Time: Mon Jun 30 19:46:31 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA14467; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 18:45:18 -0700 (MST) by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA14285; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 18:45:01 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 18:43:17 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Fed. Rule Civil Proc. Rule 33 Interrogatory (fwd) FYI. I have NO idea how I came to receive this message, but it looks interesting, in any event. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com >To: mlindste@mo-net.com, mmoore@mail.coin.missouri.edu, > SOSmain@mail.sos.state.mo.us >From: mlindste@clandjop.com (Martin Lindstedt) >Subject: Fed. Rule Civil Proc. Rule 33 Interrogatory >Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 20:38:43 +0100 > >Dear Title 42 Class: > > The below is an example of how to post a Rule 33 interrogatory for >purposes of discovery. The court does not want the interrogatory, but >one must file a notice of service with the clerk. Later, if or when >the defendants balk at providing discovery, then a Rule 37 Fed. Rule of >Civil Procedure can be filed to compel discovery. > Lawyer Moore is absolutely incompetent as a lawyer, so I did not >reveal this interrogatory before today, the deadline for filing, because >he isn't smart enough to ask for discovery from me. He should have >gotten the first interrogatory today or tomorrow, by which time it >will be too late. > Discovery should not be usually delayed but in this case I had >most of the discovery cards. Now if they reveal false information >which conflicts what is already out, then they will really be in >trouble. > Litigation is war and should be treated as such. > >--Martin Lindstedt > >===================================================================== > > > > IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE > WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI > CENTRAL DIVISION > >MARTIN LINDSTEDT, ) > Plaintiff, ) > ) >v. ) No. 96-4262-CV-C-9 > ) >MISSOURI LIBERTARIAN ) >PARTY, SECRETARY OF STATE ) >REBECCA M. COOK and the ) >STATE OF MISSOURI, et. al., ) > Defendants. ) > > > INTERROGATORY -- MISSOURI LIBERTARIAN PARTY > > 1. Plaintiff hereby points out that Defendant Missouri >Libertarian Party (hereafter referred to as MoLP) has not >yet provided its initial discoveries. This initial >discovery sought was a listing of which 1994 MoLP candidates >asked for and received a refund their candidate filing fees >and why this former MoLP party policy was discontinued in >1996 when Plaintiff asked for a continuation of that policy >in February and March of 1996 for himself and any other >candidates Plaintiff might have recruited. > This initial discovery question, which should have been >provided by May 15, 1997, has yet to be answered by >Defendant MoLP. > > 2. By what authority does the MoLP exist as a political >body recognized as representing Libertarians throughout >Missouri? Is there a charter or recognized body of laws of >which the violation of whose requirements means that the >MoLP no longer exists as a legitimate political party within >the bounds of the state of Missouri? Please show proof that >Defendant MoLP has a right to exist and under what >conditions this existence is maintained. > > 3. Is the MoLP a public organization liable for >obedience to election laws and other state statutes >governing the organization and accessibility to public >review of public political organizations or is it a >"private" association or club exempt from having to obey >laws relevant to recognized political parties within the >State of Missouri? > >4. Is Defendant MoLP in fact governed by a state committee >comprised of two elected delegates from each of the 34 >senatorial districts according to state law or is it >governed by an extra-legal "Executive Committee" of two >delegates from the nine U.S. Congressional districts? > >5. Please submit a complete, true, and accurate copy of the >minutes of an "Expediting Committee" meeting held March 17, >1996, the members present, and how the vote went on a >motion by Plaintiff to continue refunding candidate filing >fees, and by similar motions from others to either continue >refunding filing fees or to discontinue the practice. > >6. Please submit a copy of the business meeting at a "MoLP >state convention" held May 25, 1996. Specifically the >amendments to the MoLP constitution and by-laws made, >whether those amendments were submitted to the state >committee at least one week in advance in accordance with >MoLP constitution and by-laws, the vote taken, whether the >people voting were state committee members, or whether the >people voting were even members of the