Free-range traveler and tradesmen Jon Luman has defeated a fourth attack on his liberty by cops and courts in Hamilton County, a liberty called “the orphaned right” by a legal historian.
Sessions court judge Lila Statom Thursday dismisses claims against Mr. Luman for alleged illegal use of his car. He has yet to gain possession of a car seized 140 days before by deputies serving Sheriff Jim Hammond.
The May 30 traffic arrest in Red Bank is resolved by horse trading of the state’s peace and tranquility by the public prosecutor, Alan Dunn, who dickers in open public with Mr. Luman about ending the prosecution that seems to have become an embarrassment for Officer Gregory Carson and the DA’s office.
The charges under indictment are driving on a revoked license, no proof of insurance and driving a car without proper registration. The charges arise from the state’s vehicle and motor vehicle law allowing the Tennessee highway patrol to regulate truckers.
Mr. Luman has insisted all along that he is not involved in shipping, but uses the roads privately and for pleasure. About 80 percent of people on the road are private users; the rest, shippers and commercial drivers and operators.
Mr. Luman stalks away from Judge Statom’s dias, bearing a large smile. “It lets Lila Statom out of ruling on my motion. They don’t want to rule on my motion. They don’t have anything that resolves their lack of jurisdiction.”
He made “a nice little earnest agreement with Dunn that also included his office, Neal Pinkston’s office dismissing in Judge Poole’s court. In Statom’s court they would just drop the tag, drop the insurance and drop down the ‘driving on revoked’ to ‘no license.’ No license is some mumbo jumbo they made up. He actually admits to me ‘no license’ is, ‘You didn’t have your license on ya, with ya,’ and it’s just their legal mumbo jumbo.”
This reporter says no statute exists for “no license,” but that there exists “failure to exhibit.” Is he pleading guilty to that — a law that applies to licensees?
“Right. Right. And he told me that. I take that as meaning — they just want to get away from this, get away from me, they want to get away from the whole deal. *** They just want to get away from this.”
Mr. Luman’s tribulation is part of a larger struggle by the people to resist claims by commercial government against their God-given and constitutionally guaranteed inherent and unalienable rights. State of Tennessee in practice, and all its agents across the state, pretend that the right of communication is automatically converted into a state privilege, and that no right of communication by personal travel exists. Historian Roger Roots traces the transformation of a right into a privilege in an essay called “The Orphaned Right.” https://tntrafficticket.us/2014/11/the-orphaned-right-how-states-squelched-americans-right-to-travel/
The outstanding case against Mr. Luman is filed by Hammond deputy Timothy Denton on Jan. 3 — also a prosecution of the trucker law under Title 55.
“Dismissal in Judge Poole’s court is part of the deal.” But, according to Mr. Luman, Judge Poole rejects the agreement. “The ADA got up and said we made an agreement in sessions court, so we’re gonna move to dismiss. So Judge Poole says he doesn’t want to agree to that agreement, and he wants to make me get my license back. What have I done to get my license back? — that’s the thing. I’m supposed to get my license back. I said, ‘I never agreed to get my license back’ — OK? This last discussion with Alan Dunn was the first time I ever said, ‘Sure, I could use my license, I’d like to have my license back, but I never agreed to do nothing to get it back other than to pay the normal reinstatement fee.
“And, oh, no fines or nothing for anything. So Judge Poole says, “No, I’m not agreeing to that. I’m not accepting that agreement. I want you to to get your license back.’ I said ‘That’s not the agreement, that’s not the agreement.’ He said, ‘I’m not accepting that.’ OK, pal, you know, sure thing.”
Mr. Luman says the only way he can get it back is to “void city court” and “void Florida,” a reference to two jurisdictions in which he had negative rulings that thwart any application he makes for reinstatement.
Pinkston refuses to short-circuit Dunn’s work
Mr. Luman has occasion Thursday to complain personally to district attorney Neal Pinkston, whose list of troubles includes shabby cases filed by Chattanooga police department and the obnoxious out-of-left field legal reform project of transportation administrative notice.
The meeting occurs at an elevator, as Mr. Luman recounts it.
