I have been studying the law and the rules for the government of the courts in Tennessee, seeing how I might obtain relief for the people in my petition for mandamus, which is caught in a mire in Hamilton County.
By David Tulis / NoogaRadio 92.7 FM
My case is in the court of Hamilton County chancery judge Pamela Fleenor, an unjust judge, who has slow-balled an emergency petition that should be heard within 5 days or week.
It was filed Oct. 2 and has a hearing for dismissal Jan. 11.
Courts in Tennessee have gone ape, led there by Gov. Bill Lee on March 12 in his executive order shutting down the state and the economy, an order that hit on April 2nd when he finally yielded against the liberties of the people and, for their safety, imprisoned them in their homes.
The courts have plenary power in the Tennessee constitution that is judicial.
They also have authority that is administrative. This distinction is important because I went Nov. 2 Nashville and demanded an audience administratively with the supreme court, so it would hear by petition. They accepted the filing administratively, and dismissed it judicially for there being no order below.
The high court in Tennessee knows a lot about administrative power — and has expanded its use in leaps and bounds in the CV-19 flu season
As we reported, the exercise of this administrative power went far beyond any grant in the constitution when the chief justice Jeff Bivins and his four colleagues banned open courts, banned jury trials, medically prescribed all people in court buildings to wear medical devices (chin diapers) and participated in the mass fraud by the governor in cooperating with his mendacious theory of Covid-19.
The state of emergency in Tennessee is a fraud and a mass tort I am seeking to abate by demanding Judge Fleenor order the governor to obey the law. I am the only press platform in the state to account for what has happened with the Wuhan China virus flu, the so-called CV-19.
My journalist’s report became my legal petition, with exhibits. The story as journalism has been picked up by no other press outlet in Tennessee, not even that of my former employer, the Chattanooga Times Free Press, where I worked 24 years as copy editor. The story of a major legal contradindication to the mass theory of CV-19 is blackballed — to be expected. It would be even if I were not a rival in the press business, as a radio reporter.
Acting beyond lawful authority
The court’s authority is hugely expanded in Tennessee, starting March 13 with its first mandate, an administrative overreach that has become a head-sized cancerous tumor growing upon the head of state of Tennessee, a trembling dark mass marketed as means to keep the public safe.
The court in its 3 orders regarding Covid-19 pretends authority that does not exist in the authorities it offers in the opening paragraphs of its decrees. The authorities cited include the Constitution, the statutes, a court case that it wrote and what is called a continuity of operation plan for Tennessee courts at Rule 49.
For one the statutes on disaster deadline extensions at title 28-1-116 simply allow for deadlines to be extended during a disaster. The disaster in view in the statute is a localised event that affects the operation of the Supreme Court in the 3 sections of the state or the operations of courts in a particular county or counties. Statute does not have in view at all the handling of the tidal wave of disaster pitched by Gov. Lee in his CV-19 state of emergency.
The court’s continuity of operation plan views “a disaster that incapacitate the operation” of the appellate courts in Nashville, Knoxville, or Jackson, and says the chief justice can “enter an order activating and promulgating a disaster plan.”
The provisions are that he may extend deadlines 30 days and designate alternative filing methods. A special emergency lasts 30 days and can be extended.
The court issued orders regarding the shutdown of the court system. The first one came a day after Gov. Lee’s first executive order. That filing is March 13 and shuts down the court system with exceptions.
An April 24 makes modifications, citing the same authorities as the 1st one. In-person court proceedings are banned. In-person trials prohibited through July 3. Exceptions “must be based on extraordinary circumstances and approved by the chief Justice.”
The document says “judges are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that core constitutional functions and rights are protected.”
While the court is pushed to using video and telephonic means for hearings, opening proceedings to audio visual recording, the converting of public hearings into phone conversations effectively denies public access and privatizes legal dealings, hiding them from the public, making it impossible to know whether justice is being given, of which the U.S. supreme court warns the peril in the case Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980)
On Nov. 2 I went to Nashville and demanded from the supreme court judicially or administratively relief from maladministration of my case by judge Pam Fleenor. It followed a hearing Oct. 30 in downtown Chattanooga in which I demanded to know why my case was being slow-walked and not given the emergency treatment it deserves as my right under mandamus, called “an extraordinary writ” at common law.
