Comes now the Plaintiff, Lee Allen Martin, and does offer these Suggestions in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss.

1. Defendant has accepted the Petition for Declaratory Judgment to be sufficient since the filing of the Petition on May 17, 2001. The allegation that the Petition is insufficient is baseless and is an Abuse of Process designed to delay the interest of justice.

2. The defendant misrepresents the Official Sunshine Request of March 24, 2001 in that the defendant claims only the applications on file were asked to be viewed. This is incorrect as the Official Sunshine Request of March 24, 2001 has been attached to the defendants Motion to Dismiss, and the Official Request does speak for itself, Plaintiff points out that Requests #2, #3 and #6 all dealing with the Policy and Procedures of the defendant department have specific requests for viewing of the documents. Plaintiff has filed a Finding and has been accepted by the court to determine whether providing for viewing via discovery is compliance with the Sunshine Law.

3. Defendant relies upon 610.029.1 that defendant is only "encouraged" to provide electronic documents. Defendant fails to further note that this section deals solely with "electronic services" and not public records. Public Records as defined in 610.010.6 is "...any record written or electronically stored...". 610.011 calls for the liberal construction of the law to be public records. The statutes are unambiguous and are not in conflict. The provision cited by the defendant in 610.029.1 deal with the obligation of the defendant department concerning electronic service not electronic records. The defendant department may not have all records in its possession in electronic format, but it is "encouraged" to put them in electronic format. Further they are strongly encouraged to provide electronic service to the public for access to these public records. Defendant has shown to this court the intention to subvert the clear meaning of Chapter 610, and has shown the propensity to continue to keep public records closed from the public. The plaintiff has the right to request these records to be made available to him. If the records are in electronic format they are still public records under the definition of 610.010.6 and are to be disclosed and provide to the requesting citizen of the State of Missouri at the earliest possible time.

4. Defendant relies on 32.090 and 32.091 as a prohibition to the viewing of driver's license applications. The defendant suggestions are not on point in that 32.090.2 states: "Except as otherwise provided by law, all records of the department of revenue are public records and shall be made available to the public according to procedures established by the department." Further 610.024 provides the requirements of Public Governmental Bodies when dealing with exempt material. Defendant has not taken to avail themselves of this provision. The denial carte blanc by the defendant is a violation of the sunshine law.

5. The defendant has not incorporated the response of the defendant custodian for records dated April 5 2001 in response to the Plaintiff March 24, 2001 610 request. (attachment A). The Provision of Chapter 610 is such that if the public governmental body does make the requested records available there is no need for such a letter; however, pursuant to 610.023.4 "if a request for access is denied, the custodian shall provide, upon request, a written statement of the grounds for such denial..." The defendant did provide this written denial on the 5th day of April 2001 and it was incorporated in the Petition for Declaratory Judgment filed on the 17th day of May 2001. It should be noted that the defendant's attachment of the Petition for Declaratory Judgment Arising out of RSMo 610" is incomplete as it does not have the attachment of said response of April 5, 2001. The response of April 5, 2001 does speak for itself. It does not provide for the viewing of any of the requested documents. It was not provided within 72 hours as required by 610.023. The Response of April 5, 2001 in fact improperly denies the existence of a driver's license application. Denies that the Requested Policy and Procedures are in electronic format. Denies that the defendant department has any Oath of Office for Department of Revenue Personnel.
6. RSMo 610.027.3 calls for the proving of a purposeful act. Plaintiff having brought the Petition within the provisions of Chapter 610 may prove that the defendant purposefully violated the provisions of 610.010 to 610.026. Further, the legislature provided 610.027.5 in which the public government body may avail itself. At no time did the defendant take to obtain a formal opinion of the attorney general.

STATEING A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED

To bring a claim pursuant to Chapter 610 RSMo plaintiff is required to be a citizen of the state of Missouri, 610.027.1. The defendant is required to be a public governmental body, 610.027.2, under the definition of 610.010.4, and a denial of access to a public governmental record as defined by 610.010.6. The petition for declaratory judgment does state these criteria. The plaintiff's only recourse pursuant to 610.027.1 was to file the petition in the county in which the public governmental body has its principal place of business. Plaintiff has met these requirements provided by Chapter 610 of the RSMo. Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted.

SANCTIONS

The misrepresentations of the defendant counsel of the content of the Defendant's Attachment #1 is unconsionable. The misstatements as to request for viewing policy and procedures of the defendant department could only be made in an attempt to misinform the honorable court in violation of the following:

1. Missouri Supreme Court Rule 4-3.3(a)(2): "A lawyer shall not knowingly: ... fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;... (4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures."
2. Mo.S.Ct. Rule 4-3.3 provides that "... an assertion purporting to be on the lawyer's knowledge,...may properly be made only when the lawyer knows the assertion is true or believes it to be true on the basis of a reasonably diligent inquiry."
3. Pursuant to Mo.S.Ct. Rule 55.03(b) the filing of Defendant Motion to Dismiss and Supporting Suggestions the party and attorney certified that to the best of the persons, knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances is not maintained for improper purpose and are reasonable."

The Professional Rules of Conduct is clear. The Actions of misrepresenting the clear statement of the Attachment #1 before the court is a violation of the Attorney's Oath and Missouri Supreme Court Rule. Due diligence upon the Defendant to know what Defendant Attachment actually says is required, and false representations of the clear wording of the Attachment #1 allows for Sanctions.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. The Plaintiff must ask the court find that a claim upon which relief can be granted has been met.
2. The Plaintiff asks the Court to make a Conclusion of Law as to the filing of Misleading Legal Argument on the part of the defendant counsel, Mo.S.Ct. Rule 4-3.3.
3. The Plaintiff asks the Court to make a Conclusion of Law as to the clear meaning of RSMo 610.010.6 as it defines a "Public Record".
4. The Plaintiff asks the Court to make a Conclusion of Law as to the clear meaning of RSMo 610.029.1 as it applies to "Electronic Service".
5. The Plaintiff asks the Court to make a Conclusion of Law that the Driver's License Application required pursuant 302.120 RSMo are a public record.
6. The Plaintiff asks the Court to make a finding of fact that defendant did not make the requested Driver's License Application available pursuant to Chapter 610 RSMo.
7. The Plaintiff asks the Court to make a finding of fact that the Defendant pleading Motion to Dismiss and Supporting Suggestions is a knowingly false representation of the contents of Attachment #1, Official Sunshine Request of March 24, 2001.
8. The Plaintiff asks the Court to make a finding of fact that the defendant Motion to Dismiss and Supporting Suggestions is in violation of Mo.S.Ct Rule 55.03(b).
9. The Plaintiff asks that Sanctions be imposed upon the filing attorney #43941. Further, in way of sanctions the Plaintiff request that all requests for discovery be honored at the earliest possible date. That the Honorable Court have the offending attorney pay to the plaintiff $1,500.00 pursuant to Mo.S.Ct. Rule 55.03(b)(2)(B).

Attachment #A

Respectfully Submitted

Lee Allen Martin
7050 County Road 2810
West Plains
Missouri 65775

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 them.
[ ] By leaving a copy at their office with the clerk.
[ ] By leaving a copy at them office with an attorney associated with them.
[ ] By mailing a copy to them as prescribed by law.
[ ] By faxing a copy to them.
______________day of __________________, ______

So certified: _____________________________

Lee Allen Martin