LAWS MOTIONS LINKSIN THE 31ST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR
THE STATE OF MISSOURI, COUNTY OF GREENE
Lee Allen Martin, plaintiff )
Pro Se )
V ) Case #: 198CC4528
Brenda Cirtin )
Custodian of Records )
City of Springfield )
Robert Sommers, City Attorney )
REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S ANSWER
Comes now, Lee Allen Martin, a resident of the State of Missouri, pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.25, and states that the ANSWER provided on the 6th day of April 1999 to the Plaintiff should be viewed in the light the Defendant has stated in Cooper v. State 818 S.W. 2nd 653:
WILLIAM COOPER v. STATE MISSOURI 818 S.W.2d 653
The test for the sufficiency of the petition for declaratory judgment is not whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for, but whether he is entitled to a declaration of rights or status on the facts pleaded. Nations v. Ramsey, 387 S.W.2d 276, 279 (Mo. App. 1965). In reviewing for sufficiency, a court must construe the petition favorably to the plaintiff and accept his allegations as true. J.H. Fichman Co., Inc. v. City of Kansas City, 800 S.W.2d 24, 27 (Mo. App. 1990). In order to maintain a declaratory judgment action the pleader must set forth three requisite elements: a justiciable controversy, a legally protectible interest, and a question ripe for judicial determination. King Louie, 735 S.W.2d at 38. Justiciability contemplates a real, substantial, presently existing controversy admitting of specific relief. City of Jackson v. Heritage Sav. and Loan Ass'n, 639 S.W.2d 142, 144 (Mo. App. 1982). A legally protectible interest involves a pecuniary or personal interest directly in issue or jeopardy, which is subject to some consequential relief, immediate or prospective. Id. Ripeness requires the declaration sought to present a question appropriate and ready for judicial determination. Id.
Plaintiff contends that the 3 elements to which a declaratory Judgment may be brought are present and admitted to by the defendant in the Answers provided to the Plaintiff on the 6th day of April 1999. The three points are:
Justiciable Controversy as defined by Blacks Law Dictionary is: "Controversy in which a present and fixed claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it; rights must be declared upon existing state of facts and not upon state of facts that may or may not arise in future. A question as may properly come before a tribunal for decision. Courts will only consider a "justiciable " controversy, as distinguished from a hypothetical difference or dispute or one that is academic or moot. Term refers to real and substantial controversy which is appropriate for judicial determination, as distinguished from dispute or difference of contingent, hypothetical or abstract character."
Legally Protected Interest: Access to Public Records are legally protected pursuant to Chapter 610 RSMo.
Question Ripe for Judicial Determination: The Question is ripe for Judicial Determination as to whether a public governmental body can assert charges to view or have assess to public records. In this case the defendant has demanded 2,000.00 dollars in which to pay public employees to perform their job.
Defendant in her Answer has denied that plaintiff was ever denied access to the public record in question. Defendant did not state at anytime that the plaintiff was allowed to view or receive the in-question public record. Plaintiff did in fact upon receiving defendant's Answer go to the City Clerks' Office and did take to request access to the public record in question. To which one Mr. Wright of the City Attorney's Office did deny any and all access to the public record in question. For the defendant to continue to maintain the plaintiff has not denied access to a public record is unconscionable and does border on perjury.
The defendant alleges that the plaintiff's petition fails to state a cause of action, yet the defendant fails to tell the court or the plaintiff how Plaintiff's amended petition is deficient.
The defendant in her Answer to paragraph 10 of the amended petition alleges that plaintiff has failed to supply a complete copy of the letter prepared by Mr. Yendes of the City Attorneys office, and that enclosures were attached which do not rightfully belong with said document. It should be noted that the defendant never produced any other form of the said letter and further in the body of the Answer acknowledges that the attachment is Attachment #3 which is a page from an Attorney General Publication.
Wherefore, the Plaintiff has met the requirements for Declaratory Judgment as set down in the Authority presented by the defendant. All parties agree that the Police Department for the City Of Springfield is a public governmental body. All parties agree that the Standard Operating Guidelines for the Springfield Police Department is a public record. All parties agree that the plaintiff has not yet been provided with the record in electronic format. The plaintiff has not been allowed to view the public record. The plaintiff must request that this honorable court issue an order compelling the defendant to produce said documents for public inspection, and provide the plaintiff with a copy of the Springfield Police Department Standard Operating Guidelines in electronic format.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lee Allen Martin
309 N. Jefferson, Suite 220
Springfield Missouri, 65806
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Lee Allen Martin, do hereby swear and affirm that one true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been mailed, via prepaid first class mail, to Bob Sommers, Busch Municipal Building 840 Boonville Springfield Missouri 65802 on this date 12th day of April 1999.
So certified: _____________________________
Lee Allen Martin
NOTICE OF HEARING
The foregoing petition will be called before the Court for hearing on April 16, 1999 at 1:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as Petitioner may be heard, for the requesting of setting for Trial.
______________________________
Lee Allen Martin
Self Help Law Library
Case Law $7/Month 50 States + Fed
I use this service.
We push the limits on discount hosting!