JASPER
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF [NEWTON] COUNTY, MISSOURI
[FORTIETH] DIVISION, [GRANBY MUNICIPAL] COURT {Div. IV}
29th Assoc. Cir.
CITY OF GRANBY Plaintiff )
)
vs. ) Case No. MU195-5MTX
)
MARTIN F. LINDSTEDT Defendant )
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT SHOULD
NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR
FAILURE TO PAY FINE AND COSTS
WHEREAS, Defendant, Martin F. Lindstedt, was on the 17th day of
August, 1995, adjudged guilty of Equipment Violation by the Court in the
above captioned case and;
WHEREAS; Defendant was sentenced to pay a fine and costs totalling
$346.00; and
WHEREAS; Defendant has failed, neglected and/or refused to pay $346.00
of said fine and costs as of the date of this Order, and such failure,
neglect and/or refusal is, if without good cause, in contempt of this
Court.
NOW THEREFORE, you are hereby commanded to appear before the Honorable
Joseph W. Schoeberl, at Jasper County Circuit Court, Associate Division IV,
located at the Jasper County Courthouse, Carthage, Missouri, at
Tuesday, on the 2nd day of April, 1996 @ 4:00 p.m. then and there to
show cause why you should not be held in contempt of Court for such
failure, neglect and/or refusal to pay the fine and costs herein.
Dated this 15th day of March, 1996.
J. W. Schoeberl
----------------
Judge
Petition for Writ of Prohibition
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS
SOUTHERN DISTRICT
MARTIN F. LINDSTEDT, )
Relator, )
)
vs. ) Case No. _________________
)
JUDGE JOSEPH SCHOEBERL )
JASPER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT )
CIRCUIT #29, DIVISION IV )
IN CARTHAGE MISSOURI )
Respondent )
PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
COMES NOW the Relator, Martin Lindstedt and in support of his Petition for
a Writ of Prohibition makes: (I) the following statements of jurisdiction
(II) fact, (II) reasons why the writ should issue, (IV) states the relief
sought.
I. Jurisdiction
Article V, Section 4, Constitution of Missouri, states that this court
"may issue and determine original remedial writs." Since this court is the
first in the judicial chain-of-command above the circuit courts, Relator
is bringing this matter up before this court.
If this court decides, for some reason, that it does not have
jurisdiction, Article V, Section 11 mandates that this court send it onto
the court which does have jurisdiction.
II. Statements of Fact
On July 27, 1995, a jury trial on Case # CR195-0005MT, Defective
Equipment, was held wherein Relator was found guilty of violating Granby
Municipal Ordinance 10-3, Lights. Respondent Schoeberl acted in a
prejudicial manner before, during, and after trial.
The City of Granby had no right whatsoever to prosecute this case, it
was an illegal trial as it violated Constitution of Missouri, Article 4,
Sections 29 & 31; "regulation of traffic on any state highway within such
cities, . . ." provision, Contract for Job # 7-P-60-361, Sections 16 & 19
signed with the Missouri Highway Department on August 22, 1989; RSMo
304.120 Section 2 governing permissible municipal ordinances; and the
U.S. Constitution's interstate commerce clause. Whenever these matters
were brought up at trial, the city prosecutor glossed over or objected to
them being admissible, and the Respondent, through use of threatening
Relator with contempt or striking Relator's line of questioning, allowed
this illegal trial to continue.
When Relator brought up the illegal nature of the trial through his
Motions/Amended Motions for Judgement of Acquittal/New Trial, Respondent
Schoeberl sniffed and said that that was "a matter for appellate review."
Respondent, in collusion with the city prosecutor, held an unscheduled
hearing on short notice wherein Relator, while acknowledged to be a pauper,
was deemed to be a "voluntary" pauper. Relator would not be able to pursue
the matter at the appellate level until Relator paid a $50 docket fee,
plus a bond of supersedeas of $250 fine and $91 court costs were paid.
