ÿWPCs  m¯‡§,‚\™ˆí*n^ð½rÆú“ÄQ'#ÏLj¦åfé´sW09Q¿ëCh¤§Ûl4d[Vðcæ”!¶M…ÆÈàbchÏ#.ððLÜlý•£ÅDI°ì •ÂßpH˜Ö ˜qØñ‚’Cfà÷P]_ŸØa±ŒÃ·:ü íNS›ðtl°ù¤õÁË)c¿ˆo¿Š…Dª×5Ïúlµõ‹ufä,Wi ~k顧èˆ*¥‚b×0²&ýÌE)$¥³ ðB*¥µªÀT“FA;ZënnÀ3cÑ}»îCØða~Fbªúá‚€ÓKJ}:£r&WõúX‰Èåµ!k™F“õÁ‡í–ÛÜ»0:‡R—²Êý~Eš¼${‚‡OÎó0¡˜E8KCV]¿~,&ïJ,SVº1Ž.âºjàÓN‹µW”Ýf:󇊞K‹º*# LU>W %• 0(›4Ã×ææU Nî:< 0lv 0DâU:&L``b¬w@´´´´´´´´´´´´´´ Bô AQ Æb 0D( 0Dl 0D° ° D/ô ô B# D3@ ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX($¡¡ê‚_# x°°3|x  öÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ X t XXXÔÔ€ Õ4  X X tÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ X t X  Õ4ÔÐ  ÐÌJuly€10,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular 0Ñ#€ m Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT- ù- ùDúDûDüýDþÿeÓ€   d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñÿñ›ñÿññÿññ÷ñ›ñ÷ññÿñÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ*°,X‚Xìp’X°œX*ÓÑ7€{’XdÈXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ X­7XXXÔÔ€ ¼GA¼X X­7ÔÑ€ .–Ñœñ ññ ññ ñññœññßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` 8ttxP,°ð  rßñ ññññññ ññ ñßt€ )>.*jxúQû` `€€@Eî°` 8ttxP&°ð tßñ ññ ññ ññ ññ ñ›ñ ñROBERT€T.€IRVIN,à ¼ à)Ð ° Ðà Ø àà ¼ à)ÌÓ9°,X‚XìDÈ‘X°,X‚Xìp’X9Óà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellant,à ¼ à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð Ð  Ðà Ø àà ¼ à)à  à01„A„01„9708„CV„00427Ð à0 Ðñ ññ ñv.à Ø àà ¼ à)Ð ð@ Ðà Ø àà ¼ à)à  àMontgomery€CircuitÐ  P ÐFAITH€JOHNSON,€an€employee€ofà ¼ à)à  àNo.€C12„431C12„431Ð  ` Ðñ ñœßt€ )>.*jxVþy` `€€@EJ™ ` 8ttxP‚ ð y tß›ñ ñThe€Tennessee€Management€Company,€à ¼ à)Ð  p ÐInc.€(TAMCO);€THE€TENNESSEE€à ¼ à)Ð 0 € ÐMANAGEMENT€COMPANY,€INC.à ¼ à)Ð @  Ð(TAMCO),€a.d.b.a.€THE€SOUTH€à ¼ à)Ð P   ÐCENTRAL€VILLAGE€APARTMENTS,à ¼ à)Ð `°  Ðà Ø àà ¼ à)Ìà Ø àDefendants/Appellees.à ¼ à)Ð €Ð  Ðà Ø àà ¼ à)ÌÌÌÌÔ€ »ÇB»¼ ¼GAÔÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ Ð  ÐÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€MONTGOMERY€COUNTYÌÌAT€CLARKSVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€JAMES€E.€WALTON,€JUDGEÌÓ9°,X‚Xì“X°,X‚XìDÈ‘X9ÓÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÔ€ X­7X» »ÇBÔROBERT€T.€IRVIN,€Pro€SeÐ  %ð  ÐP.€O.€Box€1636ÌClarksville,€Tennessee€€37041„1636ÌÌÌÌJAMES€D.€KAY,€JR.ÌBRIDGETT€A.€WOHLPARTÌSuite€340M,€Washington€Square€TwoÌ222€Second€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37069Ìà Ø àATTORNEYS€FOR€DEFENDANTS/APPELLEESÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€ ¼GA¼X X­7ÔAFFIRMED€IN€PART,Ð `4°// ÐMODIFIED€IN€PART,ÌAND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌññÑ .–ÑÑ7€ ­7 XXdìXdÈ7ÑÑ€ÑÑ  ÑÑ .–ÑÑ#€ m Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € ÑÑ  ÑññÌññÑ .–ÑÑ7€ ­7 XXdìXdÈ7ÑÑ€ÑÑ  ÑññÓ  Óà Ø àà ¼ àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ Ð; 76 ÐÑ .–ÑÑ7€ ­7 XXdìXdÈ7ÑÑ€ÑÑ  ÑññÑ .–ÑÑ7€ Mw XXdìXdÈ7ÑÑ€ÑÑ  ÑññÓÓÓ  ÓòòÔ‡ °ê(°¼ ¼GAÔOPINIONóóÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÔ#† ¼GA¼° °ê( #ÔÓ€ÓÓ9°,X°4ì“X°,X‚Xì“X9Óà  àThis€case€represents€a€pro€se€plaintiff's€appeal€from€a€trial€court's€orderÐ T¤ Ðgranting€defendant/appellee's€motion€to€dismiss€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ï12.02(4)(5)(6).