“I’m coming out and I’m going over to the elevator and coming out of [a courtroom] I see this guy who looks familiar to me. You know who he is? Neal Pinkston. I said to him, ‘Hey, are you Neal Pinkston?’ He says, ‘Yeah, I’m Neal Pinkston. I said, ‘I’m happy to run across you, make your acquaintance. Actually, I have a complaint. I’m trying to head over and get back with Alan Dunn over here because I had an honest agreement with Alan Dunn that I made this morning regarding both my cases, and JudgePoole just said he doesn’t want to accept that deal.’ I’m a little miffed. I just want to let you know I made an earnest agreement with your office, and Judge Poole just wants to throw it out the window.” Because, really Neal Pinkston runs that courthouse. He tells the judges what to do.
“He said, ‘Well, you should get back with Alan on that.’ I said, I intend to, but I would like to meet with whomever I have to meet with, or need to meet with, to resolve this thing. I thought I had it resolved.
“I told him my name, and I said, ‘I may be contacting you next week.’ I thought, that was really interesting. *** [Judge Poole’s] job is to protect my rights and to determine the sufficiency of the evidence — and they don’t have any evidence.”
‘Why isn’t it in my driveway?’ Tale of a missing car
Mr. Luman has been greatly incommoded by the Mr. Carson’s seizure of his Ford Explorer.
“The state of Tennessee doesn’t want even want to approach the ownership of my car. They don’t want to have nothing to do with it. They make no claims regard to the ownership of my car. They don’t even to get around it. They want to run as fast and far from that as they can. Alan Dunn again says I have to take that up with the sheriff. The state doesn’t have nothing to do anything with it.”
Is Mr. Dunn the state’s agent in the case? Yes, Mr. Luman says. “They are not disputing the ownership. I asked him, ‘Why isn’t it in my driveway?’ He says, ‘I guess you have got to take that up with the sheriff. The state doesn’t take any position on this.’ Hasn’t got a dog in this fight.”
Mr. Luman says he is considering filing criminal complaints about the car.
“The criminal complaints — the door’s wide open for the criminal complaints on Sgt. Carson, Cain’s Wrecker Service and, you know, maybe, the sheriff. I’ve served them with affidavits demanding what their lawful authority is, and they haven’t answered. So they are in default on that. OK. That means you stole my car.”
According to the Tennessee criminal appeals court in a 1995 case: “We conclude that the Defendant herein was lawfully arrested by the city policeman even though the arrest was made outside of the officer’s jurisdiction. We point out that it is clear that the officer had probable cause to stop the defendant and to arrest him for DUI. Because he acted outside of the police authority of the City of Cookeville, the officer acted as a private person and as such, may have acted at his own peril.” State v. Horace Durham, No. 01C01-9503-CC-00056, 1995 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 911, 1995 WL 678811 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 16, 1995) [Emphasis added]
Mr. Luman says persistence and press coverage of his abuse is winning friends and causing a change of heart in Chattanooga. Many cops have let him pass without bothering him in his car with its “Private traveler[;] Not For Hire” metal plate.
“He’s the same bailiff that, when I came up before Lila Statom, in leg irons and handcuffs and a state orange uniform, he said, ‘Hey, brother Luman.’ He’s the one that said that. That’s why I want to make contact with him as a man, so if they ever think about treating me like a piece of paper. No, I’m a man. This is my Christian name, and this is how it’s spelled. I’m a man. I’m a living human being. You, you can’t interface with me. You’re a corporate court, and you don’t have jurisdiction. It’s just subtle evidence they try to use — ‘Oh, you’re a trust. You’re here for the trust.’ I’m just trying to defeat that, in a way. I have defeated it. We’ve defeated it. We are forcing them to operate as a common law court, you see. This is the way I see it. This is my ulterior subtle plan. I want to force them to operate as a common law court. They have to, or they’re in dishonor.”
Police and courts are bound by the constitution, Mr. Luman avers. “Their corporate court is just a bunch of air” when challenged by a person asserting his constitutionally protected rights.
Red Bank and other cities are guilty of false arrest and malicious prosecution, Mr. Luman says, of people like him. His resistance highlights the falsity of their claims against private users of the public right of way.