CHATTANOOGA, Tenn., Dec. 2, 2020 — BE IT REMEMBERED the above-styled cause came to be heard before the Honorable Pamela A. Fleenor, Chancellor of said Court. When all parties announced ready to proceed, the following evidence was introduced, to wit:
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE COURT: Be seated. Good morning. I’m Chancellor Fleenor. We’re here today on this case of State of Tennessee, ex rel. David Jonathan Tulis, Petitioner, versus Bill Lee, Governor, State of Tennessee in his personal capacity and in his official capacity; Rebekah Barnes, Administrator, Hamilton County Health Department in her personal capacity and in her official capacity; Docket No: 20-0685.
We’re here today for a hearing on two motions: The relator’s motion for expedited decree pro confesso and for summary adjudication from the record, and the motion — an amended motion of Rebekah Barnes for extension of time to file a response to the petition, as well as the relator’s motion to deny that enlargement — which the Court deems is actually an objection. These motions were set by orders entered November 5th, 2020 and November 10th, 2020. Are there any preliminary motions or announcements?
MR. TULIS: Yes, ma’am.
THE COURT: All right. Let’s introduce who’s at the counsel table first beginning with you, sir.
MR. TULIS: My name is David Jonathan Tulis, residing in Hamilton County, and I’m the relator in this action.
THE COURT: Uh-huh. Yes, sir. Well, what — and what’s your mot —
MR. TULIS: Yes, ma’am.
THE COURT: — what’s your preliminary —
MR. TULIS: Well, preliminary matters, I would ask that under the — under Rule 2.8, Your Honor, that, that your — that your demeanor be visible. That it must be visible so that the Rule is operative. And a, a, a facemask —
THE COURT: Sir, you’re going to have to keep your mask on during this hearing.
MR. TULIS: Well, I, I object to that as a — I object to that as a prejudice against my cause and against the record in this matter, Your Honor, because the record has — is unrebutted for 61 days. And to have for your — to have a mask on suggests that
you are in agreement with the fraud and record, that you consent to it, and that we have a — we have two defaulted parties here with no standing directly and no clean hands. And, and I would ask also, if, if your —
THE COURT: All right. Your, your objection is noted. It’s denied. You must wear your mask to attend this hearing.
MR. TULIS: And, and you will wear a mask as well prejudicing my ability to see your, your expression and your demeanor, ma’am — Your Honor?
THE COURT: What’s your next —
MR. TULIS: My — yes, ma’am. Well, I have a, I have a — I’d like to make an on-the-record objection to the mask demand at the hearing.
THE COURT: You —
MR. TULIS: And I would like to —
THE COURT: That’s not —
MR. TULIS: — hand, hand you a copy of that, and a copy for other — the other parties.
THE COURT: Okay. The Court doesn’t accept the copies. You can file anything you want to file, sir. Under —
MR. TULIS: All right. Well —
THE COURT: Under Local Rule 402 you don’t give things to the Judge. File it with the clerk.
MR. TULIS: All right.
THE COURT: (As read): Submission of papers and copies. Local Rule 402. All papers to be filed or lodged including pleadings, motions, briefs, and proposed judgments and orders shall be filed or lodged with the clerk. Such papers shall not be mailed to or left with the Judge, but shall be submitted to the clerk for proper handling. No copy of any paper shall be provided to the Judge unless the Judge so requests. You need to file something, you can file it.
MR. TULIS: Yes, ma’am. Well, I, I do make an objection to —
THE COURT: It’s noted.
MR. TULIS: Okay. And, sir, could you pass these copies to the other parties, please, since it’s being filed?
THE COURT: All right. Have you filed it already?
MR. TULIS: It’s being filed now.
THE COURT: Someone has filed it for you?
MR. TULIS: My associate, I asked him to file it for me with the clerk just now. Yes, ma’am.
THE COURT: All right. Well, you can give courtesy copies. Yes.
MR. TULIS: And I would also ask Your Honor if, if I might ask the other side if they got — if they’re aware of my motion to strike and motion to dismiss?
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Sir, that’s not an announcement. So is there any other announcements or preliminary motions?
MR. TULIS: Not at this moment.
THE COURT: All right. Now, let’s go to — there are other — the respondents’ counsel table — and introduce yourselves for the record, please?
