Judge, Lee lawyer pretend evidence of harm not evidence in CV-19 case

I await another set of orders dismissing my petition for writ of mandamus to end the CV-19 state of disaster in Tennessee created by a lawless and hapless Republican, Bill Lee.

By David Tulis / NoogaRadio 92.7 FM

Meanwhile, I have filed with chancery court the lead-in exhibit in the case, my affidavit of personal harm and injury that accompanied my petition for the writ.

The problem is that I as relator — representing the state and its 6.8 million people — am being victimized by precise maneuvers under rules, no doubt outside my awareness, that let these people “in good conscience” deceive and cheat me. They can violate black-letter law at will. But I am bound by court rules, and am being denied justice, with the aid of chancery court judge Pamela Fleenor.

I am doing this because the court pretends that I am not injured, that nothing Gov. Lee did nor Becky Barnes, the local health administrator, in shutting down the economy and jailing people in their houses caused me an injury. If I can’t show personal harm, I don’t have standing.

A big fiction raised by the court and the respondents in the case is that I am uninjured, and so mandamus won’t issue, and the case must be dismissed. Unjust judge Fleenor has played along with the scam.

At the hearing March 30 by phone, I fought to read the 5-page ““Affidavit of David Jonathan Tulis in evidence or the petition in equity and for writ of mandamus” filed Oct. 2, 2020, into the record and into evidence, since somehow — in a mysterious process — it is not being considered as unrebutted evidence.

Fleenor blocks reading of evidence

I declared, “I am insisting on reading it into the record, because until now the document has not been noticed.” I commenced reading the affidavit of harm from the beginning, but was interrupted in the second line by the court:

THE COURT Sir, Mr. Tulis, you are not going to read your entire affidavit again into the record. It’s filed. It’s in the record, sir. There’s —

TULIS But your honor, you have ignored this record and the respondents’ attorneys have in bad faith smeared the glass in such a way that it is invisible to you and illegible to you, but I would like to — I insist on entering my affidavit into the record in this hearing, your honor. It has to be in the record. 

THE COURT It is in the record, sir. The court accepts that it is in the record. It was filed, yessir.

TULIS Well, but because, your honor, because the evidence is being ignored by you, by this court, it needs to be for matters of appeal put into the record of this hearing, your honor, so that it can be recorded by the reporter. I insist, your honor.

THE COURT The court is ruling that it’s in the record.

TULIS Well, I am insisting on reading it into the record because the document has not been noticed or read, your honor. It’s a due process right to enter my evidence into this record in this hearing, seeing that it has been ignored for these 179 days, your honor.

THE COURT My ruling is that it is in the record so that you don’t have to read it. It would be a duplicate.

TULIS Are you denying me my due process right of entering orally my affidavit of harm into this record of this hearing?

COURT Yes. Yes I am so that we can move forward. Your affidavit is in. You may submit an additional copy today, tendered as “Exhibit 1,” but you don’t have to read it. OK?

TULIS I believe that to perfect my claims and my rights on appeal that I am insisting on  getting it into the record here at this hearing, your honor.

THE COURT I am denying that, because we need to move on. It is Exhibit 1. The affidavit.

TULIS And I object to your denial.

THE COURT Yessir. That is duly noted. You may move on with your argument, sir.

Time to fight

.