EmergencyInterpositionPanic 2020

Judges try to figure out a defense of state’s rape of the people

David Tulis, center, argues his case for restoration of law before three judges of the Tennessee court of appeals. He objected to be denial of an in-person hearing as required by law. (Photo YouTube)
Chancellor Pam Fleenor, left, deconstructs Tennessee law and has allowed to roll ahead the experimental inoculation project for the pretended Covid-19 epidemic. With her are Linda Minks Hood, center, and Cynthia Hall at a bar association event.

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn., Thursday May 5, 2022 — The judges in the Tennessee court of appeals, no doubt, are working to shaft the people of Tennessee under color of law. 

By David Tulis / NoogaRadio 96.9 FM

They are going to rule against my sufficient and adequate and legally proper petition for writ of mandamus. With each passing day of “no decision,” it seems less likely to get a favorable ruling. 

For this trio, to agree with me would be an injustice to the law.  To admit my claims about the law and duty of officials to obey the law would miscarry the law.

I filed my emergency suit 580 days ago. Judge Pamela Fleenor, 379 days ago, denied my petition in a third and fourth order. Four hundred and twenty-eight days ago I entered into the record my notice of mass judicial department fraud. On Sept. 8, 2021, or 239 days ago, I filed my brief of appeal. Oral arguments took place Feb. 15, or 79 days ago.

The state of emergency for “Covid-19” expired in November. To end the state of emergency legally, by chopping off its head as a violation of law, and to condemn the government for violating the statute at T.C.A. § 68-5-104, would harm the very concept of law, the very concept of equity, the beauty of the law as they have controlled it for generations.

It would harm the very nature of the American system of jurisprudence, with its checks and balances. 

Or so they likely will claim in their ruling. Their ruling will be lies and preverication under color of law.

Uphold law, destroy law at same time

The judges are working to give a simulacrum of judicial ruling, a pretended legal denial of my petition for mandamus for restoration of the law to be applied to public officials who have rejected it. 

A writ of mandamus orders an official to obey the law.

The judges are going to say that in this case vs. the Covid-19 state of fraud, some defect in my petition prevents it from being heard. Because I had the wrong tone, had a misplaced comma, violated a procedural rule — no relief can be granted because the petition is somehow not actually before them. 

They will find some defect, even though there is no warrant for any defect in a petition for writ of mandamus on behalf of the state of Tennessee. There are four requirements or mandamus in law, and my petition on behalf of the state met all of them.

The judges won’t openly defend Gov. Bill Lee’s violation of the communicable disease statute. There will be a subtle defense of violation of the Constitution and the statute applicable only in this case. The judges will try to segregate our case from the rest.

Indeed, my lawsuit is unlike any other mandamus action in the history of state of Tennessee because it alleges open fraud by the governor and his overthrow of the constitution and the law itself. No other mandamus made such claim.

The lawyers on the bench will be using fraud, misrepresentation, lawerly gazoozling to avoid doing justice and to deny the people relief and future relief. A proper ruling can be used to thwart future breaches. We face at least a 20-year agenda of the establishment’s using illness, virus and contagions to terrorize and subdue the people.

Irreducible minimum

The irreducible minimum of an elected official is to obey the law.  

The law demands certain things, particular acts and policies, as compulsory. It also limits and bars other activities. Beyond that, there are all kinds of innovations and practices that a state actor can pursue. Even socialism. Even commercial government can be made to appear lawful, and is accepted by the people. Even tyranny and police states. These appear to be allowed. The people have not, as yet, resisted these losses against their liberty.

They’ve sued too little, and have not yet resorted en masse to kinetic energy to overthrow tyrants. 

The irreducible minimum is compliance with the law. The appeals court judges are laboring and, perhaps, arguing over my case. Must they accept this irreducible minimum, or can they evade it?

I insist that Gov. Lee and local official Becky Barnes openly and flagrantly violated 69-5-104, which gives six duties for a health department, and for the governor, who oversees the department in Hamilton County, and also the state department in Nashville. 

These parties refused to obey. Gov. Lee says he is not under “any duty” to obey the law. Miz Barnes says she is “exercising discretion” in ignoring the law. The people’s suit against these malefactors is that they failed the irreducible minimum. 

That is the six requirements for the health department.

(a)(1) It is the duty of the local health authorities, on receipt of a report of a case, or suspected case, of disease declared to be communicable, contagious, or one which has been declared by the commissioner of health 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, as may be required by the rules and regulations of the state department of health. [ emphasis added]

§ 68-5-104. Isolation or quarantine

This passage about communicable diseases contains the duty of the public official. In sum, the official must find a local first case, and must make a determination as to the cause or agent of contagion in an outbreak that hurts people and affects the public health.

Gov. Lee says in court that since this law does not name him he is not bound by it. Such argument by Janet Kleinfelter is childish and foolish. My summary of the case is that Gov. Lee says he is not bound by the law because he has agents (I sued the wrong person, in other words, should have sued Dr. Janet Piercey, his health commissioner, who is leaving her job).

Under the constitution and under his oath, Gov. Lee is to see that the law is obeyed, either by him personally or by his agents. He is the principal. Everybody else is agent, subject, inferior, servant or commissioner – doing a duty under law to serve the public under the law.

Rape’s salve

The judges – chancery court’s Pamela Fleenor and the supreme court justices – are deeply compromised by the disaster of 2020. They went into a joint venture with the governor in their terrorized panic, and ignored the law of which they are steward. The supreme court rejected three petitions from me regarding rogue judge Fleenor – three petitions filed under their admin authority, pointing out her multiple due process violations and her open defiance of the mandamus law, which requires resolution in two weeks, at the most. 

How can the court of appeals deal with the law, accurately presented by me, and their corrupt connections with the justices? How can the judges accept Fleenor’s myriad violations and pretend to operate a court of equity in Tennessee? How to write an opinion that ignores giant hurdles, but focuses enough to give semblance of a judicial ruling upholding the law?

They will try to present themselves as protectors of law, protectors of the people, upholders of the idea of public service, of oaths of office, of the legitimacy of government. 

A rapist of a virgin can say that his semen soothed the broken hymen, so the harm is not great. Since my case has identified an adulterous and rapacious act – I caught Lee and Barnes in violation of law in flagranto delicto – the judges must somehow dress up a rape. They must make certain concessions (yes, harms were done, somehow, by somebody) but find defect in my petition.

I point out the March 2020 Gov. Lee Title 58 emergency must have had a lawful basis. It must have a nonfraudulent exigency, a legal cause, a lawful warrant or reason, an articulable reason. 

When a cop espies a citizen, he cannot make an arrest without a warrant, or without immediately taking the arrestee before a magistrate for obtaining a judicial sanction of the arrest. A warrant in American law is supposed to come before the arrest, not after. 

The judges in our case have to figure out a way to shatter a rock-solid petition, to see it as insufficient, ineffectual. They have to, somehow, uphold the law in all cases as directed upon its subjects. They have to maintain support for the concept of “rule of law” and the duty of compliance to law by the elected or hired official, while at the same moment justify and defend the tremendous breach and overthrow of March 12, 2020, under the pretended Covid-19 outbreak, to make my petition of no effect. 

There is only so far they will be willing to go to uphold anarchy, lawlessness, sovereign citizens in office acting above the law, with no consequence to the constitutional bill of rights. They have an impossible task, and are taking their time figuring it out.

David’s show is weekdays at 2 right here at this link at s6.voscast.com:7162/stream


Time to fight



Leave a Comment

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