Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Yi v. Division of Parking Management

United States District Court, D. Maryland

June 23, 2016

CHONG SU YI, Plaintiff
v.
DIVISION OF PARKING MANAGEMENT, Et al., Defendants v.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Paul W. Grimm United Stat s District Judge.

         Plaintiff Chong Su Yi filed a Complaint on April 7, 2016, ECF No. 1, together with a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 3. Because Plaintiff appears to be indigent, the motion shall be granted. Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint, ECF No. 6, as well as Supplemental Exhibits. ECF Nos. 3 & 7.

         The Amended Complaint characterizes the facts and arguments in this case as:

         3. Federal Question:

"tax is for general welfare"; is metered parking part of 'general welfare'? If so under "tax is for general welfare"; could parking in form of "metered parking"; be taxed under State's right to categorize? If not is metered parking form of taxing general welfare?

         4. Facts of the case are:

Montgomery County parking management has been issuing parking citations, to vehicle operated by Plaintiff; not owned by plaintiff. Per Ms. Ham at Parking Management; enforcement officer may boot; or tow the vehicle for none payment without first going to court and obtain Court's order.

         6. Argument of the cases are:

All the laws contain intent scope purpose; in order for law to be legitimate law. And any and all of three may be challenged in court of law; including letter and intent of the law. Metered parking is under State's right to categorize; to regulate parking; for state's best interest.
Under 'tax is for general welfare'; there is no mention of fees; and parking is general welfare, thus could not prevail under State's right to categorize; because its incongruous; And it fails at state's best interest; there is less intrusive way to achieve accommodate parking; than for extraction of money from public; form of taxation;
If parking is general welfare; and service provided by State; how can State levy taxes on general service it provides? It fails under State's right to categorize; being too broad and too vague;
Also it fails in state's best interest; because collection of money; by licensing it is more intrusive than merely let public park at parking place;
Nowhere Constitution says; there must be building in place; where parking lot ought to be; State has decided to build too many buildings and not enough parking lots; Thus violated due process of the law.
Number of people's less intrusive way; number of parking lots needed; is what must be achieved; instead state built too many buildings; too many people not enough parking ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.