A Tennessee businessman mercilessly hounded for the exercise of his constitutionally guaranteed rights of free communication has filed a complaint with a Lawrence County grand jury alleging fraudulent practices in the state department of safety and homeland security.
By David Tulis / NoogaRadio 92.7 FM
Specifically, Arthur Jay Hirsch, 65, who has figured repeatedly in criminal prosecution for the use of his cars and trucks, says the assigning of driver licenses to people who haven’t applied for them — and criminally prosecuting them after having “revoked” the licenses — is an oppression and a criminal fraud. A jury convicted him of trucking law offenses in December 2015 and the supreme court refused to review a negative ruling in the criminal court of appeals.
Below is part of his 16-page complaint that traces admissions by former commissioner of safety David Purkey who testified of the process in a federal lawsuit against the department that halted enforcement of an unconstitutional provision of the state motor carrier statute.
Mr. Hirsch has filed a criminal complaint against people in the administration of Gov. Bill Lee, including safety commissioner Jeff Long and attorney general Herbert Slatery III.
A request for comment to Chris Walker, his spokesman, did not not receive an immediate reply, though this reporter sent two emails and left a phone message. Mr. Walker says on Sunday says “it it looks like these questions should be directed to the Department of Safety. I’m happy to provide you with a contact if you need.”
7 – NOTICE OF STATE-PERPETRATED FRAUD
7.1. SIDESWIPED. Accused declares that in the afternoon of July 29, 2017, his pickup truck was sideswiped while turning into his driveway by a young woman passing him in a no-passing zone at high speed. There were no personal injuries involved. Only the two vehicles were damaged. Accused was deemed not to be at fault for the accident.
7.2. POLICE ENCOUNTER. Accused declares that Tennessee Highway Patrol (“THP”) trooper,JONATHAN PULLEY (“PULLEY”), appeared on the accident scene, investigated the incident, wrote up a report and issued citations.
7.3. FALSE RECORD. Accused declares that PULLEY told him that his driver’s license (#133629637) was suspended after checking his computer while doing the accident report.
Accused declared to PULLEY that he had never applied for or obtained a Tennessee driver’s license and that the alleged suspended driver license was false information. Nevertheless, PULLEY cited Accused for a suspended driver’s license.
Authority to fabricate license?
7.4. FABRICATION OF FRAUDULENT DOCUMENT. Accused declares he has learned that sometime in 2016, with the knowledge and approval of DAVID PURKEY, former Commissioner of Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security (“DHS”), SUSAN LOWE, director of the Division of Financial Responsibility (“DFR”), knowingly and willfully fabricated a false and fraudulent Tennessee driver’s license in Accused’s name out of thin air, assigned him a driver license number, and suspended the fictitious driver license which criminalized Accused.
7.5. NO APPLICATION. Accused declares that both DAVID PURKEY (by counsel) and SUSAN LOWE confirmed in writing that Accused never applied for a Tennessee driver license or had a license on file. (See ATTCHMENT A) Statutory grounds for suspensions only apply to licensee for specific reasons, not to non-licensees, i.e., there is no authority for DHS and/or DFR to fabricate false and fraudulent documentation.
7.6. MISAPPLICATION OF LAW. Accused has learned that DHS relies on TCA 40-24-105(b) and TCA 55-50-102(48) for their supposed authority to fabricate a fictitious driver license and suspend it when an individual does not have a license. This is an intentional misapplication of the law. Said statutes refer only to individuals who have been issued a license and are already licensees and/or have or should have had a driver’s license because they are engaged in a taxable, permissive privilege in commerce – not for those who are traveling outside of commercial privileged business activity.
➤ TCA 67-4-101. Privileges taxable — License required.
The occupations, businesses and business transactions deemed privileges are to be taxed, and not pursued without license, . . .
➤ TCA 55-4-101 (a)(1)(2)(2) The registration and the fees provided for registration shall constitute a privilege tax upon the operation of motor vehicles.
➤ Privilege tax. A tax on the privilege of carrying on a business or occupation for which a license or franchise is required. Gulf & Ship Island R. Co., v. Hewes, 183 U.S. 66. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p. 1198 (emphasis added)
➤ License. Streets and Highways . A permit to use street is a mere license revocable at pleasure. Lanham v. Forney, 196 Wash. 62, 81 P.2d. 777, 779. The privilege of using the streets and highways by the operation thereon of motor carriers for hire can be acquired only by permission or license from the state or its political subdivisions. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p. 920 (emphasis added)
7.7. LICENSE IS TAX RECEIPT. Accused has researched and learned that a license is a privilege tax receipt.
➤ The granting of a license therefore must be regarded as nothing more than a mere form of imposing a tax, and of implying nothing except that the licensee shall be subject to no penalties under [….] law if he pays it. They were regarded merely as a convenient mode of imposing taxes on several descriptions of business and of ascertaining the parties from whom such taxes were to be collected…But as we have already said, these licenses give no authority. They are mere receipts for taxes…) License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 5 Wall. 462, 472 {1866}. (emphasis added)
Essential elements of privilege
7.8. ELEMENTS OF PRIVILEGE. Accused has researched and learned that the elements of “privilege” (as in “privilege tax,” “driving privilege,” etc.) are occupation and business affecting the public interest.
