The state of Tennessee and other states play many tricks against the citizens.
One that affects you and just about every other adult in Tennessee is this one: Imposing and defending the false claim that you do not have a right to travel, a right to communicate using the public road.
By David Tulis / NoogaRadio 92.7 FM
The trick is to claim jurisdiction over your private use of a road by converting all private use into commerce. That’s pretty good. But it gets better.
When a citizen catches on, and raises objections in sessions or criminal court about this private use — his noncommercial use — the state turns the table and pretends not to know what the citizen is arguing. The DA and the judge pretend to not understand the “out of left field” argument demanding proofs from the cop or deputy that he obtained factual evidence showing commerce during the roadside encounter.
An example of this treatment is the hearing and sessions court of Gregory Parker, a welder from Chickamauga, Ga., who is under police and deputy attack in Chattanooga and Hamilton County, Tenn., for his private use of the road amid his express intention to use it personally and privately, and not in commerce and under state jurisdiction.
A detailed story of his hearing is at this link, and an analysis of this hearing is here.
The state’s trick is to use commerce to gain jurisdiction, and then to pretend lack of clarity, confusion, words of art when the victim insists that he is not using the road commercially. To shorten the theory even more, We gotcha with commerce, and you can’t get us with commerce (or NONcommerce) as your defense.
Can the state have it both ways?
Very likely, the state is going to have it both ways. The state is going to insist on commerce, and been deny rebuttal and demand for evidence made into commerce.
The state’s commercial attack on travelers through the license/insurance/registration rules and its commercial counterattack because that’s what the judges allowed. The states across United States want to maintain their control over this lucrative area of the economy.
They serve the insurance industry with its guaranteed streams of income in the billions of dollars.
The insurance industry is happay to go along with the scam. Its corporate players agree with the state that all use of the road is commercial, and so that industry sells insurance to people who are not involved in commerce, to private users who mistakenly think they are involved in commercial use. They are happy to sell tens of thousands of policies to people they know are not commercial and not subject to the state for their private use outside of any state privilege or tax statute.
Only about 20 percent of those cars and trucks on the road are duty bound and liable to have insurance under the financial responsibility statute. The other 80 percent of those cars and trucks on the road are privately used and privately controlled, and are not carrying goods or people for hire.
Neither do judges pay any attention. Generally they are hostile to the defense of a defendant that he is not involved in commerce. Judges do not think anything of criminalizing private users through the misapplied statute. Lawyers, from whose ranks all judges today rise, don’t bring up the matter because their bread-and-butter includes petty criminal cases by the tens of thousands across the state under Tennessee Code Ann. § Title 55, motor and other vehicles, a body of administrative law that applies to businesses, capitalists, entrepreneurs and others who enter a privileged area of the economy.
The proper way to overturn this system using my transportation administrative notice is to view the abuse of the statute as a tax and privilege issue, not a “right to travel” issue. The courts are rejecting the people’s rights, and are individually as judges subject to impeachment and criminal sanction under federal law at Title 42, containing the federal oppression statute.
The defense of people such as Jon Luman and Gregory Parker is that they are not involved in commerce, and that the accusers have zero evidence of that person’s commercial activity. Calling someone a “driver” is proof of nothing. For a cop to say he saw the defendant “behind the wheel of the car” proves nothing as to whether the activity in that use of the road is commercial and regulable and subject to Title 55.
