.IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION MARTIN LINDSTEDT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) Case No. 04-5062-CV-SW-RED ) MATT BLUNT ) SECRETARY OF STATE OF MISSOURI ) ) Defendant. ) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT Defendant Matt Blunt, Secretary of State of Missouri, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ 12(b), moves this Court to dismiss plaintiff's petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, mootness, and lack of standing. I. Facts On March 10, 2004, plaintiff Martin Lindstedt filed paperwork with the Missouri Secretary of State’s Office announcing his candidacy to become the Republican Party’s nominee for Governor of the State of Missouri in the primary election to be held in August, 2004. Plaintiff requested that his alleged nickname "Mad Dog" be listed on the ballot along with his first name and surname. Plaintiff also asked that a link to his personal website be 1.
posted on the Secretary of State’s page of links to other primary candidates’ websites. (1) The Secretary denied both requests. Plaintiff filed the instant action. For "relief," plaintiff does not request a new election be held. Rather, in violation of Fed.R. Civ.P. 11(a)(1), plaintiff requests that the ballot in the November general election, on which the Secretary appears as the Republican nominee for the office of governor, be changed to include a derogatory nickname. Plaintiff also requests that a link to his vitriolic web site be posted on the Secretary’s election page. (2) Of course, this request violates Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(1), forbidding claims "presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass. (3) ==================================== (1) Plaintiff's website is inundated with racism, anti-Semitism, profanity, and calls for open revolt against the government. Plaintiff refers to himself as "probably the most clever and ruthless of the Revolutionary Resistance political activists in Missouri," and "the only candidate . . . who is an overt White Nationalist," as well as a "genuine racist." Http://martinlindstedt.org/ml070104.html. Respect the the decorum of this Court makes it inappropriate for the Secretary to extensively quote from plaintiff's website. But the Secretary invites this Court to brietly visit plaintiff's website, so that the court can see for itself what plaintiff wishes to post on the Secretary’s official website. (2) http://www.sos.mo.gov/candidates (3) In a letter from plaintiff’ to the Secretary, dated August 10, 2004, plaintiff goes so far as to admit that he asks for "declaratory and injunctive relief consisting merely of the 2
This Court is without subject matter jurisdiction to rule on plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff also lacks standing to bring the claim. Additionally, both plaintiff's claim and his requested relief are moot. II. The Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction Because plaintiff’s pleading violates Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1) in not including a "statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends," it is unclear upon what, if any, jurisdictional grounds plaintiff relies. In any event, it is clear that no such grounds exist. Generally, local election disputes are within the exclusive purview of the state courts. Powell v. Power, 436 F.2d 84, 86 (2nd Cir. 1970). "Thus, with only a few narrow and well- defined exceptions, federal courts are not authorized to meddle in local elections." Bonas v. Town of North Smithfield, 265 F.3d 69, 74 (1st Cir. 2001). Federal courts have jurisdiction "over claims arising out of a state or local election dispute" only if "the complaint limns a set of facts that bespeaks the violation of a constitutionally guaranteed right." Id. at 73-74. Plaintiff alleges no such constitutional violation. Because plaintiff’s pleading also violates Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b), in not averring separate claims in numbered paragraphs and in separate counts, it is unclear what, if any, constitutional violation plaintiff alleges that the Secretary has comniitted. Other than a vague ======================== humiliation of [the Secretary] being forced to "have an unflattering nickname being placed next to his name on the ballot. 3
reference to "civil rights," the pleading makes no reference whatsoever to what specific damage he has incurred, let alone of what constitutional right he has been deprived. From the face of the pleading, the Secretary can only gather that plaintiff asserts a right to have an inappropriate tiickname on the ballot, and a right to have his opprobrious web page appear on the Secretary's election website. Neither right exists. For at least 40 years, it has been settled law "that it is unlawful to place any characterization or description either before or after the name of a candidate upon a ballot . . . where there is not such identity of the names of two or more candidates as to justify some description which will permit the voter to make an intelligent expression of his choice." Rainey v. Crowe, 382 S.W.2d 38,43 (Mo App 1964), quoting Wetzel v Murphy, 122 Ohio St. 620 (1930). In other words, nicknames and titles "are impermissible, unless . . . the names of two candidates vying for office are indistinguishable." Sooy v. Gill, 340 N.J.Super. 401, 410 (2001 )(citing cases). Indeed, it "would be neither fair nor practical to permit the insertion of . . . the myriad appellations and items of descriptive matter . . . which election fever and ingenuity would uiidoubtedly generate." Richter V. Telford, 103 Ill.App.2d 132, 135 (Ill.App.1968). The present case represents precisely the problem that the Richter court foresaw. Plaintiff's claim is virtually indistinguishable from that rejected in Lewis v. New York State Board of Elections, wherein actor Al Lewis requested that his nickname "Grandpa" be placed on the ballot. 254 A.D.2d 568 (N.Y. App. 1998). Lewis argued that the nickname, 4
