NoSSN - David Tulis vs. Tennessee Dept. of Safety

David Tulis vs. Tennessee Dept. of Safety
November 15, 2000

November 14, 2000
Dear friend,

Below is a transcript of my hearing in Nashville in my attempts to renew a
driver's license without an SSN.

You can see for yourself that I am someone who truly needs God's grace in
seeking to overturn an ungodly oppression.

Some of the issues touched on here include: contract law, recission of
contract, social security, and acceptance of recission, administrative
trials review.

Recently I told you that I had lost the case by missing a deadline.
However, I discovered I had not made that mistake, after all. An appeal
notice has been filed.

Thank you for your interest in this matter, and for your prayers.

The transcript below is not certified by court reporter Kathryn Cox. Only
her paper copy is. (Alterations can be made by others in an electronic
text.)

If you have questions about my biblical understanding of social security,
please ask for my affidavit entered in this case.

David Jonathan Tulis

--------------------------------------------------------

IN THE CHANCERY COURT FOR THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DAVIDSON COUNTY, PART I
DAVID JONATHAN TULIS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. 00-792-I
)
)
STATE OF TENNESSEE )
DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, )
MIKE GREEN, COMMISSIONER, )
)
Defendant. )
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

October 6, 2000

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff: Pro se

For the Defendant: Mr. Michael Meyer
Assistant Attorney General
Enforcement Division
425 Fifth Avenue, North
Nashville, TN 37243

Reported By:
Kathryn M. Cox

1 (The aforementioned cause came on to be

2 heard on October 6, 2000, beginning at approximately

3 9:25 a.m., before the Honorable Irvin H.

4 Kilcrease, Jr., Chancellor, when the following

5 proceedings were had, to wit:)

6

7 THE COURT: You may proceed,

8 Mr. Tulis.

9 MR. TULIS: I'm David Jonathan Tulis.

10 Your Honor, on length of the citations, do you want the

11 cite or just the name of the case if I've already

12 mentioned it in the motion?

13 THE COURT: If the case is mentioned

14 in your motion, you don't need to cite any case that

15 you've already mentioned.

16 MR. TULIS: The case at hand,

17 Your Honor, is being decided against me mistakenly,

18 because the evidence I presented is not being

19 considered. I've filed two motions. The first deals

20 narrowly with the Exhibit A, which is my affidavit of

21 revocation and rescission of which you have a copy.

22 The second brings to focus the fact that parts of the

23 testimony are being ignored. This testimony about my

24 1996 rescission of contract is not contradicted by

25 other testimony and must be considered as true. The

2

1 evidence relates to my constitutional claim.

2 In Richardson v. Tennessee Board of

3 Dentistry, Judge Penny White noted that the

4 constitutional issues don't have to be raised in an

5 administrative hearing by challenging the

6 constitutional application of the statute. And she

7 says that the importance of correctly resolving a

8 constitutional issue suggests that the issue should not

9 be foreclosed by procedural technicalities. Now, I

10 mention that because there should be no real barrier to

11 considering the documentary evidence of my oral

12 testimony of my own rescission of contract. And I ask

13 the Court to consider this evidence, which was timely

14 submitted with my brief.

15 And, also, the Court needs to consider

16 my unrebutted testimony as true to reach the

17 constitutional issues that I am presenting. In my

18 motion, I cite some of the cases that point to the fact

19 that is well settled with testimony which is neither

20 contradicted or impeached or discredited by other

21 testimony must be accepted as true. And that rule is

22 especially strong when the testimony comes from a

23 witness called by the opposition, which was the case in

24 this administrative hearing. The Court claimed -- both

25 Courts claimed in the memorandum that testimony

3

1 ultimately established that petitioner does have a

2 social security number. Well, that testimony must have

3 been mine, in some way interpreted.

