Attorney ordered to jail

Client faced trial, but lawyer's license had been suspended

A man charged with child rape faced trial, but his attorney wound up behind bars instead.

Knoxville lawyer Nathan Anderson is behind bars this morning in the Union County Jail, ordered there Tuesday after he set out to defend a man accused in a child rape case although his license to practice law had been suspended two months ago.

Eighth Judicial District Criminal Court Judge Shayne Sexton, whose jurisdiction includes Union County, took the extraordinary step of jailing Anderson for three days for contempt of court because of what the judge termed in a court order "egregious" behavior that endangered "the public and the justice system."

According to records from Union County Criminal Court and the state Board of Professional Responsibility, Anderson's license to practice law was suspended in September after he failed to show proof he had received mandatory legal refresher training.

Notice of the suspension had not been made public.

On Tuesday, Daniel Haynes was to be tried on child rape charges that could have netted him decades behind bars if convicted. Anderson was his attorney, but court records show the lawyer had filed few preliminary motions in a case that should have spurred several.

Anderson showed up 15 minutes late to Tuesday's proceeding, according to court records. He and a Union County prosecutor then began the process of picking a jury. At some point, a panel was seated, although not yet sworn.

It's not clear from the court record what raised Sexton's suspicions about Anderson, but something prompted the judge to call the board, which licenses and disciplines attorneys, to check Anderson's status. When the judge learned Anderson's license was suspended, he quizzed Anderson, who initially insisted he had cured his license woes. He later admitted his suspension status, records show.

It was a narrow miss in what could have been judicial disaster. Had jurors been sworn in and Anderson's suspension then revealed, a constitutional protection against being tried twice for the same crime - known as double jeopardy - might have come into play. That could have barred prosecutors from pursuing the case against Haynes.

However, because Sexton uncovered Anderson's suspension status before the trial officially got under way with a swearing in of the jury, the judge was able to delay the case without double jeopardy an issue.

Not only did Sexton jail Anderson but he also is ordering the lawyer to pay Union County back for "all fees and expenses associated with the calling and impaneling of the jury" and all costs "associated with this contempt action." Sexton also is insisting in his contempt order that Anderson "self-report any and all actual and potential ethical violations committed during the preparation of and trial of this case to the state board."

According to court records, Anderson sent to handle Haynes' arraignment in Criminal Court a legal novice not yet authorized to handle a criminal court case without a licensed attorney present.

Sexton is himself filing a complaint with the board.

"I'm required to report it," the judge said.

Sexton declined further comment.

It's not clear how many cases, if any, Anderson may have handled in the two months he has been suspended.

Nancy Jones, chief disciplinary counsel for the board, said her office "would ask for a petition to begin formal disciplinary action" once it receives formal notice of allegations an attorney practiced the law while under suspension.

Jamie Satterfield may be reached at 865-342-6308.

Get Copyright Permissions © 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
Want to use this article? Click here for options!

© 2007 Knoxville News Sentinel. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 53

satterfield#243255 writes:

The board simply had not sent out a public notice yet. They usually have a three-month lag time in sending notices out to the media. The suspension itself is public record. I was easily able to confirm it. But you are correct - the system of making these actions public is faulty at best. Our newsroom only receives notices for Knoxville based attorneys, although I receive once every 6 months a statewide listing. You can, however, do a real time check of a lawyer's license on the state's website. I can't recall the address since I have it bookmarked but Google "state of tennessee." Once on the website, look for a tab on online services and you should find a heading for checking the status of professional license holders. What is kept secret are investigations of lawyers, so you could have someone under probe for something serious and the public be nonethewiser. It is only when formal notice of charges has been filed and served that it becomes public. There are no notices sent to the media, however, until disciplinary action is actually taken.

hmiddleb13 writes:

What has been reported here is not what transpired. This is a paper mix up in Knox Co. Another show how Knox Co. messes up and the newspaper doesn't accurately understand and report the facts.

satterfield#243255 writes:

hmiddleb13: This is an accurate reporting based on court records. I understand that the attorney in question claimed his suspension was, as you said, a "paper mix up in Knox County." Judge Sexton found the explanation lacking and jailed Mr. Anderson, which is exactly what was reported.

gonnasue writes:

If you want to understand this case, look up Judge Sexton's CNN commentary by Nancy Grace. He was disgraced for his constant inconsistence and poor judgment. This "tough guy" display by him is clearly nothing more than a response to that.

