Cartels vs. libertyChristendomCommon law rightsEmergencyInterposition

Mandamus petition proves fraud; so why does Fleenor reject it?

Gov. Bill Lee, right, and former Gov. Bill Haslam are Republicans, that party happy with the Lee overthrow constitutional government for a health-care terror state. (Photo governor’s office)

Relator David Tulis of Soddy-Daisy, Tenn., in petition testifies he is harmed, has no other remedy than lawsuit for harms caused by respondents Gov. Bill Lee and health department administrator Becky Barnes, alleges that respondents have a duty to administer (obey, execute, manage resources in terms of) T.C.A. § 68-5-104 and other relevant health laws, are bound by a fiduciary duty to the law, and shows that they admit having no records or evidence of compliance with Title 68. Relator takes their responses as “reliance that duties required by law were not obeyed for the purpose of initiating remedy”.

[ Here is the summary of our case against Gov. Lee and administrator Barnes in Hamilton County, demanding the court of appeals overturn the evil and unjust dismissals against my petition for writ of mandamus and equity, starting in chancery court with Judge Pamela Fleenor. It highlights the gap between duty and action, and rebukes these two respondents’ effective admission of crime in the CV-19 fraud and panic begun with the irst executibve order March 12, 2020. Please understand this effort has only me doing the law work as relator, on my own dime. Support this cause at my crowd-funding page. — DJT]

Pam Fleenor, chancery judge

He sues demanding evidence of compliance with the law that officials can demonstrate a nonfraudulent exigency for the communicable disease emergency declared, or of avoidance of the proofs showing disobedience, or a lawful exoneration of his/her acts, with proofs of obedience, lawful administration by agents and/or a non-fraudulent exigency outside of the legislative mandate for communicable disease giving warrant to the Title 58 state of emergency imposed by respondent Lee.

Had such evidence been given exculpatory of respondents’ actions, relator would have dismissed the suit.

The petition evidences, and reality has proven out, that fraud, subterfuge, confusion, and deceit pervade the respondents’ purported response to the 2020 influenza, flu, under various names, aka SARS-CoV-2, under pretended and unwarranted emergency powers law at Title 58. Respondents refuse to identify an infectious agent, ignore duty to “determine the source or cause of the disease” to better combat it, lie about the PCR test that cannot differentiate between influenza and the lab synthesized RNA gene coding, which generates false positives and hence growing panic. The domestic “pandemic” is proving fraudulent, a numbers-driven condition stirred by people in foreign jurisdictions, with local and state duty to identify “something communicable in a locale” and aided by a wrongfully promulgated rule, the relief sought of which is likely reformation in the demand. No local first case is evidenced pursuant to law, except misleadingly, and presumptively and fraudulently, by delinquent admission of respondents. 

The petition in equity and for writ of mandamus is an affidavit, unrebutted testimony. Its facts would not exist but for respondents’ disobeying the legislature’s mandate at T.C.A. § 68-5-104 that lays forth the constraints under which police power might be used upon individual men, women and children, subject to warrant and the right to due process and breaching the separation of powers, required to be kept.

The petition sets forth facts of relator’s private harms. Based on the facts of claim, the petition seeks that all acts, orders and directives of respondents be quashed, abrogated, halted and that respondents be commanded to obey the quarantine and isolation law starting at T.C.A. § 68-5-104 that they have disobeyed and to which they refuse to repair in their “fight” against the condition known as “Covid-19,” a disease not the infectious agent of which they are to nonfraudulently demonstrate.  He also demands they “keep accurate records *** to eliminate fraudulent records fraudulently used to create a color of authority which cannot exist as a matter of law”. Demonstrating a nonfraudulent exigency for the declared emergency is of the highest public interest and requirement of law. 

Relator would not have been “irreparably injured and harmed” but for respondents’ actions as causes in fact and proximate cause of his harms.

Relator sues respondents in their offices, personally, as well, alleging their sins of omission in disobeying T.C.A. § 68-5-104 and their sins of commission in a state of emergency without a non-fraudulent “objectively bona fide demonstrable exigence” , from which flow acts and consequences relator testifies are harmful to him and illegal against him.