Therefore, Relator would have to pay $391 before Relator would be allowed
to appeal this case.
Relator found out that the concept of "voluntary" paupers was a fiction
without precedent in case law. Relator filed as a pauper on September 1,
1995 before this court a petition for a writ of mandamus to force
Respondent to turn loose of the case and bring it up to the appellate
level for judicial review. This court agreed that Relator was indeed a
pauper and heard the petition without a need for the $50 docket fee.
However, on September 22, 1995 the Court of Appeals denied Relator's
petition for writ of mandamus to force Judge Schoeberl to bring Granby vs.
Lindstedt up to the appellate level by order, without any written opinion
offered. This, in violation of Art. V, Section 11, Constitution of Missouri,
the attempt to get around this constitutional provision via Missouri Rules
of Court 84.16 not withstanding.
On October 10, 1995, Relator repeated this process of petitioning for
writ of mandamus with the Missouri Supreme Court, with exactly the same
results. Relator's Forma Pauperis Affidavit was honored, then on November
21, 1995, the Missouri Supreme Court refused to grant Relator his writ. No
findings of fact or conclusions of law were given, merely a written order.
By not stating the legal and factual reasons behind such rulings, (in
violation of Article V, Section 11, Constitution of Missouri) there seems
to be a reign of judicial tyranny allowed wherein the latest whims of
judges forcefully stated are treated as law.
Relator knows since there are thousands of Missourians behind bars
resulting from illegal traffic stops by municipal police who had no
authority to do so, that the release of such persons, finding out that
they were in prison illegally, would not be in the interests of the
judicial and political establishment of Missouri, hence both this court
and the Missouri supreme court's unwillingness to explain the reasons
behind their judicial behavior.
On September 20, 1995, Respondent Schoeberl sent an order (enclosed
herein) to the City of Granby to collect the $250 fine and court costs.
Respondent Schoeberl did not wish to take upon his own person the liability
of executing upon an illegal trial.
On October 11, 1995, Relator demanded a petition of prohibition (enclosed)
against the City of Granby collecting upon this illegal trial until all
avenues of appeal, including federal, be pursued. The municipal judge tried
his best to ignore or deny said petition until Relator forced the issue.
Whereupon Judge White weakly scribbled "dismissed due to lack of
jurisdiction" upon the preliminary order (enclosed). It was not until
January 10, 1996 that Relator found out that Judge White meant that it was
Relator's petition that was dismissed, not the illegal trial of July 27,
1995.
Judge White defeated Relator for the position of municipal judge in the
election of April 4, 1995.
Relator was content to let matters rest at being a convicted misdemeanant
of an illegal trial and wait before filing a federal lawsuit against all
parties involved in violating his civil rights under color of law. Then,
on Friday, March 22, Relator notices a letter from the clerk of the Jasper
County Circuit Court (enclosed).
Judging from the scribblings on the top, Respondent Schoeberl wishes to
grab back the jurisdiction that he handed over to the Granby Municipal
Court. Obviously, Respondent does not like the frightened inaction of the
Granby authorities, and is itching to throw Relator into jail for contempt,
under color of law.
While Relator has shown good cause on numerous occasions as to why this
matter should be reversed, Respondent has always dismissed those reasons,
and proceeded to do exactly whatever Respondent pleases. Respondent bears
extreme animus against Relator (Relator's FBI complaint against Respondent
enclosed). Relator knows as a fact that Respondent will indeed throw
Relator into jail for contempt unless this court expeditiously acts to
affirm Relator's petition for writ of Prohibition.
Also, April 2, 1996 is an election day. Relator is running for South
Ward City Councilman of Granby that day. By throwing Relator in jail, even
illegally, Respondent will do great harm to Relator's election to
Councilman and also Relator's campaign in the Libertarian gubernatorial
primary. Also, by holding the hearing on election day, Relator is
constrained from his duties as Newton County Libertarian Committee
Chairman.
Relator feels that the selection of this date is no accident and is a
further act of malice by Respondent Schoeberl against Relator.
III. Reasons for Writ of Prohibition
1. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District has jurisdiction and
authority to issue a writ of prohibition against Respondent Schoeberl.
2. The Missouri Court of Appeals has a duty to issue a writ of prohibition
against Respondent. The purpose of a writ of prohibition according to
RSMo 530.010 is to prevent usurpation of judicial power. Respondent
Schoeberl has been running wild, grabbing jurisdiction and acting with
extreme prejudice against Relator. Now Respondent must be brought to leash
and muzzle before Respondent commits further acts of injustice under color
of law.
3. Any Writ of Prohibition which shall ensue shall be against
Respondent throwing Relator into jail for contempt or collecting an illegal
fine arising from a bogus trial which should not have taken place. This
Writ merely restrains Respondent from acting illegally under color of law
until this matter can be sorted out at the option of the City of Granby or
of Relator. Relator intends to sort this matter out by criminal and civil
prosecution of the misbehaving authorities responsible for this mess before
the second anniversary of this case on May 16, 1996.
4. The judgement in Granby vs. Lindstedt must eventually be overturned
for a number of reasons (See enclosed Amended Motion for New Trial, already
submitted to this court on Sept. 6, 1995, enclosed Petition for Writ of
Prohibition before the Granby municipal court). It makes no sense for the
reputation of the Missouri court system to suffer because of the renegade
actions of one lawless judge.
IV. Request for Relief
WHEREFORE, Relator/Defendant requests that the Missouri Court of Appeals,
Southern District grant a Writ of Prohibition against Respondent
Schoeberl punishing Relator for any matters arising from an illegal trial,
that Respondent is constrained from any further activity against Relator
in this matter, and that Respondent (should be Realtor) is not held liable
for anything arising from the illegal defective-equipment trial of July
27, 1995. Relator also requests any other relief this court deems
necessary in the pursuit of justice.
Signed, Martin Lindstedt 3/29/96
__________________________ _________________
Martin Lindstedt, Relator, Pro-Se Date
Rt. 2, Box 2008
Granby, Missouri 64844
(417) 472-6901
Certificate of Service:
I, Martin Lindstedt, mailed a copy of this petition for prohibition to
Respondent: Judge Joseph Schoeberl, Jasper County Courthouse,
Division 4, Carthage, Missouri 64836 on March 29, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS
SOUTHERN DISTRICT
MARTIN F. LINDSTEDT, )
Relator, )
)
vs. ) Case No. _________________
)
JUDGE JOSEPH SCHOEBERL )
CIRCUIT COURT OF JASPER COUNTY )
DIVISION IV, )
IN CARTHAGE, MISSOURI. )
Respondent )
SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT OF PROHIBITION
COMES NOW the Relator, Martin Lindstedt, who makes the following
suggestions in support of his Petition for a Writ of Prohibition:
1. This court has the unquestioned power to issue a writ of prohibition.
". . . districts of the courts of appeals may issue and determine original
remedial writs." Constitution of Missouri, Article V, Section 4.
2. Procedure for obtaining said writs is governed by Missouri Rules of
Court, Rules 84.22-84.26, 94, and 97.
3. "The remedy afforded by the writ of prohibition shall be granted to
prevent usurpation of judicial power," RSMo 530.010.
4. Relator's trial of July 27, 1995 was an illegal proceeding
maliciously prosecuted by the City of Granby in defiance of Constitution of
Missouri, Art. 4, Sections 29 & 31; Contract for Job #7-P-60-361, Sections
16 & 19 signed with the Missouri Highway Department Aug. 22, 1989;
RSMo 304.120, Section 2; and the U.S. Constitution clause governing
interstate commerce. Respondent Schoeberl maliciously aided and abetted
this illegal and lawless process by his pre-trial, trial, and post-trial
conduct.