Ms. Satterfield,

As normal, your account is sketchy at best. The judge had already found the contempt when he later discovered the license error. Further, this was a first setting and the two sides had already agreed to the 95% standard reset on first setting of a serious trial. The judge went against an agreement (which nearly NEVER happens) just to advance his own agenda of removing his "soft on crime" image. You might consider asking people that were there that didn't have a dog in the fight before you start writing articles that affect people's careers.

anon_42 writes:

http://www.tbpr.org/

Lazy reporting.

You only get notified of Knox County actions and you have to undertake the onerous task of actually going to a web site to check other jurisdictions.

Tough job.

anon_42 writes:

try this as well - might make things a little easier . . .

http://www.tbpr.org/Subscriptions/

xyratn#445945 writes:

All in all - as long as double jeopardy isn't attatched and this looser gets tried and convicted of rape and gets sent up the river for years on end - I think we're doing better than normal.

gonnasue writes:

Look up the interview commentary on CNN about Sexton and you won't need any further convincing.

lovelife07 writes:

Ms. Long has not been with Anderson’s Firm for some time now! She has nothing to do with this case or any of Anderson’s cases for a long time. Get your facts straight before you start saying things that can affect someone’s career and/or life for that matter. Anderson is a wonderful attorney. He has handled some legal work for me in the past and I have never met an attorney who is more professional and friendly. He has always been willing to take time out of his busy schedule to answer and explain any questions I may have. To follow up with that statement, yes, I have dealt with other attorneys and I was very unhappy! I have referred several people to Anderson and all have been very happy as well. As for the comment made about the man being accused of rape… innocent until proven guilty! You do not know that this man should be “sent up the river for years on end”. He is innocent as of right now and statements like that are not called for and should not be said! Do to my work I am familiar with the legal field. This circumstance has been blown out of proportion and what has been said is not accurate. There were errors made, and unfortunately for Anderson he was blamed for the inaccurate documentation. However, with time, this matter should be resolved and everyone can move on. Because of the media unfortunately for Anderson the inaccuracy has already affected him in the public view. Hopeful he will be able to regain his stature once this is all fixed. He has a lot of people standing behind him and we know that he will pull through this mess.

truthbilly writes:

Gonnasue: Nancy Grace is your reference for accountability??? I can't believe anyone would believe her about anything, other than the fact that she's a sensationalist who is hell-bent on slanting stories to make a name for herself.

She is a disgrace to CNN and the news in general. She is a narcissist whose ego far over-rides her intelligence.

If you want to make a point, make a point, but please don't insult all of us by trying to use Nancy Grace as a reliable foundation of information.

ruggie1016 writes:

Ms. Satterfield COMPLETELY missed the real story here... The headline should have read "Young Lawyer Behind Bars Due to Misfiling and Paperwork Mistake." The real story here is how a young lawyer was jailed for three days because a Judge was given wrong information about his status with the state Board of Professional Responsibility. Forget about the type of case this was. It really doesn't matter. Although, if you are going to flash the headlines of "child rape," I would like to know the ages of the people involved and a little more about the circumstances.

To add insult...Knox News does a very sloppy job of reporting and further slanders this lawyer's reputation by not reporting the actual facts of the case. Knox News was too preoccupied with getting a sexy headline to actually report the real story. Put yourself in Mr. Anderson's shoes for a moment. Can you imagine how frustrating and embarrassing this whole situation must be. All Knox News has done is perpetuate this PR Nightmare and Lie.

