Sir, you say Tenn. Code Ann. § Title 55-50-301 is a law that requires people on the road to obtain a driver license before putting foot on gas pedal and steering a car onto the tarmac and out into the open way.
By David Tulis / NoogaRadio 92.7 FM
But the law doesn’t do that. It does not create a blanket liability and duty on all who would use the public roadway for private travel.
Let’s look at it.
[This post is part of a correspondence with Phil the attorney in Hamilton County. He believes I’m wrong about your rights and wrong about the law. Here is the first iteration of our correspondence about your situation.]
Your position is essentially as follows. Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. Everyone who has a car or truck and intends to use it on the roads to go from Point A to Point B must apply to state government for a taxable privilege. Without the privilege and proofs of taxes paid for that privilege, it is illegal and unlawful to be there on the road, moving down it in car or truck. It is a crime and violence against the peace and dignity of the state to be on the road without the state’s permission.
No ban on use of the street by traveling public
The state regulates transportation, the commercial use of the roadways. There’s no disputing that. You agree with that. I agree with that. Title 55 is constitutional as written. As written, it does not offend the rights of the people nor their liberties. We agree thus far.
But the law nowhere says that one who is a member of the traveling public is forbidden from using the public street.
You say that the state’s liability statute / ban on use of the roads is Tenn. Code Ann. 55-50-301.
But the law regulates drivers of motor vehicles. Drivers of motor vehicles are people who are operating for hire as carriers, either as common carriers or private carriers. They are required to have a license.
For a liability statute, it’s pretty open ended, Phil. The law has in its focus “every person applying.”
55-50-301. License required — Requirements — Exception — Applicability to temporary licenses and permits.
(a) Every person applying for an original or renewal driver license shall be required to comply with and be issued a classified driver license meeting the following requirements:
(1) No person, except those expressly exempted in this section, shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless the person has a valid driver license under this chapter for the type or class of vehicle being driven; [emphasis added] ***
Again, the law applies to “every person applying.” A person applying for a privilege lays aside his rights so he might have something he deems better. He wants a special favor from the state and its department of safety and homeland security. He wants to use the public road as his place of private profit and gain, and wants the privilege because no one has a right to do that.
“No person *** shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless that person has a valid driver license.” The license is required to “drive *** a motor vehicle.” These are commercial terms, as established in the definitions at 55-50-102.
Phil, the people of Tennessee in their private activities are not in view of this provision. This law is the starting point for your whole thesis. As I have suggested, your argument is really just magic and faith in some mystery power the state has that lets it lord it over the free people by squeezing free activity into commercial licensed activity.
The only people subject to it are those who have brought themselves within the scope of the statute by seeking to use (for private profit and gain) the roads “open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel” (definition of highway, 55-50-102). They approach the state and apply. They fill out the form, pay the fees, meet the requirement and so have the privilege of using motor vehicles in transportation.
The people subject to the 301 license requirement are those subject to the “uniform classified and commercial driver license act of 1988” as a whole. As you start reading the definitions of this chapter, Phil, you cannot escape its commercial scope. It is exclusively upon those who are using the roadways commercially.
Where do these rules come from? To whom do they apply?
55-50-202. Establishment of rules and regulations.
(a) The commissioner is authorized to establish administrative rules and regulations concerning the licensing of persons to operate motor vehicles, in this state, for the purpose of ensuring the safety and welfare of the traveling public. ***
(b) *** The rules and regulations shall be promulgated in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, compiled in title 4, chapter 5. [Emphasis added]
Private v. public
The state fulfills its public health, safety and welfare requirements in the exercise of police power by protecting everyone on the road from the traveling merchants — the truckers, bus operators, haulers, flat-bed truck operators, 18-wheel tractor rigs, dump trucks, wrecker services, Uber and Lyft operators, and many others. All users protected. But, most importantly, the people themselves. The common people, the citizenry. The rules serve in “ensuring the safety and welfare of the traveling public,” as it says.