5. Respondent Schoeberl relinquished his usurped jurisdiction on Sept.
20, 1995 back to the City of Granby. Respondent Schoeberl again usurped
illegal jurisdiction on March 15, 1996 for the purpose of imprisoning
Relator on April 2, 1996. See enclosed orders from Respondent Schoeberl.
6. This court must act by April 2, 1996 to prevent injustice performed
by Respondent Schoeberl.
WHEREFORE, Relator/Defendant makes these suggestions in favor of his
request that the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, grant a
Writ of Prohibition to prevent Respondent Schoeberl from conducting a
kidnapping or other illegal act under color of law, plus any other relief
this court deems necessary in the intersets of justice.
Signed, Martin Lindstedt 3/29/96
____________________________ _________________
Martin Lindstedt, Relator, Pro-Se Date
Rt. 2, Box 2008
Granby, Missouri 64844
(417) 472-6901
Certificate of Service:
I, Martin Lindstedt, mailed a copy of these suggestions
for prohibition to Respondent: Judge Joseph Schoeberl,
Jasper County Courthouse, Division 4, Carthage, Missouri
64836 on March 29, 1996.
Plea for Appeals Court to Grant
Prohibition
Afternoon, April 4, 1996
To the Missouri Court of Appeals
Southern District
Regarding:
Martin Lindstedt, Relator
vs. Case # ______________
Judge Joseph Schoeberl, Respondent
Relator petitioned for a writ of prohibition before this court on
Friday, March 29, 1996 because Relator feared Respondent Schoeberl would,
under color of law, falsely imprison Relator for contempt at 4:00 p.m.,
April 2, 1996.
Relator called Appeals clerk at 11:00 and learned that a case # had
been assigned petition.
When Relator appeared 5 minutes early to court, Respondent Schoeberl
insisted he had jurisdiction to hold contempt hearings against Relator.
Respondent refused to call this court to find out the progress of Relator's
petition. The City of Granby prosecutor claimed that the numerous witnesses
that he intended to call would be inconvenienced by any delay. Respondent
Schoeberl overruled Relator's oral motion for a continuance until this
court had ruled upon Relator's Petition for Writ of Prohibition.
The City of Granby did not call any witnesses other than Relator.
Respondent Schoeberl allowed Relator the use of the Public Defenders
[office]. When Relator asked if that meant that Relator faced imprisonment,
Respondent Schoeberl replied that Relator knew the reasons behind that
offer. After asking the two Defenders if the use of their services was
free or if it would cost, and assured that it was free, Relator decided to
allow one of them to act as Co-Counsel.
Relator then read Constitution of Missouri Article IV, Section 31, the
Contract between the City of Granby and the Missouri Highway Department
signed August 22, 1989 (Sections 16 and 19) and RSMo 304.120 to prove that
the City of Granby had no right to make, enforce or prosecute the city
ordinance I was tried and convicted under.
Relator then tried to show that his not paying the fine and court costs
resulting from the above-mentioned illegal trial was not willful because
Relator has tried through the sole means available to him for judicial
relief -- writs of mandamus before the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern
District and the Missouri Supreme Court designed to force Respondent
Schoeberl to let this illegal trial face appellate review.
By Respondent's invoking the legal fiction of "voluntary" pauper status
upon Relator, (a legal fiction belied by this Court's acceptance of
Relator's Forma Pauperis Affidavits) and Respondent Schoeberl's imposition
of a supersedeas bond of $250 fine and $91 court costs, Relator has been
effectively been denied normal appellate relief by Respondent. Relator
believes this has been a deliberate, malicious act by Respondent.
Relator was Reciting Respondent's criminal history in this matter up to
the events behind Relator's kidnapping under color of law the night of
June 30-July 1, 1995, when Respondent Schoeberl disallowed further recital.