I thought reporters were supposed to be seekers of truth and justice. I am very disappointed.

ruggie1016 writes:

P.S. I also didn't see any mention of an attempt to contact Anderson or his firm for comment???

sessa writes:

I have known Nathan Anderson for some time...he is one of the most decent people I know.

He does tend to take on more than he can handle at times and has been known to not keep in touch with his clients very well. As far as being suspended, it would not surprise me if someone at the BPR told the judge or Ms. Satterfield this, because I was also told the same thing and confronted Nathan about it back in August. He told me it had been taken care of and yet the BPR told me it was not. So it is possible that there has been a mistake with the paperwork...

my opinion is...now maybe he will pay attention to his clients, especially the ones that have been around since the beginning and are in the process of losing everything because of his lack of response.

sutherngirl79 writes:

justicegirl, thank you for moving all of your angry, off topic, selfrighteous posts to your own site which no one who reads the paper will be subject to. Your first comment was removed because it was inappropriate. I suggested it's removal.

1150 writes:

JusticeGirl,

Your anger is displayed in every word you type. Is typing a response to a local newspaper article the only way you can deal with your anger? I agree with sutherngirl, your comments are inappropriate and self-serving. It is easy for you to disgrace Mr. Anderson's name under a false identity, there are no repercussions for you-- why make a sensitive situation worse by typing "off the cuff" remarks? And, as for the interview with Nancy Grace...Judge Sexton was interviewed by CNN, a reputable organization and you are unwilling to accept that. Yet, you will believe the Knox News reporter, Jamie Satterfield. Inconsistent and irresponsible.

Sessa,
I agree, Mr. Anderson is one of the most decent lawyers I have ever encountered. I feel obligated to comment on your remark regarding keeping in touch with clients. Mr. Anderson is a lawyer- do you really expect to have direct contact with your lawyer on a regular basis? Mr. Anderson is a personable lawyer; therefore, you may feel that you should have more contact due to his personality... but, the fact remains that he is a lawyer and that doesn't happen.

1150 writes:

TruthBilly,

What I typed about CNN in comparison to Knox News should have been addressed to you too. Are you really comparing a reputable nation-wide news station, CNN, to a local newspaper that is not held accountable and is only available to one city? You cannot deny that earning an interview with CNN is comparable to an poorly-researched article by Satterfield. Judge Sexton was exposed by CNN...

sessa writes:

1150,

Thank you for your opinion...I feel that I and anyone else should have direct contact to anyone that is being paid...lawyer or not. This is extremely true when an attorney has multiple open cases for a client that he was supposed to have done work on over a year ago that was quoted as completed, only to find that is was never done...very bad business to say the least.

Believe me I deal with numerous lawyers on a daily basis other than Nathan I do know what is reasonable as far as contact goes with an attorney and what is extremely unreasonable.

Just because they are legal professionals does not make them better than anyone else or unreachable.

I'll tell you the real shame here though is that a really crooked attorney can steal from his clients (NOT NATHAN) be taken before the board of professional responsibility and charged with fraud along with numerous other crimes, yet still remain an "active attorney in good standing"(because he is now suing TBPR). Yet someone as good as Nathan gets behind is his continuing education and they suspend his license...that's our wonderful law at work...let the crooks keep being crooked, while the ones that can help are not allowed to.

truthbilly writes:

1150:

I am a CNN fan, and have been for a long time. If you consider Nancy Grace to be accountable, just by virtue of being on CNN, then you're sadly one of those people who are happy letting others do your thinking for you...

When it comes to news, I consider CNN to be among the best...except in the case of Nancy Grace. She's a blemish to CNN's reputation. She's good for ratings, not for balanced reporting. With the Ann Coulters of the world, maybe CNN needed something to compete with the trash news factor. If you believe Grace's reports to be fair, unbiased, and ethical, then do some homework... If you're still convinced, then enjoy your myopic worldview.

