HELP - NJ DMV Surcharge Program - EXTORTION
GiJeet
program and what I call EXTORTION. They have gone back a quarter
century and have re-fined anyone who has certain driving violations.
I was charged with a DUI over 10 years ago. I went to court, paid
the
court costs, paid the fine, lost my driving license for 6 months
(major hassle), attended all the required classes, paid to have my
license reinstated...I paid my debit to society and learned my
lesson. Now, because NJ is in a financial mess, due to their
incompetence, they need money. So they decided to RE-CHARGE everyone
with certain violations going back 25 years. I now have to pay $1000
a year for the next 3 years!! Is this legal? I paid all my fines
and
debts. This can’t be legal. Not in the USA…
G
muggle...@googlemail.com
The surcharge seems to have been enacted in 1983: P.L.1983, c.65,
although the law has been amended, perhaps several times, since then:
17:29A-35 Motor Vehicle Violations Surcharge System. Find it here, on
the NJ Legislature Web site:
http://tinyurl.com/5e2n55
The law has been upheld in the courts, and indeed the surcharge can't
be discharged in bankruptcy:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/886/886.F2d.602.89-5090.html
Nor can you evade it by moving out of state (although apparently such
surcharges don't apply if you are an out of state resident, licensed
out of state, at the time of the offense). It seems the MVC will
pursue violators for a civil debt. They probably can't do so if you
move abroad, however: think of the Lord Mansfield rule (you can Google
it) dating from 1775. Another, albeit far fetched, possibility is to
get another citizenship, renounce your American one, and come back to
the USA as a foreign diplomat. Diplomats are issued driving licenses
and car registrations in the USA by the Protocol Office of the State
Department.
Otherwise you're SOL, it would seem.
Retroactive laws are generally allowed only in taxation. It's
constitutionally prohibited to impose criminal penalties
retroactively. But of course the "surcharge" claims to be a civil
debt. Anyway, whether it was retroactive at all in your case isn't
clear from the facts you gave; your bare assertion doesn't prove or
even support such a contention. And in your case it isn't obvious why
you weren't assessed the surcharge ten years ago.
Why anyone would live in New Jersey is another question entirely. But
then, Hawaii perhaps excepted, there isn't anyplace in the USA I would
care to live.
GiJeet
> The law has been upheld in the courts, and indeed the surcharge can't
> be discharged in bankruptcy:http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/886/886.F2d.602.89-5090.html
> Nor can you evade it by moving out of state (although apparently such
> surcharges don't apply if you are an out of state resident, licensed
> out of state, at the time of the offense)
Hello, and thanks for responding. I did live out of state (I lived in
NY) at the time of the offenseand had a NY driving license. I was
visiting NJ at the time. How would I find more information on this
exemption?
Really appreciate your help
TIA
G
muggle...@googlemail.com
As I said, I don't live in the USA although I happen to have a driving
license from a US state, among many others from different countries
(because of my work).
My understanding as to nonresidents of a state relates to when
Virginia instituted its surcharge system. It was extensively covered
by the Washington Post, which is one of the US newspapers I have to
read every morning.
It would seem that you got hit with the surcharge when you later moved
to New Jersey, years after the offense -- and gave them jurisdiction.
Now if you haven't been there for the requisite time period you could
I suppose change your mind and move out of state. But if that's not
possible and you want to contest the surcharge, you have to raise the
issue I just mentioned.
You could get a free brief consultation from one of those specialist
NJ DUI lawyers (you can find them on Google). Here's a summary:
http://www.lawyers.ca/international/summaryoflawstate.asp?province=NJ&state=New+Jersey
I don't think you should be relying on me, given my distaste for the
Garden State (what irony!) and my memory of having driven through it
time after time going between NYC and points west ... 30 years ago.
I have done a bit more research for you. I am not going to analyze the
stuff -- I haven't time -- but I will post the six NJ cases on point
to this newsgroup. Look particularly at Wnuck v. New Jersey Div. of
Motor Vehicles, 337 N.J.Super. 52, 766 A.2d 312 (2001) (Director of
Motor Vehicles imposed insurance surcharge on Pennsylvania motorist,
resulting from his third conviction for driving while intoxicated
(DWI), and motorist appealed. The Superior Court, Appellate Division,
Lintner, J.A.D., held that non-resident driver convicted of DWI in New
Jersey is subject to insurance surcharge, even though he is not
licensed in New Jersey.) I'm not going to try to rationalize this in
view of what I read a year or more ago in the Wash Post. Just because
a NJ court says something doesn't mean it's in accord with the US
Constitution; but more and more the Lord Mansfied Rule is being swept
away as between US states (though not foreign countries).
Good luck.
GiJeet
GiJeet
>
> I don't think you should be relying on me, given my distaste for the
> Garden State (what irony!) and my memory of having driven through it
> time after time going between NYC and points west ... 30 years ago.
>
> I have done a bit more research for you. I am not going to analyze the
> stuff -- I haven't time -- but I will post the six NJ cases on point
> to this newsgroup. Look particularly at Wnuck v. New Jersey Div. of
> Motor Vehicles, 337 N.J.Super. 52, 766 A.2d 312 (2001) (Director of
> Motor Vehicles imposed insurance surcharge on Pennsylvania motorist,
> resulting from his third conviction for driving while intoxicated
> (DWI), and motorist appealed. The Superior Court, Appellate Division,
> Lintner, J.A.D., held that non-resident driver convicted of DWI in New
> Jersey is subject to insurance surcharge, even though he is not
> licensed in New Jersey.) I'm not going to try to rationalize this in
> view of what I read a year or more ago in the Wash Post. Just because
> a NJ court says something doesn't mean it's in accord with the US
> Constitution; but more and more the Lord Mansfied Rule is being swept
> away as between US states (though not foreign countries).
>
> Good luck.
Thank you Sir.
alta47
news:88829c7c-32f2-474f...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
-----------------------
Two things...
One is that you could try posting your questions on this at
http://njlawnet.com in the "Criminal Law" Q&A Forum.
The second is that New Jersey has been going back a number of years and
looking for what they say were outstanding penalties/fines for various
things, and then demanding payment with various threats of automatic
judgments, liens, additional penalties, etc. In my case, I received some
goofy threatening letter regarding a supposed housing repair violation fine
and penalty from the year 2000 which was imposed after I no longer even
owned the property. In fact, the new owner had already torn down the old
structure and built a new one at the time that they supposedly imposed the
penalty for failure to make the repairs. When I first received a notice
about the so-called outstanding repairs back in 2000, I called and explained
that the property was sold, was torn down, and a new building was under
construction. Back then, they said for me to just send a letter of
explanation and a copy of the deed showing when I sold the property.
But now, they gave me some story about the past violations and the newly
imposed fines for failure to make the repairs surviving the change of
ownerhsip, and even surviving the tear-down and replacing of the building
with a new one. The only reason that I am telling you this story is that
the person trying to collect the so-called fine and penanlties was
authorized to settle the claim for half the amount. In other words, I could
pay half of the $1,100 they said I owed, and the matter would be settled. I
just decided to make a business decision and paid them $550 and they wrote
back saying it was settled and resolved.
So, yes, they are acting like bill collectors, and I guess they get some
kind of atta-boy for every chump like me they get to collect money from for
some alleged outstanding fine/penalty. I don't know if a DUI surcharge like
they are trying to collect from you can be settled in that way.
