Relator, upon the invitation of the clerk, requires the court to recall its mandate closing appeal No. E2020-01493-SC-WRM-CV arising from grievance for maladaministration in Hamilton County chancery court of case No. 20-0685, the petition for writ of mandamus, for want of foundation.
The mandate must be recalled because of violation of principles of equity, as required of Tennessee courts of equity, to do equity, and which touches on the ethics of judges and their duty to be impartial toward petitioners and toward the interests of the state itself, and its form of government, and of the trust to the people.
[My defense of Tennessee law seems to take the reader deeply into the weeds of judicial process and law. But fundamental truths — even godly Truth — is part of my fight to end the CV-19 state of emergency. They include a defense of equity, of due process pursuant to Romans 13’s limit on the civil authority, of the value of oaths of office, the importance of modern “divided government” with distinct branches, and of the nature of the appeals process purusant to the parable of the widow and the unjust judge. — DJT]
This demand is timely filed, given the intended administrative and nonjudicial nature of the matter and the proper administration of justice in the chancery courts of Tennessee. It cannot be “not well-taken” that doing justice is untimely as this court so mistreats the administrative complaint, in what seems in its misconstruance of petitioner’s intent to be an evasion of duty and obligation to the people of Tennessee, and for the reason of its own misdeeds.
Regarding things timely done and appurtenant to the non-judicial complaint to this court, it cannot be “not well-taken” that equity is non-existent in chancery where “forthwith” is drawn into months and months, or where fraud is eaten like candy or can be likened to heroin, encouraged and greedily injected by the court from every pusher.
The mandate sealing the record of two fabricated appeals not arising from any final order from courts below reveals the court’s refusal to recognize its dilemma, properly presented by petitioner, of participating with a co-equal branch of state government in the overthrow of the constitution and irreparable harm to petitioner and millions of other people whose lives are bowled over by a purported health emergency, the response to which was conducted wholly in violation of the controlling statute, with a train of subsequent overthrow of constitutional securities.
The court’s sealing of the mandate pretends that all is well, that justice has been served by dismissal of an administrative grievance for improper administration of justice, equity itself, revealed through a chancery judge who is a fellow participant in an experiment in government fiat. The mandate fails the requirements of law, practice and good reason. The action of this court through its order fails to do the equity or proper administration of justice of which the petitioner complains, whether administratively or judicial.
Contrary to the mistreatment by this court of a complaint of maladministration of justice, the role of courts of equity is glorious, the story sanctifying.
“Equity, founded upon the eternal verities of right, justice and morality, rather than upon arbitrary customs and rigid dogmas, and acting according to the dictates of reason and good conscience, rather than unadjustible formulas, has the capability to reach and cover every civil case which can possibly arise out of the transactions of mankind, its doctrines and rules furnishing a sure means of accurately and justly determining the rights and duties of all the parties, and its flexible remedies inherent and statutory, adjusting and adapting themselves to all the intricacies of every emergency, so that in our Courts of Chancery there is now absolutely nothing wanting that man can devise for the perfect administration of complete equity; and there can never be any failure to do adequate justice, in any suit, unless the proof fails to disclose the real facts and circumstances of the transaction, or the Chancellor fails to comprehend the doctrine, or apply the remedy, applicable to the case.” Gibson’s Suits in Chancery, 1955 ed., § 14 Growth of the Court in Public Favor.
This Court was established to do justice, regardless of any and all law. The King deemed it a duty imposed upon his conscience, both by his oath and by religion, to “decree justice,” and in decreeing justice he deemed himself bound rather by the Divine Law than by human law; and, when the Chancellor acted in his stead, he based his decisions, not upon the law of the land, but upon honesty, equity and conscience, for so was he commanded to do in exercising the King’s prerogative of Grace. In short, the Chancery Court was established rather as a Court based on the precepts of Religion than as a Court based on the rules of Law.
Gibson’s Id. § 8 [emphasis in original]
The court’s mandate to close the petition is improper and needs to be recalled until the court can provide a foundation for its order that can, and by the underlying facts, be well taken pursuant to equity principles or law.