There's more than one side to every story-always. People will believe whatever they want to believe in the media, regardless of whether it came from CNN, Fox, Knoxville News Sentinel, NPR, or what was said at the local Hardee's. Don't consider yourself to be "informed" because you saw something on Nancy Grace.

I stand by my original comments about Nancy Grace-Don't insult all of us by citing Nancy Grace as reliable-only I'd like to add that I believe she does not factor into this case, even remotely..

1150 writes:

Truthbilly,

I never said that Nancy Grace (who I am not a fan of) or CNN was the say all, end all... I simply said what you did in your previous post- balanced reporting is hard to find. Therefore, what Satterfield wrote in the Knox News Sentinel should not be considered fact. And, we have to take into consideration that Sexton is not perfect and what he did could, and probably was, self-serving.

Sessa,

Thanks for your response. I do agree that lawyers are not above the "rest", but it's hard to ignore the fact that their schedule is demanding and multi-faceted; therefore, communication is limited. Take into consideration the contact we have with other professionals- you would never expect direct communication with your doctor.

To All:

My real concern with this article and the posts responding to it, is the fact that a man is being brutally attacked by people who are able to hide behind false identities while his name is being slandered. This could happen to any of us, doctors, teachers, lawyers, we should support each other and not allow a simple news report dictate our opinion of people. It seems sad that we even have the opportunity to do this to others... Let this article and the commentary surrounding it serve as an example of what we should not do to our brothers...

eddiehaskel writes:

1150

where did you get your info because it is flat wrong. you should review the transcript before you start trying to sell your stories.
sexton was never interviewed by nancy disgrace. she never tried to contact him, she never asked for a comment. she did a butcher-job without checking any of the facts of the case. the truth is that the judge had nothing to do with setting the terms of the sentence in that case. the sentence was agreed upon by the parties in general sessions court and the case was never even heard by a grand jury. you want to know why it was done-ask the DAs and the defense lawyers. there was a big reason why they did it. if you care enough about the truth give them a call.

as to the claims of self-serving, how could it be self-serving when a jury is picked in a child-rape case, everyone is ready to go, and someone exposes that the lawyer that has just picked the jury CANT PRACTICE and has been practicing illegally for 2 months without anyone knowing it? i know the judge and he was as troubled as anyone about putting a lawyer in jail. he gave the lawyer numerous chances to explain what had happened. the potential damage to the public by lawyers like him cannot be underestimated. if nothing else this may act as a deterrent to these practices. i can assure you that the cnn show has nothing to do with the way that court operates. any professional that responds to the likes of disgrace has fallen into a web of deception. she is just a muck-raking sensationalist who loves to embarrass the people that she wishes she could have been. sexton is not the only victim of her crack-pot reporting.

1150-the last paragraph is pretty preachy, especially for one that misleads the three people reading. you should be ashamed.

sessa writes:

1150,

I couldn't agree more with your last statement. The media is well known for sensationalism because that is what gets them noticed and makes their ratings increase. I feel bad for Nathan and have said these same things to him, so I have nothing to hide.

eddiehaskel writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

eddiehaskel writes:

gonnasue, you imply that you were there when the anderson contempt occurred? if so you missed some very important comments between naps. the contempt did not occur until anderson was questioned and, after he contacted the board, he admitted his license was suspended after initially claiming he had "rectified" the problem. the contempt proceedings began after the jury was dismissed and the judge asked numerous times for anderson's reasons for non-compliance, hoping that a solution could be reached before having to find contempt.

you should work harder on truth and less on spin.

eddiehaskel writes:

one more comment to gonnasue: standard reset? 95%? what cereal box did you get your law book from? both sides announced that they were ready. no one asked for a reset. are you the "associate" that appeared for anderson who had not passed the bar yet? if so, get ready to hunker down yourself.

1150 writes:

The last paragraph of my post was my concluding thoughts on this article. I was hoping that it would help some of us realize that blaming each other doesn't help any situation.

