Shane Bruce

No. ________ - ______________________ In the Supreme Court of the United States Shane Bruce Petitioner v. Lori P. Staudenmaier M.D., UT Family Physicians, The University of Tennessee Medical Center, Gregory A. Finch P.A., Tennova Cardiology, Stephen Teague M.D., Jeffry Nitz, Lafollette Medical Center of Tennova Healthcare, Tennova LaFollette Medical Center Clinic, Christian Terzian M.D, , University Infectious Disease, Office of the Secretary of Defense, The Center of Disease Control, General James Mattis, Sir John Sawers, Board member of BP plc. Respondents Great Britain Petition for Writ of Certiorari Shane Bruce in propria persona 313 W. Prospect St. La Follette, TN 37766 - QUESTIONS PRESENTED Questions of importance to the Public: Are victims of industrial poisoning persecuted as a group with grounds for claims a subclass facing Unconstitutional animus? Is litigation against foreign entities found criminal in harming the populace applicable under JASTA (Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act)? Does District-wide conspiracy negate medical malpractice pre-trial requirements of ‘goodfaith’ certificates or notification? Questions of further Consideration: Does the District Court have to follow fair and unbiased expected procedures based on precedent? Does the District Court have to maintain its Jurisdiction as a duty? Whether factual error and preserved error is immune from plain error review? Can Orders only cite precedents which conflict with their decisions? Are Pro Per allowed to amend Complaint in perceived errors of form? i PARTIES Shane Bruce is the petitioner; he is the plaintiff-appellant below. The respondents, defendants-appellee below, are categorized. The medical malpractice are: Lori P. Staudenmaier M.D., UT Family Physicians, The University of Tennessee Medical Center, Gregory A. Finch P.A., Tennova Cardiology, Stephen Teague M.D., Jeffry Nitz, Tennova LaFollette Medical Center Clinic, Christian Terzian M.D., Lafollette Medical Center Tennova Healthcare, The failure to warn respondents are: Office of the Secretary of Defense, General James Mattis, The Center of Disease Control, Sir John Sawers, Chair of the BP geopolitical, environmental safety & security board member of BP plc as of 2015 Britain The poisoning defendant BP plc [British Petroleum] was severed to MDL 2179 2:18-cv02626 United States District Court of Louisiana. Based on evidence1 obtained from Respondents the Petitioner withdraws suit against the following parties. Previously joined as the doctors had alleged comparative fault. No longer parties, with thanks for their efforts: American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) American Medical Association (AMA) National Institute of Health (NIH) 1 Appendix H ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED .................................................................................................................................i PARTIES .................................................................................................................................................................. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................... iii INDEX OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................................. v PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI .................................................................................................. 1 OPINIONS BELOW ............................................................................................................................................. 1 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ................................................................................................................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ..................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF CASE ...................................................................................................................................... 2 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ..................................................................................................... 19 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................... 21 iii INDEX OF APPENDICES Appendix A Order Denying Amendment of the Unites States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee Appendix B Opinion of Dismissal of the Unites States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee Appendix C Judgement and Opinion of the Sixth Circuit Appendix D Appellant’s Brief in the instant case Appendix E Respondent’s Brief in the instance case Appendix F Complaint and Amended Complaint Appendix G Plaintiff’s Memorandum in MDL 2179 Appendix H Attachment to Objection to Order in the instant case iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Bienz v. Central Suffolk Hosp., 163 A.D.2d 269, 557 N.Y.S.2d 139, 139‐40 (1990) ................................................. 10 Bradley v. Fisher 80 U.S. 335 (1871) .......................................................................................................................... 5 Burroughs v. Magee, 118 S.W.3d 323, 327‐28 (Tenn.2003), reh'g denied (Tenn. Oct. 28, 2003) ............................ 8 Church v. Perales, 39 S.W.3d 149, 164 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000) ..................................................................................... 9 Cogswell by Cogswell v. Chapman, 249 A.D.2d 865, 672 N.Y.S.2d 460, 462 (N.Y.App.Div.1998) ............................. 9 Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)) ............................................................................................................... 18 Corbet v. McKinney, 980 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Mo.Ct.App.1998) .................................................................................. 9 Darby v. Union Planters Nat. Bank of Memphis, 222 Tenn. 417, 436 S.W.2d 439, 440‐441 (1969) ......................... 9 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S 89, 94 (2007) ............................................................................................................... 19 Flynn v. Bausch, 238 Neb. 61, 469 N.W.2d 125, 128 (1991) ..................................................................................... 9 Gunter v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 121 S.W.3d 636, 639‐40 (Tenn.2003) .......................................................................... 8 Irvin, 31 P.3d at 940‐41 ........................................................................................................................................... 10 Kelly v. Middle Tennessee Emergency Physicians, PC., 133 S.W. 3D 587, 592 (Tenn) .........................................8, 19 Kilpatrick, 868 S.W.2d at 598 .................................................................................................................................... 8 Lownsbury v. VanBuren, 94 Ohio St. 3d 231, 762 N.E.2d 354, 360 (2002) ............................................................... 9 Smith v. Allendale Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mich. 685, 303 N.W.2d 702, 710 (1981) ...................................................... 10 St. John v. Pope, 901 S.W.2d 420, 424 (Tex.1995) .................................................................................................... 9 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 ........................................................................................................................................ 