DUANE SHERRILLEditor

Local developer Joseph Denby has filed suit against the husband of a Tullahoma alderman, claiming a complaint filed against fellow alderman Daniel Berry tarnished his reputation by suggesting he had bribed a city alderman.

The suit filed by Denby against George B. Wilson is asking for $50,000 in damages and $300,000 in punitive damages. Defendant Wilson is the husband of freshman Tullahoma Alderman Bobbie Wilson. He recently filed an ethics complaint against Alderman Daniel Berry. The Berry complaint came after former alderman Rupa Blackwell was amongst citizens who filed an ethics complaint which named Wilson and fellow Aldermen Jenna Amacher and Kurt Glick. That ethics complaint was shot down by the city board while the complaint against Berry failed in a tie vote.

In his lawsuit against Mr. Wilson, Denby, through his attorney Garth Seagroves, maintains he suffered damage to his reputation in the community due to allegations made by the defendant.

“Defendant published misstatements falsely accusing the plaintiff (Denby) of bribing an elected official,” the suit maintains, noting such allegations should constitute a seriously offensive statement, especially given the fact that Denby is not a public official. “The defendant knew that these allegations of bribery were false, or the defendant acted in reckless regard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the statements.”

The suit, in its statement of alleged facts, maintains:

“That the Defendant Wilson filed a written ethics complaint against Tullahoma Alderman Daniel Berry, on, or about, May 8, 2023. That this ethics complaint was filed with Tullahoma City Attorney Stephen Worsham, who is the ethics officer for the City of Tullahoma, and who has been extremely busy in that position, as of late. That this ethics complaint contains a plethora of allegations against Alderman Berry, that for the most part, include his business and/or personal relationship with the Plaintiff, which have been stated to be illegal by the Defendant. That the Defendant attached to the ethics complaint, a previously filed Petition for Ouster of Daniel Berry, Alderman, City of Tullahoma, from August 24, 2022.”

The plaintiff maintains the ethics complaint and an earlier ouster attempt against Berry were basically the same document.

“That this Ouster was edited by Defendant on the title line, whereupon part of the title line was marked out and handwritten as follows: “Ethics Complaint Against”. That no other edits to the Ouster were made and the document was included as part of the Ethics complaint filed by the Defendant.”

The plaintiff continued that the ethics complaint was presented for the public to see.

“That the ethics complaint filed by Defendant was made available to the public at large and it is alleged that it was known by the Defendant that it would be made available to the public at large. That the ethics complaint was presented to the Tullahoma Mayor and Board of Alderman on May 22, 2023, where it failed on a 3-3 vote. That Defendant Wilson spoke at the May 22, 2023, meeting, whereupon he made verbal statements that the Plaintiff had done nothing wrong, that Defendant felt that Plaintiff was essentially ‘doing business’.” 

According to the suit, the comments made by the Defendant are essentially as follows:

That this ethics complaint has nothing to do with anybody, other than Alderman Berry. That Mr. Denby had hired Mr. Berry to sell advertising on digital signs in which Mr. Berry would make $18,000. per month. That a google search on a phone number on the billboard in question shows that Mr. Berry is involved with the billboard advertising. That the cursory investigation that (I) have done shows an (sic) credible, personal, complex, convoluted, relationship between Mr. Berry and Mr. Denby.  That I believe a more intense forensic investigation will connect all of the dots. That it should be noted that the attached Ouster, edited to compon to the “ethics complaint” by the Defendant, states that Alderman Daniel Berry is guilty of ‘Violations of Tennessee Bribery and Insider Laws.’ That the Defendant knowing included the “four comers” of the attached Ouster per an email by the Defendant to Tullahoma City Attorney and BOMA.

The plaintiff said the statements made by the defendant were full of innuendo.

“That the Defendant has made allegations that one could only assume, through innuendo, the Plaintiff has, and/or continues, to bribe Alderman Berry,” the suit reads. “That Defendant, in his ethics complaint against Alderman Berry, continues naming the Plaintiff, in activities that one could only describe as the Plaintiff being nefarious, such as having a closed door meeting with Mayor Knowis and then City Administrator Jennifer Moody, whereupon the result of said meeting was Mayor Knowis recusing himself from the Tullahoma Planning Commission and placing Alderman Berry on said Commission; when in fact that was not what was discussed at all.”

The suit goes on to point out the outcome of votes discussed in the ethics complaint against Berry.

“That the Defendants innuendo in his ethics complaint states that Alderman Berry voted in favor of the Plaintiff’s items on the Tullahoma Planning Commission and with Tullahoma Mayor and Board of Alderman was a result of Alderman Berry alleged financial ties with the Plaintiff; however, all said votes were unanimous, in favor of the Plaintiff’s  issues; even the Defendant’s wife, Alderman Wilson has voted in favor of the Plaintiff’s Projects, yet this was not revealed in the ethics complaint or before the board. That it is fact that the Plaintiff at no point has paid Alderman Berry anything for any work performed on the digital billboard, despite the best allegations made by the Defendant. That the Plaintiff has in the past has hired Alderman Berry, while he was employed with Alderman Mann; and, occasionally while Alderman Berry was self-employed (for web designing, marketing, and logo design).”

The plaintiff also pointed out that the political climate in Tullahoma is one that allegations are often believed when stated by city leaders.

“That it is alleged that the public in general in the City of Tullahoma has become so disgusted with the antics of the local city leaders of BOMA, to the point that anything that is stated too, or alluded too, among these elected officials is going to be believable,” the suit claims. “That in the current setting of Tullahoma local government, should one be named, even by innuendo, of being a participant in a scheme of bribery, it will be believable, given the state among the BOMA members.”

The suit noted that on the final vote of the ethics complaint, the motion failed in a 3-3 tie, of which apparently three aldermen; Alderman Wilson (Defendant’s wife), Alderman Amacher (who recently defeated an ouster complaint filed by the Coffee County District Attorney) and Alderman Glick (who currently has a federal lawsuit against the City of Tullahoma requesting $500,000.00 in damages) felt that the Plaintiff had committed an illegal act of bribery, despite the fact that the Defendant stated the Plaintiff had done nothing wrong.

The suit has been filed in the Circuit Court of Coffee County and demands a trial by jury. The lawsuit can be found in its entirety below: