People's Legal Front

E MAIL ADDRESS:


Court Name:

State:

Plaintiff:

Plaintiff Attorney,

Defendant:

Defendant Attorney,

Case Number:

Motion Title:

Trial de Novo is used to appeal adminstrative decisions. In this particular case the decision of the corrupt Department of Revenue. This form can be used to appeal any adminstrative Final Decision.

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.
COMES NOW the petitioner, Lee Allen Martin, pursuant to 536.085, 302.311 and 302.535 RSMo requesting Judicial Review for the following reasons, and brought pursuant to Mo. S. Ct. Rule 67.06 and Mo. S. Ct. Rule 100.01.

This is the first fact be sure to state you are a resident.

The plaintiff is a resident of the County of Howell duly organized under the auspices of the State of Missouri. Further, Plaintiff was a candidate for Circuit Court Clerk and Recorder of Deeds for the County of Howell for the general election of 3<SUP>rd</SUP> day of November 1998.

This is the second Fact.

Plaintiff, Lee Allen Martin, was a defendant in Howell County Circuit Court Case # CR495-338MX resulting in the conviction and subsequent revocation of driving privilege that is now before the Honorable Court.

This is the third fact.

Plaintiff was arrested on March 11, 1995 in Howell County for the Charge of driving while revoked which did issue the aforementioned case Cr495-338MX.

This is the fourth fact.

The decision of the State of Missouri in the drivers license of Lee Allen Martin is in violation to the Constitution of the United States pursuant to the 5 Th Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause as applied to the State in the <I>14 Th Amendment</I>, U.S. v. Bell 90 F 3rd 318, State of Missouri v. Mayo 915 SW 2nd 758, Mason v Director of Revenue 929 SW 2nd 266, U.S. v Imngren 914 F Supp. 1326, reviewable pursuant to 536.140.2(1) RSMo.

This is the fifth fact.

The final decision of the State of Missouri in this case is in contrast to the RSMo specifically 302.010 (3) which defines conviction as the date of final judgment affirming the conviction shall be the date determining the beginning of any license suspension or revocation under section 302.304. The State and this court is very aware that the final judgment affirming the decision of this trial court was issued on 2-9-98 by the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern Division in Appeal # 21211-1, and if the Director of Revenue wants to start another revocation of a drivers license that has not been applied for, or issued, it must start on 2-9-98; and therefore, end on 2-9-99, reviewable pursuant to 536.140.2 (2), (4), (6), and (7) RSMo.

This is the sixth fact.

The State of Missouri can not revoke what it has not issued. No privilege has been applied for and therefore the State having not granted privilege to drive to Mr. Martin is in no way in the capacity to revoke a privilege that does not exist, reviewable pursuant to 536.140.2 (5), (6), (7) RSMo.

This is the seventh fact.

The State of Missouri has held the defendant’s driving privilege revoked since August 13, 1992 and has never reinstated driving privilege of Mr. Martin. To hold a non existent license up to multiple revocations stemming from the same incident is a violation of double jeopardy clause, reviewable pursuant to 536.140.2 (1) RSMo.

This is the eight fact.

The Director of Revenue at no time notified the petitioner of any action on a non-existent driver’s license in violation to RSMo 536.067 and therefore reviewable pursuant to RSMo 536.140.2(5).

Prayer for Relief:
<P>Wherefore, the petitioner notes that the reviewing court is limited in any action of judicial review of a final administrative decision pursuant Chapters 536 and 302 of the RSMo, and so noted the petitioner asks that the Court; Find director’s final decision be unconstitutional and beyond the scope of the statutes of the State of Missouri; and,Order the agency to reinstate the petitioner’s driving privilege; or,In alternative, pursuant to RSMo 536.140.5 the Court modify the final decision of the Director of Revenue to 2-9-99 as a reinstatement date; and grant any other such relief that this court may feel it is constitutionally empowered to do.

Respectfully Submitted,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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.

NOTICE OF HEARING

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:
_______________________________

EMail

Home

HOME ABOUT US HISTORY LAWS MOTIONS LINKS INTERNET SEARCH