EmergencyPanic 2020

Justice Bivins signs fraudulent orders, should disqualify himself

Tennessee supreme court chief justice Jeff Bivins on March 13, 2020, joined in overthrow of constitutional government by issuing without legal authority a state of emergency for Tennessee courts, closing them down. Can he fairly rule on a petition that involves wrongs he committed to performing? Relator’s recusal motion says “No.” (Photo AOC)

Facts regarding Justice Jeff Bivins and the rules governing the courts and judges require him to disqualify himself, according to a 20-page analysis of the justice’s role in the March 2020 overthrow of state government by Gov. Bill Lee in cooperation with the judicial branch of government.

Pam Fleenor, chancery judge

By David Tulis / NoogaRadio 96.9 FM

The “motion to recuse and disqualify” in the case State ex rel. David Jonathan Tulis vs. Bill Lee, governor, et al, seeks to repair the breach caused by lawless acts and disobedience to the constitution by Mr. Lee and others. The case was filed Oct. 2, 2020, and has faced an uphill battle in a crooked judiciary, starting with chancery court judge Pamela Fleenor in Hamilton County. The case demands equity and a writ of mandamus to compel the governor to obey state law at T.C.A. § 68-5-104 or show cause to the court as to his actions March 12, 2020, with his first declaration of state of emergency.

Chief Justice Bivins followed along in dread in panic, acting without legal authority, on whim arbitrarily and capriciously rejecting the form and limits upon the government. The joining in “The Great Reset” by global private parties against the legal norms and rights of the people in Tennessee is being consolidated today without relief if a favorable ruling is denied, as it has been so far, in favor of the rule of law upon public officials.

Ink on paper — overthrow of constitution

1. Signing fraudulent orders

Justice Bivins is in charge of the Tennessee supreme court when he and four other justices issue their ​​Order suspending in-person court proceedings, No. ADM2020-00428, filed with the clerk March 13, 2020, as a sua sponte act. This is one day after respondent-in-fraud Bill Lee declares a facially fraudulent state of emergency with executive order No. 14, An order suspending provisions of certain statutes and rules in order to facilitate the treatment and containment of COVID-19, March 12, 2020, an order amended fraudulently April 2, 2020, beyond the law, upon the mere presumption of a health emergency, foreign to the state, and without demonstrating any nonfraudulent exigency for any emergency, failing also to faithfully execute the law at T.C.A. § 68-5-104, the legislature’s mandates or due process regarding communicable disease, if this subject matter is the actual nonfraudulent emergency. 

Justice Bivins, no evidence to the contrary, agrees to the court’s mandate denying relator’s petition for maladministration of illegal acts in the trial court. This case of fraud and breaches of duty, agreed by this court an emergency, meets the standard of extraordinary in certiorari jurisprudence, constitutionally preserved at common law.

2. Holding office of trust

Justice Bivins is a member of the Tennessee code commission, an assignment he holds as a second office of trust in addition to being a supreme court justice, his first office of trust. The code commission is a creature of statute that names the chief justice as head. Such office is barred. Says Tenn. const. Art. 6, sect. 7, “They shall not be allowed any fees or perquisites of office nor hold any other office of trust or profit under this state or the United States.”

‘Committed self to fraud, breach of trust’

THEREFORE, Justice Bivins has two grounds on which to disqualify himself. 

1. Signing fraudulent orders and knowledge of facts outside of case. He committed himself and the court to the respondents’ fraud and breach of trust, and mirrors their illicit and harmful acts against relator and those in like situation, without independent support in and consistent with law. If Justice Bivins is going to declare an emergency, he has to have a lawful, nonfraudulent legal basis upon which to declare one, and the power to so. Or he has to make sure respondent Lee has one. He fails to do this duty. He implicates himself as ally and co-conspirator in Lee’s fraud. Recusal is in order when Justice Bivins is unable to perform duties impartially, competently and diligently in a case in which he is an actor on side of respondents.

The honorable Justice Bivins is interested in the issues in the case, and so should recuse. His personal interest, status, money, calling and reputation are enmixed in the interests of one of the respondents. Disqualification is mandatory if Justice Bivins cannot apply and uphold the law, which sworn lawful duty he has not done, but review of the petition of the state, on relation, requires. Instead of standing on principle of constitution and law, or equity constitutionally preserved to the court of last resort, the honorable justice refuses to uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and to have it comply with the law, even if a co-equal branch of government refuses to so. Ignoring wrong by respondents, the justice has a duty to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety and to perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially. 

Recusal is mandatory when Justice Bivins is unable to perform duties impartially, competently and diligently. The Justice Bivins is interested in the issues in the case. 

2. Office of trust in breach of constitution. Justice Bivins is constitutionally incompetent and must disqualify himself for violating the ban in the constitution of judges’ holding a second office of trust. This case is about upholding government under the supreme law of the constitution, which authority respondents assault with an oppressive biosecurity police state premised on fraud admitted in the record and accepted by the court in its March 17, 2021, mandate dismissing relator’s grievances for maladministration of Hamilton County chancery.

It is unreasonable to believe Justice Bivins, appointed to his post by the chief justice, will give careful regard to the constitution and to black-letter law that state of Tennessee is defending, on relation, as Justice Bivins openly avers, by being on the code commission, that a law supersedes the constitution, that T.C.A. § 1-1-101 trumps Tenn. const. Art. 6, sect. 7. A judge who lives out such an idea with a role on the code commission is not qualified to judge the constitutional case at hand.

Emergency relief plea denied by Bivins

Tulis demands recusal of 4 justices

Petition demands law be obeyed

Leave a Comment

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