Pamela Fleenor of chancery court has sent to the court of appeals in Knoxville a record containing a nine-minute gap.
By David Tulis / NoogaRadio 92.7 FM
The omission appears to be one more abuse of due process rights that state of Tennessee on relation has suffered in her hands in its bid to restore constitutional government and a respect for state law.
Omitted in the record is an order she had clerk Robin Miller file into the record that sets a hearing date Dec. 2, 2020, the first one of three in the case State ex rel Tulis that was hog-tied 201 days in Hamilton County chancery court.
The hearing is set to consider a motion by Becky Barnes, the Hamilton County health department administrator I am suing for fraud in the violation of the key epidemics and quarantine statute that requires a finding of an isolate for CV-19, AKA “Covid-19.” (No isolate has been made, and 477-day-old emergency runs on even now, a mass fraud and harm upon the people.)
Mrs. Barnes is already in default asking for delay in answering my complaint, filed Oct. 2. A day after her deadline under my summons, she makes her request for more time. She asks essentially for two months time to explain why she is in violation of T.C.A. 68-5-104.
This filing is Nov. 6. I prepare a motion of objection and on Nov. 10 enter the clerk and master’s office in the courts building to file it.
Nine minutes before I file my motion to “deny enlargement,” Judge Fleenor enters an order cutting me off at the knees. Judge Fleenor sets a hearing to hear the request for more time Dec. 2, 2020.
Judge Fleenor, in setting a hearing date 24 days out, effectively grants the request for 30 days more time without giving me a hearing about the matter.
That is a prejudice.
That is a harm to the state that I represent as relator, the man who “relates” the people’s and the state’s grievances over the abrogation of the constitution in the state of emergency.
The same order — omitted in the appellate record — commits a second prejudice.
The hearing will also consider a motion I filed demanding an immediate resolution of the case, a filing called a motion pro confesso that insists on an immediate order for a writ of mandamus from the bench apart from hearing, based on undisputed record of confessed and admitted disobedience to T.C.A. 68-5-104.
Six days later, I demand respect of our due process rights, file a motion to reconsider hearing order and for immediate disposition. That motion provides a copy of Judge Fleenor’s oath of office and rebukes her bias, prejudice and affinity for Mrs. Barnes and Gov. Bill Lee, whom I am also suing.
“Mr. Tulis, the Court of Appeals does not want orders setting hearings in the technical record,” Mrs. Miller says.
The record is more than 500 pages. I understand an order merely setting a hearing is generally not important. But in this instance it appears to be so, and I will have to provide a copy of the order as an addendum in my appellate brief, due July 26.