MoLP at the time they >voted. Also submit the list of state committee members >present and the complete MoLP membership list as of that >date. > >7. Please submit a complete true and accurate copy of the >minutes of an "Expediting Committee" meeting held July 21, >1996, and what was decided of an attempt by Plaintiff to >challenge the credentials and fitness of two 7th >Congressional district delegates to that "Expediting >Committee" due to alleged misconduct in their election >practices. > >8. Plaintiff has in his possession an electronic message >dated Aug. 30, 1996 concerning a plan to amend MoLP bylaws >to have Plaintiff expelled from MoLP. Please submit all >such electronic and written communications concerning such a >plan in their entirety along with such persons approached to >carry out such a plan. > >9. Was the agenda of the state committee meeting of Jan. >19, 1997 posted to all state committee members at least a >week in advance in accordance with the rules of the MoLP >constitution and bylaws? If not, why not? > >10. Please submit to Plaintiff complete, correct, and >accurate minutes of the state committee meeting of January >19, 1997. Include the vote taken by each of the state >committee members as to changes in the MoLP constitution and >bylaws. This specificially includes the vote by each state >committee member concerning the new "expulsion clause" or >clauses. > >11. Were any state committee members or MoLP members given >advance notice as to the contents of the abovementioned >"expulsion clause" and invited to submit their own version >of this "expulsion" bylaw? Please give names and details as >to the planning behind the submitted and any unsubmitted >expulsion bylaws of Jan. 19, 1997. This question >specifically includes the proposal submitted by Mitchell J. >Moore and one submitted by Thomas Knapp. > >12. Why was there no election of new state officers in >accordance with Revised Statute of Missouri 115.623 on Jan. >19, 1997? Why were the terms of the current state officers >extended? Please submit details explaining this dereliction >of duty mandated by RSMo 115.623 and MoLP constitution and >bylaws. > >13. Please submit a complete, accurate, and true account of >the minutes of an "expediting" or "executive" meeting held >February 16, 1997 at Columbia Missouri. This specifically >includes the names of members of this committee allowed to >vote, the vote by name of the "forwarded consideration to >expel Martin Lindstedt" as a member of the state committee >or of state membership or both. > >14. Please submit a complete, accurate, and honest account >of the minutes of an "expediting" or "executive" meeting >held March 16, 1997 at Columbia Missouri. Include whatever >"rules" or "procedures" were voted upon to expel Plaintiff >from his elected seat as a state committee member or as a >member of the party; the names of those members present >allowed to vote, and the vote by name of those people >present. > >15. Please give full details as to what happened so that >Plaintiff was forced to not attend the public meeting of the >MoLP "executive" or "expediting" committee nor record the >minutes of this public meeting. This includes including >naming those people present who asked James Turpin, then >manager of the Heidelburg Restaurant, to demand the >expulsion of Plaintiff from that public meeting-place of the >MoLP "expediting" or "executive" committee, and whether >public meetings of the MoLP are held in the Heidelburg >restaurant as opposed to in public areas specifically so >that the management and/or ownership of the Heidelburg >restaurant can be prevailed upon by one faction of the MoLP >to expel a member or members of another faction. Is James >Turpin a member or functionary of the MoLP? Was the >complaint against Plaintiff for videotaping that meeting >limited to whether he could videotape before the meeting as >opposed to videotaping at all? > >16. Please submit a complete, accurate, and honest account >of the minutes of an state committee meeting held April 20, >1997 at Columbia Missouri. Include whether Plaintiff was >removed from his position as an elected state committeeman >or as a member of the Missouri Libertarian Party. Name the >state committee members present who voted to expel Plaintiff >from his elected seat as a state committee member or as a >member of the party; the names of those members present >allowed to vote, and the vote by name of those people >present. > >17. Please explain in detail how and why Plaintiff came to >be arrested by the Columbia Police Department on Apr. 20, >1997 for "first degree trespassing" from a state committee >meeting called specifically expel Plaintiff from his >membership/elected offices of or within the MoLP? Who asked >the