State of Tennessee on relation objects to favor being shown respondent Barnes by a grant of time beyond the 30-day service delivery time recognized in TRCP 6.01. Such an extension would be prejudicial and bring unmerited, substantive harm to the process and right of mandamus and to state of Tennessee in the equity and due process rights in her claims.
By David Tulis / NoogaRadio 92.7 FM
[The following is the objection to the pleadings of Becky Barnes, Hamilton County health administrator, for an additional month in which to plot strategy and generate a response after having admitted already as a matter of record she is in violation of the health statute in her pretended battle against Covid-19. Nine minutes before Tulis got the motion file-stamped with the court clerk, Judge Fleenor had her order file stamped giving approval to an effective month more of time in the state-based CV-19 disaster. — DJT]
- Respondent Barnes’ claim of an excusable neglect is not to be believed in light of her work as a county employee and her calendar. She is involved in a lawsuit, was sick for seven days and took three days off. Respondent Barnes has relied on the county attorney’s office for all matters legal and has run her office under its guidance. Counsel advising her to ignore Tenn. Code Ann. § Title 68-5-104 now has the job of accounting for its neglect. The process of accounting for the lost statute, a party game, as it were, is a matter is purely legal and statutory as to its substance. Relator doubts consideration of the people’s claims has taken no more than an hour of her time in the past 32 days.
- Respondent is caught by state of Tennessee in flagrante delicto of her violation of black-letter law, which violation is followed by a train of other abuses violating the constitutionally guaranteed, God-given unalienable and inherent rights IN EQUITY of people of Tennessee and state of Tennessee. These violations fill her daily schedule in abuse upon the people, such as misuse of the PCR technique to generate fraudulent “COVID-19” numbers and running a contact-tracing project while in violation of the health law.
- Delay is prejudicial, firstly, upon the right of state of Tennessee on relation to use mandamus to compel obedience to the law. Mandamus is a peremptory writ.
“PEREMPTORY. Imperative; absolute; conclusive; positive; not admitting of question, delay, or reconsideration. Positive; final; decisive; not admitting of any alternative. Self-determined; arbitrary; not requiring any cause to be shown. Wolfe v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 62, 178 S.W.Zd 274, 279.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th ed. Black’s lists mandamus in the scope of the concept of peremptory.
- Mrs. Barnes’ plea for delay offends and prejudices the process of mandamus and the entire action by state of Tennessee, as if it were a non-emergency routine equity conflict on this court’s docket. Her plea for delay, as relator stated in an Oct. 30 hearing before this court’s clerk and master Robin Miller, is an obstructing, impeding, hindering and defeating of justice and equity that state of Tennessee on relation is demanding. EXHIBIT, Affidavit of David Jonathan Tulis, Hearing Oct. 30, 2020, before Hamilton County chancery clerk and master Robin Miller, 5pp.
- The 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.
- Respondent Barnes’ plea for extra time appears against her practice. She and this cases’ other respondent in March rushed headlong into panic, emergency and urgency to overturn and abrogate the Tennessee constitution and violate Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-104. And now she asks leisure time and help to create obfuscations and noise to deceive this court in front of the people of state of Tennessee while, daily, damage against equity and the people continues without abatement?
- When used in the context of whether a party’s failure to meet a deadline is excusable neglect, “prejudice” connotes unmerited, substantive harm to the opposing litigant. Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 6.02.
- Respondent Barnes is deaf and blind to the suffering she is causing across the county. She is complicit with respondent Lee in acts interfering with interstate commerce as of March 12, with the thunderclap of abuse occurring April 2 when Gov. Lee placed the entire state under house arrest and halted commerce and travel across the state, in defiance of Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-1-201, which states that mitigation of a contagion be done with “with the least inconvenience to commerce and travel, prevent the spread of the disease.”
- Respondent Barnes’ role in inconveniencing commerce and travel has injected $2.5 billion of red ink into a major county employer and hub of business, namely Hamilton Place Mall. Its owner, CBL, this week filed for bankruptcy protection as a result of Barnes’ panic, haste and breach of fiduciary duty wrecking the retail world and scaring away customers put into panic and dread by her acts apart from science, evidence or determination of the cause of the contagion as required by law.
- The State of Tennessee, on relation, objects to any extension of time, more specifically:
- Respondents, having the lawful, legal, and moral burden have failed to evidence compliance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-104, since before March, 2020. An extension of time violates Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-104, requiring evidence of compliance before the legislature provided for any jurisdiction, authority, or right to act, or to defend.
- The respondent has no equity, no clean hands.
- The respondents are in breach of public trust.
- The respondents have no lawful title in the matter.
- The respondents have no lawful title in the property of people they irreparably harm.
- The respondents are without lawful warrant or title to interfere or infringe the property or fundamental an appurtenant rights of the relator or the people or to give any third party control those property or rights.