4 Much has been made in this case of the

5 fact that the company I work for -- what it does with

6 my old social security number. My testimony about the

7 actions of this company do not and, I don't think,

8 cannot impeach or discredit my other testimony about

9 the rescission of contract in 1996. To imply that the

10 company's actions against me somehow mysteriously

11 rescinds my rescission of contract is not reaching any

12 fact, but is making a conclusion that's mistaken. For

13 one reason, it forgets that I'm not God. I cannot --

14 it assumes that I can control what other people do with

15 that revoked social security account number; I cannot.

16 Even as a religious objector and one who has acted in

17 rescission of a contract, I cannot object to the

18 internal operation of a government or a government

19 agent.

20 In the Bowen v. Roy case I've cited in

21 my brief, the Supreme Court agrees, saying that Roy,

22 the father in that case, could no more object to the

23 use of his daughter's social security number by a

24 government than he could object to the size and the

25 color of the filing cabinets in the government office.

4

1 I can't dictate the conduct of the government's

2 internal procedures, see in my brief at 18 and 30.

3 The rescission in 1996 required me to

4 give notice and to object to the company's reporting as

5 valid, a social security account number that was no

6 longer mine or associated with me. And these documents

7 which are here dealing with the company are part of the

8 transcript, page 85 to 87, by reference, since I did

9 testify about this action, this protracted series of

10 demands, notices, letters, and meetings. But the

11 dispute with the company as a matter of testimony has

12 not been controverted; it did occur. I have done

13 everything legally required, short of litigation, for

14 which I reserve the right to pursue.

15 The wrong that I suffered at their

16 hands -- at its hands has no legal bearing on the

17 validity and the result of my rescission of contract,

18 which is a settled matter and which cannot be opened by

19 the respondent. Your Honor, the respondent in this

20 case has my old social security number on file, and

21 it's also given to them on page 6 of my rescission,

22 which was entered as an exhibit; they have the number.

23 In the interest of judicial efficiency

24 and saving the parties time and expense and in light of

25 Bowen v. Roy and also Leahy v. The District of

5

1 Columbia, which I cite 833 F.2d 1046, which points the

2 way of obtaining a settlement, I ask the Court to

3 settle this conflict right now and order the respondent

4 to use an old number and not demand of me in bad faith

5 that I violate my religious conscience and that I

6 present as valid a social security number that is not

7 mine by virtue of rescission. This is the remedy in

8 this case. It needs to be ordered as a result of my

9 motions. It would satisfy the commissioner of safety

10 and be the least restrictive means of dealing with my

11 first amendment claim.

12 THE COURT: Did the Social Security

13 Administration reply to your request to rescind your

14 social security number?

15 MR. TULIS: If I might answer a

16 slightly different question.

17 THE COURT: No. I don't know a

18 different question; I just want that one.

19 MR. TULIS: I did not attempt to

20 rescind the number; the number cannot be rescinded,

21 Your Honor. A contract can be rescinded. The number

22 is simply the evidence of a contract that existed prior

23 to --

24 THE COURT: So the answer to my

25 question is no, you have not.

6

1 MR. TULIS: I did not receive

2 correspondence, no rebuttal and no refusal; that is

3 correct.

4 THE COURT: All right. That's what I

5 need.

6 MR. TULIS: And I was not required to

7 obtain an answer. In the rescission of contract, there

8 are two options for the party who receives the

9 rescission document; and that is to reject, deny,

10 rebut, and claim otherwise or to accept it. There are

11 two ways that rescission of contract can be accepted;

12 one is by accepting it by letter or other means, and

13 the other is to stay silent, and that would be

14 acquiescence. It would be described as acquiescence by

15 default, which is what occurred.

16 My brief gave details of my initial

17 filing of the document that you have, of the fact that

18 there was no response. Twice, I gave extension to

19 reply and rebut and refuse. These invitations to make

20 clear what I was doing were not answered. Now, that

21 implies under contract law, acceptance, acquiescence by

22 default; it was not contested. And now the federal

23 government, which is not involved in this case, might

24 have the opportunity to say --

25 MR. MEYER: Well, hold on, Mr. Tulis,

7

1 you can't do that.

