Noted for
Without Oral Argument
ROGER W. KNIGHT, )
) No.
petitioner, )
) PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR ORDER
v. ) REQUIRING RESTORATION OF
) DRIVER’S LICENSE PENDING
STATE OF
)
respondent. )
____________________________________)
COMES
NOW ROGER W. KNIGHT, to move for an order requiring restoration of his driver’s
license pending this administrative law review.
1. RELIEF REQUESTED:
An
order by this Court requiring the
Department of Licensing and the
Department of
Social and Health Services to restore Mr. Knight’s driver’s license and to
allow renewal of his license on the same basis as if he had been allowed to
renew it on June 30, 2003, without any requirement of a $20.00 restoration fee.
2.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On
During
January and February 2002 the City of
Upon
remand, the Bellevue District Court dismissed the DWLS charges with prejudice
and without any evidence as to service presented. Please see the Knight Declaration.
On
On
On
On
On
On
3.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES:
Should
the state agencies be required to restore Mr. Knight’s driver’s license and to
allow renewal of such license on the same basis as if Mr. Knight had been
allowed to renew it on or before its expiration date of
4. EVIDENCE RELIED UPON:
Declaration
of Roger W. Knight in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Order Requiring
Restoration of Driver’s License Pending Administrative Law Review (Knight
Declaration) and attached Exhibits.
The
record and pleadings filed herein.
5.
LEGAL AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT:
The
service of the Notice of Noncompliance and Intent to Suspend Licenses indicates
a realization that the previous attempt to serve and provide Mr. Knight with an
opportunity to request adjudication was not in compliance with the requirements
of
RCW 74.20A.320(1).
RCW
74.20A.320(2)(c) requires the respondent agency to stay certification of
noncompliance with the child support order to the licensing agencies pending
outcome of these proceedings. Because
this new service and this new Notice constitutes an implied recognition that
the previous attempt to serve was inadequate, the license suspension that
occurred during September 2001 was without the authority of law. Therefore, the license should be restored
immediately without any requirement of payment of any re-issue fee.
The
Administrative Law Judge heard argument as to this issue but made no ruling
upon whether the service of September 2001 was valid or sufficient.
The
respondent agency and the other agencies involved, the
Department of Licensing
and the City of Mercer Island simply cannot prove that the license suspension
of September 2001 was performed with notice and opportunity to be heard that
met the requirements of
RCW 74.20A.320(1).
Upon recognition of this fact, the respondent agency elected to commence
a service of such paperwork and on
Furthermore,
Mr. Knight does not present a greater threat to public safety operating a motor
vehicle than any other person. On the
Abstract of Complete Driving Record, Exhibit A to the Knight Declaration, one
line reads:
NO
VIOLATION CONVICTIONS OR ACCIDENTS ON FILE
No
interest of government is served by not allowing Mr. Knight to operate a motor
vehicle while this appeal is pending.
Allowing
Mr. Knight to operate his motor vehicle will allow him to perform certain
necessary research to support his effort to present facts and arguments as to
law. Mr. Mark Bennett is helpful to Mr.
Knight on the telephone and by e-mail, however, there is nothing like Mr.
Knight being able to review the case file in
Bennett v. State of Washington at
Thurston County Superior Court
and at the Division Two clerk’s office in
Not
allowing Mr. Knight to operate a motor vehicle unnecessarily restrains him in
the exercise of his right to independently research a case that resulted in a
published opinion on the issue of whether the WorkFirst Act is void as a
multi-subject bill.
For
the reasons stated herein, this Court should Order the respondent agency and
the Department of Licensing to restore Mr. Knight’s driver’s license and to
allow him to renew the license on the same basis as if he had been allowed to
renew it before June 30, 2003, without requiring the payment of a $20.00
renewal fee.
6.
PROPOSED ORDER:
A copy of the proposed Order is provided hereto.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Roger
W. Knight, pro se
Petitioner
If the back button does not take you there, click Home to go to the Index page of this Antipeonage Act Website, click Enemies for the main Enemies page, click Letters for the Letters page, and click Allies for the Allies page. Click 586476 to get to the main page for this case. Or you can use the Antipeonage Act Site Map.
