No Shirt, No Shrewd, No Parking

Johnson v. Faeder was determined yesterday by the Tennessee Courtroom of Appeals (Decide Valerie Smith, joined by Chief Decide Michael Swiney and Decide Neal McBrayer). Defendant-Appellant Faeder is a lawyer who has a website known as One Shrewd Dude (presumably referring to himself), is a former school philosophy trainer and the writer of the “bookella” Philosophy Without Reference: An Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy, and has “competed in six Magic: The Gathering Professional Excursions” (see additionally here). Plaintiff-Appellee Johnson lives two homes away from Faeder. Here is the courtroom’s dialogue of what occurred:

[O]n July 14, 2021[,] … Appellee’s husband (who is just not a celebration to this litigation), noticed Appellant in Appellee’s yard with out permission and accompanied by his two younger youngsters. Appellant was shirtless on the time, and Mr. Johnson requested that Appellant placed on a shirt. Appellant then left the Johnsons’ yard along with his youngsters. There was no direct interplay between Appellant and Appellee throughout this encounter.

On July 29, 2021, Appellant delivered a letter to Appellee’s mailbox. The supply consisted of a males’s shirt accompanied by a typed letter addressed to “Shirtman,” seemingly in reference to Mr. Johnson. Within the letter, Appellant proposed an answer for any future incidents: if Appellant’s youngsters wandered onto the Johnsons’ property whereas Appellant was outdoors with out a shirt, the Johnsons might carry him the enclosed shirt, which he would then put on and later return to their mailbox for repeated use. Appellant signed the letter “Your Eternally Neighborly Neighbor.”

Relations between the events additional deteriorated following this incident. The file signifies that on quite a few events over the subsequent fifteen months, Appellant was seen strolling or standing in entrance of Appellee’s residence carrying solely brightly coloured underwear. This conduct occurred repeatedly, together with events when Appellee was internet hosting a youngsters’s celebration and an Easter gathering at her residence.

On January 30, 2022, Appellee was outdoors of her residence when Appellant approached her to debate the concept of their youngsters enjoying collectively. The alternate between the events turned contentious. Appellee was alarmed by Appellant’s demeanor and recounted that Appellant aggressively approached her irritated a couple of lack of communication between the events. Appellant conceded in his appellate transient that this interplay “didn’t go nicely.”

On Might 7, 2022, Appellee put in a safety digicam on her property. On today, whereas Appellant was strolling his canine, the canine urinated on Appellee’s mailbox submit on the fringe of her yard. Appellee confronted Appellant about permitting his canine to alleviate itself on her property.

This led to a heated argument between the neighbors relating to the place Appellant was permitted to stroll his canine and whether or not his presence on the grass close to the highway constituted trespassing. Later that very same day, Appellant delivered one other letter to Appellee’s mailbox. On this letter, Appellant defended his “proper to stroll” his canine on what he described as public land adjoining to the roadway, and he asserted that holding his canine on the grass close to the road didn’t quantity to trespassing.

On Might 8, 2022, Appellant was as soon as once more strolling his canine close to the boundary of Appellee’s yard. The video from Appellee’s safety digicam exhibits Appellant pausing on the road to talk with different neighbors whereas his canine remained on the grassy space. Then, the canine entered Appellee’s property, and Mr. Johnson confronted Appellant. Appellee alleged that when the canine entered the property, Mr. Johnson used “two open fingers to usher the canine off the property.” An altercation ensued through which Appellant shoved Mr. Johnson in entrance of his two youngsters and Mr. Johnson known as the police. The dispute finally deescalated with the help of neighbors.

On Might 10, 2022, Appellee discovered one other letter in her mailbox dated Might 9, 2022, through which Appellant included an annotated subdivision plat map (the “Plat”). Within the letter, Appellant defined that, in accordance with the Plat and property data, the general public right-of-way prolonged roughly ten toes into what Appellee thought-about her entrance garden and that “the property strains start [ten feet] again from the road” however “the town owns that ten toes” as a consequence of a fifty-foot public proper of means. Appellant requested that Appellee chorus from interfering with him and his household when they’re strolling within the neighborhood inside what he considered as the general public proper of means.

Following his Might 9, 2022 letter, Appellant continued to have interaction in related conduct. The file signifies that Appellant continued to utilize the strip of grass and the sting of Appellee’s driveway to stroll his canine and permit the canine to alleviate itself. He was noticed lingering on or close to Appellee’s property on many events. Appellant additionally continued to stroll outdoors carrying solely underwear within reach of Appellee’s residence.

