Cartels vs. libertyCommon law rightsEmergencyInterpositionPanic 2020

Fleenor orders hearing; Tulis objects for delay, injustice, prejudice

Pamela Fleenor, right, a chancery court judge, rejects the main promise of her court: Equity. She has sat on the Tulis petition for writ of mandamus 176 days. (Photo Pam Fleenor on FB)

Notice of objection to March 30 hearing

The court extends yet another opportunity for respondents without equity to commit fraud causing irreparable harm, invites further undue influence, delay and injustice by the order of March 2, 2021, with its March 30, 2021, hearing date. Relator objects and demands the court issue the writ, forthwith, as the legislature requires it.

By David Tulis / NoogaRadio 92.7 FM

That in further objection, instead of inviting more undue influence upon chancery, equity principles require the hearing be in chambers upon the petition, its adequate evidence of record, and that in light of the failure of respondents to timely answer forthwith to avoid their frauds, intrinsically linked, relator demands the court issue the writ to stop the fraud causing irreparable harm to the state on relation:

That if the court has any further questions understanding the petition, relator is available, ex parte, forthwith, as equity principles allow for situations where a recalcitrant respondent is without equity committing fraud causing irreparable harm, that justice can, at once, be done as equity demands. 

Neither relator nor respondents can answer for the court’s failures identified in the motions for alteration of the orders of dismissal. The court’s dealing with this lawsuit gives not clarity and justice, but confusion and fraud as highlighted in various identified failures of law or principles of equity such as, and not limited to:

➤ Why the court did not order issuance of the writ forthwith, required by the legislature, upon the failure of respondents to respond forthwith, required by the legislature, and pursuant to clearly established equity principles, to avoid their admitted fraud. 

➤ Why the court tolerates delay contrary to equity principles; or why the court decided instead of taking the same time to issue the writ asked for by the court and provided to it in the motion for alteration, wrote an order to delay the suit further on a matter respondents-in-fraud have nothing more to contribute or because they have no equity as a matter of law.

➤ Why the court did not respect the only applicable evidence of the suit, namely the the petition and the affidavit of irreparable harm. 

➤ Why equity principles have failed to appear in a chancery court. 

➤ Why the court has failed to act or notify an authorized official, where evidence shows official wrongdoing causing any harm to the state on relation. The court is required to be cognizant of the principle of misprison, such as expressed in 18 USC 3 and 18 USC 4.

➤ Why the court imposes expenses and hardships upon the relator beyond what equity principles or properly administrated law demand. 

➤ Why the court allows the matter to proceed at law instead of as intended by relator, in chancery, despite numerous warnings by the state on relation.

➤ Why the concept of vesting is unclear to the court, that an official is “vested” when operating within the law and pursuant to the law, in obedience to provisions devolving upon the official, and why the court pretends — in violation of the canon against partiality and prejudice — that respondents are vested in any way to act as regards a contagious disease if they have ignored the principle law the legislature enacted directing that process. The respondents-in-fraud cannot advise the court to substitute its judgment for that of an official vested with discretion unless the official has clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to his duty in the exercise of that discretion, nor can they show they are vested.

➤ Why discretion is not understood in chancery as acting within obedience to administration of a statute, and not apart from obedience. There is nothing respondents-in-fraud can offer the court will accept as honest government services.

➤ How three prior notices duly served on respondents, or by agency, were not sufficient enough that the court regards needful an alternative writ, the only stated purpose is to provide notice.

➤ How in law the court could utterly ignore evidence in the suit, the affidavit of irreparable harm, directly caused by respondents while claiming there is no evidence of harm for purposes of standing.

➤ Why the court denied relator the right of reply to the motion to dismiss or the right to amend after respondents particularized their motion to dismiss.

➤ And why a court respecting equity would not know the respondents cannot answer in any regard, they have no equity as a matter of law, disabling the lawfulness of such an order.

Respondents have no standing from which to say anything further. Record shows they have only persiflage, quackery and dimension-bending theories about how Tennessee code works upon those men and women responsible for administering it (or not, as they insist). 

Because respondents-in-fraud can contribute nothing to answer to the motion for alteration of the order of dismissal detached from the intention and suit filed by relator, the sole obligation and duty of this court, a hearing is prejudicial, useless and sham, an apparent effort to dodge the court’s duty to issue writ of mandamus it requested and relator provided instantly under claim it needs more undue influence from respondents who smear fraud across the record in this lawsuit, stinking like a field of unburied decomposing bodies.

State of Tennessee demands a petition for writ of mandamus, which is its right to have issue from the court immediately, if not sooner. Pursuant to settled principles of equity the court can issue the writ in chambers without any further hearing, justice intended.

The Tulis Report is 1 p.m. weekdays at NoogaRadio 92.7 FM.

Time to fight


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.