Radio bureau chief Sapp steps into case as ally of oppressed food truck owner
Free market, constitutional claims injected into city court case in Sparta, Tenn., as arbitrary ordinance restrains lawful business.
SPARTA, Tenn., Thursday, June 22, 2023 — A woman running a food truck in a small Tennessee town receives strong support Wednesday in city court in an effort to shut her down because she did not get “permission” from a nearby donut shop to be open. The support is the august presence of Christopher Sapp, midstate bureau chief for 96.9 FM and NoogaRadio Network in Chattanooga, who runs a computer repair shop and is promoting legal reform. Mr. Sapp’s aid included not only his presence in the court before judge Macey Gurley, but the following petition. He rebuffs the judge’s claim he has no standing, saying he is a party in interest as a customer, and that he has a constitutional right to petition those vested with governmental authority. His brief is an enlargement of the constitutional right in Tennessee of remonstrance or address, a concept that is being developed by judicial reformer John Gentry. Why might anyone suppose remonstrance is merely something done in the halls of the general assembly? Why not in the courts, too? Mr. Sapp demands.
I, CHRISTOPHER SAPP, enter by right of petition in regard to this matter as an aggrieved citizen, concerned elector, businessman, and domiciliary of said municipality; the same being:
a) A reserved right of liberty secured to the People by the 9th and 10th 1 amendments of the U.S. Constitution; and, b) An inviolable personal right as declared by TN Const. art. I § 23 2 and further reserved and secured to the People by TN Const. art. XI § 16 3 ; and, would say and aver as follows, to wit:
PETITIONER enjoys, and is entitled to, the right of address and audience before this Court as declared by TN Const. art. I § 23; the same being an unenumerated personal right reserved under the 9th and 10th amendments of the U.S. Constitution and further secured to his person by TN Const. art. XI § 16; and that,
PETITIONER, as an aggrieved citizen and Top of the Hill customer, has standing in regard this matter to peaceably assemble himself together with others for their common good, to instruct his elected and appointed municipal representatives, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by way of oral address; and that,
PETITIONER avers and asserts that: rule of law, public policy, and the formation, validity and equal application of municipal ordinances are all matters of grave public importance and concern; and,
THAT the common law and public policies of this state are contrary or averse to the establishment and perpetuation of: monopolies 4, non-competition agreements 5, unfair trade practices 6 , and impermissible restraints on trade; 7 and,
THAT competition in the marketplace fosters the promotion of higher quality goods and services while tending to drive down prices for city residents; and,
THAT a significant segment of the population travels within and without the city for work and other purposes at various and sundry hours of the day on any given day of the week; and,
THAT for the sake of public convenience and necessity, a cornucopia of nutritional food options best serves the public welfare; and,
THAT the tax-paying citizens and freeholders of Sparta are more than capable of deciding for themselves from whom, and at which hours of the day, they wish to purchase and consume retail food stuffs; and,
THAT in service to the public convenience and necessity, Sparta businessmen, restaurateurs, and mobile food vendors ought be at liberty to freely transact business at whatever times of the day they deem appropriate in satisfaction of consumer demands and fluctuating market conditions; and,
THAT fledgling “mom and pop” upstarts and entrepreneurs routinely risk their entire life’s savings in a bid to compete locally against international food conglomerates, national fast food chains, regional brands, and other franchisees who enjoy institutional capitalization in support of removing their profits out of the local economy and into the pockets of their shareholders in other states; and,
THAT these same hard-working and industrious neighbors perilously risk their family nesteggs in order to offer: greater diversity of choice, convenience, and culturally appropriate heritage foods geared towards their fellow citizens and area neighbors; and,
THAT any municipal ordinance, or provision thereof, which tends to constrain, limit, or restrict the People’s liberty of choice to certain times of the day is patently offensive to the citizens of Sparta, and an insult to the free people of Tennessee; and,
