Main elements in his defense
No probable cause
1st statement deletes probable cause
Misstating law on Title 55 – incompetence
Under notice about Title 55
Officer Joseph Ogg appears to be at least six steps away from pursuing a lawful arrest and lawful criminal case against family man and painter, Charlie Bell. The Chattanooga cop without probable cause arrested Mr. Bell in a newly bought used car on Brainerd Road. Mr. Bell has between six and eight points to bring up in a first hearing.
The case is a fraud because it has no antecedent offense — an arrest that precedes the alleged flight. For there to be evading arrest, there has to be a lawful intended arrest.
The defenses include no probable cause, admission by Ogg on FB video of arrest that throws away probable cause, no Miranda warning violating department rules, misstating authority under the motor vehicle law at Title 55, pulling a weapon, city is under Tennessee transportation administrative notice regarding misuse of that title (hence the added element of aggravated ultra vires bad faith enforcement act to criminalize a citizen).
Mr. Bell is at the very end of his probation, and has been forced to lay aside his small painting business to take a full-time job on the Red Bank public works crew. He had a phone hearing before Judge Don Poole in which he was denied a chance to speak to explain the false arrest outlined in this post.
In sessions court in Hamilton County
This trial script is entirely theoretical, a projection of how the Bell case could have been handled. My daughter used a similar script in her defense of bogus “wreckless driving” charges in Virginia. It is a piece of creative writing highlighting ways in which to defend our rights. It does not bring into play two important points in Mr. Bell’s favor. That he provided the court a copy of Tennessee Transportation Administrative Notice, and submitted prior to his hearing a voiding document, a publicly available pre-plea remedy and avoidance he’d modified to suit his facts.
Judge How do you plead in this case? Lessee — you’re charged with evading arrest. What happened?
Charlie Your honor, I demand you to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for the officer admitting in his 1st recorded words that he had no probable cause.
Judge OK — is the officer here? Does the state wanna put the officer on the stand? Where’s the officer? Oh. Here he is.
DA puts J. Ogg on the stand. He testifies. LISTEN CAREFULLY to what he says.
[Joseph Ogg testimony here]
Next: Cross examination by Charlie
Charlie Officer could you please state your name.
Officer Joseph Ogg, No. 83690
Charlie Did you attempt to arrest me on September 16, Thursday at Brainerd Road?
Officer Yes, I did. And you fled from me in your car.
Charlie You testify you saw me that day — were you in your police cruiser?
Charlie Was I traveling in my car when you first laid eyes on me?
Officer Yes, you were in your car on Brainerd Road.
Charlie Is your testimony I was in my car?
Officer Yes, black car.
Charlie Were you behind me or were you traveling in the opposite direction?
Officer We were traveling in the same direction, and I pulled beside you to identify you then came behind you.
Charlie What evidence can you testify to as to the cause that made you turn around?
Officer I wanted to investigate you.
Charlie Yes, but What evidence can you testify to as to the lawful and substantive cause of an offense that made you pull behind and turn on the blue lights?
Officer I wanted to investigate you and ask you a question in another investigation.
Charlie What evidence can you testify to that you had an articulable probable cause at the moment you turned around to begin investigation?
Officer Er, I just wanted to check you out.
Charlie What evidence can you testify to that the car was stolen?
Officer It was just a suspicion, because I’d heard something about a blue car.
Charlie What evidence can you testify to that you had knowledge that I was wanted under a warrant?
Officer None, no warrant I was aware of.
Charlie What evidence can you testify to that, at the time of my arrest, you,. had evidence that someone had testified under oath that I had committed a crime?
Officer No. None.
Charlie What evidence can you testify to that, at the time of my arrest, that you saw me commit a FELONY under Title 39 with your own eyes?
Charlie What evidence can you testify to that, at the time of my arrest, that you saw me commit a misdemeanor under Title 39 with your own eyes?
Charlie What evidence can you testify to that as to why you pulled me over?
Officer I saw something about your car that wasn’t right.
Charlie What evidence can you testify to that you had probable cause to arrest me the moment your finger touched the blue light button?
Officer Like I said, my surveillance indicated something I needed to investigate.
Charlie By way of a crime?
Officer Yes,something not being right about your car.
Charlie So, something in the motor vehicle statute?
Charlie What evidence can you testify to that this offense was under Title 39, crime?
Officer It was about your car.
Charlie So, you are testifying that it was about “motor and other vehicles” at Title 55 — correct?
