How 2 TN commissioners oppress poor man in use of autos
Affidavit backing motion for injunction explains that 'financia responsibility' gag works to destroy liberty, harm the innocent, benefit insurance companies
Affidavit of David Jonathan Tulis
As to revocation of 2 motor vehicle registration tags
I, David Jonathan Tulis, relator, 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 records.
I have a master’s degree in English from University of Tennessee at Knoxville and a bachelor’s degree in English from University of Virginia.
My background is journalism. I was employed 24 years as a copy editor at the Chattanooga Times Free Press and worked 13 years as a reporter gratis in radio.
Except for a two-month stint at the U.S. Postal Service Jan. 11, 2025, to March 6, 2025, I have not been employed in 13 years.
Starting January 2024 until today I have looked for employment
I live well below the official poverty line of $14,891 for an individual and am in a state of poverty.
Respondents and their policy of mandatory insurance under color of the Tennessee financial responsibility law of 1977 (“TFRL”) put me in a state of fear and dread.
I am suing for restoration of my tags because I have a right to use my automobiles as motor vehicles. I have a right to use the public roads for private profit and gain, in commerce, as carrier of goods or people for hire under privilege via state titles 65, chapter 15, carriers, or 55, motor and other vehicles.
Under our law, I freely use the 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.
Department of revenue (“revenue” or “DOR”) has revoked tags on two cars I intend to use as motor vehicles under privilege in the exercise of rights to commerce on the public road.
On July 21, 2023, DOR revoked the tag on my 2000 Honda Odyssey minivan.
On Jan. 28, 2025, revenue revoked the tag on my 1999 Toyota RAV4.
I do not meet the statutory requirements to be subject to TFRL.
I am not a person who has had a qualifying accident under T.C.A. § 55-12-104 and -105.
Nor am I a person who is under any sort of civil court judgment for an automobile related accident, T.C.A. § 55-12-102(4).
Thirdly, I’m not a person who is under driver license suspension for any motor vehicle-related criminal allegation or conviction. T.C.A. § 55-12-113, -114.
Not subject to TFRL, I 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.
Poor, I choose not to buy these products.
The motor vehicle tags on my two automobiles were revoked for my not continuing to make payments to State Farm or other state-licensed carrier.
Neither of the two policies I previously had were certified.
A certified policy is called a motor vehicle liability policy.
The definition of motor vehicle liability policy is found 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 the customer and department of safety (“safety” or “DOSHS”) a certificate.
The certificate is called the SR-22.
The law requires 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 me an SR-22 certificate or communicate with safety regarding the policies when I first purchased them, to my knowledge.
State Farm made no correspondence with safety or with me about an SR-22 on my departure as a customer, to my knowledge.
The reasonable conclusion I draw from the lack of certification and the lack of communication between safety and State Farm is that the policies I had purchased were not subject to the law.
Not being subject to TFRL, the policies reasonably could not be proof of financial responsibility.
When a person becomes poor and cannot afford a financial product, or elects to stop being an insurance industry customer, he stops payments, as did I.
I let my State Farm noncertified policies lapse.
State Farm canceled the noncertified policies.
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 me a motor vehicle liability policy per T.C.A. § 55-12-103(7), I reasonably believe I am not required to have POFR, based on this witness by State Farm.
Since I did not buy a motor vehicle liability policy pursuant to T.C.A. § 55-12-103(7), I reasonably conclude that I am not a party subject to the law.
Since I am not and was not a person subject to the TFRL, I am not aware of any offense to either revenue or safety to merit DOR’s revocation of my registration.
DOR says if I cannot afford insurance I can pay the commissioner F$65,000 as a “bond.”
It also says I can buy a corporate surety bond for private use of my automobiles.
Such surety bonds are impossible to obtain, according to my research in attempt to obey policy.
Tag revocation eliminates an automobile’s legal status as motor vehicle.
Use of these cars privately, apart from privilege, makes me target of respondents’ privies, allies and collaborators in law enforcement who operate an attainder upon all use of the road not under privilege.
Respondents and their privies presumptively commercialize all use of the road. This claim by troopers, state employees and others that only commercial use is allowed is a falsehood, according to my good faith research.
This presumption of commerce means that since I am not acting commercially in using the road under a current registration tag, I face prosecution in the exercise of my God-given rights apart from privilege.
Odometers on each of these autos have more than 300,000 miles. In them I communicate, travel, move, locomote, self-propel in use on public right of way in the exercise of private rights not affecting the public interest, and not in privilege.
DOR revocation of my two tags under color of TFRL is a harm to me in their enjoyment of these rights.
I am a victim of fraud and extortion by DOR.
Safety runs a police unit, the Tennessee highway patrol, that enforces T.C.A. § 55-12-139 as if it authorized criminal prosecution if I do not provide a card or receipt for a noncertified operator’s or owner’s insurance policy.
The sheriff’s office in Hamilton County and police departments in municipalities through which I travel “administer” sect. 139 as if it enforced “mandatory insurance” on all motorists, according to written statements by Chattanooga police and my extensive press coverage of traffic enforcement.
I face arrest, jailing, seizure of my property, criminal accusation if officers see me on the road with a plate revoked, expired or removed.
Between June 23, 2023, and Oct. 22, 2024, fighting to get the tag restored on my minivan, I have spent 918.36 hours researching the law.
This research informs me that revenue and safety corruptly run a shakedown in violation of the Tennessee criminal oppression statute at T.C.A. § 39-16-403.
Official oppression occurs when “[a] public servant acting under color of office or employment commits an offense who: (1) Intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, stop, frisk, halt, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment or lien when the public servant knows the conduct is unlawful; or (2) Intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity, when the public servant knows the conduct is unlawful.” T.C.A. § 39-16-403.
Respondents convict an average of 40,800 people a year, according to data provided by respondents in filings with the general assembly.
I fear imminently becoming one of these victims. I fear for my personal safety.
Further affiant sayeth naught.
It appears that STATE officials are acting under color of law in a Conspiracy Against Rights in violation of 18 USC 241 and Deprivation of Rights under color of law in violation of 18USC 242, and many more.
I have discovered that the Federal Courts in Iowa Neglect & Refuse to recognize and understand our Rights inherent of G-d as reiterated in our Constitutional Bill of Rights as already decided in and by numerous Supreme Court Decisions supporting these Rights under the Fifth Amendment’s Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
In my sons case, an inept, unfit Davenport police officer, Michael Martin, rushed to wrong conclusions and charged this PEDESTRIAN, peacefully standing on private property, with several traffic violations in retaliation for exercising his Rights: www.youtube.com/user/kornkobiowa the STATE OF IOWA withheld Exculpatory Evidence and testimony of Officer Jon Howell, THEY TAMPERED WITH THE JURY, planting Iowa S.Ct. “Justice “ Waterman’s associate, Mr Tate Featherstone, an Insurance Policy Architect/Executive, who admitted testimony in STATE v Kenneth Tennant, Scott Co., AGCR383847, that he used his skill set to influence and pursuade doubting jurors to convict based on a Hearsay Question!!! Is that “evidence beyond a reasonable doubt “ as required or evidence of Juror Misconduct ? Fraud ? This was 2017 and all officials remain derelict of duty to correct or comply with the Law; Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 32.3.8(h): DUTY TO SEEK REMEDY.
We had this case REMOVED to Federal Court for Rilings on Constitutional Questions (Jurisdiction) and Points of Law. The Feds took our money, failed, neglected, Refused to render duty and returned case to STATE OF IOWA.
We are being extorted. I am now banned permanently from Facebook/META for sharing TRUTH.