WHEREAS, Title 9 section 9-901(1) of the City of Sparta Municipal Code for Mobile Food Vendors provides elemental characteristic descriptions of a “Mobile food unit (“MFU”); and,
WHEREAS, it would be a public offense, were such a vendor to unlawfully draw electricity or water from taxpayer-provided utilities located upon the public right-of-way, as contemplated by Title 9 section 910(12); but,
WHEREAS, Title 9 of the City of Sparta Municipal Code for Food Vendors does NOT otherwise prohibit Mobile Food Vendors from entering into an agreement whereby they might otherwise draw or receive landlord provided utilities contemporaneous with a lease, sub-lease, or rental of property; and,
WHEREAS, TN Const. Art. I § 20 8 prohibits the passage of any law impairing the obligation of contracts; and,
WHEREAS, Title 9 section 9-910(6) of the City of Sparta Municipal Code for Mobile Food Vendors impermissibly delegates legislative or administrative authority to the arbitrary whim and caprice of non-governmental entities; it unconstitutionally engages in the ultra vires seizure and deprivation of liberties, privileges, and estates in property properly belonging to adjoining freeholders, contrary to TN Const. Art. I § 8 9 and the law of the land; and,
WHEREAS, Title 9 section 910(6) of the City of Sparta Municipal Code for
Mobile Food Vendors unlawfully expands the corporate powers of some corporate entities and diminishes those of others contrary to TN Const. Art. XI § 8 10 ; and,
WHEREAS, Title 9 section 9-910(7) of the City of Sparta Municipal Code for Mobile Food Vendors impermissibly establishes and perpetuates a discriminatory and protectionist competitive class advantage in the marketplace contrary to T.C.A. § 47-25-101 whereby international food chains, national franchisees, and other local “brick-and-mortar” food vendors located within the city are either: a. Not restricted in their hours of operation by city ordinance; or, b. Are permitted to open their businesses for “rush hour” traffic a full two (2+) hours or more prior than that prescribed for Mobile Food Unit operators; and,
https://fb.watch/llt22Awi-Y/
WHEREAS, current provisions of the municipal code materially: hinders competition, promotes discrimination, and reduces or restrains free trade; the Sparta Municipal Corporate Charter is thereby potentially imperiled by an immediate existential threat of revocation or forfeiture 11; and,
THAT, absent some compelling government interest affecting the public health, safety, or welfare: any and all municipal ordinance provisions which unequally, arbitrarily, or capriciously reduces or restrains trade; or, proscribes business service hours without justification, is an unconstitutional exercise of police powers and/or the abuse of discretion; the same effecting an unconstitutional constraint upon the equal enjoyment of the rights, liberties, and pursuit of happiness otherwise secured to the people of Tennessee; and,
THAT any trusts or municipal ordinance purporting to require the prior consent and “written approval” of any competing business interest or other non-governmental entity as a condition predicate to the issuance of zoning approvals or city business permits, is an improper delegation of municipal authority which tends to foster an anti-competitive business climate, promotes monopolies, restricts free trade, or otherwise hinders, impedes, or reduces commerce, contrary to the stated public policy of this state as well as T.C.A. §§ 47-25-101 & 104; and,
THAT any municipal ordinance purporting to restrict commerce to certain times of the day, is contrary to the will of the citizenry as well as the public policies of this state as it pertains to monopolies, antitrust laws, and deceptive or discriminatory trade practices; and,
THAT any law, rule, municipal ordinance, policy, or pretense whatsoever that abrogates, infringes upon, or transgresses the Declaration of Rights contained in TN Const. art. I, in repudiation of TN Const. art. XI § 16, is contrary to the public policy of this state and void ab-initio; and,
THAT question exists as to whether or not, and when, the various provisions and amendments to Title 9 of the City of Sparta Municipal Code were ever initially or subsequently published in the city recorder’s office as well as a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality subsequent to their adoption as required by T.C.A. § 6-54-508(d)13 and T.C.A. § 6-54-509 12.