€€Appellant's€complaint€asserted€ñÿñœñÿññûñ'ñûññýññüñ'ñüññýññþñ"ñþñperjury"ñÿñ›ñÿññÿññÿñ€as€it's€basis,€alleging€thatÏdefendants,€Faith€Johnson,€Tamco,€et€al.,€committed€perjury€in€appellant'sÏprevious€case€in€said€trial€court,€ò òòòIrvin€v.€Tamco,€Inc.,€et€al.ó óóó,€docket€number€C10„Ð ´  Ð813.ÌÌà  à€By€making€all€allowances€for€the€pro€se€representation,€the€court€findsÏthat€appellant€presents€three€"issues"€for€review:€€(1)€the€refusal€of€the€trial€judgeÏto€recuse€himself€from€the€case€at€bar;€(2)€the€trial€court's€order€grantingÏdefendant's€Rule€12.06€motion€to€dismiss€on€the€basis€that€Tennessee€does€notÏrecognize€a€civil€action€for€"perjury",€and€(3)€the€permanent€injunction€issued€byÏthe€trial€court€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€65.04,€prohibiting€appellant€from€filingÏfurther€lawsuits€relative€to€the€alleged€perjury€of€Faith€Johnson.ÌÌà  àUnder€the€well„settled€authorities€cited,€and€for€the€reasons€stated€below,Ïwe€affirm€the€court's€actions€with€regard€to€issues€numbered€(1)€and€(2).€€HoweverÏwe€vacate€the€trial€court's€permanent€injunction,€due€to€the€trial€court's€failure€toÏmake€specific€findings€of€fact€and€ñ÷ñconclusioonsñ÷ññ÷ñconclusionsñ÷ñ€of€law€as€its€basis€for€grantingÏextraordinary€relief.ÌÌI.à  àòòRecord€BelowóóÐ Ï)%, Ðà  àRobert€T.€Irvin,€an€indigent€acting€pro€se,€filed€suit€against€theÏdefendants€on€May€30,€1997.€€Mr.€Irvin€sued€for€compensatory€and€punitiveÏdamages,€alleging€perjury€of€the€defendant€Faith€Johnson€in€a€prior€action€beforeÏthe€Circuit€Court€of€Montgomery€County,€Tennessee,€on€March€15,€1996,€CircuitÏCase€Number€C10„813.€€Among€other€averments€in€the€complaint€not€germane€toÏour€consideration€here,€Mr.€Irvin€asserted€that€he€had€filed€suit€in€United€StatesÏDistrict€Court€for€the€Middle€District€of€the€State€of€Tennessee,€Civil€Action€No.Ï3„95„0673,€in€an€attempt€to€prosecute€a€similar€action€in€federal€court.€€He€wasÏadvised,€however,€by€Judge€Thomas€Higgins€to€submit€the€perjury€case€to€"€'.€.€.Ïthe€lower€court.'€"€€We€can€only€assume€that€Judge€Higgins€sought€to€encourageÐ ¿95@ Ðthe€pro€se€litigant€to€pursue€his€research€further€in€an€effort€to€discover€a€suitableÏ"state"€cause€of€action.€€From€the€complaint,€it€appears€that€Michael€L.€RodenÏadvised€Mr.€Irvin€to€seek€out€the€State€District€Attorney€in€Clarksville.€€WithÏspecific€regard€to€"perjury",€plaintiff€alleges,€"4.€€That€plaintiff€was€harmed€by€theÏperjury€of€Faith€Johnson€not€only€in€losing€the€previous€case€[C10„813],€but€thatÏplaintiff's€'€.€.€.€character€has€been€assassinated€unjustly.'€"€€It€is€on€the€basis€of€theÏforegoing€complaint€that€plaintiff€sought€damages€in€this€case.ÌÌà  àOn€July€17,€1997,€defendants€filed€their€motion€to€dismiss€because€ofÏfailure€to€serve€process€on€the€defendants€TAMCO€or€South€Central€VillageÏApartments€in€compliance€with€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€Rule€4;€and€among€otherÏgrounds,€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted.€€Defendants'Ïargued€at€trial€that€Tennessee€does€not€recognize€a€private€cause€of€action€forÏ"perjury."