### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Novem ber 5, 2002

Session BASIL MARCEA UX I v. GOVER NOR DO N SUN DQUIST , in his o fficial capacity, ET AL 

### . Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 02-423-1 Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr., Chancellor

No. M2002-01356-COA-R3-CV - Filed December 31, 2002
Appellant fi le d a co mp la in t i n t he Da vi ds on Co un ty Chan cery Court na ming Governor Don Sundquist, all members of the United States Congress representing Tenne ssee, all members of the state legisla ture, all Tenness ee Distr

ict Attorn ey s Gener al, all Te nnessee Sheriff ’s Depa rtments, and others as defenda

nts. The c omplaint a

lleged the numer

ous defe ndants we re guil ty of “ki dnapp ing, extortion, and racket eering” through the application of laws calling for ma ndatory ca

r insurance, and the practice of routine traffic stops. The trial cour t dismissed the complaint finding, inter alia , that Appellan t failed t o state a claim upo n which r

elief ca n be gr anted. We

affirm. Tenn. R. App.P. 3 Appeal as of Right ; Judgme nt of the Cha

ncery Court Affirm

ed; and Remanded
D AV ID R. F ARMER , J., de liver ed th e opi nion o f the

cour t, in w hich W. F RANK C RAWFORD , P.J., W.S., and A LAN E. H IGHERS , J., joined. Basil Marceaux I, Pro Se

. Paul G. Sum mers, A ttorney Gene ral & Reporter, and Richard H. Dunava nt, Assistant Attorney Genera l, for the appelle es, State

of Tenne ssee, et

al. OPINION On February

7, 2002, Appellant filed a complain t in the Da

vidson Coun

ty Chancer y Court. The complain

t name d Govern or Don Sund quist, all m

embers o f the Unit

ed StatesCongre ss representing Tennessee, all members of the state legislature , all Tennessee Distri ct Att or ne ys Genera l, all Tennessee Sheriff’s Departments, and other s as defendants. The complaint alleged the numerous defenda

nts were guilty of “kidna

pping, e xtortion, and racke

teerin g” through the application of laws calling for manda tory car insu rance, and the pr

actice of routine traff

ic stops. Along with the complaint, Appellant filed an affidavit of indigency allowing him to proceed in forma pauper

is . The Officeof the Attorney Genera l and Repo

rter ap peared on behalf of the sta te1 The text is presented, verbat im, from the origi nal motion. -2- government

defenda nts (the A

ppellee s). The r

ecord isdevoid of

evidenc e that the

oth er n amed defenda nts, such as Tenne ssee’s United States Senators and Representatives and members of the “Bar Association,” were ser ved. Appellant filed a motion to amend the complaint, as well as a motion requesting production of documents, o n February 21, 2002. Appellees f iled a response in opposition to both the Appellant’s motion toamend and for production on March 12, 2002. On the same date, Appellees also filed a motion to dismiss. Appellant filed responses to the Appellee’s motionto dismiss, and opposition to motions to amend and for production, on March 22, 2002. The trial court e ntered two orders on April 26, 2002, having hear d oral arguments on the iss ues. The first order overruled Appellant’s motions for production and e xigency writ, and the secondorder g

ranted A ppellee s’ motion to dis miss. Notice of appeal was filed on April 19, 2002. While the Appellant has raised seventeen (17) issues on appeal, only the f ollowing three (3), as resta ted, wer e addre ssed by

the Chanc ery

Court and

are, the refore , proper

ly b efore t

his court : (1) Whether

the all ega tions of the complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, and

whether the claim fell within the court’s jurisdiction? (2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appe llant’s Motion for Production? (3) Whether

the trial court abused its dis cretion in denying

the Appellant’s Motion for

Exigenc y Wr

it? Motion for Production The Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, provide that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any

matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or de fense of the party

seeking discovery

or to the claim or defense of any

other party.”

Tenn. R. Civ. P. 26.02(1). Pursuant to a motion, or upon its own initiative, however, the trial court may limit discovery if the court dete rmines, inter alia , that “the discovery

is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, limitations on the parties’ r esources, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.” Id

. In the pr esent case, A ppell ant req ueste d the p roduc tion of the follo wing: 1
1. All records concerning arr est s made between 12/1/1998 thur 2/20/02 during all r outine tra ffic stops in all counties and cities of Tennessee. I ncluding2 Blacks Law Dictionary defines “ Exigency of a writ” as “[t]he command or imperativeness of a wri t; t he directing part of a writ; the act or performance which it command s.” Blacks Law Dictionary 515 (5 th ed. 1979). 3 Als o pre sen ted verbat im. -3- names and addresses of each defe ndant, Sentences of each, fines levied, phone Numbers, along w ith arre sting of ficers a nd the judg e that did

the ruling s.

