|
Motion to dismiss (speeding ticket)
Filing this sucker either today or tomorrow.
[name], Sui Juris
[c/o #### Here Road]
[City], [zip]
Michigan Republic
Restricted jurisdiction
By special visitation “special appearance”
to challenge jurisdiction
of the court.
FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF [COUNTY]
In re alleged case:
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Alleged Plaintiff,
vs.
[name],
Alleged Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
)
) (i) Notice to Appear No. [###] SS
Case No. ________________
NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
IN RESTRICTED JURISDICTION,
BY SPECIAL VISITATION ONLY;
Hearing Site: [hearing site]
Date: [Februtober 45, 1776]
Time: [32:30 A.M.]
Dept.: [Dept. N / Div. 135]
__________________________________________________ ___________
TO: HONORABLE JUDGE:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: that on the [Eighteenth] day of the [Eighteenth] month in the year of our lord [One-Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-six], at the hour of [32:30 A.M.], or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, in [Department N /Division 135], of the above entitled court. Accused Citizen [name], will move the court to dismiss with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the agency’s failure to exhaust its administrative remedy as mandated in the state Administrative Procedures Act (Act 306 of 1969), commencing with Section 24.201 of the Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL), thus depriving the accused of procedural due process guaranteed by the Michigan Constitution and the Constitution of the united States.
Dated [Februtober 45, 1776], Respectfully Submitted,
____________________________
Citizen of Michigan
Sui Juris
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
The Accused Citizen [name], appearing specially and not generally, enters the following Points and Authorities in support of this NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS, pertaining to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction in the above captioned case.
1. The accused is a Citizen of Michigan endowed with certain unalienable rights protected by the state constitution and the federal constitution, including due process of law. See Michigan Constitution Article I Section 17 .
2. The accused is being charged with violating the following section of the Michigan Vehicle Code (MVC) (Act 300 of 1949):
MCL §257.627 (3), (10) , commonly known as speeding.
3. The Michigan Vehicle Code §257.627 is to be enforced by The Michigan State Police. MCL §21.1 (also known as ERO 1982-1) states “It is the intent of this order to transfer to the Department of State Police only that statutory authority, including rulemaking authority, that is necessary to effectively perform the highway enforcement functions relating to the motor carrier vehicles moving in commerce upon the public highways of the State of Michigan.”
4. Local law enforcement is deputized as agents of the MSP. Local police shall cooperate with the Commissioner of the Michigan State Police for the prevention and discovery of crimes. See MCL §28.6 (3), (4) .
5. The Commissioner of the Michigan State Police may make rules and regulations necessary to provide for the public safety. See MCL §28.9 .
6. The MVC defines "commissioner" as the Commissioner of the Michigan state police. See MCL §257.8 .
7. The Michigan State Police is an “Agency” of the State of Michigan, and is not exempted from the Administrative Procedures Act as defined in the Michigan Compiled Laws. See MCL §24.203 (2) .
8. The Michigan State Police, through the Commissioner, is required to act in accordance to the Administrative Procedures Act, commencing with Section 24.201 of the Michigan Compiled Laws (Act 306 of 1969).
9. This case is a contested case within the definition of the same as found in MCL §24.203 (3) .
10. The protected right of the accused 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 MCL §24.203 (3).
11. The only provision for judicial review is conditioned upon an exhaustion of all administrative remedies available within an agency. “When a person has exhausted all administrative remedies available within an agency, and is aggrieved by a final decision or order in a contested case, whether such decision or order is affirmative or negative in form, the decision or order is subject to direct review by the courts as provided by law.” See MCL §24.301 .
12. To the best of the accused's knowledge, the Michigan State Police has not offered, scheduled, or conducted the required MCL §24.271 (1) administrative hearing in this matter.
13. The accused has received no written Notice of a pending administrative hearing in this matter from the Michigan State Police, in accordance with MCL §24.271 (2) .
14. The accused has received no written Final Determination from the Michigan State Police in this matter.
15. The accused has reviewed the case file and there is, and can be, no such written Final Determination in the case file, as of [date].
16. 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 Section 24.201 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
17. Where there is no agency determination, the court has no subject-matter jurisdiction.
18. Without subject matter jurisdiction, this court has jurisdiction only to dismiss.
19. The Accused moves this court to dismiss with prejudice on the grounds that plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Dated [Februtober 45, 1776] Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________________
Citizen of Michigan
Sui Juris
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
It is hereby certified under penalty of perjury, that service of this has been made on the [Court Clerk for Court ______] and to the [Prosecuting Attorney for City of _______], [111 Main St, Main, MI, 11111] by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested (CMRRR), on this [Forty-Fifth] Day of the [Eighteenth] Month in the Year Of Our Lord [One-Thousand seven-hundred and seventy-six], submitted to the [Department N/Division 135] clerk.
Dated Februtober 45, 1776
Respectfully Submitted without prejudice,
__________________________________
Citizen of Michigan
Sui-Juris
|