Officer It was a traffic stop and I was fulfilling my duty to keep the roads safe. Whatever the law — I’m there to keep people safe.
Charlie Were you armed with a service weapon when you stepped out of your cruiser and approached my car?
Charlie What kind of weapon is it?
Officer I have a service issued Glock .40-caliber
Charlie Are you trained in the safe use of that weapon?
Officer Yes, 50 hours of training in the academy and regular practice in maintenance and use.
Charlie Is the purpose of that weapon to subdue any and all threats with lethal force?
DA Objection — Where is this inquiry going? How is this relevant to a traffic stop? Relevance your honor?
Charlie — Your honor these are valid questions because the officer will testify that he drew his weapon in this instance and so it is important to establish that he understands it to be an instrument of death and lethal force in service of police power.
— I have a right to argue my theory of the case, even if the ADA can’t see it coming.
— I have a right to be heard in a timely and meaningful way pursuant to the supreme court.
[ That hearing must be “timely and meaningful” to be constitutionally sufficient under the Due Process Clause. Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333, 96 S.Ct. at 901–02; Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 1191, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965). Anderson v. White, 888 F.2d 985, 993 (3d Cir. 1989) ]
Judge Proceed, Mr. Bell.
Charlie Now, officer Ogg, You approached my car what did you see in my back window.
Officer I saw a tag with a date on it and the logo of a used car lot, Red’s Autos.
Charlie Was everything unusual about that display?
Officer Is not a proper signification of the car being registered or being applied for.
Charlie When you approached my car, did I have the window rolled down?
Charlie What is the 1st thing you said to me?
Officer I said that you did not have to worry about the placard in the back your window because it often happens that car dealers don’t have enough tags available and they give the buyer of the car a sort of homemade signifier of a purchase. I don’t member exactly what I said.
Charlie Could I refresh your memory? [Reading from paper] Your honor, this arrest took place on Facebook, and I will be entering that on appeal — but for now I recite from a transcript of the arrest. Officer Ogg, did you say that it really didn’t matter and that I shouldn’t worry about it?
Officer Yes, I did say that or something to that effect.
Your honor, I demand that this case be dismissed ministerially as this court does not have proper subject matter jurisdiction.
— The officer admits that his probable cause was not probable cause at all.
— Officer admits arrest was under a pretext.
— Admits not a lawful reason to conduct an arrest of a citizen exercising his rights to be on the road.
Your honor, I request you to reconsider.
— This is incorrect because there is no probable cause in this encounter and these accusations.
— I’m being charged with evading arrest. Evading arrest presupposes a lawful arrest.
— Under oath, my accuser admits that he did not have probable cause. So evading arrest cannot be a proper charge because there is no arrest lawful for which I am making an evasion.
— This is a plain error. Plain error, sir. No probable cause? So, I can I evade arrest when the arrest was illegal? Please tell me?
Charlie What evidence can you testify to that you had a second reason for this stop? Mr. Ogg, Did you ask me a question?
Officer Yes, I did.
Charlie What did you ask me?
Officer I asked you if you knew so-and-so from East Chattanooga, a man I told you I had encountered several times who had run away from me.
Charlie What evidence can you testify to that you have authority to arrest someone to ask a question?
Officer In the course of an investigation, I ask people questions.
Charlie Officer, do you routinely stop people and arrest them simply to ask a question?
Officer Well, you weren’t under arrest. I was merely detaining you.
Charlie: Your honor, I move this case be dismissed because the accuser is incompetent.
— Two major cases in Tennessee, State versus Garcia and state versus Gonzalez indicate that once the blue lights come on — that is in arrest for fourth amendment purposes, and that the officer cannot turn on the blue lights unless he has probable cause, a cause within the law, able to withstand judicial scrutiny and to not be in a constitutional rights violation.
— There are copies of those 2 cases, with highlights. This witness is incompetent. [Always bring copies of cases in hand, in duplicate.]
Judge. Judge scans documents looks up.
Judge. No, continue, Mr. Bell.
Charlie What evidence do you have that you can testify to as to the answer I gave to your question, Officer Ogg?
Officer Said you didn’t know the man.
Charlie Did you ask for and obtain a driver license, proof of insurance and registration of the car as a motor vehicle?
Officer I did. You gave me your driver license and
the documents of sale for the car. You did not have proof of insurance.
Charlie Before asking me for those documents, did you establish that I was a person at that moment involved in commercial and regulable activity?
District attorney Your honor, what do these questions have to do with anything? These are irrelevant questions.
