[ Home ] [ Mission Updates ] [ Our Mission ] [ Join the Glory ] [ Projects ] [ Youth Groups ] [ Testimony ] [ Special Links ] [ Donations ] [ Sponsors ]

Response Motion

[ Join the Glory Home ] [ Internship ] [ Outdoors ] [ Activities ] [ Training ] [ Praise & Worship ] [ Letter from AYM ] [ Disclaimer Form ]

[ Alerts ] [ Be Prepared ] [ Delivered from Death ]

IN THE CIAIMS COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE EASTERN GRAND DIVISION.

OBJECTION TO ORDER WITH OBVIOUS ERRORS AND TO SET ASIDE DEFECTIVE ORDER REQUESTING TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING AND RECUSAL OF JUDGE

George Raudenbush
Victim/Claimant
Case No. V-20070631 CICA

Comes now George Raudenbush,

George Raudenbush, humbly comes before this commission which was formed and established to investigate Criminal Injuries Claims with A MOTION OF OBJECTION TO ORDER WITH OBVIOUS ERRORS AND TO SET ASIDE DEFECTIVE ORDER REQUESTING TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING AND RECUSAL OF JUDGE, submitting these truths, facts and evidences imperative in correcting obvious errors and fraud committed upon this court.

Claimant did appear On April 20th 2007 at 3:00 pm before Commissioner William O Shults with two witnesses. Claimant strongly disagrees with Commissioner William O. Shults Order and his version of the facts and truths. George Raudenbush having and has evidence contradicting the State’s version, that evidence in fact, does sufficiently support a judgment in favor of claimant George Raudenbush. Let the record show that the representative for the State, counselor Freiburg, failed to appear to prosecute this case.

The order is defective with obvious errors and should be set aside for the following reasons:

1). the order is grossly riddled with obvious errors of misinformation that are not true nor accurate which does not appear to be caused by misspellings, errors in punctuation or grammar. These false and misleading statements are false and misleading, and not the accurate testimony given by Mr. Raudenbush before the commission and do tend to give the appearance of discreidibility to the claimant/victim. These are just a few examples taken from the order.

a) Page 4, line10-11 states “According to Mr. Raudenbush, the struggle with his assailant extended over two hours.” Mr. Raudenbush's statements were always consistent referring to his ordeal as lasting two hours, not over two hours. Mr. Raudenbush’s Chronological Brief of Relevant facts to the court states within two hours, this time is also reflected in the Tellico Plains Police Report which is a record of the court.

b) Page 5, line 20-21 “Mr. Raudenbush has had an ongoing feud with Mr. and Mrs. Ahearn.” Nowhere is it found in any document that Mr. Raudenbush had ever had an ongoing feud with the Ahearn family. Mr. Raudenbush simply was awarded a judgment against Mr. Ahearn and Mr. Ahearn retaliated against Mr. Raudenbush. There are other references to the Ahearns and those references should be clarified that Mr. Raudenbush only had a working relationship with Mr. Ahearn.

c) Mr. Raudenbush’s statements have always been consistent that he had just arrived at the bank according to a criminal complaint and affidavit filed on March 7, 2006.for Assault with the General Sessions Court Of Monroe County Tennessee and in his chronological brief and revised brief to the court. Mr. Raudenbush had just arrived at the bank not leaving as the error in the order states. Page 6, line 2 “Mr. Raudenbush in as he was leaving a local bank”

d) Page 6, Line 6 “Mr.Raudenbush suffered the loss of a jeep vehicle on February 7th, 2006 as more fully described in Exhibit 8 and the attached photograph.” No jeep vehicle was in the possession of the mission nor Mr. Raudenbush as the attached photograph clearly shows a 1986 Isuzu trooper that was destroyed by arson, not a Jeep.

