Source: http://fathersunite.org/Legal%20Templates%20and%20Help/Sample_motion_to_dismiss_drivers_license_suspension.html
Timestamp: 2019-12-09 11:16:01
Document Index: 6581031

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 23', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 163', '§ 16', '§ 16']

Motion to Dismiss Drivers Licens
Motion to Dismiss Drivers License Suspension
This sample motion is also very useful for any denial of Due Process which family and district courts seem to do whenever they feel like it (daily) to bury people in the expensive, time consuming and mysterious process of appeals.
This is outright abuse of power and these judges are acting "in their own person" and therefore they are personally liable and literally (and legally) committing treason against the United States of America.
A jury trial is required by the constitution for any denial of property or rights over $20!
DISTRICT COURT DIVISION OF _______________ COUNTY
_______________ county, SS. Docket No. __________________
NOW comes the Defendant, _________NAME________, and moves this Honorable Court to dismiss the charge of Operating After Suspension, pursuant M.G.L. c. 90 § 23, against defendant brought by the Commonwealth for the following reasons:
On or about ___DATE____ the Registry of Motor Vehicles (hereinafter “RMV”) informed the defendant, __________________ (hereinafter “Defendant”), through a computer-generated letter (copy attached), that the RMV would be suspending his driver license with information1, provide by the Department of Revenue Child Support Enforcement Division (hereinafter “DOR”).
In that letter the RMV stated “Once you have cleared your outstanding obligation, you must present the Registry of Motor Vehicles with an official notice from the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, stating that you are in compliance with the payment plan and are eligible or reinstatement”. The RMV insinuated that the Defendant owed child-support with no proof from the DOR.
On _________ day of ______________ 20_____, the defendant sent a letter (copy attached) to the RMV through the United States Postal Service via “Express Mail” informing them that the DOR was placing undue stress and was trying to usurp his due process. I further informed them that to the best of my knowledge I didn’t owe back child support. The defendant further went on to inform the RMV that the defendant had not
1 Carroll v. Gillespie, 14 Mass.App.Ct. at 20-21.
[I]nformation known to be [] sufficiently unreliable or incomplete to support a finding that it was unreasonable to rely upon it without additional information. See Griffin v. Dearborn, 210 Mass. 308, 313 (1911) (where defendant knew that his horse was taken by G's minor son, and did not know whether the son did so, as the son claimed, on order from G, (t)he defendant's immediate prosecution of the son without any precedent investigation" could be found to lack reasonable grounds); Smith v. Eliot Sav. Bank, 355 Mass. at 548, (where defendant bank failed to pursue information as to whereabouts of S, in whose name unauthorized withdrawals were made, and teller identified the plaintiff as forger seven months after brief withdrawal transaction, jury could have found that identification was "so suspect that a 'man of ordinary caution and prudence' would not have relied upon it," quoting from Bacon v. Towne, 4 Cush. at 239.)
been found in contempt of court for owing child-support and
that there was a trial date that was upcoming.
The RMV still suspended his license at the request of the DOR with no other proof than a computer-generated letter.
The Defendant hereby states that the DOR had NO court order stating that Defendant was in the arrears or was he in contempt of court.
According to the DOR, M.G.L. c 119A, § 16, gives them the authority to suspended a individuals business, trade, professional, recreational or motor vehicle license or virtually any other license or registration that a person has legally obtained.
For the DOR and the RMV to implicate and enforce M.G.L. c 119A, § 16, in the manner in which they chose against said defendant, would with no doubt have to violate ones rights under the 5th, 7th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution, along with Articles VII, XIV, XV of the Massachusetts Constitution under PART THE FIRST, A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which are clearly established United States and Massachusetts constitutional rights2.
Although according to the Commonwealth having a license is a privilege, the suspending of a license without a court order or a hearing on an allegation is a clear violation of one’s due process.