- The motion provides no basis for using the enlargement Rule 6.02.
- The relator did not intend, and the summons did not provide to the respondents the right to enlarge the 30 days time to respond to the petition, but did give notice that, “on or before thirty (30) days after service” “If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint.” Delay renders the summons a prejudicial worthless formality.
- This court’s failure to immediately render judgment in favor of the state, on relation, is a prejudicial denial of due process and of the property and rights of the relator, the people and state of Tennessee.
- If allowed to be heard, notwithstanding this objection, the motion is not timely. Mrs. Barnes was served personally Oct. 5, and her 30-day toll for response was midnight Nov. 4. Her attorney contacted state of Tennessee Nov. 5 at 8:24 p.m. by email asking if relator would object to Barnes’ getting more time. Relator indicated he would “strenuously” object, and Barnes filed an amended motion reflecting relator’s coming objection. Contrary to the assertion of respondent, both respondents are in default. Respondent Lee has not given notice to this court as to his agent and counsel; relator has no word of a response as of Monday midnight, Nov. 9, his deadline.
- The Barnes motion provides no evidence of a right to enlargement. If the basis is the rule itself, then relator challenges the lawfulness of the rule providing that the intent of the Rule is to be so liberally construed as to extend to wrong-doers doing wrongly providing more time to commit irreparable harm; in this matter, challenging a discretionary allowance where it is not deserved by those such as the respondents in breach of duty, trust, and law, no evidence to the contrary existing since March 2020, and no effort by respondents to provide any evidence to the contrary, or even hinting at compliance with the law, in this case Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-104, or any intention to try even just a little bit to protect the people of Tennessee and secure to them their rights and property to them, or that clearly causes material prejudice to the substantial rights of the state, on relation.
- The rule allowing enlargement ought not to be quite so liberal as to allow ongoing breaches of law causing irreparable harm as respondents cause the state, the relator and the people of Tennessee.
- Respondent Barnes does not offer good cause or excusable neglect, but premeditated pretense and pretext.
- There is no reason offered that enlarging the time to respond to the petition for writ of mandamus to arrest unwarranted irreparable harm is or can be justified.
- The motion for delay is further and continuing harassment of the people of Tennessee while they are irreparable harmed without remedy for that harm. There is no evidence the enlargement will not cause prejudice to the state, on relation or people of Tennessee suffering irreparable harm by petition evidence of record; At least suggesting, if not admitting to, a deliberate indifference to suffering.
- Relator challenges whether respondent’s the illness suffered was actual, given in wasn’t COVID-19 at a time respondents say everything is COVID-19, flulike symptoms, despite the lack of evidence of compliance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-104 and other laws. In any regard, illness or plans for prior out of town escapades, which ought to be reason enough to have been advanced notice prior to accepting a position of representation and of the premeditated inability to meet the obligations of the respondent to the petition, relying on this court’s anticipated unwarranted largesse, cannot prevail against the harm to the people versus the simple option of the respondent’s finding someone with the available time to spend to do justice which failure should not be the burden of the already irreparably harmed state, on relation.
- Available public records evidencing compliance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-104, since March, 2020, are immune to the offer of the respondent, and the pretense or pretext of illness irrelevant or immaterial, not excusable neglect for purpose of delaying the time to produce those records to warrant the irreparable harm respondents cause.
- The press of other lucrative business of the representative for the respondent Barnes is not a valid reason for extension of time or delay by respondent having the immediate burden to evidence compliance with the law, of which the petition is evidence of non-compliance. The respondent should have hired a legal mercenary with time enough time available to deal with such important matters of societal destruction caused by respondent and not irreparably harm the people further.
- The enlargement of time is causing and will cause prejudicial delay infringing procedural rights and those of continuing irreparable harm, the petition evidences.
- The motion’s failure to acknowledge or to deny prejudice and irreparable harm it will cause is, at minimum, the most callous disregard of obligation and duty and its effects upon the people of Tennessee witnessed by the relator thus far.
- Relator reminds this court, the petition, taken true, is evidence of respondent’s respective frauds which vitiate everything respondents may ask for until they each, having the lawful burden, do show evidence of compliance with the will of the legislature, Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-104, of which they should have ready available possession, of public record, prior to taking any official action, to provide lawful jurisdiction and authority for their acts.
- And even then, this jurisdiction each by a separate authority, duties and obligations, i.e., for respondent governor Lee, the constitution and Tenn. Code Ann. § 58-2-102 and to respondent Barnes the nature of Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-104 itself, is tempered to not cause irreparable harm, whether tangible or intangible, and then only to affect the sick enough, not every one, nor by fraud.
- The motion fails to explain how the irreparably harmed innocent is not prejudiced by extending the time for their further abuse.
