Here are the two parts of the Nov. 22, 2024, hearing in the case Tulis vs. department of revenue, seeking to decertify the EIVS program that has become the monster “Eye of Sauron” over the traveling landscape in Tennessee.
Since revenue’s program is rogue, it cannot legally hold hearings over TFRL, or Tennessee financial responsibility law regarding motorist “mandatory” insurance. Hearing officer Brad Buchanan brings this point up at the beginning of the hearing and asks if I want to dismiss my case, since it is void, with appeal also certainly void. Why stay? I decline to dismiss my own case, 16 months in the making.
In responses to filing flak from DOR, I make these claims about the case
The hearing officer may opt to punt this case by finding he has no subject matter jurisdiction, since hearings in TFRL are heard in department of safety and proceedings are void if not authorized by law.
(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided, the commissioner shall administer and enforce this chapter, may make rules and regulations necessary for its administration, and shall provide for hearings upon request of persons aggrieved by orders or acts of the commissioner [safety] under this chapter; provided, that the requests are made within twenty (20) days following the order or act and that failure to make the request within the time specified shall without exception constitute a waiver of the right.
(b) Any person aggrieved by an order or act of the commissioner under this chapter may seek judicial review of the order or act as provided by § 4-5-322.
§ 55-12-103. Administration; hearings; appeal and review (emphasis added)
No provision in Atwood allows for hearings in revenue. UAPA specifically declaims it applies to revenue rulings. Yet the proceedings have been under color of UAPA. On this point alone of subject matter jurisdiction, the hearing officer can smash the illegal and unconstitutional Sauron program. Petitioner’s citations of nearly 30 other violations add to the debris and dust of the tower’s crashing down.
This case is a grotesque scandal he has denied the past 461 days since petitioner filed notice. The program is an aberration, a picture of in-grown corporate capture of a government agency in departure from law. Respondent views the T.C.A. § 55-12-214 ban on new requirements as inconsequential as a piece of lint or a bottlecap.
Respondent’s cases cited describe summary judgment (p. 4), rules for statutory construction (p. 10), ingress-egress and travel rights (pp. 14, 15). All the court cases dealing with financial responsibility are in support of petitioner, and he ignores them.
Petitioner challenges the hearing officer to be true to his word about the case. Petitioner demanded his recusal in this unprecedented first-impression suit on grounds of interest, prejudice, amity, familiarity and institutional bias. The AHO refused, saying he will rule on the law and facts truly, without flinching, wherever they take him. This case demands that he lay all hope, comfort and affinity aside on realizing petitioner is right about grievance personal and representing those of Tennesseans as a whole. This petition against Eye of Sauron empowers him to favor the rules of statutory construction that forbid party spirit when justice and jurisprudence itself are at stake.
Listen to Part 2 of hearing: Camille Cline makes personal attack
Camille Cline makes the case for the status quo — but get to the end of it when I put the scam together most charmingly —and defend our rights of ingress and egress.
Share this post