Verified Notice of Admitted Covid-19 Fraud, Liability
Comes now, David Jonathan Tulis,‡ of 10520 Brickhill Lane, Soddy-Daisy, Hamilton County, Tenn., being of sound mind and body, declares the following facts true and correct to the best of his firsthand knowledge, as follows:
Downloadable and printable version of this verified notice of lack of authority, liability (David Tulis affidavit)Download
- Gov. Bill Lee, and the local health department administrator, who since March 12, 2020, are behind demands being made upon members of the public under the pretended health care crisis Covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 or “novel coronavirus,” are acting outside the scope of their authority and in violation of Tennessee Code Ann. § 68-5-104, isolation or quarantine, which law compels their performance, the neglect of which prohibits issuance of their or any other party’s directive, order, command, mandate, imperative or other such pretended claim of authority upon members of the public, such as the party giving you notice at this public place or this place of business open to the public.
- Affiant is an investigative journalist in Chattanooga reporting on law, courts, police and other matters of public interest in the service of the public trust as protected in the Tennessee constitution bill of rights Article 1, Section 19, “That the printing press shall be free to every person to examine the proceedings of the Legislature; or of any branch or officer of the government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof.”
- Gov. Lee and the administrator of the Hamilton County health department, Becky Barnes, representing officials across the state, are under suit by me for writ of mandamus as of Oct. 2, 2020, and affiant hereby gives notice of his affidavit of complaint and petition. State of Tennessee ex rel David Jonathan Tulis vs. Bill Lee, governor, et al, Case No. 20-0685, Hamilton County chancery court, available online.
- Affiant files this suit as David Jonathan Tulis, a man aggrieved and injured by two respondents’ rejection of and disobedience to Tennessee Code Ann. § 68-5-104, and multiple provisions of the Tennessee constitution, These include bill of rights provisions that protect the exercise of religion; private conscience; the pursuit of innocent callings, professions and occupations; free speech; the press; the promise of open courts, honest government services and other benefits of a republican form and limited or constitutional representative government. Affiant filed suit when the respondents received his letters of demand and indicated they had no evidence showing obedience to TCA § 68-5-104.
- The law of which he caught them in flagrante delicto violation reads as follows:
§ 68-5-104. Isolation or quarantine
(1) It is the duty of the local health authorities, on receipt of a report of a case, or suspected case, of disease declared to be communicable, contagious, or one which has been declared by the commissioner of health to be subject to isolation or quarantine, to confirm or establish the diagnosis, to determine the source or cause of the disease and to take such steps as may be necessary to isolate or quarantine the case or premise upon which the case, cause or source may be found, as may be required by the rules and regulations of the state department of health. *** [emphasis added]
- Having rejected the statute, and making defense in court, these parties insist that they are exercising discretion and not under any duty to obey the legislative enactment.
- Respondents admit to violating the statute, insist they have authority to do so, and to date do not rebut my affidavit of fact and law. The affidavit of complaint in Hamilton County chancery court indicates that they are perpetrators of a fraud and continually and irreparably harming the relator as well as men and women in the general public, totaling 6.8 million people in Tennessee, including the man or woman putting this verified notice of lack of authority into the hands of reader of this notice.
- Affiant avers from personal research that a party who disobeys a state, local directive, mandate, order, claim, threat made by the local health department or a state official under the pretended Covid-19 state of emergency has little reason to fear; a party in any of the state’s 95 counties making commands upon healthy members of the public (who are not patients and not known to be affected by any sickness or disease) have no authority with which to make such demands, and risk their statements and enforcement of demands, threats, violence, ejection and refusal to do business with this member of the public being actionable as torts at equity, whether said acts are personally imposed or imposed by agency or proxy.
- Respondents Lee et al are under duty to mitigate any contagious condition “with the least inconvenience to Commerce and travel” and to preserve the lives of the elderly, avoid conditions that “disrupt services and everyday business and recreational activities; and impede economic growth and development,” Tennessee Code Ann. Tenn. Code Ann. § 58-2-102. It appears to affiant that any party cooperating with violation of these wholesome laws is one who acts cooperatively with fraud and lawbreaking, and shares in the wrong by assuming agency for admitted and confessed malefactors and lawbreakers.
- Further affiant sayeth naught.
‡ Creator of this document, David Tulis, at davidtuliseditor@gmail.com, is not an attorney and does not give legal advice. For such advice, contact a lawyer in an office downtown — or on another planet where the law might really matter.
Time to fight
