Time: Mon Sep 22 10:40:12 1997 by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA19453; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:43:44 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:43:26 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Corrupt State Courts? (fwd) <snip> > >*Jus Dare* >Corrupt State Courts? > > >From: mlindste@clandjop.com (Martin Lindstedt) >Subject: Corrupt State Courts Which Refuse to Obey Their Own Law > > >State of Missouri ) > Plaintiff ) > ) > vs. ) Case # MU0197-055121MR > ) Alleged First Degree Trespassing >Martin Lindstedt ) > Defendant ) > > Defendant's Motion for Dismissal > > > COMES NOW Martin Lindstedt, Defendant, to request that >for the good of all parties involved that this case be >dismissed with prejudice. > > Facts Justifying Dismissal of Complaint > >1. Defendant asked for a jury trial in his Motion for a >Continuance submitted August 8, 1997, filed Aug. 11, 1997, >and granted by this Court on August 18, 1997. Along with >the Motion for a Continuance was a Motion to Subpoena >Witnesses and Motion for Disclosure by Prosecution. > >2. The Prosecution has not obeyed the law as laid down by >Missouri Rules of Court, Rule 25.03, Misdemeanors or >Felonies, Disclosure by State Without Court Order, nor Rule >25.02, which gave Prosecutor 10 days from Defendant's >service of the request. > >3. Under the Missouri Rules of Court, Rule 26.01 and Rule >26.02, this Court or its clerk was supposed to subpoena >Defendant's witnesses and evidence as presented by >Defendant's Motion to Subpoena Witnesses. Plaintiff has >asked his friendly witnesses if they have been subpoenaed, >and they have said they have not been subpoenaed. > >4. Defendant has received several letters informing him >that a trial date has been set for Sept. 22, 1997. >Plaintiff called up this Court's clerks' office at >approximately 3:50 p.m. Sept. 18, 1997 and was told that >this Court's computers were down and that they couldn't >state whether or not Defendant would be attending a bench >trial, a jury trial or a mere pre-trial conference. This >slip-shod conduct by this court system and prosecution will >place Defendant in the position of calling for a mistrial on >Sept. 22, 1997 if a trial is held. If Defendant's >appearance on Sept. 22 is merely for purposes of arraignment >or a pre-trial conference best and inexpensively handled by >mailed motion, Defendant has already waived arraignment and >pled "not-guilty," and thus the Prosecutor should be held >liable for the costs of unnecessary expense accrued to >Defendant. It would be far better to merely dismiss this >weak and trifling case if neither prosecutor nor court is >willing or able to give full due process to Defendant. > >5. Defendant is a poor person who lives 230 miles away from >Columbia Missouri. Defendant will have to borrow a car and >at least $50-$60 dollars for meals and gas money to attend a >trial. This is why Defendant is unwilling to have to go >back and forth except once for a jury trial. Motions should >be ruled upon by this Court as presented by mail and after >the other side has had a chance to respond, this being one >of the functions of a court of law. > >6. Defendant considers this case to be nothing more than a >weak attempt by the City of Columbia Prosecutor and their >police department to defend against a federal civil-rights >action by Defendant for false arrest under color of law. If >Defendant has to waste more of his time and borrowed money >in battling this matter through this state circuit court, >the rest of the Missouri court system, and then to the >federal courts on this trifling matter, then yes, indeed, >Defendant will be suing the City of Columbia and its police >officers. > > The heart of this matter is that the Missouri Libertarian >Party convened an illegal public meeting on April 20, 1997 >for the purposes of stripping Defendant from his elected >public offices as a party member on private property. >Having succeeded once in violating the provisions of RSMo >610 -- Conduct of Public Business -- by calling the Columbia >police department to arrest Defendant for `trespassing,' on >March 16, 1997, the management of the Heidelburg Restaurant >and Missouri Libertarian Party followed the exact same modus >operandi regarding Defendant's lawful videotaping of a >public meeting. At the time they knew they were under the >eye of a federal lawsuit in their individual capacities and >they didn't want further evidence to be brought against >them, so again, they used the dodge of holding the results >of their effectuated conspiracy in a public restaurant >managed by one of their stooges, and calling in the Columbia >police