€€Defendants€sought€dismissal€of€the€case€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.ÏRule€12(4),€(5),€and€(6).€€Filed€simultaneously€with€this€motion€were€defendants'Ïapplication€for€a€protective€order€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€26,€and€applicationÏfor€injunctive€relief€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€65,€"prohibiting€the€plaintiff€fromÏmaintaining,€pursuing,€or€initiating€any€action€in€any€court€against€theseÏdefendants€for€claims€associated€with,€arising€out€of,€or€relating€to€those€claimsÏwhich€were€raised€or€should€have€been€raised€in€the€plaintiff's€prior€action€styledÐ ø"H& Ðò òòòRobert€t.€Irvin€v.€Tennessee€Management€Company,€Inc.,€et€aló óóó€.€.€.€".Ð $à( ÐÌà  àOn€July€22,€1997,€plaintiff€filed€a€motion€for€the€trial€judge,€HonorableÏJames€E.€Walton€to€recuse€himself€from€the€case,€alleging€"€.€.€.€that€he€has€filedÏa€complaint€against€Judge€Walton€that€is€currently€being€investigated.€€Also,Ïplaintiff€will€seek€Judge€Walton€as€a€witness€in€the€hearing€against€FaithÏJohnson."ÌÌà  àNothing€further€appears€in€the€trial€record€relative€to€the€motion€toÏrecuse€until€the€order€of€Judge€Walton€following€the€August€1,€1997€hearing.ÌÌII.à  àòòRecusalóóÐ 6k1> Ðà  àAs€to€the€recusal€motion€the€court€found:ÌÓ€ÓÓE"° ,X°4ö ìp X°,X°4ì“XEÓà8  à(1)à Æ àThis€matter€was€previously€presented€to€this€court€inÐ K9›4B ÐCivil€Action€No.€C10„813,€which€was€tried€on€March€15,Ï1996,€at€which€time€this€court€assessed€the€credibility€ofÏwitnesses€and€other€evidence€and€made€appropriate€findingsÏof€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€based€on€its€evaluation€andÏconsideration€of€the€evidence€and€testimony€presented;Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à(2)à Æ àA€final€order€was€entered€dismissing€plaintiff's€action;Ð  P ÐandÐ  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à(3)à Æ àThe€plaintiff€has€shown€no€reasonable€error€that€wouldÐ  p Ðprevent€this€court€from€hearing€and€resolving€the€motionsÏpresented€according€to€the€applicable€rules€of€law.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€ÓÌà  àThe€foregoing€constitutes€the€entirety€of€the€record€before€the€trial€courtÏon€the€motion€to€recuse.ÌÌà  àIn€his€brief,€Mr.€Irvin€seeks€to€set€"facts"€before€this€court€not€appearingÏin€the€trial€record.€€While€we€acknowledge€the€liberal€construction€to€be€accordedÏto€pro€se€pleadings,€this€liberal€construction€does€not€allow€us€to€consider€facts€notÏproperly€contained€in€the€record€on€appeal.ÌÌà  àIt€is€well€settled€in€Tennessee€that€the€question€of€recusal€rests€in€theÏsound€discretion€of€the€trial€judge€and€should€not€be€reversed€on€appeal€unless€theÏrecord€reveals€a€clear€abuse€of€that€discretion.€€ò òòòState,€ex€rel.€Phillips€v.Ð è!8! ÐHendersonó óóó,€220€Tenn.€701,€423€S.W.2d€489€(1968).€€The€question€that€must€beÐ ƒ#Ó# Ðconsidered,€therefore,€is€whether,€based€on€the€record€before€us,€Judge€Walton'sÏrefusal€to€recuse€himself€amounts€to€an€abuse€of€discretion.ÌÌà  àThis€court€can€find€no€abuse€of€discretion€on€the€part€of€the€trial€judgeÏin€refusing€to€recuse€himself.