Charlie: Your honor, I am rebutting the presumption of this officer that he made before proceeding with the arrest.
— The only pretended basis for the arrest was traffic laws.
— He operated under presumption that the transportation law applied to me that day.
— I am demanding evidence from him that he had/ obtained evidence I was subject that day to the traffic law.
[ ADDED INFO ] — The city is under Tennessee transportation administrative notice about the limits of the scope of the Tennessee motor vehicle statute at title 55.
— Title 55 is the motor vehicle privilege tax law that gives the Tennessee highway patrol jurisdiction to regulate the taxable activity of using the roads for hire and gain.
— Title 55 is the commercial regulation for the trucking field. That would include tractor trailer operators common people who run bus services
— all of them involved in transportation by people operating motor vehicles
— Your honor, let me hand you and let me hand the DA copy of transportation administrative notice the city has been under this notice nearly a 1000 days without rebuttal. [This is a public document, and proofs of service are part of this exhibit. ]
Overruled. Mr. Bell, Mr. Bell. I will take this document and have it under advisement.
Charlie Mr. Ogg, what evidence can you testify to that you asked me about the activity I was involved in at the moment of the stop? I don’t know what you mean.
Charlie Do you have any evidence you can testify to that you asked me about the legal activity affecting the public interest?
Officer I’m not sure what you are saying
Charlie Did you ask me about the legal activity I was involved in — what regulable activity affecting the public interest I was involved in? A yes or no question.
Officer No, I did not.
Charlie You did not ask to see whether I had a bill of lading?
No, I did not.
Charlie Bill of waylading
Officer Ogg No, I did not.
Charlie Contract for service?
Officer Ogg No, I did not.
Charlie Motor Carrier agreement?
Officer Ogg No I did not.
Charlie Do you have any evidence you can testify to that I was carrying paying passengers?
Officer Ogg None.
Charlie Do you have any evidence you can testify to that I was carrying paying cargo with proofs attached?
Officer Ogg None.
Charlie I demand this case be dismissed. I have rebutted presumption underlying his purported probable cause — traffic law.
— The accuser has not established I am involved in the activity subject to privilege enforcement under Title 55.
— Your honor, I rebut the presumption of this officer that he made before proceeding with the arrest.
— Witness admits he did not establish lawful authority over me. Either to his authority to enforce that law. Or that I was a person operating a motor vehicle at the time under authority of commercial enforcement.
— That presumption is that I was a commercial carrier under Title 55 and though I am a person license to do commerce by the road.
— He has no evidence I was doing commerce at the time of the encounter.
— Unless he rebuts presumption of commerce, we are left with his testimony I was on the road. And that, sir, is innocent, harmless private activity, not subject to police power in any way.
I’m all set for commerce by having a tag on my car but I wasn’t at the time and I’m ready to testify to that effect. The accuser did not ask the requisite question, as indicated by administrative notice to the city.
Your honor, I demand dismissal this case on subject matter jurisdiction grounds because the officer was acting on presumption of commerce and he has no evidence that I was involved in commerce. He has theoretical authority to enforce Title 55 if my activity at the time of the alleged crime is commercial. If not, he has no authority. I rebut his presumption, and he admits throwing away his probable cause by accepting the tag in the back window.
Judge Move on, Mr. Bell. These are theoretical arguments and we don’t have time for them.
Charlie What evidence do you have you can testify to that you frequently look at the manual controlling police officer activities? Is there a manual in the police department regarding arrests?
Charlie What is the name and number of that manual?
Officer Sorry, don’t remember. But I’m familiar with it.
Charlie Have you read it In the course of your profession?
Charlie How many arrests had you made that day when you arrested me by turning on your blue lights?
DA Objection — relevance
Charlie moving on — can you read this paragraph in your manual?
Charlie Citations from manual required give Miranda warning.
Charlie Did you read me my Miranda rights?
Charlie If reading Miranda rights is required at the beginning of an arrest, do admit that you violated departmental policy in not reading me the rights?
Officer While we generally don’t read people their rights unless there’s a crime.
Charlie Are you saying that you arrested me without a crime having been committed, because you didn’t read my Miranda rights to me?
Charlie Your honor I move this case be dismissed for lack of notice lack of Miranda warning violation department of policy
Denied. Policy manual rules don’t control in this court. Not a matter of law, but a matter of employee regulation. Denied.
Charlie Sir, What evidence can you testify to as to your legal authority to demand I get out of the car, which is my private property?
