HOW TO RETRIEVE AN IMPOUNDED AUTOMOBILE
WITHOUT PAYING ANY IMPOUND AND TOWING FEES
BY THOMAS SMITH
My experience has established that every time this method to
retrieve an impounded automobile has been followed, it has
always been 100% successful. It has never failed, if the
procedure outlined below is followed.
Published by American Liberties Publishing Company
[email protected] COPYRIGHT 2017 by Thomas Smith
INTRODUCTION
This is a book on how to sue the towing company and get your car without
paying the fees
Why do you need this information? The police are not the only people that
can and will tow and impound your car. Be ware of towing companies that
troll for business. How, so? They cruse apartment parking lots, business
parking lots, parking garages etc., for improperly parked cars, when they find
one they simply hook on to it and boom, it’s gone. Surprise, you return to
where you thought you parked your car it’s gone. So, you call the police to
report you car stolen and the police tell you that it has been towed for being
illegally parked. The towing company is required to send you a notice, by
mail, informing you where your car is and how you can pick it up.
I used to watch a TV series about a company that did just as described
above. I was very entertained watching what the people went through to get
their car back. They threatened various forms of mayhem against the towing
company. They even threatened to sue the towing company. However, they
most likely had never seen the inside of a court room and thus were incapable
of filing a lawsuit. I doubt that they had any idea on what their cause of action
would be. They usually paid the fees and got their car. I checked the internet
for how to retrieve an impounded car. Every reference said, pay the fees.
After reading this short book you will have the ability to file a lawsuit against
a towing company. You will understand what your cause of action is, what
court to file your suit in, how to serve it and what to expect as a result of filing
your suit.
Towing companies do not like to be sued. Most likely they have never been
sued for towing some ones car and when they find out how much it will cost
them they will decide it’s not worth it and will give you your car rather than
argue with you.
So let’s get started:
-1-
DUE PROCESS OF LAW
To understand how and why this process works, one must understand due
process. Due process begins, as does so much of United States law, with the
Magna Carta.
During the rule of King Edward III (reigned 1327–1377), Parliament enacted
six statutes to clarify the meaning and scope of the liberties that Magna Carta
guarantees. The statutes interpreted the expression "the law of the land,"
which appears in Chapter 29, as the judicial procedures that protect a
subject's liberties. One of the laws, enacted in 1354, introduced the term "due
process of law"—the first appearance of that phrase in Anglo-American
law—to describe Magna Carta's procedural guarantees. The Fifth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution evokes this language in its Due Process Clause.
Magna Carta
In clause 39 of Magna Carta, issued in 1215, John of England promised: "No
free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or
possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other
way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so,
except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."[4]
Magna Carta itself immediately became part of the "law of the land", and
Clause 61 of that charter authorized an elected body of 25 barons to
determine by majority vote what redress the King must provide when the King
offends "in any respect against any man."[4] Thus Magna Carta established
the rule of law in England by not only requiring the monarchy to obey the law
of the land but also limiting how the monarchy could change the law of the
land. However, in the 13th century, the provisions may have been referring
only to the rights of landowners, and not to ordinary peasantry or villagers.[5]
Shorter versions of Magna Carta were subsequently issued by British
monarchs, and Clause 39 of Magna Carta was renumbered "29."[6] The
phrase due process of law first appeared in a statutory rendition of Magna
Carta in 1354 during the reign of Edward III of England, as follows: "No man
of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor
taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by
due process of law."[7]
-2-
In 1608, the English jurist Edward Coke wrote a treatise in which he
discussed the meaning of Magna Carta. Coke explained that no man shall be
deprived but by legem terrae, the law of the land, "that is, by the common law,
statute law, or custom of England.... (that is, to speak it once and for all) by
the due course, and process of law.."[8]
Both the clause in Magna Carta and the later statute of 1354 were again
explained in 1704 (during the reign of Queen Anne) by the Queen's Bench,
in the case of Regina v. Paty.[9] In that case, the British House of Commons
had deprived John Paty and certain other citizens of the right to vote in an
election and committed them to Newgate Prison merely for the offense of
pursuing a legal action in the courts.[10] The Queen's Bench, in an opinion
by Justice Powys, explained the meaning of "due process of law" as follows:
[I]t is objected, that by Mag. Chart. c. 29, no man ought to be
taken or imprisoned, but by the law of the land. But to this I
answer, that lex terrae is not confined to the common law, but
takes in all the other laws, which are in force in this realm; as the
civil and canon law.... By the 28 Ed. 3, c. 3, there the words lex
terrae, which are used in Mag. Char. are explained by the words,
due process of law; and the meaning of the statute is, that all
commitments must be by a legal authority; and the law of
Parliament is as much a law as any, nay, if there be any
superiority this is a superior law.[9]
Chief Justice Holt dissented in this case because he believed that the
commitment had not in fact been by a legal authority. The House of Commons
had purported to legislate unilaterally, without approval of the British House
of Lords, ostensibly to regulate the election of its members.[11] Although the
Queen's Bench held that the House of Commons had not infringed or
overturned due process, John Paty was ultimately freed by Queen Anne when
she prorogued Parliament.
English law and American law diverge
Throughout centuries of British history, many laws and treatises asserted
various requirements as being part of "due process" or included in the "law of
the land". That view usually held in regards to what was required by existing
-3-
law, rather than what was intrinsically required by due process itself. As the
US Supreme Court has explained, a due process requirement in Britain was
not "essential to the idea of due process of law in the prosecution and
punishment of crimes, but was only mentioned as an example and illustration
of due process of law as it actually existed in cases in which it was
customarily used."[12]
Ultimately, the scattered references to "due process of law" in English law did
not limit the power of the government; in the words of American law professor
John Orth, "the great phrases failed to retain their vitality."[13] Orth points out
that this is generally attributed to the rise of the doctrine of parliamentary
supremacy in the United Kingdom, which was accompanied by hostility
towards judicial review as an undemocratic foreign invention.[14]
Scholars have occasionally interpreted Lord Coke's ruling in Dr. Bonham's
Case as implying the possibility of judicial review, but by the 1870s, Lord
Campbell was dismissing judicial review as "a foolish doctrine alleged to have
been laid down extra-judicially in Dr. Bonham's Case..., a conundrum [that]
ought to have been laughed at."[15] Lacking the power of judicial review,
English courts possessed no means by which to declare government statutes
or actions invalid as a violation of due process. In contrast, American
legislators and executive branch officers possessed virtually no means by
which to overrule judicial invalidation of statutes or actions as due process
violations, with the sole exception of proposing a constitutional amendment,
which are rarely successful. As a consequence, English law and American
law diverged. Unlike their English counterparts, American judges became
increasingly assertive about enforcing due process of law. In turn, the
legislative and executive branches learned how to avoid such confrontations
in the first place, by tailoring statutes and executive actions to the
constitutional requirements of due process as elaborated upon by the
judiciary.
In 1977, an English political science professor explained the present situation
in England for the benefit of American lawyers:
An American constitutional lawyer might well be surprised by the
elusiveness of references to the term 'due process of law' in the
general body of English legal writing.... Today one finds no space
-4-
devoted to due process in Halsbury's Laws of England, in
Stephen's Commentaries, or Anson's Law and Custom of the
Constitution. The phrase rates no entry in such works as Stroud's
Judicial Dictionary or Wharton's Law Lexicon.[16]
Two similar concepts in contemporary English law are natural justice, which
generally applies only to decisions of administrative agencies and some types
of private bodies like trade unions, and the British constitutional concept of the
rule of law as articulated by A. V. Dicey and others.[1] However, neither
concept lines up perfectly with the American conception of due process,
which presently contains many implied rights not found in the ancient or
modern concepts of due process in England.[2]
United States Due Process Clause
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each
contain a Due Process Clause. Due process deals with the administration of
justice and thus the Due Process Clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary
denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of
law.[17] The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the Clauses as
providing four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal
proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and
as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
Due Process is mentioned in two places in the Constitution; in the 5th
Amendment and in the 14th Amendment.
"The essential elements of due process of law are notice, an
opportunity to be heard, and the right to defend in an orderly
proceeding." Fiehe v. R.E. Householder Co., 125 So. 2, 7 (Fla.
1929).
"To dispense with notice before taking property is likened to
obtaining judgement without the defendant having ever been
summoned." Mayor of Baltimore vs. Scharf, 54 Md. 499, 519
(1880).
"An orderly proceeding wherein a person is served with notice,
-5-
actual or constructive, and has an opportunity to be heard and to
enforce and protect his rights before a court having power to hear
and determine the case. Kazubowski v. Kazubowski, 45 Ill.2d
405, 259, N.E.2d 282, 290." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition,
page 500.
"Due Process of law implies and comprehends the administration
of laws equally applicable to all under established rules which do
not violate fundamental principles of private rights, and in a
competent tribunal possessing jurisdiction of the cause and
proceeding upon justice. It is founded upon the basic principle
that every man shall have his day in court, and the benefit of the
general law which proceeds only upon notice and which hears
and considers before judgement is rendered." State v. Green, 232
S.W.2d 897, 903 (Mo. 1950).
"Phrase means that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty,
property or of any right granted him by statute, unless matter
involved first shall have been adjudicated against him upon trial
conducted according to established rules regulating judicial
proceedings, and it forbids condemnation without a hearing, Pettit
v. Penn., La. App., 180 So.2d 66, 69." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th
Edition, page 500.
"Due Process of law implies the right of the person affected
thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces
judgement upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most
comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise,
and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact
which bears on the question of right in the matter involved. If any
question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him,
this is not due process of law." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th
Edition, page 500.
"Aside from all else, ‘due process' means fundamental fairness
and substantial justice. Vaughn v. State, 3 Tenn. Crim. App. 54,
456 S.W.2d 879, 883." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page
500.
-6-
Substantive Due Process
The Modern Notion of Substantive Due Process Emerged in Decisions of the
U.S. Supreme Court During the Late Nineteenth Century. In the 1897 Case
of Allgeyer V. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 17 S. Ct. 427, 41 L. Ed. 832, the Court
for the First Time Used the Substantive Due Process Framework to Strike
down a State Statute. Before That Time, the Court Generally Had Used the
Commerce Clause or the Contracts Clause of the Constitution to Invalidate
State Legislation. The Allgeyer Case Concerned a Louisiana Law That
Proscribed the Entry into Certain Contracts with Insurance Firms in Other
States. The Court Found That the Law Unfairly Abridged the Right to Enter
into Lawful Contracts, as Guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
The next 40 years after allgeyer were the heyday of what has been called the
freedom-of-contract version of substantive due process. During those years,
the court often used the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to
void state regulation of private industry, particularly regarding terms of
employment such as maximum working hours or minimum wages. In one
famous case from that era, lchner v. New York, 198 u.s. 45, 25 s. ct. 539, 49
l. ed. 937 (1905), the court struck down a New York law (N.Y. laws 1897,
chap. 415, art. 8, § 110) that prohibited employers from allowing workers in
bakeries to be on the job more than ten hours per day and 60 hours per week.
The court found that the law was not a valid exercise of the state's police
power. It wrote that it could find no connection between the number of hours
worked and the quality of the baked goods, thus finding that the law was
arbitrary.
In Allgeyer and Lochner and in other cases like them, the court did not find
that state legislatures had failed to enact their laws using the proper
procedures—which would present an issue of procedural due process.
Instead, it found that the laws themselves violated certain economic freedoms
that inhered in the due process clause, specifically its protection of liberty and
what the court described as freedom or liberty of contract. This freedom
meant that individuals had the right to purchase or to sell labor or products
without unreasonable interference by the government.
This Interpretation of the Due Process Clause Put the Court in Direct
-7-
Opposition to Many of the Reforms and Regulations Passed by State
Legislatures During the Progressive Era of the Early Twentieth Century.
Justices Who Were Opposed to the Court's Position in Such Cases, Including
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and John M. Harlan, Saw Such Rulings as
Unwarranted Judicial Activism in Support of a Particular Free-market
Ideology.
During the 1930s, the Court Used the Doctrine of Substantive Due Process
to Strike down Federal Legislation as Well, Particularly Legislation Associated
with President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. In 1937, Roosevelt
Proposed a Court-packing Scheme in Which
Roosevelt Would Have Sought to Overcome Court Opposition to His
Programs by Appointing Additional Justices. Although the Plan Was Never
Adopted, the Court Quickly Changed its Position on Substantive Due Process
and Other Issues and Began to Uphold New Deal Legislation. Now, a Majority
on the Court, Including Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes and Justice Benjamin
N. Cardozo, Abandoned the Freedom-of-contract Version of Substantive Due
Process.
Even Before the Court Abandoned the Freedom-of-contract Approach to
Substantive Due Process, it Began to Explore Using the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to Re-evaluate State Laws and Actions
Affecting Civil Freedoms Protected by the Bill of
Rights. Since the 1833 Case of Barron V. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 8
L. Ed. 672, the Court Had Interpreted the Bill of Rights as Applying Only to the
Federal Government. Beginning in the 1920s, However, it Began to Apply the
Bill of Rights to the States Through the Incorporation of Those Rights into the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Gitlow V. New York,
268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (1925), the Court Ruled That the
Liberty Guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause
Protects First Amendment Free Speech from State Action. In near V.
Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 (1931), the Court
Found That Freedom of the Press Was Also Protected from State Action by
the Due Process Clause, and it Ruled the Same with Regard to Freedom of
Religion in Cantwell V. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S. Ct. 900, 84 L. Ed.
1213 (1940).
Because Incorporation Has Proceeded Gradually, with Some Elements of the
-8-
Bill of Rights Still Unincorporated, it Has Also Been Called Selective
Incorporation. Nevertheless, During the Twentieth Century, Most of the
Provisions of the Bill of Rights Were Incorporated by the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment, Thereby Protecting Individuals from Arbitrary
Actions by State as Well as Federal Governments.
By the 1960s, the Court Had Extended its Interpretation of Substantive Due
Process to Include Rights and Freedoms That Are Not Specifically Mentioned
in the Constitution but That, According to the Court, Extend or Derive from
Existing Rights. These Rights and Freedoms Include the Freedoms of
Association and Nonassociation, Which Have Been Inferred from the First
Amendment's Freedom-of-speech Provision, and the Right to Privacy. The
Right to Privacy, Which Has Been Derived from the First, Fourth, and Ninth
Amendments, Has Been an Especially Controversial Aspect of Substantive
Due Process. First Established in Griswold V. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85
S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965), the Court Later Used it to Protect a
Woman's Decision to Have an Abortion Free from State Interference, in the
First Trimester of Pregnancy (Roe V. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35
L. Ed. 2d 147 [1973]).
In several recent decisions, the u.s. supreme court has considered the
application of substantive due process in light of actions taken by law
enforcement officers. It often has determined that police actions have not
violated a defendant's due process rights. In county of sacramento v. lewis,
523 u.s. 833, 118 s. ct. 1708, 140 l. ed. 2d 1043 (1998), for example, the
court determined that high-speed chases by police officers did not violate the
due process rights of the suspects whom the officers were chasing. In
That case, two police officers had engaged in a pursuit of two young suspects
at speeds of more than 100 miles per hour through a residential
neighborhood. One of the young men died, while the other suffered serious
injuries. A unanimous court held that the officers' decision to engage in the
pursuit had not amounted to "governmental arbitrariness" that the due
process clause protects due to the nature of the judgment used by the officers
in such a circumstance.
The court in City of West Covina v. Perkins, 525 U.S. 234, 119 s. ct. 678, 142
L. ed. 2d 636 (1999) again held in favor of law enforcement officers in a claim
that police had violated the plaintiff's due process rights. After seizing
-9-
personal property, including cash savings, of two owners of a home they had
searched during a murder investigation, the police retained the property at the
police station. When the homeowners sought to have the property returned,
the police failed to provide the homeowners with detailed information about
how the owners could have their property returned. The homeowners then
filed a 42 U.S.C.A. §1983 action against the police, claiming deprivation of
civil rights under the due process clause. The supreme court held that
because information about the proper procedures to retrieve this property
under state law was readily available to the plaintiffs, the police had not
deprived the homeowners of their due process rights. The U.S. Supreme
court is more likely to find due process violations where the actions of a
government official are clearly arbitrary. In City of Chicago v. Morales, 527
u.s. 41, 119 s. ct. 1849, 144 l. ed. 2d 67 (1999), for example, it struck down
a Chicago anti-gang ordinance as unconstitutional on due process grounds.
The ordinance allowed police officers to break up any group of two or more
persons whom they believed to be loitering in a public place, provided that the
officer also believed that at least one member of the group was a gang
member. The ordinance had led to more than 43,000 arrests. Because the
ordinance did not draw the line between innocent and guilty behavior and
failed to give guidance to police on the matter, the ordinance violated the due
process rights of the subjects of these break-ups. The court held that since
the ordinance gave absolute discretion to the police officers to determine what
actions violated the ordinance, it was an arbitrary restriction on personal
liberty in violation of the due process clause.
In 2002, the court found that arbitrary actions by a trial judge in a murder case
violated the due process rights of the defendant (Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362,
122 S. Ct. 877, 151 l. ed. 820 [2002]). in that case, the defendant was
charged with first-degree murder for driving the getaway car for a man who
had pled guilty to a murder charge in Kansas City, Missouri. The defendant
claimed that he had been in California at the time of the murder, and four
family members were to testify at trial that the defendant was not in Kansas
City at the time of the murder. However, the family members left before they
were expected to testify, and the defense could not locate them. The defense
asked the court for a short continuance of one or two days, but the judge
refused due to personal conflicts and a conflict with another trial. Without the
testimony of the family members, the defendant was convicted of murder. The
high court held that the judge's arbitrary actions violated the defendant's due
-10-
process rights, and it vacated the defendant's conviction.
Procedural Due Process
The phrase procedural due process" refers to the aspects of the due process
clause that apply to the procedure of arresting and trying persons who have
been accused of crimes and to any other government action that deprives an
individual of life, liberty, or property. Procedural due process limits the
exercise of power by the state and federal governments by requiring that they
follow certain procedures in criminal and civil matters. In cases where an
individual has claimed a violation of due process rights, courts must determine
whether a citizen is being deprived of "life, liberty, or property," and what
procedural protections are "due" to that individual.
The bill of rights contains provisions that are central to procedural due
process. These protections give a person a number of rights and freedoms
in criminal proceedings, including freedom from unreasonable searches and
seizures; freedom from double jeopardy, or being tried more than once for
the same crime; freedom from self-incrimination, or testifying against oneself;
the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; the right to be told
of the crime being charged; the right to cross-examine witnesses; the right to
be represented by an attorney; freedom from cruel and unusual punishment;
and the right to demand that the state prove any charges beyond a
reasonable doubt. In a series of U.S. Supreme court cases during the
twentieth century, all of these rights were applied to state proceedings. In one
such case, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. ed. 2d
799 (1963), the court ruled that the due process clause of the fourteenth
amendment incorporates the sixth amendment right to have an attorney in "all
criminal prosecutions," including Prosecutions by a state. The case proved to
be a watershed in establishing indigents' rights to legal counsel.
Procedural due process also protects individuals from government actions in
the civil, as opposed to criminal, sphere. These protections have been
extended to include not only land and personal property, but also
entitlements, including government-provided benefits, licenses, and positions.
Thus, for example, the court has ruled that the federal government must hold
hearings before terminating welfare benefits (Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254,
90 S. Ct. 1011, 25 L. ed. 2d 287 [1970]). court decisions regarding procedural
-11-
due process have exerted a great deal of influence over government
procedures in prisons, schools, social security, civil suits, and public
employment.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Lujan v. G&G Firesprinklers, Inc., 532 U.S. 189,
121 S. Ct. 1446, 149 L. Ed. 2d 391 (2000) held that a state is not required to
hold a hearing before withholding money and imposing penalties on a building
contractor. The California Division of Labor & Standards Enforcement
determined that a building subcontractor had failed to pay the prevailing wage
to workers who installed fire sprinklers in state buildings. The California
agency, without providing notice or a hearing, fined the general contractor,
which in turn withheld money from the subcontractor. The sub-contractor,
G&G Firesprinklers, Inc., sued the California agency, claiming that the agency
had violated the company's procedural due process rights. The Court
disagreed, holding that because the company could sue the agency for
breach of contract, the fine did not constitute a due process violation.
-12-
MY EXPERIENCE
Now that you have a basic understanding of what due process is, let's explore
how I applied it to retrieving an impounded automobile.
Some twenty years ago I allowed my then fifteen year old daughter to take my
car to the grocery store. I reasoned she would be ok since it was only a few
blocks away. On her return trip another car ran a red light and collided with
her. The damage was minimal. As part of the investigation the officer called
me and requested that I come to her rescue. Which I did. I do not recall why
she did not get a citation for her driving without a license. However, the
officer did choose to impound my car.
Now I had a problem, how to get my car back without paying towing and
impound fees. After studying the aforementioned on due process I came to
the conclusion that the towing company seized my car without due process.
So I called the towing company and asked to speak with the owner. The
conversation went something like this.
ME: Am I speaking with the owner?
TC: I am the owner.
ME: To whom do I have the honor of speaking?
TC: My name is --------.
ME: I have a form in my possession the you towed and impounded a
(description of the car.) Registered to me.
TC: Let me check. Pause while he checks. Upon returning, Yes I have your
car in my impound lot.
ME: The United States Constitution at amendments five and fourteen states:
private property cannot be seized without due process, (These amendments
apply only to the government but, he doesn't know this. So I simply
bamboozle him) when do I get my due process?
TC: What do you mean due process?
ME: Due process is defined as "notice and opportunity to be heard." So when
do I get my notice and opportunity to be heard?
TC: You'll have to talk to the police, they are the ones that towed your car.
ME: The police did not hook onto my car and tow it. You are the one that
hooked on to my car and towed it to your lot. You have previously admitted
-13-
that you did. Now when do I get my notice and opportunity to be heard?
TC: Well then you will have to talk to the State Tax Commission. I am
holding it for them.
ME: The State Tax Commission did not hook onto my car and tow it. You
have previously admitted that you did. Now when do I get my notice and
opportunity to be heard?
TC: What do you mean?
ME: Now you towed my car for commercial purposes, right?
TC: I don’t understand.
ME: Well you expect me to pay you a towing fee and an impound fee, right?
TC: Yes.
ME: If you were not going to get paid would you have towed my car for free?
TC: No.
ME: So you towed my car for commercial purposes?
TC: Yes.
ME: So when do I get my notice and opportunity to be heard?
TC: You don't.
At this point I thanked him and terminated the conversation. It is necessary
that you be respectful. Do not be agitated or appear upset or angry at this
point. Your time is coming.
I then went to the local small claims court and filed a suit for deprivation of
property without due process and had it served upon him (I will provide
sample pleadings later). Within about two hours of service I received a phone
call from him demanding that I get my car the hell out of his lot. When I
picked up my car I asked him what changed his mind? He replied that his
attorney told him it would cost him five hundred dollars just to answer my
complaint/get it dismissed.
I did not bother to sue his corporation or his corporation's registered agent.
He was not in the business of spending money. He was in the business of
collecting money.
Several years later I had moved to another town. Myself and several others
were messing around using non-state issued license plates.
Apparently the local constabulary did not take to kindly to this. As one of their
-14-
finest intercepted me and impounded my car. My friend said, "now what are
you going to do?" First this car was a Junker that had no value. So I said, "Do
you want to have some fun?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Follow me."
We went to the towing company in person. I went through the
aforementioned scenario with some modifications. As I went to the towing
company in person the conversation was a little different. As it turned out the
mere threat to sue him for deprivation of property without due process was
enough to cause him some consternation. He handed me the keys and told
me to get my truck and get out.
A few days later my friends truck was impounded. Having witnessed how I
handled it, he did the same thing and got his truck back. Several days later
the local constabulary attempted to impound his truck again. They called a
local towing company. Upon arriving, the towing company refused to tow his
truck. They said they did not want to get sued. So another company was
called. As it turned out word had got around that if anyone towed our vehicles
we would sue and they did not want to get sued so they would not tow our
vehicles.
Fast forward to 2016. I received a call from a friend in Michigan. He was
distraught and nearly in tears. He told me that his car was just impounded for
having improper registration and he had been given a ticket for no driver
license. I told him I could help him get his car back and that I could not help
him with the no driver license issue. I then explained to him that by suing the
towing company they would give him his car forthwith. He followed my
instructions and called me several days later. He was laughing and told me
that within hours of being served the complaint and summons the towing
company called him and told him to get his car the hell out of their yard, which
he did. He was amazed at how well this process worked. This process will
work for anyone that uses it.
As simple as this is, it will work for anyone even if you know nothing about
-15-
THE PROCEDURE
When you go to the court ask for the small claims court. File your suit for the
maximum amount you can for the lowest filing fee allowed. E.g. the lowest
filing fee is $30.00, the maximum amount you can sue for with a filing fee of
$30.00 is $5000.00. Sue for that amount. The amount you sue for is not as
important as the complaint itself. The complaint is the important thing. Below
I have included a sample complaint. You can use this or the court the clerk
will help you fill out one of their complaints and serve it on the towing
company for you.
Most towing companies are corporations. If you choose to sue the towing
company as a corporation you will have to call the state department of
corporations and get the address of the corporation's registered agent and
serve him. This is not as effective as just suing the towing company by its
name and serving it upon the towing company. Just serving the complaint on
the towing company gets the job done. That's what I did and it was effective
in getting my car released. Technically you should serve the registered agent
to have a proper suit. However, they will have to pay an attorney to file a
motion to dismiss. This will cost them money that they do not want to spend.
So rather than fighting with you they will tell you to get your car. You should
then file a motion to dismiss your complaint. The next page will show you a
sample complaint and a motion to dismiss.
Once you have your car in your possession you must file with the court a
motion to dismiss and serve a copy on the towing company. A sample motion
to dismiss is found following the sample complaint.
-16-
NAME OF COURT
address of court
Your name, )
) COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, )
) Case Number_______________
)
vs, )
)
)
Name of towing company,
Defendant.
1. Plaintiff Pro Se, (Your Name), complains against the Defendant, (name of
towing Company), for deprivation of property without due process of law in
violation of Plaintiff's rights pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the Constitution of the United States of America.
2. On (date) Defendant seized Plaintiff's car described as (description of car),
towed it to Defendant's lot located at (address of lot), locked it up behind a
security fence and upon Plaintiff's demand to return said property to Plaintiff
forthwith refused to return said property to Plaintiff, all without affording
Plaintiff his right to due process of law.
3. Plaintiff is informed that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution provide that Plaintiff cannot be deprived of property
without due process of law.
-17-
4. Plaintiff is informed that due process of law is defined as notice and
opportunity to be heard.
5. Plaintiff called Defendant by phone and requested that Defendant return
Plaintiff's property forthwith or in the alternative provide Plaintiff with Plaintiff's
right to due process of law.
6. Defendant told Plaintiff that Defendant was not going to return Plaintiff's
property nor was Plaintiff going to get any due process of law from Defendant.
Wherefore, Plaintiff requests that the court find that Plaintiff has been
deprived of Plaintiff's property without due process of law and order
Defendant to return Plaintiff's property forthwith.
(Date)______________
_______________________
(name of plaintiff)
-18-
NAME OF COURT
address of court
Your name, )
) Case Number_______________
Plaintiff, )
) MOTION TO DISMISS WITH
) PREJUDICE
vs, )
)
)
Name of towing company, )
Defendant.
1. Plaintiff Pro Se, (Your Name), moves to dismiss the above entitled matter
with prejudice on grounds that Defendant has returned Plaintiff's property and
therefore, there is no legal reason to pursue the above entitled matter.
(Date)__________
___________________
(plaintiff's name)
-19-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, (plaintiff's name) certify that I have served, by first class United States mail,
a copy of the forgoing to Defendant at Defendant’s address of record.
(Date)__________
___________________
(plaintiff's name)
Note: File the original with the court, send a copy to the towing company and
keep a copy for your file.;
-20-
Notes to chapter on due process
1. Marshall, 69.
2. Marshall, 69–70.
3. "CRS Annotated Constitution: Due Process". Cornell University Law
School. Retrieved June 30, 2014.
4. The Text of Magna Carta (1215)
5. McKechnie, William Sharp (1905). Magna Carta: A Commentary on
the Great Charter of King John. Glasgow: Robert MacLehose and Co.,
Ltd. pp. 136–37.: "The question must be considered an open one; but
much might be said in favor of the opinion that 'freeman' as used in
the Charter is synonymous with 'freeholder'...."
6. The Text of Magna Carta (1297)
7. 28 Edw. 3, c. 3
8. 2 Institutes of the Laws of England 46 (1608)
9. Regina v. Paty, 92 Eng. Rep. 232, 234 (1704) reprinted in Reports of
10. Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Courts of King's Bench and
Common Pleas: In the Reigns of the Late King William, Queen Anne,
King George the First, and King George the Second, Volume 2, page
1105, 1108 (1792).
11. Dudley Julius Medly, A Student's Manual of English Constitutional
History 613 (1902)
12. George Godfrey Cunningham,4 Lives of Eminent and Illustrious
Englishmen 54 (1835)
13. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)
14. John V. Orth, Due Process of Law: A Brief History (Lawrence, KS:
University Press of Kansas, 2003), 30–31.
15. Orth, 28–30.
16. Orth, 29.
Geoffrey
ISBN 9781633182622
Additional questions
e mail the author:
[email protected]
-21-
