TENNESSEE CLAIMS COMMISSION MIDDLE DISTRICT 5 Luis A. del Mazo, ) Claimant, ) vs. ) ) STATE OF TENNESSEE. ) Defendant ) Case No. 720151070 ) ) ) ) ) ee) WRIT OF MANDAMUS 1. This claim falls within the statute of limitations as iti still open and pending with a hearing scheduled on 6/29/2015 forthe same proven unverified allegation presented in this Claim. Defendants have only stated an opinion and have not proven that the offense in question is rot continuing, ongoing, open and active in the Third Circuit Court of Davidson County and with Judge Phillip Robinson still presiding under case # 11-3242 continuing their criminal actions. S¢e Ppl “Edrlod Pr” 2. Claimant agrees that the acts of the defendants was intentional and a criminal abuse of power and therefore if claim is denied will hold all defendants personally accountable as their actions were out of their scope of jurisdiction. 3. Although there may be no subject matter jurisdiction (Defendants have not proven anything) to settle a claim for contractors Williams and Young, Lisa Cowen or Daphenee Davidson, Responsethere is no question that there is Subject matter jurisdiction on the negligent actions of Judge Phillip Robinson. 4. There are seven elements of jurisdiction, all of which must be proved by the prosecution and or in this matter the Judge, who was simultaneous acting as the prosecution, if challenged. Ifnot challenged, it will ALWAYS be assumed by the court that competent jurisdiction is proved and accepted by all parties. If any element of the seven is not proven on the record, the case must be dismissed. “Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered.” See: McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in Maxtield’s Lessee v Levy, 4 US 308, "Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.” Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026. 5. If “laws” are not policies and binding contracts then what ‘grants the defendants “The State of Tennessee” a municipal corporation Subject matter or for that matter any Jurisdiction over Plaintiff much less to imprison, kidnapp, hold hostage and extort Plaintiff under the “color of law” and “jurisdiction” 7 6. “No statute of limitations or repose runs on its holdings, the matters thought to be settled thereby are not res judicata, and years later, when the memories may have grown dim and rights Jong been regarded as vested, any disgruntted litigant may reopen the old wound and once more probe its depths. And it is then as though trial and adjudication had never been.” 10/13/58 FRITTS v. KRUGH. SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN, 92 N.W.2d 604, 354 Mich. 97 ResponseRes judicata is not applicable in this case as the case is still on going and defendants have not Proven that itis not ongoing, but only asserted unverifiable statements or no certified evidence. Furthermore Jurisdiction to even continue or even to declare an “order” has not been established but enforced unlawfully using threat, force, intimidation to make plaintiff comply and continues to Use these tactics as plaintiff is forced again to appear on this ongoing bogus allegation on June 29, 2015 or face being imprisoned and fined 7. RULE 55.04: JUDGMENT AGAINST THE STATE OF TENNESSEE. ‘No judgment by default shall be entered against the state of Tennessee or any officer or agency thereof UNLESS the claimant establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court. [Amended by order effective July 1, 1996; and by order effective July 1, 1997; and by order effective July 1, 1998; and by order entered January 28, 2000, effective July 1, 2000.) isory 2. nts {1 ‘The amendment to Rule 55.01 requires notice even to non appearing parties. One reason for the change is the liberal Tennessee case law allowing Rule 60 relief. ry Commission ‘The former five-day rule has been expanded to thirty days. Consequently, the defendant must be served with written ni of the application at least thirty days before the default hearing. 2004 Response‘The amendment [to Rule 55.01] returns the 30 day notice concerning default back to 5 days. Consult Rule 5.02, allowing service by mail, and Rule 6.05, mandating an extra 3 days if mail is used. Also, because Rule 6.01 requires exclusion of weekends and holidays in computing time Periods shorter than 11 days, a default judgment on a given Friday after a holiday would require mailing the notice on Monday of the previous week. 5504 A party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory judgment may, at any time after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the commencement of the action or after service of a motion for summary judgment by the adverse party, move with or without supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in the party's favor upon all or any part thereof, CONCLUSION For all these reason this Claim establishes Claimants right to relief by satisfactory evidence and should not be dismissed, but in fact Defendants are in Default according To T.R.C.P. Rule ‘55(a)(b). Furthermore claimant has establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court being defendants have not proven otherwise and have tacitly agreed by non response on the record that all Claimants statements have been true and correct, Claimant issues a Writ of Mandamus for the record which is a Superior court order compelling whoever is issuing order in Responsecompelling whoever is issuing order in this claim to perform their public duty to uphold the Staturtory authority ofthis court and enter into the official Record the default order and to enter ® Judgement info the recordin favor of Claimant for a Summary Judgement of 87,000.00 dollars made payable to Ashlee R. Daniels Trustee of DM Family Trust. Failure to enter Judgement in Claimants favor will Result in a Motion for Default and Summary Judgement in a US district court for up to 20 million dollars in Punitive damages. Submitted, on this Sa of May, 2015. 5 fis Jrwe ‘Claimant (sig *) Eazy that atrue and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served upon the following parties of record: Commissioner Robert N. Hibbett PO BOX 190582 ‘Nashville, TN 37219 Heather C. Ross Offfce of Attomey General PO BOX 20207 Nashville, TN 37202 AL Submitted, on this [ 5 day of. Response