- Further putting into, at least question, the good faith of the respondents, the motion comes only after the relator’s supreme court filing to check the maladministration and delay of this court on this action needing immediate redress, which nonetheless, to the surprise of the state on relation has no remedy, an injustice in and of itself.
- Maybe this court of justice can explain to the people this sort of injustice without remedy, the need for this objection as well which chancery was to avoid if intending justice?
- The respondent has not right or title to blame the number of paragraphs needed to explain the facts of the case caused by, or anticipated to, the respondent’s evasions of law on to the relator as a reason to enlarge the time to respond to a summons, if ever. If that is the complaint, then the respondent either should consider causing less actionable harm, and own up to it more quickly, or better, cause no harm at all and evidence compliance with the law when requested.
- The motion provides no basis or need or evidence for an extension. The petition is evidence of irreparable harms continuing since March 12, 2020, the continuation of which prejudices and irreparably harms relator and all people of Tennessee and is more than prejudice, injustice, notwithstanding the unsupported statements of respondent to the contrary.
- The length of the petition evidencing wrongs of the respondent is not a reason to extend the length of time to allow those abuses, but further indictment of the willfulness of respondent to continue the irreparable harms after having been given notice over two month ago by letter, if non-compliance with the law since March were not notice enough of the legislature’s will.
- Pushing every exploitation of harm to the bitter end, the representative for respondent did not timely contact relator by email for extension of time and does not evidence good faith. But yes, relator objects to any enlargement, but not because of the tenor perceived with the petition and pre-appearance motion, but because the respondent is not worthy of the extension and offers no evidence in support or good faith despite also having the burden of production and requirement to know and make these available since March.
- Given there is no lawful basis offered for not responding to the summons timely, the reason can’t be for other than delay extending the irreparable harms caused by respondents who have delayed this matter without warrant when they issued orders under color of a public health crisis without jurisdiction or authority.
- Given the acknowledgment of the motion for decree pro confesso without reference, the respondent has not explained how it cannot respond timely to the petition or the motion, despite knowing the motion for decree is a substantial pre-appearance right of the relator, wrongly, prejudicially, denied hearing by this court.
- Motion item No. 5, acknowledging the subsequent filed Motion filed to expedite the matter, i.e., the motion for decree pro confesso, without responding in opposition or objection shows no intention to be responsive and admits to the veracity of the motion before the court, prejudicially handled by the court in deprivation of the substantial right of the relator and the state, to be heard prior to appearance, and to deprive the people of the state of Tennessee to lawful due process.
- If any Rule has been used to interfere with the right of hearing, or immediate hearing, it is hereby challenged as wrongful and unlawful, notwithstanding its non-disclosure to relator and infringement of due process allowing irreparable harm to continue without immediate remedy.
- If the court were to entertain the motion for extension of the non-appearing currently defaulted respondent prior to the Motion for decree pro confesso, it would be injustice.
- The failure of the court to hear the Motion for decree pro confesso is prejudicial bias denying a valuable procedural right in the relator and the people of Tennessee to be heard prior to appearance, the motion of a Bar Association member allowing a discretionary provision to wrongly prevail over substantial rights of the state, on relation, and the people of Tennessee prolonging the unwarranted suffering caused by the respondent.
- Answering with the few proofs of compliance, required by statute to be in ready available possession, of public record, would have not been an intention to delay. Failing to evidence compliance with the statutory requirements immediately in March, after thirty-two, 32, days after prior notice by letter two months earlier is delay and intending further delay by motion.
- Motion item No. 7 appears prevaricate in that the duly served Governor Lee had not by Nov. 5, 2020, and did not in his Nov. 9 default care to contact the court.
- Moreover, item No. 7 is a confession respondent Barnes did not comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-104. The duties described in the statute do not require any intrinsic linking nor are those duties and obligation so intrinsically linked that each respondent cannot show compliance with the statute individually.
- In fact and law, to intrinsically link the respondents would violate the purpose and intent of the legislature in Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-104, an admission of respondent’s wrongdoing. The jurisdiction is created in respondent Barnes once she fulfills the requirements of the legislature. The Governor has nothing to do with those duties and obligations. Each respondent has distinct rights or obligations, liabilities, and no joint or common interest or liability, or advantage, with a party who fails to answer. Neither party has answered in the time required in the Summons — while fraud, pretense, or pretext is not excusable neglect.
- Furthermore, to admit the respondent governor is intrinsically linked to the dereliction of duty to evidence compliance with the law is sufficient to warrant issuance of the decree pro confesso and writ of mandamus.
- Fulfillment and compliance with the legislative intent of the statute is independent to that of the governor and the burden of respondent Barnes alone. This sequence of events identifying the distinctive obligations and duties is identified in the petition as an anticipated evasive response, and fraud upon this court at fact in evidence No. 176, paraphrased, relative to a report of a reportable disease, that if the governor reported, “the sky was falling,” the obligation and duty is upon the local public health official to go out and check to make sure, and before issuing any ACME “Sky Is Falling” umbrellas. Such is the singular duty on respondent Barnes pursuant to the statute respondents evade.