I hate that some were encouraged to add to the blame and continue to blame even more...

This seems like a discussion that should be dropped. It will be encouraging when the posts end.

eddiehaskel writes:

1150

very magnanimous-sounding response but it's not consistent with your cuts on the judge. why are you attempting to make this whole thing about him. as i said, no one was more disturbed about this whole thing than him. bringing up disgrace and "self-serving" acts lets you draw fire from the one that did wrong. anderson may be a fine person otherwise but here he admitted what he did and took his punishment like a man. why do you subtly bash those like the judge and reporter who were merely responding to what he had done?

eddiehaskel writes:

one other for gonnasue: 3 days is tough-guy stuff? sounds like he should have gotten alot more than 3 days. wasting everyone's time by getting jurors in from work and everything else that goes into running courts. sounds to me like he got a bargain.

truthbilly writes:

1150-

You've called out people posting here for hiding behind false identities and posting out of anger, criticized the Knox News reporter, glorified widely-known hack Nancy Grace, and also presume not only to know who is self-serving, but what their motives are, from the judge to the other posters...

I think it's hypocritical of you to knock the other posters for typing "off the cuff," when you've not gotten your facts straight, nor your own biases in check. I find it laughable that you attemted to vindicate a (suspended) lawyer who admitted his guilt (after he was busted). You've flamed everyone BUT the man who has been practicing law with a suspended license. How many other cases are now jeopardized because of this man (I'd be thrilled to be one of his other paying clients right now).

Possibly the saddest part is, after you've blamed so many people, you absolve yourself and "hate that others were encouraged to blame and continue to blame."

I suppose I'd want this discussion to end too...

sessa writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

knox_me_up writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

sessa writes:

OUCH!!! I just spoke with his office and was told it was only a paperwork mistake...so I called the BPR, they said it is not a paperwork mistake on their end, he is suspended until they remove the suspension from his record.

handyman1 writes:

justicegirl

I feel it is inappropriate for you to make the allegation that the comments that either defend Anderson's character, or at least attempt to give Anderson the benefit of the doubt are simply placed on this blog by people who are told do so by Anderson. I could just as easily make the assertion that all of the negative comments towards Anderson are nothing more then Sexton's puppets trying to portray Anderson in a bad light. I am not saying that is the case at all, I simply state it to make a point of how conspiratorial and inappropriate your blog was. I suggested its removal, and I hope they comply. Lets keep the conspiracy rant to your website.

dgallen34#303952 writes:

I just wanted to put my two cents in on this topic. I do not know anything about the lori long stuff or any conspiracies or any of that. I do know that Nathan Anderson was supposed to be working on a very simple case for my wife and I. It should have simply been a matter of paperwork and a month or two to get this done. We started this process 6 months ago. Our phone calls have been avoided by Nathan for two months on two separate occassions. We just went today to get a copy of our file and he has literally done nothing. I am just glad that my ordeal is a simple matter and no jail time is on the line. We can easily go to another lawyer and get things taken care of. I do not know if Mr. Anderson is a crook or not, but I do know that he has done a terrible job with our case. He should be disbarred because of behavior such as this. It doesn't sound lilke this is an isolated incident.

gonnasue writes:

Way to follow up on your word and quit posting Justicegirl. I wonder if all your other facts are as poor as your promises? Seriously, your posts are so bizarrely over dramatic its pathetic. "National Attention,"? I mean come on, get real.

I quit even watching this blog after my initial post and am surprised its still active. BUT... a couple of comments after looking more carefully into the case.

1 - Anderson was NOT held in contempt for practicing without a license. That is not a contempt offense. If the judge tried to, it would be instantly overturned as outside his authority.

2 - Anderson was jailed for being 5 minutes late (not 15), for sending a Law Clerk to an arraignment, and for filing a civil subpoena in a criminal case. All three are minor or no error and sketchy for contempt at the very best. The judge went 3 days because any more would be viewed as ludicrous. I would be shocked were it not overturned as a ruling meant to harass or embarrass under the rules.