a. All information be separated by crimes, with a total of

fines (Dollar value) Accumulative of rulings by judg es, and district attorney s, and defendant lawyers, and defenda nts by c ounties, involved a nd put all in

formatio n into a booklet

form ty pe in 14 point ,ne

ws print. 2. All rec ords of th

e Senate and the H ouse of Tennesse e that ha s to do with voting ( who introduced it and who voted for wha t )for an y la ws (D.U. I ,Dr

ugs, Gun s, citizens in the back s eat, insurance, seat belts, open containers conc erning, getting out of the car, social s ecurity Number s, types of sear ches done at jails, seizer of pr op er ty) co nc er ni ng ci ti ze ns wh il e d ri vi ng a v eh ic le on Te nn es se e h ig hw ay.

a. All infor

mation be separa ted by laws, Ac cumulativ e list by Senator and House members individually and put all information into a booklet form type in 14 point , news print 3. A total dollar figure of the total amount of lawyers f ees reported

concerning (D. U.I, Drugs, Guns, citizens in the back seat, seat beats, open conta iners , seizer of pr op er ty) co nc er ni ng ci ti ze ns wh il e d ri vi ng a v eh ic le on Te nn es se e h ig hw ay.

a. All infor

ma tion be separ

ated by laws, Ac cumulativ e list by firms individua lly and put all information into a booklet form type in 14 point , news print We fail to f

ind that the

trial judg e abused

his discre

tion in den

yin g Appellant’s request for, clearly , “the discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy , limitations on the parties' resources, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation.” Id. Request fo

r “Exigenc

y Writ”

2 In addition to Appellant’s request for pr oduction, he also requested the following of the trial cou rt: 3
1. A ruling to stop the practice of letting any one

profession to dominate

the Senat e or the H ouse of Re

presentative and only

allow 6 senators or 50 Representatives of the House, of one profession on the floor at one time. Will You?4 The court appl ied th e foll owing “f our- f actor t est: ‘(1) t

he thr eat of irreparable harm to pl aint if f i f the i njun cti on is not gra nted; (2 ) the ba lance betwe en this ha rm an d the inj ury that gra nting the in junctio n wou ld inflict on the (con tinued ...) -4- 2 Suspend vo ting rig

hts of all s enatorsand house Representatives who ar e a tt or ne ys and their office be up reelection in 2002. Will You? 3 Force the defe ndants to f

ile a motio n for ea

ch citizen involved t

o remove all records of their illegal conviction . Will You? 5. Suspend lawyers tha

t hold office of the Senator or House of Representa tives of the state of Tennessee. Will You?
6. Enact the Second Thought Act

: This prohibit any law enforc ement officers from de tainin g any citizen in a routine traf fic stop for crimes that aren’t known if they can’t find evidence for any

of the state vehicular

code, they c an’t look.. Will You?
7. Rule that p arties w ith sover eign immu

nity involved i s not following th e guide lines of the U.S. Supreme Court in Knowels v Iow a and ex tended bright line law where the U.S. Supreme Court wouldn’t f

or three ye ars has t

o run for reelection in 2002 or soon as possible. Will You? 8. Suspend voting rights of the defendants until reelected. Will You? 9. Bar the Tennessee Ba

r Association from any

lobby rights for

6 years Will You 10

. Or der all citizens false arrest records to be re moved from all data bases and booklets> Will You?
11. Suspend T.C.A. 55 12 139 for three y ears or until a study c an be done to see the impact on non insured andto rule to s ee if it is constituti onal by making t he poor to pay more for insurance than the rest of the citizens they can’t afford it . By allowing this code to stay in effect at this time . With the closing or cutting back of so many companies in Tennessee, life will be hard to maintain. The poor will be poore r and if they g et caught in a road block withou t insurance they

will get fined , lose there license, has to pay

reinstatement fees. Will You?
12. rule tha

t a ll parties that was citizen arrested under T.C.R.A. by plaintiff to be arrested. The trial court properly

treated Appellant’s request as one for injunctive re lief. Accordingly , after weighing the four factors to be considered when addre ssing such a request, as articulated in South Cent. Tenn. R.R. Auth. v. Harakas , 44 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) 4 ,4 (.. .cont inu ed) defen dan t; (3) the probability that plai ntif f will succeed on the merit s; and ( 4) the publ ic i nteres t.’ ” South Cent . Tenn. R.R. Auth. , 44 S.W.3d at 919 fn. 6. (qu oting R obe rt Ba nks, Jr. & June F. En tman, T enne ssee C ivil Pro ced ure § 4-3(l) (1999)). -5- the trial court denied the motion. We find no error in the trial court’s denial of Appe llant’s request for injunctive relief, agreeing with the trial court that “there is less than a slight cha nce that [Appe

llant’s] c omplaint [c ould] succ eed on the merits, th at there

is no thre at of irr

eparab le harm to [Appellant] and that public interest and interest-balancing considera tions weigh in favor of [Appell ees]” as granti

ng Appe llant the r elief sou ght “would bring law enfo rcemen t and all branches of state government to a ha lt in Tennessee.” Dismissal for