At one level, Appellant eliminated an indication from Appellee’s garden that had been positioned there to discourage pet house owners from permitting canines to alleviate themselves on the garden. In October of 2022, Appellee’s safety digicam photographed Appellant strolling round Appellee’s property within the early morning hours. When Appellee awoke the subsequent morning, she discovered “X” marks written in chalk on the street in entrance of her driveway.

Johnson sought a restraining order, which led to proceedings too tedious to element. However the backside line was a year-long order barring Faeder

1. From chatting with or trying to have interaction Mr. Johnson or Ms. Johnson in dialog or any try to elicit a response from both of the Petitioners in any method in any way.
2. From coming into onto or strolling upon their property …, together with the approximate ten (10) foot dedication adjoining the Johnson property to [the street], whether or not or not the aforesaid strip of property is deemed a public right-of-way or their non-public property ….
3. From permitting any pet of yours or your loved ones to enter upon the Johnson property described above for any objective in any way, no matter whether or not the animal is leashed or unleashed and from permitting such animal to urinate or defecate upon the above-described property.
4. From trying to speak with Mr. or Ms. Johnson by telephoning or inserting any correspondence in any way and to whomever addressed within the Johnsons’ mailbox at their residence or leaving any word, messages or notices on the above-described property.
5. From chopping, trimming, or damaging any vegetation or landscaping on the above-described property.
6. From blocking the ingress or egress of the Johnson property driveway ….
7. From carrying the colourful, revealing underwear described within the Findings of Truth on this trigger whereas strolling on the roadway in entrance of the Johnsons’ residence.
8. From parking a motorized vehicle, belonging to [Faeder], … or through which he owns an curiosity, alongside the roadway in entrance of any a part of the Johnsons’ property described above.

Practically a yr later, “Appellee moved for a five-year extension, alleging that Appellant violated the order” by “park[ing] his spouse’s automotive instantly in entrance of Appellee’s residence.” Appellant responded arguing, amongst different issues, “that the situation allegedly violated was void ab initio pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments as a result of he was engaged in a peaceable protest.” The courtroom concluded that “Appellant didn’t violate the letter of the unique order as a result of Appellant didn’t have an possession curiosity in his spouse’s automotive,” however “prolonged the order of safety for a interval of 1 yr discovering that Appellant’s actions demonstrated a continued sample of intimidation and harassment in violation of ‘the spirit of the order'”:

The trial courtroom famous that Appellee “emphatically testified that she remained petrified of [Appellant] and his harassing, and stalking conduct.” In addressing Appellant’s conduct, the trial courtroom acknowledged that Appellant’s “objective continues to be to bully and intimidate his neighbors.” The trial courtroom granted a one-year extension of the order of safety on February 7, 2025, and issued its written findings and conclusions of legislation on February 27, 2025. The trial courtroom famous that Appellee stays fearful that Appellant will proceed to harass her upon expiration of the order of safety and located good trigger to justify the extension. The trial courtroom modified the prolonged order of safety to restrain Appellant “from parking any car or conveyance of any sort in entrance of” Appellee’s residence.

Appellant appealed the extension of the order, and the appellate courtroom affirmed:

This Courtroom has beforehand discovered an extension of an order of safety permissible the place a respondent didn’t commit a technical violation of the order of safety, however the petitioner was discovered to be petrified of the respondent….

[Appellee testified] through the extension listening to that she believed Appellant didn’t intend to curtail his conduct as soon as the unique order of safety was set to run out. This included a February of 2024 “Memorandum of Understanding and Discover of Intent to Protest” that Appellant delivered to Appellee and the trial courtroom stating “that he supposed to proceed carrying his underwear in all different elements of the neighborhood not explicitly outlined within the Order.” In addressing the April 11, 2024 incident through which Appellant parked his spouse’s car in entrance of Appellee’s residence, the trial courtroom emphasised that Appellee “was much more fearful that [Appellant] would start to repeatedly violate the [c]ourt’s order.” The trial courtroom famous in its closing order that “[t]he insidious a part of a stalker or harasser is the nice efforts such perpetrators go to in an effort to show to their sufferer that the stalker is above the legislation and can’t be prevented from his stalking and harassing conduct.” …

The courtroom additionally rejected appellant’s constitutional claims, on the grounds that he “fail[ed] to direct this Courtroom to authority in help of his place that the trial courtroom violated quite a few Constitutional rights” and “fail[ed] to develop his constitutional arguments.”

