State of Tennessee on relation requires Hamilton County chancery court to reconsider its order assigning hearing for Dec. 2, 2020, for two of relator’s motions suffering procedural prejudice.
[In my legal action to restore the constitution, I represent state of Tennessee as the “relator,” relaying to chancery court judge Pam Fleenor the state’s grievance against violation of black-letter law and the overthrow of the constitution and the three branches of government. My suit was filed 46 days ago without action on an emergency and peremptory writ for mandamus — which writ will overthrow the entire Covid-19 terror state by insisting on obedience to the law requiring that a determination be made as to the cause and source of the contagion. This post is my motion filed Monday objecting to dilly-dallying by the court and multiple evidences of prejudice against the state and its people.]
Relator’s motions seek immediate disposition of state of Tennessee’s claims for relief; the matter before the court is in default and the enlargement of time in favor of the respondents had no stated grounds warranting the ordered prejudice to the relator’s procedural rights or prior to appearance.
1. State on relation avers prejudice to its procedural and substantive rights by assigning Dec. 2, 2020, or any future date for disposition, and to be heard and to have the court issue orders based on a foundation of the facts, law applied, evidencing reason and justice.
2. Respondent Barnes, one day after her time to respond expired, moved this court for 30 days more time to respond. Time allowed by her summons gives her 30 days, which tolled Nov. 4, 2020. She filed for enlargement Nov. 5, 2020, with an amended motion Nov. 6, 2020, saying her defense is “intrinsically linked” to that of defaulting respondent Gov. Lee, and providing other pretense and pretext instead of evidence of excusable neglect as explained in the timely filed Motion to deny enlargement and for immediate disposition, Motion to Deny, to which this court prejudicially denied due process, after notice in the respondent’s motion for enlargement.
Barnes, delinquent, asks 30 days more
3. The court filed an order Nov. 5, 2020, for relator’s expedited motion pro confesso. The order set a Dec. 2, 2020, hearing. On Nov. 10, 2020, the court issued a second order confirming the Dec. 2, 2020, hearing date, and including granting respondent Barnes’ motions for enlargement without hearing and in prejudice to relator’s procedural rights asserted in the timely filed Motion to Deny and the prior motion of procedural right before this court.
4. The court filed its Nov. 10, 2020, order 9 minutes before relator arrived at the clerk’s office to timely file the Motion to Deny. The court knew or should have known, if only for due process considerations, an objection to any enlargement was intended, also having been informed of it in respondent’s delinquent amended motion.
5. Relator reasonably perceives bias and prejudice to the relator’s diligent prosecution in this sequence and matters of record, in administration of the state’s rights and interests on relation and in determination on the substance of the people’s claims, as follows:
(A.) A hearing date set before receiving relator’s objection is prejudicial to his due process right to respond and to be heard.
(B.) Deprivation of the procedural right to have the motion for decree pro confesso heard before time for appearance is extended, denying due process and time to respond if denied, or a bum’s rush surprise of appearance at the time of hearing prejudicially assigned by this court while this matter, but for the prejudices of record caused by this court without remedy, is in default; prior motion deprived of due process, procedural rights denied, and subjecting to state on relation to delays in justice under color of lawful procedural due process extending to the respondents largesse without record for the lawful grounds, depriving the relator is anticipated in the petition that injustice by the evidence offered would happen.
(C.) Setting a hearing date approves respondent’s request for enlargement, is to relator’s prejudice to procedural rights or due process.
(D.) Setting a hearing date for a peremptory and emergency petition, for continuing irreparable harms caused by wrongdoers, officials in breach of law and duty, no evidence to the contrary, 32 days into the future is more than the appearance of impropriety given the prediction in the petition for writ on mandamus and in light of prejudices and bias against the substance of relator’s claims, especially as respondent Barnes is in default, and respondent Lee’s default, Nov. 9, 2020, came one day before this court’s order enlargement of time to respond and containing no explanation of the lawful basis or how such a discretionary order didn’t prejudice the procedural rights of the state on relation.
(E.) The court gives no reason in law or equity for its decision for a Dec. 2, 2020, hearing so that relator can see its foundation, and determine if — or how — it is not an abuse of discretion, arbitrary and capricious, or to provide notice to allow consideration of further review for purposes of prosecution of this imperative cause.
Right to immediate ruling
6. Relator has a right to a ruling on motion pro confesso BEFORE APPEARANCE of respondents, as the motion requires of a court of justice to consider the entire record as an admission and confession of wrongdoing, disobedience and disregard to black-letter law, the petition taken to be true. The court’s nonanswer = denial = lack of due process for relator = injustice.