MS. KLEINFELTER: Good morning, Your Honor. Janet Kleinfelter with the Tennessee Attorney General’s office. I’m here on behalf of Governor Lee.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MS. MILLING: I’m Sharon Milling with the Hamilton County Attorney’s Office on behalf of Rebekah Barnes. And Rheubin Taylor may be here later. He got held up in traffic.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. TULIS: Objection. Your Honor, could, could I understand — be made to understand whether Mrs. Kleinfelter is here on behalf of Governor Lee in his official capacity, or is there — is she here under a separate contract for him as William Byron Lee, the man, in his primary capacity. Could, could we establish that for the record, please, her, her role?
MS. KLEINFELTER: Your Honor, I’m here on behalf of Governor Lee in both his personal capacity and his official capacity.
THE COURT: Thank you. All right.
MR. TULIS: Question. Your Honor, could it be said in the record whether there’s a separate contract for —
THE COURT: No, sir. That’s not even — no, sir. All right. Are there any preliminary
motions or announcements from the respondents’ side?
MS. KLEINFELTER: No, Your Honor.
MS. MILLING: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. All right. Then we’re going to begin the hearing. Mr. Tulis, you have a motion for expedited decree pro confesso and for summary adjudication from the record. You may argue your motion, sir.
MR. TULIS: Ma’am, the motion pro confesso was filed October the 19th, and this, this, this action was filed October the 2nd. Pro confesso motion claims that the record of violations of 68-5-104 are, are in the record — they’ve been in the record prior to the case being filed. The record of violations existed as, as, as the motion indicates, prior to the affidavit of complaint of, of the violations — open violations of
68-5-104, violation of constitutional oath, which — and all those are notice of the duty of Rebekah Barnes and Governor Bill Lee, the respondents. There’s no evidence of obedience prior to the filing of that — of those claims and prior to the filing of the affidavit.There’s no evidence even now, 61 —
THE COURT: Sir, I’m going to ask you one more time to keep your mask on.
MR. TULIS: I, I need to have a little water, ma’am — Your Honor. I’m so sorry. I, I have a dry mouth, and if I can’t have a little refreshment —
Judge orders chin diapers
THE COURT: Now you may put —
MR. TULIS: All right. So you will bear with me as I, as I do that, that motion then.
THE COURT: No, sir.
MR. TULIS: All right.
THE COURT: I will enforce the Rules of the Court which is to — the mask mandate. You may — (Simultaneous crosstalk).
THE COURT: — the mask to drink water, yes.
MR. TULIS: The decree pro confesso was not signed, though it, it was — it was argued correctly. If I understand it, the State of Tennessee on relation understands it, that the record — the record is clear about these violations. And had that, had that decree been signed, then this hearing would, would have been obviated, would not have been needed to have happened. The record is undisputed as a matter of law. Pro confesso must enter again based on, based on the complaint and based on the exhibits, Your Honor. And that, that is — that is on the route to, to mandamus, it’s on the route to satisfying the State’s claims that its public servants, the governor, respect the statute and respect, respect the law. But I’d like to — I’d like to ask why the defaults are not being discussed first in this hearing? This — this — we have two parties in default, Your Honor. Would that not be — would that not be proper, since they are in default, to deal with that first?
THE COURT: I was getting to that, sir. But —
MR. TULIS: Well —
THE COURT: — that wasn’t set by order to be heard. But I, I was going to get to that. The local — I was going to let you argue your motion, and then I was going to address the defaults as well.
MR. TULIS: I understand that, Your Honor, but it seems — it seems to be the most economic use of the Court’s time to deal with the big issues first, and those are —
THE COURT: Well, I appreciate that, but we’re going to do the order that —
MR. TULIS: Yes, ma’am.
THE COURT: — I said.
MR. TULIS: Yes, Your Honor. Well, pro confesso says that these parties are in open violation of the statute, have — and have — and that based on that, there is the authority — your authority ex parte to rule — to rule against, against them and for the State of Tennessee on relation. You have authority based on the record to rule in favor of the State of Tennessee on relation. These parties have not answered. They are explicitly outside the scope of the statute, 68-5-104, and they, they have — I mention that statute, but that is just one of, of, of several.
The one that, that — regarding the, the requirement in Title 68 for the Commissioner of Health to take mitigation measures against an epidemic that cause the quote, least inconvenience to commerce and travel, that, that also is — has been openly violated to the damage of me, personally and also to, to many other people in varying ways. In varying ways the damage is, is — from this inequitable treatment has afflicted me and many, many other people as, as, as I indicated in varying ways.
