by Sharon Rondeau
(Nov. 14, 2023) – At 2:05 p.m. EST, broadcast journalist David Tulis began testifying to a Knoxville appellate court in his defense in the case of a lender who he claims was “predatory” in the “business loan” it made to his company during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Tulis previously detailed the case, Flexibility Capital Inc. v. Sabatino Cupelli Et Al, stating, “Flexbility is a so-called business funder or lender, extending loans across the U.S. at interest rates past 200 percent per annum. But the loans are disguised as advanced purchases of future receivables. They come with personal guaranty provisions that make the owners of a business personally liable for repayment if a default occurs — such as that prompted in Tennessee by the CV-19 fraud and emergency of Gov. Bill Lee.”
At 2:09, one of the judges asked Tulis who he was representing, to which he responded, “I am David Tulis…” and the judge affirmed Tulis was “representing himself.”
Tulis argues that Flexibility extended the loan under false pretenses and is asking the court to outlaw the provisions of the contract based on its promise to collect on future earnings rather than withdraw payments from the borrower’s bank account “regularly.”
The link to watch live is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUg5feVzbEo
In his testimony and elsewhere, Tulis referred to Tennessee and New York State laws which he said render the specific practice Flexibility allegedly deployed against his company a misdemeanor in the case of Tennessee and a felony in New York.
At 2:18, Tulis reserved his last two minutes of time. Atty. Mary Cheatle for Flexibility then took the stand.
Cheatle took issue with Tulis’s claim that the lower court lacked “subject matter jurisdiction” and said the defendants filed “untimely” motions.
She said the lower court “properly granted the motion for summary judgment” and the defendants “admitted they failed to pay.”
At 2:22, the judge asked Tulis for his “rebuttal.”
Tulis said a defendant’s “failure” to prevail in a lower court does not nullify the claims he continues to make.
“Fraud on the court,” he said, “is not a motion to appeal a denial of a motion. We’re not asking for the same thing; we’re asking for something different,” Tulis said.
He argued he “filed my notice early” or “timely.”
At 2:25 p.m. the judge acknowledged the case “has now been submitted to this court for review” and the video feed abruptly ended, shifting to another case.