CHATTANOOGA, Tenn., Oct. 16, 2022 — The Tennessee supreme court twice now has heard my demands that they recuse from hearing my petition for writ of certiorari. Twice, they have denied my petitions citing their interest, bias and prejudice in the case and the collusion with fraud it exposes.
By David Tulis / NoogaRadio Network
The case State ex rel. David Jonathan Tulis vs. Bill Lee, governor, et al E2021-00436-SC-R11-CV holds the justices to account indirectly in these motions, just as the case itself seeks to hold Gov. Lee and a local official, Becky Barnes, now retired, to account.
Respondents admit fraud in their filings, in feckless, exasperated defenses of having ignored Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-5-104 that requires a determination be made of the agent of contagion of the purported “disease” of Covid-19. They admit abrogation of the law prior to my filing of the case, able to produce not a shred of evidence that they’d tried to comply with the health law and its key provision with six duties.
I believe in prosecuting your case aggressively, doing my own law work, on my own dime, with help from donors personally and via a GoFundMe page.
And so I demand a reconsideration of these two denials, to not be seen as having acquiesced to unjust orders and furthering of the mass fraud that has killed more than 100,000 Tennesseans. This motion for reconsideration highlights the claims of Klaus Schwab that the Fourth Industrial Revolution fundamentally changes society, along with government, and that the court cannot be party to such abuse through its members’ bar association connection.
The Schwab claims for a great reset are contradicted by what I allege are the solid promises of American constitutional government, where change in society is brought about by the people, not by states of emergency and states of war.
Motion for reconsideration of denial of motion for recusal for lawful cause
The court fails to provide evidence of its “due consideration,” contrary to due process requirements and all applicable equity principles, in denying state of Tennessee’s second demand for disqualification, on relation.
The court fails to explain how it can be impartial when it aids and abets an admitted presumptive event under color of a communicable disease referencing only the disease without reference to the executive’s demonstrating a non-fraudulent exigency or infectious agent contrary to law and police power duties and obligations.
The law, and by the petition, the state, on relation, demand an impartial judicial branch restore the balance of powers in Tennessee, with an admitted rogue governor’s assuming totalitarian powers in violation of predicate acts required of police power or statute at T.C.A. § 68-5-104 and the constitution in what are prosecutable felonies under Title 39, and give ground for civil suit by an harmed man with no other option than suit in equity and for emergency action in mandamus.
The lack of judicial independence or impartiality, etc., is anticipated in the petition, ¶¶ 85-87, requiring lawful, sufficient, conclusive rebuttal, each judge fails to explain how, in aiding and abetting a mass fraud, the court isn’t promoting and supporting agents of destruction of clearly established fundamental rights of the relator under religion or economy, or the political system protecting these that he relies upon, or how that the judge can be impartial in review of the state’s cause, on relation.
The state, on relation, demands a rereading of supreme court rule 10, code of judicial conduct, for its plain meaning, “A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety,” Canon 1, and “shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct,” Rule 1.1. The court “shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety” Rule 1.2. “A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently,” Canon 2, and “shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially,” Rule 2.2.
It is for each judge of this court, and the law requires, lawful explanation showing how it is not an impropriety and not a prejudice a priori, to rule on a dispute in which its members cooperate with officials who procedurally and as a matter of equity principles admit felony activity in the trial court to abrogate the constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights of the relator, and those similarly situated. Relator objects to these unfounded denials, demanding a review of the two orders.
Grounds for reconsideration
The court says realtor “has failed to establish that the Justices of this Court are disqualified” from hearing the petition. The mere appearance of impropriety being a very high hurdle, the justices state no legal grounds contrary to reason or law. The state, on relation, demands reconsideration of these two denials on the following grounds:
- The prejudice of judges’ hearing a case in which they are an ancillary, supportive and compliant ally of defendant(s), in breach of appellant’s state and federal rights, is visible on its face.
- The enormity of the evils targeted in this cause require caution on matters of competency and qualification beyond an ordinary action between private parties. This cause has the state itself holding a publicly offending governor to account. The court’s duty is to defend public interest — the state, its laws and its people. The petition anticipates the Tennessee judiciary will be unable to fulfill this obligation due to at least undue influence. Its duty is not to redefine justice to mean that men hold sway over good, honest and constitutional law passed by the people in general assembly.
- The duty to “[promote] public confidence” cannot easily be fulfilled if court members won’t relinquish hearing of the application and the case to “the requisite number of men, of law knowledge,” per Tenn. const. Art. 6, sect. 11, not involved in the particulars of the respondents’-in-fraud breach of law March 12, 2020, and actions of affinity among justices the very next day.
