In January 2010, Kathy and John Kasberger bought an M1009 Blazer (military version of the civilian K5 Blazer)
from us. They transferred the registration from another vehicle and everything was processed on line. In September,
when the registration was coming close to expiration, they decided to register the Blazer as a collector vehicle. They
were asked tosubmit pictures to complete their application. Upon receipt of the pictures, DMV informed them that their
vehicle onlyqualified for HMV registration based on the new statute that went into effect in October, 2010. The Kasbergers
did not want the restricted use registration of HMV. They argued that the vehicle had had regular registration before and
still qualified for regular registration. The DMV stated the only registration available to them was HMV and branded the
title "off-highway use only". The Kasberger's were very upset at the branding of the title and were told they could sue the
person who sold it to them. The Kasberger's did not want to sue us, but they did call us in December of 2010 and explained
what had happened to them. We discussed their right to appeal the Department's decision and they decided to pursue it.
The appeal was filed on March 30, 2011.
We contacted Paul Underwood because he had successfully appealed the Department recinding registration on his
Pinzgauer. The statute that the DMV is basing their decision on is this: 341.10 6(m) A former military vehicle and does
not meet FMVSS. The Kasberger Blazer is a former military vehicle but it does meet FMVSS. The Dept. made the
assumption that because the federal law creating the FMVSSs specifically exempted military vehicles from compliance
to the law, that all military vehicles are manufactured without complying to FMVSS. This is not the case. Many vehicles
are manufactured by our auto industry for the military and where the government specified in the contract with the
manufacturer that the units comply to FMVSS, they do. This is why Dodge M880s (pickup trucks) have an FMVSS
certification sticker on the door post and Chevrolet M1008s (pickup trucks) and M1009s (Blazers) also have certification
labels on the door. The problem with the Kasberger Blazer, is that the certification label is no longer on the vehicle.
Either the door has been replaced or the label painted over. So, in order to win their appeal, the judge decided it was
the Kasbergers' burden to prove that their vehicle meets FMVSS.
The hearing was May 20, 2011. Kathy presented her evidence and did a written summation. We, the Kasbergers, Paul,
and others who helped contribute documents and ideas, worked on gathering evidence and building the case. We got a
copy of the military manual for that specific vehicle which clearly states the vehicle has an FMVSS certification label and
a diagram showing its placement on the door. We got the GM parts manual for civilian units for comparison. We took
pictures of the Blazers we have in our inventory showing the FMVSS certification labels on their doors. Kathy and John
took pictures of various parts on their Blazer showing the DOT certification, but in the end, the judge decided that
proving FMVSS was too complex for us to actually accomplish it and so ruled against us.
John and Kathy received his proposed decision August 31, 2011.
You have the right of rebuttal which means you write your argument against the decision and send it to the Administrator.
Kathy sent that in and waited months for a decision. It came on November 2, 2011. It also went against the Kasbergers.
Guess what, you still have another shot at it. You can request a reversal of the decision based on a "material error of fact"
or a re-hearing based on "discovery of new evidence sufficiently strong to reverse or modify the order." During the
hearing, the Dept. produced a witness who was identified as a representative of GM. He testified that the build records for
vehicles as old as the Blazer are not available from the manufacturer, therefore you have no evidence of FMVSS
compliance. After the hearing, one of the people who was keeping in contact with us because he has a vehicle he needs
to register, gave us a copy of the Department of Defense Safety Standards contract for the Blazer. This is the equivalent
of manufacturer build records because it is the specifications under which the manufacturer met its contractual obligations
to the government. It states unequivocally that the vehicle shall comply to FMVSS. The Kasbergers have submitted
their request for a rehearing or reversal this week ending November 19, 2011. They should have a response before
Christmas although one of the options available to the Administration is no response. If they again decide to discount the
evidence or ignore the case, the final step is a review by a circuit court judge.
As you can see, the process by which an everyday person can object to and seek reversal of a state of Wisconsin agency
decision, is a very long and hard battle to fight. This case is a full year long and many people have collectively, spent thousands of
hours gathering evidence and working on arguments and so far, to no avail. Very few people will voluntarily go through this process
to redress a wrong because of its difficulty and because the appeals process is weighted toward the state agency. When we
started this, we all thought a hearing before a judge would be fair and impartial. Not so in this system. Also, once the decision to place
the burden of proof on the citizen instead of the agency is made, it is extremely unusual for an everyday person to actually win.
I have included here links to the actual written arguments and decisions so far and websites for information but these links do
not include pictures of evidence presented or other documents produced for the hearing and so are not all inclusive.
|
Hearing Documents
|
Links
|
description of links
|
|
Dept of Defense documents
|
||
|
Specifications documents
|
||
|
Federal Act that created FMVSS
|
||
|
Wisconsin Statutes
|
||
|
Find your legislator
|
||
|
Wisc. legislature Home page
|
||
|
|
|
|