2 MR. TULIS: Well, as I mentioned in

3 the oral arguments earlier, that is not an option for

4 them under the Doctrine of Laches, which specifically

5 says if they sit on their rights and do not claim their

6 rights, they could waive them.

7 THE COURT: Let me ask you this, what

8 evidence are you asking this Court to reconsider or to

9 consider that the Court has not considered in prior

10 hearings? Or not only this Court, but the Department

11 of Safety, I think it is.

12 MR. TULIS: Yes, sir; that's correct,

13 the Department of Safety. Well, I did not enter this

14 document in the trial to demand my driver's license

15 renewal because I had good reasons not to. I believe

16 it was a mistake; I should have entered all the

17 evidence that I had available. The reason I did not

18 enter it is because I concluded or I believed that my

19 oral testimony would be sufficient to establish a fact.

20 If I entered the document, I opened

21 myself to the State saying, "Well, that's not valid.

22 Look, he didn't do the right thing; he forgot to do

23 this and such and such." And then I would have a

24 different fight on my hands, which would be to -- is to

25 try to keep them off of it. Since the matter is

8

1 closed, it's not disputed; it did not require

2 litigation on my part to do this. Again, it was not

3 rescission of a number, Your Honor; it was the

4 rescission of a contract. The contract was the thing

5 that got me into social security by my parents, apart

6 from my willingness and knowledge, when I was about one

7 year old.

8 THE COURT: This document for renewal

9 that you hold in your hand, I take it it's a document

10 for renewal of your driver's license; is that it?

11 MR. TULIS: This is the exhibit that

12 came in with my brief in this matter as an attachment.

13 And when I read your memorandum, I thought, well, it

14 was not looked at at all as a legal document complete

15 with -- this is a certified copy.

16 THE COURT: Oh, you just assumed that

17 I didn't see it; is that --

18 MR. TULIS: Well, it just looked like

19 -- it looked like, initially, that it hadn't been

20 considered as something to prove my testimony as true.

21 It was just -- you know, it's entered as a corollary to

22 my testimony as having committed or enacted rescission

23 of contract. And it also looked like that the lower

24 Court and this Court somehow thought that what I

25 testified about having filed this action in 1996 was

9

1 not true or not valid. And that is what I'm asking,

2 that my testimony be considered truthful since it has

3 not been rebutted; no rebuttal testimony was made by

4 anyone at the trial to say that I hadn't done this.

5 THE COURT: Well, you understand that

6 in your case, the case before this Court, that this

7 Court sits as an appellate court, and the Department of

8 Safety determines credibility of the witness. In other

9 words, under the law, the Department of Safety would

10 determine in its own mind whether you were telling the

11 truth or not telling the truth.

12 I cannot, under the law, weigh the

13 evidence in administrative appeal. I have to take the

14 facts as found by the Department of Safety. And if

15 there is evidence in the record which is substantial

16 material to support that decision, I cannot substitute

17 my judgment for the department. I have to sign off and

18 confirm that decision, and then, of course, you have a

19 right to appeal to the Court of Appeals. But that's --

20 this is not a trial court under the Administrative

21 Procedures Act; I'm an appellate court.

22 MR. TULIS: I understand.

23 THE COURT: All right.

24 MR. TULIS: But, nonetheless, there

25 seems to be a constitutional issue, which I'm raising,

10

1 which is not being addressed by the Court below. I did

2 bring into the administrative trial my constitutional

3 claim. I did not enter all the evidence that I had,

4 such as the rescission. And, also, because I'm acting

5 in persona propria and I do not have an officer of the

6 court to represent me or even to act as elbow counsel,

7 I did not enter sufficient testimony about my

8 rescission.

