A damaged taillight cannot be converted into a crime. But that’s what deputies and cops do every day in Hamilton County, taking upon themselves the onus of false imprisonment and false arrest by not getting warrants, and administering the trucking laws upon noncommercial travelers in their cars. The tree trunk of oppression has two supporting roots, and my complaint aims an axe head at both of them. Here’s how I begin my complaint. What do you think?
Petitioner is falsely arrested and falsely imprisoned by defendants without probable cause and without a warrant as required under T.C.A. § 40-7-103, with Brandon Bennett, pretending to act under authority of Tennessee code annotated as employee of Hamilton County government, admitting three times within the space of the first two minutes in a “traffic stop” that petitioner is not involved in commercial activity in his predawn use of the road for private purposes.
The pretext for the false imprisonment and false arrest is a missing piece of red plastic on a functioning taillight that Mr. Bennett alleges is a violation of the Tennessee “light law” under presumption that petitioner is acting on the privilege subject to the state law while Bennett admits petitioner is not involved in the privileged activity in commerce subject to that regulation.
The complaint names Austin Garrett, employed as sheriff of Hamilton County, who in his personal capacity apart from the immunities that attach to his office affects to operate a policy against petitioner of
Arrest on sight (“general warrant” or “Redcoat warrants”) forbidden by the U.S. constitution fourth amendment and Tenn. const. Art. 1, sect. 7, and;
Ultra vires enforcement of the motor vehicle laws that in Tennessee are directed against privileged activity of hauling, carrying or transporting goods or passengers for hire, for private profit and gain affecting the public interest, pursuant to 49 U.S.C., transportation, and the code of federal regulations Title 49.
Mr. Garrett’s policy of arrest on sight against private parties on the roads absent a crime is one that violates state and federal law, and offends complainant’s rights to be free of false imprisonment and false arrest in the enjoyment of protected federal rights.
Mr. Garrett, who holds elected office, and Mr. Bennett, who holds office as deputy under terms of employment under defendant county, act as men apart from law and under coloration of law to injure complainant in his federal rights of movement, communication, ingress and egress. They do so maliciously, intentionally, knowingly and in bad faith, having been put on awares of limits to their authority by administrative notice created and served by plaintiff.
They serve the third defendant, Hamilton County, Tenn., a municipal corporation that is subject, in the time relevant to this suit, to state and federal laws requiring respect of due process rights of the citizenry, which county is liable for projecting corrupt, wicked, pernicious practice upon complainant and other men and women in like station who live in or visit Hamilton County.
Defendants, in enforcing privilege law in Tenn. Code Ann. §§ Titles 55 and 65 (chapter 15), motor and other vehicles and carriers, respectively, abrogate the uniform administrative procedures act (“UAPA”) at Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-101 et seq, which law regulates accusations and controversies arising from the for-hire or commercial use of the public roadways, which body of law is civil in its operation, and not criminal, defendants pre-empting operation of that law in exercise of police powers and physical violence ultra vires.
The petition is for damages at law and also for injunctive relief in equity so that federal rights will in future be protected for petitioner’s benefit and also for benefit of all those in like station.
The injunctions proposed in the relief requested part of this complaint are for (1) a command that defendant county obey the federal 4th, 5th and 9th amendments and Tenn. const. Art. 1, sect. 9, warrants, and state law at T.C.A. § 40-7-103, which require a warrant for any crime or offense in the presence of the officer that is not a “public offense” or a “threatened breach of the peace,” and, (2) an order that defendant county recognize state and federal constitutional and statutory limits and restrain employees Garrett and Bennett, in their county uniforms, from acting in personal capacity to injure petitioner again and members of the public by obstructing their free use of the roads in Tennessee if their activities are not under privilege, nor required to be.
This complaint demands they be required to obey the limits of Tenn. Code Ann. §§ Titles 55 and 65 if they have any such authority whatsoever under statute. Today, administration of said laws is promiscuously imposed upon all members of the traveling public as if all enjoyment of ingress and egress rights and other protected interests are privileged, or required to be enjoyed only under privilege of operating or driving a motor vehicle as carrier in the regulated occupation and vocation of driver/operator of a motor vehicle.
Defendants have a longstanding policy and practice of
➤ (1) interfering with interstate and intrastate commerce as well as obstruction of travel and commerce rights of private parties not subject to privilege, and do so on both counts with malice and bad faith, having been put under administrative notice by petitioner as to limits under law as creatures of the state and servants of the public welfare; also,
➤ (2) a custom and usage of general warrants, imposed in “traffic stops” and many other circumstances in Hamilton County, forbidden by longstanding and well-known law.
The fact that proper and timely legal administrative notice has had no effect in putting defendants on awares on Tennessee and federal law makes this petition significant in the sense of its being a defense of the public at large, and the rights and property of its members.
Defendants boldly reject the disabilities in the federally integrated motor vehicle law as to their police powers and regulatory authority, and with malice and bad faith have been heedless of the state and federal constitution guarantees allowing petitioner and others in like station to enjoy by free movement by automobile and unobstructed liberty exercise their God-given, constitutionally guaranteed unalienable and inherent rights as men and women to not be falsely imprisoned and arrested in use of the public way as if under a bill of attainder.
Petitioner asks for temporary, immediate injunction upon Hamilton County and Messrs. Garrett and Bennett in their persons to cease violating the well established law banning general warrants or its functional equivalent pending resolution of this case. He gives notice he intends to ask for permanent injunction upon Hamilton County to prohibit ultra vires enforcement of Tenn. Code Ann. §§ Titles 65 and 55 with respect to the right of private movement and communication and rights exercise the enjoyment of which defendants reject.
This suit demands an order and assignment of a federal master regulating defendant county and other municipal parties upon whom plaintiff intends to serve injunction, so that longstanding abrogation of the rights of the people of Tennessee cease.
Defendants Bennett and Garrett are sued in personal capacity as the wicked deeds of each in arresting complainant or organizing routines of false arrest in the department are outside of law and under coloration of law, they having stepped outside office as deputy and sheriff, respectively, injuring petitioner on their own personal authority and prejudice, arbitrarily and capriciously, for which harm they and their estates are liable personally. He sues Mr. Garrett as sheriff in official capacity; he does not sue defendant Bennett in his official capacity, because he is already under command in that capacity of state and federal law, and it would be redundant to sue him thusly.
Share this post