Patriots Brigade of Tennessee

Our Website is currently under construction. Please bear with us as we perform a re-design. Thank you. ~ Patriot's Brigade of Tennessee

Christian Flag in Mosaic

The Patriot's Brigade is a gathering of individuals who have received Jesus Christ, believed on His Name for salvation and life and have been empowered by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to become the Sons and Daughter of Almighty God. (John 1:12-13)

The Patriot's Brigade's purpose and our resolve is to restore that which our Creator gave to us through our founding fathers: a Christian form of government. We pray that God will grant us the wisdom and ability to re-establish and maintain the Constitution of the United States of America as the supreme law of the land.

We take literally what God's word tells us as Christians. Ephesians 6:13-17 and 1 Timothy 6:12. We contend against evil in all of its forms. We believe as Christians, we are obligated to become educated on the Constitution and get involved in our government.



P.O. BOX 2442, GREENEVILLE, TN 37743


To the distinguished character of the patriot,

 it should be our highest glory to

add the more distinguished character

 of Christian” “Deed not words.”




Edition Six, July 2019    “Patriots defend their God and country. No questions asked.”


On June 26, 2015, when the U. S. Supreme Court made their unconstitutional decision on same-sex marriage, our own Tennessee Attorney General should have immediately called for nullification of this sinful, illegal act. Instead, through the County Technical Assistance Service (CTAS), on the very sa e da that the U. S. Supreme Court made this decision, he instructed county clerks in Tennessee that you may now issue marriage licenses to same- sex couples. Did you get that? Yes, on the same day! Here is the exact statement from CTAS:


“Dear County Clerk,


We have been advised by the Tennessee Attorney General that county clerks may begin issuing marriage licenses immediately under the U. S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell. The Attorney General will hold a press conference at 2:00 p.m. central time at which time this will be formally announced, but county clerks do not need to wait for the press conference to begin issuing marriage licenses.”


Not only was this an unconstitutional act of the Supreme Court, but this decision also violated our Tennessee State Constitution. Nearly 82% of citizens of Tennessee voted that marriage is between only one man and one woman. In 2006 this became part of our Tennessee State Constitution.


Tennessee Constitution

Article XI, Section 18 (2006)


The  historical  institution  and legal contract solemnizing the relationship

one man  and  one  woman  shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state Any policy or law or judicial interpretation purporting to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one man and one woman is contrary to the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable in Tennessee. If another state or foreign jurisdiction issues a license for persons to marry and if such marriage is prohibited in this state by the provisions of this section, then the marriage shall be void and unenforceable in this state. (Emphasis added.)


Our Governor, State Representatives, and State Senators should have been in an uproar over this violation. They took an oath to uphold this U. S. and Tennessee Constitutions when they were elected to office county clerks have taken the same oath. If your county clerk is issuing same-sex marriage licenses, ask them where in the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions do they have the authority to do this?


Soon after this decision, Representative Mark Pody created H. B. 1412 along with S. B. 1437 by Senator Mae Beavers. These two bills would nullify the U. S. Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage in the Session of the General Assembly of Tennessee. On January 20, 2016, H. B. 1412 was voted down in the Civil Justice Subcommittee. This is why it never made it through the other committees, and eventually, to the House floor for final vote by our state representatives.


As we reported in one of our previous publications of P.B.T., the Civil Justice Subcommittee had five members, three Republicans and two Democrats. It failed by a  vote of four to one. The two Republicans that voted against H. B. 1412 were First District Jon Lundberg (Bristol) and Twenty-ninth District Mike Carter (Ooltewah). The two Democrats were Fifty-first District Bill Beck (Nashville) and Fifty-ninth District Sherry Jones (Nashville). We would like to thank Ninety-seventh District Republican Jim Coley (Bartlett) for the only vote in support of H. B. 1412.


H. B. 1412 had 24 co-sponsors, 23 Republicans and 1 Democrat.  The Tennessee House has 99 members, and the Republicans have a super majority in both the House and the Senate. Where are all of our conservatives, and especially Christian conservatives, in our State who took an oath to uphold the U. S. and Tennessee Constitutions? It is our duty as good citizens to get more involved and elect statesmen instead of politicians.  We must elect those of good character and backbone who will keep their oaths and take back lost ground from those who cooperate with Satan’s plan instead of obeying Almighty God. Christianity is what made our great nation. The abominations of homosexuality and abortion will soon be our destruction. Many want to talk about the love of God, but few about judgment.


God Bless!




The foundation of our Republic and its laws are based on Christianity. Let us not fall prey to a lawless judiciary in legalizing what God and the Bible forbids.


Please enter the code:

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.

"Peaceful?" "Protest?" - A Proposal for Amending the Tennessee Constitution


June 5, 2020


Dear Select Gentlemen of the Tennessee General Assembly:


The conduct that is being done in the name of "peaceful protest" is startling!


Most actions are neither peaceful nor a protest.  Here is what our Tennessee Constitution says about it:

Article 1, Section 23. That the citizens have a right, in a peaceable manner, to assemble together for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances, or other proper purposes, by address of remonstrance.