I e-mailed Mr. Faeder to ask for his feedback, and this is what he has to say; these are in fact simply his reactions, and I am not endorsing any factual assertions which are made there:

1. There is no such thing as a discovering that I ever drew pink X’s on the highway. I did stroll my canine on the general public road that evening. My 6 yr previous daughter, unbeknownst to me, had come out and adopted me, with out my data placing pink X’s in entrance of a number of homes.
2. There has by no means been any discovering that I’ve trespassed on Mrs. Johnson’s property. If the property legislation is accurately understood, it’s obvious from the multitude of movies that I used to be all the time on the general public road. Mrs. Johnson’s property is positioned 112-221 toes from my property. I’ve repeatedly argued that the OP statute particularly excludes constitutionally protected exercise, that each one protesting occurred on the general public road, and that the general public road is a standard public discussion board requiring strict scrutiny.
3. This initially started when 4 neighbors (2 married {couples} from neighboring households) filed for 4 separate orders of safety. They had been by no means joined or consolidated and the ultimate listening to date for considered one of them was a number of months earlier than the ultimate listening to date within the Johnson case. Nonetheless, the Decide handled them as one case, issuing carbon copies and fashioning restrictions for all concerned primarily based on occasions from particular person circumstances.
4. One main challenge right here, that was not noted by the Appellate Courtroom, is that my neighbors requested roughly $100,000 in charges and prices and the Courtroom granted them roughly $54,000 (roughly $40,000 to the Johnsons). Thankfully, I used to be capable of declare chapter and paid nothing as a consequence of Tenancy by the Entireties.
5. I’ve by no means touched, threatened, known as, texted, or e-mailed Mrs. Johnson. I’ve by no means met her youngest youngster and have had no interactions of any form along with her oldest youngster since 2020, but each of them are protected people beneath the order.
6. Below TN legislation, the complete devoted proper of means is outlined as “the road” and “the sidewalk” is outlined as the complete space between the curbline and the adjoining non-public property line. Metropolis/county and State codes specify that this space is meant for pedestrian use. Metro Code even has a statute discussing unpaved sidewalks.
7. My understanding of what the Courtroom of Appeals has performed is to say that the first Modification doesn’t defend the protesting of one other particular person’s actions as a result of it isn’t an essential sufficient matter. I don’t imagine that aligns with federal 1st Modification Jurisprudence.
8. I nicknamed these colourful underwear my “Amicus Briefs.” My neighbor reported that nickname in her petition, filed October 2022. I repeatedly adopted that time period all through the proceedings, each within the trial courtroom and on enchantment. The Trial Decide prohibited me from utilizing that time period and each the Trial Decide and the Courtroom of Appeals willfully left that out of their opinions.
9. The referenced Discover of Intent to Protest was not delivered to Mrs. Johnson: it was served to her lawyer as I filed it. In that discover, I expressed my intent to protest the Courtroom’s ruling and violation of my 1st Modification Rights by persevering with to put on the colourful underwear on non-prohibited elements of the general public road. So, even when the Courtroom is appropriate that protesting a person’s attitudes by way of clothes selections on the general public road is just not protected beneath the first Modification, the Courtroom went past that by extending the Order of Safety primarily based on an anti-state-action protest.
10. In my filings, I cited quite a few precedents that went wholly ignored by the Courts. Most essential had been Brindley v Metropolis of Memphis (sixth Circuit) and Counterman v Colorado (US Supreme Courtroom).
11. The Order of Safety is presently set to run out on both 2/7/26 or 2/10/26 (the date is inconsistent throughout totally different orders). I anticipate Mrs. Johnson to file for one more extension. We have now had no contact in any way since my letter from Might, 2022 requesting that she and her husband depart me and my household alone. After I parked my spouse’s automotive up the road in April, 2023, not one of the Johnsons had been current and we had been having a double-vanity delivered for our kids’s lavatory, so I used to be merely parking my spouse’s automotive out of the way in which of the supply. The trial choose deliberately not noted all info that might profit me, the Courtroom denied my request for the recording so I might have a transcript produced, and the Courtroom of Appeals denied my movement to order {that a} transcript be produced from the recording.