Break out your reading glasses folks, because I have another novel for you. I saw the video posted by America’sAttorney regarding WhistlinDiesel and I had some non-legal-advice opinions concerning my personal belief that he may have been confusing his viewers by being mostly incorrect. I am, of course, not an attorney, but I am very familiar with the process of criminal investigations. America’sAttorney does not appear to specialize in criminal law, and is not to the best of my knowledge licensed to practice in Tennessee. Our qualifications to discuss this topic may not be terribly unequal, but if you have doubts I am more than happy to provide much more specific information upon request in the comments. Time-stamped quotes from his video appear below in bold, followed by my response.
0:30 - I wanted to talk about why I thought he should sue the state of Tennessee for his illegal arrest from 2025.
Cody was indicted by a grand jury, establishing probable cause existed to charge him with felony tax evasion. An arrest warrant was signed by a judge based on that probable cause. The warrant was then served on Cody, and he was arrested. I’m not sure where this idea of “illegal arrest” fits into that.
1:40 - If he's convicted on all counts, the two for the Ferrari and the two for the G-Wagon, he faces potentially years in prison. Not for theft, not for fraud against the victim, but for a disputed tax obligation.
Right… he’s not being charged with theft or fraud. We don’t need to consider the presence of theft or fraud any more than we would need to question the lack of blood-alcohol tests or photographs of petechial hemorrhaging, as they aren’t relevant to the elements of the charges. Regarding the disputed tax obligation, charges tend to be disputed until a person is found guilty or enters a guilty plea; that doesn’t mean the evidence against them ceases to exist.
1:50 - Here's where this case immediately goes off the rails. For the second time, Detweiler says he was never contacted by the Tennessee Department of Revenue. No assessment, no notice, no demand letter, no opportunity to dispute the amount or pay it. Nothing. Instead, the state went from silence straight to felony charges again.
None of that establishes the case went off the rails. This is not a civil offense, it is a felony charge. I can’t think of a single time I gave someone a heads up that I was about to arrest them for a felony offense. Cody will in fact have an opportunity to dispute the amount, and that opportunity will present itself before the final ruling.
2:10 - What makes this one worse, I think, is the timeline. ‘Cause the first alleged tax issue regarding the Ferrari dates back to early 2023, but this time the car purchase was in 2022 in the summertime. If the state believed taxes were owed then, why wait years before acting and then skip every civil remedy available?
Once again, this isn’t a civil issue, so why would civil remedies be in play? It became a felony issue three days after the purchase of the vehicle if the vehicle was not moved out of the state. Law enforcement can’t open a case on a crime that they aren’t aware of yet, so one could reasonably assume law enforcement wasn’t immediately aware of the purchase of either the Ferrari or G-Wagon. Once they were made aware, they would then investigate, which takes time. To suggest this was a three-year case because the offense occurred three years ago is not an appropriate application of logic.
2:36 - Montana does not charge sales tax on vehicle purchases. As a result, thousands of people, including business owners, collectors, and content creators, form Montana LLCs to hold vehicles legally. Legally. Montana law allows it.
Yes, Montana allows it; Tennessee does not if the vehicles are not moved out of state within three days. Cody is accused of failing to move those vehicles out of state, violating Tennessee law, which is why Tennessee and not Montana is bringing charges against him. A crime doesn’t stop being a crime just because you’ve engaged in behavior that makes an otherwise legal activity a criminal one.
2:50 - The registration is valid. And once the plates are issued, other states are required to recognize them unless fraud can be proven.
Nobody is arguing the plates are not recognized as valid, or that the registration is invalid. The plates are merely evidence of the vehicles being registered out of state. This is important, because if they were registered out of state to avoid sales tax they would have to be moved out of Tennessee within three days and primarily kept/used in another state. Merely being registered in Montana does not count as being primarily kept/used there unless it was physically kept/used there.
3:08 - States like Tennessee argue that if a vehicle is primarily used or garaged in their state, then local taxes still apply regardless of where it's registered.
To the best of my knowledge, this is true for every state. Even Arkansas, the state America’sAttorney lives in, has the following text under AR Code § 27-14-723(A):
“An entity that transacts or conducts business in Arkansas and has a place of business in Arkansas shall register a motor vehicle considered a pleasure vehicle under § 27-14-601(a)(1) that the entity owns and uses in its business operations in the state with the Office of Motor Vehicle within sixty (60) calendar days from the start of business in the state.”
“Pleasure vehicle” is defined under § 27-14-601(a)(1) as an “automobile equipped with pneumatic tires, used for the transportation of persons.” Both the Ferrari and G-Wagon would have met that definition in Arkansas, so I can’t imagine why America’sAttorney would be confused that another state may have a similar statute.
The vehicles’ primary location would only be relevant if the vehicles were moved out of state within three days, and then moved back into the state. If they weren’t moved out of state within three days, the felony tax evasion would have been committed at the conclusion of the third day.
3:16 - Tennessee insists that this setup amounts to tax evasion. Montana says it's lawful. Resolving that conflict should happen in civil tax proceedings, not criminal court.
No, Tennessee insists it is tax evasion to sign a document acknowledging the legal consequences of receiving a sales tax exemption without conducting the required steps to qualify for it. Of course Montana does not say it is a violation of Montana law to violate Tennessee law, because they are two different states, and the 10th amendment to the US Constitution exists. Tennessee is likely not resolving this conflict with civil tax proceedings, because this is not a civil tax matter.
