Arthur Jay Hirsch of Lawrence County insists he cannot be denied a hearing under “no justice for sale” protections in the Tennessee constitution.
By David Tulis / NoogaRadio Network
He is being dunned for F$150 in filing his constitutional challenge directly with the only court that can hear the case, the Tennessee supreme court, overseen by chief justice Roger Page.
OBJECTION, PROTEST TO FILING FEE
I, Arthur Jay Hirsch, constitutional rights claimant (hereinafter, “Claimant”), without counsel,
objects to and protests the invoice received from the Appellate Court Cost Center (#200757) for
$150.00, dated July 31,2023, and withholds payment thereof until the Tennessee Supreme Court
rules on his EMERGENY STAY AND RULING REQUEST; CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE
TO APPELLATE RULE (“Emergency Stay”) filed in the Supreme Court clerk’s office on July 31, 2023. Non-legislative claims processing filing fee and litigation tax rules do NOT apply to Claimant who asserts his rights under the state and federal constitutions. Claimant shows the Court as follows:
Original action. Said Emergency Stay is an original action, and is NOT from an appellate
court decision. Claimant’s constitutional challenge to Supreme Court’s own rule must be ruled upon.
Constitutional exemption. Claimant is constitutionally EXEMPT/IMMUNE from paying
the filing fee per his secured right to administration of justice “without sale, denial or delay” (Art.
1, Sec. 17; Art. 11, Sec. 16).
➤Tennessee Constitution, Article 1, §17 (in pertinent part)
That all courts shall be open. . . and right and justice administered without sale, denial, or delay.
Tennessee Constitution, Article 11, §16
➤The Declaration of Rights hereto annexed is declared to be a part of the Constitution of this State and
Shall never be violated on any pretence whatever. And to Guard against transgressions of the high
Powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in the Bill of Rights contained is
excepted out of the General Powers of Government and shall for ever [i.e. forever] remain
inviolate.
Prohibition. The Tennessee Supreme Court, the originator of the preliminary filing fee(s)
rule imposed upon Claimant and the Tennessee citizens at large, is prohibited from promulgating
rules contrary to Claimant’s constitutionally protected right to freely appeal without sale, equal
protection and due process, to wit:
➤ T.C.A. § 16-3-403. Rules promulgated by The Tennessee Supreme Court shall not “abridge,
enlarge, or modify any substantive right, and shall be consistent with the constitutions of the
United States and Tennessee.”
➤ “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation
which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966).
➤ The U. S. Supreme Court has previously held that, “A state may not impose a charge for the
enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” No state may convert a secured liberty
into a privilege. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 113 (1943).
THEREFORE, Claimant hereby gives notice of his objection to and protest of the $150.00
filing fee demanded by invoice because he is constitutionally EXEMPT as supported by authorities
cited above. Claimant awaits the Supreme Court’s ruling on whether or not its non-legislative
litigation taxes and filing fees are constitutionally applicable to Claimant. Until then, Claimant will
withhold payment, but will remit the invoiced amount should the Supreme Court issue an adverse
written ruling citing facts and conclusions of law.
