Cop-chasing Chattanooga attorney Robin Flores is suing a police officer and city of Chattanooga in a case that seeks relief for a humiliated black motorist but also upholds the white legal political establishment’s abuse of the traveling public.
By David Tulis / 92.7 NoogaRadio
In his suit Fredrico Wolfe versus city of Chattanooga, Officer Benjamin Piazza et al, Mr. Flores is making effectively a F$4 million dollar claim but asking for only F$3 million. And that is because his complaint in circuit court refuses to take advantage of a change in the legal landscape in Chattanooga.
The change in landscape has been made by transportation administrative notice, generously ignored by the overseers of local municipal corporations to their own peril and heightened risk for police officers and deputies — all for the possible benefit of plaintiffs such as Mr. Wolfe.
The million dollars left on the table by the complaint would have come to the bruised traveling car user if Mr. Flores were to argue that the traffic arrest of Mr. Wolfe was done outside the scope of the statute and, even worse, in bad faith.
Transportation administrative notice is created to remove the good faith defense from officers and their employers who use Tenn. Code Ann. § Title 55, the motor and other vehicles code, to harass private non-commercial users of the road.
Police in Chattanooga, without challenge for decades, use the transportation code to obtain pretended subject matter jurisdiction over travelers in private cars, on private business — people not involved in transportation. Transportation is the use of vehicles in the for-profit moving of goods or people for hire.
Mr. Wolfe does not appear to be in that class of people. When he was arrested March 10 on Lee Highway at about 3:30 in the morning, he was a private user. Ben Piazza, the violent and profane city employee who beat Mr. Wolfe next to his car, did not establish subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Wolfe by determining, at the very first moment of the arrest, whether Mr. Wolfe had a bill of lading or a customer list which is required for a commercial user.
Title 55 covers commercial use of the road and is the means by which the state of Tennessee regulates transportation. Mr. Wolfe, based on press reports, is not a person involved in transportation.
All police officers Chattanooga are aware of the distinction between travel and transportation. The city was apprised of that distinction in the black letter law and in the Shannon’s Code origin of the statue by transportation administrative notice as of February 20, 2018. They are aware of the notice either actually or by imputation, pursuant to the doctrine of notice.
The statute, by all reasonable rules of construction, Title 55 applies to shippers. This limitation of scope complies with the controlling federal law, U.S.C. Title 49, the federal rule for interstate transportation. The notice, prepared by this writer, is a remedy in defense of the people’s rights. Against what? Against the courts in Tennessee that reject the constitutional protections for communications, self-propulsion and locomotion in the people’s exercise of their rights by means of personal movement from Point A to Point B, with one’s private papers, effects and purposes (whether that be whim or necessity).
All officers in Chattanooga know this distinction, and so are advised by transportation administrative notice to be careful about the rights of the people and to respect these rights and not offend the people in their exercise.
Deferring to Dred Scott
In overlooking this remedy as part of his cause, Mr Flores is maintaining the slave-era authority and executive power granted by custom to police departments and to those parties charged implicitly with social management of lower classes — these lower sorts being the poor, African-Americans, immigrants, troublemakers and dissenters (unions, protesters, noncompliant journalists, organizers et al).
A defense of police powers as against African-Americans such as Mr. wolfe is found in Dred Scott v Sandford (1857), penned by Justice Roger Taney, who objects to the idea of blacks being on the road apart from written permission and consent by the owner.
Malice claimed in lawsuit
Mr. Flores, however, to his credit, argues “actual malice,” a “joint venture” combination among officers; he alleges a policy, lack of training and an evil culture in the police department as he makes Mr. Fredrico’s claims against the city.
He says Mr. Wolfe was “operating his car” and “operated his car lawfully, and without any basis for any police officer to have any lawful reason to conduct a traffic stop” and that Mr. Piazza “conducted a traffic stop *** without any lawful justification.”
This statement effectively argues that Title 55 did not apply to the arrest/stop; Mr. Flores makes one step in the right direction when he can make a dozen. The word “operate” is a commercial act, so while Mr. Flores does not say Mr. Wolfe “operated a motor vehicle,” he’s slipshod in using commercial terminology for part of his narrative.
The additional points in the complaint should have pointed out that the city is operating its department by training and custom outside the scope of Title 55, and that the department, the city and the officer knew about the limits of the statute, but pursued the exercise of authority without falling within its scope of lawful grant of power. Such invoking of TAN would have added between 10 and 20 lines to the complaint that runs 30 pages, and given to Mr. Wolfe a more muscular and indignant claim.
In neglecting to take advantage of the change in legal affairs in the city, Mr. Wolfe (served, as it were, by his attorney) is granting the status quo ante a claim upon him and neglecting the new protection of his rights afforded by the notice project.
The TAN project is racial reconciliation and reparations ministry intended to help, first of all, blacks who suffer most egregiously from police harassment under color of law. Half of black people have driver licenses revoked, suspended, expired or “none.” More than half travel without insurance mandated for commercial users of the road. Their population, thanks to structural malice of city police and sheriff’s departments around the state, is most victimized by the paramilitary and human trafficking holdover from Jim Crow.
Oppression is crime, not just tort
Officer Piazza’s main tort is not the beating of Mr. Wolfe, nor his assault by the aiming of a weapon in what is an administrative offense under administrative law (Title 55 is administrative law, regulatory law). It is wilful and intentional and knowing oppression of Mr. Wolfe in violation of the state oppression statute at Tenn. Code Ann. 49-16-403, official oppression.
Oppression occurs when an officer “[i]ntentionally 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 *** [i]ntentionally 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.”
Mr. Wolfe’s case is a civil case, but he is the victim of a crime, and should file a criminal complaint with Sheriff Jim Hammond against Mr. Piazza and his police cohorts. This arrest was a crime, and no one can be uncertain about it, given that transportation administrative notice is secure and for its first full year stands unrebutted by any of the parties subject to it..