Peter Eyre

73 Leverett St.
Keene, NH 03431




GreenIield District Court

JeII Bengtson, Todd M. Dodge, William Mazenec
plaintiII,
vs.
Peter Eyre,
deIendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket #10.41.CR.11.41


0RWLRQ WR GLVPLVV FRPSODLQW DQG UHTXHVW IRU
IXOOILQGLQJRIIDFWDQGFRQFOXVLRQVRIODZ

Now Comes Peter Eyre, alleged deIendant, by special appearance, not submitting to the court`s
jurisdiction, who hereby moves this court to dismiss the complaint Iiled by JeII Bengtson on behalI
GreenIield District Court, Ior Iailure to present a cause oI action or justiciable controversy. Failure to
present the court a case deprives the court oI jurisdiction. Grounds are Iurther set Iorth below. The
court is Iurther requested to provide a Iull Iindings oI Iact and conclusions oI law iI the court denies
this motion.
1. No justiciable case or controversy. The complaint is devoid oI allegations and Iacts oI any
wrongdoing by Peter Eyre. Alleged plaintiII has not alleged the violation oI any legal rights and
damage. The 'complaint is a request Ior relieI and Iails to set Iorth a justiciable case or
controversy: 'courts only adjudicate justiciable controversies. United States v. Interstate Commerce
Commission, 337 US 426, 430.
The Ioundation Ior the court`s jurisdiction is the purpose oI American government itselI, this is in
the Declaration oI Independence oI 1776:
'We hold these truths to be selI-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LiIe,
Liberty and the pursuit oI Happiness. 7KDW WR VHFXUH WKHVH ULJKWV *RYHUQPHQWV DUH
LQVWLWXWHG DPRQJ 0HQ, deriving their just powers Irom the consent oI the governed..."
(emphasis added).

This is applicable to Massachusetts governments as one oI the original 13 'states. This is also
shown in several other state constitutions regarding the establishment oI American
governments: 'governments.are established to protect and maintain individual rights. See Arizona,
Washington and Minnesota.
This is why to have a case or cause oI action; a plaintiII must plead the violation oI a legal right:
'the duty oI this court, as oI HYHU\ MXGLFLDO WULEXQDO, is limited to GHWHUPLQLQJ ULJKWV oI
persons or oI property, which are actually controverted in the particular case beIore it.
Tyler v. Judges oI the Court oI Registration, 179 U.S. 405, 21 SCt. 206, 208 (emphasis
added).

The basic elements oI a case or cause oI action is the violation oI a legal right (injury) and loss
or harm (damage). The alleged plaintiII, has not pled any violation oI a legal right or harm. Under the
law, there is no cause oI action: 'A plaintiII must allege personal injury Iairly traceable to the
deIendant's allegedly unlawIul conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relieI. Allen v.
Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) and:
'Cause oI action is that single group oI Iacts which is claimed to have brought about
unlawIul injury to plaintiII and which entitles plaintiII to relieI. Gurliacci v. Mayer, 590
A.2d 914

2. PlaintiII lacks standing. Without a justiciable case or controversy, the plaintiII lacks
standing to complain: "To have standing in any capacity, a litigant must show that the challenged
action has caused litigant injury." Perella v. Massachusetts Turpike Auth., 772 N.E.2d 70.
3. Lack oI jurisdiction. Without standing, this court has no jurisdiction: 'Standing represents a
jurisdictional requirement. National Organization Ior Women, Inc., v. Scheidler, 510 US 249
and: 'courts only adjudicate justiciable controversies. United States v. Interstate Commerce
Commission, 337 US 426, 430. Alleged deIendant is not accused oI violating anyone`s legal rights,
thereIore, there is no case or cause oI action pled and the court has no jurisdiction.



Conclusion
Because the plaintiII has Iailed to allege the required elements oI a cause oI action, the Court has
no jurisdiction. As such, the court should dismiss the complaint Iiled against alleged deIendant.
Submitted this 11 day oI February 2011.

Peter Eyre






CertiIicate oI service

This is to certiIy that a true and correct copy oI the Ioregoing has been Iaxed this 11 day oI February
2011, to the plaintiII at the Iollowing address:

JeII Bengtson
13 Conway Street
GreenIield, Mass. 01301

Peter Eyre

























GreenIield District Court


JeII Bengtson, Todd M. Dodge, William Mazanec
plaintiII,
vs.
Peter Eyre,
deIendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case #1041BR1141


25'(5

This matter, having come beIore the Court on deIendant`s motion to dismiss; the Court being
Iully advised oI the premises and good cause appearing, it is hereby 25'(5(' granting deIendant`s
motion to dismiss.

Date:
Judge William Mazanic oI the GreenIield District Court