18 Regulations 28 U.S.C. §§ 351‐64), Public Law 107‐273, § 11042(a) .............................................................................................. 1 42 U.S. Code § 1395dd(b)1(B) ................................................................................................................................... 4 42 U.S.C. § 1985 “Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights................................................................................... 1, 11 43 U.S.C. 1350c .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 50 U.S. Code § 23....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Daubert Standard Judicial Handbook (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995) ............................................................................................................................................................................. 12 FRCP 8 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11 FRCP 8(a)(2) ............................................................................................................................................................. 18 FRCP 8(b)(1)(B) .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 FRCP 9(a).................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Health Care Liability Act, T.C.A. § 29‐12‐121 (a)(4)(b) ............................................................................................ 20 Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act ..................................................................................................... 1, 19, 22 v PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Shane Maddox Bruce respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the United States District Court of East Tennessee. 28 U.S.C. OPINIONS BELOW The District Court entered Judgement on 9/25/18, Appendix B. The unpublished order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Bruce v. Great Britain, et al 18-6149 on 3/19/2020 and Order denying petition for rehearing on 4/13/2020 as Appendix C. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT The instant Petition is filed within 90 day of opinion affirming judgment of April 13, 2020, or March 19, 2020 of the denial of rehearing. This Court’s jurisdiction to grant certiorari is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1) CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights. FRCP 8(a) v 9(a) As a Court with Nationwide Jurisdiction the United State Supreme Court can react to multi-national entities as if they were resident individual by 50 U.S. Code § 23 given the findings of the BP plc being found criminal in its actions harming a populace, apropos if deemed intentional see Appendix H and Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act is actionable in complaint. Failure to warn comes under 43 U.S.C. 1350c in the misrepresentation of why that petroleum microbe was present Appendix H, civil has no limit on expiration. FRCP 8 as Petitioner met a(1,2,3) in his Complaint, but Respondents/ Defendants/ Appellees none met FRCP 8(b)(1)(B) digression from usual adherences as those cases cited support trial by Jury, Circuit disagreement. Any bias against Pro Per becomes again a Constitutional Rights violation if usually abused, Petitioner has stated claims upon which relief can be granted. The ‘bad-faith’ of Judges falsifying statements in orders and complaint by 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-64), Public Law 107-273, § 11042(a). 1 STATEMENT OF CASE A. Facts In 2011 Petitioner Shane Bruce was poisoned by heavy metal rains caused by the series of actions taken by BP plc. Oozing sores covered many campers after that rain. Petitioner suffered various recurring and changing illnesses sought consultation via telepresence by Dr. Ryan Shelton on the 8th of November 2013 who accurately diagnosed heavy metal poisoning. Lab tests confirmed severe Arsenic and Manganese poisonings. In on the 8th of August 2016 and until the filing of the Complaint, the Petitioner sought medical treatment for the heavy metal poisonings with Dr. Lori Staudenmaier and those doctors listed as Respondents each seeing those lab tests results refused to treat the already diagnosed heavy metal poisonings the Petitioners only complaint. Their lies about the condition were so outrageously wrong and identical that it had already become clear conspiracy. Dr. Staudenmaier hid tests from the Petitioner and attempting to confuse reports of the poisoning back to the AAPCC (Appendix H) requiring emergency medical treatments. She wrongly faulted the AAPCC not allowing her to prescribe antidotes. As a result of that intentional malpractice, the Petitioner did not know that he had been subsequently poisoned in 2017. Emergency response towards poisonings is critical. If survived, treatment takes years instead of days or weeks, DMSA antidote costs $250,000.00 per year. EMTALA as the Petitioner checked into respective Emergency rooms with emergency hypertension caused by the neurotoxin of Manganese overdose and chest pains from Carditis from Arsenic poisoning. Those informed Emergency rooms did not stabilize with DMSA nor purge the Manganese with EDTA. Moreover, all those doctors and hospitals said they weren’t allowed to treat arsenic. The Petitioners current doctor does prescribe DMSA now and the Petitioners recovery is slow, but those conditions have stabilized with 500 mg doses six times daily, 20 days per month along with EDTA I.Vs. DMSA is a World Health Organization ‘essential medicine’ used widely around the world as the only effective antidote. 2 The difference is indescribable, before the constant pain and inflammations, coupled with hypertension from neurotoxins and the moment by moment struggle to live and weeks or months of literally being crippled by searing pain and muscle failure weren’t helped by the confusing medical Respondents falsely blaming AAPCC/AMA. Most days of a decade could be labeled as a torturous too tired to scream. During those years malpractice Petitioner was forced to try to get DMSA from unregulated foreign markets which pauperized the Petitioner and creating a large debt. Some of those compounds were counterfeit attempts to pass off titanium dioxide. The Respondents costs years and caused problems with quality of life, organ and tissue damage, service to self is intermittent, canes, CPAP and oxygen sometimes required. Petitioner also showed anomalous bacteria when treated for Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever on the 5th of June 2014. So resistant to antibiotics means it has doublecell-walls and positive on band 41 IGG has flagella which is not RMSF is the identical description of Oleispira Antarctica which has been genetically modified to pressurize oil wells by converting compounds into gas and stir heavy metals causing geometrically increased contaminations when in contact with the oceans floors’ heavy metal ores of manganese and arsenic.2 Petitioner asks the Supreme Courts leave to file the hundreds of pages of medical records noting the lack of care also of proper medical care as Petitioner has better doctors starting on 3rd of August 2017 who deal directly with the elemental poisonings and the myriad of concerns they cause under Seal to the Clerk. B. The District Courts Finding Judge Mattice of the U.S. E. Tennessee District so biased as to rant in two of his Orders not only unexpected and unusual but shocking. The first Order, Appendix A, not only denying amendment to the Complaint but barring any further amendments and staying Discovery. The second Order, Appendix B, is the Order which attempts a series 2 Appendix H 3 of judicial backflips to stray from Constitutional to Statutory Jurisdictions to ‘de novo’ to espouse his personal/political views at Pro Se. The Order3 refusing any possibility of amendment follows four motions to strike. Mattice tells them he’s doing the next best thing in denying the Amendment. The Petitioner had asked the District Court for protection for his father Okey Jackson from the respondents to transfer him per 42 U.S. Code § 1395dd(b)1(B). Mattice presiding on an EMTALA complaint of the same nature willingly contributing to the crime of holding a witness untreated. Their malpractice was lethal as vindictively held there Okey Jackson died on 4th of December. 