Administrative noticeCartels vs. libertyFinancial responsibility case

Demand for probe by AG of abusive TN program serving insurance industry

These men are criminally charged with having no proof of insurance when T.C.A. 55-12-101 et seq makes no requirement anyone who’s not had a qualifying accident to have insurance or any other proof of financial security. (Photos

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn., Friday, Feb. 16, 2024 — I have been in a swinging match with the Tennessee revenue commissioner since July in demanding he end a rogue program, his department’s “enforcement” of the TFRL, the Tennessee financial responsibility law of 1977.

By David Tulis / NoogaRadio Network

As legal analyses have come into the case from David Gerregano’s attorney and his hearing officer, Brad Buchanan, the miscreancy is ever clearer, ever sharper in our optic since the time of my filing for a contested case.

The creation of a “mandatory insurance” regime in spite of black-letter law is a fraud. It’s worse than that. It’s a series of crimes. These include official misconduct and official oppression.

Does attorney general Jonathan Skrmetti care? I’ve already asked him once.

No reply. So I ask him again to care about these lawless acts by Cmsr. Gerregano.

Demand for attorney general probe

Dear Mr. Skrmetti, I’m writing to follow-up on my July 31, 2023, letter regarding the commissioner revenue, David Gerregano, and a fraud he is operating under auspices of the state of Tennessee, with your leave. 

Cmsr. Gerregano revoked my registration tag July 2023 absent a qualifying crash, giving me standing to sue him for misconduct and oppression and to overthrow what appears to be a continuum of crime involving his department. Lack of a qualifying accident is an important overlooked fact in my defense and remedial action to restore T.C.A. § 55-12-101 et seq and compliance thereunder. 

An accident is the starter gun for the Tennessee financial responsibility law of 1977 (TFRL) to kick in and creates a liability and duty on any given driver or vehicle operator. A citizen comes under the authority of depts. of safety and revenue only after such an accident. 

Absent an accident, no one is required to have any proof of financial security. There not being an accident for which one can be responsible, there is no obligation. Tennessee is an after-accident voluntary insurance state, and that didn’t change with the passage in 2015 of the Atwood amendment that went into effect upon the public Jan. 1, 2017.

I have been in a contested case with Mr. Gerregano, with AHO Brad Buchanan sitting in his place, with the commissioners’ interest being served by Camille Cline, staff attorney. 

David Gerregano runs a tax policy that ignores most of the Tennessee financial responsibility act of 1977. (Photo TN department of revenue)

Attached are three filings by me in regards a motion for temporary injunction to obtain a temporary tag under the policy in place. That would be my motion, my reply and an objection to denial. Also below are Mrs. Cline’s objection, and Mr. Buchanan’s 30 pp. ruling denying my petition.

His is a policy of enforcing the laws as if Tennessee were a compulsory insurance state where it is alleged we must have proof of financial security at all times to use the roads, or pay $65,000 to the department of safety. DOR’s rogue program pretends this extortionate option is public policy, and based on law. Enforcement is entirely ultra vires, arbitrary and capricious. DOR is violating law school 101 canons of judicial construction, and operates what I compare to the Eye of Sauron, the EIVS system.

EIVS is intended to operate only upon high-risk SR-22 drivers, operators and owners. Parts 1 and 2 of the law operate consecutively. Part 1 and Atwood at Part 2 don’t operate concurrently, as Buchanan and Cline argue. Sect. 214 explicitly states that Atwood creates no powers. But Mr. Buchanan gazoozles out of that prohibition in his ordre by stating that I am the one bringing incoherence into the law by insisting 214 bars his reading of sect. 210. I suggest you read these filings with an open mind his analysis, and compare it to mine.

Mr. Gerregano is an attorney well versed in law, and runs this illegal and facially unconstitutional program against the people of Tennessee knowingly and intentionally. I put him on administrative notice as to the requirements of TFRP early in my suit, just as I did your office.

State policy, Mr. Skrmetti, operates three parallel systems forbidden by law. General warrants in violation of T.C.A. 40-7-103. A bill of attainder against all private travelers by subjecting them to arrest. And ultra vires enforcement of the carrier and motor vehicle titles that operate only presumptively upon private travel. Mr. Gerregano’s policy of imposing TFRL duties on all 6 million registrants is now a fourth harm operating upon the public under Gov. Lee’s watch.

I have firsthand evidence of these harms. Under state of Tennessee policy, I was arrested Nov. 22, 2023, in exercising my ingress/egress rights from my abode in Soddy-Daisy. I was on the road in private and personal capacity, on press business that morning, no less. I filed a pre-plea remedy and avoidance, indicating the matter has to be heard under UAPA in the department of safety. The case is in the hands of DA Coty Wamp on whether to solicit an indictment. I am accusing the sheriff of official misconduct and oppression for using Title 55 upon my private use. My review of relevant law indicates I am no criminal, but a crime victim in free exercise of federally protected rights of free movement, free communication, free access to courts, public assemblies, religious assemblies and other exercises of constitutional rights that you and Gov. Lee hold dear.

While state-based breaches of law are several, the subject matter of this letter is focused on Cmsr. Gerregano and the operation of the TFRL racket serving for-profit insurance companies to the tune of at least F$1 billion in premiums (just my guess) coerced from the public into their coffers. The story of which I am a part is one of regulatory capture of the department. I believe DOSHS is involved in similar fraud. 

The focus of the contested case is focused solely on revenue. And revenue department is the focus of this missive.

I request your intervention in this matter, and apprise you in these agency filings of the nature of the law, and its scope, which cannot be gainsaid by anyone reading this law. The law is complicated, but in no way ambiguous as to whom it obligates. 

I am not liable for performance under the law, yet am being penalized under it without a hearing prior to the punishment having been inflicted. That fact alone should capture your notice, sir. My tag is revoked without a hearing, because hearings in the law are in safety, following a qualifying accident and the owner/operator’s having failed to show financial responsibility.

“The formality and procedural requisites for the hearing can vary, depending upon the importance of the interests involved and the nature of the subsequent proceedings. That the hearing required by due process is subject to waiver, and is not fixed in form does not affect its root requirement that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest,5 except for extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing the hearing until after the event.6 In short, ‘within the limits of practicability. *** [A] State must afford to all individuals a meaningful opportunity to be heard if it is to fulfill the promise of the Due Process Clause.” Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378–79, 91 S. Ct. 780, 786–87, 28 L. Ed. 2d 113 (1971) (internal citations omitted).

My case is in a weird legal Bermuda Triangle, Mr. Attorney General. The hearing should be under sect. 103 in safety. No TFRL provision gives revenue authority for a hearing. UAPA at § 4-5-106(f), applications, says UAPA does not apply to department of revenue, “This chapter shall not apply to revenue rulings and letter rulings issued by the commissioner of revenue.” Mr. Buchanan has no subject matter jurisdiction under statute – yet what am I to do? He invites me to dismiss my own case, but I cannot sue in safety, which causes no offense. The law does not tolerate such bizarre situations. I am being denied due process rights in spades.

I am asking that you exercise the power of your office to investigate offenses from wherever they arise. TFRL’s structure has not changed with any of the amendments over the years and demands a thorough review, given my updated report.

The subject matter I ask you to examine is awash with crime by officials who are impeachable by the state house of representatives or chargeable criminaIly. They conspire to operate longstanding harm against protectible rights with multiple special interests served by continuation of these injuries upon me and hundreds of thousands of other people. That would be insurance companies.

I request a meeting with you on these matters, sir, and thank you for your consideration.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.