Relator asks the court to reconsider its Oct. 7, 2021, order giving respondent-in-fraud Rebecca Barnes 30 days more to answer because of a glitchy PDF, and believing her claims without first having heard detail of relator’s objections.
[ To prolong the health emergency at least 30 days longer than it might otherwise last, Hamilton County’s health administer, Becky Barnes, recently retired and her job held by an interim, says she has been unable to open a PDF for more than 100 days, and needs 30 more days in which to ask for help. David Tulis, your relator in a court fight to end the fraudulent state of emergency, files this objection. Footnotes omitted. — DJT]
The court believes a party in fraud who claims she needs extra time to open a PDF after not having been able to open a file in the technical record — a public document — for more than 100 days. The court extends to a party with no equity in the case, as exhibited by the record of the lawsuit, grace and favor when respondent deserves none.
The court knew Oct. 6, 2021, of relator’s pending objections, having had them reported by Barnes’ motion for 30 days. The next day, Oct. 7, the court granted the Barnes motion before relator had time to answer. State of Tennessee on relation objects.
Respondent Barnes says she “has demonstrated good cause” for an “extension of time in which to request and receive an additional copy of Volume 1” of the technical record.
Hamilton County chancery clerks completed the record June 18, 2021. Seven days later, on June 25, the clerk James Hivner sent relator — and presumably the respondents — a disk containing the record. Relator met a filing deadline Sept. 8, 2021, to get his brief to the court in Knoxville, having been granted two extensions beyond the 30 days allotted by rule.
One hundred and three (103) days after clerk Hivner sent out disks of the technical record, respondent Barnes is asking more time to ask for a copy of the file. After 103 days fuddling about she pleads for another 30 days so she can “request” a copy and finish her lucubrations to defend her oath-breaking, fraud upon the public, breach of statute and continuing irreparable harm.
State of Tennessee on relation objects to the order granting 30 days more delay, in a case demanded by law to be handled “forthwith,” assisting respondent’s furtherance of unavoided, admitted frauds continuing irreparable harm and injustice to relator and the state’s 6.8 million people. “The court should have no favorites as between persons not under disability except in so far as it favors those who are diligent; and the Chancellor has no right to grant a favor to one party at the expense of another. Favors should be paid or in costs; otherwise the party in default is rewarded and the party who has done his duty is punished” Gibson’s Suits in Chancery, 5th Ed., 1955, § 530 Terms Imposed on Continuances.
Further, state of Tennessee on relation prosecutes respondent William Byron Lee and “intrinsically linked” (p. 86) respondent Barnes in their persons for a lawless health crisis and emergency — lacking a lawful and nonfraudulent exigency — they launched 577 days ago. Justice demands and this court should insist that respondent should do the just thing rather than ask for more time: Namely, avoid the fraud of violating T.C.A. § 68-5-104, obey the law and cease all official misconduct under T.C.A § 39-16-401. For an immaterial and nearly laughable reason, the order unjustly stretches out the continuing violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-104 by respondents, and violation of the mandamus statute’s “forthwith” requirement at T.C.A. § 29-25-102 to require the respondents to produce their nonfraudulent exigency supporting the police power prerogative they admit they wield without any duty to any law, or none that is applicable.
A respondent in fraud, unavoidably, with unclean hands, pursuant to clearly established equity principles, deserves nothing — requiring the motion be denied. The court provides no foundation for its decision when allowing a motion to a party in fraud, how its order does not continue the ongoing fraud, or the subsequent and continuing fraud on the court and trespass on the case, these objections diligently preserved in chancery — motion to strike (p. 147), motion to object to the proposed December 2, 2020, hearing orders (p. 154) alleging defamation as bankrupt debtor, fraudulently negativing character, false statements about nature of relator’s cause; and see footnote No. 4, Gibson’s § 57. Equity will Undo What Fraud has Done — or how respondent’s excuse demonstrated cause shown.
By Rule 36, relief; effect of error, the power to grant entitled orders, upon matters from a court of equity, this court has no jurisdiction or authority to grant an extension of time to a party in fraud, and of which the entire record before this court is evidence.
Preserving these issues for appeal, the state on relation demands justice be done forthwith.
Time to fight