Preston Settles, top left photo, is under criminal prosecution under the state trucking and transportation law in the court of Rex Henry Ogle, top right, judge in the Sevier County circuit court. Bottom photo, a street view of Sevierville, with the courthouse at left.
The 21 year old son of a homeschooling family faces criminal trial under a judge trained by the Tennessee judicial system to ignore his pleadings and to abuse him.
By David Tulis / NoogaRadio Network
Preston Settle of 300 Walnut Road in Sevierville, Tenn., is charged for using the roadways as a free member of the public enjoying his constitutional liberties. The charge is that he is doing it commercially, but without tag and badges of state privilege as a licensee.
The Settles family in Sevierville lives here. (Photo Google maps)
Traveling privately is deeply concerning to cops, courts and the state. These parties, with trickery in opinion and by secret conclaves, are organized to harm Mr. Settle further if he cannot convince a jury of 12 on Thursday that their case is misbegotten and lawless. These parties in commercial government charge Mr. Settle in a “traffic case” — “driving without a license,” not having his car registered as a “motor vehicle” and not having proof of financial responsibility (insurance).
Judge Rex Henry Ogle on Sevier County circuit court is supposed to be a neutral adjudicator of his rights vs. state authority. But he’s effectively charging Mr. Settle with being a “sovereign citizen.” Mr. Settle doesn’t say that anyone has accused him of being a “sovcit,” but Judge Ogle is intensely propagandized by the supreme court justices — Holly Kirby, Roger Page and their predecessors in the top spot — to despise pro se defendants and litigants, especially if they are motivated by patriotism, love of country, an interest in law, a willingness to defend their rights as belligerent claimants in person.
‘Sovereign Citizen Kane’ on courts’ website
Such people are the worst, and are to be systematically disconnected from the process of justice.
To Judge Ogle and others who take part in the Tennessee judicial conference, their training from Southern Poverty Law Center and other “experts” on so-called hate groups is intended to suppress growing belligerency against government among citizenry reflected partly in the work I do – as your investigative reporter – as pro se litigant in court.
This is cover of a presentation for court clerks — how to “deal with” first amendment auditors, police and courts accountability activists and “sovereign citizens.”
I sued Gov. Bill Lee 878 days in court for the massive “Covid-19” fraud that has taken 136,801 lives and injured more than a million Tennesseans. I am today suing the commissioner of revenue for fraud in imposing the financial responsibility law on the general motoring public when it is enforceable only upon SR-22 high-risk drivers, according to T.C.A. 55-12-101 et seq.
Sovereign Citizens vs First Amendment Auditors CLERKS
A documentary video about my press challenge to judicial secrecy is becoming a YouTube sensation, exposing contempt for the people among judges generally, the five justices and judicial officials such as John Crawford, the AOC education manager.
Mr. Settle recounts his treatment at a July 9 hearing on his motion to dismiss. He says the judge “continuously talked over” him. “The judge continuously disagreed with the legal precedents of the Supreme Court” and did not present “stare decisis to back up his claim. In so doing, the presiding judge, assisting the prosecution in making its case, thus participated in ‘practicing law from the bench.’”
Mr. Settle says he “did not object due to shock resulting from the Judge’s incredible behavior.”
“The prosecutor’s only argument was that the charges against the DEFENDANT were non-felony misdemeanor charges that did not require an element of mens rea to establish the fact of crime. *** The judge overturned the motion without the presentment of any lawful basis or legal authority.”
Mr. Settle’s brief in support is densely packed with jurisprudence regarding the liberty of movement. It runs 14 pages, and contains insights a little short of remarkable, though unavailing. The document describes the man Mr. Settle as the “authorized representative” of the accused, one PRESTON SETTLE, which he identifies as a fictional party upon which the state makes its claims. This insight goes nowhere because courts reject such valid but too-fine points, viewing any filing making such distinction as “sovcit paper terrorism.”
Willing to get off on a bad foot with Judge Ogle, Mr. Settle starts his brief with a three-page “notice to judge” that lectures him about his duties to secure in the record a record of the judicial standard of ethics that ought to control under Mr. Ogle’s oath of office.
Citing federal and cases from various states, he says he has the right to move on the public roads unobstructed.
“Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Fourteenth Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.” – Williams v. Fears, 179 US 270 (1900)
Another cite from Mr. Settle on well-established but despised rights of communication:
“This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.” “We have no occasion to ascribe the source of this right to travel interstate to a particular constitutional provision. It suffices that, as MR. JUSTICE STEWART said for the Court in United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745, 757-758 (1966): “The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.” “. . . [T]he right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason, it has been suggested, is that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created. In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution.” “If a law has “no other purpose . . . than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it [is] patently unconstitutional.” United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570, 581 (1968).”
Mr. Settle has done an excellent job on the fundamentals of the right – using the road without sign of privilege, and not using the car for commercial purposes. He has signals, however, in his filings that he has read into American patriot mythology, with excruciatingly arcane provisions and magic bullet verbiage securing one’s legal status under the organic constitution that is supposed to still exist. Such verbiage is ridiculed by judges – as in their “sovereign citizen bingo” game.
It also prompts judges to ignore the petitioner, and cast him into outer darkness.
The trial is being held in the old courthouse at 125 Court Ave, Sevierville, TN 37862. It starts at 9:30, Mr. Settle says.
Terror for 5 ‘sovcits’: 20- to 50-years behind bars
Five criminal defendants in middle Tennessee are convicted as “sovereign citizen” in filing liens on state officials, with prison terms of extraordinary length. The case is State v. Ronald Lyons, James Michael Usinger, Lee Harold Cromwell, Austin Gary Cooper and Christopher Alan Hauser. Prosecutors alleged forgery and false liens. A Davidson County grand jury indicted the defendants, who identify themselves as “sovereign citizens.”
The state alleged they electronically filed 102 liens with the Tennessee secretary of state’s office against 42 individuals, including judges, county executives, attorneys and court clerks. On jury trial conviction, the court sentenced Mr. Cromwell to 25 years. Mr. Cooper gets 50 years; Mr. Lyons 22 years, Mr. Usinger 21, and Mr. Hauser 20. The court of criminal appeals affirmed the judgments and sentences.
The Tennessee supreme court granted the defendants’ applications for permission to appeal solely on the issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for forgery under Tenn. Code Ann. 39-14-114.