The petition witnesses respondents in violation of public duties. Relator would not have been “irreparably injured and harmed” but for respondents’ actions as causes in fact and proximate cause of his harms.

The statute they admit they disobeyed, § 68-5-104, and haven’t “any duty” to, identifies the “intrinsically linked” respondents or agents thereof. It requires “local health authorities” (Barnes) acting on a disease, “declared by the commissioner of health” (Lee official) to be “subject to isolation or quarantine,” to “confirm or establish the diagnosis, to determine the source or cause of the disease and to take such steps as may be necessary to isolate or quarantine the case or premise upon which the case, cause or source may be found.” There is no authority even where a nonfraudulent exigency were to be declared to wrongfully infringe upon the healthy relator in any way as respondents have done, whether directly or indirectly.   

Respondents admit the fact, as does the CDC of which they are unduly influenced, they have no isolate of SARS-CoV-2, the purported infectious agent. Similarly, they admit they do not know how the condition is transmitted, or as to any susceptibility in relator or anyone generally or without the initiating and required medical report, or of what cause or “contagious principle,” to quote T.C.A. § 68-1-202, the flulike symptoms “Covid-19” consists.

Delay in justice is forbidden in the Tennessee constitution bill of rights, Article 1, section 17, “every man *** shall have remedy *** , and right and justice administered without *** delay.” Equity principles declare delay is injustice. “To sell justice would be a crime, to deny justice would be an outrage akin to crime, and to delay justice is an intolerable wrong, for delay is equivalent to a denial while the delay continues: the virtue of justice often evaporates during the delay. Denial and delay are man and wife, and injustice and injury are their children” Gibsons’s Id. § 535, Applications to Amend, or Continue, How Considered.

What happens if ‘forthwith’ denied?

A mandamus action is required to be handled forthwith at T.C.A. § 29-25-102. “FORTHWITH. Immediately; without delay, directly, hence within a reasonable time under the circumstances of the case.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th ed.

The court denies relief forthwith, and in consequence imposes a new mass threat by respondents. That is an inoculation program of untested genetically modified materials into hundreds of thousands of people unprecedented in annals of U.S. medical history. The U.S. food and drug administration has not approved the experimental injections, but “authorizes” them under an “emergency use authorization.” The “Covid-19” shots have bizarre and often lethal side effects and are being urged, without testing, on children, pregnant women and healthy people in the middle of a purported “pandemic.” They have taken 13,068 Americans lives in 595,620 negative Covid-19 shot reactions, as reported by Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System run by the U.S. government.

Chancery says it has no subject matter jurisdiction as to Lee on grounds relator should have sued him in Davidson County, the seat of state government.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-4-104 says department heads must reside in Davidson County, unless they get the governor’s permission to live elsewhere. Commissioners, drawn from the people in 95 counties, are said to live in Davidson as to their commissions on state business, and have right to be sued there over departmental business. The courts appear to have created, without approval of the general assembly, an equivalence: “Suit against a commissioner” = “suit against the governor” = “suit against the state,” a presumption used to protect respondent Lee in this action. The petition contradicts such legal fiction, serviceable in ordinary legal disputes over commissioners’ being sued while honorably performing their duties in office under law. 

Chancery says relator’s case is a “suit against the state”. Relator represents the state of Tennessee, himself and its people in seeking remedy for harm. This lawsuit alleges conspiracy of fraud with a Hamilton County official under color of authority. Relator asks the court: Is it a “suit against the state”? Or is it a suit against criminals operating official misconduct in personal capacity (p. 8) under color of the state and official capacity? 

Petition avers it is the latter. The state is supposed to prohibit fraud, and it didn’t. Divided government, the supreme law, statute law, oaths of office, and good government practices guarantee honest government services and prohibit harm and fraud. State institutions in Tennessee failed to prevent respondents from acting in such a way as to aggrieve relator particularly and the people generally in mass irreparable harm. 

Petition, supplying all the facts in the record, attests, alleges and establishes fraud, a gap between the law (setting forth respondents’ duty) and their acts.

The factual record is presumed — and accepted — by chancery and respondents as true; relator insists a facial challenge to the complaint is improper, unjust and intolerable under the rules of equity when fraud is admitted in the record established prior to suit.