City Prosecutor Kevin Selby in his "defense" for imprisoning Relator
for contempt showed one of Relator's old communications and asked
irrelevant questions concerning why Relator spent funds on eating when
Relator should [have] spent money satisfying a bogus judgement. Prosecutor
Selby did not address the legality of the trial or call a single one of
numerous, supposedly inconvenienced witnesses from Granby.
In his closing arguments, Prosecutor Selby urged Relator's incarceration
for contempt so as to "teach society a lesson."
Relator, in his closing arguments, stressed the underlying illegal
nature of his trial; how Respondent, through his invention of the concept
of "voluntary" pauperhood effectively denied Relator normal functioning of
due process; how since there was no relevant or legal law concerning
vehicular equipment that the City of Granby could bring to bear against
Relator, Relator would in fact be condemned for the subjective moral,
political, and legal notions Relator possesses; and how the government, and
Respondent in particular must obey the law.
Respondent Schoeberl, after repeating some of the arguments of the City
Prosecutor, sentenced Relator to 30 days in jail for contempt unless
Relator pays $346.
Relator does not have a written order from Respondent Schoeberl, nor a
copy of the RSMo under which he was convicted. Relator was not allowed to
take his legal papers with him when he was taken to the Jasper County Jail
immediately upon Respondent Schoeberl's order after 6:00 p.m. April 2, 1996.
Relator does not have $346, nor is it likely Relator will earn $346
while held in the Jasper County Jail.
Relator considers himself a political prisoner kidnapped under color of
law by Respondent Schoeberl acting in collusion with officials of the City
of Granby.
That likelihood which Relator considered when he filed a petition for
writ of prohibition against Respondent Schoeberl has indeed come to pass.
Relator is in jail.
By the Missouri Court of Appeals granting Relator's Petition for Writ
of Prohibition, Relator can be released with time served, and enjoy tardy,
but effective relief until this mess can be sorted out without need for
Relator to resort to a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Either way, whether Relator's Petition for Prohibition is granted or
not, Relator respectfully asks for this court's Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law in accordance with the Constitution of Missouri's
Article V, Section 12 (or 11) clause.
Please forgive Relator's handwriting and the format of this letter.
Relator has no other effective means of communication.
-s- Martin Lindstedt
Jasper County Jail
405 East Fifth
Carthage, Missouri 64856
Response from the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District
MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS
Southern District
300 Hammons Parkway
Springfield, Missouri 65806
April 8, 1996
Mr. Martin Lindstedt
c/o Jasper County Jail
405 E. Fifth
Carthage, Mo. 64856
Re: State of Missouri, ex. rel., Martin Lindstedt,
Relator
vs. Honorable Joseph Schoeberl, Respondent
Case No. 20898-2
Dear Mr. Lindstedt:
This office is in receipt of the document dated April
4, 1996 in the above cause. The Court denied the
application for writ as of April 3, 1996; another copy of
which is enclosed for your records. The Court did not file
an opinion in the cause and no Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law were issued.
Sincerely yours,
-s- Sandra Skinner
SANDRA L. SKINNER, Clerk
SLS/ss
Enclosure
************************************************************************
MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS
Southern District
300 Hammons Parkway
Springfield, Missouri 65806
April 3, 1996
Mr. Martin Lindstedt
Route 2, Box 2008
Granby, MO 64844
Re: State ex rel. Martin F. Lindstedt, Relator
v. Honorable Joseph Schoeberl, Respondent
Case No. 20898-2
Dear Mr. Lindstedt:
Today the Court issued the following Order:
"Now on this day, the Court takes up for
consideration the Petition of Relator for a Writ of
Prohibition, and the Court, having seen and examined
said Petition, and having been advised in the premises,
does deny said application."
