In footnote No. 1439, it became clear this week how chancery court judge Pamela Fleenor and two government lawyers have made a fool of state or Tennessee on relation.
On specious grounds, Judge Fleenor dismisses in four orders our case before her as I represent 6.8 million people and the state itself. I am suing to overthrow the state of emergency in Tennessee — not renewed as of Friday, Nov. 19, 2021. The grounds are imaginary, wholly illusory and mirage-like, not part of the history of the remedy we are using — petition for writ of mandamus.
What I mean is, my wonderful remedy at law to compel compliance with the state health law is being thwarted as the judge and state and county lawyers connive to create a false defense against the use of this remedy.
Mandamus means, “We command.” It is a powerful writ that lets taxpayers, citizens, common folk and others with grievance of lawless acts bring officials and government actors into compliance.
Mandamus on chopping block
The fraud perpetrated by Judge Fleenor, up for re-election in 2022, is the claim that I had to show personal, concrete and particularized injury to myself when I filed suit Oct. 2, 2020, in Hamilton County chancery court.
The court determines that Relator failed to allege that he sustained a concrete, injury in fact. *** To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Id. at 1548. For an injury to be particularized it must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way. Id. An injury in fact must also be concrete-not abstract.
Fleenor dismissal order Jan. 21, 2021
The problem with Judge Fleenor’s analysis is that I am not under duty to establish a concrete injury in fact in a mandamus action. My careful re-reading of Tennessee Jurisprudence, Mandamus (39pp), brings a corrective to light.
The point about my standing may seem like a detail in an arcane area of law. But it’s vital to see that this powerful mandamus remedy “we the people” use against corrupt government officials is on the chopping block in my case.
The lawyers and the judges want to use this case to get into the appellate record a new standard for the use of mandamus. They calculate to get a ruling in favor of the argument that mandamus is useable only if the petitioner — known as the relator — show personal harm.
Bogus argument, no precedent for Fleenor claim
Judge Fleenor wants to decapitate the right of mandamus by getting into the appellate record an elimination of the past use of mandamus by common folk who did not have to make a showing of personal harm and injury, as they might in an ordinary civil lawsuit.
In pursuing a policy direction in the judiciary — perhaps planned and discussed at the secretive TN judicial conferences that I have penetrated — the judges want to curb the ability of the people to seek redress.
In mandamus, the wrong is in the action or inaction of a state actor — a judge, a commissioner, a mayor, a police chief, a judge. The right of the citizen to sue for mandamus — for an order compelling obedience to the law — is in the duty of the official. His standing to sue is not because he shows he is harmed, but because the harm exists in violation of the law.
A single day in which an officer — a cop or a governor — violates the law is a wrong, and a citizen has a right to seek redress against it. Violation of law creates the right of a person to seek mitigation.
In the case State ex rel. David Jonathan Tulis vs. Bill Lee, governor, et al, the harm is in blatant violation of the health law at T.C.A. § 68-5-104 that requires in 102 words that a determination be made as to agent of contagion in the spurious Covid-19 pandemic, a bioweapon attack on the people in Tennessee and in states and nations around the world and an attempt to replace free government subservient to law with unitary administrative medico-terror power structures that ultimately enslave or destroy people or whole populations.
The harm I am suing over is in the law, not necessarily a harm upon me measurable by details of my life or business.
‘Right to make examination of books’
Here’s what mandamus is about, and here’s how it works. It is a powerful remedy with which we should be more familiar.
In 1903 a man named W.L. Wellford sued the Memphis mayor for “the right to make an examination of the books, records, papers, and vouchers in his possession, claiming, as a corporator and taxpayer in and of the city, the right to make a general inspection of the public records of the city.”
He sued for a writ of mandamus for the right to examine the books. Mr. Wellford has standing not in being harmed, but
[t]hat the relator is a resident citizen and taxpayer of the city of Memphis, and as such one of the incorporators of the city, which is a municipal corporation under and by virtue of chapter 11 of the Acts of 1879 and the acts amendatory thereof; that the defendant is the mayor and chief executive of the said municipality; that as such mayor and chief executive he has the custody of the books of the said city, on which are kept the receipts and expenditures of the funds of the said city; that in the said receipts and expenditures the relator, as a taxpayer and citizen, has a direct interest
State v. Williams, 110 Tenn. 549, 75 S.W. 948, 949 (1903)
His interest in a remedy, then, is that he is “a resident citizen and taxpayer,” and not a person who can show actual concrete harm or injury. Nowadays we have an open records act giving right under statute to examine the books.
In mandamus, injury to the law is primary. Injury to a person is a secondary concern.
In our CV-19 mandamus case, it was sufficient merely to swear my petition for relief. The mandamus statute says a petition must be “supported by affidavit” Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-25-101. That document merely needs to say that you swear that the petition is true as far as your knowledge goes — and that’s it. My petition for equity and writ of mandamus, 34pp, filed 416 days ago, was notarized. My affidavit in support, also notarized, gave evidence of five harms done to me by the state of emergency March 12, 2020, and the statewide “lockdown.”
Defendants also assert infirmity of the action brought by plaintiff because it was not supported by affidavit, relying upon T.C.A. [§] 23-2001. This code section merely states that circuit judges and chancellors have power to issue writs of mandamus upon petition or bill, supported by affidavit. At the time this section was originally enacted, 1858, the term “affidavit” was used interchangeably with “sworn petition.” The intent of the statute is simply that the facts alleged in a bill or petition for the writ of mandamus be supported by oath or affidavit. Cf. Whitesides v. Stuart, 91 Tenn. 710 at 714, 20 S.W. 245 (1892).
Blair v. State ex rel. Watts, 555 S.W.2d 709, 711 (Tenn. 1977) (emphasis added)
This 1977 case delves into the history of mandamus, and shows that my affidavit of support need not have stated any concrete harms, but merely that my petition is true to the best of my knowledge and ability, as I am the author of the complaint.
Relief long overdue in mass harm
The mass harm caused by Gov. Lee and local health administrator Becky Barnes is incalculable. The CV-19 jabs are experimental and not approved by the federal government. The shots are 800 times more lethal than the leading contender, the smallpox vaccine.
The petition to compel obedience to the law that would have prevented all that has come to pass has all the essential elements for the writ of mandamus. The court refused to go on the merits of the case, buying the respondents’ counterattack upon the relator by this distraction, taking advantage of relator’s non-lawyer background and imperfect expression. Injury to the law is in the petition. Not having used that phrase “injury to the law,” the lower court appears to have agreed with respondents to distract relator by going after his standing.
Relator has standing by virtue of his notarized signature attesting he is the party behind the petition. The affidavit is a description of the harm caused by the violations of law alleged in the petition, and is sufficient for standing by virtue of his signature under notary seal.
In mandamus, injury to the law is primary. Personal injury secondary, nonessential for the case to be justiciable. Chancery dismisses the petition on a peripheral issue, the non-outcome-based determination of personal injury. The court is working to change mandamus’ definition to limit mandamus in the future against others like relator aggrieved by misdeeds of state actors.
Relator’s injury is, by law, described not as upon its effects (on relator), but as upon its source — from the respondents (violation of law). In no way is it equitable, in no way does it accord with the long-standing jurisprudence of mandamus to construe the remedy as chancery has done, in furtherance of respondents’ fraud against the state and her free people.
Time to fight