Tag Archives: tennessee

How the American the court system was weaponized in different parts of the country against women (both septuagenarians with no criminal history) and the parallels of abuse by the court system to silence, make a mockery, and discredit these citizens that spoke out for truth

By Connie Reguli

Two women in their seventies. No criminal history. No violent past. No cartel ties or organized‑crime connections. Just grandmothers who dared to ask hard questions about what their government was doing—and the system came down on them like they were enemies of the state.

That is what happened to Tina Peters in Colorado and to me, Connie Reguli, in Tennessee. And conservatives across the country need to understand what these cases really show: the justice system is being weaponized to make examples of dissenters, especially women who refuse to sit down and shut up.

Tina Peters listens during her trial in Grand Junction, Colorado, on March 3, 2023. 
Scott Crabtree/The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel/Pool/AP/File

When “wrongthink” becomes a factor in a Court’s punitive actions

In Colorado, Tina Peters was prosecuted for alleged conduct related to election‑system data. But the most chilling part of her case wasn’t the charges—it was how the court talked about her after the conviction.

Instead of confining itself to the actual offenses, the sentencing judge fixated on her speech: her public statements about election integrity, her continuing activism, her refusal to renounce her beliefs about the 2020 election. In other words, her politics. Her voice.

The message from the bench was unmistakable: if you keep talking like this, if you keep rallying people, if you won’t recant, we will make you pay. The court took what should be core First Amendment activity—political speech, organizing, advocacy—and treated it as if it were an aggravating factor, as if her ideas themselves made her more dangerous.

That is not how a free country behaves. That is how a regime behaves when it wants to scare others into silence.

When public records become a threat

In Tennessee, my “crime” was asking for public records and using the courts to enforce the law that gives citizens the right to see how their government is spending their money. The trial court dismissed my case, fined me 5,000 dollars, and went even further: it tried to restrict my ability to file future cases without bringing in another lawyer.

Think about that: a sitting judge using sanctions not just to punish a particular filing, but to put a long‑term block on a citizen’s access to the courts.

Why? Not because I assaulted anyone. Not because I threatened anyone. But because I was using public records to expose how officials were spending taxpayer money and to challenge what I believed were wrongful government actions. My motives—my intention to speak, to criticize, to advocate—were treated as evidence of “improper purpose.”

In plain terms: the court didn’t like what I was doing with the truth once I got it.

Parallel abuses, different zip codes

Look at the pattern:

·      In Colorado, a woman in her seventies is effectively punished for her political beliefs and for continuing to speak them out loud.

·      In Tennessee, a woman in her seventies is punished for seeking public records and using them to challenge government conduct, with the court trying to close the courthouse doors behind her.

Different states, different issues, same underlying message: if you push too hard against the official narrative—about elections, about government spending, about public institutions—we will make an example out of you.

This is not just about one election or one county commission. It is about the state using the immense power of courts not to neutrally apply law, but to police thought and punish disfavored activism. It is about judges stepping out of their role as referees and becoming enforcers of “acceptable” opinions.

Silencing, humiliating, and discrediting

Weaponized justice doesn’t always look like secret police or midnight raids. Sometimes it wears a black robe and uses respectable language.

It looks like:

·      Turning political speech into a justification for harsher punishment.

·      Treating lawful public‑records requests as “bad faith” because the requester plans to expose government misconduct.

·      Imposing massive fines on ordinary citizens to send a message: don’t try this again.

·      Placing special restrictions on a disfavored litigant’s ability to even enter a courtroom.

And it doesn’t stop with the penalties. The public narrative is part of the punishment. Label the person “conspiracy theorist.” Call her “vexatious.” Paint her as “dangerous to democracy.” Make her a punchline in the media. Then, when she is dragged through the system, the public has already been taught to laugh or look away.

That is how you make a mockery of citizens who speak up for what they believe is true. That is how you discredit them so thoroughly that other people say, “I’m not putting my family through that. I’ll just keep my head down.”

WHY AMERICANS SHOULD CARE ABOUT TWO GRANDMOTHERS WHO SPOKE OUT…..

You don’t have to agree with every word Tina Peters has ever said about elections. You don’t have to support every argument I’ve made about child welfare or county spending. The question is more basic: do you believe the state should be allowed to punish citizens for what they say, what they investigate, and what they plan to expose?

