Common law rightsEmergencyFree people vs. police stateInterpositionPanic 2020

Court upholds habeas corpus in suit by 4 under CV-19 house arrest

Tony Vitolo runs Jake’s Bar and Grill restaurant in Rockwood, Tenn., and will not be ordering anyone coming in to wear a chin diaper. (Photo David Tulis)

The proper resistance to the coming techno-med onslaught against our persons and families is using two ancient remedies.

By David Tulis / NoogaRadio 92.7 FM

One is writ of mandamus — which I’m using in Hamilton County chancery to overturn Tennessee’s CV-19 tyranny at the hand of Gov. Bill Lee and a gaggle of local moof officials.

The second is writ of habeas corpus — which has brought positive results in Portugal. According to RT (Russia Today):

Four German holidaymakers who were illegally quarantined in Portugal after one was judged to be positive for Covid-19 have won their case, in a verdict that condemns the widely-used PCR test as being up to 97-percent unreliable.

Earlier this month, Portuguese judges upheld a decision from a lower court that found the forced quarantine of four holidaymakers to be unlawful. The case centred on the reliability (or lack thereof) of Covid-19 PCR tests.

The verdict, delivered on November 11, followed an appeal against a writ of habeas corpus filed by four Germans against the Azores Regional Health Authority. This body had been appealing a ruling from a lower court which had found in favour of the tourists, who claimed that they were illegally confined to a hotel without their consent. The tourists were ordered to stay in the hotel over the summer after one of them tested positive for coronavirus in a PCR test – the other three were labelled close contacts and therefore made to quarantine as well.

Unreliable, with a strong chance of false positives

The deliberation of the Lisbon Appeal Court is comprehensive and fascinating. It ruled that the Azores Regional Health Authority had violated both Portuguese and international law by confining the Germans to the hotel. The judges also said that only a doctor can “diagnose” someone with a disease, and were critical of the fact that they were apparently never assessed by one.

They were also scathing about the reliability of the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test, the most commonly used check for Covid.

The conclusion of their 34-page ruling included the following: “In view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”  

In the eyes of this court, then, a positive test does not correspond to a Covid case. The two most important reasons for this, said the judges, are that, “the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used’’ and that “the test’s reliability depends on the viral load present.’’ In other words, there are simply too many unknowns surrounding PCR testing.

This is not the first challenge to the credibility of PCR tests. Many people will be aware that their results have a lot to do with the number of amplifications that are performed, or the ‘cycle threshold.’ This number in most American and European labs is 35–40 cycles, but experts have claimed that even 35 cycles is far too many, and that a more reasonable protocol would call for 25–30 cycles. (Each cycle exponentially increases the amount of viral DNA in the sample).

Earlier this year, data from three US states – New York, Nevada and Massachusetts – showed that when the amount of the virus found in a person was taken into account, up to 90 percent of people who tested positive could actually have been negative, as they may have been carrying only tiny amounts of the virus.

The Portuguese judges cited a study conducted by “some of the leading European and world specialists,” which was published by Oxford Academic at the end of September. It showed that if someone tested positive for Covid at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher, the chances of that person actually being infected is less than three percent, and that “the probability of… receiving a false positive is 97% or higher.”

While the judges in this case admitted that the cycle threshold used in Portuguese labs was unknown, they took this as further proof that the detention of the tourists was unlawful. The implication was that the results could not be trusted. Because of this uncertainty, they stated that there was “no way this court would ever be able to determine” whether the tourist who tested positive was indeed a carrier of the virus, or whether the others had been exposed to it.

“Landmark legal ruling finds that Covid tests are not fit for purpose. So what do the MSM do? They ignore it,” RT, Nov. 27, 2020 Read more at RT.

Powerful ancient writs

Habeas corpus frees a person from a false imprisonment. Habeas is a remedy in Tennessee or any other state when one is confined without warrant or conviction or due process. Anyone who is “ordered” to stay at home without a warrant is effectively under house arrest illegally. A petition for writ of habeas corpus would free the person from confinement 

Habeas is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary 4th ed. As follows:

HABEAS CORPUS. Lat. (You have the body.) The name given to a variety of writs, (of which these were anciently the emphatic words,) having for their object to bring a party before a court or judge. In common usage, and whenever these words are used alone, they are understood to mean the habeas corpus ad sub jiciendum, (see infra.) Dancy v. Owens, 126 Okl. 37, 258 P. 879, 884; In re McDevitt, 101 Misc. 588, 168 N.Y.S. 433; U. S. v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 44 S.Ct. 54, 57, 68 L.Ed. 221; Payne v. Graham, 20 Ala.App. 439, 102 So. 729, 731. The sole function of the writ is to release from unlawful imprisonment. People ex rel. Luciano v. Murphy, 160 Misc. 573, 290 N.Y.S. 1011. The office of the writ is not to determine prisoner’s guilt or innocence, and only issue which it presents is whether prisoner is restrained of his liberty by due process. Ex parte Presnell, 58 Okl.Cr. 50, 49 P.2d 232.

Both writs are peremptory, demanding immediate attention by the court. They are the easiest to file. My mandamus operates because I enter proofs of noncompliance with Tenn. Code Ann. § Title 68-5-104, and demand chancery court to compel Gov. Lee to obey. Mandamus is a petition for a judge to compel an official to obey a law.



Two best means to overturn CV-19. The moofs are shown they have no authority. They lack power under statute to compel anything as mitigation of the supposed Covid-19 or SARS-CoV2 or CV-19.

The Tulis Report is 1 p.m. weekdays, live and lococentric.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.