To more clearly set out his intention and distinction between the two separate though coincident required reliefs, in aggressively prosecuting justice and the state’s interests, relator intends, separately from this administrative complaint to this court, to appeal State ex rel Tulis, in his non-administrative judicial matter, to this court, subject to the appeals court, if he cannot obtain mandamus and/or equity relief of respondents’ frauds and violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-104, the epidemics and contagion law, once a final order issues from that suit, still proceeding well beyond the legislatively required “forthwith,” and improperly as a case at law. “The intention of the party is the life of the instrument,” Gibson reminds us, Id. § 73. It cannot be “not well-taken” that this court is confounding petitioner’s intention to remedy chancery court abuses to the proper administration of justice. In other words, as relator, he fully expects to lose to fraud, “below,” and the lack of relief for the maladministration of chancery confounds the proper administration of justice and due process for purpose of an appeal not yet before this court. This prejudicial obstruction of justice would also help cover the fraud, unavoided in the order of this court, complicit with the subject-matter of the suit in chancery, emergencies declared without demonstrating non-fraudulent exigency causing irreparable harm.
As written, it could not be “not well-taken” that the mandate of this court upon its order seals and hard-wires fraud and systemic maladministration of justice and consequent prejudices against the state of relation and the people of Tennessee contrary to their constitutional prohibitions and the trust duties and obligation undertaken by each court justice.
Manifest injustice, extraordinary circumstance
The mandate is improper. It facially irreparably breaches principles of equity, violating the proper administration of justice under this court’s exclusive purview, in failing to state a foundation for why the grievance against negligent and prejudicial Hamilton County chancery is not well-taken. Petitioner alleges “the administration of justice is broken,” and this observation cannot be said to be “not well-taken” with the court silent on the issues raised, one of which is judicial branch complicity that pursuant to equity principles is required to be avoided in the order, or becomes a tacit acquiescence of the fact; in this instance for fraud.
And if that’s what this court intended, to further fraud, then it will likely not recall its order and the petitioner, and the world, will accept that as a confession, that “the administration of justice is broken” in Tennessee and of who the complicit parties are to that breach for the purpose, not limited to, relief for rights deprivations under color of state law.
Facial violations of order
➤ The court failed its obligation in equity and duty in law to provide a foundation, reason, authority, law and fact for construing relator’s administrative complaint communications as a “petition for rehearing” pursuant to Tenn. R. App.P. 39, when the matter is strictly administrative, notwithstanding any rule. “Courts of Chancery struggle against technical rules which impede the attainment of substantial justice,” Gibson § 118. Effect of the Nonjoinder of Party. It misreads the administrative complaint of maladministration of justice counter to the petitioner’s intention, but in line and consistent with his maltreatment in the chancery below. There has been no rebuttal to this admitted fact conceded to in chancery. There, his suit is meanly construed as a case at law for damages by a bankrupt corporation or other subject entity, creature of the state, or person, instead of a man aggrieved seeking relief and mandamus in chancery in equity, secured to him, or any of the people of Tennessee, by the constitution of the people of Tennessee of which this court is trustee.
An impartial court honors intent.
“In Tennessee, a liberal interpretation is given to all writings, the purpose of the Court being to ascertain, and give effect to, the intention of the makers of the instrument. The intention is the substance, the words are but the shadow; and so the intention is the only infallible touchstone for the interpretation” of a contract. Gibson, § 72, Maxims Applicable to Pleadings, 1955 ed.
➤ The court says it “finds” petition untimely and not well taken. Upon what the finding is based, the order is silent, states no basis, authority, reason or fact for a finding. A finding is the “result of the deliberations of a jury or a court.” But a finding is also a “decision upon a question of fact reached as the result of a judicial examination or investigation by a court, jury, referee, coroner, etc.” and “recital of the facts as found.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th ed. (citations omitted).
That this court and chancery persist in acting counter to the intention wrongs any petitioner obtaining a constitutionally secured remedy of right, contrary to equity principles or to doing justice, denying, rejecting, the constitution of Tennessee. Like the subject lower court, this court denies a petition that petitioner didn’t file, thus erroneously making filings “untimely.” As stated prior, there is nothing about doing justice that is untimely and the petitioner urges the justices to do the required and right things and issue a lawfully compliant order, even at this late time.