The implications of the petition’s unrebutted description of the ABA’s commitments to sustainable development and environmentalism require brief development of its undue influence over court officials evidenced under claim of the court’s rules. Klaus Schwab, executive chairman of World Economic Forum, WEF, a prime mover assisting the United Nations, gives background of the American Bar Association position that is contrary to the organic law of the land in the United States and the state of Tennessee. These positions do more than create mere appearance of impropriety. Judicial notice provides this court knowledge of the political overthrow intended through “sustainable development,” acceptance of which by the court’s members creates a constitutional crisis relative to a conflict of interest within the judicial branch, collusion with executive of the state and trust breaches.
Can court guide Schwab, U.N. attack?
Dr. Schwab’s book Covid-19: The Great Reset appears in 2020. His Great Reset agenda has three parts: Creating conditions for a “stakeholder economy,” building societies in a more “resilient, equitable and sustainable” way, utilizing environmental, social and governance (ESG) metrics; and “harness[ing] the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.”
The Great Reset is best read as a plan for global implementation no matter what government establishment is threatened. A presumptive “pandemic” is about throwing life in Tennessee out of kilter, and into new territory. “On an individual basis, for many, life as they’ve always known it is unravelling at alarming speed. But deep, existential crises also favour introspection and can harbour the potential for transformation,” (p. 11). A circumventing T.C.A. § Title 58 state of emergency by respondent-in-fraud Lee allows for abrupt change of course in state branches of government. The justices denying recusal allow this lawless change of course and are not independent of it, nor impartial to it. “The only certainty: the changes won’t be linear and sharp discontinuities will prevail. COVID-19: The Great Reset is an attempt to identify and shed light on the changes ahead, and to make a modest contribution in terms of delineating what their more desirable and sustainable form might resemble” (p. 12). Respondents-in-fraud in this case use the presumptive CV-19 “pandemic” to bring change as advantageous as war. “There are obviously fundamental dissimilarities between a pandemic and a war ***, but the magnitude of their transformative power is comparable. Both have the potential to be a transformative crisis of previously unimaginable proportions” (p. 15). “War is the mere continuation of politics by other means,” says Prussian General Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz. “Vom Kriege,” 1831; “we see, therefore, that war is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.”
Sustainable development is primarily a political attack targeting the economy. One weapon of its attack arsenal, a presumptive pandemic. “History shows that epidemics have been the great resetter of countries’ economy and social fabric. Why should it be different with COVID-19?” (p. 32). The scope of the plan by Schwab and allies in Tennessee can partially be seen where directing that, “[R]esilience will need to be better measured and monitored to gauge the true health of an economy, including the determinants of productivity, such as institutions, infrastructure, human capital and innovation ecosystems, which are critical for the overall strength of a system. Furthermore, the capital reserves upon which a country can draw in times of crisis, including financial, physical, natural and social capital[,] will need to be tracked systematically. Albeit that natural and social capital in particular are difficult to measure, they are critical to the social cohesion and environmental sustainability of a country and should not be underestimated. Recent academic efforts are beginning to tackle the measurement challenge by bringing public- and private-sector data sources together. *** [W]e need to lead a good life (as enunciated by the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals)” (pp. 46, 47). Respondents-in-fraud, prior to lawfully acquiring the power or jurisdiction to determine, contrary to law, the unduly influenced justices of this court complicit, peddled unwarrantable mitigation strategies such as the lethal untested mRNA gene therapy of no known power of the prevention required pursuant to Tennessee law, of an as yet non-fraudulently demonstrated infectious agent, as a salvation that Schwab says will deliver dividends. “In the coming months, the unemployment situation is bound to deteriorate further for the simple reason that it cannot improve significantly until a sustainable economic recovery begins. This won’t happen before a vaccine or a treatment is found,” (p. 43). Schwab favors total surveillance. Terror-inspiring outbreaks are opportunity for ABA members, as the petition evidences their House of Delegates resolution untakes, to further the programs for “transformation” and sustainability, not the organic establishment of the state of Tennessee and denied by its members to the state, on relation. “Shaping the rules and mechanisms of these new markets can have a transformational impact on the economy. If governments want the shift to a new and better kind of growth, they have a window of opportunity to act now *** ” (p. 49). No jurisdiction in the world demonstrated a non-fraudulent exigency for an “outbreak” for something called Covid-19, mere symptoms, not an infectious agent; but central banks were in the fraud in despoiling national currencies by inflationary “quantitative easing.” “The fiscal and monetary policy response to the pandemic has been decisive, massive and swift. In systemically important countries, central banks decided almost immediately after the beginning of the outbreak to cut interest rates while launching large quantitative-easing programmes, committing to print the money necessary to keep the costs of government borrowing low” (p. 50).