€€The€whole€basis€of€the€recusal€motion€seems€to€beÏthat€the€trial€judge€has€decided€the€issues€in€this€case€and€the€issues€in€the€previousÏlitigation€against€the€appellant.€€As€further€grounds,€the€appellant€relies€upon€hisÏown€action€in€apparently€filing€a€complaint€before€the€Court€of€the€JudiciaryÏagainst€the€trial€judge.€€He€further€relies€on€his€apparent€desire€to€call€the€trialÏjudge€as€a€witness.€€This€latter€point€has€been€directly€addressed€by€the€SupremeÏCourt€of€Tennessee€and€is€held€not€to€be€a€basis€for€recusal.€€ò òòòState,€ex€rel.€PhillipsÐ 5^09 Ðv.€Hendersonó óóó,€220€Tenn.€701,€707,€423€S.W.2d€489,€492€(1968).Ð ©6ù1; ÐÌà  àOne€of€the€leading€cases€in€Tennessee€on€this€subject€provides€a€clearÐ Ü9,5? Ðcogent€and€convincing€answer€to€recusal€in€this€case.ÌÓ€Óà8  àà Æ àIt€is€also€insisted€that€the€trial€judge€was€personallyÏprejudiced€against€defendant€because€of€the€facts€which€hadÏtranspired€during€the€trial€of€the€case€of€State€v.€J.€E.€White;Ïalso€on€the€motion€for€continuance,€and€the€motion€for€newÏtrial.€€Several€of€the€states€of€the€Union€have€statutes€upon€thisÏsubject,€laying€down€the€rule€that€this€will€make€a€judgeÏincompetent.€€We€have€no€such€statute;€moreover,€we€doubtÏthe€policy€of€such€legislation.€€It€is€entirely€conceivable€thatÏan€upright€and€honest€judge€may€decide€justly€and€impartiallyÏas€between€his€bitter€personal€enemy€and€his€warm€personalÏfriend,€administering€the€rules€of€law€without€fear€or€favor.€ÏSuch€a€situation€should€be€left€to€the€personal€delicacy€of€theÏjudge,€and€not€be€a€matter€of€absolute€law.€€It€is€easy€toÏconceive€that€under€the€opposite€rule€an€upright€and€impartialÏjudge€would€often€be€recused€by€affidavits€as€to€his€personalÏprejudices€against€one€party€or€the€other,€to€the€greatÏdetriment,€embarrassment,€and€delay€of€the€administration€ofÏjustice.€€It€is€exceedingly€easy€for€litigants€and€counsel€toÏimagine€that€a€judge€is€prejudiced€against€a€party,€or€againstÏhis€counsel,€who€has€failed€to€successfully€prosecute,€orÏsuccessfully€defend,€any€one€or€more€cases.€€It€is€an€infirmityÏof€human€nature€that€counsel,€whose€feelings€and€personalÏinterests€are€deeply€enlisted€in€every€important€case€they€try,Ïare€frequently€unable€to€attribute€want€of€success€to€theÏinherent€weakness€of€the€case,€or€to€their€own€shortcomingsÏin€the€management€of€it.€€It€is€a€matter€of€general€knowledgeÏamong€lawyers€that€the€refuge€of€defeated€counsel€is€far€tooÏoften€abuse€of€the€court,€referred€to€pithily€by€lawyers€asÏ"cussin'€the€court."€€When€the€tide€turns,€and€success€crownsÏthe€effort€of€previously€disappointed€counsel,€his€opinion€ofÏthe€intelligence,€learning,€and€probity€of€the€court€experiencesÏa€high,€upward€tendency.€€To€allow€personal€feelings€likeÏthese€on€the€part€of€counsel€to€determine€what€judge€shall€tryÏa€case,€it€seems€to€us,€would€be€disastrous.€€The€new€judgeÏselected€might€not€meet€the€approval€of€the€counsel€of€theÏother€side,€and€he€would€also€have€to€be€recused,€and€so€on,Ïresulting€in€a€scramble,€undignified€and€humiliating.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌò òòòIn€re:€€Cameronó óóó,€126€Tenn.€614,€649,€51€S.W.