CHATTANOOGA, Tenn., Jan. 11, 2021 — My “phone hearing” to overturn Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee’s CV-19 state of emergency reveals my efforts to represent the people in state of Tennessee in their highest legal status, rather than in their lower legal status of subject, debtor, licensee and resident (among others).
The attorney general’s office and the county attorney each have participated in a defamation of my person, partly by referring to me as DAVID JONATHAN TULIS vs. David Jonathan Tulis, which is the name on my birth certificate, entered into the mandamus case of State ex rel Tulis vs. Bill Lee, governor as evidence about my identity.
My affidavit of complaint established me in my highest legal status, and as there has been no rebuttal or testimony to contradict the affidavit, it is considered to stand and brook no challenge. But the judge and the state and county lawyers continually work to erode my claims to a high legal status by flank attack and subtlety.
“To refer to him as any other than the evidence shows him to be is a defamation,” I had written earlier, “an unwarranted character assassination for fraudulent 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.”
‘Defaming me,’ abusing equity principles
MR. TULIS: Your Honor —
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. TULIS: I have more business, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let me talk — I will let you get to it. Let me say this: I’m going to take this matter under advisement and issue a written opinion on this motion to dismiss and motion to strike. All right. Now, Mr. Tulis, what’s your other business?
MR. TULIS: Yes, ma’am — or yes, Your Honor. There are two orders — two draft orders against which I have written a motion of objection, and it is regarding the altering and amending of these orders. And I’m concerned in the way that I’m being treated by the respondents in this case. And their, their drafts, their legal work and these draft motions, Your Honor, that you have already signed are — that was pro confesso motion denial and that was also default motion — ruling on default denying my motions. In those — there is a trespass on this case. This is a case of equity. And the respondents pretends that it is a case at law. They’ve restyled the case. They’ve effectively trespassed on my case, as State of Tennessee on relation. They’ve seized my case and they’ve defamed me.
And they’ve defamed me on these — just a moment — as to my, as to my status as a man aggrieved. I’m a man aggrieved in this case, and they are pretending that I am something, something less. And this is holding me in contempt. They are defaming me. They are assassinating my character. They are abusing equity principles by restyling this case as one seeking damages. That’s not — I’m not seeking damages. My reference is — to compensation is under equity. You, Your Honor, have authority in equity to make things right. That’s what you’re — you’re not about damages, you’re about setting things straight. If there has to be some kind of compensation, well, that’s entirely up to you.
And my motion, my petition was framed that way, as I point out. And I want these — I would like you to direct these two attorneys to halt their acts making this a fictitious matter. They are, they are fictionalizing the case. They’re pretending that I’m seeking damages. They’re pretending that I’m a bankrupt corporation. They’re, they’re styling me — they’re not referring to parties in the body of their type as respondents and me the relator, they’re “petitioner.” And the whole, the whole brief refers to “Governor Lee,” the whole brief refers to “Mrs. Barnes.” That also doesn’t seem proper. Your Honor, this, this is not a law court, this is a court in equity. And, and I demand also, I demand also — okay. I’m sorry. Let me finish. The problem is that I do not have a corporate capacity. I’m not involved in any legal fiction, Your Honor. I’d like that to be part of the record. I’m — it’s fair to say I’m sui juris and not pro se. And I’m a man aggrieved. I’m a private man, acting in my private capacity. I’m a soul wrapped in a body, as C.S. Lewis said. And I’m on the land. I’m on the land. And to address this problem, Your Honor, of these lawyers reducing me and reducing my capacity into a bankrupt corporation, I, I enclosed in the exhibits my birth certificate in case there’s any question about how my name is spelled. My name is not spelled, all capital David, all capital Jonathan, and all capital Tulis. It’s capital D, small avid, and capital J and small onathan, and capital T and lowercase ulis. And that, that is the proper way. And they can’t — and I’m demanding that these people be required to not recast this case and recast me to reduce my, my standing. They are acting contemptive — contemptuously of me. And I demand an end of this, this, this trespass, this reimaging — as one of my arguments has in writing, reimaging my case to mislead this court. Could you please issue a directive and corrective, Your Honor?
