ChristendomCommon law rightsEmergencyFamily lifeFree people vs. police statePanic 2020

TN outlaws try to convert man into corporation in mandamus case

I file my birth certificate in the Tennessee mandamus case seeking to compel the governor to obey the law; he is pretending that I am a corporation, and not a man made in the image of God, and thus not requiring his consideration. (Photo David Tulis)
A Hamilton County health department worker sticks a swab up a person’s nose in a PCR test, a technique fraudulently used statewide to pretend to “show” a person as Covid-19. (Photo Hamilton County health department)

My court fight is a Christian ministry no different than that of a missionary. I am defending the rights of the people of Tennessee in a mandamus action in chancery court in Hamilton County, and the lawyers for the governor and the local health official are doing everything in their power to delay the action and to reduce my legal status.

By David Tulis / NoogaRadio 92.7 FM

Pam Fleenor, chancery judge

The evidence of the spiritual and theological nature of the conflict between good and evil in the CV-19 oppression is evidenced in their changing the nature of the case and also defaming me in legal documents by turning me from “a man” acting sui juris into a bankrupt corporation.

In a motion I filed Friday with judge Pam Fleenor to defeat two proposed orders drafted by health administrator Becky Barnes’ attorney, I rebuke the parties for their effort to deny my claimed high legal status as a man and insist that I am the “relator” in the State of Tennessee ex rel David Tulis v. Bill Lee, governor, et al and not a person, a natural person, an individual, a citizen, a trust, a corporation or a “pro se” claimant.

As a man, I represent the state itself and the 6.8 million people in Tennessee as men and women, in their state of innocency, as heirs of Adam in soul and spirit — before the fall, as it were, before these people might have (and probable did) become dependents, contractors, beneficiaries, subjects, borrowers or clients of the modern humanistic and corporate state. 

The court fight is for the gospel liberty of a free market and a limited representative government constrained by the state constitution and by clear black-letter law in Tennessee code annotated.

It’s not just the promises of Christ and His kingdom that I have in view as a Christian man in court. I have Christ himself, right now in physical body, right now sitting at the right hand of the Father, in his fleshly state, as a man, with the wounds of the cross in hands and feet, and the gash of the spear in his side. Christ with his nose and chin, his knees, his nose hairs and eyelashes and toenails. Christ incarnate, in two natures but without confusion.

The enemy is subtle and crafty, and if I hadn’t read my Bible, I wouldn’t have seen them defaming me and the people I represent and reducing my claims to so much background noise of no account. 

My arguments take the following form:

Relator a man, not ‘chimera’

Relator objects to trespass and seizure of his case against outlaw officeholders by their attempting to convert his person into a chimera or fiction, rather than to accept his status, unrebutted, in the affidavit of complaint, that is David Jonathan Tulis, described in his natural person, a man, sui juris, “operating on the land and in equity.” 

My filing quotes my initial complaint, filed Oct. 2, 2020, seeking to restore law and order against an outlaw Gov. Bill Lee.

The court is to “deal with [relator] as one of the people of Tennessee, not as a [legal] person”, or as styled for federal bankruptcy court in all caps naming a debtor, “but a private man claiming all of his rights, whether antecedent or pursuant to the Tennessee constitution and its bill of rights, and all unenumerated rights, as well as those recognized implicitly in that document” and that he is “without any corporate capacity.” His filing states he “denies any and all presumptions against himself as in any other character, declaring he is one of ‘the free people’ in the state of Tennessee and a citizen of this state.” And no body has answered, let alone offered evidence to the contrary, nor can any body.

Respondents — and the court — rename relator in violence to unrebutted facts, without lawful warrant in right, or title, pretendedly overturned apart from any explicit claim or evidence. Respondents and the court unite in fraudulently characterizing him a fiction, DAVID JONATHAN TULIS.

This identification of relator pretends he is operating in a fictive legal capacity, subject to the officials.

However, relator is sui juris. 

“Pro se” is a fiction he does not admit, and objects to it being imposed upon him as if one David Jonathan Tulis speaks for another David Jonathan Tulis. 

Respondents trespass the case of the State on relation fraudulently inventing parties, status, and cause refusing to name the parties properly as relator and respondent. They call relator “petitioner,” naming respondent Barnes as Ms. Barnes or Rebekah Barnes. Respondent Lee is called “defendant” or given no reference at all in the heading on Page 1 of respondent Lee’s motion to dismiss and brief, responding to an action at law not the cause petitioned on relation in equity.

Given the above abuses — and objecting to them in defense of the affidavit of complaint because of the respondent’s unwarrantable and unsupportable proposed orders in challenge, by direction of the court also ignoring the fraudulent filings at hearing — relator asserts the respondents have not ever plead or moved the court in the State’s case on relation of David Jonathan Tulis. The respondent’s improper fraudulent fascimiles are attempting to pass as responsive to relator’s petition and as fraudulent inducement. To that end, relator offers the Exhibit State of Tennessee Certificate of Live Birth for David Jonathan Tulis, a living man, not a non-living debtor legal person identified DAVID JONATHAN TULIS. 

To refer to him as any other than the evidence shows him to be is a defamation, an unwarranted character assassination for fradulent valuable advantage or unjust enrichment, a fraudulent attempt to negative the character of the relator, his cause, status, rights, and remedy, etc., an abuse of the equity principle.

Violations of a like order, now called to the attention of relator, are carried out similarly in respondent Lee’s brief and motion to dismiss. He falsely reframes the Petition in equity and for writ of mandamus filed Oct. 2 as a case at law rather than a case in equity. 

Neither Gov. Lee nor Becky Barnes the health administrator have answered my Oct. 2 affidavit of complaint seeking mandamus and a ruling in equity as to their authority to act in defiance of Tenn. Code Ann.§ Title 68-5-104. They haven’t responded to my affidavit about their fraud and disobedience and violation of their oath, and so have, at law, admitted everything.

The big hitch is an the unjust judge, Pamela Fleenor, in chancery, giving vast largesse to the respondents, to our irreparable and continuing harm.

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


One Response

  1. Dave

Leave a Comment

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