Affidavit for why ‘Eye of Sauron’ injunction must issue now vs. Gov. Lee-backed insurance fraud
‘Lawyers, lawyers everywhere, & every word did stink’ — 8 state attorneys under siege as reporter defends financial responsibility law of 1977 overthrown by extortion program
No matter how many attorneys Gov. Bill Lee piles into his defense, his parties still cannot get the law right, and the law sloshes right past them. Attorneys include revenue Cmsr. David Gerregano, Cmsr. of safety Jeff Long, attorney general Jonathan Skrmetti, DOR lawyer Camille Cline, department counsel Anne Warner, and three AG lawyers Nick Barca, Holly Parrish, Mary E. McCulloughs.
The law itself, pressed by honest Tennessee judges, will tear down their engine of oppression against all Tennesseans, especially the 1 million poor who are targeted by the electronic insurance verification system. This EIVS eyeball on a tower is intended to surveil special insurance policies held by people under suspension who keep the privilege on condition of buying a “motor vehicle liability policy” defined as being proof of financial responsibility. T.C.A. § 55-12-102(7). The only other party in TFRL — the Tennessee financial responsibility law of 1977 — who must “show proof of financial responsibility” are insureds and others in a qualifying accident.
The tower burns out the landscape all across the state, generating 40,832 criminal convictions a year, or 12 a day. Crooked governors and commissioners behind this extortion scheme run a universal mandatory insurance scheme under color of TFRL, and my three cases intend to bring this oppression to a close.
IN HAMILTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, DIV. 1
Affidavit in support of preliminary injunction
I, David Jonathan Tulis, being of sound mind and body, testify that I live in Hamilton County, Tenn., at 10520 Brickhill Lane, Soddy-Daisy. I testify to the following facts to the best of my knowledge, recollection and in consultation with the case record:
Affiant has a master’s degree in English from University of Tennessee at Knoxville and a bachelor’s degree in English from University of Virginia.
His background is journalism. He was employed 24 years as a copy editor at the Chattanooga Times Free Press and worked 13 years as reporter at what is now Eagle Radio Network in Chattanooga.
He lives well below the official poverty line of $14,891 for an individual and considers himself one of “the working poor.” Poverty is one reason he does not do business with an insurance company as to the 2000 Honda Odyssey minivan.
Under our law, he freely uses the public roads privately, in enjoyment of ingress-egress rights, in enjoyment of constitutionally protected, God given, unalienable and inherent rights, such rights long recognized as pertaining to press, religion, free assembly and others under article 1 of the Tennessee constitution and U.S. Const. Amend. I.
STATEMENT OF NO ACCIDENT, NO SUSPENSION, RELEVANT EXCEPTION
Department of revenue (“revenue” or “DOR”) on July 21, 2023, revoked tags to his 2000 Honda Odyssey minivan that until that point was useable as a motor vehicle.
Petitioner does not meet the statutory requirements to be subject to TFRL.
He is not a person involved in a qualifying accident under T.C.A. § 55-12-104 and -105.
Nor is he a person who is under a civil court judgment for an automobile-related accident, T.C.A. § 55-12-102(4).
Thirdly, he is not a person who is under driver license suspension for a motor vehicle-related criminal allegation or conviction. T.C.A. § 55-12-113 and -114.
Not subject to TFRL, he considers himself to have a free market and at-liberty option to purchase financial products such as operator’s or owner’s insurance policy from a company such as State Farm.
Respondent revoked the minivan tag when affiant’s nonpayment for renewal of the insurance policy led State Farm to cancel the policy.
THREAT, HARM AND INJURY
Petitioner is put into the legally untenable position of being unable to comply with the “law” as put forth by respondent. Even if he had ordinary, non-certified insurance, that insurance would not comply with the law because only a certified motor vehicle liability policy is proof of financial responsibility, T.C.A. § 55-12-102(7).
Respondent imposes a penalty upon petitioner as a safe driver. The penalty is one imposed on unsafe drivers, drivers deemed high risk or irresponsible and who are determined by DOSHS to be required to buy and maintain a motor vehicle liability policy as condition precedent to exercise of the privilege.
Affiant lives in anxiety, dread and fear of being arrested by parties whose cause of action against him is immediately and directly connected to respondent revocation of tag.
