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