which he earned for his role in the popular 1960’s television series "The Munsters" was necessary "to avoid confusion among the voting public as to his identity." Id. The court disagreed, noting that the nickname merely informed voters of Lewis’s "claim to fame," and that "such descriptive terms are not permitted on official election ballots." Id. The court found that Lewis’s given name was "by itself sufficient for voters to identify him." Id. Similarly, while plaintiff may prefer and answer to the name "Mad Dog" in social circles, plaintiff has made no claim that there was another "Martin Lindstedt" seeking the Republican nomination fOr Governor, or that there was any confusion in the minds of any voter due to the absence of the omitted appellation. Absent such an allegation, plaintiff can not establish a claim that he was deprived of a constitutional right sufficient to vest the federal courts with jurisdiction. III. Plaintiffs Claim Is Moot Plaintiff's claim also fails because it is moot. "Federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear moot cases, because the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Thomas v. Nunes, 81 F.3d 170 (9th Cir. 1996). "Simply stated, a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Kennedy Bldg. Assoc. v. Viacom, 375 F.3d 731, 745 (8th Cir. 2004), quoting (County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979). There is no live controversy in the present case. The Missouri primary election was held on August 3, 2004. It is too late to change the ballot. Had Plaintiff wished to have his nickname placed on the ballot, he should have 5
timely brought "a suit for injunction, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, or other appropriate action," in state Court pursuant to section 536.150. While it is doubtful that plaintiff could have prevailed, he at least would have had the opportunity to request relief that would have cured his alleged injury. Having failed to timely bring a cause of action when the proper relief could have been requested, his claim is now moot. The Missouri general election is to be held on Tuesday, November 2, 2004 -- the first "Tuesday following the first Monday in November" -- barely 20 days after the filing of this motion. Mo. Const, Art 8, § 1. The ballots have already been printed, and absentee and military ballots have been distributed. § 115.281.1 RSMo. As plaintiff put it, "it is too late and too costly at public expense to [change] the ballots." Petition, p. 2. Moreover, "No court shall have authority to order an individual or issue be placed on the ballot less than six weeks before the date of the election, except as provided in sections 115.361 and 115.379 [both dealing with death of candidates]." § 115.l25.3 RSMo Supp. 2003; State ex rel Nixon v. Blunt. 135 S.W.3d 416, 419-420 (Mo banc 2004)(Benton concurring). It is simply too late to change the ballots to effectuate plaintiff's proposed remedy. The relief is moot, and plaintiff's claim should he denied. Moreover, plaintiff does not allege that he may run for elected office in the future. In the event that plaintiff does run for statewide elected office in the future, the Secretary is not running for re-election -- he is running for Governor. A new official will occupy the Office of Secretary of State of Missouri. It is entirely possible that, if he does run for elected 6
office, plaintiff will have no conflict with the next Secretary of State. This case plainly does not fall within the "narrow exception" to the mootness doctrine of issues which are "capable of repetition yet evade review." Republican Party of Minnesota v. Klobuchar, 381 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir. 2004). Plaintiffs claim is moot and must be dismissed. IV. Plaintiff Lacks Standing Even if federal courts would otherwise have jurisdiction over plaintiffs claim, and if the claim and requested remedies are not moot, this Court does not have jurisdiction over the case because plaintiff lacks standing. "Standing is the threshold question in determining whether a federal court may hear a case." Klobuchar, 381 F.3d at 791. "The question of standing ‘involves . . . constitutional limitations on federal court jurisdiction." Bennet v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 162 (1997), quoting Warth v. Seldin. 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). To have standing, plaintiff must show: 1) that he has suffered injury in fact; 2) that the injury is fairly traceable to the actions of the Secretary and 3) that the injury will likely be redressed by a favorable decision. Oti Kaga Inc., v. South Dakota Housing Development Authority, 342 F.3d 871, 878 (8th Cir. 2002). The party alleging federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these three elements. Lujan v. Defdnders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). Plaintiff has not established the first or third elements. "Injury in fact" must involve an injury that is "(a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Id. at 560-61. For the reasons stated 7