Relator’s case is untimely only after justices reconstruct his intended complaint, using court rules to deny justice.
➤ When the court in the last sentence of the order says “accordingly,” the word is deceptive because there exists no antecedent, no referent, to which the word “accordingly” attaches. If anything, the body of law and fact in the record deny any coupler to which to attach a denial of petitioner’s administrative complaint.
What is unstated in the above authorities is any findings are to be made through impartiality.
Latent violations in mandate order
➤ A nonfacial error in the order is that it is per curiam without avoidance or exception to fraud.
➤ Material and relevant things in the complaint letter are “not well-taken” by this court, but the compromised chief justice participates in the per curiam order. The court inappropriately fails to hold itself independent of the office and/or person of respondent Bill Lee. It is joined with him in continuing “COVID-19 pandemic” fraud allowed by the improper administration of chancery, in whose grace the fraud subsists 160-plus days. The “COVID-19 pandemic” fraud is a fact as a matter of law, being admitted.
An order decided “per curiam” comes with participation and approval of the compromised chief justice, an administrative cum judicial act from which he should have recused himself. This is applicable to any other justices signing in agreement, or not openly objecting to the fraud prior. He fails to avoid the court’s culpability in agreeing to the ongoing frauds causing irreparable harm that the proper administration of chancery should have ended months ago by issuance of a writ of mandamus forthwith, as the legislature requires. The otherwise honorable high court is wrongful in its own emergency declaration, and accomplice in the wrongdoing that maladministration of justice in Hamilton County prolongs.
➤ Petitioner’s case is one of first impression, with fraud alleged as having become a function of the two branches of state government at the instigation of respondent Lee under color of the office of an elected official. Fraud is the shocking, corrosive substance that appears in the relator’s complaint and in his two administrative grievances in this court’s record. The fraud subsists in chancery, the judge of which defends it more vigorously than respondents Lee and Becky Barnes have had to. Without recall of the mandate, fraud subsists in the supreme court as “well taken.” Equity requires fraud be “not well-taken” by an honorable court.
Says Gibson, “Fraud, in the sight of a Court of Equity, vitiates every contract or transaction into which it enters, at the election of the injured party and the court will not only undo what fraud has done, but will treat acts as done which fraud prevented from being done,” Gibson, 1955 ed. § 57, P. 71.
“The Court of Chancery [and by implication, the court] is the arch enemy of fraud; and to that court those who are the victims of bad faith generally apply for redress, not only because the Chancery Court can grant more perfect relief, but, also, because it will often grant that relief upon weaker presumptive evidence than will a Court of Law” Gibson, § 456. Fraud Proved by Circumstances. “Fraud, in the sight of a Court of Equity, vitiates every contract or transaction into which it enters, at the election of the injured party” Gibson, § 57, Equity Will Undo What Fraud Has Done.
Fraud vitiates respondent Lee’s actions, according to the petition. Fraud vitiates this court’s actions legitimizing his, as well as its own administrative closure covering under color of law its own pretended emergency.
“[I]f a contract is affected with fraud, or has a fraudulent purpose, none of the parties to such fraud can have the assistance of the Court either to compel the execution of such contract, or to have it cancelled, or to have the property or interests, transferred thereunder, restored. Equity will leave such parties where they have placed themselves, and will refuse all affirmative aid to either of the fraudulent participants. It is on this principle that the door of a Court of Equity is always shut against a debtor when he seeks to recover back property he has conveyed to hinder, delay or defraud his creditors. Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. (No right of action arises out of a fraud).” § 42 Gibson’s, 1907 ed.
“And whatever the shapes and disguises fraud has invented in the refinements and diversities of commerce and the progress of civilization, the Courts of Equity have always been able to detect and expose it, to redress the wrong done by it, and to keep it odious, regardless of the rank or wealth of its perpetrator” Gibson’s § 57, Equity Will Undo What Fraud Has Done). A fraud by one who is brought to the court in personal capacity (as well as official), which court under maxim of law that “its original authority [acts] on the person of the party” (Gibson’s § 41 Equity Acts Upon the Person).