This risk constitutes a harm and injury, and using the 2000 Honda Odyssen minvan per his right promises to cause greater irreparable injury
The suggestion he stay off the roads if he doesn’t have the car registered also would bring a harm to petitioner if he heeded the suggestion. Affiant has no option to stay home; he uses the road in the minivan for convenience and necessity and the exercise of rights and for making a living.
Petitioner is informed by the law that even if he complies with respondent’s version of the law, purchase of an ordinary noncertified auto insurance policy will not bring him into compliance with respondent’s version of TFRL. Hence he understands that he is denied a remedy in violation of Tenn. Const. Art. 1 § 8, “That no man shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land.”
USE OF ODYSSEY MINIVAN IN NON-PRIVILEGE TAXABLE ACTIVITY
Petitioner owns and uses the 2000 Honda Odyssey minivan for pleasure, personal necessity, family support, exercising rights protected under the state and federal constitutions’ bills of rights.
These rights include the exercise of religion, which purpose infuses all of his activities and motivates everything he does, from Christian ministry to mundane grocery shopping.
He registers the auto with respondent department for the sole purpose of having the auto available for use as a motor vehicle.
Affiant understands the registration serves him by making him “commerce ready” if he elects to enjoy and pursue privilege taxable activity.
STATE FARM POLICY NOT CERTIFIED
The insurance policy State Farm sold for the Honda Odyssey was non-certified.
A certified policy is called a motor vehicle liability policy.
The definition of motor vehicle liability policy is at T.C.A. § 55-12-103.
“(7) ‘Motor vehicle liability policy’ means an ‘owner’s policy’ or ‘operator’s policy’ of liability insurance, certified as provided in § 55-12-120 or § 55-12-121 as proof of financial responsibility, and issued, except as otherwise provided in § 55-12-121 by an insurance carrier duly licensed or admitted to transact business in this state, to or for the benefit of the person named therein as insured.”
T.C.A. § 55-12-103
A carrier who sells a motor vehicle liability policy provides a certificate to the customer and department of safety (“safety” or “DOSHS”).
The certificate is called the SR-22.
The law requires insurance carrier notice to safety both (1) when the motor vehicle liability policy is created, T.C.A. § 55-12-120, -122 and -137 (“it is the duty of the insurance company with whom the person has insurance to file, upon request of the insured, the necessary information with the commissioner on a certificate or form approved by the commissioner”), and (2) when canceled or allowed to lapse by the insured. T.C.A. § 55-12-125. Cancellation of bond or certificate of insurance.
State Farm did not issue or give affiant an SR-22 certificate.
That means State Farm did not communicate with department of safety regarding the policy when affiant first purchased it, according to his best knowledge.
The reasonable conclusion affiant draws from the lack of certification and the lack of communication between department of safety and State Farm is that the minivan policy was not subject to the financial responsibility law.
Not being subject to TFRL, the contract paperwork or wallet card reasonably could not be proof of financial responsibility at the time they were current
Petitioner let lapse the State Farm noncertified policy.
State Farm canceled the noncertified policy. There followed four notices by respondent, the last one revoking his registration.
State Farm is a state-licensed corporation and certified member of the Tennessee automobile insurance plan as described at T.C.A. § 55-12-136.
Because State Farm did not sell affiant a motor vehicle liability policy per T.C.A. § 55-12-103(7), petitioner reasonably believes he is not required to have POFR, based on this witness by state licensee State Farm required to follow the law.
Since petitioner did not buy a motor vehicle liability policy pursuant to T.C.A. § 55-12-103(7), petitioner reasonably concludes that he was not subject to the law.
3 OPTIONS BY DEPARTMENT
Respondent gives petitioner three pretended options:
Buy insurance that’s not certified and incapable of qualifying for proof or evidence of financial responsibility. T.C.A. § 55-12-105
Pay the commissioner F$65,000 as a “bond” to allow petitioner’s minivan four rubber tires to roll once again on the public road.
Buy a corporate surety bond for an uninsured personal conveyance automobile.
Petitioner is unable to buy insurance, being poor. He does not have F$65,000 to pay the commissioner of revenue. Thirdly, surety bonds are impossible to obtain, according to his research in attempt to obey policy.
PUBLIC INTEREST GOAL OF LAWSUIT
Respondent has no authority to hold a TFRL contested case because all hearings in the law are in safety, T.C.A.§ 55-102-103 and -104.