e) Page 7, line 7-9 “He claims that a detective Edwin Voles (spelled phonetically) told him that the department knew who perpetrated the attack.” Mr. Raudenbush presented an affidavit by Hugh Edwin Voyles to the commission on April 20th 2007 in person before witness to Commissioner William O. Schults. In Mr. Voyles’ affidavit nowhere did it state Mr. Voyles to be a detective. Mr. Voyles Affidavit simply states that Narcotics Detective Jeb Brown with the Monroe County Sheriffs Department disclosed information about the abduction of George Raudenbush and the names of his abductors. Further, in Mr. Voyles’ Affidavit Mr. Voyles goes on to state that this detective disclosed that the sheriff had knowledge of this crime and chose to do nothing about it. This affidavit does not appear in the commissions order as a part of the record. Where is this document that the commission received which implicated the Monroe County Sheriffs Department in covering up an attempted murder? The commission has evidence of a crime being covered up by local authorities and does nothing about this?

f) Page 8, line 11-13 “Mr. Raudenbush testified that in 1997 he had been convicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in connection with the theft of an automobile.” Mr. Raudenbush never admitted to having a lawful conviction upon his person at any time. In fact, Mr. Raudenbush did state that jury tampering had taken place during a trial in 1997 thus resulting in a faulty and defective Judgment as a jury member contacted him concerning specific instructions given to the jury for a conviction by the prosecution during jury deliberation. Mr. Raudenbush went on to say that the judge in question had many of his decisions overturned due to over sentencing and judicial misconduct. Mr. Raudenbush did state that there was no lawful conviction and that he had purchased a vehicle with a lawful title having no reason to believe otherwise. Mr. Raudenbush never mentioned the Western District of North Carolina during his testimony to commissioner William O. Shults or the court. Where did this information come from? Mr. Raudenbush has no prior criminal offenses or convictions.

g) Page 9, line11-12 “Mr. Raudenbush did admit, when questioned, that he had a felony conviction in North Carolina.” Mr. Raudenbush never admitted to a lawful conviction at any time as fully explained in sub section (f).

h) Page 9, line 19 “Mr. Raudenbush claims the attack on him went on for over two hours.” Refer back to sub section (a) for full and complete answer.

i) Page 3, line 3 “Appalachian Youth Mission is governed by a board of elders.” This statement is incorrect as reflected by the records from the Tennessee State Board of Equalization. Appalachian Youth Mission is not a corporation having a board; it is a Tennessee Unincorporated Religious Society with a Council of Elders. Mr. Raudenbush never represented the mission property at any time as a corporation having a board.

j) Page 6 line 15-16 “for work he had done for Mr. and Mrs. Ahearn.” Mr. Raudenbush only performed work for Mr. Ahearn contracted by Mr. Ahearn and he never received his pay as Mr. Ahearn defrauded Mr. Raudenbush out of pay as reflected by the General Sessions Court judgment against him and the State of Tennessee out of taxes according to the Special Investigative Division of the Tennessee Department of Revenue.

2). Commissioner William O. Shults closing statement in his order is as follows; Page 9 line 24 “In This case, as in all civil cases, the claimant bears the burden of proof. I simply do (Page 10 line 1-3) not find Mr. Raudenbush has satisfied the burden of proof and negated the suspicion of the District Attorney General that somehow he was, at least partially, responsible for precipitating the attack against him.” Commissioner William O. Shults’ closing statement does not meet the test of sound conclusion and logical deduction based and determined upon law. A commissioner has no authority to assume the law; that is the responsibility of the legislature.

a) Mr. Raudenbush has shown absolute proof beyond a shadow of doubt that in fact he was seriously and critically wounded over a two hour period. This is evidenced in the affidavit of Charles S. Morgan, Police report from Tellico Plains Police Department, Medical Bills from Sweetwater Hospital and the University of Tennessee (Nuro Brain Trauma Unit) Medical Center. There is no question that this occurred. Page 7 Line 17-24 of the order “The results of what happened to the claimant on May 18, 2006, are extremely disturbing. The photographs in collective Exhibit 11 make it clear that Mr. Raudenbush had been involved in a serious physical altercation.”

