LAWS MOTIONS LINKS
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT FOR NOTICE OF APPEAL
Comes now the Plaintiff/Appellant, Lee Allen Martin, and does bring this appeal before the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. Appellant does provide this document to conform to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 81.08. The Jurisdictional Statement and a brief synopsis of this case follows:
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
This action is one involving the 5th Amendment of the United States of America, rights of the plaintiff/appellant arising out of a final decision of the Director of Revenue resulting in the unconstitutional revocation of the plaintiff/appellant drivers license. Plaintiff/Appellant made a timely filing for Trial De Novo in the County of Howell, State Of Missouri on the 4th day of September, 1998. The Trial Court did fail to recognize the Jurisdiction of the 37th Judicial Circuit, and failed to make a judgment on the merits in this case. Plaintiff/Appellant in his original petition made constitutional challenge of Double Jeopardy. Double Jeopardy arises out of the fact the Director of Revenue has revoked Plaintiff's Drivers License beyond the statutory guidelines set down in RSMo 302.010.3. The Trial Court did issue its Certified Judgment and Order on the 2nd day of February 1999, and the Trial Court did sustain the Appellant's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on the 9th day of February. The Trial Courts 2-2-99 Order does render finality to the Trial Courts Order to Dismiss Plaintiff/Appellant's Claim.
Whereas, the issue for the Reviewing Court of the State of Missouri is one of Constitutional Issues the Supreme Court has sole jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Appellant must request that the Supreme Court recognize their jurisdiction.
BRIEF SYNOPSIS
The Trial Court's failure to recognize its subject matter jurisdiction in light of Robert Lee Jackson v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri 893 S.W. 831 does deny the Appellant any due process in this case. Further the Trial Court's misinterpretation of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 81.05 as to the finality of the Court's decision is not constitutional, and does not reflect the wording of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 81.05. The Trial Court Order of 2nd day of February 1999 fails to note Plaintiff/Appellant's timely post-dismissal 67.06 motion filed on the 28th day of December, 1998 or the Notice of Hearing requested for the 11th day of January 1999 filed by the Plaintiff, which was well within the trial court's thirty (30) day time limit. It cannot be held against the Plaintiff/Appellant that the trial court failed to hear the Motion until the 1st day of February 1999. Rule 81.05 notes that upon filing of post trial motion the trial court does not lose jurisdiction for 90 days or until post trial motion has been heard and 10 days after that.
The Plaintiff/Appellant is at a loss as to why the Courts of the State of Missouri refuse to hear a simple petition as to the legality of an administrative decision, considering the Relief that the Trial court can grant in such Trial De Novo proceedings is set by statute.
Wherefore, the 37th Judicial Circuit, Howell County, State of Missouri, has denied the plaintiff/appellant due process of law. The Director of Revenue for the State of Missouri has denied the Plaintiff/Appellant due process of law and has subjected the Appellant to double jeopardy. The Plaintiff/Appellant must request that the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri make a decision as to the sufficiency of the Plaintiff's original pleading and the constitutionality of the Director of Revenue's actions and the Trial Court's dismissal. Appellant does request that the Supreme Court for the State of Missouri find the 37th Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri is the Court of Proper Jurisdiction and remand the above styled case to the 37th Judicial Circuit for a decision on the Merits.
_________________________
Lee Allen Martin
7050 County Road 2810
West Plains, Missouri 65775
Self Help Law Library
Case Law $7/Month 50 States + Fed
I use this service.
We push the limits on discount hosting!