Judge in void case insists on putting another Negro caught traveling on trial

Simpson, jailed 2 days for using public road, defies court, citing unprecedented defense that ‘driving a motor vehicle is a privilege’ under UAPA, exhaustion of administrative remedies

Brenda Simpson, 76, a dietary speaker from Savannah, Tenn., stands in front of the Hardin County courthouse in Savannah after throwing court and DA for a loop with anunprecedented challenge of traffic law criminal enforcement practices as being “without subject matter jurisdiction.” (Photo Paul Williams, Eagle Radio Network West Tennessee bureau chief)

SAVANNAH, Tenn., Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2025 — Tennessee general sessions judge Daniel L. Smith is irritated with a mild-mannered woman, Brenda Simpson, 76, who has caught the white legal political establishment in Hardin County off guard with an unprecedented challenge to so-called traffic stops.

Daniel L. Smith, Hardin County general sessions judge

At “Mother Brenda’s” arraignment today on three criminal charges brought under the motor vehicle law at title 55, the judge insists that she stand by so he arrange another hearing to determine probable cause in a case where she’d been jailed two days without probable cause. She’d been arrested without a warrant Aug. 25 in Savannah, in breach of T.C.A. § 40-7-103 regarding officer arrest without warrant, in using an automobile on a public street.

“He listened, then he said, ‘Yeah, all right,” flipping me off,” says Mrs. Simpson, a healthy eating promoter who lives in Savannah. “And I told him that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and I demand to be brought before the proper authority to be heard, that my right to due process cannot be violated, and that the state had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies [and that the officer had a duty to] refer me to the department of safety. He said, ‘OK, I’m going to be putting in a plea for you, a plea of not guilty.’ But I said, ‘The court doesn’t have subject matter jurisdiction.’ He flipped me off, like, ‘You’re saying these things but it don’t mean nothing.’ That kind of attitude.”

Mrs. Simpson is in court on two criminal citations and three charges: Suspended driver license, no insurance, no registration of her car as a motor vehicle. She is accused of “driving,” an act that Tennessee courts don’t define according to the law but the essential elements of which include commerce. A state trooper is authorized to determine proofs and evidences such eyewitness testimony of cargo or passengers, or seizure or review of bills of lading, contracts or passenger lists (a passenger is a paying guest or rider in case law) indicating privilege taxable activity.

Cop Ethan Lusk imposes trucker law on ‘traveler’

Savannah officer Ethan Lusk says FTA, or failure to appear, is grounds for license suspension, though T.C.A. § 55-50-502 indicates otherwise. He arrests Mrs. Simpson on an attainder, strictly outlawed in state and federal constitutions. An attainder is a conviction of a person apart from trial, also called a “bill of pains and penalties,” according to Black’s Law Dictionary, rev. 4th ed. In Tennessee and all the states, travelers and users of public roads are convicted by “traffic” charges even though they exercise constitutionally protected rights of religion, assembly, occupation and property, travel, ingress-egress, enjoyment of rights under the family purpose and other well-known legal doctrines.

This unsworn charging instrument accuses Brenda Simpson of traveling without insurance, ostensibliy under T.C.A. § 55-12-139. This reporter is suing departments of safety and revenue to halt this officially sanctioned extortion program that the commissioners defend as a public benefit.

“Well, the way it is, they doing a continuance ‘til next Tuesday because the officer is not there to deal with it,” said court witness Paul Williams. “In other words, they entered a plea of not guilty at the arraignment today and they’re going to the probable cause determination next Tuesday. The subject matter jurisdiction and all that, they overlooked it. It didn’t mean nothing to ’em. According to their statutes, that’s what they’re following.”

The assistant district attorney, Mrs. Simpson indicates, made some sort of defense of the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, but she can’t recall a lick of what the man said. The next hearing will be a probable cause, the ADA tells her, according to Mrs. Simpson.

Asked if the judge and district attorney Neil Thompson are following their statutes, Mr. Williams says, “No, they’re not following their statutes. Because subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on appeal. The court is denying the subject matter,” says the West Tennessee bureau chief for Eagle Radio Network based in Chattanooga.

State of Tennessee, through its agents, is moving against Mrs. Simpson on three allegations – driving on suspended license, lack of registration and failure to be an insurance customer under the Tennessee financial responsibility law of 1977. The allegations arise from a reading of the motor and other vehicle law regulating the privilege of driving and operating a motor vehicle.