b) Mr. Raudenbush has established to the commission beyond a shadow of doubt presenting verifiable court documents, affidavits, police reports and other sources that individuals under the direction and influence of Leonard James Ahearn have made attempts publicly to do bodily injury and harm to Mr. Raudenbush as a retaliatory response to a court judgment against Mr. Ahearn. See Chronological Brief of Events Document, Chronological Brief of Relevant Facts to the Court, Tellico Plains Police Report #06203000604101853, Monroe County Sheriffs Department Police Report Case # 0602070010 and letter to district attorneys office on July 19th, 2006. The commissioner acknowledges the above statement to be true in the commissions order Page 3 line 7-8 “Apparently, some individuals in Monroe County, Tennessee, resent, for what ever reasons, the presence and work of Mr. Raudenbush." Page 8 line 1-2 “It is obvious to the undersigned that there is, for whatever reason, ill will in some quarters directed both towards Mr. Raudenbush and Appalachian Youth Mission.”

c) The commissioner was present however the representative for the State, Mr. Freiburg, failed to appear to prosecute this claim who seemed uninterested in pursuing a prosecutory position against Mr. Raudenbush. Both the commissioner and counselor Freiburg have drawn the same conclusion that there is no evidence of Mr. Raudenbush having been responsible for his injuries in the commissioners order Page 7, line 14-16 “As indicated previously, assistant District Attorney General Freiburg stated that his office could not determine whether or not Mr. Raudenbush contributed in any respect the commission of the crime against him.” Page 8 line 24-26 “The undersigned simply cannot determine from what is now before me whether or not Mr. Raudenbush contributed in any fashion in precipitating the attack which occurred on May 17, 2007. Assistant District Attorney General Freiburg also was unable to (Page 9 line 1-2) determine whether or not Mr. Raudenbush had contributed in any fashion to the events of May 18, 2006.

d) The commissioners observation of Mr. Raudenbush is also reflected in his order Page 3 line 6-7 “Mr. Raudenbush was at all times on the date of the hearing of this matter polite and respectful to the Commission.”

3). Commissioners order Page10 line 2-3 “that somehow he was, at least partially, responsible for the precipitating the attack against him.” The commissioner makes this direct statement but does not support this statement with fact or evidence. How did Mr. Raudenbush being awakened at 3:00 am in the morning come to cause someone to brutally abduct, detain and torture him? Mr. Raudenbush clearly did not have insurance to cover his medical bills of such an attack. That is why he is seeking assistance from the state as the state has negated to properly investigate an attempted murder. There is no motive on Mr. Raudenbush’s part; however, there is a motive for on the part of the District Attorneys Office and the Judiciary to have a lack of interest (all of Mr. Raudenbush’s letters to the District Attorneys Office went unanswered) in any claim Mr. Raudenbush raises since Mr. Raudenbush is a known Advocate for Judicial Reform holding corrupt officials accountable for there actions by telling the truth. It’s no wonder why Mr. Raudenbush is treated with such disdain and contempt by influenced judicial officials and activist judges practicing judicial misconduct.

It is for the above reasons that George Raudenbush asks commissioner William O. Shults to recuse himself due to his biased view. Where it is impossible for Mr. Raudenbush to receive a fair and impartial hearing before William O. Shults.

Record of Evidence Available Prior to and Received by the Commission on January 29, 2007 and April 20th 2007.

A) Warranty Deed to the Council of Elders of Appalachian Youth Missions filed with the Tennessee Board of Equalization recognizing George Raudenbush as holding a religious office as a missionary in the State of Tennessee.

B) Affidavit of truth and fact by George Raudenbush verifying he is a Christian Missionary. The existence of individuals in the community of authority having personal agendas that are anti Christian having malicious hate in their hearts that are vigorously involved in an organized effort to discredit and slander the Christian work the mission performs in the community. This has been observed in disseminating false and misleading information to state officials and authorities.

C) Statement of Faith which establishes Mr. Raudenbush’s Oath of Poverty as a Christian Missionary.

D) Chronological Brief of Relevant Facts to the Court which is a detailed account verbatim of the abduction and torture of Christian missionary George Raudenbush.

E) Chronological Brief of Events documenting the retaliatory response of Leonard James Ahearn after The Monroe County General Sessions Court renders a judgment against Mr. Ahearn for breech of contract and criminal fraud. Details and facts of malicious acts of arson and attempted murder to Mr. Raudenbush a Christian missionary in retribution for judgments against Mr. Ahearn.