➤ “The essential elements of the definition of privilege is occupation and business, and not the ownership simply of property, or its possession or keeping it. The tax is on the occupation, business, pursuits, vocation, or calling, it being one in which a profit is supposed to be derived by its exercise from the general public, and not a tax on the property itself or the mere ownership of it.”…”The legislature cannot, under our constitution, declare the simple enjoyment, possession, or ownership of property of any kind a privilege, and tax it as such. It may declare the business, occupation, vocation, calling, pursuit, or transaction, by which the property is put to a peculiar use for a profit to be derived from the general public, a privilege and tax it as such, but it cannot tax the ownership itself as a privilege. The ownership of the property can only be taxed according to value.”) Phillips v. Lewis, 3 Shann. Cas. 231. Nashville, January Term (emphasis added)
➤ Any occupation, business, employment or the like, affecting the public, may be classed and taxed as a privilege. K. & O. Railroad v. Harris, 99 Tennessee, 684. (emphasis added).
Hirsch ‘not part of activity affecting public interest’
7.9. NO PROOF OF NEXUS. Accused declares that he is not nor has he ever been engaged in an occupation or business in commerce affecting the public interest on the highways making him a potential licensee and subject to TCA title 55. Both DHS and DFR have admitted that he has/had no nexus to the state (via application) requiring the payment of a privilege tax and obtaining a license. (See Attachment A) Therefore, the fabrication of the fictitious license and suspension thereof has no statutory authority and is a fraud.
(NOTE — Besides there being no application for a driver’s license, there is no evidence of the Accused’s activity in transportation which would include documents listed in the motor carrier statute at Tenn. Code Ann. Title 65, proofs such as contracts, invoices, bills of lading and passenger lists, making him subject to TCA titles 55 and/or 65.)
➤ “No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege, and issue a license and fee for it.” Murdock v. , 319 U.S. 105
➤ “When the privilege ends, the power of regulation ceases.” Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 147 (1876) (emphasis added)
7.10. MONEY MOTIVE FOR CRIMINALIZATION. Accused has learned that by the DHS & DFR “suspending” his fictitious driver license and entering the false information into the federal National Driver Registry data system, he is criminalized without evidence of being in commerce, and is placed in jeopardy of being arrested by police. Suspensions generate more money for the state because they are moved up to class B misdemeanors and carry an enhanced penalty of $500.00 fine and six months in jail. Two convictions of driving on suspended license incurs a $2,500.00 fine and a year in jail.
Slatery, Long refuse to answer
7.11. FRAUD THROUGH SILENCE. Accused declares that he has sent identical letters to HERBERT SLATERY, attorney general, JEFF LONG, commissioner of safety and homeland security, and STEWART McWHORTER, commissioner of finance, requesting proof of authority they relied on to fabricate a fictitious driver license in Accused’s name. No reply has been received to date from any of said individuals. Silence. The high courts have said that silence from public officials when they have a duty to reply is equated with fraud. (See copy of identical letter sent to SLATERY, LONG and McWHORTER attached to FBI criminal complaint in case file folder)
— BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. GORE, 517 U.S. 559, 588-589 (1996) (Emphasis added.) “An intentional misrepresentation, made through a statement or silence, can easily amount to “fraud” sufficient to warrant punitive damages. See § 6-11-20(b)(1) (“Fraud” includes “intentional . . . concealment of a material fact the concealing party had a duty to disclose, which was gross, oppressive, or malicious and committed with the intention . . . of thereby depriving a person or entity of property”) (emphasis added); § 6-11-20(b)(2) (“Malice” includes any “wrongful act without just cause or excuse . . . [w]ith an intent to injure the . . . property of another”) (emphasis added); § 6-11-20(b)(5) (“Oppression” includes “[s]ubjecting a person to . . . unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights”).”
➤ U.S. v. Holzer, 816 F.2d 304, 307-309 (7th Cir. 1987) (emphasis added.) “[14] Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit — and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears in the statute, see United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir. 1985) — includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public . . .”
➤ Greene v. Gulf Coast Band, 593 So.2d 630, 632 (La. 1992) “To find fraud from silence or suppression of the truth, there must exist a duty to speak or to disclose information.” (emphasis added.)
7.12. PERPETRATED FRAUD. Accused has researched and believes that DHS and/or DFR entering Accused’s false suspended driver license status into the federal National Driver Registry data system is a violation under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and 18 U.S.C. § 1341.
➤ 18 U.S.C. § 1001(3) – FALSE STATEMENTS, CONCEALMENT
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
➤ 18 U.S.C. § 1341 – FRAUDS AND SWINDLES
7.13. CRIMINAL COMPLAINT. Accused declares that he has filed a verified criminal complaint with the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the herein described fabrication of false and fraudulent evidence by public officials which criminalized him. (See FBI complaint with evidence attachment to Notice of Fraud and Criminal Complaint in case file folder.)
7.14. NOTICE TO JUDGE AND DA. Accused declares that he filed a notice of said fraudulent fabrication by public officials that has injured him in the instant matter #36484 with HINSON and DISTRICT ATTORNEY GENERAL, BRENT COOPER.
7.15. MISPRISION. Accused declares that he filed a motion to dismiss for said fraud with support which HINSON promptly denied. HINSON trifled with the law making light of the alleged crime, ignored the notice, and moved on with the proceedings. HINSON failed in his duty as a judge, having knowledge of the commission of said crime, to take it seriously and to make an effort to reveal it to the proper authorities to prevent its perpetuation. (See definition of Misprision. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p. 1000)