2017. Mattice and those medical Defendants again knew of the threat to life, preserved in docket, abuse of courts used as a weapon to murder. After that Mattice began to rant in his orders illustrating bias/prejudice. The 18th of December Order of the Court a rabid response mislabeled as charitable echoes the Medical Respondents sentiments which could only be expected from the most vicious organized crime. Refusing further amendments “to save Bruce from attempting to refile”4 in that continued draconic vernacular, Mattice didn’t challenge their behavior ranging from witness tampering, false imprisonment to murder of a witness. Instead challenges that the Petitioner should be there, and falsely misstates it the Plaintiff harassing and that Pro Se “clog the judicial machinery”5. Not one word of castigation has ever been mentioned towards a single Defendant. Instead Mattice join in making serial misstatements alluding to ‘just to being annoying” intentionally confusing facts. When the opposing lawyers or Judges cite Pro Per cases, those I have seen are all referring to Criminal Law which is an entirely different language than the Tort laws on which I’m suing on. Citations referring to Pro Per can be construed as stricter actions towards professional misconduct. I am no ward. If I had allowed myself to become helpless towards those defendants as so many others, I would not be alive. What has been lacking are precedents being named are some good well-meaning Pro Per whose 3 Appendix A Appendix A p 1 5 Appendix A p 5 4 4 Civil suits have interests of society as well as himself [myself] being allowed a single moment of grace in a flock of opposing misstatements and bias. This Petitioner Plaintiff Pro Per is not defending a position, this Petitioner Plaintiff Pro Per is prosecuting a Civil Action of signifant importance to society and such individual suits are the wind the sails influencing this ship of a democratically elected Republic which demands full service. During Public Health concerns the Pro Se will file in masse as those in positions of duty are terrifyingly derelict or worse conditions unremedied. The government cannot function in a self-created vacuum where it decides to ignore the needs of the governed, no population consents to be poisoned no matter how many derelict rants or misstatements are made. Once composed of mad men ceases to be a governing entity and becomes a dragon. The Public will also forever decry such staged precedents such as Bradley v. Fisher 80 U.S. 335 (1871) by judges and lawyers where ‘immunity’ and the American Bar Association are formed. Dysfunction segregationists from those they serve is highlighted when proliferated collusion to threaten the Public Health becomes pronounced. Civil War would serve the United States better than those congregating to foul positions for greed. No usual person would seek the company of the Courts, it’s a trying place where equal hearing must be held, usually sought as a last resort when a large entity harms others, or more specifically when entities have abused the Courts to become tyrannical, so bold to cause harm without a second thought. Pro Per of course innate to “We the People” of the Constitution, whereas privileges and immunity are not, no matter how many staged rants or animalistic quarrels occur. Pro Per appear for reasons of society as composing it and against those abusing it. Obviously we are not those professionals who are trained to be crafty or artful in abusing the courts. Professionals’ reasons usually anything but conducive to society. Bias against the individual people (Pro Se) is Constitutionally condemned no matter what office. Imagine each of you were to design a nation where you wanted simply to be Citizens. 5 Mattice, blinding himself with staying discovery, sarcastically makes fun of medical costs6 because they don’t fit his subjective version of reality. With no effort even ask what those costs of Chemet, the only insured version of DMSA, which are $250,000.00 per year for severely chronically poisoned people with multiple elemental poisoning which also have to stir such toxins to purge them using EDTA I.V.s. Such obstinate monoscopic introversion is a dangerously senile judicial mind, widespread has lead to the United States being crippled by international chemical warfare as the courts dumb themselves down. The safety valve is the voice of real people, not those trying to impress the lawyer network. There needs precedent of a Civil Action Pro Se prevailing over an arbitrary and obviously chronically wrong U.S. Judge for Appeals. One of course doesn’t want to have to challenge a Judge as the Plaintiff is already challenging a half a dozen doctors sure of their conspiracy in malpractice. The case of those medical malpractice network in East Tennessee is well defined. If having to show improper motive to such a thing can as conspiracy in that professionals are influenced by administrative edicts. What massive entity do these doctors, judge even the Petitioner have in common as well as the counties surrounding Knoxville and Oak Ridge? Particularly what has edict control over the medical Respondents? The University of Tennessee which is also the primary and managing prime contractor to ORNL [Oak Ridge National Labs] which is related to Y-12 and TVA [Tennessee Valley Authority] with a 20 Billion Dollar per year budgets. The bottom rung dealing in heavy metals then consigned to other Departments such as Defense, also conducts Billions of tax Dollars’ worth of toxin studies at ORNL as TVA is source funded. As a group it bears the most influence on the entire parasitic District far outstripping all other entities, 100-mile wide company town on the horrific tour. UT/ORNL/Y-12 are not desirable stations scientists hope to gain. It’s where the administrative or security which would aim for WMD facilities would be placed as psychological wash outs. A remote toxin refinery by any other word. Left to its “Lord of the Flies” create its own guidelines, administrative salaries are record highs in the U.S. 6 Appendix B p 2 6 government of high six figures salaries to more than a million per year for the CEO of TVA, essentially feudal cults. Occasionally some IT resources being rented out, or the place they place those unplaceable foreign defectors, Multi-Billion Dollar squalor. Note Bono that TVA had an arsenic spill into a river in 2008 called the Kingston Coal Ash Spill where hundreds of workers were poisoned, no reports of expected downstream poisons. ‘National Security’ as it’s labeled should be expected to watch for irregularities such heavy metal contaminations are instead suppressed by doctors. Security instead act like racketeers chase employees with side-business like lawn-mower repair. Their focus neither safety