Proper administration of justice requires the door of equity be closed against any respondent in fraud in default before the case was filed pursuant to the constitution of Tennessee upon the perfected private administrative notice and demand process in evidence. The order of this court lacks a lawfully recognized avoidance, explanation or alternative reason that respondent Lee’s action, or that of the chief justice or other complicit justices, were not fraudulent or finds that the private process was not sufficient relevant to the applicable law of the subject-matter of the suit for the purpose of relief forthwith pursuant to legislative enactment.
➤ The mandate should be recalled for the good cause that the “COVID-19 pandemic” response by the head of the executive branch is a manifest injustice that has ensnared the court with its own non-independent breach, with the status quo ante of a republican form of government made remote. The court failed sue sponte to demand if respondent Lee was obeying 68-5-104, but it didn’t. That was either deliberate, or naive and innocent. Whatever the reason, it is not justice or lawful and this court is duty-bound to not be led by unwarranted trust in a co-equal branch of government. Was the court misled by an unwarranted trust? However it was led, and however petitioner dissects the existing order looking for some good in it, the judicial department branch has become subject to the executive branch and is co-conspirator in impeachable wrongs.
➤ The court agrees, per curiam, without one detractor, with admitted fraud operating within the judiciary and sheltered by its personnel and policies. Judge Fleenor obeys what appears to be the chief justice’s policy accepting admitted fraud, attempting to mask that the official parties breathe together toward a unified outcome of abrogating the constitution of Tennessee in a manifest injustice without precedent. Relator rejects the mandate, demands its recall and insists on administrative correction upon chancery for the proper administration of justice.
➤ Distinct from the nonfacial error of fraud is the nonavoidance of it. The administrative complaint for improper administration of justice should be “well taken” where the per curiam order participants unanimously agree with and do not independently avoid the fraudulent supreme court emergency order No. ADM2020-00428 of March 13, 2020.
The chief justice didn’t support his declaration of emergency independent of the executive branch to avoid any intrinsic linkage prohibited by the Tennessee constitution. He did not provide the judicial branch an independent foundation to avoid the governor’s fraud IF the chief justice actually had the power to declare such an emergency in the first place. Equity principles demand that the mandate, a product of that admitted fraud, for want of avoidance, incestuous and outlaw relationship, despite the law requiring the branches to be separate and equal, is not well taken and is a miscarriage of justice, without remedy.
These are grave condition of extraordinary circumstances contrary to constitutional requirements — a trust breach and scandal, violating ethical injunctions at Rule 10 touching on “public confidence in [judges’] independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence.”
The proof of constitutional breach is the ongoing “COVID-19 pandemic” fraud and statewide irreparable harm the existence and fact of which the supreme court believes is “not well-taken,” allowing it to continue.
The order of this court has no facial basis in fact or law other than the fraud (in flagrante delicto violation of statute) admitted in the petition before Hamilton County chancery, of whose judge petitioner complains of maladministration of equity jurisdiction affecting the integrity of the judicial process.
The courts are denying state of Tennessee remedy, as relator anticipated would happen, now admitted, and of the words and deeds of the respondents, this court is intrinsically linked, without avoidance of the fraud, the fact anticipated in the underlying petition at two points:
Petition ¶¶ 85-87, in part:
American Bar Association’s House of Delegates in 2013, reaffirmed its 1991 and 2003 “commitments to sustainable development, and defines sustainable development as ‘the promotion of an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable future for our planet and for present and future generations,” and professes an “ongoing commitment to the International Legal Resource Center in collaboration with the United Nations Development Program,” “giving impetus” to the federal government.
Petition ¶¶ 121-124. At ¶ 133: “An inexcusable deleterious fruit of refusal to obey T.C.A. § 68-5-104 is this: If there is an actual health crisis, respondents’ fraudulent reliance on misleading foreign presumption prevents the people from acquiring knowledge of the real contagion and how they might protect themselves.”
