​Online Bullying Raises Questions Beyond Social Media

The recent change in the forensic ruling in the death of Lester Isbill—from natural causes to homicide has drawn renewed attention to how criminal cases are evaluated and prosecuted. In that context, public statements by a husband-and-wife social media team claiming they have current District Attorney, Steve Hatchett, “on speed-dial” have raised additional questions.

There is no allegation that these claims are accurate or that any improper conduct has occurred.  However, when individuals publicly brag/assert personal access to a sitting prosecutor while one being the subject of a felony criminal complaint as recently as 2013, a time when current DA Hatchett was the 'Chief Deputy DA' during the scandal filled tenure of former DA Steve Bebb--it can prompt broader concerns about the role that perceived influence may play in criminal prosecutions...Did the current DA drop the prosecution in 2013, essentially giving a them 'slap in the hand' and they are now showing how eternally (grateful and connected) they are to the DA?

Maintaining public confidence in the justice system requires not only fair outcomes, but assurance that prosecutorial decisions are insulated from real or perceived external pressure.

Given the heightened public interest following the revised forensic ruling, these statements may warrant closer examination to assess their accuracy and any implications for public confidence in the justice system.  

Before you Judge Sheriff Jones, "Remember what Sheriff Bivens and DA Bebb Got Away With"

 

Fake Lawyer Scandal--Their Actions Described as: "egregious, illegal, and abhorrent" 

This scandal involved one of the most egregious violations of constitutional rights in Monroe County’s recent history. Here are the key facts:

While current controversies deserve scrutiny, the public should remember that the Bivens administration oversaw one of the most egregious and intentional violations of constitutional rights in Tennessee legal history - a deliberate scheme that multiple officials knew about and allowed to continue.”

This demonstrates that Monroe County’s law enforcement accountability issues span multiple administrations and are deeply rooted in a culture of protecting officers from consequences - making it clear that Sheriff Tommy Jones doesn’t have a monopoly on misconduct, but rather inherited a long-standing problem.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Posing as fake attorneys wasn’t just about rogue detectives - it was part of a systemic failure that included:

∙ Sheriff Bivens being warned to stop the scheme but allowing it to continue.
∙ DA Bebb refusing to prosecute the detectives despite constitutional violations.
∙ Both officials facing no criminal consequences.
∙ Bebb strategically resigning to protect his pension when legislative removal seemed likely.

Doug E Fresh Brannon

In 2008, Monroe County Sheriff’s Detectives James Patrick Henry and Doug Brannon, working under Sheriff Bill Bivens, engaged in an elaborate scheme to frame John Edward Dawson Jr. for the 2006 murder of Troy Green:
∙ Detective Henry created two fictitious attorneys named “Paul Harris” and “Neil Fink” and worked with jailhouse informant Todd Sweet to convince Dawson these fake lawyers were representing him.

∙ Henry sent fake legal mail to Dawson in jail, treated as privileged attorney correspondence, to communicate without oversight.
∙ Sweet helped persuade Dawson to stop talking to his real public defender (Jeanne Wiggins) in favor of the fake attorneys, while detectives planted a recorder in Sweet’s shoe.
∙ Detective Brannon met with Dawson without identifying himself as law enforcement or reading Miranda rights, pretending to be associated with the fake law firm.
∙ Henry coerced witness Monte Cox to lie, offering to help Cox’s imprisoned friend if Cox would falsely say he bought a gun from Dawson.

Sheriff Bivens’ Knowledge and Inaction:

According to court records, both TBI agent Barry Brakebill and District Attorney Steve Bebb called Sheriff Bivens

I'm done with politics

in late 2008 and told him to stop the scheme involving Sweet, but Bivens allowed it to continue.  During testimony, Sheriff Bivens admitted he was vaguely aware of Henry’s plot and didn’t see “a problem with it,” though he added “if it’s illegal, of course, I don’t want to do it.” Bivens testified he had not conducted an internal affairs investigation into Henry’s conduct..

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals issued a devastating ruling:

“That Detective Henry would illegally pose as an attorney and arrange the circumstances of the defendant’s case to make it appear as though he had successfully undertaken legal representation of the defendant is abhorrent. That the detective would specifically instruct the defendant not to communicate the relationship to his appointed counsel… renders completely reprehensible the state action in this case.”

The court found that the “egregious actions of the law enforcement officers in this case substantially and profoundly interfered with [Dawson’s] right to counsel under the federal and state constitutions.”

This connects directly to the Dawson case because it shows why Bebb never prosecuted Detectives Henry and Brannon for impersonating attorneys. When asked why he didn’t prosecute them, Bebb testified that “the reason I didn’t prosecute them was because the motive that they did that with was to solve a murder. It was not for their personal gain, and they lost their jobs” - which turned out to be false, as Brannon remained employed and Henry continued working part-time.

As a former Criminal Court judge who campaigned as “a friend to law enforcement,” Bebb had shown an unwillingness to charge police officers for behavior that would land civilians in jail--had the Legislature successfully removed Bebb from office, it would have impacted his pension. By resigning just two months early while citing health reasons, Bebb was able to:

1. Avoid the formal removal process
2. Retain full retirement benefits
3. Claim a medical justification rather than admitting to the misconduct

Det Patrick Henry

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Brian Kelsey opened an investigation in March 2013, noting that “the only remedy available to the Legislature was removal from office” . A state House panel called for Bebb’s resignation after the investigations.

The Strategic Resignation:
On June 6, 2014, Steve Bebb announced he would retire two months before the end of his term, citing heart trouble and bypass surgery . However, Senate Judiciary Chairman Kelsey wrote that Tennessee should expect more outcomes “along the lines of Steve Bebb’s: a two-month-early retirement with full benefits” , making it clear this was seen as a strategic move to avoid removal.

Starting in August 2012, the Chattanooga Times Free Press ran a series of investigative reports alleging that under Bebb, the prosecutor’s office botched important cases through ineptness or misconduct, misused taxpayer money, and played favorites in criminal prosecutions . The allegations included:

∙ Threatening prosecution for coercive purposes, personal use of office vehicles and funds, and failure to prosecute law enforcement officers.
∙ Specifically regarding the Dawson fake attorney case, Bebb refused to prosecute Detectives Henry and Brannon despite the egregious constitutional violations.
∙ Using criminal prosecution to coerce outcomes in civil cases, including threatening a husband with wiretapping charges unless he agreed to give his wife joint custody in their divorce lawsuit.

Todd Sweet

John Edward Dawson Jr. spent four years in the Monroe County Jail before the murder charges were dismissed. When questioned in two court hearings about suborning a witness and posing as an attorney, Henry pleaded his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to answer .
This demonstrates a pattern of misconduct that extended from the detectives through the sheriff’s office to the district attorney’s office - with no one held criminally accountable despite constitutional violations that the appellate court called “reprehensible” and “unconscionable.“​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

DA Steve Bebb told the Times Free Press that he had specifically told the sheriff’s office not to let anyone talk to Todd Sweet, whom he described as “one of the best con men who ever lived,” saying “I was as shocked as anybody when I learned what they had done” .
However, Monroe County Sheriff Bill Bivens testified in court in 2010 that he didn’t remember receiving such a phone call and said he never investigated the detectives’ behavior or disciplined them.

The Full Scope of the Fake Attorney Scheme

How the Con Worked:
Detective Patrick Henry faked stationery from the bogus legal firm of “Harris and Fink” and wrote to inmate Todd Sweet in the persona of an attorney . They created fake letters from the purported attorney “Paul Harris” for cellmate Todd Sweet to show Dawson, including one letter stating that “Harris” had arranged for Dawson’s impounded truck to be released to his wife.
Detective Henry sent a total of six letters to Dawson purporting to be from fictitious attorneys Paul Harris and Neil Fink - five were addressed to Todd Sweet and one directly to Dawson, but all were intended for Dawson. Dawson’s actual lawyer was never informed of these communications.

The In-Person Deception:

In January 2009, Detective Brannon had an in-person meeting with Dawson at the Monroe County Jail in a visitor’s booth, at the behest of Detective Henry . Brannon pretended to be an associate of the fake firm and met with Dawson in the jail . Detective Brannon did not advise Dawson of his Miranda rights or disclose his affiliation with the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office before speaking with him, and Dawson’s lawyer was not informed of the meeting.
Henry released Dawson’s truck to his wife after the meeting to reinforce his belief in the fictitious attorneys, and Henry and Brannon told Dawson not to cooperate with his lawyer and to ask his lawyer to postpone his cases as many times as possible.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OP-ED 2

When Police Pretend to Be Lawyers, the Constitution Is Already in Crisis

Americans expect law enforcement to uphold the Constitution—not impersonate attorneys to sabotage it. Yet in Monroe County, Tennessee, that is exactly what happened.

In one of the most disturbing law-enforcement scandals in recent Tennessee history, sheriff’s detectives fabricated lawyers, sent fake legal mail, secretly recorded a jailed suspect, and coerced witnesses—all to manufacture a murder case. Their actions were later described as “egregious, illegal, and abhorrent.” What makes this case nationally significant is not just what happened, but how many people in power knew—and did nothing.

This was not a rogue incident. It was a system working as designed.

In 2008, Monroe County Sheriff’s Detectives James Patrick Henry and Doug Brannon targeted John Edward Dawson Jr. in a 2006 murder investigation. Henry invented two fictional attorneys and sent Dawson fake legal correspondence that jail staff treated as privileged. A jailhouse informant persuaded Dawson to abandon his real public defender. Conversations were secretly recorded. Brannon met with Dawson while concealing his identity as law enforcement and without issuing Miranda warnings. A witness was pressured to lie in exchange for favors.

Each step violated bedrock constitutional protections that have been settled law for decades.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel once formal proceedings have begun, and law enforcement may not deliberately elicit statements from a defendant in the absence of counsel (Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964); United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 (1980)). The Supreme Court has been explicit that the government may not use informants or deception to circumvent that right (Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159 (1985)).

Impersonating an attorney is not a gray area—it strikes at the core of the adversarial system. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that interference with the attorney-client relationship undermines the fairness of the entire proceeding (Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963); Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (1977)). Meanwhile, questioning a suspect while concealing law enforcement status and failing to issue Miranda warnings violates the Fifth Amendment’s protection against compelled self-incrimination (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)).

None of this law was unclear in 2008.

And yet the scheme continued.

Sheriff Bill Bivens was warned and allowed it to proceed. The district attorney at the time declined to prosecute despite overwhelming evidence of constitutional violations. No criminal charges were brought. When legislative removal became a real threat, the prosecutor resigned—preserving his pension. Accountability never arrived.

This is why Monroe County matters to the rest of the country.

Across the United States, public debate often centers on whether misconduct is the work of a few “bad apples.” But the Fake Lawyer scandal exposes a more uncomfortable truth: constitutional violations persist when institutions are structured to protect themselves rather than the public.

When officers can impersonate lawyers without consequence, the problem is not merely unethical policing—it is a justice system that has abandoned its own rules. When prosecutors refuse to act, constitutional rights become theoretical rather than enforceable. When leaders face no repercussions, misconduct becomes institutional precedent.

Today, Monroe County faces renewed scrutiny over law enforcement practices. That scrutiny is warranted—but it should not be selective or a historical. The culture that allows abuse does not begin or end with one sheriff or one election cycle. It survives through silence, resignation, and institutional self-preservation.

Chickens Come to Roost

The Constitution does not enforce itself. It relies on people in power to defend it—especially when doing so is uncomfortable or politically costly. Monroe County’s Fake Lawyer scandal is a warning of what happens when they don’t.

If impersonating an attorney, fabricating evidence, and sabotaging the right to counsel can go unpunished in one American county, it can happen anywhere.

That is why this story is not local.
It is national.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Video shows a first person narrative of Marvin Young: his family was cheated out of their rightful inheritance--when shown the forged will, DA Bebb agreed there was no way the signature on the will was genuine--but chose to do nothing about it--some of the people mentioned are RIP--they will answer to God for their alleged fraudulent scheme.

Sheriff's Office Issues an Update on Latest Scam Alert

 The Sheriff’s Office Issues a Scam Alert — and Accidentally Performs One

If the sheriff’s office keeps this up, it may want to trademark its new brand identity: “Confusion, but Official.”