9 But it's my belief, Your Honor, that

10 the transcript, though it is somewhat scarce in details

11 because I didn't go on and on in my -- when it was my

12 turn to testify, when I called myself, as it were, I

13 could have given details. But even though that -- that

14 was a mistake. However, I believe that the record is

15 sufficient to allow a finding that, in fact, I am

16 telling the truth and that I have not perjured myself

17 in saying religious objector on the driver's license

18 renewal blank. That's true. That true answer has to

19 be accepted by the Department of Safety without

20 continuing bad faith demands that I violate my

21 constitutionally protected religious freedoms and enter

22 into a covenant that I cannot do.

23 The remedy needs to be, I believe,

24 under Bowen v. Roy and Leahy v. The District of

25 Columbia, that they take the number that they already

11

1 have. What more do they want? If they don't grant it

2 to me now, it is a continuing demand of form over

3 substance. How far do I have to go? What more do they

4 want from me? They had the number. I just cannot

5 present it as a valid number; it's not valid. If they

6 want to use it; that's fine. If they want to use

7 numbers that are the dates of birth of

8 Commissioner Green's children, they can use that. He

9 can pick any number he wants; I don't object.

10 I have no control over the number that

11 they have on the record. I have no -- it's not my

12 concern. However, I cannot present that number as

13 valid and mine. I can say it's a matter of record that

14 it was mine; indeed, it was prior to 1996. I gave that

15 number left, right, and so on. But with rescission of

16 contract -- remember, not the number, but the

17 contract -- that broke me and severed me from that

18 connection with the Social Security Administration and

19 the Federal Government. I cannot give that number now,

20 except as a matter of historical interest, perhaps.

21 But they are wanting on the form the valid social

22 security number.

23 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Meyer.

24 MR. TULIS: Which I can't give.

25 THE COURT: All right.

12

1 MR. MEYER: As Your Honor has already

2 pointed out, this is an appeal under the Administrative

3 Procedures Act. The facts are made before the

4 commissioner and reviewed in this court. Now, in

5 looking at this, the commissioner is not suggesting and

6 has not suggested that Mr. Tulis lacks veracity or

7 anything like that. There is no -- certainly no intent

8 to have attacked his character or truthfulness in this

9 matter.

10 By way of an aside, taking even what

11 he says is true, that he did try, that he sent these

12 letters and received no response, the commissioner's

13 position has been, and as the Court has noted, it would

14 not be legally sufficient in any event. There's been

15 no citation to any regulations of the Department of

16 Treasury or anywhere else which would indicate this

17 would be a valid rescission under federal law. And one

18 claiming to have made that, of course, would have the

19 burden of proving not only factually, but legally that

20 that indeed occurred.

21 Beyond that, the Court has already

22 made the decision as to whether there is substantial

23 evidence to support the commissioner's decision below,

24 whether there was statutory authority. As the Court

25 noted, this is a statute of general application, does

13

1 not violate the first amendment rights based on the

2 Court of Criminal Appeals' decision, which is cited in

3 the Court's memorandum. Nothing has been brought

4 before the Court since that time to cast any doubt on

5 the validity of the Court of Criminal Appeals' holding,

6 its persuasiveness, or anything to show the Court why

7 it should not present it here.

8 The commissioner submits that on those

9 grounds, the motions should be denied. And if

10 Mr. Tulis feels it necessary, it would be the time to

11 take it before the Court of Appeals.

12 One other point on the business about

13 the numbers out there -- the numbers in this document,

14 that document -- the commissioner, under statute, has

15 the authority to prescribe the way information is

16 received in terms of a driver's license. There's an

17 examiner -- I mean, just the practical reality of

18 considering what's needed to issue a license. If a

19 piece of information is over in one document over here,

20 it's not brought before the commissioner in the proper

21 form. To somehow say if it's over here, pick it up in

22 this document as opposed to on the application would

23 just create havoc for the entire system.