The Schwab plan proposes a “narrative” hostile to constitutional government with its clear limits on the state and high respect for individual rights, liberties and free market capitalism. These hostilities are to be stopped by an impartial, independent judicial branch. The recusal denials fail to show how this dereliction, to date, notwithstanding the legislative mandate at Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-25-102 that due process and therefore justice occur forthwith, if not sooner, is not self-evident proof of unconstitutional hostility by judicial department officers.
“Another narrative has also emerged, elaborated by some national leaders, senior business executives and prominent opinion-makers *** that the COVID-19 crisis cannot go to waste and that now is the time to enact sustainable environmental policies” (p. 109). “As economies restart, there is an opportunity to embed greater societal equality and sustainability into the recovery, accelerating rather than delaying progress towards the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and unleashing a new era of prosperity. What could make this possible and raise the probability odds in favour of such an outcome?” (p. 189). The Tennessee Bar Association and the American Bar Association, evidenced in the petition, unrebutted, taken true, support collectivism that is rejected by Tennessee constitutional government for the land and the people on it, which shortage of collectivism gravely concerns Dr. Schwab.
In a functioning global governance framework, nations should have come together to fight a global and coordinated “war” against the pandemic. Instead the “my country first” response prevailed and severely impaired attempts to contain the expansion of the first wave of the pandemic. (p. 89) [emphasis added]
For the time being, the bottom line is this: in the face of such a vacuum in global governance, only nation states are cohesive enough to be capable of taking collective decisions, but this model doesn’t work in the case of world risks that require concerted global decisions. The world will be a very dangerous place if we do not fix multilateral institutions. Global coordination will be even more necessary in the aftermath of the epidemiological crisis, for it is inconceivable that the global economy could “restart” without sustained international cooperation. Without it, we’ll be heading towards “a poorer, meaner and smaller world”. (p. 90) [emphasis added]
This review of Great Reset ideology is proper to this motion for reconsideration. It is promoted by the ABA and, indirectly, by TBA, embraced in court rule. It highlights the justices’ connection to, the lack of independence from, a political, economic and philosophical movement to supports the Covid-19 Great Reset, initiated in Tennessee, by respondents-in-fraud Lee and Barnes in violation of oath of office, terms of employment and black-letter law.
These quotes are similar to the concepts the ABA promotes, evidenced in the petition, contrary to Tennessee and United States organic establishments, and which the judicial branch of Tennessee is, and its judicial officers are, being bar association members, intrinsically tied, of record in this case, removing any appearance that impartiality is possible, or as overthrow of law done under color of lawful authority in this case proves.
The erstwhile presumptive “Covid-19 pandemic” is part of what the WEF calls its “common narrative for the future.” It is an attack upon the uncommon domestic republican form of representative government by which state of Tennessee, and the relief to the relator therein, is constitutionally established and guaranteed. This disaster would have been stopped in its tracks but for (as cited in the petition anticipating the eventuality occurring today) an ABA-influenced supreme court and judicial branch assistance of official dereliction of duties, obligations and clearly established law even before the court considers the petition for writ of certiorari in this case. Likely, why there is no lawful foundation provided by apparent conflicted justices, contrary to equity principles, in denying their duty to recuse.
The overthrow of the state is complete given the “final word,” at least at the state level, is given by members of this court under color of lawful authority without any appearance of independence from foreign influence or demonstrated impartiality. And no good reason is provided by this court, as equity principles require, the justices denying recusal contrary to the principle that one does not determine one’s own cause, and providing in their orders prima facie proof of lawless transformation of a tripartite government having been agreed to, done through a mere narrative, and pretense, fraud under color of authority or law.
This turn of events in not being independent of nor impartial to accepting respondents’ fraud where they fail to demonstrate a non-fraudulent exigency, such as an infectious principle, carrying beyond mere symptoms given the name “Covid-19,” yet without the required lawfully demonstrated infectious agent as this and the prior courts have obstructed from being done is contrary to clearly established law, consequently violating trusts, and evidences the appearance of impropriety, if not much worse.
