Judge Waverly Crenshaw, right, agrees with magistrate Barbara Holmes in her recommendation — my case vs. Tennessee tax boss Gerregano must wait until state proceedings conclude, even though I make a clear case that state proceedings in agency are void, a fruitless simulacrum of due process. (Photo federal courts system)
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn., Thursday, July 17, 2025 — A U.S. district court judge in Nashville is suspending a Sword of Damocles over the head of the Tennessee commissioner of revenue in a lawsuit alleging mass fraud against the public in support of the insurance industry.
The sword is a $7 million civil case against David Gerregano in his personal capacity in what radio journalist David Tulis decries as the “Eye of Sauron” program under the Tennessee financial responsibility law of 1977.
Judge Waverley Crenshaw delayed the case pending the outcome of state proceedings over revocation of the tag of Tulis’ 2000 Honda Odyssey minivan in July 2023.
Citing doctrines of federal deference to state proceedings, the 10-page order rejects Tulis’ claims there are no state proceedings pending. The judge lends support to the department’s claim that it can hold financial responsibility law auto tag revocation hearings under the tax code.
“Tulis is legally wrong that the Department of Revenue is not authorized to hold the hearing,” Crenshaw says, citing the tax code, two motor vehicle law provisions and the uniform administrative procedures act.
-
In a nutshell ————————-
-
— Judge delays case in federal court against tax boss personally
-
— Once state proceedings end, case will move forward
But Tulis rejects that argument, saying his 2-year-old case in revenue is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, with the hearing officer Brad Buchanan having no statutory authority to hear the case. The financial responsibility law requires hearings to be held in department of safety, the frequent anti-corruption litigator says.
“The judge is plain wrong,” Tulis said. “He ignores clear law as to how and when hearings are held under financial responsibility law — and who hears the cases. It’s department of safety under section 103. The case I’m in is a legal nullity, void as a matter of law, so the deference doctrine doesn’t apply. My demands that my case proceed in federal court are based on my being absolutely denied a hearing in Tennessee.”
Crenshaw says legal doctrines requiring the federal government to show deference to state proceedings require the Tulis case against Gerregano be stayed.
“Gerregano’s motion to stay is granted until the conclusion of the state administrative proceedings,” the order says. All pending motions, including motion for injunction to decertify Gerregano’s surveillance system, will have to be refiled once the case restarts, the order says.
###