24 THE COURT: Mr. Tulis, you may make

25 your rebuttal argument based on what the Assistant

14

1 Attorney General has stated. You may not add anything,

2 but you may address his remarks.

3 MR. TULIS: I will try to focus my

4 response to his rebuttal. He is mistaken to say,

5 Your Honor, that rescission of a social security

6 contract requires a certificate, which is what he said

7 last time. And he's wrong, because there is no

8 statutory way to escape the social security covenant or

9 contract. It is not in the statute; therefore, there

10 are no fair regulations which say, such and such must

11 happen, you follow this protocol.

12 It is not statutory; however, there is

13 for every remedy -- for every tort, every wrong, a

14 remedy. And the remedy that I took was rescission of

15 contract. And I object to the attack on the rescission

16 itself, saying it's not valid, it didn't take place,

17 and so on. The commissioner does not have standing to

18 attack it; he is not a party to it. He is not a party

19 to the creation of that social security account, nor to

20 the rescission in 1996. He has no standing; he has no

21 privity of contract to say anything about it. The

22 rescission action is a closed issue, as I said, and he

23 should be estopped from these theoretical forays to say

24 that the rescission did not take place. My testimony

25 is clear and is unrebutted.

15

1 On the point of having to have some

2 kind of a written response from the Treasury Department

3 or the Department of Social Security Administration,

4 that, again, is a claim that's presented without any

5 legal basis. The rescission of contract is accepted if

6 the party of receipt remains silent. If there is no

7 objection or rebuttal, there is acceptance under the

8 law of presumption. And, as part of that action, I

9 cited U.S. Code, Title 5, 566(d), that says, If a claim

10 to jurisdiction is challenged and not rebutted, the

11 claimant, which would be me, has presumption. And

12 there has been no response since then, and I count that

13 as a benefit to me.

14 My rescission at law, which is defined

15 as one that's done without the aid of the Court, was

16 enacted for a valid reason, fraud -- that's the wrong

17 that I was trying to escape, as I was a victim, as I

18 discerned it in 1996 -- was done in a timely way. I

19 was of the majority, and I was acting sui juris. I was

20 not in default. There was nothing to prevent me from

21 filing a rescission of contract action, and it was not

22 contested.

23 The consideration was restored, as

24 much as was possible. And, in fact, there's no real

25 consideration I ever received from social security,

16

1 except the number, which has not been used for

2 relations with the Social Security Administration. I

3 have not applied to become eligible; all this is, is

4 just an account that takes money from me and alleges

5 that it's available for me later. And I have waived

6 the benefits and rights of consideration. And I've

7 waived the return of consideration.

8 Your Honor, a quick resolution of this

9 case lies not in bringing up my rescission in this way

10 and not allowing them to, but it lies in a compromise;

11 direction of Leahy and Bowen v. Roy.

12 I understand that the commissioner

13 must, for matters of practical and ease of operations

14 of his department, require material to be given to him

15 on a certain form, and that was that little rectangular

16 piece of paper which came to me in the mail. And I

17 truthfully said -- it says, "Is there a change in any

18 of these things?" And one change was a social security

19 number. If this were prior to 1996 and I'd gotten that

20 tag, I would have given it. But since there was a

21 change, I noted down, religious objector.

22 And since that time, I've been willing

23 to give them the number. They've had it for three

24 months. It's in their records, and I don't control

25 that. But I cannot give it to them as something that

17

1 is valid and something that is mine, because I fear

2 that if I do, someone could say I have lied, that I

3 have sought to obtain a benefit from the number that I

4 have separated myself from, having separated myself

5 from the contract which created that number.

6 And I have been acting in good faith,

7 Your Honor. I've tried to have the record clear. I've

8 tried to be careful, and that's why I didn't enter the

9 rescission earlier. But it is a part of the record by

10 my testimony, and it has not been rebutted by other

11 testimony. So I ask you, please, to grant my motions

12 and to consider clearing the docket of this case.