And what I don’t understand is why, why we’re not getting to the default, because those are — those really control procedurally. And in light of my procedural rights as relator, it seems that, that default should, should really be first because here, I argue pro confesso based on the record is, is — I just don’t understand how that, how that, how that can be in line. I do understand the order that you gave mentions my pro confesso. It also mentions motions by Mrs. Barnes. And I mention, I mention the, the notice of law. Law is notice to the governor.
‘Fundamental legal duty to obey law’
It is notice to Mrs., Mrs., Mrs. Barnes. They had — these men and — this man and this woman have a duty under the statute and — and that’s why, that’s why the, the writ needs to issue — the writ of mandamus needs to issue upon, upon both of them. I would say that can be done administratively and ministerially as opposed to judicially because they’re, they’re separate from this discussion. There’s a, a — my motion to, to transfer. But mandamus may issue, may lie as a ministerial act because it doesn’t have to be adjudicated that the Governor has ignored the statute and has provided no evidence of compliance with his requirements to, to have a — himself or his agents declare a communicable or contagious disease or to confirm or establish a diagnosis or determine the source or cause of disease and take such steps as may be necessary to isolate or quarantine the case or premise upon which the case may be required by the rules and regulations of the department. That’s quoting 68-5-104. And his duties are clear. His duty is, as the supreme executive, he has that power in Article III, Section 1 as the supreme executive power.
And having that, Your Honor, Governor Lee and his subordinates, and, and those inferior to him in office, shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. And in light of that notice of the statute, and in light of the record that the State of Tennessee on relation has, has entered, there, there should be a – there should be a ruling pro confesso which would enable the court, if it has authority on one or both of the respondents, to issue the writ of mandamus. Now, I would say for sure one, the local, the local respondent would be subject to mandamus after that. But that, that is something that is done ex parte just by your own reading of the doc — of the record, Your Honor. Governor Lee and — has a fundamental legal duty, and the law gives him notice of what that duty is. He has a duty to execute Title 68; and also Mrs. Barnes has a duty to honor Title 68 as well. That’s on — upon her.
And they — these parties admit they’ve ignored the law. They’ve admitted it, they — that they have no doubt some reasons for it, but it is a fraud. And pro confesso, a decree of pro confesso would recognize that that — that that’s fraud. In, in my affidavit of uncontested fact and unresponded fact, my affidavit has not been responded to by anybody and has not been contested by anybody in this room.
And they — by your leave, your prejudicial leave I would say, Your Honor, they have not answered and have — at some point, to make note, they haven’t take note that the statute applied to them. And I would say that, that, that the oath of the governor should be brought into mind because that also is notice to him that he will support the Constitution of the State of Tennessee and the Constitution of the United States; and that I will perform, he says, with fidelity and faithfully execute the duties of the office of Governor. And that includes, that includes this Title and related parts of 68-5-104. That is, it is a fraud for anyone to say — it is a fraud upon the people and upon this court for anyone to say that they’re not bound by that and to care not — to care not despite, despite the notice of my suit. My petition for writ of mandamus, Your Honor, is a notice as well. Hey, somebody’s seeing something in the law we haven’t noticed. Hey, our Attorney General hasn’t pointed out that this law binds us and we have duties under this law. Hey, some, some common person in one corner of the state has noticed that we’ve overlooked something. We better get to it.
Your Honor, that care that the statute requires of the process of dealing with an epidemic, that care was not given. And it, it is frivolous for, for, for anyone to suggest, as it has been suggested — I have gotten word of this that, that he has — he doesn’t have any duty to obey 68-5-104, isolation of quarantine. And pro confesso as, as a motion says, that the record, Your Honor, the record is, is clear. And, and the fact that it has not issued, and the fact that entries of default have not issued, are prejudicial, and I object. I object that, that Chancery, which is a high and noble and wonderful jurisdiction, has not entered default, has not entered pro confesso, and is hopefully today will be able to elaborate on other, other prejudices that the State of Tennessee has suffered in delay, in delay of my action for mandamus. Delay, Your Honor, is, is prejudicial, even if the clause is administrative. Whether it’s administrative or judicial, delay equals the statute again day by day not being honored. And that is an injustice to equity. It is wrong against the claims of equity, Your Honor. That’s why this case is filed here. This is not a case of law. It is not a case for damages. It is a case at equity. And pro confesso makes it, makes it — gives option — it empowers the Court to say yes, the record is clear, and I can rule on this before a hearing, without a hearing.