➤ The order of this court in accepting fraud as a proper administration of justice is in conflict with statute at Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-104, and furthers an international order agreeable to members of the BAR association but contrary to the organic establishment of people, the state of Tennessee. It was not well taken by this court that the petitioner exposes the special treatment the bar associations enjoy for foreign sustainable development social justice concerns with this court while it denies a complaint that its administration of justice is causing irreparable harm to the people of Tennessee, furthering those foreign goals. The failure to act pursuant to Tennessee law, under color of authority that it is, allows the chief justice’s breach and respondent Lee’s dereliction of duty as governor to administer, under the constitution, Article 3, Section 10, that “He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Principles of law forbid any branch of state government to ignore the constitution of Tennessee or legislative enactment in pursuance thereof.
➤ The order of this court allows delay to create more work for the court system and no justice to those seeking relief. It encourages breach to speedy, inexpensive justice, allowing the very thing that efficiency and speed work to prevent and equity requires. Maladministration. The mandate and the underlying approvals of the status quo in Hamilton County raises the inefficiency of the courts, despite the prohibition in article 1, section 17, in the constitution prohibiting delay in the courts, with the legislative fulfillment being forthwith. The rule of equity about delay:
To sell justice would be a crime, to deny justice would be an outrage akin to crime, and to delay justice is an intolerable wrong, for delay is equivalent to a denial while the delay continues : the virtue of justice often evaporates during the delay. Denial and delay are man and wife, and injustice and injury are their children. [emphasis added]
Gibson § 535 Applications to Amend, or to Continue, How Considered
➤ Without a lawful foundation, the order of this court seals by mandate under color of lawful authority, or by barbarian resort to unsubstantiated necessity, the death of rule of law and equity. If the court upholds through the oath its members’ duties and obligations to the people of Tennessee, it must — it must — recall the mandate and command justice be done forthwith, if fraud has not found a another home in the judicial branch of a tripartite established Tennessee.
➤ Rejecting equity by an unparticularized and unsubstantiated “not well-taken” order is a miscarriage of justice, the maladministration of justice complained of. By it the court creates extraordinary unprecedented conditions affecting not just petitioner, but 6.8 million people in state of Tennessee whose care equity is to take up, and to which the constitution of Tennessee secures a remedy.
➤ The mandate setting in to stone that fraud and delay is equity done, sets up state of Tennessee on relation for futility of remedy or relief, through biding fraud, more bias, prejudiced and partial treatment and victimization. The people of Tennessee are bowed low under lawless, fraudulent, unitary, administrative executive policy of fraud of respondents and Hamilton County chancery, where nothing from state of Tennessee on relation is well taken, and of which the high court’s perspective adopts of a piece, as complained of in this record.
As here, petitioner is unjustly required to demand justice in the court below, continuing maladministration, showing the order of this court providing no relief from found maladministration is contrary to law allowing lawlessness. By way of an update through the petition attached for reference on the administrative complaint, a court under the administrative power of this court just denied a relator’s right to answer two motions to dismiss. Chancery issues two orders of dismissal, not one. Double orders put unjust burdens on state of Tennessee on relation, required to write two motions to alter dismissal orders made without due process of law.
Chancery now delays justice further. Instead of an in-chambers hearing of relator’s motion to alter an order having no applicable foundation in law or equity, just as this court’s order is without lawful foundation, the court sets a March 30, 2021, hearing by phone for input from respondents without any equity. Instead of disposing of the suit filed by relator, forthwith, pursuant to the affidavits of record and as equity principles require, eschewing the fraud of the respondents, stopping the evidenced irreparable harm caused by them, the court, contrary to the proper administration of justice under this court’s power to correct, denies the relief required by the constitution of Tennessee and continues the irreparable harm. Just as the order of this court does not check its fraud continuing without remedy under color of authority. What should be “not well-taken” by this court is that “the administration of justice is broken” in Tennessee, proven in its unsupported order condoning fraud, or of the failure of lawful orders of chancery issuing forthwith.
Summary for recall
It could be said that by the plea of not guilty, an accused asserts that the charges are “not well-taken.” Yet, that assertion does not end the inquiry or the proper administration of justice and requires more, much more. It does, however, join the issue.