The most widely cited supreme court case is Hale v. Henkel, 1906. It highlights the existence of private life, private activity. These are not subject to the state.
“[W]e are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property.
“His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”
Phil, this list of rights of the individual is talking about you and me. Our wives and children. About all kinds of people who are private people, private users, exercising their rights. In private activity, we are not subject to the police power, to tax power, to regulatory power.
If you have a right to go to church, or an election rally, or a lunch meeting to talk with a client (communication, free speech), do you have a right to get there? In your theory, you cannot get there freely. But only commercially, by privilege, through a state privilege. If your daughter has a right to abortion, do you think she can exsercise this right only by getting the permission of the commissioner to get into her car and go to the clinic up in Tri-Cities? A right is a right, and the means of exercising the right are protected by its bright penumbras.
Or are they not? How far in your theory are you willing to go to deny free exercise of rights, and at every turn insist on your “reasonable” regulations? On free speech. On freedom to train children. On free movement. To jail and criminally prosecute people for exercising their rights, as the state does to thousands of innocent noncriminal people committing no sin before God, is itself criminal. Banning the free use of the road is a tort and a wrong, and inequitable. I propose to stop it at equity.
Seeking attorney to push back abuse
To say you have a right to free association, but in your theory you have to stay at your house, or walk 10 miles to a diner. You deny rights a priori, and I ask you, Phil, if you understand the concept.
I am looking for an attorney to take on this system of abuse, using my unrebutted and legally accepted transportation administrative notice to be able to assign bad faith malice to police actors we sue for damages, either in chancery or district court.
Have you read my notice, good sir? You won’t be wasting your time. It tells the true state of the law in Tennessee. I will be using it to overturn an evil, racist, unjust system upheld for decades by the bar and the courts. It has not been rebutted by those people who have a duty to respond and to obey the law.
I fully recognize that the courts of appeal deny and reject this position. I’ll leave for another time that discussion about judicial supremacy. But the people have rights under the constitution, and at equity, to be free from abuse and from judicial policy that is unconstitutional and seemingly unappealable. My project fully recognizes the zero percent likelihood of courts of appeal changing their mind. They won’t. https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/hirsch.opn_.pdf
I have developed a proper defense in court in criminal cases that demands from the officer proof of commercial activity. He has no such evidence in ANY traffic case of his having obtained that proof of privilege. Ast the state enforcement is premised on commerce, it is through commerce and proof of commerce I propose to overturn the state’s system of Jim Crow and violation of our rights. It can be done in criminal court. It can be done by plaintiffs in civil.
There’s more to say. But for now, I challenge your understanding 55-50-301 and solicit your interest in taking the offensive vs. the status quo.
DID YOU KNOW THAT THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS ARE OPEN TO THE VEHICULAR PUBLIC AS . . . “A MATTER OF RIGHT”???
DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT A DRIVERS LICENSE???
It is undisputed pursuant to CRLJ 8 (d) that both the Revised Code of Washington at RCW 47.04.010, RCW 46.09.020, RCW 36.75.010 (11) and the Washington Administrative Code at WAC 296-32-210 (46), WAC 296-45-035 and Spokane Municipal Code municipal code § 16.10.010 Definitions. G. “Public Roadway” and the CrRLJ 1.1 decisional laws of this State defines all . . . “PUBLIC HIGHWAYS” . . . as follows:
“[E]very way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place in the state of Washington OPEN AS A MATTER OF RIGHT TO PUBLIC VEHICULAR TRAVEL both inside and outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns. (Emphasis added.) R.C.W. 36.75. 010 (6) defines “county road” as : [E]very highway or part thereof, outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns and which has not been designated as a state highway.” See also AGO 59-60 No. 88 (December 10, 1959); AGO 63-64 No. 25 (May 23, 1963); AGO 65-66 No. 121 (November 29, 1966); AGO 1996 No. 17 (September 26, 1996). See State ex rel. Telegraph Co. v. Spokane., 24 Wash. 53-62 (February 1901); State ex rel. Oregon-Washington R.R. & Navigation Co. v. Walla Walla Cy., 5 Wn.2d 95, 104 P.2d 764 (1940); Roediger v. Cullen, 26 Wn. (2d) 690, 175 P. 2d 669 (1946); State ex rel. York v. Board of County Commissioners, 28 Wn.2d 891, 184 P.2d 577 (1947); Hall v. McDowell, 6 Wn. App. 941, 945, 497 P.2d 596 (May 11, 1972); Allemeier v. University, 42 Wn. App. 465, 469, 470, 712 P.2d 306 (December 30, 1985).
