CHATTANOOGA, Tenn., Oct. 3, 2022 — Comes now relator and petitioner, in the alternative, to demand recusal of the five justices of the court for cause, that being its members’ commitment to the goals of respondents Lee and Barnes, and their connection to the Tennessee Bar Association and the American Bar Association and its legal reform goals in sustainable development.
[This post brings forth the second part of my 19-page second recusal motion upon members of the state supreme court filed Sept. 9. They shot down my first recusal demand in a two-page order. Now I am asking for recusal based on their membership in the Tennessee Bar Association, a club for judges and lawyers. Case no. E2021-00436-SC-R11-CV has been in the state’s broken courts 731 days, with no relief, and no respect for black-letter law at T.C.A. § 68-5-104 and the constitution, abrogated in Lee’s declaring Title 58 martial law March 12, 2020, and April 2. — DJT]
The court’s justices are members of the Tennessee Bar Association, according to their bios on the court system website.
The American Bar Association declares its interest in an unlawful end anticipated as a defense in the state’s petition, on relation, not denied by respondents, taken true.
85. If the relator had thought the judiciary was protected and actually independent, that confidence was dashed when reading that the American Bar Association’s House of Delegates in 2013, reaffirmed its 1991 and 2003 “commitments to sustainable development, and defines sustainable development as ‘the promotion of an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable future for our planet and for present and future generations,” and professes an “ongoing commitment to the International Legal Resource Center in collaboration with the United Nations Development Program,” “giving impetus” to the federal government. “The U.S. government should take a leadership position in ongoing and future negotiations on sustainable development, including climate change” while developing a “[p]artnership in the Global Forum for Law, Justice, and Development” and a “new, dynamic and innovative initiative spearheaded by the World Bank Legal Vice Presidency with the support of client countries, think-tanks, regional and international organizations, international financial institutions, and civil society organizations,” to support “ongoing negotiations relevant to sustainability include a variety of processes on specific issues established by the U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development (e.g., strengthening international institutions) and a new international framework to address climate change under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.”; https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/office_president/2013_hod_annual_meeting_105.authcheckdam.pdf
86. Such position is contrary to the organic law of the land in the United States and the state of Tennessee and by more than the mere appearance of impropriety creates a constitutional crisis relative to a conflict of interest within the judicial branch of the state and a trust breach.
87. The uniformity of administratively biased actions, instead of challenging the lawfulness of the suspiciously consistent national public health orders failing to identify an infectious agent nationwide, together with that reliance consistency by respondent(s), alerted the relator to another official mistreatment: That these deleterious foreign adjuncts — administrative policy and performance merely appearing lawful — are promoting sustainable governance, not good government, republican representative in form, and state officials have no lawful authority under their oaths of office, the constitution, nor Tennessee code to operate as if reflexive law theory were a valid operating paradigm in the state of Tennessee in serving the people to whom they owe trust obligations.
TR, pp. 18, 19 (emphasis added)
This motion incorporates the petition by reference, relator’s notice of judicial department mass fraud of March 24, 2020 (TR p. 339) EXHIBIT No. 1, and also the motion for recusal and disqualification to suggest what should be happening amid recusable harms, anticipated as defense against evasions by complicit judicial actors under color of state law.
Respondents’ and judicial allies’ goal has been the overthrow of constitutional government that stands in the way of reflexive law theory and United Nations’-endorsed ideals of “sustainable development.” Judicial acts below by bar association members give the appearance of an interested group united against the claims of constitution and statute made by state of Tennessee, on relation, against relator’s enemies, despite at least one oath of office between the two respondents. Denial of relief for his personal rights and the law itself in this case is putting the state of Tennessee on a path toward a constitutional crisis, and a seizing up of the government in which the self-correcting arrangement among the three branches fails to operate, like the freezing up of an automobile engine running full throttle when a last oil drop leaks out.