Yours very truly,
SANDRA L. SKINNER, Clerk
SLS:ks
cc: Honorable Joseph Schoeberl
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Before The Missouri Supreme Court, April 10, 1996
Before THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT
In re: City of Granby vs. Martin Lindstedt, Case # 195-0005MT
Martin Lindstedt )
Petitioner )
vs. ) Case # __________________________
Judge Joseph Schoeberl )
Jasper County Circuit Court )
29th Circuit, Division IV )
Carthage, Missouri )
Respondent )
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Comes now the Petitioner, Martin Lindstedt, stating that he has been
deprived of his liberty under color of law by being detained for 30 days
under a false charge of criminal contempt by Respondent Schoeberl at the
Jasper County Jail since Tuesday, April 2, 1996.
Statement of Facts
On July 27, 1995, Petitioner was found guilty after a jury trial of
violating Granby Ordinance 10-3:Lights, because the dim beam of an
18-wheeler driven by Petitioner was burnt out 14 minutes before sunrise
on U.S. Route 60 within the Granby city limits.
Within a week of the trial, Petitioner discovered the Constitution of
Missouri, Article IV, Sections 29 and 31 and the Contract for Job
7-P-60-3xx signed between the City of Granby and the Missouri Highway
Department on August 22, 1989 forbade the City of Granby any police powers
upon U.S. Route 60 other than "traffic flow and regulation" and parking.
The City of Granby had no jurisdiction, authority, or enforcement powers
to enact Vehicular Equipment regulations on U.S. Route 60. In fact, by
prosecution of Petitioner under color of Ordinance 10-3, the City of
Granby willfully and maliciously violated above contract.
Also, the City of Granby has violated RSMo 304.120 concerning valid and
permissible municipal regulations, especially Sections 2 and 3.
All of the above matters have been brought to the attention of
Respondent Schoeberl and the City of Granby numerous times, and is ignored
every single time.
Petitioner filed a Motion for New Trial and a Motion for Judgement of
Acquittal within 15 days. These motions brought out the afore-mentioned
matters, and raised other matters concerning improper venue, Respondent
Schoeberl's pre-, during, and post-trial prejudice, and several other
fatal trial deficiencies.
Respondent Schoeberl overruled both motions, saying that they were
matters for appellate review, then sentenced Petitioner to a $250 fine and
$91 in court costs on August 17, 1995.
Petitioner filed Amended Motions for Acquittal/New Trial and a Forma
Pauperis Affidavit to bring the case to the Missouri Court of Appeals,
Southern District. Respondent Schoeberl held a hearing without notice on
August 28, and determined that Petitioner, while a pauper, was a
"voluntary" pauper, and thus disallowed any normal appeals process unless
Petitioner posted a bond of supersedeas for the $250 fine and $91 court
costs in addition to the $50 docket fee ($391 total) before Petitioner
would be allowed to bring case before appellate court. The concept of
"voluntary" pauperhood is a fiction made up by Respondent in order to deny
Petitioner appellate review.
Finding the normal appeals process blocked, Petitioner filed for a writ
of mandamus to compel Respondent Schoeberl to bring the matter to the
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern district on Sept. 1, 1995. Petitioner
filed as a pauper and that Court accepted Petitioner's affidavit.
On Sept. 22, 1996 the Missouri Court of Appeals refused to grant
mandamus without opinion.
Petitioner filed as a pauper for mandamus before the Missouri Supreme
Court on Oct. 10, 1995. After this court accepted the pauper's affidavit,
it refused mandamus without giving a written opinion.
Respondent Schoeberl, receiving all these petitions for writ, sent an
order for collection of fine and court costs to the city of Granby on
Sept. 20 or 22. Petitioner, getting a copy of Respondent Schoeberl's
order, filed a petition for Writ of Prohibition before the Granby
municipal court to prevent the City of Granby from execution of order
before Petitioner's appeals process before state and federal courts was
exhausted.
The municipal court refused to rule definitely on the matter until
Jan. 10, 1996. Petitioner was satisfied that the City of Granby, aware
of its potential civil and criminal liabilities in enforcing an order
derived from fraud, would cease and desist in this matter.
Petitioner became aware of a renewal of interest in this matter on
March 22, 1996 when he read Respondent's Order to Appear and show cause
why he should not be held in contempt for failure to pay fine and court
costs.
