by David Tulis, Tulis Report
(Sep. 21, 2024) — NASHVILLE, Sept. 18, 2024 — The revenue department program that scams hundreds of thousands of Tennesseans cannot hide even though a state lawyer yanks a shower curtain in front of a witness to prevent a soaking.
Jennifer Lanfair, a revenue official, admits commissioner David “The Guano” Gerregano, a Gov. Bill Lee appointee, reinstates revoked motor vehicle tags entirely on his own. By law, however, “[i]t is unlawful for the commissioner of revenue to reregister any vehicle, the registration of which has been revoked under the authority of this part, unless the written approval of the commissioner of safety is obtained prior to the reregistration” § 55-12-130. Reregistration; approval of commissioner (emphasis added)
She admits in a deposition today that in 2016 the department did not consult with the department of safety in creating EIVS, the “Eye of Sauron” insurance policy surveillance system. This admission shows violation of state law at T.C.A. § 55-12-201 et seq creating the data-search tower also known as the electronic insurance verification system. The two agencies were to have consulted.
Mrs. Lanfair confesses in preparing for deposition in David Jonathan Tulis v. Department of Revenue (DOR), docket no. 23-004, she read the Atwood law. But she didn’t read Part 1 — the main financial responsibility law (TFRL) at T.C.A. § 55-12-101 et seq, telling the honorable intent of the general assembly that limits Sauron wattage. That is because the department of revenue is running a rogue mass surveillance gag stripmining the public, abrogating the main statute.
My suit claims I cannot be denied a registration tag because of a missing key fact: A wreck. In the law, no one is subject to performance until after the hubcap stops pirouetting on the pavement and the echo of the “qualifying accident” quits reverberating off nearby office buildings.
She says the department freely ignores exceptions in Part 1 because DOR doesn’t administer Part 1. Revenue creates meaningless exemptions (car on blocks).
One exception is for “[a]n owner or operator of any vehicle where there is no physical contact with another vehicle or object or person, unless a judgment has been obtained.” In other words, no wreck, no duty.
Other people not subject to duty are those involved in a case where “notarized releases executed by all parties” obviate any TFRL liability.
Numerous questions deal with oppression, denial of right to a hearing before revocation and other corrupt practices are slapped back to my table. Attorney Camille Cline orders the witness to be silent because the question implicates a legal question, not a fact matter.
Read the rest here.