Monday, October 29, 2018
peter l lacy, commissioner, bmv
100 n senate 46204
888.692.6841
cc: ashley merritt, staff attorney
steven sams, alj
pastor eddie smith sr.
re 18-ot-011
I have received your letter dated october 4th, received october 27th.
setting a hearing december 18th 1 pm, 4th floor government center north 100 n senate.
The issue is whether a person who is or was an organ donor must be compelled to re-affirm in writing their organ donor status each time they obtain a replacement driver's license or ID.
Facts: I went to the hendricks county bmv on rt 40
because I was trying to interview for a job at a french logistics company, and they required an ID.
In order to obtain a replacement copy of my driver's license, I was compelled to have to re-sign my organ donor status, with the only alternative that they would refuse to issue me a licence, which would have meant not being able to interview. Without a job, i faced a pending economic disaster. An indeed, I did not get the job, for other reasons, and had $1.75 left in my pocket this week, so I have borrowed funds from a relative. My point is the process was unduly coercive.
My plates expired yesterday, I did not have enough cash to renew them, and could not get my cards to work at the machine at the beech grove branch on saturday. I will try again this week, hopefully today.
The issues in this matter, 18-ot-011, are
1. whether the hendricks county branch was properly followng bmv rules, or arbitrarily and capriciously invented their own policy.
2. whether the policy is required, or apparently require, by statute, or is only the bmv's decision.
3. whether the agency's policy violates public policy,
unnecessarily compelling speech, and interfering in the organ donor program, with the result that people die, because the organ donation process is being interfered with by pointless red tape.
I understand that an administrative hearing will not resolve constitutional issues, so I do not raise those here, but there are potential constitutional issues if we cannot resolve my concerns in this forum.
I have been writing about organ donation since 1979 at a graduate seminar on bioethics at the center for the study of values. I have been litigating about compelled speech since stewart v taylor, s d ind 1997, in which IC 3-9-3-2 was declared unconstitutional, and I obtained a $7000 settlement,
and am currently litigating abuse of ID in stewart v marion county election board et al.
It's been many years since I've held any public office, but I was a delegate to the gop state convention this year. A long-standing GOP policy is to oppose red tape. The Trump administration set a goal of repealing two regulations for each new one. The actual record so far is 14 regulations repealed for each new one enacted.
The foundaton principle of organ donation is informed consent. I have participated in 42 medical studies, so I know a bit about informed consent.
So for bmv employees to be coercing someone to have to sign the form against their will is hugely inappropriate. Whether not the conduct was illegal uner federal law is not my call.
To deny someone a replacement driver's license because they decline to consent to organ donation is both injury and insult.
My position is that once a person has made the decision to become an organ donor, and attested to that in writing, once is enough. It need not be re-affirmed over and over to remain operative.
It is similar to how when a person files a statement of non-waiver of an adminstrative hearing prior to being sued by the marion county health and hospital corporation, that non-waiver remains legally effective, and need not be re-filed for each new case.
This is a simple application of the due course of law under section 12 of the Indiana bill of rights. Or, to put it other terms, it is the due process which has been part of anglo-american law since the magna carta.
My intent is that the bmv review its procedures to change the process to become less unethical. If that requires a statutory change, a recommendation to the governor's office would be in order. Lives are at stake.
First offer of settlement: it is my practice, as a professional to always offer to resolve a dispute via settlement. I would settle this in exchange for free renewal of my plates ths year. I am not claiming to be owe any damages in this matter; I am asserting only my procedural rights to a hearing, which I am willing to waive in exchange for a token settlement.
cordially, robbin stewart.
100 n senate 46204
888.692.6841
cc: ashley merritt, staff attorney
steven sams, alj
pastor eddie smith sr.
re 18-ot-011
I have received your letter dated october 4th, received october 27th.
setting a hearing december 18th 1 pm, 4th floor government center north 100 n senate.
The issue is whether a person who is or was an organ donor must be compelled to re-affirm in writing their organ donor status each time they obtain a replacement driver's license or ID.
Facts: I went to the hendricks county bmv on rt 40
because I was trying to interview for a job at a french logistics company, and they required an ID.
In order to obtain a replacement copy of my driver's license, I was compelled to have to re-sign my organ donor status, with the only alternative that they would refuse to issue me a licence, which would have meant not being able to interview. Without a job, i faced a pending economic disaster. An indeed, I did not get the job, for other reasons, and had $1.75 left in my pocket this week, so I have borrowed funds from a relative. My point is the process was unduly coercive.
My plates expired yesterday, I did not have enough cash to renew them, and could not get my cards to work at the machine at the beech grove branch on saturday. I will try again this week, hopefully today.
The issues in this matter, 18-ot-011, are
1. whether the hendricks county branch was properly followng bmv rules, or arbitrarily and capriciously invented their own policy.
2. whether the policy is required, or apparently require, by statute, or is only the bmv's decision.
3. whether the agency's policy violates public policy,
unnecessarily compelling speech, and interfering in the organ donor program, with the result that people die, because the organ donation process is being interfered with by pointless red tape.
I understand that an administrative hearing will not resolve constitutional issues, so I do not raise those here, but there are potential constitutional issues if we cannot resolve my concerns in this forum.
I have been writing about organ donation since 1979 at a graduate seminar on bioethics at the center for the study of values. I have been litigating about compelled speech since stewart v taylor, s d ind 1997, in which IC 3-9-3-2 was declared unconstitutional, and I obtained a $7000 settlement,
and am currently litigating abuse of ID in stewart v marion county election board et al.
It's been many years since I've held any public office, but I was a delegate to the gop state convention this year. A long-standing GOP policy is to oppose red tape. The Trump administration set a goal of repealing two regulations for each new one. The actual record so far is 14 regulations repealed for each new one enacted.
The foundaton principle of organ donation is informed consent. I have participated in 42 medical studies, so I know a bit about informed consent.
So for bmv employees to be coercing someone to have to sign the form against their will is hugely inappropriate. Whether not the conduct was illegal uner federal law is not my call.
To deny someone a replacement driver's license because they decline to consent to organ donation is both injury and insult.
My position is that once a person has made the decision to become an organ donor, and attested to that in writing, once is enough. It need not be re-affirmed over and over to remain operative.
It is similar to how when a person files a statement of non-waiver of an adminstrative hearing prior to being sued by the marion county health and hospital corporation, that non-waiver remains legally effective, and need not be re-filed for each new case.
This is a simple application of the due course of law under section 12 of the Indiana bill of rights. Or, to put it other terms, it is the due process which has been part of anglo-american law since the magna carta.
My intent is that the bmv review its procedures to change the process to become less unethical. If that requires a statutory change, a recommendation to the governor's office would be in order. Lives are at stake.
First offer of settlement: it is my practice, as a professional to always offer to resolve a dispute via settlement. I would settle this in exchange for free renewal of my plates ths year. I am not claiming to be owe any damages in this matter; I am asserting only my procedural rights to a hearing, which I am willing to waive in exchange for a token settlement.
cordially, robbin stewart.
Comments:
Post a Comment
