1. The land and soil the roads are built over the top of belongs to the American people. Refs.: Unanimous Declaration Paragraph One and Last Paragraph; and Bill of Rights, Article 10; others. 2. The roads are funded using the fruit of the American people's labor = The roads and the land and soil the roads are built upon belong to the American people.
[Additionally: 3. The roads themselves may be built using actual land (re-)sources that belong to the American people. 4. The labor used to build the roads may also come from the American people.]
In a footnote in a pending court case, I offer this in defense of travel rights -- connecting the right to soil.
The privileges and immunities giving relator federal court protections are a grant of the United States congress in domestic treaty, a disposal to relator as an assign forever of appurtenant ingress-egress rights. Respondent’s commerce regulation practices cannot lawfully encroach on federally recognized rights exercised by relator from federally recognized disposal. The grant of the soil right gives the court the obligation and duty of trusteeship to protect it, above and apart from municipal or state legislation. The loss is not just abrogation of right in the right to come and go, of egress, regress and ingress on the public road, but theft of relator’s property. Respondent and his privies encroach or threaten to encroach on rights that federal law recognizes, and the court has authority to protect these rights and this property.
This defense is a short form of the analysis making distinction between privilege and nonprivilege, between taxpayer and nontaxpayer, between public and private.
Respondent [the enemy] is predisposed to run the illegal program targeted by this lawsuit because he openly rejects the limits imposed upon his authority. Evidence of his bad faith is his denial of automobile property rights apart from privilege.
Tenn. const. Art. 2, sect. 28, designates two modes of taxation, ad valorem and privilege. Relator’s possession of a privilege is a protected liberty interest in Tenn. const. Art. 1, sect. 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” (emphasis added).
Respondent denies the distinction between privileged and nonprivileged activity and is thus uninhibited running the EIVS shakedown. The commissioner tells relator no distinction exists between privileged use of the Honda Odyssey minivan and the nonprivileged private communication by movement of relator’s person and chattel. Relator makes clear from the beginning he belligerently claims in person that he is free to use the automobile for nonprivileged and private movement. “When the privilege ends, the power of regulation ceases” Munn v. People of State of Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 147, 24 L. Ed. 77 (1876)
But, denying possibility of nonprivileged and nontaxable use, respondent criminalizes this private use on the people’s roads. By denying, forbidding and outlawing private use of cars that are not in any way being used as equipment or instrumentalities of privileged commerce for private profit and gain, respondent shows his true spirit as despot and oppressor in breach of § 39-16-403, official oppression. The state’s tax commissioner, of all people, denies there’s a difference between taxable, privileged activity affecting the public interest on one side and nontaxable, nonprivileged private activity on the other.
Mr. Gerregano degrades his office, and makes his allegations on TFRL and on the privilege law in bad faith. Among many cases on privilege, among the most instructive is Phillips v. Lewis, 3 Shannon’s cases 230, 1877. EXHIBIT No. 15 Phillips v. Lewis
Pending outcome of the administrative pleadings, respondent has criminalized relator’s use of the disrupted auto. In instant case, he demonstrates and states the intention to have relator arrested and criminally charged if he moves down the roads of Tennessee in the RAV4 after Dec. 27, 2024, when The RAV4’s high status as motor vehicle is revoked, and all relator has left is an automobile suitable only for private, personal and rights-secured communication or locomotion.
Two harms are in view for which state of Tennessee on relation seeks relief on this point of privileged use and private ownership.
The commissioner by revocation infringes on relator’s right and title to ingress and egress from his house in commerce under privilege. This harm is front and center in this petition.
Separately, he oppresses his distinct, separate and disjunctive right and title to ingress and egress from his house privately, outside privilege, free in nontaxpayer-related activity from any use of taxing or police power upon him apart from law or warrant by telling him he is a criminal if he uses his car privately. The private use and enjoyment of ingress-egress rights respondent prohibits in writing, threatening criminal sanction. He threatens relator, despite three administrative notices about the disability in Tennessee statutes that forbid breaching constitutional guarantees, including EXHIBIT No. 16 Administrative notice on ingress-egress rights.
David my comments are getting wiped out, and or not sent! And I'm not hitting the cancel button. Just letting you know... I'm having to re-type them over. And am also getting messages back that the messages I have sent are not going through.
Of course I do keep trying until I believe they're going through but it makes me just a bit curious... Hmmmm🤔😊.