13 Thank you, sir.

14 THE COURT. All right. As the Court

15 stated earlier, this matter came before this Court

16 pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. And the

17 Court, in reviewing this case, which is an appeal from

18 the Tennessee Department of Safety, reviewed this case

19 pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act 4-5-322.

20 And having done that, the Court entered an opinion in
21 this case. And the opinion in the case involved a

22 finding that there was material and substantial

23 evidence in the record to support the commissioner's

24 decision to deny the petitioner here a driver's license

25 because the petitioner refused to fill out an

18

1 application containing his social security number.

2 The petitioner is now before the Court

3 on a motion for the Court to consider evidence. It

4 appears to the Court that evidence that the petitioner

5 requested the Court to consider is a form prepared by

6 him and, supposedly, sent to the Social Security

7 Administration declining the social security number and

8 any benefits associated with the social security

9 system.

10 The Court is of the opinion that its

11 earlier opinion in this case that the Court consider

12 the entire record made before the Department of Safety;

13 and, therefore, the Court is of the opinion that the

14 petitioner's motion to consider evidence, the evidence,

15 the matters about which he complains today, have

16 already been considered if those matters were in the

17 record. And for that reason, the Court is of the

18 opinion that the petitioner's motion to consider

19 evidence in the case is not well taken; therefore, it

20 is denied. Assistant Attorney General Meyer should

21 prepare an order to that effect. And, Mr. Tulis, you

22 have a right to appeal in accordance with the rules of

23 court.

24 MR. TULIS: Could I ask a question,

25 please?

19

1 THE COURT: Yes, sir.

2 MR. TULIS: You have the authority,

3 Your Honor, to ask the commissioner to consider further

4 evidence. Would you exercise that authority and ask

5 the commissioner to take further testimony from me or

6 look at my actual rescission as a way of granting me

7 relief and of obtaining a remedy? If the record is

8 corrupted because it's not complete, you have the

9 authority to bring relief by ordering the commissioner

10 to get the details.

11 THE COURT: I do have the authority to

12 remand matters to the commission for further -- for

13 hearing. In this case, I do not find that the Court

14 should do that, because the evidence about which the

15 petitioner complains apparently was available for the

16 petitioner to present to the commissioner at that time,

17 and the petitioner chose either omission or made a

18 decision that that evidence was not necessary. And to

19 go back now and let you go back before the commission

20 to bolster your case certainly would be improper and

21 not warranted by the law under the Administrative

22 Procedures Act. So that request is denied.

23 MR. MEYER: Thank you, Your Honor.

24 (Proceedings concluded at

25 9:52 a.m.)

20

1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

2 STATE OF TENNESSEE )

3 COUNTY OF RUTHERFORD )

4 I, Kathryn M. Cox, Court Reporter, with

5 offices in Nashville, Tennessee, hereby certify that I

6 reported the foregoing proceedings at the time and

7 place set forth in the caption thereof; that the

8 proceedings were stenographically reported by me and

9 that the foregoing proceedings constitute a true and

10 correct transcript of said proceedings to the best of

11 my ability.

12 I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not related to

13 any of the parties named herein, nor their counsel, and

14 have no interest, financial or otherwise, in the

15 outcome or events of this action.

16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed

17 my official signature and seal of office this 7th day

18 of November, 2000.

19

20

21
KATHRYN M. COX, COURT
22 REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC
FOR THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
23 AT LARGE

24 My Commission Expires:

25 July 1, 2003

"The lust for power, for dominating others, inflames the heart more than any other passion" -- Tacitus

DISCLAIMER: The data on this website is the collaborative experience, contributions, and research of various websites, legal books, tax documents, researchers, associates, attorneys, CPA's, etc. and does not constitute legal advice. The primary purpose of this site is education. We do not advocate any specific course of action. What you do with this information and any course of action you decide to take, if any, is entirely your responsibility.

]