It is administrative. It is ministerial as, as another motion points out. A 430-page article about mandamus starts off by saying mandamus is not adjudicated, it is executed. It is — it does use the — in the case I read, it does use the judicial authority. But if it’s clear, it can be done administratively even by the clerk. And so that is, that is the summary of my contentions, Your Honor, on pro confesso.
THE COURT: Thank you. And along with the motion for decree pro confesso the Court notes that the relator has filed a notice and application for entry of default on Governor Lee on November 19th, a notice and application for entry of default on Rebekah Barnes on November 19th of this year, a motion for a judgment by default on Governor Bill Lee also filed November 19th, 2020, and a motion for judgment by default on Rebekah Barnes on November 19th, 2020.
Those four motions and applications for default and decree pro confesso are in the same nature as a motion for default. Ms. Barnes, the record shows, was served October 6th, 2020. It would have at least until November 7th, 2020 to answer or otherwise respond; and filed a motion for extension of time within that time period. Governor Lee was served, let the record reflect, on October 26th, 2020 and would have at least until October 20 — November 27th, 2020 to respond or answer, and they responded by filing a motion to dismiss. So all your motions for default are denied, and the motion for decree pro confesso is also denied. Now we’ll take up Ms. Barnes’ motion and amended motion for extension of time to file a response to the petition.
MR. TULIS: Your Honor, excuse me.
THE COURT: Sir, I’ve ruled.
MS. MILLING: Thank you, Your Honor. The motion is —
MR. TULIS: I can’t hear you. I’m so sorry. I cannot hear you. Can you speak in the microphone?
MS. MILLING: I can. The, the motions are clear. We have some, some time conflicts. I was in deposition for about two weeks and was ill for the week prior to that. I anticipate having our motion to dismiss ready to file by Friday. If I can have that extension of time through that date, I would appreciate it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. You may be seated. Mr. Tulis, you have filed an objection or, or a motion to deny the enlargement. I’ll hear your argument on that, sir.
MR. TULIS: Well, the enlargement, Your Honor, rises from my understanding that the 30 days for Rebekah Barnes was the 4th. That was 30 days. She was personally served, and so that would not be — that would not be — the 7th you said. I’m not sure where that came from, but 30 days for her having gotten my summons personally would put that date on the 4th. And we heard from Mrs. Milling the day, the day after; and that’s why my, my anger on part on behalf of the people of Tennessee and the State of Tennessee in, in this is, is rising it to a point of making objection to the
enlargement of time. We have to understand what this action is. This is a peremptory action. Mandamus is peremptory. It does not come as a docket item in your docket with your, your probates, your contract disputes. It comes before, before all. And Robin Miller, in a hearing on October 30, more or less said that. She said yes, it comes —
THE COURT: Sir, there have been no hearings in this case until today.
Mandamus demands immediate action
MR. TULIS: Well, yes, ma’am. But there was a meeting that was converted into a hearing as my, my affidavit indicates. But, but it is, it is first on the docket. And so to have, to have a, a delay outside the rules which are — is 30 days. And the summons —and the summons is very clear. She has 30 days. And that, that clock fell on the 4th. It did not fall on the 7th. It did not fall on the 7th. 30 days after her receipt. She was served on the 6th, October 6th. Count the days. And her default was at midnight — her default was midnight, November 4. And, and then I spoke with Ms. — Ms. Milling contacted me the next day thinking that she had more time.
Well, she doesn’t have more time. And the fact that, that it took at the very end of the toll of the clock for there to be some response indicates the, the, the manner in which this matter has been treated. There has been slow regard of the law, slow regard to due process, slow regard of the rules of the court that are intended so that justice, justice may be administered. The rules are there to get things moving. And the action here is all about immediacy. Mandamus is an immediate intention. It is a common law power, a very powerful writ like habeas corpus, and it does not rule alternatives. It does not come later.
It is not something that, that is to be delayed. It is compelling. It is immediate. Just a moment. Mandamus is peremptory and compelling as I, as I indicated. It displays the items in the docket and it is — to, to use other adjectives about what mandamus is. But the standard in Tennessee is demanding the issue from this court. It is non-optional. It is, it is ministerial. It is exec — as I, as I said earlier, it is executed, not adjudicated; and that’s because the, the rules that apply to the officials in question, the errant lawbreakers, the scofflaws, is not to be doubted. It is an emergency writ. And here, thinking that we can delay, delay while the people are being injured and I’m being injured is, is improper; and I object to delay. I’ve objected to delay throughout. And in many ways mandamus is nondiscretionary.