Supreme court justices are not alone in bar membership. COA Judge W. Neal McBrayer is member of the national group and the TBA. COA Judge Thomas Frierson is a member of the Tennessee Bar Association. Chancery court judge Pam Fleenor is a Tennessee Bar Association member. The attorneys for respondents Janet Kleinfelter and Sharon Milling are TBA members.
The petition is taken true in its report of ABA-backed “deleterious foreign adjuncts.” Respondents have not rebutted these sworn statements of fact laid forth in the petition. Actions of the trial court, meeting with approval of the COA, are evidence in this case of first impression that the court system is compromised as a body by alliance with bar association sustainable environmental goals, policies and commitments.
The Tennessee bar association is legally separate from the American Bar Association. Members of the Tennessee group select delegates to the national organization to set policy. “49. Election of TBA Delegate, ABA House of Delegates. The TBA Delegates to the ABA House of Delegates shall be elected by a vote of the voting membership of the TBA,” Bylaws, Tennessee bar association, p. 8 (emphasis in original).
The court fails to separate itself from the bar association’s promotion of an ideology that conflicts with the supreme law. Allowing respondents-in-fraud to continue their Covid-19 project to reset the state authority along a unitary consolidated line, as in a one-party communist state like China, without abating it, under equity or mandamus, for 722 days shows the court cannot be believed to be impartial, unbiased, independent and without prejudice toward state of Tennessee, on relation.
Petitioner’s demand for recusal upholds the petition and accounts for his notice of mass department fraud. He alleges fraud on the court. He does it anticipatorily in the petition, as cited above. He gives report of fraud on the court in his aforesaid cited notice on department mass fraud.
The state, on relation, declares that the attorneys and judges involved in this case act as a piece with respondents. They act arbitrarily. They capriciously follow dictates, opinion, policy, advice and interest outside the case, and outside the Tennessee constitution, the Tennessee code annotated, the rules of court (Rule 10, code of judicial conduct) and court precedent, denying relator his rights under constitution and to honest government services by parties subject to statute obeying said law, to not harm relator.
Standard for fraud on the court
Fraud on the court is a grievous matter involving attorneys and judges. The standard is set forth in Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338, 348 (6th Cir. 1993), with
[T]he elements of fraud upon the court *** consisting of conduct:
1. On the part of an officer of the court;
2. That is directed to the “judicial machinery” itself;
3. That is intentionally false, wilfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth;
4. That is a positive averment or is concealment when one is under a duty to disclose;
5. That deceives the court.
Through the lens of the five Demjanjunk elements, state of Tennessee, on relation, reviews case elements.
- On the part of office of trust. American Bar Association goals are hostile to divided government, strict distinction between branches, high respect for the citizenry under the covenant of the Tennessee constitution. There is the appearance that these officers of trust share in the goals of their professional guild and use offices of trust to promote ideological goals in the complained-of fraud admitted by respondents prior to filing of having disobeyed T.C.A. 68-5-104 in acts of fraud and official misconduct.
- “Judicial machinery.” Acts by TBA jurists are directed to delaying, obstructing, impeding, denying relator remedy due him under his due process rights under the state and federal constitutions. The case should have been resolved in favor of the statute in 10 days or less under the command of (1) the rule of equity and (2) the emergency and peremptory nature of mandamus at T.C.A. § 29-25-102, designed to heal the bloody gash in the body politic put there by the terrorism of respondents and harm to the law itself by their violation. The court is asked to take judicial notice of the following regarding the harmful effects when the law is seized by private parties against the secured state and federal rights of relator. The U.S. government’s vaccine adverse events reporting system (VAERS, run by the FDA) reports that 990 people in Tennessee have perished from the Covid-19 experimental gene therapy shots peddled by respondents. The U.S. government says 12,747 people in Tennessee reported jab harms as of Sept. 21, 2022, in the pharmaceutical product rollout with no or little human testing.