The defendant hereby asserts and declares that M.G.L c. 119A, § 163 is unconstitutional for the following reasons; Under the VII Amendment (part of the “Bill of Rights”) of the United States Constitution it states the following;
While Article XV in PART THE FIRST, A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in the Massachusetts Constitution further backs this Amendment by stating the following;
2 Cook v. Sheldon 41 f.3d 73 (2nd Cir. 1994)
[5,6] For this purpose, “[a] right is ‘clearly established’ if it meets one of three tests: (1) it is defined with reasonable clarity; or (2) the Supreme Court or this Circuit has affirmed its existence; or (3) a reasonable defendant would understand form existing law that his acts were unlawful”
3 YICK WO v. HOPKINS, 118 US 356, (1886)
Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust an illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution. [373]
“In all controversies concerning property, and in all suits between two or more persons, except in cases in which it has heretofore been otherways used and practiced, the parties have a right to a trial by jury; and this method of procedure shall be held sacred, unless, in causes arising on the high seas, and such as relate to mariners' wages, the legislature shall hereafter find it necessary to alter it.”
Considering that Defendants child-support is __________ dollars ($______.00) per week, if the defendant was one week in the arrears this would clearly place him past the threshold of the twenty dollars ($20.00) clause of the VII amendment of the United States Constitution.
After a careful examination of the VII amendment and Article XV, no where does it exempt the Commonwealth, oblige or obligor, custodial or non-custodial, husband or wife, male or female or does it make any special provision for any child-support that is allegedly in the arrears but to the contrary it clearly states ALL controversies.
Considering that the DOR and Defendant had two separate opinions on what might have been owed, that without doubt constituted a controversy and for the Commonwealth not to provide a jury trial violated Defendants clearly established constitutional right.
For the RMV to suspend the defendants driver license or any other license by a request from the DOR or any other third party with no court order would violate the defendants due process4 under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United State Constitution.
The Fifth Amendment (part of the “Bill of Rights”) states;
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,... , nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
While the Fourteenth Amendment under section one states;
The RMV Registrar, Kimberly Hinden, along with Commissioner Alan Lebovidge and Deputy Commissioner Rachel
4 PORTER v. SINGLETARY 49 F.3rd 1483 (11th Cir. 1995)
Quoting Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc. 446 U.S. 238, 100 S.Ct. 1610, 64 L.Ed 2nd 182 (1980).
There the Supreme Court Said:
The Due process Claus entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and criminal cases. This requirement of neutrality in adjudicative proceedings safeguards the two central concerns of procedural due process, the prevention of unjustified or mistake deprivations and the promotion of participation and dialogue by affected individual in the decisionmaking process... The neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life, liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the facts or the law... At the same time, it preserves both the appearance and reality of fairness, “generating the feeling, so important to a popular government, that justice has been done,”... by ensuring that no person will be deprive of his interested in the absence of a proceeding in which he may present his case with assurance that the arbiter is not predisposed to find against him. [1488]
C. Madden for the DOR are state actors5, acting under the “color of law” they should have know that suspending the defendant drivers license was an arrestable offense which would cause him a lose of his liberty and then a loss of his property defending these offenses.
Defendant again reiterates that according to the RMV having a drivers license is a “privilege” and with that said, the Fourteenth Amendment further states that;
“... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”
It is clear, obvious and beyond a shadow of a doubt that our legislators knew or should have known that the passing of M.G.L. c 119A, § 16 could and would abridge the “privileges” of the citizens of the United States, a clearly established constitutional right guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment, this egregious law would ultimately usurp one’s due process again guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
While on the subject of the Fourteenth Amendment, Defendant would like to draw this courts attention again to a
5 WALL v. KING 206 F. 2d 878
[4,5] But states can act only through human beings; and it has long been settled that when a state clothes an individual with official authority, and the official commits an abuse of power in the exercise of that authority, his action in the name of the state is state action within the meaning of the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment, even though what he did was not authorized by the laws of the state. [882]
clause in this amendment which states that;
“... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
This clause makes no exception on who shall be exempt from the “ equal protection of the laws.”6, but clearly states that “any person” shall not be denied.
While the Commonwealth is passing laws and erroneously enforcing them through a force of threat, intimidation and coercion7 to protect an oblige, Defendant asks where is the equal protection of the law by the Commonwealth for the obligor to protect him from the oppression of the very government whom he helped to institute?