€64,€74€(Tenn.1912).Ð ¨.ø)( ÐÌÌÓ€Óà  àUnder€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€10€Cannon€3€C,€a€judge€shouldÏdisqualify€himself€in€a€proceeding€in€which€his€impartiality€might€reasonably€beÏquestioned.€€The€record€in€this€case€discloses€no€basis€on€which€the€impartialityÏof€the€trial€judge€might€reasonably€be€questioned.ÌÌà  àClearly€the€motion€to€recuse€in€this€case€is€without€merit€and€certainlyÐ Ò9"55 Ðthe€refusal€of€the€trial€judge€to€recuse€himself€was€not€an€abuse€of€discretion.ÌÌà  àIt€is€also€clear€that€just€as€in€ò òòòWiseman€v.€Spaldingó óóó,€a€recusal€by€the€trialÐ à0 Ðjudge€in€this€case€would€be€an€exercise€in€futility.€€As€in€this€case,€ò òòòWiseman€v.Ð { Ë ÐSpaldingó óóó€involved€an€appeal€from€the€action€of€a€trial€judge€in€sustaining€a€motionÐ  f Ðto€dismiss€because€the€complaint€failed€to€state€a€cause€of€action€upon€which€reliefÏcould€be€granted.€€This€is€a€pure€question€of€law,€and€on€appeal€the€ò òòòWisemanó óóóÐ I™  Ðcourt€affirmed€the€trial€judge.€€In€answer€to€the€complaint€of€the€appellant€aboutÏthe€failure€of€the€trial€court€to€recuse€itself,€the€court€in€ò òòòWiseman€óóó óobserved:Ð |Ì  ÐÓ€Óà8  àThe€ruling€of€the€trial€judge€was€one€of€law€in€which€thisÏcourt€concurs.€€It€would€not€be€in€order€for€this€court€to€setÏaside€a€correct€ruling€of€law€on€grounds€of€alleged€prejudiceÏwhen€to€do€so€would€be€an€exercise€in€futility.€€It€would€be€anÏidle€gesture€to€reverse€and€remand€for€a€ruling€by€anotherÏjudge€when€his€ruling€must,€per€force,€be€the€same,€else€thisÏcourt€would€reverse€and€correct€on€appeal.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌò òòòWiseman€v.€Spaldingó óóó,€573€S.W.2d€490,€493€(Tenn.Ct.App.1978).Ð —ç ÐÌÓ€ÓÌà  àWhile€the€record€indicates€that€service€of€process€on€the€appelleeÏTAMCO€was€insufficient€under€rule€4.04(4)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilÏProcedure,€this€issue€was€not€addressed€by€the€trial€court€in€the€final€judgment€inÏthis€case€as€the€trial€court€granted€a€rule€12.02(6)€motion€with€no€disposition€madeÏas€to€insufficiency€of€service€of€process€under€either€rule€12.02(4)€or€12.02(5).ÌÌIII.à  àòòPerjuryóóÐ á(1$* Ðà  àConstrued€in€the€most€liberal€manner€possible,€the€complaint€ofÏappellant€purports€to€be€a€civil€action€against€defendants€based€solely€upon€allegedÏperjurious€testimony€of€the€defendant€Faith€Johnson€in€previous€litigation€beforeÏthe€Circuit€Court€of€Montgomery€County.ÌÌà  àAn€action€at€law€will€not€lie€to€recover€damages€for€perjury€alleged€toÏhave€been€committed€in€a€former€case€in€which€the€plaintiff€might€have€beenÏinterested.€€ò òòòFelts€v.€Paradise,€et€aló óóó,€178€Tenn.€421,€158€S.W.2d€727€(1942).Ð ¡5ñ0: ÐÌà8  àÓ€ÓIt€is€a€well„settled€proposition€of€law€in€this€jurisdiction€thatÏthe€testimony€of€a€witness€given€in€a€judicial€proceeding€isÐ ä945? Ðabsolutely€privileged.€€Therefore,€no€civil€action€for€damagesÏmay€lie€against€a€witness€based€upon€his€testimony€in€a€case,Ïthough€his€testimony€may€have€been€damaging€to€one€of€theÏparties€of€the€law€suit€in€which€he€testified.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€Óòòò òWilson€v.