Prosecutor Neil Thompson is refusing to drop the case State of Tennessee v. Brenda Simpson. It would not be surprising if Mr. Thompson’s ADA and Judge Daniel Smith will combine to pursue a case plainly void in violation of their respective BPR and judicial ethics standards. (Photo DA’s office 24th judicial district)

Privilege allegations are noncriminal

Driving and operating a motor vehicle, Mrs. Simpson argues, constitute a privilege. That means that allegations under the license, in chapter 50 of that law administered by the department of safety, are heard by the commissioner of safety. The allegations are filed by state into the commissioner’s department, according to the law, and the commissioner is authorized to hold an administrative trial called a contested case.

Mr. Williams wonders if Mrs. Simpson should perhaps subpoena Jeff Long, the safety commissioner. This thought lies in a deadzone. The safety commissioner hasn’t heard the first traffic case in the history of the department, formed in 1937. It offloads its responsibilities to localities that have no lawful authority to hear privilege administration cases.

But cities and counties use criminal police power to pretendedly “administer” the administrative relationship between the department and every licensee in the state, of which there are 5.8 million.

In using criminal enforcement powers upon the public there has arisen a public scourge of the criminal traffic stop getting sensational coverage on YouTube and TikTok. Local government officers in Hamilton, Hardin and other counties operate as flesh-eating fish swarming crime-free members of the public as if they were criminals, shooting, tasing, dragging them, jailing them and prosecuting them as they might thugs, drug gang murderers, rapists, robbers and disorderly drunkards.

What is subject matter jurisdiction?

Mrs. Simpson has done a good deal of thinking and reading about law and her God-given rights. But she is not experienced in court and as a “pro se” accused, is liable to make mistakes. But none can be fatal, given the case is a legal void.

“The concept of subject matter jurisdiction involves a court’s power to adjudicate a particular type of controversy,” says an important Tennessee case. “Courts derive their subject matter jurisdiction from the Constitution of Tennessee or from legislative act ***, and cannot exercise jurisdictional powers that have not been conferred directly on them expressly or by necessary implication. ***

“A court’s subject matter jurisdiction in a particular circumstance depends on the nature of the cause of action and the relief sought. *** It does not depend on the conduct or agreement of the parties *** , and thus the parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on a trial or an appellate court by appearance, plea, consent, silence, or waiver. *** Judgments or orders entered by courts without subject matter jurisdiction are void *** . The lack of subject matter jurisdiction is so fundamental that it requires dismissal whenever it is raised and demonstrated.” Dishmon v. Shelby State Cmty. Coll., 15 S.W.3d 477, 480–81 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (internal citations omitted)

Law indicates mistakes she makes are effectively cleansed by the overriding doctrine of subject matter jurisdiction and its lack, as explained in Mrs. Simpson’s filing Monday of a pre-plea remedy & avoidance and a supporting request for mandatory judicial notice of the law.

Objection made

Mrs. Simpson says she objected to the judge’s entry of a not guilty plea.
“And at the very end of it she said ‘I’m objecting to this hearing.’” said Mr. Williams’ wife, Pam, who were witnesses today.

Google Earth shows the Hardin County courthouse, center, and a second courthouse, left, with a red roof. (Photo Google Earth)

“She said she wanted a ruling on this. He said, ‘Naww, we’re going to trial. And when we get to trial, I’ve give ya all the rulings.’”

“The bottom line is,” Mr. Williams says, “she had to sign saying she would come back next week. She signed it under duress, and then they let her leave.”

Mrs. Simpson inked her ideas on white index cards. “The state has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies by referring me here instead of to the department of safety pursuant to the UAPA. Yeah, I did say that. And ‘I demand to be brought before the proper authority to be heard that my right to due process is not violated.’ That’s what I said to him.”

Eagle Radio Network West Tennessee bureau chief Paul Williams and Pam Williams are set to leave a courts building in Savannah, Tenn., where she is being vindictively prosecuted by the state in a general sessions criminal docket, a court without authority to hear the case that by law is under the UAPA, the uniform administrative procedures act. (Photo Pam Williams)

A Henderson County, Tenn., jury comprised of 12 licensed drivers under the department of safety convicted Mrs. Simpson on Oct. 21, 2025, in a three-hour trial in Lexington, of three counts under the motor vehicle statute. Mrs. Simpson plans to appeal. (Photo David Tulis)(

The fighting and mercy reporter at GiveSendGo

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 at the link above.