“ Forest development roads are open to the public for purposes of public travel and the United States Forest Service stated objective is that Washington state traffic laws ar applicable. These roads are considered extensions of state and local highway systems. It is provided in 16 U.S.C.A. section 480 (1960) that the state wherein a national forest is located shall not lose jurisdiction, nor shall the inhabitants lose their rights and privileges as citizens.”
In this particular case, Merrill Lake Road was open to the public and provided public access to Merrill Lake and the national forest land. That the authority for continued use came from the federal government, rather than from the state, does not make it less a “public highways.” HALL v. McDOWELL, 6 Wn. App. 941, 945, 497 P.2d 596 (May 11, 1972). And;
“ The only case construing this statutory provision is Hall v. McDowell, 6 Wn. App. 941, 497 P.2d 596 (1972). There, the court determined that Merrill Lake Road, a United States Forest Service road, was a public highway. The court stated: “Although there are commercial restrictions upon its use, it is used for the public for access to Merrill Lake and certain portions of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.” Hall, at 945. The court went on to state that generally, forest development roads are open to the public for vehicular travel and that the stated objective of the United States Forest Service is to apply Washington state traffic laws to these roads. Hall, at 945. . . . Further, RCW 47.04.010(26) provides that in order to be a “highway” the road must be “open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel”. That is clearly not the case here. Only authorized vehicles had the “right” to use Canal Road. The court erred in ruling that Canal Road was a public roadway.” ALLEMEIER v. UNIVERSITY, 42 Wn. App. 465, 469, 470, 712 P.2d 306 (December 30, 1985). And;
“In State ex rel. Oregon-Washington R.R. & Navigation Co. v. Walla Walla Cy., 5 Wn.2d 95, 104 P.2d 764 (1940), the state Supreme Court was asked to interpret a virtually identical statutory definition of “highway”. The court first noted that, “It is, of course, true that the county MAY NOT AT PUBLIC EXPENSE, CONSTRUCT WHAT IS NO MORE THAN A PRIVATE ROAD” Id. at 99. In determining whether the road at issue there was a “highway”, in contrast to a “private road”, the court then stated: “A highway is a way open to the public at large, for travel or transportation, without distinction, discrimination, or restriction, except such as is incident to regulations calculated to secure the general public the largest practical benefit therefrom and enjoyment thereof. Its prime essentials are the right of common enjoyment on the one hand and the duty of public maintenance on the other. It is the right of travel by all the world, and not the exercise of the right, which constitutes a way a public highway, and the actual amount of travel upon it is not material. IF IT IS OPEN TO ALL WHO DESIRE TO USE IT, IT IS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY although it may accommodate only a limited portion of the public or even a single family or although it accommodates some individuals more than others. 25 Am. Jur. 339, section 2. HIGHWAYS ARE PUBLIC WAYS AS CONTRADISTINGUISHED FROM PRIVATE WAYS. THE DISTINGUISHING MARK OF A HIGHWAY IS THAT IT MUST BE OPENED GENERALLY TO THE PUBLIC USE, as expressed in the English books, ‘common to all the king’s subjects,’ although it is the right to travel upon a highway by all the world and not the exercise of the right which makes the way a highway. Its character is not determined by the number of persons who actually use it for passage; if it is open, it is immaterial that but a few individuals are in a position to make use of it, or that one person is most benefitted by it; and its character as a highway is not affected even by the fact that it furnishes access or egress to but a single property owner.” 29 C.J. 366, section 1. “3. Although not privately owned, the federally-owned Hanford roads are much more akin to “private road[s]”, which are defined in R.C.W. 36.75.010 (10) as: [E]very way or place in private ownership and used for travel of vehicles by the owner or those having express or implied permission from the owner, but not from other persons. (Emphasis added)
THE COUNTY HAS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO MAINTAIN “PRIVATE ROADS”, AND STATE EX REL. OREGON-WASHINGTON R.R. & NAVIGATION CO. V. WALLA WALLA CY., 5 WN.2D 95, 104 P.2D 764 (1940), CLEARLY DICTATES THAT THESE TYPES OF ROADS MAY NOT BE CONSTRUCTED (AND BY EXTENSION, MAINTAINED) AT PUBLIC EXPENSE. 4. RCW 47.04.010 (9) and (26) contain virtually identical statutory definitions. Note also that these definitions closely parallel those set forth in RCW 36.75.010 (6) and (11) supra.” AGO 1996 No. 017. And;
“It appears that one of the distinguishing features between a public highway and a private road arises by reason of the restrictions placed upon the latter. IF THE PUBLIC AT LARGE IS NOT ALLOWED TO USE THE ROAD, IT IS NOT A PUBLIC ROAD. AND OF COURSE IF IT IS NOT A PUBLIC ROAD, COUNTY ROAD FUNDS CANNOT BE EXPENDED UPON IT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE OF SUCH ROADS. The Washington Supreme Court has approved the language emphasized. See, Roediger v. Cullen, 26 Wn. (2d) 690, 175 P. 2d 669 (1946) JOHN J. O’CONNELL, Attorney General AGO 65-66 No. 121 (November 29, 1966).” And;
“THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION BUT THAT A PUBLIC PATH IS OF THE SAME NATURE AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY, and, as is said in 25 Am. Jur. 339, section 2: ‘IT IS THE RIGHT OF TRAVEL BY ALL THE WORLD, . . . WHICH CONSTITUTES A WAY A PUBLIC HIGHWAY.” Roediger v. Cullen, 26 Wn. (2d) 690-716, 175 P. 2d 669 (1946).
“The case law of the state of Washington clearly recognizes that a right of way may be devoted to a “PRIMARY” and “SECONDARY USE”, THE PRIMARY USE BEING THE CONVENIENCE OF PUBLIC TRAVEL. See, State ex rel. York v. Board of County Commissioners, 28 Wn. 2d 891, 897, 898, 184 P. 2d 577 (1947), and cases cited therein. But other uses are recognized. In McCullough v. Interstate Power & Light Co., 163 Wash. 147, 149, 300 Pac. 165 (1931) , the court stated: “. . . The easement acquired by the public in a highway includes every reasonable means for the transmission of intelligence, the conveyance of persons, and the transportation of commodities which the advance of civilization may render suitable for a highway. . . .” This principle has been recognized and applied for SPECIFIC USES. The following uses have received judicial recognition in this state: power lines, telephone and telegraph lines, water mains, gas lines and sewers. See, State ex rel. Telegraph Co. v. Spokane, 24 Wash. 53, 63 Pac. 1116 (1901); McCullough v. Interstate Power & Light Co., supra\; State ex rel. York v. Board of County Commissioners, supra; Northwest Supermarkets v. Crabtree, 54 Wn. 2d 181, 338 P. 2d 733 (1959). Where the commissioner of public lands has granted a right of way across PUBLIC LANDS to the state highway department, or to a board of county commissioners (pursuant to RCW 79.01.340, supra) and has been paid whatever compensation is required by law for this grant ( the assumed condition of the present question) , it follows, in our opinion, that the right of way grantee then has full power to do with this right of way whatever the grantee’s governing statutes permit–in terms of franchise grants for secondary use. Since the right of way grantee has already paid full compensation for the property interest which it has taken, NO STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR FUTURE COMPENSATION EXISTS. AGO 65-66 No. 111 (October 10, 1966)
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION STATED ABOVE
It is an Undisputed Fact of Law pursuant to CR 8 (d) the easement acquired by the public in a public highway over the PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY while engaged in the PRIMARY USE which is the convenience of public travel by the motoring public, i.e., private individuals who are temporarily sojourning and or locomoting, it also follows that the right of way grantee then has full power to do with this right of way whatever the grantee’s governing statutes (i.e., RCW 47.04.010 and RCW 36.75.010(11), supra permit–in terms of the public and or private individuals grants for primary use. Since the right of way grantee has already paid full compensation for the property interest which it has taken, i.e. the general public which includes private individuals have already paid in full for the construction and maintenance of the public highway through the lawful excise taxes i.e. (gasoline, alcohol, tobacco, & firearms), and also the sales tax on car tires. THERE IS NO ENUMERATED STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, POWER, OR REQUIREMENT FOR FUTURE COMPENSATION EXISTING AS THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS BELONG TO THE PEOPLE i.e. the general motoring public, THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS DO NOT BELONG TO THE STATE, THE STATE IS MERELY CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAINTAINING THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS.
WE ARE THE PUBLIC!
YOU COPS, PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES ARE THE . . . “PUBLIC SERVANTS.”
LUIS EWING IS NOW GOING TO START TEACHING THE GENERAL PUBLIC HOW ALL OF YOU COPS, PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES HAVE BEEN RIPPING OFF THE PUBLIC WITH YOUR STATEWIDE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY RICO TRAFFIC SCAM TO SHAKE US DOWN FOR MORE MONEY THAT YOU ARE NOT LEGALLY ENTITLED TO!!!
The State in exercise of its Police Powers may regulate and require Drivers Licenses only for those engaged in business’s, and Occupations i.e. those who are making the “secondary use” of or “Extraordinary use” of the Public Highways, i.e. “commercial use”, and in that sense yes, “Drunk Driving is a Privilege granted by the state” in the form of license up to .08 percent! For the primary use the State only has the authority to regulate drunks, speed, traffic signals, stop signs, etc. in the interest of safety, and the general welfare of the public. The State however does not have any enumerated authority or power or right to require the general public or any private individuals who are not engaged in any business, occupational, and or commercial activities to have or possess for hire, occupational, commercial drivers licenses while traveling on the public rights of way in the primary use stated above, as the “public highways” are open to the vehicular public as a matter of right pursuant to RCW 47.04.010 and RCW 36.75.010 (11). It is an Undisputed Fact of Law pursuant to CR 8 (d) that the general public, private individuals, and myself have a full right to the “FREE USE” of the highway for the “PRIMARY USE” of the Highway equal to and superior to the State Highway Dept or Board of County commissioners stated above in AGO supra, stated above, and this is reaffirmed in said case itself which says that:
“THE PRIMARY PURPOSE FOR WHICH HIGHWAYS AND STREETS ARE ESTABLISHED AND MAINTAINED IS FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF PUBLIC TRAVEL. The use of such highways for water mains, gas pipes, telephone and telegraph lines is secondary and subordinate to the primary use for travel, and such secondary use is permissable only when not inconsistent with the primary object of the establishment of such ways., . . . IN SUCH MANNER NOT TO INCOMMODE THE PUBLIC USE OF THE RAILWAY OR HIGHWAY.” STATE EX REL. TELEGRAPH CO. v. SPOKANE., 24 Wash. 53-62 (February 1901). And;
“Concern over the right to travel has historically been a concern of both English and American people. The recognition of freedom of movement ranges from the DECLARATION IN THE MAGNA CARTA ALLOWING EVERY FREE MAN TO LEAVE ENGLAND EXCEPT DURING WARS, to article 13, section 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations which declares “EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE WITHIN THE BORDERS OF EACH STATE. …The Articles of Confederation provided in article 4 that “THE PEOPLE OF EACH STATE SHALL HAVE FREE INGRESS AND REGRESS TO AN FROM ANY OTHER STATE.” …Perhaps the earlies enunciation of the right to travel was in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546 (No. 3230) (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1823). There Chief Supreme Justice Washington enumerating those rights he felt to be fundamental, noted at page 552: ‘THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN OF ONE STATE TO PASS THROUGH, OR TO ANY OTHER STATE, . . . MAY BE DEEMED TO BE FUNDAMENTAL. . . . In Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 2 L.Ed. 2d 1204, 78 S. Ct. 1113 (1958), the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment was cited as a source of the right to travel. The court recognized “FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT ACROSS FRONTIERS IN EITHER DIRECTION, AND INSIDE FRONTIERS AS WELL, WAS A PART OF OUR HERITAGE. The same source for the right was cited by the court in Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 517, 12 L.Ed. 2d 992, 84 S. Ct. 1659 (1964), where the court premised its decision on the right to travel. FREEDOM OF TRAVEL WAS STATED TO BE A LIBERTY GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND, AS WELL, A CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY CLOSELY RELATED TO RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION. . . . The right to travel was given further scope in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745-757, 16 L. Ed. 2d 239, 86 S. Ct. 1170 (1966), where the court expanded its protection to incidents involving private individuals, the majority noted: THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER…OCCUPIES A POSITION FUNDAMENTAL TO THE CONCEPT OF OUR FEDERAL UNION. IT IS A RIGHT THAT HAS BEEN FIRMLY ESTABLISHED AND REPEATEDLY RECOGNIZED. . . . Although there have been recurring differences in travel, it is a constitutional right, not a mere conditional liberty subject to regulation and control under conditional due process or equal protection standards.” Eggert v. Seattle, 81 Wn. 2d 840, 505 P.2d 801 (1973). And;
If you need help with any type of case, please send me an e-mail asking for my CRAIGS LIST OF LEGAL SERVICES and my CONSULTING FEES NOTICE.
If you just want more information or want me to add you to my e-mail list, and/or want to hire me to research and write legal pleadings for your case, please send me your personal e-mail address and phone number and tell me what State you live in to my personal e-mail addresses: or or and I will be glad to add you to my mailing list so I can send you more info and stuff from time to time!
My home office phone is: 1 – (360) 335-1322 and my cell phone is 1 – (253) 226-3741.
NOTE: My business hours are from 1:00 PM to 12:00 AM, Monday through Saturday and 2:00 PM to 6:00 PM on Sundays on PACIFIC STANDARD TIME! – PLEASE DO NOT CALL ME BEFORE 1:00 PM LUNCH TIME ON PACIFIC STANDARD TIME!
* * *
Hello, Mr. Ewing. Long time! Grand to see you are still in the game. I haven’t talked to you in likely 12 yrs.
That’s a good read, even though I don’t live in Washington.
Generally speaking, most traffic codes are the same or similar.
Anyway, good to see you. Hope I have the opportunity to talk with you again sometime.
There is no racial component involved when men that would be King, seek power over all other men, and women by reducing them to slavery.
The situation is nowhere near so complex. “Otherwise illegal,” two words that can explain to anyone that the streets/roads/highways of Tennessee are built/maintained for the benefit of the People of Tennessee (the holders of all power, and the actual lawfully authorized legislative body), that actually own the streets/roads/highways in Tennessee.
It is not possible for those People to be doing something illegal in using their own property to travel upon their own property.
The faulty notion put forth by the men who would be King (Jim Hammond), and the satanic minions of the Roman cult (Phil, the attorney) are simply a fraud upon the People of Tennessee, done in the interest of reducing them to slavery without regard to race, creed, or color.
From fraud, comes nothing. Nothing Lawful, nothing good, nothing just, just nothing.