➤ Denial by the court of relator’s administrative appeal — a petition for writ of certiorari in substance, albeit not in name, for the court to bring up the case under its plenary inherent original jurisdiction. The petitions for emergency intervention were construed as appeals from a lower court without an order. This case is most extraordinary. Never before has a governor declared martial law and ordered house arrest of hundreds of thousands of people, closed their businesses, shuttered their churches and forced them under fraudulent threat to submit to his pretended orders against their liberties, commerce and travel. The judicial machinery, 30 days after filing when relator demanded relief, refused to function, pursuant to the interest of the TBA and the ABA in a reset of government overruling the Tennessee constitution, remarkable in this case without precedent raising existential questions about the republican government guaranteed in U.S. constitution art. 4, section 4.
➤ Failure of bar member judges to recognize a fraud on the court in which breach of oath, violation of duty under § 68-5-104 and mass overthrow of constitutional provisions are visible to relator, and reported in this case of redress of grievances.
- Intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth. The trial court and COA have said not a word about equity, injury to the relator, harm to relator of any member of the public, whether from police power exertion among the people without a nonfraudulent exigency, or from practices in mitigation by officials, whether chin diapers, social isolation directives or mRNA experimental inoculation project that in Hamilton County administered more than 509,288 doses as of Sept. 18, 2022. This case is about equity, personal harm, fraud by government employees, and the courts see no equity.
➤ Blindness to the facts of the case entered by relator. Respondents enter no facts, the record shows. Relator facts are in his affidavit of support, TR p. 42. Intentionally blind to facts, chancery and COA deny relator’s personal interest in the case, his concrete and personalized harms in the affidavit of support of the petition under the intentionally misapplied Am. Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee v. Darnell, 195 S.W. 3d 612 (Tenn. 2006) standard for standing. Denying the facts, being blind to facts, misapplying legal standards to secure injustice are frauds on the court.
➤ Law, equity harmonize to require immediate resolution — denied. The petition, warning of imminent irreparable harm, is ignored as if not an emergency despite “forthwith” commanded by statute at § T.C.A. 29-25-102 for relief, with law and equity harmonizing to insist on instant relief starting with a show cause hearing. Trial court neglect and mismanagement could have been cured by a writ of certiorari from the high court, application for which was made 30 days after filing petition. Denial prolongs the agony of the state, on relation, and her people, in grossly negligent and reckless disregard for the making a determination of the agent of contagion. The violation of law lets executive and judicial branches swallow up the rights of the people as emergency use authorization for untested drugs brings continuing mass harm, with prolongation bringing relator a retaliatory legal bill from Hamilton County of $10,150 plus $416.82 in costs, totaling $10,566.82.
➤ The judges deliberately ignore T.C.A 68-5-104’s claims upon public officials under trust, the ultimate fact of the law rejected in its power to make lawful claim via evidentiary facts in the record upon respondents. According to the courts, (a) no evidence of compliance with the statute exists in the exhibits, and (b) admissions and arguments by respondents-in-fraud that they have no duty to obey the law or have it obeyed by agents are not significant under equity or statute. Fraud is not avoided in equity court, and is subsidized under policy corresponding with the ABA devotion unconstitutional and non-constitutional forms and practices. Willful blindness about the ultimate fact of the law is a fraud on the court. The case is premised on evidence as matter of rejection of the law by respondents, and duty to obey its provisions (personally, or by agency).
➤ Deliberately misconstruing petition. The COA construes the petition as principally a petition for writ of mandamus. It says mandamus is relator’s sole claim. It considers no lesser stated or implied claim. “The trial court properly found that no Tennessee court has subject matter jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus requiring the governor to perform an act and that the trial court therefore did not have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain a petition for a writ of mandamus against Governor Lee. Determining this lack of subject matter jurisdiction to be dispositive of Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus against Governor Lee in his official capacity, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the petition on this basis” (COA, p. 17). The judges declare the petition self-destructs at their feet on alleged grounds of no subject matter jurisdiction. The courts refuse to require respondents-in-fraud to show cause why they have refused to satisfy known legal duties § 68-5-104. They pretend relator is seeking an order to compel Lee to perform an act. An order to a show cause hearing is not commanding an act of the executive branch per se, but a duty of any person to submit to a court, in this case to give explanation for an admitted violation or breach. It is a fraud on the court for judges to refuse to assert this lawful authority to order a show cause hearing under the mandamus law at T.C.A. § 55-29-102, under standards of which relator has standing.
