Fraud is fact intensive, so I have right to discovery in suing dept. of revenue

This is the registration form of my 2000 Honda Odyssey minivan, which is no longer a motor vehicle (able to do commerce), but just an automobile that I still use for private purposes. Its registration is revoked. Registration converts an auto into a motor vehicle, allowing the owner or operator to make profit and gain on the people’s streets, roads and boulevards. Cops are not agents of the department of revenue; in Hamilton County, the department’s sole agent is Bill Knowles, the county clerk. But cops criminally charge people as if they were agents of Cmsr. David Gerregano. (Photo David Tulis)

Camille Cline, revenue department attorney

Camille Cline, the department of revenue attorney defending “The Guano,” is lining her case up to insist on no discovery on my part as I sue to overthrow the fraudulent, oppressive program of “no insurance” prosecutions statewide for many years.

By David Tulis / NoogaRadio Network

Summary judgment is a move in court that a party files to insist on a judgment from the court as a matter of law, as no facts are in dispute. A ruling of summary judment forecloses on discovery on grounds that no discovery is needed, as no essential facts for a ruling are missing.

It says no discovery is needed, because there are no disputed facts. In a way, Mrs. Cline is right, that the controlling matter is law and what the law says. A breach of law is breach of law, and if Cmsr. David Gerregano is doing that, it is evident in my facts of my tag revocation case. These facts alone, one might argue, are sufficient for deadlines for briefs to be set, and submitted to administrative judge Brad Buchanan.

These are people criminally charged for not “having insurance” or “proof of insurance.” Unless they are involved in a qualifying accident, they are under no duty to have insurance, and are oppressively prosecuted in violation of the Tennessee financial responsibility law of 1977, created originally in 1948. (Photo Chattanoogan.com)

My counterargument is that discovery is necessary, as Christopher Sapp, midstate bureau chief, points out, because following policy and rejecting the law are fact intensive. Policy outside the statute at T.C.A. § 55-12-101 et seq, is fact particular, fact wealthy.

My theory about the right to depose him — for between four and eight hours, according to my notice of deposition — is that it is prejudicial to foreclose discovery, which would help me make the argument about mass violation.

➤ Gerregano actions are under law, and he is the moving party in every motor vehicle revocation of a registration, according to the Tennessee financial responsibility law of 1977

➤ Policy is not all written, but can be oral, evidenced by email, phone calls, phone records; therefore, discovery by petitioner in deposition, subpoena and admissions-denials are proper

➤ Testimony, either oral or by admissions and confessions in writing, are illustrative, and may be dispositive in court

➤ Policy apart from law is fact. If Cmsr. Gerregano were obeying the law, there would be no need for discovery

➤ Fact circumstances create policy, rationalize ignoring the law itself

➤ Fraud is a fact in action and I have right to discover it

➤ Right to obtain all facts on fraud and official oppression, as program runs parallel to law and in contradiction to the law, to the injury of petitioner and 6.34 million registrants of cars in Tennessee

➤ Behavior and actions = fact. Discovery is to uncover facts that tend to lead to other facts, that tend to lead to other facts, letting a party make his case

➤ Oppression = facts, not the smooth unremarkable operation of law, not legal question. The harm is measured by law, but is a fact matter

A hearing is set Tuesday afternoon at 3 p.m. by phone to hear my notice to depose, Mrs. Cline’s motion to quash and my demand for production of documents under a subpoena.