CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. Judge Waverly Crenshaw, the chief judge of the U.S. district court in Middle Tennessee has before him all the moving parts of my bid for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction shutting down “The Eye of Sauron.”
Here’s an excerpt from my motion for immediate hearing, uploaded on the federal PACER system a few minutes ago.
#####
Plaintiff alleges that the department is acting apart from law in operation of EIVS, and that Mr. Gerregano, as commissioner, is acting outside his office, apart from delegation of lawful authority, and in violation of his oath of office and terms of employment. Thus, this lawsuit includes defendant David Gerregano in his personal capacity.
Maladministration of EIVS, if found by the court, would be chargeable to Mr. Gerregano personally as a violation of T.C.A. § 39-16-403, oppression. Defendant Gerregano, the person, is obligated to answer for his deeds under color of office. In the alternative, the court has authority to order Cmsr. Gerregano, in official capacity, to make defense of his department and its actions.
The complaint alleges that defendants essentially operate EIVS as a trawling net to harvest noncustomers of insurance companies, thereby oppressively leveraging the state’s apparatus to coerce citizens into compliance with demands not imposed upon them by law. The Tennessee financial responsibility law of 1977 (“TFRL”) and its 2015 Atwood amendment (“Atwood”) authorize revocation upon those who have certified policies, called SR-22 in the insurance industry.
The standards of Insurance Industry Committee on Motor Vehicle Administration (“IICMVA”) control the running of EIVS, according to T.C.A. § 55-12-202. Plaintiff’s complaint shows what happens when an official ignores or misconstrues a single provision — ignoring the certification requirement — and how such error results in a cascading domino effect upon the balance of the law. Plaintiff has identified 26 departures from law (see Memorandum of law in support for motion for temporary restraining order, Doc. 17).
Alleged violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) is without foundation. Plaintiff is pro se, not an attorney, not in the practice of law, not in the law business. Plaintiff files his affidavit and complaint in good faith and to the best of his ability, wasting no words to explain a complex law while alleging its breach in as few words possible. Parts 1 and 2 of the law contain 57 sections. Plaintiff must also recount as concisely as possible how defendants have misconstrued the financial responsibility law since its amendment in 2002.
Defendants file objection to this lawsuit via motion to dismiss (Docs. 14 and 14-1), saying the state is immune from lawsuit under the 11th amendment and that the complaint (Doc. 1) “consists of 103 pages, including 143 paragraphs and 60 pages of exhibits” and contains “legal arguments, reiterations and a motion for summary judgment” (Doc 14, PageID # 276).
However, defendants have not generally or specifically denied plaintiff’s allegations regarding their use of EIVS. Plaintiff has right to relief from the defendants, jointly and severally, as the court might determine in the public interest. Plaintiff therefore requests immediate hearing, with oral arguments, so as to empower the court to halt ongoing and imminent irreparable harm to himself and all similarly situated users of the public roads.
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.
Share this post