By the same token, with the assertion that the petitioner’s complaint of fraud and maladministration of justice by the judicial branch of the state of Tennessee is “not well-taken,” that bare joinder, as anyone charged with breach of duty to the law does not end the obligation and duty for an independent, impartial, just, speedy, and inexpensive judicial inquiry by lawful due process upon the facts and the law, the disposition of open record.
The order of this court is without foundation. It refers to unparticularized things “not well-taken.” The order does not facially relate to anything petitioner intended. The order, though required to, fails to openly denounce proven, even self-evident frauds. By this failure, the court agrees to aid and abet admitted fraud of the executive, or to commit fraud by its own emergency order, which is an unprecedented circumstance demanding recall to ensure this court intends to meet or show it has met its utmost trust obligations to this petitioner and to the people of Tennessee, not some foreign association, to prevent further injustice.
Recall of the mandate is a thin line to save the court’s sinking into a quicksand of wrongs from which petitioner’s administrative complaint, commanded by the mistreatment of relator’s suit, empowers this court to pull itself.
Recalling the mandate allows the court to halt an overthrow of law and equity built up in the jurisprudence of the state since founded June 1, 1796, and before. To make maladministration of cases such as state ex rel Tulis the norm is a violation of official oath, an abrogation of his rights and those of the people to remedy, a severing of the people’s constitutional protections and a nod toward unitary and consolidated government no longer intending to abide by the organic establishment or the bill of rights and or to protect the innocent from exposure to unbridled power and the rule by man — a power not given to this court by the people. It does not take a learned jurist to identify these egregious wrongs
Sealing the mandate tells the people of Tennessee that they shall accept government by fiat or through fraudulent emergency – that the current administration of justice creates a coercive system of unbridled state power universally applied without remedy contrary to the constitution of Tennessee.
The continuing fraud causing irreparable harm under color of any manner of authority is proof, beyond the reach of rule however treated by this court. The non-individuated and unlawful uses of police power upon people, through which they have been harmed, who have no duty whatsoever to obey commands and directives from the governor nor his agents in the counties requires remedy for breach. Such people today, perfectly healthy, are subject to threats, harassment, punishment, demands and directives under color of authority in a fraudulent health emergency arising from violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § Title 68-5-104. Sealing the mandate dries the mortar around the denial of remedy and of due process rights hammered into statecraft since March 12, 2020, the date of Gov. Lee’s first fraudulent executive order and subsequent fraudulent local directives.
If the mandate is not recalled, the “new normal” customs and usages make void the people’s common law relief through equity jurisdiction such as mandamus. Only by this extraordinary we-have-really-no-other-option evasion of duty and obligation can they purport to compel obedience to errant officials and the bonds of law upon state actors.
The mandate must be recalled because otherwise the court approves of the Covid-19 fraud and statewide irreparable harm, the existence and fact of which the supreme court unsubstantiatedly believes is “not well-taken,” allowing it to continue without remedy.
The justices of the Tennessee supreme court, and chancery, and other officers of the court are agreeing to a train of abuses, wrongs that flow from the poison well of disobedience to black-letter law at Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-104, the legislative purpose of which is, in part, to impose upon officials, including the chief justice of the supreme court, the duty to demonstrate a non-fraudulent exigency before any may exercise public health emergency authority and subsequent discretion, and then only to the limit of the law. It cannot be “not well-taken” that this limit, as a matter of law, equity, or good conscience does not include proceeding in fraud, or to general application, or to the causing of irreparable harm, even to those found to be the viral “contagious principles” subject to its limited jurisdiction, having been breached, or that equity in a chancery court of Tennessee is not available for relief, forthwith.
Petitioner objects to the order and demands recall of the mandate, and further demands an order consistent with the petitioner’s administrative intention, his constitutional right to remedy for found injustice, for relief from unwarranted official harm benefiting thereby the maladministration of equity, the power entrusted exclusively to the supreme court to guarantee a more proper administration of justice that can be well taken by the people on relation.
Time to fight