The mandamus case to reverse the Tennessee state of emergency under mass public fraud was accepted Friday by the court of appeals in Knoxville. It had been sent from the Hamilton County chancery clerk and master eight days prior. The lawsuit argues on behalf of the state itself and her people that Gov. Bill Lee should be compelled to obey the quarantine statute at Tenn. Code Ann. § Title 68-5-104, which he has fraudulently violated.
By David Tulis / NoogaRadio 92.7 FM
That law requires the finding of a first case of a contagious condition, and the determination of the cause or agent of contagion. These obligations were denied, and Gov. Lee joined a global panic to turn the entire state of Tennessee into a prison, starting March 12, 2020, and “locking down” the entire state economy April 2 in breach of the constitution and multiple provisions of the Tennessee code.
Four hearings were held in Chattanooga in my complaint and demand or a writ of mandamus to compel his obedience, and that of Becky Barnes, the county health administrator.
The most important case in Tennessee jurisprudence in decades has received no press attention, except at this website and at NoogaRadio 92.7 FM. It got five paragraphs in a Times Free Press story. Chancery court judge Pam Fleenor wrote four orders of dismissal in this intensely fought legal action on grounds of lack of standing and failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted. She alleges I was not particularly harmed in the Gov. Lee debacle, and am indistinguishable from other victims of the overthrow of the government.
I argue that the motions to dismiss by Lee and Barnes are improper, and insist I have a right to amend my petition.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Now, Mr. Tulis, this is your time to respond, argue your motion to strike, object, whatever you want to do. Now is your — you have the floor, sir.
MR. TULIS: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. For the record for any appeal, consistent with the factual evidence in the petition, notwithstanding the boilerplate offered by both respondents, or inadequate, order denying the motion to strike respondent’s motion to dismiss for continuing fraud, which, among other things, the challenged order, consequent with granting, if justice is to be done, needed to provide notice to show how the petition was insufficient; and that this court, contrary to its actions to date, provide the state on relation with an opportunity to amend any particularized inadequacy, particularized inadequacy; then that relator refused or failed or could not amend, and to provide foundation for how this court can continue to allow fraud to infiltrate, subsist and be subsidized in chancery and tolerated by equity principles. That despite the vast discretionary authority, Your Honor, granted an honorable court, these same requirements apply equally to the purported motions to dismiss, and this court is required to provide its valid foundation and notice for due process consideration that ultimately justice be done.
Dismissal upon the otherwise inadequate, if not frivolous, motions of the respondent, in admitted fraud and breach of duty causing, with evidence of record, particularized irreparable harm to relator and — or the state of Tennessee on relation, is unwarranted and constitutionally invalid against the relators’ rights to remedy for the particularized harm — again, particularized harm — done to him by respondent in any capacity.
The motion to dismiss is improper, being the fraud now admitted by respondents in choosing this route, the procedural route, has not been answered pursuant to equity principles, and the court is duty bound to summarily and immediately issue the writ of mandamus; that the respondent is compelled to obey the law and stop committing, or by omission, the irreparable harm, Your Honor, evidenced in the adequate petition, no lawful record existing to the contrary. And so just briefly in introduction, I demand that justice be done in favor of the State of Tennessee on relation immediately, Your Honor.
Lee motion to dismiss ‘fraud,’ ‘improper’
And now to the specifics of my, my motion to strike Mrs. Kleinfelter’s labors. It’s improper.
We are 101 days into an admitted violation of 68-5-104. That is a fraud. Equity disallows fraud, it disallows breach of trust, it disallows oppression and violation of oath to stand unaddressed in this court.
Actions by the respondent personally are addressed because his, his health security show in defiance of the law is done, I would think, in his personal capacity under color of law, not in his office. His office has no authority to ignore the statute and to declare a state of emergency.
The motion to dismiss the State of Tennessee’s claims on relation with prejudice is not particularized. It is not particularized, Your Honor. It does not answer to the fraud. And the motion that you have read and you’ve heard discussed now is from one who has no standing to argue anything.
With unclean hands, admitting fraud, violating oath, there’s no right, no right of having law and notice not shine the light upon it that this case is doing. We are in a state of breach of public trust. There is no lawful title by respondent Lee before this court for 101 days.
There’s no title, either, to the property of the people whom he has injured. There is no lawful excuse. And it’s not a matter of discretion that we’re dealing with here. There’s no lawful excuse, no discretion, in default in reply to his, his oath.
He is 100 percent in the red.
And if the court lets stand this motion, I would like to have an answer in writing as to what — and if I do — if this motion survives in any way, Judge Fleenor, I would like at least 21 days to answer it. [Judge Fleenor denies me the right to answer the motion to dismiss — another of many due process violations in her court.]
Right to transfer case to Davidson County
Continuing. The motion that I filed with the court is for, in the alternative, misjoinder. Dismissal is not proper, especially the bad, the bad faith claim that it be done with prejudice. The proper handling of this case, if Chancellor Fleenor wants to hear this alternative petition, is misjoinder. If the court lacks jurisdiction, as Mrs. Kleinfelter says, then Tennessee Code Annotated 16-1-116 is the misjoinder rule. It’s also Rule 21. The proper handling of the Lee portion of this petition for writ of mandamus would be transfer. And that — and she is arguing a venue privilege that deals with commissioners. But it seems that the courts would — that it’s being argued that the courts hold that these rules on commissioners having — being sued in Davidson County — there are no governor cases that I’m aware of. And if it seems to apply to respondent Lee, then I have a right to pursue this case and justice in Davidson County.
So what I would say, Your Honor, that, that if there is no subject matter jurisdiction for the propriety of my claims against him here in Hamilton County, that it be by transfer. And, Your Honor, if Lee is transferred, I would insist on the right in Davidson County to get the date of the filing there as of October the 2nd, not, not the date of the transfer. And that’s pursuant again to 16-1-116. So, that, that is the — that is my argument for dismissal. The case, in sum, Your Honor, if fraud is not addressed in a court of equity, which is chancery’s great, great jurisdiction, great Godly power, then these procedural claims are improper and this motion by Mrs. Kleinfelter should be stricken.