7. As relator noted in his motion to deny delay (and, impliedly, objecting to a Dec. 2, 2020, hearing): “5. The [Oct. 30, 2020,] hearing demanded the writ of mandamus issue immediately from this honorable court on grounds that it is peremptory, compelling, nonoptional, mandatory and ministerial. In equity, mandamus has priority, and the chancellor has a clear, present and official duty in chambers to rule ex parte for immediate disposition for the state on relation forthwith”; hearing the discretionary motion of a defaulted respondent without the required oath and evidence for lawful exoneration or time for the relator to reply to such an attempt and over the procedural rights of the state on relation is an affront to the sovereignty of the state and an abuse of office, and the allowance of the abuse of the offices of the respondents. Respondent Barnes is trifling with the court.
Tulis denied right to object
8. In peremptory mandamus, the setting of a hearing date to Dec. 2, 2020, IS an enlargement of time not shown in the record to be warranted and is prejudicial to relator’s due process, prosecution or other procedural rights, such as by a motion for decree. The court’s unilateral enlargement on its own motion without grounds deprives the state on relation notice the court undertook its obligation that “To determine whether to grant an enlargement of time, the court must consider: (1) risk of prejudice to parties opposing late filing; (2) delay and its potential impact on proceedings; (3) reasons why filings were late and whether reasons were within filer’s reasonable control; and (4) good or bad faith of filer. Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 6.02., or to allow relator an opportunity to timely respond, that the record before the court would have disposed this matter immediately without prejudice to either respondent in default or by confession and in the interest in justice. [emphasis added]
9. The enlargement granted to itself, the court, is prejudicial, denying relief and justice to relator by delay increasing his and the state of Tennessee’s injuries, offering no excusable reasons and appears allowed to itself in bad faith, and where the court is not to interject itself as a party but to remain independent and of any conflict in the administration of justice. Exhibit: Chancellor Pamela Fleenor oath of office, certified copy.
10. Faithless, disobedient to law, violator of oath in substance, by acts, respondents are in default, also in process. The summons for each warns: In failure to answer timely “judgment by default will be taken against you.” Instead of immediately disposing of this matter on the record and by the motion, the court enlarged the time delaying immediately hearing to the advantage and protective cover for respondents and to the prejudice of the state on relation.
11. Relator’s facts stand unchallenged. Delay violates fundamental rights — freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, right to access the courts, freedom of harmless and innocent occupation, freedom of travel, freedom to have three distinct branches of government, freedom from executive fiat and legislation, to name a few or as the petition evidences.
12. Justice required at that time of the Nov. 5, 2020, order scheduling hearing for Dec. 2, 2020, that the court not delay further, but to issue the decree pro confesso, and the writ of mandamus, explaining the defaulted respondents could attempt a set aside, thereby ending the myriad injustices to the state on relation, and requiring the respondents proceed with clean hands under oath providing evidence of obedience to or compliance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-504, since March, 2020, or lawful reasoning as to how the legislature’s commands don’t apply, or to the strict executive branch delegation, for set aside to be considered.
Fleenor must ‘execute, not adjudicate’
13. Relator, in the interest of equity done and justice, requires the court to reschedule the Dec. 2, 2020, hearing, sooner, to the immediate disposition this case warrants on the pleadings, in respect of due process rights, to end the ongoing irreparable, and to back away from converting mandamus into an ordinary civil matter. As American Jurisprudence states at the start of a 438-page article, “Mandamus is a remedy at law whose purpose is to execute, not adjudicate, established legal rights in an expeditious manner. Mandamus strives to promote justice and to prevent irreparable harm. *** A writ of mandamus will not be issued temporarily, and it is not a punitive remedy; it merely protects civil rights and prevents unconstitutional conduct.” § 2 Nature and purpose [emphasis added]
14. The state on relation, because of the ongoing irreparable harm caused, requires the writ of mandamus issue, immediately, being 249 days delay (as of March 12, 2020) into respondent’s lawless breach of Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-104, the obedience to which respondents have provided no evidence to enjoy any jurisdiction, authority, or unquestioned or prevailing peremptory police power; allowances to respondents of which is a lawless affront to and abuse of the sovereignty of the state of Tennessee and of the people. Throwing spirit aside for a moment, in reconsideration, it ought to be repugnant to equity and justice that simply getting a government official to timely comply with black-letter law is this difficult.
15. Relator demands that in any order upon his interest and that of state of Tennessee, that this honorable court give written reasoning in fact and law, to provide evidence of the equity done.