Middle Tennessee constitution activist Arthur Jay Hirsch is under siege anew from police in the mid-state town of Loretto, whose officers arrested him on the road for being there without valid commercial proofs and papers.
In his sessions court preparations for trial, Mr. Hirsch, a private tradesman, files a motion of special appearance, letting him stand at the very edge of the court’s jurisdiction so that he might insist that it has no subject matter jurisdiction with which to begin.
His rationale is that he is not a commercial for-hire user of the people’s road in Lawrence County, but a private person exercising God-given, constitutionally guaranteed unalienable and inherent rights of a free citizen in the so-called “free state” of Tennessee. That terminology is used in the bill of rights’ ban on monopolies, namely, article 1, section 22. “That perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free state, and shall not be allowed.”
Mr. Hirsch is fighting the police and sheriff cartel claims upon the use of cars and trucks. These parties insist that private use of roads is criminal. Only the commercial use of roads for hire is acceptable. This policy is universally enforced — and has been or decades, since the 1930s.
Mr. Hirsch’s legal reading is wide and deep, and here he lays out an important part of the defense of constitutional rights — all but obliterated in Tennessee if not for people such as him.
Notice of special appearance
Arthur Jay Hirsch, accused, hereby gives notice of making a special appearance for the sole purpose
of challenging this court’s presumed personal jurisdiction in this case, to which he does not give his consent. The ground for said challenge is as follows:
1. Presumption. The charging instrument presumes that accused is (or should have been) a “licensee,” driving under the taxable privilege of engaging in interstate or intrastate commercial activity on the public highways, and subject to TCA 55 and this court’s personal jurisdiction.
2. No evidentiary facts. Accused rebuts said presumption that he is a “licensee.” The charging instrument shows on its face that it contains no requisite evidentiary facts to the essential elements of the terms of the charges , (e.g. “privilege,” “license) which would make accused a “licensee” and subject to this court’s personal jurisdiction.
3. Dismissal for insufficient pleading = no jurisdiction.
➤ “No essential element of the crime can be omitted without destroying the whole pleading. The omission cannot be supplied by intendment, or implication, and the charge must be made directly and not inferentially, or by way of recital.” United States V. Hess., 124 U.S. 483, 8 S. Ct. 571 (emphasis added)
➤ “Generally, the charge should be so laid in the indictment or information as to bring the case precisely within the statutory description of the offense, distinctly alleging all material facts necessary to constitute the essential elements of the offense. Nothing is to be left to implication or intendment, or to conclusion, nor can the failure to aver material facts be cured by argument or inference.” Hale v. United States, 89 F.2d 578 (C.C. W. Va., 1937). (emphasis added)
➤ A citation “is not sufficient to set forth the offence in the words of the statute, unless those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offence intended to be punished; . . . ” United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611, 612 (emphasis added)
— “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. U.S., 505 F.2d 1026.
— The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven. Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980)
Lack of relationship with state
4. Dismissal – no proof of contact. Because there are no requisite evidentiary facts to the elements of the criminal charges in the complaint, there is then no proof that accused has/had any contact/relationship/nexus with the plaintiff as a “licensee” pursuant to TCA 55 regulations.
For this reason plaintiff’s complaint is insufficient on its face and fails to invoke this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The law cannot be applied in the absence of facts. Therefore, this court has no personal or subject matter jurisdiction and this case must be must dismissed.