Sheriff Jim Hammond says he hasn’t read a public filing that intends to save members of the public untold grief and abuse such as that suffered at the sheriff’s hand by Myron Mitchell, who endured a roadside strip-search July 10 in Soddy-Daisy.
By David Tulis / 92.7 NoogaRadio
For the humiliation the man forebore at the hands of two deputies, who stuck fingers in his anus, stripped him and beat him, the deeper problem is that Hammond officers Daniel Wilkey and Bobby Brewer lacked authority to stop a man under their ostensible state law, the “motor and other vehicle” statute at Tenn. Code Ann. § Title 55 that applies to shippers and people involved in transportation.
The 21-page Transportation Administrative Notice Tennessee has powerful statewide reform potential and has been personally served on various governmental bodies and officials such as Mr. Hammond. It operates on a theory of lococentric, incremental reform, since other avenues for redress of grievance by the people against the state have been roadblocked by the courts.
TAN describes the people’s authority delegated to the general assembly to regulate shipping and transportation in the public interest.
It also describes the areas of life in the State of Tennessee which are not subject to regulation, licensure or taxation by the state’s officials. These are areas that are the private use of the road by which people exercise their rights and fulfill their necessaries and duties on the public right of way, subject to no one and accountable to no one unless they commit a felony or are under an arrest warrant.
Next question?
The following slab of dialogue is from an interview Sheriff Hammonds gave Monday regarding the arrest of Mr. Mitchell. In the same interview Mr. Hammond exhibits a remarkable disinterest in the laws his interviewer mentioned as pertinent to the “traffic stop” against Mr. Mitchell and his girlfriend.
David Tulis. Four hundred and ninety-six days ago we met in this room and I handed you my administrative notice on transportation. Have you read it?
Sheriff Hammond. No.
Tulis. Has anybody in your department read it?
Sheriff Hammond. I can’t speak for the rest of ’em.
Tulis. There’s been no rebuttal of it, indicating that there’s general acquiescence to the statute and the court cases in it. The notice invites reform in the direction of traffic stops, requiring, I would say — suggesting, strongly requiring — your department ask at the beginning of every traffic arrest, “Are you, Sir, or Ma’am, involved in the for-hire, for-profit use of the road today, in commerce.” That is the question that is a reform that would save you from stopping people who are not subject to that title. Do you not think it would be worth your while, and the while of your successors, to make note of that, and make use of that document?
Sheriff Hammond. Do you have any more questions for me in regard to this particular arrest?
David Tulis. Thank you very much, Sheriff Hammond.
That’s 501 days of violating the law against members of the public intentionally, willfully and knowingly, applying to people who are not its subject but whom Mr. Hammond injures because the court system allows it to be done, with no regard to the rights of the people and their free movement and private property.
Note. The actual time between my giving Mr. Hammond the notice and the day of the interview is 501 days. On the day of the Mitchell strip search, however, it was 496 days.
Sue cop as oppressor, defend self in traffic court: Transportation Administrative Notice