3 - eddiehaskel, I don't know if your a lawyer or not, but, Knox lawyers have a VERY poor viewing of Sexton. He apparently goes far out of his way to treat "out of town" lawyers poorly. I have received nothing but groans from every attorney to whom I have mentioned his name. Maybe you should ask your "friend" sexton why he announced in open court that he "was going to make an example out of Mr. Anderson" since he feels so bad about jailing him.

sessa writes:

I am being told that Nathan did not spend 3 days in jail, it was overturned and this story was old before Ms. Satterfield even wrote about it. So how do we find out the truth of the jail time or not...

eddiehaskel writes:

gonnasue, i'm going to say this with the utmost enthusiasm. you are a liar. everything, i repeat, everything, that you have posted, is a lie. and i love keeping this strand alive so everyone can see your lies. there is a transcript of everything said and done and it will be in the case file.

you keep trying to sell your fantasy as fact. i can assure you that the court reporter has taken it all down (pretty strong stuff) and maybe justicegirl will take it upon herself to get a copy and expose you as the fraud you are.

let's hear some more of your stuff. you are just making it worse for yourself. i'm guessing you are the associate that practiced a little too early. maybe you will get your license back by 09.

eddiehaskel writes:

sessa,

call the circuit court clerk. i can tell you he served it hour for hour. don't let gonnasue sell you any of her stuff. the contempt order and the transcript of the contempt hearing are all public record and part of the file. you can have your own copy if you ask the clerk. im sure they will charge something but it is worth reading.

eddiehaskel writes:

justicegirl, i have a suggestion: why dont you post the transcript of the hearing on your web-site. that is a very good way of clearing the air on all of these conflicting stories. im guessing that there are a few posters shifting in their seats now. nowhere to run when the court reporter starts taking it down.

gonnasue writes:

Is your name eddiehaskel or judge sexton?

eddiehaskel writes:

gonnasue,

yes, no, maybe. what difference does it make? your attacks on everyone have fired up some people to defend those (like the judge) who can't or won't defend themselves. saying the things you say in defense of your friend has gone from mere support to downright lies and my guess is now that justicegirl's website will lay the truth out in such a way that your friend will be embarrassed more and your stories will be exposed as lies. you have yourself to thank for that.

for the sake of this forum you can assume that i am anyone you want. call me whatever. you can also bank on the fact that i am intimately familiar with this whole saga and intend to expose every misleading
"fact" that you type.

eddiehaskel writes:

justicegirl,

where'd everybody go? good luck in your case. i'm not sure i understand the type of problem you have had but you should persist in having the lawyer board review your complaint. maybe with this latest round of chicanery you will have more grist for the mill.

happymom writes:

xyratn
How do know the defendent even did anything! It's sad that your so quick to jump to conclusions. Anyone could get accused of anything even you but that doesn't mean he did it.
As for the attorney he did spend three days in jail I have the transcripts.

satterfield:
I Don't understand why anyone's NAMES had to be posted at all I understand about the lawyer but why the defendant?? I feel sorry for him because Now people are assuming he is gulity such as for example xyratn. I just would like you two to think if you were in his shoes and lets say you didn't do anything and your name was plastered everywhere I guess news stories are more important then a person's reputation to you!

sutherngirl79 writes:

Well I just signed back on since my last post, and justicegirl, I thought you promised us all that you were done posting?? What is the link to your extremely important website? Oh, and I was just wondering... you say you are making all of these phone calls to obtain all of these official documents about Nathan... what is it exactly that you think your important self can do with them? Everything you have said states that your lawyer was Lori Long. Not Nathan Anderson. This article has ABSOLTUELY NOTHING to do with you or your case which you are trying as hard as you can to make public. I'm sorry, but you should be embarrassed for appearing to think of yourself as someone of importance and power. I mean you act as if Nathan Anderson should feel threatened by all of this public paperwork that you are foolishly paying for. If it is public information, what in the world do you think that you are going to be able to do with it? You're an accountant, not a lawyer.