department and getting them to arrest Defendant under >color of "First Degree Trespassing." Therefore, the City >of Columbia and its police department may well be held >liable for false arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, and >1986. Under federal and state law Defendant was only >defending his civil rights in the face of conspiratorial >opposition of the Missouri Libertarian Party and City of >Columbia police officials. > > At Defendant's municipal court trial it was discovered >that the complainant, James Turpin had been relieved of his >management job by the Heidelburg restaurant after 20 years' >service. They are rightfully scared of Defendant's on-going >civil rights lawsuit holding them responsible, therefore >they both are seeking cover and do not wish to pursue this >complaint. It was admitted by Prosecutor McKenzie that it >is the City of Columbia which is the only complainant >remaining. Therefore this case should be dismissed as the >City of Columbia lacks any standing whatsover to prosecute >other than a false standing of protecting itself from >federal civil-rights litigation by trying to maliciously >prosecute Defendant into a bogus misdemeanor conviction. > > Defendant must inform this Court that Prosecutor McKenzie >will be trying to suborn perjury from its police department >witnesses because Defendant caught Officer Klein and Captain >Fagiolo during the Columbia municipal court trial committing >acts of perjury by refusing to name other Columbia police >officers present, and admitting to a Class A misdemeanor >under RSMo 610 by writing Defendant that no incident report >had been made on March 16, 1996 and showing up at trial with >the incident report clutched in their hands. Prosecutor >McKenzie can no longer claim ignorance as to Columbia police >misconduct and lawlessness after the Columbia municipal >court trial of June 24, 1997. > > Defendant is presently suing in federal courts the >Missouri Secretary of State and State of Missouri for events >pivotal to this matter and for another election matter >related to a refusal to do their duties. The Missouri >Secretary of State and Missouri Attorney General's office >will not appreciate having to testify truthfully in this >petty misdemeanor trial as to how they willfully refused to >perform their duties according to law if the end result is >that Defendant will use it to effect against them in his >federal civil lawsuits. > >7. Defendant is one of the people who wrote and signed an >affidavit against Judge Asel on March 20, 1996 asking for >Judge Asel's removal under RSMo 545.660 because Defendant >believed Judge Asel wouldn't give Donald Albright a fair >trial. Judge Asel read the motion and affidavits, got red- >faced, but refused to obey the provisions of state statue >and held an illegal trial in which Defendant Albright was >found guilty nevertheless. Mr. Albright didn't sue in a >federal court for civil-rights violations, like this >Defendant wanted him to, so Defendant posted the matter on >his WWW page, Patrick Henry On-Line, under URL: > > http://mo-net.com/~mlindste/albright.html > > Defendant is thus under some apprehension as to the >likelihood of receiving substantive due process of law from >a court and court system he deems corrupt, and has so >tirelessly and publicly mocked concerning its non-existent >legitimacy. > > > > WHEREFORE, Defendant moves that this trifling matter be >dismissed with prejudice by this Court. > > > -s- Martin Lindstedt > __________________________________ > Martin Lindstedt, (417) 472-6901 > > > Certificate of Service > A copy of the foregoing was mailed (and one copy faxed) >on Sept. 18, 1997 to the City of Columbia Prosecuting >Attorney William S. McKenzie, Howard Municipal Building, 600 >E. Broadway, Columbia, Missouri 65201. > Three copies of the foregoing were mailed (and one copy >faxed) on Sept. 18, 1997 to the Boone County Circuit Court, >Boone County Courthouse, 701 E. Walnut, Columbia, Missouri >65201-4486 > > >-s- Martin Lindstedt >__________________________ > > * * * * * > >*Jus Dare* means "to give or to make the law." >This list deals with the perversion of the Supreme Court. > >To subscribe, send the message "add yourmailname.server" >in the body of a message to jus-dare-request@freedom.by.net >or contact Dave Delany <freedom@hancock.net> > >Visit us on the web: http://hancock.net/~freedom > >Dave Delany's Freedom House PO Box 212 Conklin NY 13748 >*Jus Dare* is a service of Hearthside Family Publications. > > ======================================================================== 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 3.0.3 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