To the Missouri Court of Appeals -- Southern District
in Springfield, Missouri
MARTIN F. LINDSTEDT, )
Relator, )
)
)
vs. ) Case No. 21279
)
Newton County Clerk KAY BAUM, )
Chief Election Official of Newton County, )
and Missouri Secretary of State, )
Chief Election Official of Missouri )
REBECCA COOK )
Respondents )
Demand for this Court's Finds of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Justifying Court Decision in Above Case
Comes now the Relator, Martin Lindstedt, to demand of the
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, this court's
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law behind its decision
denying Relator's petition for writ of mandamus on October
10, 1996.
Relator has reason to suspect that there are no
valid factual or legal reasons behind this court's ruling;
but if there are, this court has a duty to state those
reasons, lest this court itself be adjudged a rubber-stamp
for the current political status-quo or as ruling by
judicial whim.
Arguments favoring this Court's revealing its Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law
1. Duty of Court to explain Court's actions.
Constitution of Missouri, Article V, Section 12, Judicial
opinions -- filing and publication -- memorandum decisions and
orders. The opinions of the supreme court and court of
appeals and all divisions or districts of said courts
shall be in writing and filed in the respective causes, and
shall become a part of the records of the court, be
available for publication, and shall be public records. The
supreme court and the court of appeals may issue memorandum
decisions or dispose of a cause by order pursuant to and as
authorized by supreme court rule.
The very last sentence oft-revised amendment pretty well
allows this court to get away with making a ruling under
color of judicial discretion and clothing it with an aura of
legality. As if that is not enough, so does the Rule 84.16
(b), Memorandum Opinions and Written Orders allow the
Missouri appellate courts and the Missouri supreme court to
get away with making a decree without explaining what legal
basis, if any, underlies that decree. These lawyer-made laws
are an example of self-interest legislation running wild
under color of law.
The purpose of Article 5, Section 12's requirement for an
open, public written opinion is to codify the rational and
reasons behind case law and to install public confidence in
the judicial system. The Missouri court of appeal's decision
stinks of merely being a rubber-stamping of ballot-access
laws on behalf of the Republicans and Democrats by a gang of
lawyers appointed by those politicians.
It is instinctively understood that if a court can not
and will not state the factual and legal reasons behind its
rulings then it is because that court's rulings will not
withstand scrutiny. An inability to justify their rulings
and a refusal to do so is a sure sign that fraud is being
waged upon the general public and using the coercive power
of the state to uphold such rulings implies extortion. Since
this is an election case concerning ballot access, the net
result of this appellate decision without firm legal
underpinnings is government rule in Missouri has no true
mandate or legitimacy because it refused to take true, real,
substantive chances on voter refusal or approval. This court
has acted solely to protect the interests of the political
status quo, thus obstructing peaceful political change based
upon the true consent of the governed.
2. This court in its decision to deny Relator's writ
petition states: ". . . and having been advised in the
premises, does deny said application."
This brings up the question as to what are the premises
behind this court's denial. Are there any legitimate
premises for denial? Relator quoted election statute,
Constitution of Missouri and the United States, case law
from Missouri and federal courts, political reality as
Relator sees it. Relator did not receive a brief or an
answer against Relator's petition for writ from the
Respondent's lawyers. So if this court has really been
advised in the premises, then what are those premises? Or
is this court just making stuff up and saying that there are
valid arguments behind its denial?
Secondly, this court says ". . . and having been advised
in the premises, . . ." Who advised this court? What
premises did they give? Relator has no idea as to who
whispered into this court's ear and what they whispered.
Relator wishes to know the identity of the whisperer(s) and
the contents of this legal regurgitation so important it
took precedence over the interests of the electors and
Relator's candidacy.
3. Relator made no secret that this matter should have been
decided by the Missouri Supreme Court instead of making
Relator jump through the additional procedural hoop of
having Relator's writ petition appear before this court.
Relator was so put out with this procedural dodging of
responsibility contrary to statute (RSMo 115.333 Sec. 2),
case law precedent (State ex rel. Coker-Garcia v. Blunt 849
SW2d 81), and Constitution of Missouri Art. 5, Section 11,
that Relator filed a Petition of Grievance. This illegal and
sordid jurisdictional shuffle cost an additional $20 dollars
in printing and mailing costs to Relator. In addition, it
cost another week's worth of absentee votes for Relator,
since Relator's name isn't on the ballot as yet.
The only value this procedural dodge indulged in by the
Missouri Supreme Court had for Relator was to find out what,
if any, legal justification the Respondents had for not
placing Relator's name on the ballot and how the Missouri
court system could justify not granting Relator his petition
for mandamus.
By refusing to justify its decision, Relator has no idea
as to what legal reasonings prohibit Relator's name being
placed upon the ballot as a candidate for sheriff. Relator
is forced to conclude that there is no legal basis in
Missouri election law or that any basis is merely a sordid
recounting of how Missouri political special interests will
not tolerate open, fair, honest elections -- and that is
that. The Missouri court of appeals has no function other
than to act as a judicial rubber-stamp serving the Missouri
government, politicians, and special interests.
Relator therefore has no idea of how to proceed further
with any chance of success through the Missouri court
apparatus, as mere quoting of the law has been hitherto
ineffective. This court's silence as to what legal reasoning
-- if any -- is adequate leads Relator with no option other
than to pitch much the same arguments before the last
judicial stop in Missouri, getting his ticket punched,
before raising this matter in front of a federal court.
In short, this Court's silence concerning the validity of
its legal reasoning is an admission that no court in
Missouri can be trusted to obey fundamental precepts of law
underlying civilization in the face of a political status-
quo which machinated special-interest 'election laws'
transgressing against the rights of alternative candidates
and political parties. There is no such thing as judicial
independence of Missouri courts, rather they act as a
judicial facade for the short-sighted interests of Missouri
politicians and political special interests.
Demand for Relief
Wherefore, the Relator\Appellant demands this Court
present its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
justifying its decision to not grant Relator his lawful
right to mandamus against Respondents as this Court has a
duty and obligation to prove that it knows and obeys the law
and holds itself to its provisions.
-s- Martin Lindstedt October 11, 1996
_______________________________ ___________________
Relator Date
cc: Missouri supreme court
.Commentary: Of course, the Missouri Court of Appeals will not grant me this Demand for their Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law because they have no valid legal reasons for their decision. They just made something up and hid behind rules they made up to avoid justifying their decision.
The purpose behind this demand is to further trash out the Missouri court system by showing them up for the lawless gang of government criminals that they really are. Eventually this case will wind up in Federal court and this maneuvering in the Missouri court system will show how the current government allowed itself to decay for no other reason than to protect its power.
This decision by the Missouri court of appeals shows that there is no justice or independence from government to be found by government judges in government courts. No Justice eventually means No Peace, as people find self-help remedies since they have no chance for justice unless they make their own.
In the short term, whenever the ballot asks if Judge "CrookedWeasel" should be retained on the bench, go ahead and vote 'NO.' While his replacement will probably be no better, at least the replacement will run scared by seeing his predecessor humiliated by the people's vote of 'no-confidence.'
Don't worry that you will be ruining the career of an honest lawyer. For years I voted 'NO' on judge retention as a matter of principle, but then I got to see firsthand the conduct of the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western and Southern Districts, and the Missouri Supreme Court and it confirmed my suspicions. As far as the judges in the Eastern District are concerned, I am positive they are no more honest than their brethren on the bench in the other Missouri districts.
--Martin Lindstedt
.
Back to Lindstedt for Newton County Sheriff or
Back to Patrick Henry On-Line