nor reporting but that of ‘money’, an unmonitored Federal group. This would is the probable ‘influence’ behind the conspiracy with high confidence. Certainty as UT Medical is a Respondent misbehaving. If there were one area of expertise that should be expected from UT and the UT Medical Center is should be reflecting those billions of dollars spent on heavy metal research their effects as reflected in innovation of treatments, or minimally the forefront ability to diagnose heavy metals worked on by hundreds or thousands of scientists over decades. Instead due to bad risk management, UT falsified and suppressed heavy metal super-toxic overdoses. Note Bono, Tennessee has geo-statistically abnormally low7 reported rates of septicemia (blood infection symptomatic of small vessel hemorrhage caused by heavy metals). Thus, UT Medical while misrepresenting is a substantial threat to the Public of our time, misdiagnosing at statistical anomaly level of a State. If there were only a thousand East Tennesseans chronically poisoned the prescription compensation alone could be a Billion dollars in reimbursing those medical costs. In responding the 2008 TVA incident of the Kingston Coal Ash Arsenic Spill, if UT/TVA had a competent or intelligent risk management as it could have manufactured the DMSA for fractions of cent on a dollar and offset liability costs into developing pharmaceutical manufacturing infrastructure as part of its vast controlled facilities and the U.S. then further prepared against disasters such as the BP Oil Explosion. 7 Appendix G p 14 7 Instead of being a line of defense, or what could be remotely called public servants those entities and UT become a misreporting malfeasant managing contractor obfuscating where warnings are required, tyrannical suppressing treatments. In trying to please those problematic draconic entities, Mattice struggles to use those Tennessee Statutes in shocking judgments, but those Statutes do not support the Order dismissing the Case nor are those misstatements factual, rife with ‘errors’ of fact and law. I ask the United States Supreme Court to specifically note the section after Mattice says “It is unlikely Tennessee’s “good faith” statute would defeat a claim pled under that federal statute”8 where Mattice in gross misstatement “Bruce fails to state in his Complaint an essential predicate for a malpractice claim; that is, he does not state he and the seventeen odd healthcare providers named in this suit had, at relevant times, a patient-physician relationship.”9. The complaint does specify the previous year of relationship to the eleven named medical Defendants, see section C of this document. Judge Mattice makes a scarecrow in that Order where Mattice switches from Constitutional Jurisdiction to a Statutory Jurisdiction10 in what I’m sure he thinks a pirouette of finesse since, but when in their Briefs, those medical Respondents grasp at those straws, stumble into the thresher by citing Kelly v. Middle Tennessee Emergency Physicians, PC., 133 S.W. 3D 587, 59211 (Tenn) where the Tennessee Supreme Court remanded back to the lower courts in Tennessee to be retried. It is not a citation supporting summary or ‘de novo’ judgement, the Court demands the opposite of Mattice The Medical Malpractice Act [7] does not explicitly require the plaintiff to prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. However, as we previously have stated, the Act "codifies the common law elements of negligence duty, breach of duty, causation, proximate cause, and damages. No claim for negligence can succeed in the absence of any one of these elements." Kilpatrick, 868 S.W.2d at 598 (citations omitted); see also Gunter v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 121 S.W.3d 636, 639-40 (Tenn.2003); Burroughs v. Magee, 118 S.W.3d 323, 327-28 (Tenn.2003), reh'g denied (Tenn. Oct. 28, 2003). The question of whether the plaintiff in a medical malpractice action must prove the existence of a physician8 Appendix A P 9 Appendix A p 9 10 Appendix A p 7 11 Appendix A p 9 9 8 patient relationship relates to the first element of negligence i.e., whether the defendant-physician owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. "[t]he existence of a physician's duty arises out of the professional relationship between the physician and his or her patient." Church v. Perales, 39 S.W.3d 149, 164 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000), see also Darby v. Union Planters Nat. Bank of Memphis, 222 Tenn. 417, 436 S.W.2d 439, 440-441 (1969) (stating, "[t]here is little doubt that the undertaking of a physician to diagnose and treat the ills of a patient is, in part, contractual in nature. The relationship thus arising between a physician and patient creates a duty on the part of the physician to exercise proper care."). … a doctor who "receives a description of a patient's condition and then essentially directs the course of that patient's treatment, has consented to a physician-patient relationship."); Corbet v. McKinney, 980 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Mo.Ct.App.1998) Thus, where the question is whether a physician-patient relationship has arisen between another doctor's patient and a physician consulted on the case, we look for these @indicia of consent as well as other evidence of a consensual relation." (internal citation omitted)); Flynn v. Bausch, 238 Neb. 61, 469 N.W.2d 125, 128 (1991) (stating, "While the relationship is often described as contractual in nature, based upon the express or implied consent of both physician and patient, we have held that absent fraud or misrepresentation, consent to medical treatment is presumed." (internal citations omitted)); Cogswell by Cogswell v. Chapman, 249 A.D.2d 865, 672 N.Y.S.2d 460, 462 (N.Y.App.Div.1998) (stating, "a doctor-patient relationship can be established by a telephone call when such a call `affirmatively advis[es] a prospective patient as to a course of treatment' and it is foreseeable that the patient would rely on the advice." (internal citation omitted)); Lownsbury v. VanBuren, 94 Ohio St. 3d 231, 762 N.E.2d 354, 360 (2002) (stating, "The basic underlying concept in these cases is that a physician-patient relationship, and thus a duty of care, may arise from whatever circumstances evince the physician's consent to act for the patient's medical benefit."); St. John v. Pope, 901 S.W.2d 420, 424 (Tex.1995) ("Creation of the physician-patient relationship does not require the formalities of a contract. The fact that a physician does not deal directly with a patient does not necessarily preclude the existence of a physicianpatient relationship.") Then that single citation of Tennessee Statutory Jurisdiction of Kelly v. MTEP, absolutely requires case be to remanded back to fact finding Jury: 9 [T]he trial court's determination as to whether a duty exists (a question of law) is dependent upon a question of fact that must be decided by the jury … Smith v. Allendale Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mich. 685, 303 N.W.2d 702, 710 (1981). In that regard, it is generally held in medical malpractice cases that the question of whether a physician-patient relationship exists is a question of fact to be decided by the jury. See, e.g., Irvin, 31 P.3d at 940-41 (stating that "whether a physician-patient relationship exists is generally a question of fact for the jury."); Bienz v. Central Suffolk Hosp., 163 A.D.2d 269, 557 N.Y.S.2d 139, 139-40 (1990) (stating, "Whether the physician's giving of advice furnishes a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that an implied physician-patient relationship had arisen is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury. As a result, on remand the trial court shall instruct the jury (in accordance with the principles discussed in this opinion) that the jury must determine from the facts in evidence whether such a relationship arose between … thereby owed a duty of care to her as a matter of law. Tennessee Supreme Court, accustomed to correcting chicanery, decided it is absolutely required that the matter be remanded to Jury. Medical malpractice pre-trial requirements cannot prevail Constitutionally in the face of 100-mile diameter conspiracy to deny heavy metal treatments making it impossible to find medical peer review therein. Some very shady oppression tactics in an area known for Witness Tampering, snake handling cults, abuse of labor, human rights violations, withholding medical treatments and assassins during the labor movement. 