manager James Turpin to call the police? Was the reason >behind this summoning of the police, and Plaintiff's >eventual arrest Plaintiff's insistence on videotaping this >public meeting? > >18. Were the agenda items Plaintiff submitted in accordance >with the MoLP constitution acted or voted upon on Apr. 20, >1997 while Plaintiff was in jail? If not, why not? > > >Please sign and notarize the answers to these >interrogatories in accordance with Fed. Rules Civil Proc. >Rule 33 provisions. > > By:___________________________ > > > Subscribed and sworn to before me this _______ day of >_______________ 1997. > Notary Public >__________________________________ >My commission expires: > > > Certificate of Service > > One copy of the foregoing was mailed June 27, 1997 to: >Attorney Mark E. Long, c/o The Missouri Attorney General's >Office, as counsel for Defendants Secretary of State Rebecca >M. Cook and State of Missouri, Box 899, Jefferson City, >Missouri 65102. > > One copy of the foregoing was mailed June 27, 1997 to: >Lawyer Mitchell J. Moore for the Defendant Missouri >Libertarian Party, 1210 West Broadway, Columbia, Missouri >65203 > >---------------------------------------------------------- > >To: Clerk, United States District Court June 27, 1997 >131 W. High Street >Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 > >_____________________________________________________________________ >MARTIN LINDSTEDT, ) > Plaintiff, ) >vs. ) No. 96-4262-CV-C-9 > ) >MISSOURI LIBERTARIAN PARTY ) >et. al., ) > Defendants ) >______________________________________________________________________ > >Copies of the following document(s) were served on counsel >of record on June 27, 1997: > > _X_ Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendant Missouri Libertarian > Party > > >______________________________________________________________________ > > Certificate of Service > > Plaintiff certifies that copies were forwarded to all >interested counsel June 27, 1997 by United States Mail, >postage prepaid. > >Interested Counsel: > >Mark E. Long -- for Missouri Secretary of State & State of Missouri >The Missouri Attorney General's Office >P.O. Box 899 >Granby, [sic] Missouri 65102 > >Mitchell J. Moore -- for Defendant Missouri Libertarian >Party >1210 West Broadway >Columbia, Missouri 65203 > > by: ______________________________ > Martin Lindstedt, Plaintiff > 338 Rabbit Track Road > Granby, Missouri 64844 > (417) 472-6901 > >====================================================================== > > IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE > WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI > CENTRAL DIVISION > >MARTIN LINDSTEDT, ) > Plaintiff, ) > ) >v. ) No. 96-4262-CV-C-9 > ) >MISSOURI LIBERTARIAN ) >PARTY, SECRETARY OF STATE ) >REBECCA M. COOK and the ) >STATE OF MISSOURI, et. al., ) > Defendants. ) > > > INTERROGATORY -- STATE OF MISSOURI DEFENDANTS > > 1. Plaintiff hereby points out that Defendant State of >Missouri and Rebecca Cook, Secretary of State of Missouri >(hereafter referred to as State of Missouri Defendants) have >not yet provided its initial discoveries. This initial >discovery sought by Plaintiff was the legislative history >behind the formation of Revised Statute of Missouri (RSMo) >115.357 in 1977. Plaintiff has reason to suspect that the >petition signature provision was the established major >political partys' leaderships' method of getting around >1974's Lubin v. Panish 94 S.Ct. 1315 decision which >disallowed the use of filing fees to discriminate against >indigent candidates. > This initial discovery question, which should have been >provided by May 15, 1997, has yet to be answered by State of >Missouri defendants . > > 2. Is the Secretary of State responsible for enforcing >and/or obeying the election laws of the State of Missouri? > > 3. Does the Secretary of State or State of Missouri >practice "selective enforcement" of its election laws? If >such selective enforcement is practiced, will the Secretary >of State either move to make the aggrieved party whole or to >enforce the provisions of Missouri election laws upon the >offending parties if given notice of past discriminatory >practices? > >4. Is the Secretary of State aware of any past practice >wherein a political party paid the filing fees of a >candidate for whatever reason? > >5. Would having a political party pay the filing fees or >refund the filing fees of a candidate be illegal under >Missouri election statute? > >6. What are the penalties for a political party refusing to >obey RSMo 115.603-115.627, Political Party Committees >subsection? Will the State of Missouri defendants prosecute >or punish a political party which refuses to obey >abovementioned statutes? > >7. Were the State of Missouri defendants