Today it is two women in their seventies—grandmothers, professionals, with no criminal history—hauled into court, sanctioned, threatened, and publicly smeared for refusing to abandon their convictions. Tomorrow it can be you, your pastor, your school‑board candidate, your local activist who dares to ask the wrong questions.

If we allow courts to become tools of political and bureaucratic retaliation, we will lose not just cases, but our country’s character.

The justice system is not supposed to be a weapon wielded against inconvenient citizens. It is supposed to be a shield for their rights—even when those citizens are loud, persistent, and unwilling to bow to the approved narrative.

The question for conservatives is simple: will we defend that principle only in campaign speeches, or will we demand it in courtrooms—where it matters most?

Join and Follow:

Connie Reguli on Facebook,

familyforward on TikTok,

Family Forward Project on Facebook,

@conniereguli on X

Connie Reguli on Substack

Sixth Circuit Case Tests Whether Officials Can Be Immune for “Rewriting” Criminal Law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Ohio/Tennessee – A forthcoming oral argument in Reguli & Hancock v. Hetzel, et al. on March 19, 2026, will test the outer limits of immunity for prosecutors and other state officials accused of weaponizing the criminal justice system against a critic of tax-funded child‑welfare practices.

Connie Reguli, a firebrand Tennessee attorney who had publicly challenged the Department of Children’s Services, and her client, Wendy Hancock, were indicted for custodial interference after Reguli helped Hancock contest a secret ex parte removal order obtained by federal defendant, and state attorney, Tracy Hetzel, even after Reguli made several attempts to cooperate with the state agency investigation. 

The indictment cited the statute for custodial interference, but District Attorneys Kimberly Helper and Mary Katherine Evins surgically removed an essential element of the crime in the language of the indictment—“after the expiration of the noncustodial parent’s lawful period of visitation”—even though officials knew there was no visitation order at all. The grand jury relied on the flawed language to find probable cause and thus, initiating a totally fraudulent prosecution. 

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals ultimately reversed both convictions, holding that Hancock’s conduct was not criminal, and therefore, Reguli could not be guilty as an accessory to a non‑crime. Yet when Reguli and Hancock sued, the federal district court granted absolute immunity to the prosecutors and qualified immunity to the DCS lawyer and Brentwood Police, reasoning that there was no clearly established precedent addressing the fabrication of a crime, as opposed to the fabrication of evidence.

The federal civil rights case was filed in May 2024 claiming that the defendants had violated their Fourth Amendment rights with a malicious prosecution. These defendants, prosecutors Kimberly Helper and Mary Katherine Evins, DCS attorney Tracy Hetzel, and Brentwood Police Lori Russ and David O’Neil, had worked collectively and cohesively to carry on a fake trial for over five years.  The Tennessee taxpayers paid thousands of dollars to investigate, prosecute, and appeal.  In the end, it was all theater.  But in doing so, they were able to shut down Reguli’s law practice, dismantle her reputation, and cost dozens of clients their attorney in the midst of contentious litigation. 

The plaintiffs argue this is precisely the kind of “obvious” constitutional violation that needs no case on all fours to “clearly establish” the rights of citizens.  Here, long‑standing rules already forbid prosecuting conduct that is not legislatively defined as a crime, and black‑letter law and ethics rules bar prosecutors from pursuing charges without probable cause.

“If this conduct is protected by immunity, then the promise that ‘no one is above the law’ rings hollow,” said counsel for the plaintiffs. “Officials will be free to re‑write criminal statutes on paper to fit their targets, knowing that—even if an appellate court later fixes the criminal conviction—the victims will have no civil remedy. Citizens who suffer the loss and damage of a malicious prosecution will have no recourse.” 

The Sixth Circuit’s ruling will not only determine whether Ms. Reguli and Ms. Hancock can proceed to discovery and trial, but may also clarify how far absolute and qualified immunity extend when officials are alleged to have used their authority to fabricate, rather than enforce, the law.

For more information or to arrange interviews after oral argument, interested media and advocacy groups may contact counsel for the plaintiffs.

Connie Reguli can be found on social media platforms and operates the Family Forward Project on Facebook.