Petitioner, figuring that Respondent would use this opportunity to
imprison him, petitioned the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern
District for a writ of prohibition to prevent Respondent from holding
hearing and mailed it on March 29, 1996, filing as a pauper. The
Missouri Court of Appeals gave writ petition a case number by 11:00
a.m., April 2.
At 3:56 p.m. Petitioner appeared before Respondent. Respondent claimed
jurisdiction over Petitioner's objections and refused to call Court of
Appeals to determine writ of prohibition status. Petitioner reviewed
underlying illegality of trial of July 27, 1995, Respondent's actions in
denying Petitioner due process via using normal appeals process,
necessitating Petitioner's petitioning for mandamus and prohibition
before so many courts and Petitioner's lack of funds to pay fine or court
costs. Respondent Schoeberl ignored Petitioner's efforts to show good
cause and Respondent ruled that Petitioner was guilty of criminal
contempt.
Petitioner is currently imprisoned inside the Jasper County Jail in
Carthage, Missouri for a term of 30 days.
Petitioner considers himself a political prisoner kidnapped under
color of law by Respondent Schoeberl at the request of the City of Granby.
Petitioner has not asked any higher court than this Missouri Supreme
Court for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner is asking this higher court
for this writ because both the 29th Circuit and Missouri Court of Appeals
are fully aware of Petitioner's incarceration and have refused to issue
writ without petition as is their duty under Rule 91.6 and RSMo 532.070.
Petitioner has been in jail for over a week and Petitioner desires relief
before the remainder of the 30 days are over.
Petitioner has twice asked jailers for a copy of Respondent's Judgement
and Sentencing Order and the RSMo under which Petitioner is incarcerated
and has been refused. Petitioner was inadvertently furnished a copy of
Respondent's order when Public Defender's office made a motion to withdraw
from Petitioner's case. Petitioner will copy Respondent's Order on back of
this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as Petitioner hasn't access to a
copy machine.
In accordance with Rule 91.02, a copy of this Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus has been mailed tonight to the Jasper County Prosecutor's
office.
-s- Martin Lindstedt April 10, 1996
Petitioner, Pro-Se
Jasper County Jail
405 East Fifth
Carthage, Missouri 64836
Demand for Forma Pauperis Affidavit for Purpose of Delay
CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF MISSOURI
POST OFFICE BOX 150
JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI
65102
THOMAS F. SIMON TELEPHONE
CLERK (573) 751-4144
April 15, 1996
Mr. Martin Lindstedt
Jasper County Jail
405 East Fifth
Carthage, MO 64836
In re: State ex rel. Martin Lindstedt vs. Honorable Joseph
Schoeberl, Judge, Circuit Court, Jasper County
Dear Mr. Lindstedt:
This will acknowledge receipt of a petition for writ of
habeas corpus. This petition will remain unfiled until we
receive either a $50.00 filing fee or a forma pauperis affidavit.
Yours very truly,
THOMAS F. SIMON
-s- Becky J. Judd
Becky J. Judd
Deputy Clerk, Court en Banc
Forma Pauperis Affidavit Provided -- April 17, 1996
Afternoon, April 17, 1996
Martin Lindstedt
c/o The Jasper County Jail
405 East Fifth
Carthage, Missouri 64836
Clerk, Missouri Supreme Court
Post Office Box 150
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
Dear Missouri Supreme Court
I got your letter acknowledging receipt of my Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus and your excuses for not acting upon it because of my not
sending in a $50 filing fee or a forma pauperis affidavit.
And a procedural excuse it is. Looking throughout Court Rules 91 and
RSMo Chapter 532, there is nothing mentioned about prisoners needing to
have $50 or a notarized affidavit in order to procure the Great Writ of
Habeas Corpus. There are no prisoners, including this one, who is walking
around in their cells with $50 cash money, a checkbook, or the services
of a notary public available at the snap of their fingers. I am lucky in
that I have $2.43 in my commissary fund to buy an ink pen, writing paper,
stamped envelopes and candy bars to trade with the other inmates. I only
have that much money because I asked friends to loan/give me $5-10 to
buy such things.