F) Numerous color photographs taking within an hour after the abduction and torture showing the graphic nature of the injuries inflicted upon Christian Missionary George Raudenbush.

G) Two police reports from Tellico Plains Police Department one showing that police were alerted by a neighbor in a police report 38 days prior to the attempted murder of Mr. Raudenbush. Two male subjects were listed in that report as trying to locate Mr. Raudenbush and do bodily harm to him. Two male subjects were reported by Mr. Raudenbush on May 18, 2006 as having participated in his abduction and torture.

H) Monroe County Sheriffs Office Report with color pictures of the destroyed vehicle verifying that aggravated arson was committed on a mission vehicle used in religious work. Later, the Tennessee Bomb and Arson squad made a determination that aggravated arson had been committed to a Christian mission vehicle as an act of hate.

I) Affidavit of truth and fact by Charles S. Morgan verifying the bloodied condition that Mr. Raudenbush was in from the abduction and torture. Mr. Morgan goes on in his affidavit to state inconsistencies recorded by law enforcement officers in the Tellico Plains Police Report of that early morning to what Mr. Raudenbush actually stated in his presence.

J) Affidavit of Hugh Edwin Voyles a retired senior citizen, trusted drug informant for the Monroe County Sheriffs Department and well known citizen advocate against illegal drug manufacturing and distribution. Mr. Voyles discloses information that Monroe County Sheriffs Department Detective and Sheriff not only has knowledge of the abduction and attempted murder on Mr. Raudenbush, further Mr. Voyles states the Monroe County Sheriff Department Detective goes on to state the names and identities of both men involved. The Monroe County Police Detective shows no further interest in talking about Mr. Raudenbush and states the sheriffs department is not interested in pursuing the abduction.

K) Letter to Commissioner William O. Shults received January 29, 2007. Where it includes all of the above submitted in the record of evidence with additional documents and letters, copy of certified letter to the 10 Judicial District Attorneys Office addressing District Attorney Jerry Estes, showing relevant facts that Mr. Raudenbush was in fact a victim of a brutal and malicious crime and further the position of the district attorney’s office is clearly established when the District attorneys office maliciously prosecutes Mr. Raudenbush as a victim. One example of this is a copy of a letter from Assistant District Attorney Chalmers Thompson in which Mr. Thompson commits fraud upon the court by entering false and misleading information to discredit Mr. Raudenbush and the religious work he performs, victimizing a victim. Mr. Raudenbush pleads with the court and commission for an investigation into these matters.

L) Letter addressed to District Attorney Jerry Estes on July 19, 2006. This letter challenges and questions the conduct and position of the district attorney’s office in conspiring in the malicious prosecution and further victimization of Christian Missionary George Raudenbush. Mr. Raudenbush again pleads with the district attorneys office for an investigation.

It is for the above stated facts that George Raudenbush humbly beseeches this court in reviewing the facts and evidence and also taking into consideration that claimant cannot receive a fair, impartial, objective review of this motion when there exists judicial misconduct, influences and personal agendas in place of commitment and obedience to the law.

___________________________
George Raudenbush
P.O.Box 154
Tellico plains, Tennessee 37385
(423) 253-3484

The above is a copy of the motion filed on May 25th 2007 with the Tennessee Claims Commission, with the exception where punctuation, grammar and sentence structure may have been corrected during editing, and has been taken from public record. This motion is in response where Commissioner William O. Shults on May 10th, 2007 denied Mr. Raudenbush the right to seek relief as a victim of a hate crime involving abduction and torture in the State of Tennessee.

Any issue of judicial misconduct which involves the integrity of state security can be brought to the attention of Governor Phil Bredeson in Nashville, Tennessee.

(615) 741-2001

P.O. Box 154
Tellico Plains, TN 37385
423 337-1896
aymmissions@gmail.com

To obtain all the information you will need, go to and read
"Join The Glory" and click on the envelope.

If you cannot find what you are looking for, feel free to call or e-mail us.