And please, what is the link to your website? I am so curious. Or is it even a real site? You say it is about to be "under construction"... so what's the new link??? If it's real, then we can all go there, and there will be an "under construction" or "coming soon" message. That's what you want right? Attention put on you and your case. I didn't get to read the comments that were removed by knoxnews staff, but I'm sure they were just as inappropriate as the first one in which I had removed. You are making yourself look so foolish. Web site please.

LeighAnn writes:

I came to ask the same thing. What is the link to your website? I would like to read all the paperwork you receive involving this incident.

sutherngirl79 writes:

justicegirl??? hello??? website?

sutherngirl79 writes:

justicegirl, do you have a web site or don't you?

sutherngirl79 writes:

justicegirl, why don't you reveil YOUR name? And I have come to the conclusion that you absolutely have no website. Because you have been ignoring requests for the web address for two months. Liar. Also, how does your above statement prove the name of gonnasue? You seem to have a lot of free time on your hands. You seem like the kind of person who would slip in Wal-Mart on purpose and try to sue for millions. Pathedic. Your responses make no sense. LeighAnn also asked for your website, and you responded with a statement about how you are waiting for a complaint??? She asked for the web address, not what you are currently waiting for.

ps- what is your non existant web address? I expect to be ignored, and if you do respond, it will have nothing to do with the web address, but probably something to do with Lori Long, for which this few-month-old article had nothing to do with. Stop trying to make your case public, it's a bit excessive, and a lot bleak.

sutherngirl79 writes:

in response to sandralea:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Justicegirl, feeling a little threatened? There is no need for childish name calling. I have never met Lori Long, but good call. You've got me all figured out. Again, you have all of these legal documents, Miss Accountant who broadcasts everyone's name but her own, and can't do anything with them. Who cares if someone from the NCRA is invited to your website? They (the court reporters) report all of the documents you have been gathering for the past few months... don't you think they probably already have the information that you are going to offer them? Intelligent girl you are. But this is getting entertaining. Who else is invited to visit your important website that still yet to exist? And tell us all once again why the criminal that is Nathan Anderson should feel threatened by the all mighty justicegirl? I forget. And I especially invite you to write back, and not “crawl back beneath that rock of yours”. =) Love, sutherngirl

sutherngirl79 writes:

in response to sandralea:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

You're right, I completely don't get why Nathan Anderson should feel threatened by you. Except you are seeming a bit stalker-esk. What are you gonna do? Just keep gathering documents? Gather away girlie, but you are wasting your time. Again, this is entertaining. You did supply me with a web address, finally, but it not surprisingly is not yours. I don't understand why you think you can use public records to bring people down. Who are you exactly?? Oh right, nobody. You call yourself justicegirl, and act like some legal genius, but if I am not mistaken, you have not attended law school at all. I also suspect from your judgmental and accusational nature that you have never once in your life made a mistake at work. Right? No mistakes for you. So glad to have been communicating with the one perfect person on Earth, who readily judges, accuses, and bad mouths others as if her opinion is absolute. The more I hear from you, the more I realize that you are nothing more than an annoyance. In this situation anyway. I'm sure you are important to those who love you, but why do you think that you are of importance in the situation of Judge Sexton vs. Nathan Anderson? This has absolutely nothing to do with you. I have told you that repeatedly, and you've yet to address it. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. Why do you think you are important? This is the next comment you should have. Answer the question and state your place in this situation. I don't think anyone is clear on that. Justicegirl is so important in the situation of Judge Sexton sending Nathan Anderson to jail a few months ago because……..

we are waiting for your reply, or I am anyway

sutherngirl79 writes:

ps- justicegirl, have you seen the movie 'Election' with Matthew Broderick and Reece Witherspoon? You remind me of Tracey Flick. Just a little.

Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.

Features