Judge Pamela Fleenor in chancery court is working for court policy and has predetermined the mandamus case protecting the people, who have been abused 351 days under Gov. Bill Lee and his claque of administrative and party hacks
By David Tulis / NoogaRadio 92.7 FM
While one may argue that we are greatly blessed to have an unjust judge in charge of this case (because that means we are safe from Coronavirus), I prefer to see her actions as unjust and evil and that the damage to the people in their liberties and property must be immediately stopped.
In abusing me in her court 147 days, she is pursuing policy set from Chief Justice Jeff Bivens and his four cohorts in black, not obeying the law and pursuing equity, both of which are her charge in chancery court of Hamilton County. The high court appears to put the judiciary under the executive branch to pursue CV-19 medico-terror state policy agreed upon among foreign bodies ranging from the CDC to the United Nations.
Key abuses:
➤ Denying me a right to answer their motions to dismiss.
➤ Claiming no subject matter over the Lee portion of the case, but pontificating over 15 pages in her dismissal order and memorandum.
➤ Dragging out 4 ½ months an emergency case requiring treatment in 15 days or immediately
One significant abuse in the foreground today is her twin rulings in favour of Gov. Lee Hamilton County health department administrator Becky Barnes without giving me a chance to answer. Her Jan. 21 orders for dismissal came without my having had a chance to answer the motions to dismiss. This is a major breach of my due process right as state of Tennessee to be heard. A major breach of her ethics. A terrible blow to the rule of law and the rights of the people.
She had allowed the two motions to dismiss to be entered into the record. I had objected that they should be stricken from the case and the record, and not allowed. They are improper because the respondents — Lee and Barnes — are involved in fraud, and the court cannot extend any equity to parties who are admittedly defrauding the people by ignoring law. Judge Fleenor, in a phone hearing, allowed these motions for dismissal to be argued first, followed by my motions to strike, on grounds the strikes came into the record after the Lee/Barnes motions. Also, improper.
Judge Fleenor has dug a deep hole for herself in her abuses of the people’s cause.
I argue she has full subject matter jurisdiction to solve the matter at equity in favor of the law and the people. Gov. Lee is seeking his escape on grounds of a venue privilege. The law says commissioners must be sued in Davidson County, where Nashville the capital is seated. I am suing Bill Lee as the man, William Byron Lee, in his personal capacity as well as Bill Lee the officeholder.
The cases in favor of the Davidson County rule, however, are all with commissioners, and all on policy disputes. This case over the CV-19 state of disaster alleges fraud, and does not involve a commissioner. Lee says he is not under “any duty” to obey the law, which argument I call frivolous as he is principal and his health commissioner Lisa Piercey is his agent serving at his pleasure. I’m not suing her, the agent, but him — the main guy.
State ex rel Tulis is about mass fraud and a compelling and courageous and violent overthrow of the law, the basic contagion, quarantine and epidemic statute in the so called coronavirus crisis that began early in 2020. His first executive order was March 12, and April 2 he put 6.8 million people under mass house arrest. The governor followed advice, panic and dread and rejected obedience to the statute. Had he obeyed law, he would have saved us from harm, and avoided putting himself in spot as tyrant and wrongdoing malefacting violator of oath.
If indeed Pamela Fleenor admits in the end to “no subject matter jurisdiction,” how does she justify a 16-page order throwing the case out?
If she has no subject matter jurisdiction on account of the venue privilege of commissioners, how can she extend herself in analyse all sorts of topics in this case not in her purview — not subject to her authority?
Violator Fleenor in contradiction
She is a trespasser as a woman, in her personal capacity, on the state’s case against Lee and Barnes. Without subject matter jurisdiction — the basis for her dismissal — every word past the sentence dismissing the case is null and void.
Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide any question which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgments, until reversed, are regarded as binding in every other court. But if it act without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a remedy sought in opposition to them, even prior to a reversal. They constitute no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered in law as trespassers.
Elliott v. Lessee of Piersol, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. 328 328 (1828)
The acts of the judge appear to be done in her personal capacity. This risky doing is highlighted in so-called “case law.”
“I]t has been settled that the Eleventh Amendment provides no shield for a state official confronted by a claim that he had deprived another of a federal right under the color of state law. Ex parte Young teaches that, when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he ‘comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is, in that case, stripped of his official or representative character, and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.’”
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974)
Trespass on case, trespass on law
Judge Fleenor’s handling my case is a trespass on the case, and a trespass on the law. If she’s correct in saying she has no subject matter jurisdiction in claims vs. Gov. Lee, she had a duty to immediately dismiss him as respondent (defendant). Mandamus is an emergency petition, amid acts causing mass irreparable harm, on me and millions of other people.
She had a duty, apart from ANY RESPONSE from him or his attorney, to dismiss the case for sake of the well-known venue privilege regarding commissioners. Similarly, I have argued in detail, she has authority — apart from any response from these gangsters — to issue mandamus based on my affidavit of complaint, at 34 pages, the record of which remains unrebutted at every point.
But she didn’t. She has hogtied the case as millions suffer amid an economic depression caused by Gov. Lee. As of today, it’s 147 days the case has been in her court. Her dismissal Jan. 21 is 111 days after I filed the petition for writ of mandamus, a demand she order Gov. Lee and Mrs. Barnes to obey the law.
I point this out in my motion to alter her dismissal of Gov. Lee.
The court claims it has had no subject matter jurisdiction. If so, a single word beyond dismissal of the action is null and void. But because the court for 140 days proves itself negligent to equity, and since the courts of appeal are compromised by executive branch impositions against their independence and willing to play along with chancery, relator drafts this response to every point chancery makes in its dismissal order. He believes chancery has full jurisdiction of this matter, and should rule on it favorably. But he is forced into a futility under the court’s order, arguing against a nullity because of his lack of confidence in judicial honesty and integrity, which, if it were operative, would allow him to stand silent on all null orders and treat the subjects raised in the order at the proper time.
Chancery’s null and void pages of analysis are a trespass on the law itself, also upon relator’s case, a smear and slander, showing the judge’s policy against state of Tennessee she believes will be upheld by compromised superiors who, twice already in petitions to the state supreme court, have turned their back on equity and grievances laid against chancery’s maladministration of this case.
The court’s answer influences jurists, and shows her policy against state of Tennessee and relator, in which she expects consistency in policy from her superiors as they turn their backs on equity, nay, even in chancery with its high and holy origins, as Gibson attests.
The court says it has no subject matter jurisdiction on grounds of the law requiring lawsuits against commissioners to be filed in Davidson County. It says it hasn’t authority to transfer the case to Davidson County, but to dismiss it only.
The court’s order of dismissal is 15 pages. On a single page the court demurs, claims no subject matter jurisdiction. Over 14 pages it witnesses to its belief it indeed has subject matter jurisdiction. The court cannot have it both ways.
God help us. The state of Tennessee has already collapsed. The wreck is behind us already, and it’s possible little can be done to restore the rule of constitution, with its protections to the people. The state and its claque of elites have overthrown the hateful limitations against totalitarian and authoritarian rule by fiat — by administrative directive such as that imposing closings, social distancing and mask rules in Hamilton County.
Time to fight
