Free people vs. police statePanic 2020Political figures

Demand list for Lee as TN justices weigh bid to quash CV-19 rule of terror

Jeff Bivins, chief justice of the Tennessee supreme court, takes the oath among family members at his swearing in with then-Gov. Bill Haslam. (Photo Tennessee court system)

The supreme court of Tennessee has before it my petition for writ of mandamus in my effort to overturn the fraudulent state of emergency that has brought ruin, chaos and dysfunction across the state since March 12.

By David Tulis / NoogaRadio 92.7FM

Below is a list of demands included in my complaint. Please look them over and help me improve what state of Tennessee should ask for. The respondents in the case are Gov. Bill Lee and Hamilton County health department administrator Becky Barnes. But the subjects of the state’s demands, on my relation, are anyone who has played along with this worst disaster in state history, one wrought by misfeasance and oathbreaking by government officials at every level.

So let’s get to what the court has from my case. Read over these paragraphs and get back with me. I am looking into proceedings in Bailey v. Pritzger in Illinois, and as of last night had not found a demand list to which the Pritzger administration apparently consented.

Demands vs Gov. Lee et al

➤ Find that respondents are acting outside the scope of their lawful authority under statute and the Tennessee constitution, causing irreparable harms to relator, fellow Tennesseans and the state of Tennessee; 

➤ Set aside or quash, or as appropriate, any and all orders and or decrees imposed upon the people and businesses in Hamilton County and statewide relative to any COVID-19 or related subject matter;

➤ Direct respondents, or their Office, to faithfully follow the law or face contempt asserted by either the court sua sponte or on relation of the relator, where derelict of law;

➤ Require respondents to keep accurate records. The intent of this directive is to eliminate fraudulent records fraudulently used to create a color of authority which cannot exist as a matter of law and which immediately and irreparably infringes the rights and injures property and peaceful settlement of the relator, fellow Tennesseans and the state of Tennessee.

➤ By rectification, reformation, or whatever this equity court may find just, ensure the Rules reflect the legislative intent, purpose, function, etc., of T.C.A. § 68-5-104, consistent with the Tennessee constitution which the respondent(s) fraudulently, or through other wrong, breach without such correction.

A. For instance, the rule 1200-14-1-.15 (3), allowing “appropriate medical experts” is overly-broad where such purported expertise and “other current recommendations” “shall be considered appropriate control measures” are to the exclusion of the local duty delegated to them at T.C.A. § 68-5-104, to determine the infectious agent within a definite local territory, and a violation to the U.S. reservation to the IHR (2005) for State of Tennessee preemption, which respondents used as cover to commit their disaster;

B. Additionally, because “competent medical expert” or stated at rule 1200-14-01-.15 (1)(e) is “considered appropriate,” but is not adequate protection, adding to the end of the part “…and other measures considered appropriate by medical experts for the protection of the public’s health” a clause, such as “provided no report or recommendation is binding that it displaces the duty, intent, and purpose of T.C.A. § 68-5-104, to determine the infectious agent or source of contagion” or as may be added to any other provision of law or rule to ensure compliance;

C. Correct, as well, the term “susceptible” to eliminate the respondents’ acting in ignorance or by confusing a mere disease to be the extent of the intent and purpose of T.C.A. § 68-5-104, evading their duty to determine the infectious agent, violating due process and the presumption of innocence, or to wrongly infringe the rights of noncontagious people; 

D. These textual amendments to the rules, or any others which may be found by the court now or in the future, or on continuing relation, are proposed to ensure immediate objective local compliance to T.C.A. § 68-5-104, not evidenced by respondents;

➤ Maintain oversight that this sort of government-caused pseudo-crisis and disaster be prevented more quickly and efficiently to the relator or fellow Tennesseans, or within the inherent power of the Judicial branch to check the excesses of a co-equal branch; 

➤ Order equitable compensation, to the extent available to chancery, to persuade and impress the conscience of each respondent from repeating wrongs cited in this complaint, sending a message to others so inclined; 

➤ Make other redress within the power of this court to the ends justice requires, not limited to, further compensation, reimbursement, indemnification or reparation for benefits derived from, or for loss or injury caused to the relator, fellow Tennesseans or the state of Tennessee.

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


Support this project

Leave a Comment

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