Name of State
Plaintiff Plaintiff Attorney Defendant Defendant Attorney Case Number
Title of Motion
Put your Jurisdiction statement in here. Below is an example of what I have submitted as a jurisdiction statement. You should consult your statutes, and rules of court for your particular jurisdiction. WARNING Jurisdiction can be a problem if the courts do not want to grant it. This particular portion is important to getting your cause heard. The plaintiff, complaining of the defendants, respectfully shows to this Court and alleges:
Start by stating the facts. State the simplest first. You need to show that the body you are requesting records from is governmental body. You can see how I worded this below. Your case may be different, you may be litigating a county, municipality, or school board. State the facts. Upon information and belief, that at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant the Department of Revenue for the State of Missouri, hereinafter referred to as Department, was and still is an Executive Agency of the State of Missouri, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Missouri.
Fact #2 is that all governmental bodies in the State of Missouri are required to appoint a Custodian of Record. You should know that person as that is to whom you sent your request and who denied you access to the record that you seek. This person should be the defendant. Upon information and belief, that at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Custodian of Records for the Department of Revenue for the State of Missouri, hereinafter referred to as Custodian, was and still is employed by the Department as Director of the Department of Revenue as well as the Custodian of Records for the Department.
Fact #3 is that the employees run the governmental body. Upon information and belief, that at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendant Department of Revenue, its agents, servants and employees operated, maintained and controlled the Department.
Fact #4 is that the Custodian of Records is employed by the governmental body to do the job of maintaining public records. In this particular case the custodian is also the director. Upon information and belief, that at all times hereinafter mentioned, and on or prior to the 21<sup>st</sup> day of March, 2001 Director Carol Russell Fischer, was employed by the defendant, Department of Revenue, as Custodian of Records for the Department of Revenue.
Fact#5 is that you followed the statutes of the state in trying to resolve the problem prior to litigation and have been left no other recourse. Note the dates and the statute numbers. That notice of formal request for public documents pursuant to RSMo 610.023 was mailed to defendant, Carol Russell Fischer, on the 24<sup>th</sup> day of March, 2001, stating the nature of the request and documents wished to be viewed and/or reproduced in electronic format.
Fact #6 is that the custodian did receive a request and did deny that request, attach the request and the denial to this complaint. That notice from Custodian, Carol Russell Fischer, concerning the above mentioned letter dated 24<sup>th</sup> day of March, 2001 Titled Official Sunshine Request, was answered by the Custodian in response dated April 5, 2001, effectively denying plaintiff’s request to view and receive computer formatted copies of public documents, Defendant's Response was received in April 7, 2001 at plaintiff’s address 7050 County Road 2810, West Plains, Missouri 65775.
Fact #7 is that no other recourse is left but to file this action in the court of jurisdiction, in this case the County of Cole. That having been effectively denied access to public documents, and having complied with RSMo 610.023, plaintiff is left this recourse before the Circuit Court of the County of Cole, where the said documents reside, pursuant to 610.023.4.
Fact #8 is that the filing is timely. Note that there are time limits on requesting public documents. That not more than 30 days have elapsed since the formal request, pursuant to 610.023, and the denial of said request, pursuant to 610.023.4, by the defendants.
Fact #9 is further stating that the outside limit for the request was in the time specified by the statutes. That this action is commenced within one year after the cause of action arose.
Fact #10 is that you are a resident of the State of Missouri. Out of State citizens are not granted this privilege to file this Complaint. That at all times the Plaintiff has been a resident of the State of Missouri, Residing at 7050 County Road 2810 West Plains Missouri 65775.
The plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs marked 1 through 10 with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.
Allegation #1 is taken from the response of the custodian, and if proved would show that the defendant is in violation of the statutes. Your case may be different, so only liberally follow what I have done. That the Custodian's Response dated April 5, 2001 admits that the requested documents are a public record,compiled and maintained with taxpayer funds for the efficient running of said office.
Allegation #2 once again is taken from the custodian response. If proven would show that the defendant did violate the statutes. Your case may be different. The Driver's License Application is maintained in electronic format. Director is imposed with the duty to maintain applications pursuant to 302.120 RSMo.
Allegation #3 is taken from the response of the custodian/defendant and if proven would show the defendant in violation of the statutes. That the Response dated April 5, 2001 misrepresents the nature of the requested "Policy and Procedures" are not maintained in electronic format. The Documents are created on a word processor.
Allegation #4 is very common for agencies. They freely misinterpret the statutes in their favor. If proven this would show the defendant is in violation of the statues. That the Response dated April 5, 2001 misrepresents the statutes of the State of Missouri in that Department of Revenue Personal are not required to take an OATH of office.
Allegation #5 deals with the response of the custodian and the misrepresentation of law. It further states that even providing for the exception that has been proffered these are still public records and open for all. If proven would show a purposeful act and a clear violation of the statutes. That the Response dated April 5, 2001 asserts that RSMo 32.091 Precludes access to the documents is wholly unfounded and states points of law with no bases. The Sunshine Law of the State does not provide for such exclusion as it pertains to Title 18 Section 2721 (b) 5 to acquire statistical data and no public information is to be disclosed. Further the Custodian of said record may redact such portions that are closed pursuant to Title 18 and release all public information.
Allegation #6 is a based on the clear meaning of the statutes. The denial to view public records is in violation of the Sunshine law.
Allegation #7 is that the defendant has admitted that the documents are present and have not made them available, which if proven would show the defendant in violation of the statutes. That the defendant’s admission that the requested public document is in computer format but has not made same available to the public in said format and is contrary to RSMo 610.029, and 610.026.
The Prayer for relief must be included. Tell the court what you want the court to do. Ask for cost, attorney fees, sanctions, and the records. Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants in that this honorable Court so Order the defendant, Department of Revenue, to produce a computer formatted copy of the Application for a Driver's License and the computer format for the Policy and Procedures for Department Personal, and access to public applications for driver's license on file with the Department, at the costs prescribed in RSMo 610.026 the cost of copying and the time it takes for department personnel to copy said document. Further pursuant to 610.027.3 RSMo that all costs and attorney’s fees are granted to the plaintiff in the amount of $45,500.00 dollars, and relief pursuant to RSMo 527.080. Plaintiff also requests that a copy of the policy and procedures for the Department of Revenue Personal be presented to the plaintiff in the standard computer format with the fee to be set by the statutes of the State of Missouri.
Respectfully Submitted,
I hereby certify this pleading was served upon all attorneys of record for each of the parties to this action and All parties not represented by counsel, in the following manner: ___ By delivering a copy to him/her; ___ By leaving a copy at his/her office with the clerk; ___ By leaving a copy at his/her office with an attorney associated with him/her; ___ By mailing a copy to him/her, as prescribed by law; ___ By faxing a copy to him/her.
The foregoing pleading will be called for hearing before the court on at 1 pm or as soon thereafter as petitioner may be heard. So noticed:
_______________________________
HOME
ABOUT US
HISTORY
LAWS
MOTIONS
LINKS
INTERNET SEARCH