
25 15. For such other proper and further relief as the Court may deem necessary.
26
27 “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed on this 27th day
28 of July 2023, Respectfully submitted,
29
30 s/David M. Simpkins, s/ Sally E. Simpkins
31 David M. Simpkins, Sally E. Simpkins, Pro Se
32 1375 Round Hill Ln.
33 Spring Hill, TN 37174

35
 1 Phone: 980-443-0224
2 d.simpkins.consultant@gmail.com
3
4

5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6 I hereby certify that on this 27th, day of July 2023, I caused to be served this Motion in response to
7 “Defendants Motion to Dismiss” and request for Final Judgement with Prejudice against John Maher
8 Builders, Inc. by postage prepaid, first class mail, upon the following counsel:

9
10 “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed on this 27th day
11 of July 2023, Respectfully submitted,
12
13 s/David M. Simpkins, s/ Sally E. Simpkins
14 David M. Simpkins, Sally E. Simpkins, Pro Se
15 1375 Round Hill Ln.
16 Spring Hill, TN 37174
17 Phone: 980-443-0224
18 d.simpkins.consultant@gmail.com
19
20
21
22
23

24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

25 I hereby certify that on this 27th, day of July 2023, I caused to be served this Plaintiffs Notice And
26 Response To Chancery Court’s False Claim For Failure To File Docketing Statement via email upon the
27 Chancery Court Clerk & Master::

28 Clerk and Master

29 Jacob Schwendimann
30 Chancery Court
31 135 4th Avenue South, Room 236
32 Franklin, TN 37064
33 jakob.schwendimann@tncourts.gov
34 (615)790-5428
35
36 Department of Justice
37 Attn: Deputy Attorney General, Lisa Monaco
38 950 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.

36
 1 Washington, D.C. 20530
2 AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
3
4

5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6 I hereby certify that on this 27th, day of July 2023, I caused to be served this Plaintiffs Notice And
7 Response To Chancery Court’s False Claim For Failure To File Docketing Statement by postage prepaid,
8 first class mail, upon the following counsel:

9 Clerk and Master

10 Jacob Schwendimann
11 Chancery Court
12 135 4th Avenue South, Room 236
13 Franklin, TN 37064
14 jakob.schwendimann@tncourts.gov
15 (615)790-5428
16
17 Department of Veterans Affairs
18 Office of the Inspector General
19 Attn: Legal Department
20 717 14th Street NW, 5th Floor
21 Washington, D.C. 20005
22
23 J. Paul Brewer, Attorney for the Defendants / Appellees
24 P.O. Box 198349
25 Nashville, TN 37219
26 Phone (615) 499-7279
27
28
29 s/David M. Simpkins, s/ Sally E. Simpkins
30 David M. Simpkins, Sally E. Simpkins, Pro Se
31 1375 Round Hill Ln.
32 Spring Hill, TN 37174
33 Phone: 980-443-0224
34 d.simpkins.consultant@gmail.com
35
36
37
38 ORIGINAL filed and COPY
39 of the foregoing served on this 27th, day of July 2023
40 F.B.I. Headquarters
41 Attn: FBI Director, Christopher Wray
42 601 4th Street N.W.
43 Washington, D.C. 20535

37
 1
2 Department of Justice
3 Attn: Deputy Attorney General, Lisa Monaco
4 950 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
5 Washington, D.C. 20530
6
7 United States Navy
8 Attn: Mr. Secretary Carlos Del Toro
9 1200 Navy Pentagon
10 Washington, D.C. 20350-1200
11
12 J. Paul Brewer, Attorney for the Appellees
13 201 4th Ave. N, Suite 1400
14 Nashville, TN 37219
15 Phone (615) 499-7279
16
17 List of Notices Attached:
18 Response Notice to Ch. Ct's False Claim to App. Ct.s 7-23-2023
19 List of Attached Exhibits With the Exception of SIMP-00A1 to SIMP-00A914:
20 1. Docketing Statement for Civil Appeals 5-5-2023
21 2. Copy of Certified Mail Receipt 5-4-2023
22 3. Transcripts of Proceedings 12-13-2022
23 4. Chancery Ct's Order Deny Plaintiff's Resp Mot to Ct's Dismissal 5-3-2023
24 5. David Simpkins, et. al. v. John Maher Builders, et. al. No. M2021-00487-COA-R3-CV (May
25 4th, 2022)
26 6. Judgment by App Ct against JMB 5-4-2022
27 7. SIMP-00A1 - A-1 Waterproofing Investigative Property & Mold Inspection Report for
28 Simpkins 7-20-18
29 8. SIMP-00A2 - Lee Company Investigative Service Report with Pricing
30 9. SIMP-00A3 - Simpkins Failed Carpet Report 1-1-18
31 10. SIMP-00A4 - 1375 Round Hill Ln HIR 7-13-17
32 11. SIMP-00A5 - SE&I Engineering Report
33 12. SIMP-00A15 - A-1 WP Investigative Property & Mold Inspection Report
34 13. SIMP-00A16 - MTMR Highlighted Inspection Report & Contract 1-16-18
35 14. SIMP-00A68 – Agape Invoice Drywall Dust Still Coming out of Carpet 10-3-17
36 15. SIMP-00A70 - Pro Painter Affidavit of no Primer on any walls in entire property 9-12-17
37 16. SIMP-00A91 - A-1 Waterproofing Suppl Invest Inspect by Inspector James Gafford 10-30-20
38 17. Exhibit - SIMP-00A131 - 1375 Round Hill Ln Mit. of Damages Expenses - FINAL 6-13-2023
39 18. Complaint Against John Maher Builders Final 1-1-21
40 19. Response to Court Dismissal of the Simpkins Complaint 4-24-2023
41 20. Plaintiff's Response to Defendants Frivolous Motion Sanctions Demanded 5-2-2023
42 21. Mot. Rmve Judge Hood Frm Case, LSMJ, Chg of Venue 3-29-2023
43 22. Motion to Chg Ven & Intent Harm 4-4-2023

4
All exhibits SIMP-00A1 to SIMP-00A91

38
1 23. Exhibit - David Simpkins VA Hospital Appt. 4-4-2023
2 24. Address stolen by John Maher Builders as of 9-12-2022
3 25. Court Sending Mail to Home Address, not P.O. Box Address
4

39