Federal rights violated
The denial of justice, equity and compliance with Tennessee law offends, also, relator’s federal rights, as follows, not limited to:
➤ Ignoring fraud to support sustainable development is a breach of relator’s right to live in a state “guarantee[d] *** a Republican form of Government” in U.S. Const. art. 4, sect. 4, which form in breach is supported by the lower courts.
➤ Obstruction — denial of justice and equity under coloration of law.
➤ The right to work, make a living, pursue a private occupation is a federally right protected under the 14th amendment, and press rights are federally protected under the 1st amendment, and having an adequate remedy, or lawful due process, or equity, for relief of any infringement in doing so, such as the equity relief demanded in the petition.
➤ The right of worship free from interference is protected by the federal 1st amendment.
➤ Refusal to uphold clearly established law in fraudulent grounds of standing, ignoring the facts in the case entered by relator and not disputed are fundamental rights harms upon relator’s right not to be injured or abused by courts.
➤ Denial of any relief by Tennessee courts will be a federal rights issue, with official, facial and other, fraud causing irreparable harms to the state, on relation, without remedy or relief after notice. To have justices involved with respondent-in-fraud in this mass harm and fraud, or without lawful avoidance, is a naked, open and terrifying denial of justice in the hearing of his petition for writ of certiorari.
➤ Individual rights violation by state of Tennessee, recipient of federal funding and obligated to uphold all applicable laws and not promulgate harm or violate any U.S. law. A federal court is obliged to “to vindicate the individual rights of the people appearing before it” State of Georgia et al vs. President of the United States et al USCA11 Case: 21-14269 Date Filed: 08/26/2022, p. 35.
➤ Misprison of felony at 18 U.S.C. § 3, 4. The state crimes are violation of § 68-5-104, constituting a breach of T.C.A. § 39-16-402, official misconduct, acts relating to public servants’ office or employment that constitute an unauthorized exercise of official power and acts under color of office or employment that exceed the public servant’s official power. Court failures to uphold state law and state constitution are a felony official misconduct cognizable by a federal court in that the state of emergency violates state and federal press and religious rights, among others. Refusal to recuse implies a desire to defend respondents-in-fraud in their federal rights abrogation, making thus the supportive court a party in a federal rights abrogation.
➤ This action includes an American with disabilities act violation. The trial court was upheld in its order forcing relator Dec. 2, 2020, to diaper his face to exercise his rights as relator, without a lawful order determining him a threat to the public, despite objection in writing on religious grounds and also, at the hearing, his oral demand to see other parties’ faces and that they use a microphone because covered faces and muffled speech impair his following the proceedings denied (TR p. 285).
The state’s adequate and sufficient petition, on relation, empowers the lower courts to uphold the law, restore the constitution and restore the rights of a badly harmed relator without other remedy than this suit, for which he has standing under any test before a judiciary free of undue influence, independent and impartial.
The Great Reset agenda rolls on without rebuttal by respondents-in-fraud of relator’s report in the petition about ABA allegiance, with the judicial department’s leave, by rule and deed evidencing a lack of independence or impartiality, and certain appearance of impropriety evidenced in the anticipation of the petition, taken true and unrebutted. Black-letter law and notice of this equity and mandamus suit, are intended to restore the status quo ante, and restore the covenant between the state and the people, per constitution art. 1, sect. 1, “That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.” Not Klaus Schwab, not this court, not respondents-in-fraud, nor allies are given constitutional power to cause transformation of the organic establishment of the people, or those similarly situated, such as relator. Therefore, disqualification is required; and a lawfully constituted court is, as matter of clearly established law, duty bound to protect that constitutional power.
The so-called novel coronavirus, or “Covid-19”, is a weapon furthered by the formally and long-expressed goal of the American Bar Association, intrinsically tied to the members of this court, advancing the lethal pretended mitigation of a presumptive narrative the nature of which has not been lawfully determined in state of Tennessee as required by police power predicates or T.C.A. § 68-5-104. Judicial department actions in this case to date commit to, or by omission enact, a legal and political agenda destructive of the republican form of constitutional government, democratically elected, making war on the state. The purpose of the unrebutted anticipations of the petition exposing the predictable evasion of justice evidenced acting, covertly, under color of authority. The courts have acted of a piece with respondents-in-fraud, in deed hand in hand, pursuant to private extraterritorial opinion and advice and foreign policy under color of law, contrary to legislative will or the constitutional prerequisites for police power actions.
State of Tennessee, on relation, with a sense of alarm and urgency caused by a lawless executive branch, asks the foregoing be considered and acted upon in the interest of justice and to uphold the “independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence,” of the court system per Rule 10, preamble 2.
Turn a few pages of Schwab book