In Article VII in PART THE FIRST, A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in the Massachusetts Constitution it distinctly made it clear that our government is instituted
6 YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 US 356, (1886)
“These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal law.” [369]
7 Sarvis v. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. 47 Mass.App.Ct. 86 (1999) quoting Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Blake, 417 Mass. 467, cert. denied 513 U.S. 868 (1994);
"Under the MCRA, a `[t]hreat'. . . involves the intentional exertion of pressure to make another fearful or apprehensive of injury or harm. `Intimidation' involves putting in fear for the purpose of compelling or deterring conduct. . . . [c]oerion [is] `the application to another of such force, either physical or moral, as to constrain him to do against his will something he would not otherwise have done.'"
for the Common good and not for any private interest by stating the following;
As Defendant has previously stated, it is apparent that our legislators have taken it upon itself to pass laws that would provide honor, protection, prosperity, profit and safety for a special class of men known as “obliges” through the DOR, these obliges have other aliases such as “females”, “mothers” and “women”, which is a violation of this clearly established constitutional right and the Commonwealth, enforcing these egregious laws through its state actors, is teetering on the edge of treason.
For the Commonwealth to suspend the defendants license and subjecting the defendant to a deprivation of his life, liberty and property through in illegal search and seizure
of his person, houses, papers and possessions without his due process of law would clearly violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article
Fourteen in PART THE FIRST, A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in the Massachusetts Constitution.
These are both clearly established constitutional rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment as follow;
Article Fourteen further guarantees the defendant the same rights as previously mentioned by stating;
With the foregoing said, the defendant again declares
that M.G.L. c 119A, § 16 is unconstitutional and that the aforesaid motion clearly established this. Therefore the Defendant request and prays that this Honorable Court dismiss this action brought forth by the Commonwealth with prejudice and furthermore that this court order the above caption matter dismissed for the insufficiency of the
evidence and the sufficiently unreliable information.
I certify under the penalties of perjury that the aforementioned information are herein true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.
__________, 200______ Respectively Submitted,
________________________, Defendant
I, _______Defendant__________, Defendant, hereby certifies that on ______________________ 200_____, I served the within MOTION TO DISMISS on the District Attorneys Office located at: __________________________________, Massachusetts ________ in the former Hampden County by mailing a copy thereof by delivering in hand also by mailing a copy thereof by First Class and Certified Registered Receipt this _____ Day of _______, 20___.
Date:__________ RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Applicable Statute - Which Would Appear to be an Unconstitutional Law
CHAPTER 119A. CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
Chapter 119A: Section 16 Revocation, suspension, nonissuance or nonrenewal of licenses for failure to provide support
Section 16. (a)(1) For purposes of this section, the following words shall have the following meanings:
""License'', any license, permit, certificate, registration, charter, authority or any other form of permission required by law for the operation or use of property, the conduct of an activity or the carrying on of a trade or business, including, but not limited to, any professional, trade, business, occupational, commercial, recreational or sporting license or permit, driver's license, learner's permit, right to operate a motor vehicle, or certificate of motor vehicle registration.
""Licensing authority'', any department, bureau, authority, division, board, commission, unit or other entity of the commonwealth, any political subdivision or agency thereof, or any city or town of the commonwealth, which issues licenses.
""Final determination of delinquency'', an administrative finding by the IV-D agency that an obligor owes a child support arrearage that is subject to a child support lien under section 6 or has failed to respond to a subpoena, warrant or summons relating to a judicial or administrative proceeding regarding paternity or child support.
(2) Every licensing authority shall collect and maintain certain information, including the name, date of birth, address and social security number, for each applicant for a license and each individual to whom a license is granted or renewed. Every licensing authority shall provide to the IV-D agency the name, date of birth, address, social security number, federal identification number and other information as the IV-D agency may request regarding an applicant for a license or an individual to whom a license has been granted, including requests by electronic data matches. The agencies or entities disclosing information to the IV-D agency under this section shall furnish such information using the method and format required by the IV-D agency. If the agency or entity making disclosure is unable to furnish the information using the method and format so required, such agency or entity shall cooperate with the IV-D agency to determine another method or format by which the information may be furnished.