But petitioner persists in litigation in agency because he appears to have no choice.
Affiant attests his nearly two-year fight for his tag and to halt the program is a petition of remonstrance, giving respondent a chance to “do the right thing.”
As respondent’s fraudulent policy generates 40,832 convictions a year, and 77,748 convictions in the 695 days the case was in the department, affiant has a public interest in bring court-ordered reform to the department..
He has made numerous statements about his demand for general public relief in halting fraud such as this one.
But I have — as a representative of the public — I have larger things than just my personal interest. It’s important for me that this issue can be fought, OK, that this issue can be settled, and I have no — I do not want to just have my registration restored. That would not be proper, absent a finding about the law. I don’t want an exemption, I don’t want exception, Mr. [Brad] Buchanan [administrative hearing officer] and Miss [Camille] Cline [department attorney]. I don’t want any kind of favor to me. If I get it — if I get my registration restored, that’s because the department is being forced to understand what the statute says, and everybody will have benefit. I do not — since revocation has happened, and I’ve been injured — I have to have that in place [standing]. I will not give that up. I will not accept, and I would challenge any effort to give me back my registration absent a finding in the court, or the courts, that this is a barbaric abuse of the people in Tennessee *** that there is a recognition that that’s what the law really says.
Petitioner statement, transcript Oct. 24, 2023, phone hearing (emphasis added)
Affiant also exercises the right of remonstrance and address. The right to remonstrate those holding governmental authority is at Tenn. const. Art. 1 § 23, “That the citizens have a right, in a peaceable manner, to assemble together for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances, or other proper purposes, by address or remonstrance.”
Plaintiff characterizes his remonstrance as intervention upon or challenge to or notice to respondent Cmsr. David Gerregano and DOR they are harming the public and committing civil and criminal offenses.
He repeatedly has stated to Mr. Gerregano and his agents he intends to have Mr. Gerregano decertify the EIVS program and restore the rule of law.
Plaintiff persists in his contested case, despite null and void proceedings without authority, to put respondent commissioner on notice.
In litigation, affiant David Jonathan Tulis, a living and breathing man, has been doing the legal work for the party identified by respondent as DAVID JONATHAN TULIS, the registrant and a legal person.
EVIDENCE OF NOTICE TO CMSR. DAVID GERREGANO
On July 19, 2023, plaintiff sent Mr. Gerregano a one-page certified letter demanding on what authority his department was threatening to suspend the Honda Odyssey, indicating no authority in law.
On July 26, 2023, or thereabouts, plaintiff puts defendants under administrative notice. “Administrative notice [o]n Tennessee law requiring proof of financial responsibility after roadway accident.”
Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, filed in agency Sept. 23, 2024, gives exhaustive treatment of the rules of statutory construction, TFRL jurisprudence, and the law itself.
The motion for summary judgment is an affidavit, sworn Sept. 19, 2024, verifying and certifying plaintiff’s claims.
Petitioner in agency hearings and filings outlines reforms required under law.
These demands are similar to those entered into this case.
Claims in Honda Odyssey before the commissioner constitute notice that current EIVS operation is outside certification required at T.C.A. § 55-12-212, program certification and implementation, search parameters not formulated to comply with T.C.A. § 55-12-202, the statutory purpose statement.
EFFECT OF NOTICE
As to respondent department, administrative notice is actual notice, and as to Cmsr. Gerregano in his person and office, said administrative notice is constructive or putative, according to plaintiff’s study of the doctrine of notice.
On Sept. 19, 2024, Mr. Gerregano enters into the case a statement, under penalty of perjury, that plaintiff’s claim upon him has received his notice and personal attention. Declaration and objection of David Gerregano regarding petitioner’s notice of deposition
On Sept. 23, 2023, date in filing motion of summary judgment, plaintiff submits to defendants Tennessee financial responsibility flowchart. The document is at this link is incorporated into this affidavit by reference. https://davidtulis.substack.com/p/tennessee-financial-responsibility
These documents, oral statements and other filings in the contested case constitute notice of breach of law, violation of the Tennessee constitution and put respondent on awares about its maladministration and violations of law.
Further affiant sayeth not.
Have you looked into the ADA / 2008 amendments and researched what is a disability and how that removes immunity to deny an accommodation?
Maybe this could be used as a class action by the people of Tennessee vs the State?