It’s quite all right for me in the short term that transportation administrative notice has drawn no interest and stirred no policy changes in the jurisdictions that I have placed under it.
By David Tulis / 92.7 NoogaRadio
The chief city and county being served by it have, to all appearances, ceded and acquiesced to its restatement of state and federal law and court rulings. Chattanooga and Hamilton County, Tenn., boldly deny the limits in Tennessee’s shipping and transportation statute, which they apply against people who are neither shippers nor transporters. Yet they offer no rebuttal or correction under notice, and have accepted its rehearsal of the legal landscape for just over a year.
Until a break in the story comes, however, it’s fair to consider the objection raised by attorney Steve and the ignoring of it by cop-chaser Robin Flores that notice is irrelevant, cannot possibly work, doesn’t shift the legal landscape; that courts make law, that common law precedence controls, and that notice is a novelty and silly.
While we’re at it, let’s consider a truly solid objection to transportation administrative notice that theoretically could undermine its prospects.
That of customs and usages in law and culture.
Power of status quo
A custom “is a usage or practice of the people, which, by common adoption and acquiescence and by law and unvarying habit, has become compulsory, and has acquired the force of a law with respect to the place or subject matter to which it relates,” says Black’s Law Dictionary, revised 4th edition. A custom is “a law not written, established by long usage, and he consent of our ancestors. *** Customs result from a long series of actions constantly repeated, which have, by such repetition, and by uninterrupted acquiescence, acquired the force of a tacit and common consent.”
A usage “is a reasonable and lawful public custom in a locality concerning particular transactions which is either known to the parties, or so well established, general, and uniform that they must be presumed to have a acted with reference thereto. *** [A] uniform practice or course of conduct followed in certain lines of business or professions or some procedure or phase thereof. *** Usages cannot be proved by isolated instances, but must be certain, uniform and notorious,” says Black’s.
In other words, policing has operated against private users on the road with such long support of judges that it is inconceivable that any right of private communication of our persons and effects exists any longer. Because police harrass “nonlicensed drivers” so uniformly, there is no way any person can be on the road in car or truck apart from a state permission.
The right of travel no longer exists because of custom and usage of police power against individuals.
Notice untested but stands on good ground
Yes, police, deputies and the high courts accept the ultra vires and abusive use of Tenn Code Ann. § Title 55. But that doesn’t mean they have eviscerated the due process rights at the trial court level that Miracle Workers will be using to defeat policing abuse on the roadways and bring an end to traffic stops altogether against private people.
On the road and at preliminary / evidentiary hearings and at sessions court hearings and in criminal court — we have a distinct advantage. Policy against our rights controls the top and denies appeal on the merits. But in the towns and in the counties, TAN works because the cleansing out of our rights by the judicial classes against us has not been absolute, and much remains by which to resist and reclaim.
Our protections and our power to overturn the status quo lies in the following elements in American jurisprudence.
- The rules of statutory construction which make it very clear in numerous court cases that these rules, if pressed correctly, will secure one’s rights as against a law misapplied
- The rules of evidence allow a defendant to argue his right to travel according to his own theory of the case and to ask dumb questions of the police officer/accuser at either the trial or the sessions court or city court hearing. Two posts develop this line of questioning. And that is what is the fact base of the citation or charge that the person was “driving without a license” or” driving on suspended” or” driving on revoked” or other. Other challenges to subject matter jurisdiction could throw off claims about “driving while distracted” on a cell phone, “driving with tail light out,” “illegal lane change,” “speeding” and others. Thanks to new questions that arise from TAN, we show the accuser is incompetent and operating outside his subject matter jurisdiction.
- The rules of notice have not been abrogated by state policy denying a right of free movement of our persons. I explain these rules in Tennessee here, but across the U.S. the jurisprudence is similar. Notice requires a response of some kind. It requires rebuttal, denial, refutation, or compliance. No one can receive a notice and not respond to it, especially one such as mine that has such huge public interest, affecting every adult in the city and county, and all visitors in some way.
- The claim of our absolute rights as individuals to use the people’s right of way. We are greatly helped by the United States’ most cited court opinion. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906) is a ruling that has not been overturned. It describes the distinction between private and private, between individuals and corporations. State policy against the poor, blacks and everyone else must be overthrown because it conflates the distinction between travel (private) and transportation (corporate, for profit). We have an absolutely right to travel about, exercising our rights and following our private whims and desires. An absolute right because its exercise does not fall under the scope of the statute and does not affect a public interest.