In Nashville I demanded issuance of the writ of mandamus administratively, pro confesso, ex parte and without delay, in chancery, or indication as to any fault in the petition that he might amend it.
Lawsuit evokes equity claims
Equity demands an end to abuse of the people, their rights, property and estates 276 days ago as of today by lawlessness and fraudulent ultra vires mitigation activity and mandates in open violation of the law, Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-104, requiring local and state health authority to make a determination of the agent of contagion of a disease in an outbreak and make report of a first case in each county, which steps were in the proofs not done, and which steps cannot be ignored either by exercise of discretion or under a claim, frivolously made, that Gov. Lee and Mrs. Barnes don’t have “any duty” to obey said law.
My petition empowers the court with the legal and material wherewithal to throw off the invasion of its constitutional precinct by the executive branch, whereby in an act of fraud, misdesign and coercion in disobeying black-letter contagion determination statute, Gov. Lee has, aided by others breathing together with him, overthrown constitutional representative government under pretext disallowed in the constitution, article 11, section 16.
The action as demanded by state of Tennessee on relation is administrative. The Nov. 2 letter petition I gave the court seeks to evoke the court’s plenary powers administrative, the ones to which the court resorted in its March 13 order closing off the judicial system from the public, abolishing jury trials, requiring medical device licenses for people to enter court buildings and privatizing public proceedings into Zoom meetings.
If the court has the authority administratively to join in the overthrow of the republican form of government and the three-part division of power in Tennessee’s constitution, it has the authority administratively to issue the writ of mandamus to bring the constitutional crisis to a close and to restore the government to the status quo ante.
State of Tennessee ex rel David Jonathan Tulis, demanding immediate redress in administration of its claims upon the two respondents, may decide to propose to the court to decide if it was misled by Gov. Lee in the unrebutted fraud in the record, or whether it is working cooperatively with him and his conspirators.
Scribblings of Gov. Lee map
If the court was misled, that is because it assumed and believed Gov. Lee obeyed Tenn. Code Ann. § Title 68-5-104, that county health departments and respondent’s health department had done everything orderly to make a diagnosis and determination of the source or cause of the contagion, and had a basis in science for such finding as might be made to appear as evidence under law of a true threat to the public health.
If the court is innocent of the wrongs against state of Tennessee and her people as outlined in the petition, it is because of high regard for the person and staff of respondent Lee, thinking not evil of him, but well, confident he had obeyed his oath and fulfilled his Article 3 duties, that as “the supreme executive power of this state shall be vested in a governor,” section 1, that respondent Lee “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” section 10.
If the court was not misled, but sought to overthrow the existing legal and political order and to help create an absolutist administrative medico-terror state imposing police power indiscriminately upon the mass of healthy people, then the petition gives grounds for changing its mind and reversing course.
My initial filing, and possible future filings, will give the court the wherewithal administratively to change its mind and dissolve before it the map laid out by the executive branch in its seizure of power and its overthrow of representative government in violation of our history of liberty-oriented Anglo Saxon jurisprudence and the promises of the U.S. and Tennessee constitutions.
That map is a mere child’s scribblings. It is without law, without precedent in state history. It overturns the basic form of government as outlined in the people’s grant of authority to it via the Tennessee constitution, starting with the bill of rights. The map with its criss-crossing roads, arbitrary cloverloops, capricious cloverloops going in circles, highways to nowhere and yard-deep potholes puts Tennessee on a course in which the state and its agents are no longer is servants, but masters.
Respondent’s violation of Tenn Code Ann. § Title 68-5-104 overturns the government against relator and the people, claiming power for respondents to legislate administratively upon the healthy while the Tennessee code grants executive branch agencies authority only upon the sick.
Becky Barnes says she is exercising discretion in ignoring the law. Such claims are frivolous that discretion operates only within the general framework of compliance with statute.