- Concealment amid duty to disclose. The courts’ officers in judicial robe have had duty to disqualify themselves from the beginning of the case, given averments in the petition that directly connect them to the ABA green sustainability agenda of which they are a part that makes it impossible in this extraordinary case for them to be impartial and fair and to hear the law. Their bar association connection is reasonably perceived to materially support their mistreatment of the case shows they are partisans in league with respondents-in-fraud. They exhibit bias, lack of impartiality, prejudice, lack of independence, nonavoidance of fraud by respondents-in-fraud. Secondarily, chancery refuses to consider unrebutted evidence of relator’s concrete and particularized harms caused by respondents, and conceals these facts from itself while accepting theories from respondents about standing, alluded to in relator’s petition to the court.
- Deceiving the court. The courts are the hall of justice, and the venue for equity, the rule of law and relief against wrongdoers. The court is injured when court officers conspire with unindicted state and county employees pursuing official misconduct and fraud, as if such conduct were state policy and lawful.
The court is deceived by bar association members working in concert with respondents to destroy equity in Tennessee, destroy the separation of powers, destroy the idea of official duty to obey the law, wreck the peace and tranquility of relator to be free from and not be subject to any policy, official, law, act or claim without there first being a nonfraudulent exigency for an exercise of a police power against relator, or anyone else in the state without lawful authority in act of executive branch legislation.
The one-sided and biased actions against state of Tennessee’s cause, on relation, continue the greatest harm committed in the state’s history against her people, and that by government actors in their personal capacity, outside their authority, outside their office, or in official capacity rejecting the law under pretended authority and in fraud.
Bar association lawyers and judges in this case, like respondents, have overthrown constitutional government and equity itself — all within presence of the court, and with judicial permission. They act under the flag of environmental sustainability and an emergency government rewrite of our legal order, protecting the environment and global covenants, agreements, even treaties in the context of the United Nations, as the petition states, taken true and in no way denied by respondents. Lawyer and judge bar association members in this case are on respondents’ side. Breach of law, fraud, and fraud on the court are not honest nor permitted ways to bring about major social and political change. Bar members stand against relator, state of Tennessee, and the free people in the state. They blind the court to justice, equity rules and demands of contagion determination at T.C.A. § 68-5-104 and mandamus at T.C.A. § 29-25-102.
The courts below and members of the court, by their connection with the TBA, are disqualified from ruling on this cause, as bar member judges in two courts have. State of Tennessee, on relation, demands to have the case heard by parties without bias, prejudice or agenda as to the course of development of the state and its people, by parties who will obey clearly established law.
ABA and sister organization TBA agree with the non-Tennessee parties and interests that undermine state government and replace it with an administrative biosecurity police state in which there exists no guarantee of the protection of constitutional rights inherent in relator and the people as a whole. For sustainable development and the United Nations agenda to prosper, fraud in Tennessee must continue with cooperation of lawyers and judges joined with the Tennessee Bar Association and the American Bar Association.
Relator objects to the order denying recusal of four justices. By this affidavit and motion he demands recusal of the court on the grounds of bar association membership as additional material evidence of its members commitment to respondents’ fraud in the rejection of T.C.A. § 68-5-104, the clearly established law upon state of Tennessee, which commitment is evidence the members of the supreme court are prejudicially and visibly biased against state of Tennessee, on relation.
Exhibit for recusal: Notice of judicial department mass fraud