There is no, there is no choice that Chancery here or Chancery in Davidson County have. They have to compel obedience. They have to compel compliance with the statute. The Court cannot, I suggest, show largess and leave to outlaws and scofflaws the dereliction of duty violating 68-5-104, which they have already violated for 2 — 265 days. That’s when the first executive order was issued, Order No. 14, March the 12th. 265 days of statute that’s there to safeguard my due process rights. And I’m being materially damaged and injured by that violation continuing. I’m materially damaged. And I speak as the state of Tennessee on the — on behalf of others who are also damaged — though it may be in many different ways. There are different ways of damage. I have an affidavit of — in my exhibits. My first exhibit is my affidavit of injury. And it has five, five injuries that I’ve suffered on account of, of the governor’s dereliction of duty under 68-5-104. I’m asking this court to realize that in, in equity, mandamus takes priority. There is a clear — a clear and official duty in equity for this, this court to rule ex parte. However, it may be on both or either of the parties and to give immediate disposition to the state on relation, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Would you — excuse me. I’m going to get my calendar. Could you bring me my 2021 calendar, please? All right. The Court grants your motion for extension of time.
MS. MILLING: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And you have until December 4th, this Friday, at 4:00 to file your answer or otherwise respond. Now, we have other motions that have been filed after these motions were set for hearing. I’d like to select a date for hearing on those motions — and these will be heard telephonically. As the prevailing party under the local rules, would you please prepare that order granting you the extension of time till Friday the 4th?
‘Phone hearing set’ in January, 101 days after filing
MS. MILLING: I will, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you. All right. I have Monday, January 11th that I can start at 9:00 — is the first day I have some significant time for the motions. The next time that I would have would be the afternoon of January 19th. Are the parties available on Monday the 11th at 9:00 by telephone? That’s 9:00 Eastern.
MR. TULIS: What date is that again? I’m sorry.
THE COURT: Monday, January 11th.
MS. KLEINFELTER: Your Honor, I’m available until — I guess it would be 12:00 Eastern time. I have another hearing at 11:00 Central time, so — but I would be available from — I guess from 8 my time till 11 my time — or 9 to 12 your time.
THE COURT: Well, then, we can get it in the morning.
MS. MILLING: And I’m available both those times, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Tulis, are you available?
MR. TULIS: Yes, ma’am. Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. So we’re setting the hearing on the — I’ve denied the motions for default. I’ve denied the motion for decree pro confesso. I’ve granted the motion and amended motion to extend. It appears to me the only motion left is the motion to dismiss at this time, so let me ask counsel for Ms. Barnes. Do you anticipate you won’t be filing an answer, you’ll be filing a motion to dismiss?
MS. MILLING: I will be filing a motion to dismiss.
MR. TULIS: All right. Then we’re setting that also for January 11th at 9:00.
MS. MILLING: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: We’ll hear both motions.
MR. TULIS: Your Honor, I object.
THE COURT: In what — on what grounds, sir?
MR. TULIS: I object to Governor Lee’s counsel being here without, without her being properly presented to the Court or to me; and she has not presented herself to this court. And I don’t know who she is. I don’t know what standing she has to, to address these matters.
THE COURT: All right. All right. It’s overruled. So the motions to dismiss will be set for 9:00 Eastern on Monday, January 11th, 2020 at 9:00 to be heard telephonically. I have a bridge line. I will put in the order the telephone number to call in, and the participant code which will ask you to enter the hearing at the time set, which will be 9:00. Is there any further business to come before the Court?
MR. TULIS: Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. TULIS: I’m sorry. Go ahead.
MS. MILLING: I was going to say —
MR. TULIS: Your Honor, what about my motion to strike motion to dismiss and in the alternative, motion for misjoinder and transfer?
THE COURT: All right. Sir, that — the Court considers that an objection to the motion to dismiss and will certainly be heard at the same time on January 11th.
MR. TULIS: Okay. So my motion will be heard if I — do I understand correctly?
THE COURT: Yes, sir. I will put that in my order, make sure it’s clear that it’s actually — the Court deems that an objection to the motion to dismiss.