80 years of devolving economy / education / medicine and law considered statistically the worst in the U.S. abuse of all types rampant, substance also. The victims of heavy metal poisoning are a sub-class in Tennessee, laughed at by the network of medical malpractitioners, weakened, suddenly sagging, lethargic and overweight. Family only gather to divvy; none talk to or invariably condescending as if non-people. An unconstitutional classism at this sub-class of the poisoned, told “if you have the Holy Spirit, poisons wouldn’t harm”, told to work. A political and cult-based oppressing a class of people doctor won’t treat, and lawyers flee. Victims marked as if already sacrificed. Law enforcement won’t investigate poisonings, not even FBI local to East Tennessee nor TBI, and networks of doctors such as Staudenmaier suppressing reports (Appendix H). East Tennessee is a poisoners playground, murders aren’t even investigated, hospitals collude with the perpetrators, a cult by any word. 10 Beyond FRCP 8 it is fully a FRCP 9(a) complaint having conspiracy to injure by depriving medical treatment as duly required by law in acts to further the conspiracy become particular and Federal Jurisdiction ensured under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 “Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights” which confers a private federal right of action against any one or more persons who conspire to deprive a person or class of persons as medical respondents have in blindly lashing out at the poisoned. The Petitioner wasn’t even claiming fault at the TVA/ORNL group. NOTE BONO that the Petitioner once travelling outside the District of East Tennessee was finally able to find plenty of treatment. Chelation centers mere miles in every direction outside the Districts borders, clamor among the greater medical community is such beneficial practices were driven from that East Tennessee District. The District Order starts using other random citations of a Lebanese Cartel informers’ seeking political asylum complications of post-release immigration jurisdiction12 to spuriously stray from Jurisdiction in a civil litigation seems misrepresenting facts before the following tribunals. I am not an immigrant nor alien, I am a son of the American Revolution from royalty which were the first to abdicate, those that came and went native and placed John Blair Jr. in office along the way after we declared Britain the aliens and had the Constitution drafted. This is my nation. It isn’t some mistaken neglect, nor drunken doctor in accident, the complaint is that of intentional harm caused by the willful obstructing of needed emergency and urgent medical care, DMSA and ETDA. Both those treatments have been regulated with an entire bloated healthcare system being challenged if in that duty of care is not met, not accidental, but criminal failings, Constitutional Jurisdiction by Conspiracy. Mattice falsifies quotes, I the Petitioner have reread the complaint again and again and it does not make such allegations as “Great Britain conspired with BP to purposefully cause the Deepwater Horizon Incident” p8, instead the in preserved error of filings Petitioner repeatedly stating that Great Britain is harboring BP plc after members within it made a criminal act affecting a population and the subsequent failure 12 Appendix A p 7 11 to warn, therefore a terroristic act. Never was mentioned Britain nor Sawers, nor the United States being in any way complicit in planning that enterprise to poison the skies. Those highly exaggerated misquotes however are not physically impossible13 as those cases Mattice cites using “little green men”14 in place of what supposed to be impossible, not doubtful. Even those exaggerated misquotation15 of the Plaintiff Mattice does make wouldn’t even defy political consensus much less any reality, acceptable under the form of a complaint, but the Petitioner insists on pointing out the evidence that the BP plc preplanned enterprise has foreseeable and predictable catastrophic certainty. Beside when those exaggerated grand conspiracies become compared the smaller microcosm of East Tennessee Arsenic Conspiracies, they become plausible. Mattice rant about how impossible it would be that General Mattis is impugned for being other than patriotic, where Mattis publicly declared allegiance to Britain’s role as global leader, later he even resigned rather than following U.S. leadership in preference of that UK entity. Judge John Blair Jr. had to execute those exact same types before being allowed to become a Supreme Court Judge. That is before his walking out of office instead of answering the BP plc chemical contamination of the Eastern United States. It seems the barrage of official misstatements a tactic as burdening the amount of disabusing retort required, Mattice falsely states in “they merely disagreed with his selfdiagnoses”16 is one of the ad nauseum arguments as preserved errors as the Petitioner would point out each physician was hand-given prior diagnoses lab results but were “refusing to acknowledge such tissue tests results showing elemental contaminations”17. Prejudice loudly failing to perform required duties. Perhaps it is a UT failing as an educator rather than a senile judicial mind that calls direct references to published journals of medicine and science by title and author18 as 13 Petitioner would have welcomed an argument of facts based on the scientific method rather than the emotional ravings of pseudo‐political opinion by cultish ‘feelings’ so prevalent in East Tennessee. Daubert Standard Judicial Handbook (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995) 14 Appendix B p 6 15 Appendix B p 8 16 Appendix B p 11 17 Appendix F2 p 13 18 Appendix F2 p 9 and p 16 12 “pseudoscientific jargon”19 and how “inclusion of such [educational] information will not be permitted or tolerated” and calls it “going forward”. Speaking as a former student and senior research at UT, UT doesn’t foster understanding but that egotism of a venomous mind. It is cultish aggression profess stupidity to science to be accepted. Mattice is a product of his environment, U.S. judicial position hasn’t bestowed any mental immunity to that sub-cultural influence, reactionary with discovery stayed. Bear in mind how bold the network of medical malpractice must be to profess obvious chicanery in a region where literally thousands of scientific experts on heavy metal toxins reside. That same “disparate treatment [that was] attributable to an improper motive.”20 is the same motive used to explain Mattice bias, that UT/TVA/ORNL arsenic conspiracy, then a powerful contributor towards misconduct