Their latest scam alert — ostensibly intended to help residents — reads like the opening scene of a comedy sketch in which law enforcement accidentally scams itself. The message warns that scammers are spoofing the sheriff’s office phone number. Good to know. But then comes the punchline: “DO NOT call the Sheriff’s Office Number.”

Right. Because when someone impersonates your agency, the first rule of safety is apparently don’t contact the agency they’re impersonating.

Instead, residents are instructed to call some obscure detective-division number, buried under nine automated prompts, as if navigating a bureaucratic fun-house during an actual scam attempt is exactly what people need in a moment of panic. Nothing says “we’ve got your back” like a choose-your-own-adventure phone tree.

It would almost be impressive if it weren’t so predictable.

Because for many residents, this isn’t a one-off flub — it’s the sheriff’s office doing what it has perfected: turning every public communication into a reminder of its own credibility problem.

Let’s be honest: public trust didn’t just slip; it took a swan dive sometime around the 2022 missing-child alert fiasco, which lingered so long people wondered if the sheriff was using it as a screensaver. Then came the Lester Isbill homicide investigation — a case some residents still talk about with the same tone people reserve for unsolved mysteries and malfunctioning vending machines.

And who could forget the quick-trigger firing of Deputy Josh Woods after an off-duty DUI? A bold stance on discipline — if you ignore the fact that other personnel with far more serious controversies somehow landed on the magical cushion known as paid leave. The kind of selective response that really teaches the public one thing: consistency is… optional.

So now, when the sheriff’s office releases a “scam alert” that feels like a riddle wrapped in a puzzle wrapped in an automated menu system, the community reaction isn’t shock. It’s more like, “Ah yes, back to regular programming.”

The department seems determined to reassure residents that it is, in fact, not being impersonated — by doing a flawless impersonation of an agency that has no idea what it’s doing. These situations, viewed through the eyes of the community, paint a picture of an agency struggling to maintain its own legitimacy while simultaneously expecting residents to trust its guidance without hesitation.

Instead of offering clarity, they’ve delivered another baffling message that leaves residents shaking their heads and wondering who, exactly, is steering the ship. The sheriff’s office wants the public to be vigilant about scammers — fair enough. But maybe it’s time the agency showed the same vigilance toward its own communication failures.
Until then, every new alert they issue will continue to raise the same uncomfortable question:

Is this supposed to reassure us… or remind us how badly this office has lost the community’s trust?

Instead of providing clarity, the sheriff’s office has delivered yet another performance piece reminding everyone why trust continues to evaporate like mist on a hot sidewalk. The question practically writes itself:

How long can an agency keep asking for public confidence while demonstrating, over and over, that it can’t communicate a simple message without creating a new mess?

Former CIA Analyst Shares Tactics that Could be Used by 2026 Sheriff Candidates

 

In theory, many of the persuasion, influence, and social-manipulation “tricks” described by Andrew Bustamante (a former operative of CIA) could be used — and indeed might have been used — in local elections such as county sheriff races (or other local political contests). 

Bustamante says the CIA trains on influencing and persuasion: “the same level of persuasion … influence … charisma and dynamic creative thinking drives us” in manipulation or motivation. One specific technique he describes is a conversational method: ask two questions, then a validating statement, then repeat — a structured approach to build rapport quickly, make people feel understood, open up, trust you, and self-disclose more.  He frames manipulation and motivation as tools — neutral in themselves — that can be used for “helpful outcomes” or “harmful” ones depending on intent.  He also talks about influencing what people think — controlling information, shaping what’s believable, limiting alternatives, creating an environment where people think they have freely chosen, while their choices have been guided.

Influence and persuasion tactics could be used in campaign events, door-knocking, debates, social media interactions, or community meetings: shaping emotions, creating rapport, projecting trustworthiness and likability — intangible but powerful factors in elections.  Information-control or messaging strategies (framing issues, limiting which alternatives voters focus on, steering conversation, influencing perceived “choices”) — tactics often discussed in intelligence/persuasion literature — might play a role in how issues, opponents, or candidate image are presented to the public.