Defending Corruption Ultimately Corrupts the Defender How Chancellor James Newsome Lost His Way
By: Public Affairs Staff — The Shelby County Observer on October 8, 2025
MEMPHIS, TN—- When the Tennessee Comptroller’s Office announced on October 1, 2025, that it was barring Shelby County Government from issuing new bonds because of “persistent fiscal irregularities,” even seasoned observers were stunned. Never before in state history had the watchdog agency taken such an extraordinary step against Shelby County. The move punctuated what many Memphians have whispered for years: the county’s institutions—political, administrative, and even judicial—are caught in a web of protectionism so dense that accountability itself can scarcely breathe.
At the center of that web now stands Chancellor James R. Newsom III, a judge whose behavior toward citizen-litigant Rev. Dr. Gerald Kiner has become a case study in how defending corruption can warp the very idea of impartial justice.
A Government Under a Cloud
Shelby County’s credibility has been unraveling in plain sight.
- The County Ethics Commission has not met in more than seven years, a direct violation of both Tennessee Code Annotated § 8-17-104 and the county’s own charter, effectively suspending any formal oversight of public officials.
- County Commissioner Edmund Ford Jr., now under federal indictment for corruption, once publicly accused the Shelby County Attorney’s Office of shielding the corruption of Mayor Lee Harris —an astonishing intra-government rebuke that signaled rot far beyond mere policy dispute.
- In another branch of local government, Judge Lee Coffey openly blasted Memphis and Shelby County officials for awarding grant money to an ex-convict previously arrested for misusing public funds, calling the act “befuddling” and “a betrayal of public trust.”
These scandals, taken together, form what one Nashville policy analyst described as “a slow-motion collapse of civic integrity.”
Retaliation in a Robe
Two eyewitnesses—Carolyn Quinn, 74, and Monique Wade, community advocate—filed sworn affidavits describing what they called “degrading treatment” of Kiner during an October 3, 2025, hearing. They recount that Newsom refused eye contact, interrupted him mid-sentence, and dismissed his due-process objections with visible hostility.
Kiner has since filed multiple motions for recusal, citing bias, incompetence, and retaliation for prior complaints lodged with the Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct. His filings invoke Liteky v. United States and Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., precedents requiring judges to step aside whenever impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
A System Protecting Itself
To critics, Newsom’s rulings are not isolated errors but symptoms of a wider judicial-political alliance—what some insiders now call “the Memphis Judicial Cartel.” The phrase, once whispered, gained currency after Judge Lee Coffey’s public denunciation of local grant fraud and the Comptroller’s historic bond freeze.
“If the courts join the cover-up,” one retired state prosecutor told The Observer, “then the rule of law becomes a rule of loyalty.”
Shelby County’s silence only amplifies that fear. The Ethics Commission remains dormant; no legislative inquiry has convened. Meanwhile, Judge Newsom continues to preside over cases involving the same government his rulings have consistently protected.
The Newsom Pattern: When Equity Becomes Entrenchment
Against that backdrop, Rev. Dr. Gerald Kiner—minister, educator, and pro se litigant—won five consecutive public-records lawsuits against Shelby County Government. Each victory reaffirmed that citizens retain the right to inspect how tax dollars are spent. Yet after those rulings, Judge Newsom’s tone abruptly shifted.
He began characterizing Kiner’s filings as “vindictive,” accused him of harassing county attorneys, and, in a ruling that stunned legal professionals, allowed Shelby County to withhold and effectively bury public records tied to a canceled contract. The decision, now on appeal, has been called “a blueprint for erasing accountability.”
In open court, Newsom according to transcripts told Kiner, “I’m not going to lie to the Court of Appeals” and say there’s no transcript.
To attorneys who later reviewed the exchange, the statement revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of the rule. “No transcript” does not mean none exist; it means the appellant elects not to include them. By equating that procedural choice with dishonesty, Newsom effectively criminalized compliance with the rule itself.
“It’s an astonishing inversion,” said a retired appellate lawyer familiar with Tennessee practice. “He accused the litigant of deceit for following the rule as written.”
Clerks from Memphis, Knoxville, and Nashville, speaking confidentially, told The Observer they had “never encountered anything like it.” They were referring to Newsom’s order that seeks to force Kiner to personally pay $1,500 to produce transcripts Shelby County Attorneys already owned—even after both sides asked Chancellor Newsome to submit the records without it to prevent continual delay of the appeal.
Erosion of Faith
For many residents, the cumulative effect is exhaustion. “You win in court and still lose in practice,” said a Memphis nonprofit director who has followed Kiner’s cases. “If even the judge treats transparency as a threat, what hope does the average citizen have?”
That despair is precisely what worries scholars of democratic erosion. When the public begins to see justice as performative—when decisions appear pre-written to shield power—trust decays faster than any budget line the Comptroller can freeze.
And so the warning lingers in courthouse corridors from Memphis to Nashville: defending corruption ultimately corrupts the defender. Shelby County’s crisis is no longer just financial—it is moral. Whether higher courts or the state’s oversight bodies can restore faith in the system remains uncertain. What is certain is that the people of Shelby County have seen too much to be silent any longer.
About Post Author
