My oral arguments on your behalf are delayed in Knoxville after I fell ill with pneumonia just after Christmas. The arguments had been set for open court in Knoxville on Jan. 18. But my role on the docket is going to be rescheduled.
By David Tulis / NoogaRadio
Meanwhile, the court ordained that the hearing be by video conference, to which I file an objection on the grounds of the appearance of impartiality and bias.
Relator also objects to the change of format for the hearing, from in-person to online, and moves the court to order an in-person hearing.
Meanwhile, the experimental genetic inoculations across Hamilton County and the rest of the state are causing mass death. The claims windows for death benefits at insurance companies are being hit by a never-before-experienced 40 percent jump in claims, says Scott Davison of OneAmerica, a life insurance company in Indianapolis, according to Paul Craig Roberts at Lewrockwell.com. A one-in-200 year disaster would raise the number 10 percent. The mass death numbers have no precedent.
The main argument is that to take the side of the Lee administration and its management of fear and dread is done in rejection of the law over which the entire suit is about. That is, no determination has been made as to the cause of the agent of contagion for SARS-CoV-2, or covid-19, so what is the legal basis of shutting the courts, in violation of the constitution?
The online change gives appearance that the court is willing to give preference to and accept without any evidence or lawful basis the opinions, advisories, suggestions and reports of people about “Covid-19” when this case squarely attacks the premise that state officials have met their duties and obligations, respectful of the police power prerogative they claim, that any determinations are lawful. Petition of this issue for mandamus and other equity relief avers, and the dereliction in the record of respondents shows agreement, that no state official has demonstrated a nonfraudulent exigency and no lawful or legal warrant for any state action against a purported “Covid-19” via an emergency or statute exists to shut down or obstruct open access to any cafe, gym, farmer market, county tax office or state supreme court building, etc.
No lawful warrant to act exists because no nonfraudulent determination is in evidence or has been made in obedience to T.C.A § 68-5-104 as to the agent of contagion of the condition, or independently of the legislatively mandated standard for communicable disease, as respondent Lee contends is his to do without basis, not having “any duty” (italics in original) to the law. And if there were a lawful determination for an actual infectious agent, the law prohibits such a sweeping power, also challenged in the sufficient and adequate petition.
What happened March 12, 2022, in the offices of Gov. Bill Lee is that he would, like a cop, make an arrest of a “suspect” without a warrant, an indictment or a probable cause. Just a hunch. He acted outside of law, outside of warrant, and in violating T.C.A § 68-5-104 he was required to violating many other laws, too, including precious constitutionally guaranteed rights. My case seeks writ of mandamus to compel him to obey law and end a state of mass fraud.
The shutting of the court building to other petitioners and their lawyers may not generally prejudice their cases. But it does the instant case because this lawsuit attacks the root and branch of state official’s overthrow of division of powers, otherwise requiring constraint within each branch making checks against the others. Relator accuses chancery and the court system of entering a joint venture with respondent Lee to create unconstitutional legislation by administrative fiat and opinion. The law is closing in on the fugitives; the court should tread gingerly and appear mindful its rules of impartiality toward parties and the appearance thereof.
When black-letter law applicable to all public health officials in the state is abrogated, the court gives every appearance of prejudice, partiality and bias against state of Tennessee on relation and her 6.8 million people for the court to say that their representative cannot make public arguments with an open face as per his rights of conscience in state’s grand court building in Knoxville, promised in our constitutions to be always open.