THUS AND THEREFORE, premises considered, it is strongly urged and recommended that this Honorable Court take one or more of the following actions in regard to this matter:
1. Dismiss the warrantless criminal citation with prejudice for lack of probable cause due to constitutional, statutory, and public policy considerations; or,
2. Dismiss the matter without prejudice for want of ripeness while issuing a written memorandum opinion to the city Mayor and Board of Aldermen requiring them to fully exhaust their administrative remedies and advising them to reconsider the Title 9 ordinance provisions in view of the public policies of this state; or,
3. Take the matter under advisement, maintain the status quo, and enjoin the municipality from enforcing any provision of the ordinance pending the Court’s further review, consideration, and issuance of a formal written opinion; or,
4. The Court should recuse itself on the basis of disqualification pursuant with Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. Rule 10 due to the foreseeable negative public perception surrounding conflicts of interest concerning the Court’s appointment to office as an agent of the Plaintiff’s, it then being advisable to remove or transfer the matter to Circuit Criminal Court or Chancery should further adjudication be deemed warranted.
CHRISTOPHER SAPP
Footnotes
U.S. Const. amend. X (1791) - “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
TN Const. Art. I § 23 - “That the citizens have a right, in a peaceable manner, to assemble together for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances, or other proper purposes, by address or remonstrance.”
TN Const. Art. XI § 16 - “The declaration of rights hereto prefixed is declared to be a part of the Constitution of the state, and shall never be violated on any pretense whatever. And to guard against transgression of the high powers we have delegated, we declare that everything in the bill of rights contained, is excepted out of the general powers of the government, and shall forever remain inviolate.”
TN Const. Art. I, § 22 - “That perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free state, and shall not be allowed.”
Hasty v. Rent-A-Driver, Inc., 671 S.W.2d 471 (Tenn. 1984) - “Such covenants are not favored in Tennessee because they are in restraint of trade.”
T.C.A. § 40-25-101 - “All arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts, or combinations between persons or corporations made with a view to lessen, or which tend to lessen, full and free competition in the importation or sale of articles imported into this state, or in the manufacture or sale of articles of domestic growth or of domestic raw material, and all arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts, or combinations between persons or corporations designed, or which tend, to advance, reduce, or control the price or the cost to the producer or the consumer of any such product or article, are declared to be against public policy, unlawful, and void.”
T.C.A. § 40-25-104(a) - “Any corporation chartered under the laws of the state which violates any of the provisions of either § 47-25-101 or § 47-25-102 shall thereby forfeit its charter and its franchise, and its corporate existence shall thereupon cease.”
TN Const. Art. I § 20 - “That no retrospective law, or law impairing the obligations of contracts, shall be made.”
TN Const. Art. I § 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.” TN Const. Art. XI § 8 - “The Legislature shall have no power to suspend any general law for the benefit of any particular individual, nor to pass any law for the benefit of individuals inconsistent with the general laws of the land; nor to pass any law granting to any individual or individuals, rights, privileges, immunitie [immunities], or exemptions other than such as may be, by the same law extended to any member of the community, who may be able to bring himself within the provisions of such law. No corporation shall be created or its powers increased or diminished by special laws but the General Assembly shall provide by general laws for the organization of all corporations, hereafter created, which laws may, at any time, be altered or repealed, and no such alteration or repeal shall interfere with or divest rights which have become vested.”
T.C.A. § 40-25-104(a) - “Any corporation chartered under the laws of the state which violates any of the provisions of either § 47-25-101 or § 47-25-102 shall thereby forfeit its charter and its franchise, and its corporate existence shall thereupon cease.” [emphasis mine]
T.C.A. § 6-54-508(d) - “If any part of such code of ordinances contains new provisions of a penal nature, then such published notice shall specifically state such fact and shall also state that a copy of such new provisions is available at the city recorder's office for examination.
T.C.A. § 6-54-509 - “Any municipality that, on or after March 21, 1955, adopts a code of ordinances shall publish in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality a notice that a code of ordinances has been adopted and that a copy is available at the city recorder's office for anyone who desires to examine it. Such notice shall also include a statement providing notice of any new provisions of a penal nature in such code of ordinances.