MR. TULIS: Yes, ma’am.
THE COURT: And it certainly would be heard as a response to the motion. Just as I allowed you to — your motion to deny enlargement of time, I deem as a response or an objection to their motion. Yes, that will be heard. I’ll make that clear in my order.
MR. TULIS: And there’s another motion, Your Honor, that has not been mentioned, and that is —
THE COURT: The motion —
MR. TULIS: — my motion to reconsider the enlargement.
THE COURT: Well, obviously that’s denied as moot. We did not — I, I denied — we had the hearing today. And we have to put — I have to put everybody on notice, and I have to give them time to respond based on the times things were filed. So the motion to reconsider hearing order and for immediate disposit — disposition which the relator filed on November 16th is also denied. Your motion to object to
the dismissal, the motion to dismiss will be heard on the 11th. All right. If there’s nothing further to come before the Court, this concludes — Did you have something, ma’am?
MS. KLEINFELTER: I just was wondering —
THE COURT: Yes, ma’am.
MS. KLEINFELTER: — who the Court wanted to prepare the order —
MR. TULIS: Can’t hear. I’m sorry. I cannot hear you. Speak up.
MS. KLEINFELTER: Who the Court wanted to prepare the order on the motion pro confesso.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you for doing that. Yes. I’ll — if the State can prepare
that, because under the local rules, the prevailing party — the AG, I should say.
MS. KLEINFELTER: I’ll be glad to prepare that order, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. And I’ll, I’ll give you that Rule.
MR. TULIS: I’m sorry. I cannot hear you.
THE COURT: Local Rule 5.01. (As read): Unless otherwise ordered, in every cause or a motion disposed of by an oral ruling of the Court — such as today — counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare the order or judgment, and the Clerk shall prepare, in probate cases, orders confirming reports of the Master on accountings and settlements, authorizing the initial issuance of letters, and referring exceptions to claims year’s support, homestead, exempt property, and elective share to the Master. So as the prevailing party under the local rules if you can prepare those orders denying the motion for decree pro confesso and the motions for default against Governor Lee; and if you’ll prepare the motions of the order denying the motions for default against Ms. Barnes.
MS. MILLING: Thank you, Your Honor.
MS. KLEINFELTER: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
MR. TULIS: Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. TULIS: Why is it that my objection to the motion for enlargement was entered time — in a timely way, and your order granting the motion to — motion for enlargement went in nine minutes before I filed my objection?
THE COURT: I —
MR. TULIS: That doesn’t seem proper.
THE COURT: I — I’m sorry. I’m not following you. Let — if you can back up just a minute and tell me — let’s go over it again, please.
MR. TULIS: We’re talking about the motion for delay by Mrs. Barnes. And I —
THE COURT: You mean her motion for extension of time to file a response?
MR. TULIS: Yes, ma’am. And —
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. TULIS: — and my, my motion — that motion for delay was filed November 6th, and Your Honor filed December — I’m sorry, November 10, the order for this hearing today at 10:47 a.m. before getting my objection. And I filed my objection to that delay at 10:56 a.m. So your order went in 10:47 a.m. My objection came into the record at 10:56 a.m.; nine minutes later. I feel the state of Tennessee is, is not getting proper equity. It’s not getting the equity that it and the people are due. And to, to, to allow — to allow the respondents who are in default, who asked for 30 days, to give them 26 days by an administrative decision to have a hearing date seems improper, and I object. I object —
THE COURT: All right. You’re relitigating —
MR. TULIS: — to something that —
THE COURT: — something that I’ve just heard. Sir, I don’t control exactly when those get stamped and entered in. I draft my orders. They go across the hall. They have administrative duties they have to do to get them into the record, and they control the time on that. I have no idea what’s getting filed in the Clerk’s office or when it — or the timing it gets filed too, so I don’t know anything about that. But I did grant the motion at — I set this for hearing, and I deemed that your motion to deny enlargement is an objection, and we heard that today, and it’s overruled. It’s denied.
MR. TULIS: Right. But my —
THE COURT: I’ve granted the extension.
MR. TULIS: I’m asking for equity on the — on behalf of the state on relation —
THE COURT: And I’m denying it, and you’re seeking to relitigate matters that were already litigated this morning. This concludes the hearing. You are adjourned. Thank you.
MS. KLEINFELTER: Thank you, Your Honor.
Time to fight