[idknow]

Originally Posted by TheBlackTruth

<font color=darkblue face=verdana>For the last few weeks, I've been researching and discussing the ramifications of the Administrative Procedures Act as codified by our states' legislatures. From that research and those discussions, i've come up with the following 'flow' for an argument to dismiss a traffic case using California's Administrative Procedures Act as the foundation. You'll see it below. One thing that is good about this, is that, in theory, with some modifcation, this should be effective in any state-agency-regulated case.

<hr>

1. 
   <li >The accused is a Citizen of California endowed with certain unalienable rights protected by the state constitution and the federal constitution, including, but not limited to the right to travel freely and to not be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law. See California Constitution Art. 1, Sec. 7.
   
   <li >The accused is being charged with allegedly violating the following California Vehicle Code(s) (CVC):
   
   1. 
      <li >CVCXXXX, commonly known as driving while ethnic.
      
      <li >CVCXXXX, commonly known as driving while poorly dressed.
      
   
   <li >The Vehicle Code is to be enforced by The California Highway Patrol. SeeCVC §2400.
   
   <li >The "commissioner" is the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol. See CVC §265.
   
   
   
   <li >The California Highway Patrol, through the commissioner, is required to act in accordance to the Administrative Procedures Act, commencing with Section 11370 of the California Government Code (CGC). See CVC §2402.
   
   <li >The California Highway Patrol is an *Agency* within the meaning of CGC §11405.30.
   
   <li >Every contested case is required to be heard in an administrative proceeding. See
   
   CGC §11512.
   
   <li >An agency evidentiary hearing for determination of facts is required for formulation and issuance of the decision in a contested case. See
   
   CGC §§11410.10, 11410.60(b)(2), 11512.
   
   
   
   <li >The accused protected right to due process of law through an agency determination of rights, duties and privileges is being denied by the failure of the State to comply with the mandate of CGC §11410.10.
   
   <li >The only provision for judicial review is conditioned upon a decision or determination pursuant to an agency adjudicative proceeding. See CGC §11425.50(b).
   
   <li >The State has not exhausted its administrative remedy because there has been no agency hearing or determination pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, commencing with Section 11370 of the California Government Code.
   
   <li >There is no final agency determination.
   
   <li >Where there is no agency determination, the Court has no subject-matter jurisdiction.
2. Without subject matter jurisdiction, this court has no choice but to dismiss.
   

[/color]

==
Excellent threading there, very cool.