Cops’ ‘no insurance’ charge outside scope of 1977 financial responsibility act, revenue case says

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn., July 30, 2023 — I am suing in administrative court to insist on my right to use my Honda Odyssey minivan with its 330,000 miles in commerce, in a for-hire capacity, carrying goods or passengers (a paying guest in the car) for private profit and gain — and without “mandatory insurance.”

By David Tulis / NoogaRadio Network

The entire state bureaucratic establishment is in on the gag I am challenging — enforcing the Tennessee financial responsibility act of 1977 as if it required everyone in a car or truck, or on a motorbike, to have insurance at all times, under misdemeanor penalty. Revenue. Safety. Insurance. The attorney general’s office. Gov. Bill Lee. They’re all in on it. The insurance industry — this business is the big gainer, with at least F$2 billion annually from coerced premiums it wouldn’t get if Tennessee’s financial responsibility law were enforced as written.

The claim, the common knowledge, that we have to have insurance at all time when steering a car down the roadway is not found in Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-12-101 et seq, as I have discerned — with aid of the Gnomes — in studying the law and reading the court cases.

The judicial department is implicated in the fraud for a single leader-type judge not bringing it up sua sponte in any given case that the law is intended to determine financial responsibility after a crash. The claim that all travelers, that all motorists, that all drivers and operators must have insurance is with no legal foundation. It is, apparently, a custom and usage that has become ”law” by virtue of having been done for so many years, decades, probably.

My petition for a contested case hearing is within the department of revenue. A hearing officer will determine the facts and the law (or, probably, policy). All evidence that I have to get into the record goes in with this revenue employee. All legal arguments are made before him. Upon this record the case Tulis v. Gerregano goes forth, and goes up on appeal for “judicial review” in chancery court of Davidson County. Appeal from that court is to the Tennessee court of appeals in Nashville.

The case will empower these state employees to get it right, do right by the people of Tennessee, and throw off the corporate capture economics that control the status quo in Chattanooga and every other city and town in Tennessee.

If any harm comes to be beyond the administrative breach against my rights to use my car for hire, I will sue the parties responsible personally, starting with David Gerregano, head of the department revenue, for oppressive acts under federal law. I will also be able to sue and bring federal injunction on others who participate in this fraud and oppression of the people in Tennessee, his leading ally being Jeff Long, commissioner of department of safety and homeland security.

Notice of appeal

Comes now petitioner, in persona propria, with an interest in the operation of the car-cum-motor vehicle VIN 2HKRL1859YH575510 cited under PIN VBUUMWUG to assert through notice timely filed his rights under the uniform administrative procedures act for a contested case hearing to challenge defendant Gerregano’s suspension of the vehicle’s registration without due process or a lawful cause.

Gerregano’s actions against rights of petitioner via the department’s vehicle services division are not based on the record, and not based on the law, and are ultra vires.

Proceedings thus far

1. Gerregano sends petitioner a notice of suspension July 21, 2023, stating “your vehicle registration has been suspended” and he has been assessed a F$125 fee.
2. The notice, a fourth, follows three other notices of record and correspondence between petitioner and Shawn Ploss in the department’s financial responsibility section.
3. Email correspondence June 29 reveals that petitioner requests “30 days additional time before any steps are made *** to negatively affect registration of the car” so petitioner is “reviewing the statute apparently being enforced upon me.” 
4. Mr. Ploss says “Tennessee like most all states requires proof of insurance for all vehicles plated and used on public road” and that in the EIVS system since 2017 “all 350 plus [insurance] companies that have a Tennessee policy report those to us.”
5. Petitioner, reviewing T.C.A. 55, chapter 12, asks Ploss, “Could you please tell me where I am liable for performance under this law?  Do you have a record that I have been involved in an accident?”
6. Ploss does not answer these two questions. 
7. He does not cite the statute giving authority to revoke the registered status of the car. 
8. Neither agent nor principal Gerregano not indicate record of an accident.
9. Petitioner sends Gerregano a certified letter dated July 19, 2023, stating:
   
   1. Tennessee is an after-crash state. Burress v. Sanders, 31 S.W.3d 259, 263 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), Erwin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 232 F. Supp. 530, 533 (E.D. Tenn. 1964). Chapter 12 declares a driver or operator has a duty to prove financial responsibility to the safety commissioner after a qualifying accident. 
   2. What evidence do you have that I have been involved in a qualifying crash?
   3. On what legal basis are you threatening to revoke the validity of the registration? ***
   4. According to my research and best knowledge, I am not out of compliance with any state or federal law, Mr. Gerregano. I demand that you cease and desist any further claims against my rights under Tennessee law. If you do not I will consider further steps by you an oppression, harm and injury done by you personally, outside of law under mere coloration of law.

Registration suspended

10. On July 21, 2023, Gerregano sends petitioner a “vehicle registration suspension notice,” absent a hearing before the injury is done as to the record and the law. “[Y]our vehicle registration has been suspended,” the letter says; it cites Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-5-117(b), which provision merely adds financial responsibility law in chapter 12 of this title as an authority for revoking a registration, on grounds elsewhere not identified.
11. As Gerregano has no record of an accident, it is unclear how he can evoke authority of the financial responsibility law upon petitioner.
12. This revocation has been done without meaningful occasion to be heard before Gerregano takes action to injure petitioner in his federal and state rights, and is done apart from the record and apart from the financial responsibility law. 
13. Gerregano has not denied the petitioner’s notice that Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-12-101 et seq show Tennessee is a post-accident state, yet has moved to injure petitioner in his personal capacity, arbitrarily and capriciously, apart from law, without a hearing for petitioner, subjecting him to criminal prosecution, false imprisonment, false arrest and abuse by his employees, agents, allies, corporate partners, business partners, combinations, colleagues or co-conspirators.
14. Gerregano is exercising authority apart from facts regarding the van, and thus outside the scope of the statute, infringing on petitioner’s right and title to ingress and egress from his house in commerce, and his right and title to ingress and egress from his house privately, outside privilege, free from any use of police power against him apart from law or warrant for nontaxpayer-related activity.

Relief demanded

Petitioner demands a hearing to establish that he is subject to the financial responsibility statute as Gerregano has evidence about petitioner of which he is not aware, and that Gerregano is enforcing § 55-12-101 et seq according to law, and not according to his personal caprice, whim, custom or policy. Petitioner:

1. Demands evidence from Gerregano that he has had an accident subject to § 55-12-101 et seq.
2. Demands Gerregano defend the statute pursuant to the aforementioned court cases and the rules of statutory construction that give his department authority to administer the law contrary to its plain meaning.
3. Demands stay of execution on revocation of registration until this challenge is settled.
4. Demands, in the alternative, a F$3.33 refund of the tax paid for the Honda Odyssey minivan VIN 2HKRL1859YH575510, good through Aug. 31, 2023, or for the 42 days remaining under its term of registration, due for renewal Aug. 31, 2023, per department notice, this demand conditioned on the registration intending to be continued, and not expiring of its own right under law.

Respectfully submitted, etc.

Suit begins as ’contested case’ in revenue dept.