€Riccardió óóó,€778€S.W.2d€450,€453€(Tenn.Ct.App.1989).Ð  P ÐÌÓ€Óà8  àUnderlying€this€general€doctrine€of€absolute€immunity€fromÏliability€in€libel€and€slander€for€statements€made€in€the€courseÏof€a€judicial€proceeding€is€a€policy€decision€by€the€courts€thatÏaccess€to€the€judicial€process,€freedom€to€institute€an€action,Ïor€defend,€or€participate€therein€without€fear€of€the€burden€ofÏbeing€sued€for€defamation€is€so€vital€and€necessary€to€theÏintegrity€of€our€judicial€system€that€it€must€be€madeÏparamount€to€the€right€of€an€individual€to€a€legal€remedyÏwhere€he€has€been€wronged€thereby.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌò òòòJones€v.€Triceó óóó,€210€Tenn.€535,€541,€360€S.W.2d€48€(1912).Ð Ó# ÐÌÓ€ÓÌà  àÓ€Óà € àà0  àà € àà  àThe€fact€that€cases€of€hardship€may€arise,€and€persons€who€have€beenÏdefamed€in€the€course€of€judicial€proceedings€may€be€left€remediless€isÏno€reason€why€a€wholesome€legal€principle,€founded€upon€reasons€ofÏpublic€policy,€should€be€overthrown.€€A€multitude€of€instances€might€beÏcited€where€the€rights€of€the€individual€are€required€to€be€sacrificed€forÏthe€public€good."Ð  T$ T$ Ðà8  àÐ  Ð  Ð  Ðò òòòCrockett€v.€McClanahan,€ó óóó109€Tenn.€518,€530,€72€S.W.€950ñöñ,€953ñöñ€(1903).Ð ý"M ÐÌÓ€ÓÌà  àThus,€the€action€of€the€trial€court€in€sustaining€the€motion€to€dismissÏunder€rule€12.02(6)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€because€of€failureÏof€the€complaint€to€state€a€cause€of€action€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted€wasÏa€correct€action€and€is€affirmed.ÌÌà  àWhile€under€the€record€in€this€cause,€the€action€of€the€trial€court€inÏgranting€the€protective€order€to€the€defendant€concerning€discovery€underÏTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€26.03(1)€and€(4)€was€well€within€theÏdiscretion€of€the€trial€court;€the€propriety€of€such€action€is€rendered€moot€by€theÏaction€of€the€trial€court€in€sustaining€the€motion€to€dismiss.ÌÌIV.à  àòòExtraordinary€ReliefóóÐ ?838 Ðà  àOf€more€concern€is€the€action€of€the€trial€court€reflected€by€the€finalÐ ×9'5: Ðparagraph€of€its€judgment€in€this€case€wherein€it€is€stated:ÌÓ€Óà8  àIt€is€further€ordered€that€the€defendant's€application€forÏinjunctive€relief€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilÏProcedure€65€is€granted€and€the€plaintiff€is€forever€enjoinedÏand€restrained€from€filing€any€further€actions€relating€to€theÏissues€of€whether€Faith€Johnson€and/or€Louise€Irvin,€theÏplaintiff's€mother,€committed€perjury;€the€plaintiff€is€notÏotherwise€barred€from€filing€a€new€cause€of€action€which€heÏmay€have,€if€any.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€Óà  àDefendants€filed€in€the€trial€court€an€application€for€injunctive€reliefÏunder€Rule€65€seeking€to€prohibit€the€plaintiff€".€.€.€from€maintaining,€pursuing,Ïor€initiating€any€action€in€any€court€against€these€defendants€for€claims€associatedÏwith,€arising€out€of,€or€relating€to€those€claims€which€were€raised€or€should€haveÏbeen€raised€in€plaintiff's€prior€action€styled€òòRobert€T.€Irvin€v.€TennesseeÐ 8ˆ ÐManagement€Co.,€Inc.,€et€alò òóó,€ó ó€Circuit€Court€for€Montgomery€County,€case€no.