Officer I was involved in a traffic investigation pursuant to department policy. It was for my own safety.
Charlie What evidence can you testify to as to the reasonable cause of your being anxious for your safety?
Officer Police have been shot lately just doing their jobs. I was concerned about you.
Charlie What evidence can you testify to as to to the observable reason that you had concern about me,
— my person?
— my property?
— my activity on the public road in the public right of way?
Officer Just a hunch, sir. You were very nervous and upset when I came up to your window.
Charlie I didn’t ask that question. Answer the question please. Can you state what evidence you had that you had authority to order me out of my car?
Officer Err, no. No. Just personal safety.
Charlie Did you have my license and had you run my name?
Officer Yes and I found that you are a man with a criminal record and that for my own safety it would be better that you not be in the car when we talked.
Charlie Did you demand that I get out the car?
Officer Yes, several times.
Charlie How Many times.
Officer Three times.
Charlie On the 3rd time did you raise your voice in order me out the car and threatened me?
Officer I told you to get out the car or I would taze you.
Charlie In tasing me, would you have fired a weapon at me with electrical prongs that would give me an electrical shock?
Officer Yes, that’s how it works.
Charlie Did you testify you carry a pistol?
Charlie Did you testify you had a pistol on your person when you arrested me?
Charlie Did you reach for your weapon — whose purpose is to kill and to maim — and put your hand on the butt?
Officer Yes, I did.
Charlie What evidence can you testify to as to the lawful grounds that were the basis of your pulling this lethal device and putting it into your palm?
Officer Threats my personal safety
Charlie When I saw that you had your hand on your gun, testify what did I do?
Officer You stepped on the gas and pulled away from me. You turned to the steering wheel turned on the ignition and pressed on the gas and drove off
To the judge – correct the witness
Charlie Your honor, direct the witness not to make statements with legal conclusions in them and to describe the facts of this encounter as fact not as legal conclusion.
— It is not been established that I was driving and that I drove off.
— If anything I traveled away from this encounter.
— I moved away from Officer Ogg. I moved my person, car and effects down the road by power of my engine.
— Driving is a commercial act that has not been established. That is a fact to be established before this court and the witness can testify in terms of the law, to establish that I was perhaps under the law — but he must give his evidence in terms of fact, not legal and judicial conclusion. The witness cannot make legal conclusions in testimony.
— Your honor, please correct him.
Judge Will the witness please use language describing facts, and not conclusions of law in his testimony. Officer Ogg, please do not testify as to conclusions, but as to facts. Mr. Bell has a point. Driving is the thing to be established as a fact.
Charlie Officer please describe what happened as fact and not as legal conclusion
Officer You pressed on the gas and took off.
Charlie Did I leave my driver license and car acquisition papers behind?
Officer You did.
Charlie Did I accelerate rapidly and getting away from you?
Officer Yes you did and the car may even have skidded.
Charlie What did you do next?
Officer I went down to the jail since I had your information and filed my report and swore out a warrant for your arrest.
Charlie Show me a copy of the warrant. Could you please read the last 5 sentences.
Officer (reads document)
Charlie Did you present yourself to the magistrate?
Officer Yes, I did. Rodney Strong, I think it was.
Charlie Did you allege “evading arrest?”
Officer I did. You evaded arrest.
To the judge – correct the witness.
Your honor, order the witness to stop testifying in terms of conclusion, but in terms of fact. To testify on the stand that I “EVADED ARREST” is a conclusion of law reserved for a judge. These are matters that have to be proven by the witness, and I am getting there.
Judge No. 2
Charlie Officer please describe what happened as fact and not as legal conclusion.
Charlie Did you allege “evading arrest” after I took off in my car?
Officer I did allege and swear that offense. You took off in the middle of my investigation, and fled the scene. My legal conclusion was that that is evading arrest.
Charlie What evidence can you testify to that you had reason or warrant or probable cause for an arrest in the first place?
Officer Like I said, I was conducting an investigation.
Charlie You had turned on the blue lights, so I was under arrest. Why was I under arrest?
Officer You weren’t under arrest. I was detaining you for questioning.
Charlie on stand
— I fled to exercise constitutional right to self-preservation. If an arrest is illegal, and I am facing life and death, I have no known legal duty to stay on the scene.
— I departed the scene because I was not under arrest for any crime, and was not being charged with a crime in a lawful manner.
— I was already victim of a false arrest without probable cause, without warrant.