Here is what the U.S. Constitution says about it:


Amendment I.   Ratified December 15, 1791  --  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


"PROTEST" discussed


First, let's discuss the "PROTEST."  A protest must be done WHERE the protested action was performed.  If you wanted to protest Lowe's, you wouldn't go to Home Depot or to Ace Hardware.  If you wanted to protest the police department, you wouldn't send your group to the fire department.  If you wanted to protest the Nevada governor, you wouldn't go to Atlanta, Georgia.  If you want to protest the Minneapolis police, you have to go to Minneapolis.  Thus, these so-called protests are not legitimate protests at all.  They are not protected by any Constitutional provision. 


Note:  Neither the state nor the federal Constitution authorizes a "protest," only the right to "assemble."  I assert that "assembly" is vastly different from "protest."  The Tennessee Constitution specifically indicates that the right of assembly is so that the people may "instruct their representatives" or to apply to the "powers of government" for "redress of grievances."


So you don't have an unalienable or Constitutional right to protest all police, because not all police did the thing that was unjust.  In fact, I've made the argument that the protestors are complete hypocrites, because they are doing the exact same thing of which they complain:  they are incensed that an innocent person was unjustly treated or accosted, yet they unjustly treat and/or accost others who are likewise innocent.


To summarize, in Constitutional language, "assemble" or "assembly" does not equal "protest."  When people gather at a church or assemble together in a school, they are exercising the right to "assemble," but there is no corresponding right to "protest."



"PEACEFUL" (or its various forms) discussed


There's no real argument that breaking windows, setting fires, looting homes or business, etc. is a peaceful action, so I won't insult your intelligence by dealing with this point.  It is self-evident that any conduct that results in a trespass upon private property or any destruction of private or governmental property is not "peaceful conduct."


But what if I and a few friends peacefully set up a lemonade stand in the middle of an interstate highway?  Would that be "peaceable assembly?"  Of course not.  If I did such a thing, I should be cited for a breach of the peace, and I should not be able to sue anyone who ran over me.  Similarly, if I blocked or barricaded a public sidewalk or a city street to pass out Bibles, that would likewise be a breach of the peace, even though I have a Constitutionally-protected right to freely exercise my religious beliefs. 

Thus, it is also a breach of the peace for "protestors" to interfere with the flow of traffic, whether foot traffic or vehicular traffic.  Said another way, when one exercises the right to "peaceably assemble," he cannot at the same time defeat other citizens' rights to be unmolested, to move about, to conduct business, to patronize businesses, or even exercise their own right of free speech. 


Picture the "picket lines" that unions legitimately use on a public sidewalk --- they walk around with their signs and sometimes use chants, but they must not interfere with others who want to pass by on the sidewalk, nor may they become too loud so as to disturb the general peace or even interfere with the operation of the business they are protesting.




I recommend that we do the following:

1.     We should propose legislation that absolves Citizen A from criminal prosecution and from civil liability if they harm Citizen B (or Citizen B's property) when Citizen B is protesting in a way that interferes with Citizen A's unalienable God-given rights, said rights being identified in the Declaration of Independence, in the U.S. Constitution, in the Tennessee Constitution, and in the historic English common law. 

[Note: There should be no criminal immunity if the harm is deemed to have been carried out with premeditated malice aforethought.]


2.     We should pass first a statute (because it can be implemented more quickly):

(a) which defines "peaceful" (and its various forms) so as to insure that the unalienable rights of other citizens are not infringed, and

(b) which defines "protest" in a manner where it is clear that any act of protesting against any governmental entity is illegal unless:

(1) it is done peaceably and only at a legitimate governmental office or place where the complained-of conduct has occurred. [Explained another way, we should not grant to the citizen a right to complain to someone who is not able to do something about the complaint.  I explain to my church that a person is "griping," "grumbling," or "murmuring" when they talk to someone about a problem when that person cannot do anything to resolve the problem!]

(2) it is being performed in a manner which does not interfere with the unalienable rights of other citizens, such as their right to be free from: physical and verbal molestation, interference in their movement upon their own property or upon public property, invasion and/or destruction of their property, etc.


3.     We should propose next an amendment to the Tennessee Constitution (because it will make the law organic and more permanent) which incorporates the statutory definitions of "peaceful" and "protest" as defined above.





I have long been of the opinion that there is one progressive strategy that has been more effective for their cause than any other:  they avoid the legislative process (and thus, they don't have to expend energy or funds to persuade the public of the merits of their cause), because they simply get the courts to rewrite and/or redefine Constitutional provisions and other legal terms so as to be able to claim that the "law" is on their side.  Therefore, in order to counter their strategy, we need to get some important definitions nailed down --- definitions which are, to the best of our ability, unassailable by the courts --- then we can start to slow the implementation of the progressive agenda.


Respectfully submitted,


Jeffrey A. Cobble, Esq.

Cobble Law Firm

Greeneville, TN



Jeffrey A. Cobble


1315 E. Andrew Johnson Hwy.,

Suite 5

Greeneville, TN  37745

(423) 639-6684

Constitution of the United States of America in the National Archives - by  Mr.TinDC