David and all,
1. The land and soil the roads are built over the top of belongs to the American people. Refs.: Unanimous Declaration Paragraph One and Last Paragraph; and Bill of Rights, Article 10; others. 2. The roads are funded using the fruit of the American people's labor = The roads and the land and soil the roads are built upon belong to the American people.
[Additionally: 3. The roads themselves may be built using actual land (re-)sources that belong to the American people. 4. The labor used to build the roads may also come from the American people.]
In a footnote in a pending court case, I offer this in defense of travel rights -- connecting the right to soil.
The privileges and immunities giving relator federal court protections are a grant of the United States congress in domestic treaty, a disposal to relator as an assign forever of appurtenant ingress-egress rights. Respondent’s commerce regulation practices cannot lawfully encroach on federally recognized rights exercised by relator from federally recognized disposal. The grant of the soil right gives the court the obligation and duty of trusteeship to protect it, above and apart from municipal or state legislation. The loss is not just abrogation of right in the right to come and go, of egress, regress and ingress on the public road, but theft of relator’s property. Respondent and his privies encroach or threaten to encroach on rights that federal law recognizes, and the court has authority to protect these rights and this property.
This defense is a short form of the analysis making distinction between privilege and nonprivilege, between taxpayer and nontaxpayer, between public and private.
Respondent [the enemy] is predisposed to run the illegal program targeted by this lawsuit because he openly rejects the limits imposed upon his authority. Evidence of his bad faith is his denial of automobile property rights apart from privilege.
Tenn. const. Art. 2, sect. 28, designates two modes of taxation, ad valorem and privilege. Relator’s possession of a privilege is a protected liberty interest in Tenn. const. Art. 1, sect. 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” (emphasis added).
Respondent denies the distinction between privileged and nonprivileged activity and is thus uninhibited running the EIVS shakedown. The commissioner tells relator no distinction exists between privileged use of the Honda Odyssey minivan and the nonprivileged private communication by movement of relator’s person and chattel. Relator makes clear from the beginning he belligerently claims in person that he is free to use the automobile for nonprivileged and private movement. “When the privilege ends, the power of regulation ceases” Munn v. People of State of Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 147, 24 L. Ed. 77 (1876)
But, denying possibility of nonprivileged and nontaxable use, respondent criminalizes this private use on the people’s roads. By denying, forbidding and outlawing private use of cars that are not in any way being used as equipment or instrumentalities of privileged commerce for private profit and gain, respondent shows his true spirit as despot and oppressor in breach of § 39-16-403, official oppression. The state’s tax commissioner, of all people, denies there’s a difference between taxable, privileged activity affecting the public interest on one side and nontaxable, nonprivileged private activity on the other.
Mr. Gerregano degrades his office, and makes his allegations on TFRL and on the privilege law in bad faith. Among many cases on privilege, among the most instructive is Phillips v. Lewis, 3 Shannon’s cases 230, 1877. EXHIBIT No. 15 Phillips v. Lewis
Pending outcome of the administrative pleadings, respondent has criminalized relator’s use of the disrupted auto. In instant case, he demonstrates and states the intention to have relator arrested and criminally charged if he moves down the roads of Tennessee in the RAV4 after Dec. 27, 2024, when The RAV4’s high status as motor vehicle is revoked, and all relator has left is an automobile suitable only for private, personal and rights-secured communication or locomotion.
Two harms are in view for which state of Tennessee on relation seeks relief on this point of privileged use and private ownership.
The commissioner by revocation infringes on relator’s right and title to ingress and egress from his house in commerce under privilege. This harm is front and center in this petition.
Separately, he oppresses his distinct, separate and disjunctive right and title to ingress and egress from his house privately, outside privilege, free in nontaxpayer-related activity from any use of taxing or police power upon him apart from law or warrant by telling him he is a criminal if he uses his car privately. The private use and enjoyment of ingress-egress rights respondent prohibits in writing, threatening criminal sanction. He threatens relator, despite three administrative notices about the disability in Tennessee statutes that forbid breaching constitutional guarantees, including EXHIBIT No. 16 Administrative notice on ingress-egress rights.
David my comments are getting wiped out, and or not sent! And I'm not hitting the cancel button. Just letting you know... I'm having to re-type them over. And am also getting messages back that the messages I have sent are not going through.
Of course I do keep trying until I believe they're going through but it makes me just a bit curious... Hmmmm🤔😊.
🙏🪽🌈✝️🕊️