THE COURT: I don’t understand why — you said your name wasn’t with all caps? I’m just not following your argument, sir.
MR. TULIS: Well, the all capital name is for corporations and people acting in a commercial capacity. I’m not acting in a commercial capacity, Your Honor, I’m acting as a man, an aggrieved man. And it’s not just a matter of the type — the capital letter got stuck on a typewriter. There’s a legal reason that people are capitalized that way. Your, your tax forms, your banking forms, all commercial instruments are usually capital letters, denoting the use that that person is applying to himself. He is — when you’re acting in commerce, under contract or as a debtor, that brings that change in the styling of your name. Styling is not an irrelevant and trivial matter, Your Honor. And that’s why my birth certificate is in the record so that the other parties will recognize me as a man. I’m a man, and I’m not in any capacity corporate and not under any legal fiction, Your Honor. Thank you.
MS. KLEINFELTER: Your Honor, this is Ms. Kleinfelter with the Attorney General’s Office. If I can just briefly respond. As I understand it, I think the petitioner’s complaint is with respect to the style of the pleadings, in which I believe both Ms. Milling and I have styled it State of Tennessee, ex rel. David Jonathan Tulis, in all capitals.
THE COURT: Oh.
MS. KLEINFELTER: And we have done the same with respect to Bill Lee and Rebekah Barnes, we have placed that all in capitals, which is customary in styling the headings on a pleading, a complaint, a motion, whatever is being filed with the court. But, Your Honor, I certainly have no objection. I mean, it’s certainly not intended to reflect that Mr. Tulis was a corporation. If he was a corporation, it would require me to have put “Inc.” after his name, for that to demonstrate that he was a corporation. But I certainly have no objection, that if he wants me to style it State of Tennessee ex rel. David Jonathan Tulis and not put that all in caps, I’m certainly glad to do so.
MR. TULIS: And what about Mrs. Milling? Thank you.
MS. MILLING: Your Honor, it does not matter to me one way or the order — one way or the other. I will accept your directive, whatever it is. As Ms. Kleinfelter pointed out, it is customary. I don’t think I have a case in here that I have not used all caps in a heading on a lawsuit. But whatever your directive is is fine, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, the court styles the case in all caps for everything. And my order entered — I just looked back at my order entered December 8th, 2020, and that’s the way we styled it. It means nothing. It’s just a formal pleading.
Now, I’m going to get to the substance of your motion to object to the proposed December 20, 2020 — excuse me, December 2nd, 2020 hearing order. What the court discerns is this is in effect a Rule 59 motion. The legal standard for determining a Rule 59 motion to alter or amend is found in the case of Vaccarella v. Vaccarella, 49 S.W.3d 307 (Tenn. Ct. App 2001), which states that “These motions ‘may be granted when the controlling law changes before a judgment becomes final, when previously unavailable evidence becomes available, or when, for reasons, a judgment should be amended to correct a clear error of law or to prevent injustice.
They should not, however, be granted if they are simply seeking to relitigate matters that have already been adjudicated.'” What the court finds is that Mr. Tulis’ motions to object to the orders are simply relitigating matters that were already adjudicated. There is no new law, there was no new facts, and the motions to — and it’s not to correct a clear error of law or prevent injustice. If that’s something you need to take up on appeal, but the Rule 59 motion to object to the December 2nd, 2020 hearing order is denied. Now, let me see, I will have the — Ms. Kleinfelter, can you prepare that order, as the prevailing party under our local rules?
No corporate status — man
The hearing Jan. 11, 2021, follows earlier fights to be recognized as a man made in God’s image, and with all my God-given rights attached to me, and not an entity subject to state or gubernatorial whim. Below is an excerpt of a motion dealing with the problem.
- 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.”
(A) 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.
B. 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.
C. This identification of relator pretends he is operating in a fictive legal capacity, subject to the officials.
D. However, relator is sui juris.
E. “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.
F. 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 fraudulent 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.
Time to fight