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 Courtrules on his EMERGENY STAY AND RULING REQUEST; CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGETO 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 appellatecourt decision. Claimant’s constitutional challenge to Supreme Court’s own rule must be ruled upon.
Constitutional exemption. Claimant is constitutionally EXEMPT/IMMUNE from payingthe 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 andShall never be violated on any pretence whatever. And to Guard against transgressions of the highPowers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in the Bill of Rights contained isexcepted out of the General Powers of Government and shall for ever [i.e. forever] remaininviolate.
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 promulgatingrules contrary to Claimant’s constitutionally protected right to freely appeal without sale, equalprotection 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 theUnited States and Tennessee.”
➤ “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislationwhich 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 theenjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” No state may convert a secured libertyinto a privilege. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 113 (1943).
THEREFORE, Claimant hereby gives notice of his objection to and protest of the $150.00filing fee demanded by invoice because he is constitutionally EXEMPT as supported by authoritiescited above. Claimant awaits the Supreme Court’s ruling on whether or not its non-legislativelitigation taxes and filing fees are constitutionally applicable to Claimant. Until then, Claimant willwithhold payment, but will remit the invoiced amount should the Supreme Court issue an adversewritten ruling citing facts and conclusions of law.