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