Briefs admit fraud

Respondent Lee is head of the executive branch and responsible for administering T.C.A. § 68-5-104. The constitution at article 3 says, “The supreme executive power of this state shall be vested in a governor,” section 1, and the governor “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” section 10 (emphasis added). 

Lee admits fraud in his brief: “The plain language of this statute demonstrates that it neither establishes a clear right of relief in the petitioner nor imposes any duty on the Governor”. Chancery agrees with his claims of no duty. “Nowhere in the statute is the Governor even mentioned” and relator “failed to allege any precise ministerial duty” .

Barnes admits fraud in her brief, saying the statute’s list of acts to obey “are discretionary” and that she is “an official vested with discretion”, fraudulently citing Tusant v. City of Memphis, 56 S.W.3d at 18, 19. Chancery reads Tusant as support of Barnes’ claims of discretion as against the entirety of the statute, and sees “vesting” with authority even when Barnes admits disobeying the general assembly law as relevant to her.

Relator pressed the court, respondents and counsel that respondents are admitting violation of felony criminal misconduct law at T.C.A. § 39-16-402, that officers of the court have duty under law and their rules of professional ethics to halt crimes and offenses brought to their notice, and to see to it that prosecutors are made aware of the offenses.

Lee admits fraud in his brief: “The plain language of this statute demonstrates that it neither establishes a clear right of relief in the petitioner nor imposes any duty on the Governor”. Chancery agrees with his claims of no duty.

The court accepts whereby respondents seek to evade accountability to the substance of the record regarding fraud. In other words, chancery grants demurrer to parties subject to the petition. Relator objection, encapsulates his objections to this state of affairs.

Chancery denies the state of Tennessee has been harmed. “Relator failed to allege how the Administrator’s actions injured Relator in a concrete and personal way. Nor has Relator alleged some extraordinary damage to him personally, beyond that of the rest of the community” as to Barnes. As to Lee, “This court determines that Relator only alleges generalized grievances *** not justiciable” and that he “failed to allege how the Governor’s actions injured Relator in a concrete and personal way”.

Relator pleads repeatedly for the court to end fraud, in every writing and in each of four hearings. Chancery, by four orders of dismissal, refuses relator’s pleas to end the fraud. 

Chancery rejects mandamus as suitable means to bring the governor and county health administrator into compliance with  T.C.A. § 68-5-10.

Chancery rejects other equitable measures, said by Gibson’s to be available, to bring respondents into compliance with T.C.A. § 68-5-104. Chancery dismissal orders Nos. 1 and dismissal orders Nos. 2 make no reference to equity or equity standards. They use the word “equity” only in quoting relator.

All round, in chancery’s view, relator is in court on a fool’s errand, having no injury, no facts, not alleging an injury, unable to meet chancery’s stated requirement that he “prove” facts of injury. Chancery says relator “failed to allege that he suffered a particularized concrete injury in fact” as to Lee and “only alleges generalized grievances *** not justiciable” as to Barnes, can “can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief” as to Lee, has no “extraordinary damage beyond the rest of the community” as to Barnes, and since he “failed to allege he suffered a personal, concrete injury, then Relator has no act of the Governor to challenge, nor is there any injury for this Court to address” as to Lee. See pp. 265, 266 for relator’s “extraordinary” harm as a member of the press.

Petition avers “court is competent through this remedy to provide redress to which the respondents are subject”. Chancery denies it is competent, says it lacks subject matter jurisdiction regarding either respondent. But it holds four hearings over 201 days and 12 orders.

Chancery at the Jan. 11, 2021, “phone hearing” allows oral argument for a motion for dismissal prior to hearing relator’s motion to strike. Relator objects to hearing respondents at all as fraud is unavoided. Chancery interrupts, saying “we are getting to the merits of your case now.”  The court orders respondents to argue motions for dismissal first before hearing relator’s motions to strike, saying they were filed first and the motion to strike is “a response. *** It was subsequent”. 

This statement “we are getting to the merits of your case now” is as close as chancery gets to any merits. It accepts fraud in the record. Rule 2.2 says, “A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially”.


Time to fight


One Response

  1. Goece Weilmon

Leave a Comment

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