Ð Ð  ÐC10„813."ÌÌà  àThere€is€no€testimonial€record€before€the€court€as€to€the€mattersÏoccurring€at€the€August€1,€1997€hearing€on€the€defendant's€application€forÏinjunctive€relief.€€As€to€this€portion€of€the€case,€the€order€of€the€trial€court€enteredÏfollowing€the€August€1,€1997€hearing€states:ÌÓ€Óà8  àBased€upon€this€courts€review€of€the€record€in€this€cause€andÏrelated€causes,€and€based€upon€statements€of€the€parties€inÏwritten€motions€and€that€the€hearing€of€these€motions,€thisÏcourt€finds€.€.€.Ð  Ð  Ð  Ðà8  à(3)€the€plaintiff€has€filed€numerous€motions€and€petitions€withÏthis€court€in€this€case€and€in€civil€action€no.€C10„813,€and€theÏlaw€suit€filed€in€this€matter€has€no€basis€under€Tennessee€law;Ïand€(4)€the€plaintiff€is€harassing€these€defendants;€Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓ€ÓÌà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing€recitation€the€court€granted€injunctive€reliefÏforever€prohibiting€appellant€from€filing€further€actions€relating€to€issues€ofÏwhether€Faith€Johnson€and/or€Louise€Irvin€committed€perjury.ÌÌà  àThere€are€no€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€made€by€the€trialÏcourt€as€required€by€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€65.04(6)€and€52.01.ÌÌà  àWhile€this€court€is€cognizant€of€previous€actions€taken€by€appellant€thatÐ N9ž4< Ðapparently€form€the€basis€for€the€extraordinary€injunctive€relief€granted€by€the€trialÏcourt,€there€is€no€record€before€the€court€sufficient€to€provide€for€a€meaningfulÏreview.€€The€injunction€issued€is€a€permanent€injunction€albeit€limited€in€its€scope.ÌÌà  àArticle€I,€section€17€of€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee€provides:€€"à8 @–" àThatÏall€courts€shall€be€open;€and€every€man,€or€an€injury€done€him€in€his€lands,€goods,Ïperson€or€reputation,€shall€have€remedy€by€due€course€of€law,€and€right€and€justiceÏadministered€without€sale,€denial,€or€delay."ÌÌà  àIn€this€case€it€is€not€necessary€to€attempt€to€establish€the€limitations€onÏaccess€to€the€courts€that€in€an€individual€case€may€be€constitutionally€imposed.€ÏIt€is€only€necessary€to€address€the€question€in€the€case€at€bar€as€to€whether€or€notÏthe€record€before€the€court€supports€the€grant€of€injunctive€relief.€€It€does€not,€andÏinsofar€as€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€granted€permanent€injunctive€reliefÏagainst€appellant,€the€order€of€the€trial€court€is€vacated.ÌÌà  àIn€all€other€respects€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€and€costsÏof€appeal€are€taxed€against€the€appellant.ÌÌà  àThe€case€is€remanded€for€collection€of€costs€and€any€other€proceedingsÏnot€inconsistent€with€this€opinion.ÌñÿñœñÿññùñÌñùññÿñ›ñÿññÿññÿñÌÌÓ€Óà  àà Æ àà ¼ àà è àà @ àà ð àà H! àà  # à¼à  àà Æ àà ¼ à______________________________Ìà  àà Æ àà ¼ àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEà  # àÐ x+È&0 ÐÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌñÿñœñÿññøñÌñøññÿñ›ñÿññÿññÿñÌ_________________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€ñÿñœñÿñJUDGEñúñÐ H9˜4= ÐÐ H9˜4= ЛÐ H9˜4= ÐÐ H9˜4= ЛÐ H9˜4= ÐÐ H9˜4= ЛÐ H9˜4= Ðñúññÿñ›ñÿññÿññÿñ