- Governor Lee for his part has nothing to intrinsically link to, months prior or since, in the absence of evidence that respondent Barnes complied with the law to identify the cause of a health crisis. Said another way, the public record shows no evidence, and the respondents provide none, of any compliance with the statute to be intrinsically linked to, other than to offer fraudulent pretense and pretext committed by each respondent in disrespect of each their obligations and duties under separate provisions of law.
- There is nothing in any purported intrinsically linked respondent dependencies that can invalidate the separate obligations and duties required by the statute for such criminal complicity to be valid for purposes of delay through extension of time that wouldn’t have been better served by good faith respondents immediately providing evidence of their compliance, more quickly than a fraudulent request for an extension of time to continue the irreparable harm the legislature sought to avoid in Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-104. To allow for such an excuse is, beyond fraud, a serious breach of law and trust, not limited to separation of powers principle and function.
- The state, on relation, accepts, as should this court, the confession in the motion that there is an intrinsic linkage to the dereliction of duties and obligations pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-104, as well as a confession of continuing intentional concerted wrongdoing causing the irreparable harms evidenced in affidavit of record, the petition, now suffering default and further injustice.
- The respondents, having the immediate burden, are required to respond timely with compliance with the law they admit since March and now in default to violating, evidence of which ought to have been a ready available possession, of public record, provided to this court in mere days of service of summons or if good faith were intended, not request extension for the further commission of complicit criminality or unlawful intrinsically linked dereliction of separate duties and obligations.
- Consistently, and as a potential conflict of interest with this court, the petition charges the judiciary with a separation of powers breach for not independently ensuring the Executive complied with the legislature’s will pursuant to and in compliance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-104, and the constitution of Tennessee, before adopting the governor’s action, taken without any determination of a local health authority of an infectious agent or as law more fully requires.
- That the wrongdoing respondents think they can saunter in at any time they please or only driven by the stick of a supreme court filing, as this court responded, as well, with its subsequent prejudicial order, not expediting a matter of continuing irreparable harm to the people and the state of Tennessee, while continuing or allowing further infliction of torture and terror on the people without remedy or lawful due process and asserting this is no prejudice to the people under color of justice is the height of psychopathy not warranted by any law or justice.
- As predicted in the petition, those facts taken true, for the court to agree with respondent’s motion for extension of time to abuse the people further, with its unwarranted delay and failure to hear the prior motion for decree pro confesso, it will appear to the state, on relation, that the court and the representative and respondents are working in concert to continue the irreparable harm to the people, generously, an appearance of impropriety intolerable to justice.
- The only extension of time which does not prejudice relator and the people of Tennessee is the court entering the unobjected motion for decree pro confesso, a right of the relator prior to appearance, and the writ of mandamus and other equity, in default allowing the respondents all the time statute allows when respondents or their representatives can, at their own convenience, find the time to respond to this matter of irreparable harm to the people, to set these aside, for good cause shown, or a meritorious answer under oath, but not at the further irreparable harms of the people which further delay and injustice by enlargement of time will commit them to. And not that the representative to the respondent can supply these meritorious things, and has not in her motion.
- The petition taken as true, the extension of time cannot be taken as other than delay and an unwarranted default to timely respond, causing injustice. The statute violated by the respondents requires evidence of compliance to be a ready available possession, of public record, therefore, that instead of an extension of time, a respondent acting in good faith would have provided this court the evidence forthwith, because it was already required by law to be of public record notice to the people and to remedy abuse, denied to date here.
- More time is not going to fix that continuing dereliction of duty to the people of the state of Tennessee for something that was off of the rails back in March, before the lawless excursion began. The existing 30 days’ delay after receipt of summons and petition while causing irreparable harm upon the ongoing lack of evidence of compliance, which statute requires, is manifest before jurisdiction and authority can attach is unjust, any extension of time lawlessness under color of justice — continuing crimes against the people of Tennessee.
- In sum, the motion for enlargement of time to respond to relator’s petition is not made in good faith.
- Contrary to the pretense of the motion, a prejudicial extension of time to the delinquent perpetrators of irreparable harms, justice requires the decree pro confesso and writ of mandamus issue immediately.
- By the foregoing and upon the record, relator moves this court to deny the enlargement of time extending the irreparable harm and abuse to the state and of the people and dispose this matter in default, issuing the decree pro confesso upon its motion and as to the petition issue a writ of mandamus, in the interest of justice.
- Relator demands that in any ruling against his interest and that of state of Tennessee, that this honorable court give written reasoning in fact and law.
Degringolade