and undermining duty. Thus, the formative thinking of the East Tennessee District and Mattice are corrupted even before offices or practices are taken, conditioned to serve the dragon since children. For lack of a better word a cult established in secrecy in 1942 as a production site for the Manhattan Project told to handle poisons, considered one of those horrific sites to fringe tourists known for catastrophic heavy metal spills. At the very minimum isolated managing contractors if not the government behaving badly. C. The Petitioners Contentions on Appeal The Respondents and Mattice in mimicry profess not to be able to understand the Complaint, but U.S. Attorney has no difficulty as using citations with concise short statements is not a unique language. In Tennessee professing not to understand is a tactic of the guilty, but those Medical Respondents can’t possibly claim they weren’t given information concerning the heavy metal poisonings. The U.S. Attorney states the government wanted 30 days “sufficient to enable the agency to investigate”21 the claim. The Petitioner requested investigation and that such agencies move to warn the Public of the dangers. Petitioner has yet to see Public 19 Appendix A p 4 Appendix B p 11 21 Appendix D3 p. 17 20 13 warnings by those agencies responsible in the years since filing. If Mattice had not stayed discovery22 innumerable lives could have been saved. Against such people who failed to consider or investigate even after suit has been filed or in situation of public health where it is made obvious such defendants will be obstinate. Ruses of pretrial defenses against conspiracies to harm or cover-up which in this case are the same, should be suborned as a necessity of law. Matters such as these require expedited discovery to be compelled. Judge Mattis claimed defect of Amendment in that Order (App A) but did not list any, having yet to fabricate one. Hearing is usually called for to ‘instruct the Pro Se’ of local confusions. Requests for hearings denied. An evasive Judge doesn’t simplify the case, “instead of judging the veracity of Bruce’s complaint” or “myriad of complicated legal topics presented by the Defendants”.23 If Judge Mattis had simply compelled answers, they would have been sufficiently quieted, instead the Mattice obstructed. D. The Respondents Contentions on Appeal The University of Tennessee Medical Center Brief falsely contends any physician/patient relationship repeatedly fraud in affirmation, “Bruce fails to state in his Complaint an essential predicate for a malpractice claim; that is, he does not state he and the seventeen odd healthcare providers named in this suit had, at relevant times, a patientphysician relationship.”24 The UT respondent also blatantly intentionally lies by affirming knowledge they know incorrect by, “healthcare Defendants cannot be said to have had actual knowledge of whatever acute, life-threatening disease Bruce’s [sic] believes he was suffering from” when holding the 252 pages of medical records25. 22 Appendix A p 6 Appendix B p 3 24 Appendix E‐8 p 9 25 Appendix H 23 14 The Respondents defense is false as paragraph 7 lists each of their names, “Jeffry Nitz, Christian Terzian M.D., Stephan Teague M.D., Tennova Cardiology, Lafollette Medical Center Tennova Healthcare, Tennova LaFollette Medical Center Clinic, Lori P. Staudenmaier M.D., UT Family Physicians LaFollette, Gregory A. Finch, The University of Tennessee Medical Center, University Infectious Disease”26 and paragraph 8 of the Complaint clearly states that: “That the plaintiff seeking [as] much medical aid as he could [afford of] the Defendants of paragraph 7 represent doctors and medical of the last year… directly contributing to the medical neglect … being that the Plaintiff hasn’t once been treated for chronic infection/carditis nor arsenic poisoning”27 Complaint clearly says “past and [current] actions as of date of this complaint28” of paragraph 2 to set the ‘relevant times’ in his urging that those agencies investigate and report the dangers to public health harming so many. It’s still a failure to warn at the time of filing this Petition before the United States Supreme Court, as it was in appeals. In laymen’s terms that complaint of the ‘relevant times’ as being one full year of neglect as of the date of filing as in the 3rd of July, 2016 to the 3rd of July, 2017 and is there directly stating paragraph 7 of that same complaint which directly names those very plaintiffs who have filed briefs saying they weren’t named. Respondent Finch misstates, “In his brief, Bruce asserts for the first time a skeletal argument that state medical malpractice laws violate the United States Constitution. Am. Brief of Appellant, p 18-19. Since this issue was not raised in the district court, it is waived on appeal”.29 The respondents careless as if long corruption sure in their multitude of frauds exposed ad nauseum as by Doc 33 page 8 of “Plaintiffs’ Response to Deny the Defendants’ The University of Tennessee Medical Centers’ Motion” in direct response to their claims of the , “the local defendants have some argumentative, nearly 26 Appendix F‐1 p 7 Appendix F‐1 p 8 28 Appendix F‐1 p 3 29 Appendix E‐4 p 18 27 15 abusive conspiracy to violate civil [Constitutional] rights (which I’ll ask leave to amend the complaint if complaint didn’t indicate such a conspiracy strongly enough)” to page 18 of the same document “the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act … is a under national law is subject to state construct if it hinders Constitutional Rights. With a conspiracy to deny Civil Rights…”, same suffusing dozens of filings in preserved error. Thus, Respondents and even those of Mattice in misrepresentation of facts before a tribunal, seems habitual in the District. All the effort it required was a doctor’s prescription for DMSA and ETDA as universally applied everywhere but in East Tennessee. That would require administratively admitting the poisonings are occurring. If they’ve the above or ‘better’ improper motive, I ask them to admit it in writing. The other Appellee Sir John Sawers is on the board of BP plc does bring up a failure of the summons which was assumed by the U.S. Marshals Service who had reported it served. Petitioner had paid filing fees but then applied IFP to use the Marshals service so no one would question that part of his Pro Per action, oddly that is the one part that did fail, suppose money is The Marshals motivator, tax dollars is for the scenery. It is a slant at my linage. As simple as mailing a form, yet no one questioned the service. However, electronic service has been created personally to Sir John Sawyers and Britain by their Secretary there and the Monarch which represent Britain. Electronic Service in Civil Cases by twitter is legally allowed in the United Kingdom. Sir John Sawers has appeared as an Appellee. The suit is based on Arsenic and other heavy metals poisoning, but noticeably the Respondents and District Court ignored those poisonings the UT wants to suppress instead refocusing on that unknown flagella bacteria that survived several type IV antibiotics. It is infinitesimally possible the Oleispira Antarctica in and of itself isn’t harmful or even is somehow beneficial after “massive gene-transfer events”30 to the point an oil eating bug from the frozen seas is infecting humans, but who’d chance it? To the point, BP plc lied about why the microbes were present and how they would dramatically increase heavy metal contamination by multiple orders of power in magnitude. 30 Appendix G p 39 16 E. The Sixth Circuit Opinion Petitioner had requested the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to review in bulk the docket to display the bias and prejudice displayed as well as holding a witness until dead, and to show the repeated serial errors of facts and laws being introduced by the Respondents and Judge. They didn’t even review the one document they had wrongfully limited themselves to, the Complaint. Summarized its Order as “failed to allege facts showing the existence of a patient-physician relationship”31 which shows little or no review of the only document they would review, the Complaint. That they were medical provider wrongly obstructing treatment for a year Per Section D of this document. As simple and concise as a statement in a complaint could be made. Nor was addressed why some fictional flaw as that couldn’t be cured by simple amendment if there were any flaw. Petitioner maintains both, no error in Complaint and the expected right to Amend. The tirade against this Poisoned Pauper Pro Per falls into that conspiracy against a unconstitutional animus at a group and conspiring then to not have those decisions published. The outrageously high antidote coinciding with the debilitating effect would pauperize most of the U.S. An oligarchy blinded by the sheer stupidity of feeding their egos of the wealthy while life-threatening at the People of the United States is Treason. The media is inundated by poisoning giants waging war, corporate terrorism. No grounds are simpler than poisoned the doctors knowingly failed their duty to treat, conspiracy cannot be disproved, obvious. Failure of the nation as simple as key officials being bought by hostile entities of whatever source the stupid fat sick Americans who let themselves be poisoned the usual international comments. The “Law” as the Courts know it is foundational on a pauperized farmer suing a General for damages, ancient tort law. Without such a precept the Courts are lawless. The one area Government would ever be needed to even exist is to organize against harms to a population. That Government has failed at a fundamental level in every way, the one Government without meaningful lives is absurd, it that unwanted element that such would project, victims of psychological warfare. The U.S. must then admit fault 31 Appendix C p. 4 17 and re-engage the issue, allowing the hoards of Pro Se to take such entities by filing is the natural course of a nations survival when officials have become passive, else act at those entities. The underlying opinions are unConstitutional. If it were done it’s what we would do to enemy nations or people. The U.S., despite might, is being done to. The underlying Courts aren’t looking to be heroes in saving lives of the public or minimum required duty in their focus on nickels and dimes. Note the disparity between incomes in East Tennessee where Federal Employees are multi-millionaires with 8 million-dollar bonuses who could afford the $23,000.00 per month DMSA antidotes, does the dragon whisper so far as to the 6th Circuit? What particular errors was the claim of grounds faulted by? The Lopez Rule depends on the capacity of the of the Circuit Court to neatly classify every claim of error as either ‘factual’ or ‘legal’, to adduce sufficient evidence on a given point or a legal error of misapplying the correct legal standard, all of which is absent from the Circuit Court, who didn’t list a single error the Appellant brought forward. The underlying Courts attacks on FRCP 8(a)(2) is the series of misciting of precedence where they attack the usual and expected when citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (ellipsis in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Where the contractual obligations they know are true from evidence , but then Twombly in Syllabus is a case quoting, “a complaint should not be dismissed for a failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim”. The misrepresentations of law and precedence in appeal are very disturbing. It is the Petitioner having to point out that Respondents medical records excuse the AAPCC and AMA which the Respondents had blamed, which should have been the very first statement by the Circuit Court. If they had reviewed to any understanding that glaring error the proof that Dr. Staudenmaier had tests show Arsenic 100 times exceeded any levels tolerated. They refused undisputed preserved error evidence (AKA facts). Circuit Courts respond, “this panel concludes that it did not misapprehend or overlook any point of law or fact when it issued its order.”32 Or that no error had ever 32 Document 78 Sixth Circuit Order of Apr 13, 2020 18 occurred at any time is beyond hubris. Years of studies comparative religions, a condition of my full scholarship. There is not a God or Goddess in a multitude of religions that ever declared never to have made an error. Recovery from Divine errors are what Myths are made of. But to be wrong in every instance only happens to spite, failure to admit any error makes the underlying Court draconically unfair. Not Gods, but bad servants. Their citation of cases opposite of precedents they claim, the snide bad servants daring to be caught perhaps. The irreverent use citations referring to Pro Se which usually deal in abuse of power/discretion, Circuit citing Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S 89, 94 (2007) might be metaphoric analogy made theory as it is about medical treatments in prison. Erickson v. Pardus at the Federal level directs the United States Supreme Court to vacate the Circuit Court and remand for further proceedings. Kelly v. Middle Tennessee Physicians plc, requires same Jury at a State level. Compare that ‘too expensive’ of a procedure for inmates, without proper risk management means billions of dollars medical compensations for arsenic antidotes in East Tennessee from their 2008 accident. Rough analogies can be drawn. This medical case instead of ‘cruel and unusual’ to be relabeled systemic tyrannical (terrorism) abuse of multitude of populations, conspiracy, abuse of trusted positions and so forth calling for protected sub-classes of victims and JASTA. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT Overwhelming evidence supporting facts for prosecution, preserved on the docket. Besides the reestablishing legal recourse based on tradition for the wisdom of established since ancient times, there is the interest of Justice and at least two reasons of “Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis” exist. The common question is, “How many parties must fail in either neglect or malice that there are wide-spread poisoning victims being refused basic, essential and well-known antidotes?” One reason is the dramatic effect a United State Court Ruling would be opening liability of heavy metal poisonings and awareness of petroleum bugs stirring extremely toxic substances that the population might defend themselves by measures and civil actions. Which is the best reason, in the interests of Public Health. Arguments about 19 Federal liability in failing to warn is better supported in briefs irreverently ignored by the Circuit. It is the small suits claiming liabilities which keep our democratically elected Republic on track, the USSCs’ rudder. Another second valid reason is that East Tennessee might be forced by legal repercussions to finally follow the rest of the World in treating heavy metal poisonings. A changing of the guard might even result in UT/TVA/ORNL being foremost in heavy metal therapies, also “Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis” With such matters of import, the Petitioner did not expect a whole Supreme Court case to decide on how a date is specified in a complaint. Nor the important Discovery being stayed by a severe abuse of discretion, or the barrage of misquotes, misinformation or miscited cases at least not from the medical respondents and the District Court seemingly wanting to draw all the negative attention. Plaintiff unrestrainedly challenges the Sixth Circuit Court citing its own rulings to limit itself to ignore all errors and unchallenged and preserved evidence to restrict itself to the only the Complaint. Evidence is not required in any Complaint, but appropriate when the evidence is to contradict false statements by the Appellee parties. Circuit saw the letter ordering Staudenmaier to engage emergency and urgency protocols which she refused, despite the 100 times the levels requiring treatment. Overwhelming evidence. Apparently, it is I Pro Per, who doesn’t have a political career nor practice to be taken nor threatened, required to be the catalyst of protecting public health. If complaint meets 9(a) standards it meets 8(a) standards. While maintaining Federal Jurisdiction, it is noted that the Circuit Court on relying on State regulations also didn’t review Health Care Liability Act, T.C.A. §- (a)(4)(b) “The court has discretion to excuse compliance with this section only for extraordinary cause shown.” Pro Se who do not know recently created rules, are easily abused by conspiracy, that could occur in any District owned by some entity. The filers only know that doctors refused to prescribe antidote to a life-threatening illness and family and friends are dying and being poisoned are extraordinary in forcing discovery being compelled openly. Time is an essential. Nor did Mattice say ‘refile’ in the days, weeks months or year that 20 passed. Instead stayed discovery costing lives, siding with killing witnesses wouldn’t even suggest that the respondents let be transferred; recorded judicial misconduct. The 60-days required by the Tennessee Health Care Act only paints the complainant as a target for two months, as Mattice echoes the respondent’s sentiments in attacking the Pro Se “shield”, that shield does not extend to the witnesses being suppressed. The vindictive side actions where the respondents abused to courts, false witness to law enforcement, Machiavellian intrigues, etcetera. I’ve was a Plaintiff when most of the residences on a witness list were burned down. In a rabid response at an IFP filer, they killed multi-millionaire Okey Jackson, feral even by the most corrupt standards. The filings ensure something is at least already on record before the death-defying effort to survive. This is the reason the government files Qui Tam sealed, the Pro Per the sober class that can no longer bow to whatever abusive draconic entity able to move without fear for their careers, against the army of defense lawyers of meaningless lives. Pre-Trail notifications requirements must be deemed dangerously un-Constitutional. CONCLUSION In that any amendment, discovery, evidence or even argument was disallowed by the District Court though preserved evidence of the Respondents misconduct and damages shows the Petitioner cases have merit and the underlying decision courts decision based on errors unlawful to be overturned. The straying from precedence and jurisdiction usual to the courts by wrongful argument, their citations fundamental to their arguments only support an emphatic remand to Trial by Jury and even though attacked as a IFP case those underlying courts resorted to misstatements. Such internal Judicial struggles have to corrected, retirement isn’t a shame, misconduct is, better to retire well. Think of promoting IFP cases against those industries poisoning the United States akin to those allowing prosecution by Drug Dealer Liability Acts. Those too disabled to do anything else filing. The Courts might read a lot of life statements, but if the poisoned live long enough to successfully prosecute are being useful meaningful lives. But I do welcome the review of three legal concepts needing precedence: 21 First is victims of poisoning, by invisible life-threatening assault, particularly those organizations where further animus may occur due to perceived mounting financial liabilities of an entity already demonstrating actions creating health-threatening injuries constitute a constitutionally suspect class-based animus as it has in the East Tennessee in generations unchecked negligence and aggressive attempts to coerce control has created a cult in East Tennessee, Federal Private Rights actionable. Thus, a case before the United States Supreme Court whose bailiwick this is. This premise of clear logic, “A half-a-dozen medical doctors and hospitals intentionally suppressed reports/treatments.”, the only perceived motive, that of managing contractors systematically attacking the victims of poisonings. Whether localized to a District or effecting a nation, for a government to function it must have accurate reports and testing of all of those. Create the decision that the Federal Private Rights are appropriate in aiding the poisoned as a directive measure beyond limiting statutes or regulations-based on either immunity or poverty. Secondly a decision that conspiracy negates those requirements of an expert medical witness and other pretrial requirements that would limit torts since violating Constitutional Rights as have been shown. Similarly, IFP regulation promoting Courts to rabid responses creating a class-based animus are dangerously un-Constitutional, as immediately abusive in any situation of an entity monopolizing any area. Thirdly affirmation that Failure to Warn of a threat to a population constitutes potentially harboring or aiding a terrorist and brings to question the Sovereignty of any nation, even our own by JASTA as a just motivator within the Government. I therefore ask the august nine to apply any and all laws, statutes and precedents on my, the Petitioners, behalf in this matter to redirect the Courts in the substantiated matters and conduct and to create what precedence are deemed necessity. I ask that the matter of the underlying Courts Orders and Opinions be overturned and by Writ be remanded to trial by Jury or review and that upon Remand instructions concerning that potential abuse of Healthcare Liability Statutes moot by Federal Right 22 of Action when the network curtailing treatment is heinous conspiracy and not eligible to any type of Defense in their requirements that would limit tort litigation.33 The two cases, one of the UT medical malpractices is now severable from that of the U.S. failure to warn and the misconduct of BP plc, Britain et al. should be severed to prevent any further confusion and BP plc and Britain added back to the case in being remanded with any instructions the United State Supreme Court finds appropriate. This and what compensation might apply such as costs to the Respondents is said as a prophylactic measure, which does bring up a point, “What compensation might a Pro Per expect in a three yearlong battling a mass of misstatements?” Commensurate to paid representation to alleviate costs in proceeding trial? Cases made Qui Tam? Waiving requirements of representation or appoint co-counsel? For these reasons and questions, the Petitioner asks this grant a writ of certiorari. ___/S/ Shane Bruce_________ Shane Bruce in propria persona 313 W. Prospect St. La Follette, TN 37766 - 33 Judge Mattice did include Tennessee Statute as a basis for his ‘de novo’ decision, no independent grounds. 23