Cartels vs. libertyCommon law rightsEmergencyPanic 2020

Lee caught with 2 hands on corpus delecti, but Judge Fleenor delays ruling

Gov. Bill Lee has won party members to his side in his overthrow of limited constitutional government under guise of a medical crisis. (Photo governor’s office)
Investigative journalist David Tulis is suing Gov. Lee and demanding a judge order him to obey the Tennessee health law, which he boldly has ignored in overthrow of lawful government in Tennessee. (Photo NoogaRadio)

Relator in the case State of Tennessee ex rel Tulis objects to a Hamilton County chancery court hearing Jan. 30, 2021, in regards to his motions for altered orders from the court, twin documents from Judge Pamela Fleenor unjustly dismissing his Oct. 2, 2020, affidavit for petition for equity and for writ of mandamus.

By David Tulis / NoogaRadio 92.7 FM

I am asking for a writ of mandamus to compel Gov. Bill Lee and local administrator Becky Barnes to obey state law at Tenn. Code Ann. 68-5-104 regarding contagions, epidemics and quarantine.

The court sets a hearing date to hear oral arguments on these motions in my emergency petition that by law must be decided “forthwith” — in days, immediately, brooking no delay. It is improper for Judge Fleenor to set a date for oral arguments in a lawsuit containing an admitted record of disobedience to black-letter law and yet which has been delayed already 179 days prior to March 30 hearing date.

Constitutional breaches

The hearing date violates the rule in the constitution that the court give justice without delay, especially when the claims made by state of Tennessee are of momentous import, affecting the lives of millions of people, and concern a gross fraud perpetrated by respondent Lee and myriad subordinates without regard to the rights of the people and the state’s form of government.

Pam Fleenor, chancery judge

The mandamus law requires action “forthwith” at Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-25-108, judgment. Mandamus is demanded to compel obedience to Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-104. Mandamus is peremptory and immediate, as respondents’ response is pro confesso in the petition as admission of disobedience and disregard to the statute pre-existing the lawsuit, which petition demands from the court a ministerial act to compel a ministerial action by respondents under the law, which these persons have not independent authority or discretion to disregard.

The relator objects to be ordered to speak further about his demand for remedy at equity or for a writ of mandamus. He is reluctant to weary the court, make himself tedious and his cause hateful by overlong process and uneconomical use of resources.

His cause has been in the Hamilton County public record 160-plus days, has involved three hearings and a multitude of written filings that he, as one who loves the people of Tennessee and state of Tennessee, has submitted in good faith to his utmost in prosecuting private villainy and brigandage in stately costume of lawful policy. 

Relator motion regarding respondent Lee is at 19,800 words; a second demand for altered order for respondent Barnes is at 13,300 words. These suffice, it appears to him. 

Lee, Barnes caught with pants down

Respondents were notified prior to suit of the claims of the state law by the legislative enactment itself, were notified of their violation by relator investigation and demands, refused obedience after suit was filed, and so stand thrice condemned — by the witness of the constitution protecting the due process rights of relator and the people, by their oaths of office or terms of employment and by the law itself.

Respondents lack any equity in the contest, and were in negative equity from before filing in committing open fraud. They admit disobeying the law. They frivolously argue they are not subject to it, are exercising discretion in contravention to it or, because not named in the statute, not liable for its fulfilment and administration. Such defenses are humiliating for chancery court to be made to hear as the best respondents have to offer.

Flagrant indifference to duty

What esteem does the court give two admitted scofflaws caught in flagrante delicto — in the delicious middle of an adulterous orgasm, as it were — by relator in service of state of Tennessee? What need has the court to hear anything else from these rogues and lawbreakers? What explanations or evasions will help the court go any further into the confusion and vexation it has driven itself in sympathy to their cause, and into hostility to the cause of right, reason, justice and truth represented by state of Tennessee on relation? 

Respondents have dissembled long enough; respondents have tantalized the court months enough with fibs about mandamus, misrepresentations about standing, blindness as to relator’s affidavit of injury, willful falsities about the nature and style of the case and the relator’s person, and impertinent treatment of case. Respondent Gov. Lee has too, too long pretended he can ignore the law on epidemics and contagions so that he might act under color of emergency in Tenn. Code Ann. § Title 58, and so reorganize the government along unitary administrative lines. In this experiment without precedent in state history, the people become his subject apart from their right to have protection from the judicial department to due process rights, to the rules of notice, hearing, trial and adjudication of claims against them on grounds of their sickness if proveable in fact at law. 

There is no authority under the constitution for authority to be applied promiscuously upon the people at large, called “the free people” in the state of Tennessee; there exists no universal power upon them to cease their normal lives, religion, education, pleasures and commerce apart from due process, administered man by man, woman by woman, child by child, as power in a constitutional republic is restrained by the supreme law and charter of the Tennessee constitution. 

Respondent Lee and respondent Barnes have too many weeks acted under color of law and in their personal capacity apart from duty imposed by the law upon them, and have acted apart from protection the law implies for them for any act they perform within its scope, provisions and occupation.

Futility, delay added harms 

And now the court wants to hear if they object to relator’s motion for altered order, or have discussion against issuance of writ of mandamus.

Relator objects to the hearing in its entirety on two grounds: 

Futility and delay. 

Lex neminem cogit ad vana seu inutilia peragenda. The law forces no one to do vain or useless things. The law always abhors delay is controlling.

A hearing is futile because he has little further to offer the court, his essential claims made in the petition, one that he has insisted he has a right to amend.

A hearing is the court’s pretense of extending an open mind and ear to state of Tennessee, and so doing by exercising the fault of delay. A hearing is useless and sham, an effort by the court to dodge its duty to issue writ of mandamus forthwith under claim it needs more study, more review, more consideration of fraud spread across the record in this lawsuit and stinking like a field of unburied decomposing bodies.

Secondarily, state of Tennessee on relation objects to the hearing because it engages in the custom in this chancery delay. In an emergency and peremptory demand for writ of mandamus, time is of the essence. Each day the law is disobeyed, the public interest is neglected. For every one of the 22 weeks this lawsuit is unresolved in chancery, the public health, welfare and safety is jeopardized.

The court’s failure to command obedience to the law and halt all mitigation efforts until an isolate or “contagious principle” for “COVID-19” has been found puts the people of Hamilton County, victims of respondents’ fraud, in jeopardy of genetic therapy shots misrepresented as “vaccines” to “halt the spread of the virus,” which injection stockpiles are hastily concocted, untested and given without informed consent as to the contents nor the effect long-term. Among recipients across the U.S., nearly 1,000 have perished in adverse events occurring shortly after the bandaid is placed over the arm prickhole.

No standing to say anything further

In the four weeks between the March 2, 2021, order and the March 30, 2021, hearing date, the people of Hamilton County are acting trustingly under the advice of respondent Barnes and the state’s Bill Lee without word from the court that the entire operation of medical treatment is premised on fraud and a sequence of pseudo-governmental acts in open contempt for the people of state of Tennessee, their persons, property and rights.

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). Respondents are in default, performing in fraud, have no equity, deserve not even a hearing, and relator doesn’t want to hear what more they say.

State of Tennessee today demands a petition for writ of mandamus, which is its right to have issue from the court immediately, if not sooner than forthwith.

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

Time to fight


Leave a Comment

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