Failure to Sta

te a Claim When this Court reviews the dismissal of a complaint under rule 12.02(6) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, we must take the factua l allegations contained in the complain t as true a nd review the tria

l court' s legal

conclusi ons de novo without af fording those conclusions any pre sumption of correctness. Crews v. Buckman Labs. Int’l., 78 S.W.3d 852, 857 (Tenn. 2002). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12.02(6) admits the truth of all of the relevant and material averments contained in the complaint. E.g., Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co. , 945 S.W.2d 714, 7 16 (Tenn . 1997). Co urts may not dismiss a

complain t for fai lure to sta

te a cla im based upon the perceived strength of a plaintiff's proof, for a motion to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12.02(6) challenges only the legal sufficiency

of the complaint. Crews, 78 S.W.3d at 857. Accordingly , we “must construe the complaint in favor of the plaintiff, acc ept the allegations of fact as true, and deny

the motion u

nless it ap pears th at the pla

intiff ca n establis h no fact s supporting the claim that would warrant relief.” Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tenn. 1999).
Count I of Appellant’s complaint allege s that defendants did “willfully c onspire, premeditate to dis respec t too human rights, privileg es and immu nities guaranteed by

the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States . . . by operating a kidnapping, extortion and racketeering ring . . . .”

Count II a

lleges “Jury Te

mpering and Fixing[,]” as well as “Embezzlement[,]” and “Entrapments[.]”

Count III alleges a “Sovereign immunity and judicial cover up[.]”
While we recognize Appellant’s right to “repr esent[] his spot of ‘We The People[,]’” we cannot ignore the fact that such re presentation requires that Appellant enjoy standing to assert each of his various claims.-6-

This Court recently addr

essed the issue of standing in the case of Petty v. Daimler/Chrysler Corp. , No. W2001-01152-COA-R3-CV, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXIS 191 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2002), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 9, 2002), where we stated:

Courts employ the doctri ne of standing to deter mine whet

her a cl aimant is “proper ly situated t o prose cute the action.” Knierim v. Leatherwood , 542 S.W.2d 806, 808 (Te nn. 197 6). In order to establish standing , a party

must demon strate

three essential elements. Metropolitan Air Research Testing Auth., Inc. v. Metropolitan Gov' t of Nashvi

lle and Davidson County , 842 S.W.2d 611, 615 (Tenn. Ct. App

. 1992); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , [504 U .S. 55 5 (19 92)]. First, the party must demonstr ate that it has suffered an injury which is “distinct and palpable,” Metropolitan Air Research Testing Auth., Inc. , 842 S .W. 2d a t 615, and not conjectural o r hypothet

ical. Lujan, 504 U.S. a t 560. Sec ond, the p arty must establish a causal connection between that injury and the co nduct of which he complain s. Metrop olita n Air Research Testing Auth., Inc. , 842 S.W.2d at 615. Third, it must be lik

ely that a fa vorable de ci si on wi ll re dr es s t ha t i nj ur y. Id . These elementsare indi spensabl e to the plain tiff's c ase, and

must be suppor

ted by the same degree of evidence at each stage

of litigation as other matters on which plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Lujan , 50 4 U.S. at 560. The party, a nd not the merits of the case, is the major focus of a determination of standing. Metropolitan Air Research Testing Auth., Inc. [, 842 S.W.2d at 615].
Petty, 2002 Tenn. App. LEXI S 191 at *5-6.
Further,
[e]ven though a

statute isunconstit

utional, on ly those who have a right to raise a question of its unc onstitution ality may invoke the

aid of the courts to

have it judicially set aside, and the c onstitutionality of a legislative act is open to attack by those persons whose rights are affected thereby . Before a law can be assailed

by any person on the ground that it is unconstitutional, he must show that he has an int erest in the que stion in tha

t the enf orceme nt of the la

w would be

an infringement

on his rights. Assailants must therefore show the applicabi lity of the statute to the

m and that they are thereby injuriously affected

.
Parks v. Alexander , 608 S.W.2d 881, 885 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980) (emphasis added) (quoting 16 Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law § 188 (1979)).-7-

In the present case , Appellant has failed to demonstrate that Appellees, through a ny of the alleged wrongs, have c aused Appellant a “distinct and palpable” injury , or that application of the Tennessee Financial Responsibility Act, which Appellant claims is unconstitutional, has “injuriously affected” him. As such, Appellant lacks standing as to all claims presente d, and the trial court was not in error in granting A ppellees’ motion to dismiss.
The judgment of the

trial cou rt is, ther efore, affirme

d. Costs of t

his appea l are taxe d to the Appellant, Basil Marceaux, for which execution, if necessa ry, may issue.

___________________________________ DAVID R. FARMER, JUDGE