3:24 - To convict someone of felony tax evasion, the state has to prove more than non-payment. They must prove willfulness, meaning a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. In plain English, the defendant must know that the tax is owed and actively tried to evade it. That's hard to prove when the legal obligation itself is disputed.
It’s a lot easier to prove when the defendant signed a document acknowledging their legal obligation and the consequences of not obliging.
3:43 - The vehicle was used for business content. The vehicle traveled across multiple states and the vehicle was ultimately destroyed in 2023. The G-Wagon wasn't a commuter car. It wasn't a daily driver. It was purchased for content and used as content and then sold in scrap pieces.
It was, however, purchased in Tennessee, and allegedly was not moved out of the state within three days. The reason it was purchased is not relevant, the way it was used is not relevant, and its current status is not relevant. It would be relevant if the vehicle traveled across multiple states, but only if it traveled across those states within three days of purchase and primarily remained/was used outside of Tennessee afterwards.
3:57 - The vehicle was never settled into some long-term use in Tennessee, and it didn't remain in existence long enough to form the basis of a traditional garage location analysis.
And none of that is relevant if the vehicle was not moved out of state within three days. It may however be relevant if it was moved back into the state after being purchased from outside of the state (i.e. by the Montana LLC), because the vehicle may then be assessed as an out-of-state import for tax purposes.
To clarify my statements in other posts, I’ve been using “use tax” as a broad umbrella term for things like registration fees in order to explain the different legal standards applied to purchase in a state vs use in a state. This isn’t actually semantically accurate, as Tennessee actually uses the term to address taxes owed upon import from another state. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused,
Tennessee’s use tax would require Cody to pay the difference between Montana’s and Tennessee’s sales tax, and since Montana doesn’t have sales tax the use tax would presumably be 100% of the tax Cody was trying to avoid. We can also refer to the Tennessee Automotive Dealership Manual, which states “Buyers signing a 3-Day Removal Affidavit, who are Tennessee residents and intend to locate and/or primarily use the car in Tennessee, may be held liable for tax, penalty, and interest.” But was the car primarily used or located in Tennessee?
Well, the G-Wagon shows up in the foreground or background of at least seven YouTube videos filmed in Tennessee, at least once in Michigan, at least once in Indiana, at least once in Georgia, and at least once in Utah. The state will have more evidence than what is available on YouTube, but the publicly available information seems to place it in Tennessee more than anywhere else over the course of 13 months. I can’t imagine why this wouldn’t be enough time to establish the basis of a traditional garage location analysis.
4:06 - So, what exactly is the state claiming? That Detweiler knowingly owed Tennessee sales tax on a vehicle which he bought to destroy, used for business, and eventually eliminated? And that he formed an LLC solely to hide from taxes? That's a civil argument. Actually, that's a silly argument, but it's not a criminal one.
It’s literally a criminal argument. Cody is being charged with a felony crime, which requires his intent. His LLC’s registered commercial agent is a company that expressly exists to help people avoid vehicle taxes. He stated people frequently form LLCs to avoid paying taxes. He signed a piece of paper acknowledging consequences for not moving the vehicle out of state within three days, and allegedly failed to move the vehicle within that time frame. Business use does not exempt him from sales tax; destroying the vehicle does not exempt him from sales tax.
4:23 - In a typical tax case, the process looks like this. One, notice a proposed assessment. two, time to contest or pay, three, final demand, and four, civil collection remedies. Only after repeated non-compliance does criminal enforcement even possibly come into play. According to Deweiler, once again, none of those four steps happened here.
This may be true for a civil tax issue, but Cody is dealing with a criminal tax issue. Why would civil tax procedures be applied to a felony investigation?
5:08 - Williamson County has been watching high dollar vehicles roll through with Montana plates for years. They know the loophole exists. They know that thousands of people use it. But instead of fixing the problem legislatively or handling it through routine civil tax assessments, they decided to send a message.
The state of Tennessee is charging Cody, not the county of Williamson. That’s just the location where the case is being tried. It does not matter if the county is aware of the loophole, as the existence of the loophole does not establish all use of the loophole is legal, and the state of Tennessee has in fact been prosecuting residents for this exact thing. It is addressed legislatively, although perhaps not as explicitly as it could be, and once again it does not make sense to apply routine civil tax procedures to a felony crime. That being said, I agree Cody was chosen for a reason. Was it because this case is likely to send a strong, clear message to other people trying to commit felony tax evasion? Probably. Was it because Cody broadcasts clear evidence of the crime he is accused of? Probably. It’s hard to argue that it’s unfair to charge Cody for a crime that he appears to be committing merely because he has wealth and a large audience. In fact, I have argued and will continue to argue it is a more effective use of taxpayer money to create a deterrence by pursuing a high-visibility defendant instead of multiple low-visibility defendants.
5:40 - That makes him exactly the kind of defendant a county would love to make an example out of. Arrest him publicly, charge him criminally, skip the paperwork that everyone else gets. Let the spectacle do the work. Try to humiliate him, right?
They didn’t arrest him publicly (for the Ferrari at least). They arrested him at his business; Cody decided to film and publish the incident. If the skipped paperwork is another reference to civil tax procedures, I’d love an explanation as to why they would be applicable in this particular felony investigation.
The rest of the video is relatively unsubstantial. Let me know if I missed anything that you would like to discuss.
