Local economy

County attorney says bid to uphold state law ‘frivolous’

Demonstrators at the Hamilton County courthouse warn elected and hired officials that they are frustrated by continuing abuse of their rights in 2020. On Oct. 2 of that year I file what the county calls a “frivolous” suit against the governor and a local official for the same abuses, only writ large via a state of emergency in the Covid-19 fraud. (Photo David Tulis)

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn., August 16, 2022 — Hamilton County, where I have lived most my life, calls my petition to the supreme court for obedience to the health law a frivolous and baseless case the supreme court should ignore.

By David Tulis / NoogaRadio Network

The county, through its court agent attorney Sharon Milling, says my Christian duty in defending constitutional government and the rights of 6.8 million people is a disturbance on the court and waste of time. 

She describes the job I have in getting into the supreme court in terms of what a petition for review is all about. 

  • (1) the need to secure uniformity of decision,
  • (2) the need to secure settlement of important questions of law,
  • (3) the need to secure settlement of questions of public interest, and
  • (4) the need for the exercise of the Supreme Court’s supervisory authority.

But the appellant “provides no factual or legal support for any of these factors,” the county says. 

The sum of Mrs. Millings’ 22-page answer to my petition for a hearing in the supreme court of our case for restoration of government — “the Chancery Court did not err in granting Mrs. Barnes’ motion to dismiss, nor the court of appeals err in upholding the chancery court’s decision.”

She cites my bid to stir supervisory authority in the supreme court — 

“While abuses in the lower courts of the concept of equity, of due process, of the rules of statutory construction, of definitions such as of ‘discretion’ and ‘forthwith’ beckon the court to exercise supervisory authority, justice demands it. Relator made three administrative filings about abuses in Hamilton County, now replicated and amplified by CoA. The court has identified this action as ‘an emergency petition for writ of mandamus.’ Equity requires it is an emergency disposed forthwith due to fraud, breach, and felony causing irreparable injury without adequate remedy, one of the utmost important to people of Tennessee and her public and private institutions and families, worthy of review to the ends of justice requires.” (App., P. 40).

Sharon Milling says, “In support of this factor, the appellant, throughout the application, merely expresses his contempt for both levels of court that he has appeared before thus far:

Lawyerly offgassing 

And Hamilton County goes on to shudder over 12 of my expressions of “contempt” in my petition (and missing the most colorful one). She doesn’t allege that I am wrong, that what I call knavery is in fact justice, that what I call artifice is in fact truth. She just objects to my characterizations about being an abuse victim.

“The courts below have used artifice in their obstruction of justice…” (App., P. 3) (Emphasis added);

“Contrary to the mistreatment of the courts to date. . .” (App., P. 4) (Emphasis added);

“The CoA’s opinion is a complex mashup with five elements relator would like the court to unwind that arise from a bad faith reading of the petition.” (App., P. 8) (Emphasis added);

“…courts prejudicially apply mandamus cases as precedent to this case…” (App., P. 9) (Emphasis added);

“Beyond the injustice of delay, prolongation of the case into its 658th day the case piles up judicially caused wrongs.” (App., P. 10) (Emphasis in original);

“The CoA quote above suggests the thrice-made ‘upon careful review’ claim is sophistry.” (App., P. 11) (Emphasis added);

“They pretermit these wrongs by not intending justice and adhering to the flumdiddlery, frivolous arguments and mischaracterizations against the intention of the relator while providing succor to parties in fraud..,” (App., P. 13) (Emphasis added);

“In its chosen mistreatment of this action, CoA pretermits equity jurisdiction . . .” (App., P. 15) (Emphasis added);

“Even in abusing relator, the lower courts exercise plenary power in this case.” (App., P. 32) (Emphasis added);

“A just court cannot lawfully maintain both of these positions, straddling the fence, as it were.” (App., P. 37) (Emphasis added); “The courts decohere, nullify and void the law. Pure knavery violating the rule for statutory construction.” (App., P. 39) (Emphasis added);


“While abuses in the lower courts of the concept of equity, of due process, of the rules of statutory construction, of definitions such as of “discretion” and “forthwith” beckon the court to exercise supervisory authority, justice demands it.” (App., P. 40) (Emphasis added).

Hamilton County misses the best one in this lineup of suspects, that being my comment about how words, analyses, findings, and conclusions from a court without subject matter jurisdiction (or so Hamilton County says) are mere noise and voidness. I write not for effect and to make an impression, but to win the case with sharply drawn lines.

 All this and an incompetent record, as the CoA accepts analysis and opinion from the trial court as to Lee, over whom it claimed subject matter jurisdiction in practice despite signal of a well-known law as to commissioners’ right to be sued in Davidson County, denying it subject matter jurisdiction, with its pages of type mere juristic eructation.

Denying facts, not seeing any now

In chancery Mrs. Milling ignores the entire body of facts, found in my affidavit of support (5pp). She waves a hand in front of Judge Pamela Fleenor to see no facts, and to get the honorable chancellor to see no facts, either. Without these facts, by their argument, I have no interest in the matter and no standing. Chancery says I have no standing because I have not been particularly and uniquely harmed. These facts of harm are in an affidavit of support, strictly ignored by all parties in two courts.

Today, in attacking my bid to get a hearing before the high court, the lawyer turns around to say that my petition for certiorari contains no facts.

The lawyer faults me for not citing the technical record in the case, and citing only the court of appeals opinion. There is no record before the court for members to consult. So why cite to it? The whole point of a petition is to get a writ of certiorari, to deliver the record from Knoxville court of appeals to Nashville and the supreme court so it can be cited. There is no record the judges can consult in reading the sales pitch for my case. 

Hamilton County fumes,

Further, the appellant makes few references to facts relevant to the questions presented, if any. As to the facts he does reference, there are no references to the trial record. Finally, while the Appellant provides much conclusory reasoning as to the perceived deficiencies of both the trial court’s and the Court of Appeals’ opinions, he provides practically no legal authority to support any of his contentions.

Punitive demands for retaliation

In Hamilton County, asserting the rule of law and the power of the constitution to protect the people from evil actors on the payroll is idiotic and the wasting of important people’s time.

C. Because the Appellant’s Application for Permission to Appeal Is Frivolous and without Merit, Mrs. Barnes Should Be Awarded All Attorneys’ Fees and Other Expenses.  The Appellant’s appeal of this matter is frivolous, both substantively and because it fails to comport with Tenn. R. App. P. 11(b). Accordingly, Mrs. Barnes is entitled to attorneys’ fees and other costs associated with this Application.

Citing state law, she says my petition is “vexatious and groundless,” and my labors are a waste of time bothersome to the honorable courts.


The county says my petition should be stricken because a rule bans disrespectful language. The rule No. 9 states, 

Any brief or written argument containing language showing disrespect or contempt for any court of Tennessee will be stricken from the files, and this Court will take such further action relative thereto as it may deem proper

“As set forth in detail above, the Appellant has demonstrated repeated and deliberate disrespect for both the trial court and the court of appeals. Pursuant to Rule 9, the Appellant’s Application should be stricken.”

There is nothing disrespectful about vigorous and colorful language, and nothing disrespectful about calling a fraud a fraud. If the supreme court participates in fraud and breach, I will say “the supreme court participates in fraud and breach,” and let the consequences God ordains follow.


Leave a Comment

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