(b) The IV-D agency may notify in writing an obligor who owes a child support arrearage and is subject to a child support lien pursuant to section 6 of this chapter or an obligor who has failed to comply with a subpoena, warrant or summons relating to a judicial or administrative proceeding regarding paternity or child support(MY COMMEMT you have to be found owing in order to suspend your license, most of the time they just yank it!), that unless the obligor requests, within 30 days of the date of such notice, a hearing before the department, the IV-D agency may issue a final determination of delinquency and, if the IV-D agency issues such final determination, shall notify the licensing authority to suspend, revoke or prohibit issuance or renewal of the license of the obligor. The provisions of this section shall constitute the sole administrative remedy for an obligor to contest a final determination of delinquency and the suspension, revocation, nonissuance or nonrenewal of the obligor's license.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 10 and 11 of chapter 30A, the department shall provide a hearing upon request by the obligor as provided in subsection (b). If the obligor has been notified that he owes a child support arrearage, the obligor must establish at the hearing that (1) no child support arrearage exists, (2) the obligor is not the individual owing the arrearage, or (3) the obligor is complying with a payment plan approved by the IV-D agency. If the obligor has been notified that he has failed to comply with a subpoena, warrant or summons, the obligor must establish at the hearing, with respect to the subpoena, warrant or summons, that he did comply, he was not properly served, or the failure to comply was due to reasonable cause. If, after hearing, the department finds that the obligor owes a child support arrearage and is subject to a child support lien or that the obligor failed to comply with a subpoena, warrant or summons relating to a judicial or administrative proceeding regarding paternity or child support and that the obligor has failed to establish any of the defenses provided herein, the IV-D agency may issue a final determination of child support delinquency and, upon issuance of such final determination, shall notify the licensing authority to suspend, revoke or prohibit issuance or renewal of the obligor's license.
(d) If the obligor signs a payment plan approved by the IV-D agency and thereafter fails to make payments in accordance with such plan and fails to show cause for such failure by requesting a hearing as provided by this section, the IV-D agency may issue a final determination of delinquency and, upon such issuance, shall notify the licensing authority to suspend, revoke or prohibit issuance or renewal of the obligor's license.
(e)(1) Notwithstanding section 14 of chapter 30A, within 45 days of the date of the notice by the licensing authority to the obligor of its action to suspend, revoke or prohibit issuance or renewal of the obligor's license, an individual who contests a final determination of delinquency by the IV-D agency, upon exhaustion of administrative remedies provided herein, may seek judicial review in the court where the child support order was issued, or which has jurisdiction to register the child support order, or which issued the subpoena, warrant or summons; provided, however, that a request for judicial review shall be made by filing a complaint against the IV-D agency and not the licensing authority and shall be accompanied by a copy of the final determination of delinquency of the IV-D agency. Upon receipt of the request for judicial review, the court shall notify the IV-D agency at least 14 days prior to any hearing. Such judicial review shall constitute the exclusive remedy for individuals who contest a final determination of delinquency as adopted or acted upon by the licensing authority under this section; provided, however, that such review shall not limit an individual's right to appeal from the decision of the court.
(2)(A) In the case of an obligor who is subject to a determination of delinquency by the IV-D agency on the basis of a child support arrearage, if the reviewing court finds that no child support arrearage exists, or that the obligor is not the individual owing the arrearage, or that the obligor is complying with a payment plan approved by the IV-D agency, the reviewing court shall order the IV-D agency to immediately notify the licensing authority or authorities to reinstate, issue or renew the license or licenses of the obligor. The court also may order reinstatement, issuance or renewal of a license of such an obligor who is not intentionally unemployed and who is complying with an employment search supervised by the court. In the case of an obligor who is subject to a determination of delinquency by the IV-D agency on the basis of his failure to comply with a subpoena, warrant or summons, if the reviewing court finds with respect to the subpoena, warrant or summons, that the obligor (1) did comply, (2) was not properly served, or (3) failed to comply due to reasonable cause, the reviewing court shall order the IV-D agency to notify the licensing authority to reinstate, issue or renew the obligor's license, (4) any other defenses permitted by a court necessary for adjudication.
(B) The licensing authority shall reinstate, issue or renew the license of the obligor upon receipt of notice from the reviewing court or the IV-D agency if the obligor is otherwise entitled thereto.
(f) If an obligor whose license has been suspended, revoked or prohibited from being issued or renewed thereafter pays his child support arrearage in full, or complies with a payment plan with the IV-D agency, or complies with the subpoena, warrant or summons which was the basis for the final determination of delinquency, the IV-D agency shall notify the licensing authority that it shall reinstate, issue or renew the license of the obligor if the obligor is otherwise entitled thereto.