Hearing oral arguments today in fraud case State ex rel. Tulis v. Gerregano are, left photo, Valerie Smith, left, at her swearing in; judge J. Stephen Stafford, center; and judge Steve Maroney. (Photos AOC)

NASHVILLE, Tuesday, May 19, 2026 — Three expressionless appellate court judges hear two commissioners argue that because I’m upholding the financial responsibility law my allegations of a “rogue corporate capture” program cannot be heard.

“Mr. Tulis believes the financial responsibility laws are perfectly constitutional,” says state attorney Hollie Parrish, representing safety commissioner Jeff Long. “He just takes issue with the way these agencies are allegedly applying them. For those reasons the chancery court ruling should be affirmed.”

The case is one of three to overthrow what I call the “Eye of Sauron” under color of the Tennessee financial responsibility law of 1977, or TFRL, with revenue Cmsr. David Gerregano revoking tag on my 2020 Honda Odyssey minivan with the cooperation and negligence of Mr. Long, who “shall administer and enforce” the TFRL. It is “unlawful” for revenue to restore my tag without written permission of Mr. Long, law says.

Live report on TikTok as “Smartest guy with a bow tie.” It’s free to follow.

Mrs. Parrish says I should have petitioned the department of safety in an administrative contested case before suing Mr. Long, shielded under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. “He never initiated an agency proceeding with safety. There’s no indication in the entire record that he made any formal attempt to address the registration suspension with safety,” Mrs. Parrish says.

Her claim overlooks the fact that I have no standing to make any type of claim directly against Mr. Longin his department. He has sent me no notice of suspension. Sheer madness to suggest that I file contested cases separately in two departments one without authority to have a hearing, and the other in a relationship in which I have no legal standing to make complaint of any privilege suspension.

The two departments have contradictory analyses of the law, fracturing the law at least 28 points, both agreeing however to pillage the public and generate 40,832 criminal convictions a year for “no insurance” and perhaps $2 billion a year in easy “free” premiums for the auto insurance cartel.

These media outlets, including my hometown newspaper the Chattanooga Times Free Press, refuse to cover the story as not newsworthy.

Nick Barca, attorney for revenue’s Gerregano, says that my complaint fails to meet tests for suing under the declaratory judgment act without first having completed a contested case in the department. The chancery judge “construes” my case to be under that act, which it wasn’t.

Mr. Barca says I failed to exhaust my administrative remedies. I failed tests under the Colonial Pipeline v. Morgan case in that I failed to allege the financial responsibility law of 1977 is unconstitutional and I’m asking for my fees to be paid, he says.

His argument is that all I can do is challenge an unconstitutional statute, not unconstitutional acts under color of a constitutional statute. The courts won’t allow it, he says.

“The plaintiff has to raise a constitutional challenge to the facial validity of a statute and not seek monetary damages” because that would be a violation of T.C.A. § 20-13 -102(a), he intones.

“The amended complaint fails to satisfy all three of those requirements and we ask the court to affirm the Davidson County chancery court’s granting our motion to dismiss.”

Mrs. Parrish says chancery ruled correctly because my petition could not overcome Mr. Long’s “sovereign immunity.”

“Safety’s role is very, very limited. Mr. Tulis still maintains that revenue suspended his registration. He claims safety tacitly approving of revenue’s misdeeds by safety’s failing to intervene and other passive means.”

“Mr. Tulis’ only way around sovereign immunity for Cmsr. Long is to show that he complied with the terms and conditions of a statute that expressly breaks that immunity [because it is unconstitutional] and he clearly has not done this,” because I am defending a constitutional law.

The two men and one woman judge seem very dour. From none did I get any sense of personal connection by meeting of the eyes. I was lively speaker with years of radio reporting, but they seem blank, worn out.

The Barca-Parrish duo speak of their clients without their listeners’ getting any sense that that client may have done something wrong or corrupt. Their analysis is purely technical and if anything was done wrong, it’s purely a process question.

NoogaRadio network midstate bureau chief Christopher Sapp

Having watched the hearing on the Tennessee courts website, NoogaRadio Network midstate bureau chief Christopher Sapp makes a harsh assessment:

You were too sharp on the men. You got into personal attacks on them. It’s a big no-no in court. You called them names. Said they were degenerate.

The fighting and mercy reporter at GiveSendGo

David runs a personal nonprofit fighting and mercy ministry. He thanks you for checks sent directly to c/o 10520 Brickhill Lane, Soddy-Daisy, TN 37379. Also at GiveSendGo at the link above.