CHATTANOOGA, Tenn., Feb. 22, 2021 — Judge Pamela Fleenor, a member in good standing at Lookout Mountain Presbyterian Church, acts by way affective upon me, and not by way judicial. Her hearing sermons, Bible readings and Sunday School talks as a Christian has yet to leaven the whole lump.
Evidence of it grates: She harshly speaks to me at two hearings — one of them which you can hear live at this link — and gags me, the relator in State ex rel Tulis. Even worse than a harsh tone, she repeatedly violates the biblical prohibition against partiality and showing favor to man.
The lawsuit State ex rel Tulis is my bid in Tennessee to cram back into his cave the monster of lawlessness and caprice in the form of Gov. Bill Lee and his party of “good people,” as I mildly call them. His overthrow is the second-worst thing to afflict the state in its 82,000-day history, the first being the war to prevent Southern independence.
Today I file a second of two motions demanding an altered order from Judge Fleenor. She has ruled against my petition, refused for 140 days to act in my emergency pleadings, and has solidly represented the interest of bias and prejudice against state of Tennessee on relation, and the state’s 6.8 million people. She may be seeking re-election in 2022, and may God help her. Since we are a people loathe to worship and dread our Almighty Sovereign, He may actually lead them to vote for her, and to install her afor another term, as she has been as an Assyrian a faithful service to His cause of judgment, ruin and decimation. In my petition, I am asking her to change her mind. Here, I bring to her attention her rules of ethics. She has repeatedly violated them in this case, and twice already I have complained to the Tennessee supreme court of her negligence and hostility.
Concern for judge ethical violations
For 140 days the court has mistreated this case in a pattern of transgressions against equity and against the rights of state of Tennessee on relation. Evidence of continuing improper activity — such as the court’s issuing a dismissal order without giving relator a chance to answer respondents’ motions to dismiss — is prejudicial and disturbing.
Members of the judiciary should hold themselves to the highest ethical standards, are ordained to be committed to personal and professional discretion in which the interest of justice and the law are paramount.
So says Rule 10 of the code of judicial ethics. The pattern of improper activity ranges from foundationless orders to gagging the relator at hearings, from misrepresenting the remedy of mandamus to misreading cases. The effect of such improper activity on the judicial system or others is to damage the respect and honor the judicial office must keep. The office of judge is a public trust, and that office must be impartial. Impartially means absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintenance of an open mind in considering issues that may come before the court.
In Canon 2, “A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently.”
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. *** Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct and conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety.
Rule 1.2, plus comment
Rule 2.2 on impartiality and fairness requires “A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.”
Relator wonders if the court is aware of this canon: “Rule 2.4 External Influences on Judicial Conduct
(B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.”
The court’s exhaustive treatment of the state’s case on relation is like a carpet bombing. No tree is standing. No plate of glass is unshivered. The court sua sponte buries relator’s every motion on the unrebutted record, with respondents needing to lift not a pinky.
Rejection, denial, overriding, abrogating of Tennessee law or the constitution are forbidden to a chancery court judge. “Actual improprieties include violations of law, court rules or provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge,” the court system states in a comment.
Footnote: The court’s improper acts include boilerplate citations that misapply cases.
➤ “The inquiry as to whether a plaintiff has standing should be especially rigorous where a petitioner seeks to have the actions of a sovereign state declared unlawful or unconstitutional. Crawford v. U.S. Department of Treasury, 868 F. 3d 438, 457 ( 6th Cir 2017).” P. 11. This statement and cite are prejudicial, because petitioner is not “seeking to have the actions of a sovereign state” declared unlawful or unconstitutional.” He is defending the state and its sovereignty from interlopers and malefactors, to uphold its authority and respect for law.
➤ “Relator has cited no authority for the proposition that in a mandamus action, a relator can obtain additional relief other than the writ ordering the official to perform some clear ministerial duty.” P. 10. This cause is styled “Petition in equity and for writ of mandamus” and refers frequently to broad authority, existence of which should not be news to the court. Relator has multiple cites to Robert Gibson’s treatise Suits in Chancery, indicating supple, plenary authority to pursue justice conducive to a given conflict, with great discretion.
Time to fight