Lee officials say ending fraud ‘would have adverse effect on public’
$2 billion scam serving insurance companies ‘constitutes an important state interest’
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn., Wednesday, May 14, 2025 — Lawyers defending two Gov. Bill Lee commissioners say ending the mass auto insurance fraud under color of the financial responsibility law would have an “adverse effect on the public” partly because it would “prevent effective regulation.”
On Friday Davidson County chancery court judge Anne Martin will hear motions in State ex rel Tulis v. Long et al in which cause a radio journalist is attempting to bring to a halt a 23-year-old fraud launched by the department of safety run by Jeff long. Department of revenue Commissioner David Gerregano got in on the $2 billion a year scam in 2017 with the launch of the EIVS surveillance tower targeting 1 million poor people who are insurance industry noncustomers.
“[T]he Court correctly determined that plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits. Consequently, granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the commissioner from administering [EIVS, or electronic insurance surveillance system] and the financial responsibility laws would have an adverse effect on the public.”
Lawyers from the Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti’s office say that the “balance of harm already favors the state,” forgetting that I am representing the state and they are representing the rogues in office.
Since the commissioner is likely to succeed on the merits, the balance of harms already favors the State. Furthermore, enjoining the enforcement of a statute is against the public interest because it subverts the democratic process. Cf. Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301, 1303 (2012) (Roberts, C.J., in chambers.) (“[A]ny time a State is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable injury.”).
‘Highly legitimate governmental interest’
Most amazing gazoozling of “The Guano” and Mr. Long is the claim that continuation of the program is maintaining the public safety. If it were true that using an automobile without auto Insurance were dangerous, how is it that the law lets people drop insurance once their suspensions are over? How is it DOR gives the uninsured four months to “get right with the law” before revoking them? How is it that the statute itself envisions that most people will not have insurance, as the court cases say.
The law’s central focus is an extraordinary type of insurance called the “motor vehicle liability policy” required of people as condition precedent of reinstatement. The shyster commissioners entirely ignore the particulars, and theorize about the law as if they were obeying it.
The state “has a highly legitimate governmental interest in maintaining, protecting, and regulating the public safety” through its financial responsibility laws. State v. Cosgrove, 439 N.W.2d 119 at 121 (S.D. 1989). The regulation of the operation of motor vehicles, including “legislation affecting the reciprocal rights and duties of all owners, operators or occupants when those rights and duties arise out of such operation,” Manzanares v. Bell, 214 Kan. 589, 601, 522 P.2d 1291, 1302 (1974) (internal citations omitted), constitutes an important state interest.
The state passed after World War II the Tennessee financial responsibility law, using its coercive power upon commerce to bully high risk drivers into having insurance if they want to keep their privilege.
The state has an interest in addressing “the enormous legal, social, and economic problems resulting from motor vehicle accidents” by legislating “compulsory liability and first party insurance coverage as to ensure prompt compensation to accident victims injured in the operation or use of a motor vehicle.” Id. at 601.
‘Harm the public’
DOR figures suggest the fraud generates $2 billion a year of premiums to members of the Tennessee automobile insurance plan. These 250 companies get the free ride thanks to the “Eye of Sauron” op. But they share the risk by having to issue the high risk motor vehicle liability policies that suspended drivers buy so they can regain their licenses.
[E]njoining the commissioner would harm the public because it would inhibit uniform compliance of the financial responsibility laws. “Effective regulation requires comprehensive, uniformly applicable laws. Uniform compliance is indispensable to successful administration and to attainment of an effective level of safety. Thus, the state has a strong interest in assuring mandatory, continuous and uniform compliance.” Bissett v. State, 111 Idaho 865, 868, 727 P.2d 1293, 1296 (Ct. App. 1986). The Atwood Law was enacted to ensure uniform compliance by providing an enforcement mechanism.
I am asking God’s providential care prior to this hearing. The frauds have filed motions to dismiss, and answers to me. I’ve filed motion to reconsider & decertify, motion for interlocutory appeal, motion for mandatory judicial notice.
Princely warfare against principalities & powers
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.
They will continue to lie and stonewall until you get tired and give up. The criminal courts will NEVER allow the issues to be heard by one of their juries, because the fraud is too obvious. What they can't do is try the case once you point out that the government can NOT judge the case, and NO PUBLIC OFFICIAL may take part in the case, including attorneys. The JURY is required to be independent and NOT AFFILIATED with the state criminals in any way. The PEOPLE, through the jury itself, try the case AND the law.
Any other proceeding is a waste of time and money. Adding insult to injury, they steal the money from you and then make you pay more so they can screw you even harder with their "remedy".
Get out of the statutory world and into the constitutional realm. Each and every time the criminals cops stop someone, they commit at last 14 different constitutional violations.
You MUST make them answer to the people, not to themselves. That is the purpose of the TRIAL BY JURY. The state can NOT release or remove anyone, and neither can you (unless they are government employees). They call 12 people and THAT is the jury that will hear your case. No questionnaires and no instructions from the judge to find you guilty. Anything and everything makes it into evidence, and the jury gets to decide. All you have to do to is tell the truth, and make a big deal about how they get the opportunity to send a message to the government about its crimes. I think any 12 people will agree that government criminality is epidemic and something need to be done.
Forget about the statutes. They simply don't apply for many reasons I've already stated. Separate yourself from the government in a way they can't ignore. And ask for something they can give you. They will NEVER let go of a 2 billion dollar a year scam. Don't you see Lee standing there with the tiny hat criminals?
Ask the Jury to return an order for YOU, that specifically states that the statutes do not apply and that the statutory courts lack jurisdiction to hear matter that may concern you. You can't save the world, but you can make it easier for yourself without embarrassing them too badly.