Your petition is en route to the federal supreme court by certified U.S. mail, popped into the U.S. postal service stream Tuesday at the Hixson branch and meeting a 90-day deadline to seek a hearing.
It makes a legal argument that not one of one of 18,818 lawyers in Tennessee have made since overthrow of state government in March 2020. The augment is a defense of federally protected rights of press, speech and religion that overturns the widely accepted idea across the country that presumptive contagions give ground for states of emergency.
In Tennessee, Gov. Bill Lee declared a state of emergency for a presumptive “coronavirus” or “SARS-CoV-2” or “Covid-19” that by medical science has not been isolated and that by law has not been “determined,” as state law requires. By disobeying the state law requiring a determination be made of the agent of contagion — and admitting it in court — Gov. Lee throws away his own possible legal basis for the penal colony lockdown of the state’s citizens April 3, 2020.
The 1905 law has six requirements for determining a contagion. If it’s typhus, a local health official consulting with the health department in Nashville make that determination. If it’s tuberculosis, then that must be determined. If VD, then VD must be determined.
Last-minute edits focus on the question. Arthur Jay Hirsch, the Fiddle Man of Lawrence County, Tenn., and one of my gnomes, calls with a suggestion. Hal Anthony and I speak about a proposed edit. Brent Allan Winters, who comes into the project at the last minute, advises on the question.
Here’s what the case is about, boiled down to a single question (p. 2)
Destroying the jurisprudence of equity is contrary to the decision of every court providing equity relief for deprivation of fundamental rights. The deprivation in this case also relies on a state appeals court’s misapplication of a properly stated rule of law for cases having adequate remedy at law for discretionary acts to the present matter without adequate remedy at law for nondiscretionary acts and not enjoying any relief, this challenge requiring review said by the state supreme court in its dismissal order to be not “frivolous.” The question or the court:
Can Tennessee courts lawfully deny relief to press member petitioner where the governor and a local official by executive orders and directives chill and impede petitioner’s enjoyment of his constitutionally secured religion, speech and press rights without due process, having based their orders upon the undetermined, unproven claim of disease labeled Covid-19.
A sturdy red Kentucky Whiskey box — almost entirely taped over to avoid offense against postal rules — costs F$36.40 for delivery to Scotus. It costs F$19.10 to mail the 2 service copies as court rules require — the other side. Janet Kleinfelter is in Nashville at the AG’s office. Sharon Milling is in county attorney Rheubin Taylor’s office in the old courthouse. I keep track of receipts and hours for eventual reimbursement.
I assemble mailing from lunchtime until about 3 p.m, when Macil Duncan goes on the air with the Patriot Pastor show on the NoogaRadio Network. I assemble the 38-page petition, a five-page cover affidavit in forma pauperis and three appendices. The appendices include record of almost all the orders in courts below, a record of my asserting federally protected rights and the affidavit supporting the October 2020 petition for equity and writ of mandamus.
As I work, much studio hubbub. Sab Cupelli, my partner at the station, cuts an ad with client and salesman Bill Obsorne looking on. A saleswoman candidate gives her interview and watches. I get a frantic feeling.
At the post office, a clerk says I cannot ship a liquor box. I go outside and on the roof of my green RAV4, cover all the whiskey labeling and return. Glad to have had a box of office supplies that includes my sticky wrapping tape; and I had a full bottle of water to splash on the tape to activate it.
Changes are being made to the most important lines in the document at the last minute. I talk with Arthur J. Hirsch, in Lawrence County Tennessee. Attorney Brent Allen Winters in Indiana and his paralegal are on the phone. I also discuss proposed revisions with Hal Anthony who runs the “Back to the Wodshed” Podcast on Sunday at Reallibertymedia.com.
Our case does something unlike other cases argued in state and federal courts or handled by the supreme court. It attacks the presumption under the puproorted mitigation measures by a governor and his health bureaucracy. Intentionally the governor and his officials ignore the main law and so exercise police powerful with no warrant, lawful reason, or nonfraudulent exigency.
Mr. Winters says the federal courts don’t care about violation of state law. They care only about if federal rights are abrogated, or the enjoyment of those rights. They don’t have any police power in the states, and so don’t care too much about our analysis about police power operating without lawful basis. Their concern is the federal rights breach, regardless of how those rights are breached.
Vital case at a glance
Just as the petition boils the controversy down to a single sentence, it also distills it to one page, as follows:
“Jurisdiction State of Tennessee, on relation, seeks review to correct the deprivation to state and federally protected fundamental rights by Tennessee courts’ denial of equity jurisprudence, despite the expressed intention for such relief in the petition of the cause titled, “Petition for equity and writ of mandamus,” the relief suggested in the demand from such harms as fraud, unwarranted use of police power, dereliction of duty, acting under mere color of authority, the courts’ denying relief despite the federal and state protected status of relator and the jurisprudence available to provide relief, guaranteed by both state and federal constitutions to state of Tennessee, on relation.
”Tennessee appellate courts under color of law deny existence of any federally protected rights or that equity jurisprudence exists for relief in their violation. The courts do so by mistreating the equity relief action, under color of lawful authority; for instance, they use case law regarding litigants with a remedy at law as precedent, arbitrarily and capriciously confounding and denying the equity relief sought by the state of Tennessee, on relation, the cause of which having no adequate remedy at law, to say the state of Tennessee, on relation, is not entitled to equity relief to stop police power abuse, as stated fully in the petition that is required as a matter of equity principle to be taken true. ”
The court should take the case for this reason:
Every federal court in every circuit has decided contrary to the cause seeking relief in this case. They have accepted without judicial scrutiny that, contrary to law, police power can operate on a merely presumptive cause, one not enjoying demonstration of a nonfraudulent exigency, the singular expedient relief to which is the equity jurisprudence deprived without lawful warrant by the supreme court of Tennessee, and all federal courts, under color of lawful authority, contrary to law.