made aware of an >intent by the Missouri Libertarian Party (MoLP) to change >MoLP bylaws to expel an elected political party official >(Plaintiff)? > >8. If such intent by the MoLP would be contrary to RSMo >115.603-115.627, then what enforcement action has the State >of Missouri Defendants chosen to pursue? If no enforcement >action by the State of Missouri is contemplated, then please >state why not. > >9. Was the Secretary of State and Missouri Attorney >General's office notified by fax at approximately 1:07-1:15 >a.m. April 17, 1997 that the MoLP on April 20, 1997 intended >to expel Plaintiff from his state committee offices and as a >member of the MoLP and invited to attend as either/both >concerned co-defendants/law enforcement officials? Did the >Secretary of State and Missouri Attorney General receive the >faxed letter and other materials which would tend to prove >Plaintiff's assertions? > >10. Did the Secretary of State or Missouri Attorney General >or any of their representatives attend the April 20, 1997 >MoLP state committee meeting wherein Plaintiff was arrested >for trespass at the connivance of MoLP leaders and then >expelled from the MoLP or from his state committeeman's >office while Plaintiff was at the City of Columbia police >station? > >11. Are the State of Missouri Defendants aware that in >addition to numerous violations of Missouri election laws, >that on March 16, 1997 and on April 20, 1997 that the MoLP >violated the Missouri Sunshine Law, RSMo Chapter 610 -- >Conduct of Public Business, by prevailing on a MoLP party >member, then the manager of a public restaurant, to have >threatened with arrest and/or arrested for trespass >Plaintiff because Plaintiff was videotaping a public meeting >of a public organization under RSMo 610 provisions? > >12. Does the Secretary of State and Attorney General's >office realize that in addition to being defendants in this >matter that they are also officials entrusted with enforcing >the laws, especially the election laws of the State of >Missouri? > >13. If not having resigned their positions as law >enforcement officials, when exactly does the Secretary of >State and Missouri Attorney General's office intend to >investigate, and, if necessary, criminally prosecute under >state law their co-defendants, the Missouri Libertarian >Party? Is there a State complaint process wherein Plaintiff >can demand that the Missouri Libertarian Party as a state- >wide organization be disbanded as a criminal combination >unable to obey its own internal rules or the election laws >of the state of Missouri? > > ______________________________ > Martin Lindstedt, Plaintiff > >Please sign and notarize the answers to these >interrogatories in accordance with Fed. Rules Civil Proc. >Rule 33 provisions. > > By:___________________________ > > > Subscribed and sworn to before me this _______ day of >_______________ 1997. > Notary Public >__________________________________ >My commission expires: > > Certificate of Service > > One copy of the foregoing was mailed June 29, 1997 to: >Attorney Mark E. Long, c/o The Missouri Attorney General's >Office, as counsel for Defendants Secretary of State Rebecca >M. Cook and State of Missouri, Box 899, Jefferson City, >Missouri 65102. > One copy of the foregoing was mailed June 29, 1997 to: >Lawyer Mitchell J. Moore for the Defendant Missouri >Libertarian Party, 1210 West Broadway, Columbia, Missouri >65203 > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >To: Clerk, United States District Court June 29, 1997 >131 W. High Street >Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 > >________________________________________________________________ >MARTIN LINDSTEDT, ) > Plaintiff, ) >vs. ) No. 96-4262-CV-C-9 > ) >MISSOURI LIBERTARIAN PARTY ) >et. al., ) > Defendants ) >________________________________________________________________ > >Copies of the following document(s) were served on counsel >of record on June 29, 1997: > > ___ Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendant Secretary > of State of Missouri > > >________________________________________________________________ > > Certificate of Service > > Plaintiff certifies that copies were forwarded to all >interested counsel June 29, 1997 by United States Mail, >postage prepaid. > >Interested Counsel: > >Mark E. Long -- for Missouri Secretary of State & State of Missouri >The Missouri Attorney General's Office >P.O. Box 899 >Granby, Missouri 65102 > >Mitchell J. Moore -- for Defendant Missouri Libertarian Party >1210 West Broadway >Columbia, Missouri 65203 > > by: ______________________________ > Martin Lindstedt, Plaintiff > 338 Rabbit Track Road > Granby, Missouri 64844 > (417) 472-6901 > > > > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail