Administrative law cannot be used to separate the people or persons from their constitutional protections (law).
No law can be used for that purpose. The problem for the people is the means by which the government goes about to separate the people from their constitutionally guaranteed protections.
By John Ballinger
The people do not realize this is what happens when they walk into the administrative trap at which time the government takes it as consent, as a waiver of this protection.
It is called undue influence. The so-called driver license statute Tenn. Code Ann. 55-50-301 does not say you must make application. It says, If you make application, you must etc. “If you make” tells me you are consenting to whatever.
It also tells me “they assume” you know what you are doing. What they assume is you are knowingly waiving your constitutional rights. It is a trap. You just gave away, unknowingly, any lawful protection you had to protect yourself from these administrative rats. It is a trap. It is called undue influence.
It might be wise, before making the application, to write the safety commissioner, Jeff Long, and ask him how you can volunteer to make the application without waiving protections the law gives you.
John Ballinger is the Gnome of Strawberry Plains, Tenn.
IN MY OPINION —not being a licensed lawyer— asking the commission of safety if Am I waiving any Constitutional rights and immunity if I file with the department of safety a signed application for TCA 55-50-301 DRIVERS LICENSE is the wrong question. IN MY OPINION the proper question is: Sir please inform me how to sign and file a TCA 55-50- 301 application without waiving certain ( only known to you and lawyers and judges) parts of THE BILL OF RIGHTS to the 1870 TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION especially in light of Article eleven Sec. sixteen of the 1870 TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION and possibly the FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION and your administrative enforcement of the APPLICATION.
A friend John Ballinger told me a Circuit Court judge said to him when he was being tried for a violation of a statute related to this TCA 55-50-301 statute that if he MENTION THE CONSTITUTION one more time in “HIS” COURT HE WOULD BE FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF COURT. OR is there some other reason known only by you, judges and lawyers why he was denied a Constitutional issue as his defense when the government is an adversary? Does judicial economy and governmental expediency trump Constitutional Rights and Immunity of a private person without their Known Consent?
I would send this Registered Mail Returned Receipt and cc to the state Attorney General for the same reply.