By stating that my petition will remain unfiled until I come up with
either $50 or still another forma pauperis affidavit, this Court has
violated its own Missouri Rules of Court, specifically Rule 91.05 and
Rule 91.06, plus the Missouri Bill of Rights, Article I, Section 14,
"Open Courts -- certain remedies -- justice without sale, denial, or
delay" bit.
Very well then. I'll jump through this last procedural hoop to allow
the State of Missouri still another last chance to do their judicial duty.
I will enclose a forma pauperis affidavit on this very page. Whether the
Jasper County Jail will notarize it or not is a matter beyond my control.
Perhaps you will be able to delay me another week.
-s- Martin Lindstedt, Political Prisoner 4/17/96
Before THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT
in Jefferson City, Missouri
FORMA PAUPERIS AFFIDAVIT
I, Martin Lindstedt, do hereby swear that I do not have over Two
Dollars and Forty-Three Cents to pay The Missouri Supreme Court to
hear and act upon my Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
-s- Martin Lindstedt 4/17/96
---------------------------------------------------------------------
One copy was sent on the 17th, the same day I received the Court's
dishonest delay. The next day another copy was notarized by Lt. Terry
Moback at the jail and sent out on the 18th.
Allowance of Habeas Corpus by Missouri Supreme Court
CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF MISSOURI
POST OFFICE BOX 150
JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI
65102
THOMAS F. SIMON TELEPHONE
CLERK (573) 751-4144
April 22, 1996
Mr. Martin Lindstedt
Jasper County Jail
405 East Fifth
Carthage, MO 64836
In re: State ex rel. Martin Lindstedt vs. Honorable
Joseph Schoeberl, Judge, Circuit Court, Jasper
County
Supreme Court No. 78898
Dear Mr. Lindstedt:
This will acknowledge the reciept of a petition for writ
of habeas corpus which has this day been filed, in forma
pauperis by leave of Court, in the above-entitled cause.
Please note that docket number 78898 has been assigned this
case. This docket number should appear on all correspondence
and documents relating to this proceeding.
Yours very truly,
THOMAS F. SIMON
-s- Becky Judd
Becky Judd
Deputy Clerk, Court en Banc
Wherein I accuse the Missouri Supreme Court of Delay Misconduct
the day I get out of Jail -- May 1, 1996
Martin Lindstedt May 1, 1996
Rt. 2 Box 2008
Granby, Missouri 64844
(417) 472-6901
The Missouri Supreme Court
Supreme Court Building
Post Office Box 150
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
In re: State ex rel. Martin Lindstedt vs. Honorable Joseph Schoeberl,
Judge, Circuit Court, Jasper County
Supreme Court No. 78898
To the Missouri Supreme Court:
This is to inform you that I was released from my imprisonment at the
Jasper County Jail at approximately 8:00 a.m. today, May 1, 1996.
They (the Jasper County Sheriff's Department) could have held me, absent
your ruling in my favor on my petition for habeas corpus, until 6:30 p.m.
May 2, 1996. But they chose to count April 2, 1996, the day of my
incarceration, as day one and they released me at the soonest possible
opportunity. They could not get rid of me quick enough. They forgot to
remove my slave bracelet, but I cut it off my wrist at the soonest
available opportunity.
Are you going to rule on this matter? Or are you going to use my release
to get off the hook, dismiss the petition for habeas corpus, and thus
avoid ruling on the legality of my imprisonment?
A reasonable man, upon review of the papers filed in this matter, would
consider this court dishonest and negligent in performing its legal and
moral duties.
I do, of course, intend to inform as many reasonable men of this matter as
possible.
Martin Lindstedt
A Missouri Libertarian Party Candidate for Governor