(May 30, 2022) — [Editor’s Note: Please see the original article here.]
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn., Monday, May 23, 2022 — I have an absolute right to a writ of mandamus to command Gov. Bill Lee to obey the communicable disease law, the violation of which allowed the “pandemic” in government to afflict 6.8 million Tennesseans.
But the court of appeals Monday, 96 days after oral arguments and 256 days after getting my brief on appeal, says I have no standing to ask for a writ of mandamus, and made no claims against Gov. Lee or Becky Barnes for which relief may be granted, and that the governor cannot be held to account by any court.
My emergency petition was in chancery court for 201 days, and the appeals ruling came after 598 days of fighting for an end to lawlessness.
The court rules that I, as the party relating the people’s grievance against official misconduct and known as a “relator,” have no legal remedy whatsoever against the governor, except that of impeachment.
Impeachment is done in the state house of representatives, and is not a remedy for a man or woman aggrieved by a violation of law.
Most astounding in the ruling is the three-judge panel resorting to arguments on standing abandoned by Gov. Lee and Becky Barnes, local health administrator, in the briefs phase of the appeal. They had argued in Hamilton County chancery chancery that I had no standing because I had not shown specific, concrete and particularized harm by their actions.
I demolished this claim by pointing out that the grounds for standing in a mandamus action are merely an affidavit stating the claims of a violation are true and showing that I have an interest in the matter as a citizen. In a mandamus, the harm is to the law itself, not to a citizen. Respondent attorneys made no mention of the standing issue in oral arguments Feb. 15, indicating they had registered my argument as correct.
But what the attorneys dropped as a fraudulent argument, the three appeals judges revive. They rewrite Tennessee law and eviscerate one of the two most powerful remedies the people have against lawless and illicit government. Thomas Frierson, D. Michael Swiney and Neal McBrayer evaluate my 5-point affidavit of harms and determine chancery was correct that these harms are insufficient for standing.
They evaluate the harms to me — economic ruin, blocked worship services, mask rules at closed courthouses, threats of arrest, violated rights of religion — and say their connection to Mrs. Barnes “is tenuous at best” and were suffered by all people equally. Thus, no harm was done.
Mass harm to all, in other words, is harm to no one particular person.
The court also says that mandamus cannot ever be used upon a governor, with the key case, Latture from 1905, offering sycophantic language about the governor’s immunity from the people’s writ. “This longstanding precedent in Tennessee has never been overturned by our Supreme Court and will not be disturbed by this Court,” the judges say.
They say the cause vs. the governor had to have been filed in Davidson County under long precedent of suits against commissioners. The governor, of course, is not a commissioner, but no matter. They deem to have this privilege even in a case of admitted violation of state law, mass harm and admitted harm.
The ruling denies the people their due process rights, and their right to a remedy. The governor ignored the law at Tenn. Code Ann.§ 68-5-104, then claimed authority for a state of emergency under Title 58. The only warrant or lawful cause he might have had for the emergency was to have obeyed the law first, then determined other measures in an emergency as applied upon government agencies. Emergency orders apply only to agencies and their employees, despite pretenses by Gov. Lee and his officials that they apply to the citizenry universally.
The ruling is highly technical, soulless and destructive of honest government. My petition in equity gets not the least understanding, as equity requires, and legal strictures and limits by the judicial trio hem me about at every turn. Hardly a single claim of mine is credited.
State of Tennessee ex rel Tulis v. Lee is about fraud by governing officials. There is not a single reference to fraud by the court, except in quoting me. For the court, fraud has not occurred, and if it has, you are not the person to bring it to our attention. The element of mass fraud and admitted violation of the law, in my argument, sweeps aside defenses that might ordinarily have merit in a civil dispute over the law. But the judges see no fraud, as if I had filed a petition of blank pages.
The judges destroy the emergency powers of mandamus as a “forthwith” petition. The “forthwith” requirement in mandamus — meaning immediately, if not sooner, because an official is violating the law — applies only the respondent’s reply, not to the entire process, as I claim. Such actions are like a TRO, a temporary restraining order, of immediate concern and action, lest irreparable harm begin, or continue. But the appeal’s court says no. This case today is in its 597th day.
Our judiciary is corrupt, and this ruling insanely supports a conspiracy between Gov. Lee and the chief justice, Jeff Bivins, to wreck the state’s life and economy in 2020 and 2021, with scorched-earth penal colony-style lockdown and experimental inoculations.
“David, these people are absolute liars and frauds,” says Levi Thurston, one of my gnomes.
This is a bunch of B.S. from them. That right there is a complete repudiation and a complete corruption of the course of the common law. There is nearly millennia of history of the mandamus, or maybe it’s 500 years, whatever it is, and for them to come up and concoct a completely fraudulent story to tell means that the mandamus has basically been pushed aside for the very reason it has an existence.
The courts will force abandonment of mandamus as a remedy for the people of the free state of Tennessee. To force a theory of particularized harm limits the circumstances in which the people can use it.
Says Christopher Sapp, midstate bureau chief for NoogaRadio 96.9 FM, and also one of my gnomes:
This adverse ruling effectively guts the rights of state citizens to obtain a Mandamus remedy in compelling government actors to abide by, and obey, clearly established state laws by mischaracterizing their actions as “discretionary” rather than obligatory.
Likewise, in deeming the extraordinary remedy of Mandamus as “discretionary” the Court asserts that it has the latitude and authority to capriciously decide, by arbitrary fiat, who will and who will not receive justice from the hand of the Court…after all, “[I]t has long been settled in Tennessee that the granting of the writ of mandamus, even when the right thereto is clear, lies in the sound discretion of the court.” Grant v. Foreperson for Bradley Cnty. Grand Jury, No. E2009-01450-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 844912, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2010).
So, apparently, as long as the public official has the right last name, has enough money, has sufficient clout, or is a member of the right political party, they can pretty well do whatever they damn well please and the courts will not intervene or stand in the way of their activities. I have also noticed that whenever it suits them, the judiciary hides behind the separation of powers doctrine in justifying their denial of rights and remedies to pro se litigants, thereby failing to deliver on the checks and balances against abuses of power that our trifurcated system was designed to protect us from.
I am asking for prayer in deciding what to do next. An appeal to the supreme court for a writ of certiorari is, I believe, subject to the judges’ permission. I believe an appeal is proper, as the mid-level appellate court is notorious for unjust rulings.
My show is live 2-4 p.m. eastern time on the airwaves, and also at http://s6.voscast.com:7162/stream