in Part II, supra, plaintiff has failed to allege that he has sustained an injury from any constitutional violation, and fails the first prong of the test. But even assuming that plaintiff could prove injury in fact, he plainly fails the third prong of the test, in that his requested relief -- placing an unflattering nickname on a ballot, and providing a link to a vitriolic website -- will not provide him any relief from the alleged harm. Plaintiff was denied his preferred appellation on the Missouri primary ballot and a link to his rancorous website on the Secretary’s list of primary candidates. Should this Court award the requested remedies, the primary election has still been held, plaintiff's name appeared on the ballot without the appellation, and plaintiff's website was never linked to the list of primary candidates. The proposed remedy grants no relief whatsoever. Plaintiff admits as much when he "asks that the punishment fit the crime." Petition, p. 2. Plaintiff does not want an injury remedied. Rather, he wants to "punish" the Secretary for his alleged "crime" by attempting to humiliate him. Petition, p. 2. As shown supra. part III. plaintiffs proper cause of action should have come in a suit in state court pursuant to section 536.150 RSMo. Plaintiff clearly fails the third prong of the standing test and lacks standing to bring the present action. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Secretary respectfully requests that this Court dismiss plaintiff's petition with prejudice. 8
Respectfully submitted, JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON Attorney General [s] T. B. Trevor Bossert Assistant Attorney General Missouri Bar No. 54135 Post Office Box 899 Jefferson City. MO 65102 Telephone: 573-751-7728 Telefax: 573-751-8796 Attorneys for Secretary of State Blunt CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify a copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, this 8th day of October 2004 to: Martin Lindstedt 338 Rabbit [rack Rd Granby, MO 64844 [s] T. B. __________________________ Assistant Attorney General 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION Martin 'Mad Dog' Lindstedt, ) Republican Candidate for Governor ) of Missouri, ) Plaintiff ) ) vs. ) CASE NO. 04-5062-CV-SW-RED ) Matt 'Runt' Blunt, ) Secretary of State & Chief Election Official ) of Missouri, and Rival Republican Candidate ) for Governor of Missouri. ) Defendant. )
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT
. . . . Plaintiff Martin 'Mad Dog' Lindstedt (hereafter Plaintiff), replies to Defendant Matt 'Runt' Blunt, Secretary of State and winner of the Republican Party primary nomination for Governor (hereafter Defendant), and the Oct. 8, 2004 dishonest and disingenuous assertions of Defendant's improper counsel, Assistant Attorney General Trevor Bossert, by noting the obvious that this federal district Court has indeed original subject matter jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985, therefore Plaintiff has standing to sue in this federal district court, and that if there is any lack of 'mootness' to this matter it has been entirely caused by Defendant acting in his official and personal capacity as Chief Election Officer of the State of Missouri to violate both the written law and the due expectation of honorable behavior expected in an election official in order to benefit himself, at Plaintiff's expense, as a rival candidate for governor.
. . . . Furthermore, there are other rival Republican candidates for governor who have been wronged by the corrupt behavior of Defendant acting in his official and personal capacity in that Defendant used public taxpayer dollars specifically earmarked by Congress to get out the vote in this presidential election year to benefit himself in terms of name recognition and allegations of competence as a current chief election officer by running newspaper advertisements twice, once the day before the primary election on August 2, 2004. Defendant went well past the guidelines of how these federal tax dollars were to be spent by putting his name and photograph, as well as official capacity, in $48,000 of advertisements. Using Plaintiff's advice and example, three other Republican candidates for governor of Missouri, namely Roy Lang, Jeff Killian, and Jen Sievers filed complaints with the Missouri Ethics Commission in August 2004. Therefore, this additional misconduct demands both an amendment of pleadings and joinder of additional plaintiffs who are aggrieved by the misconduct of a Chief Election Official using his office of trust and power specifically in order to gain election to a higher office, that of Governor of Missouri. This particular federal lawsuit is based upon the misdeeds of a corrupt moron 'blessed' with family political connections abusing his office as Chief Election Official in order to subvert the election process in his own favor. As in the 2000 federal election decided in Florida by the federal judiciary, so too might the Missouri Chief Executive position need to be decided by this federal district court.
. . . . A. The 'facts' represented by Attorney Bossert are a farrago of half-truths, outright lies; smarmy witless pleadings for this Court to act as a policeman and as a Defender of Political Correctness by granting Defendant a summary 'right' to censor Plaintiff's open and honest religious and political writings on Plaintiff's political web page; bringing in irrelevancies, even if true, that Plaintiff's website is "inundated with racism, anti- Semitism, profanity, and calls for open revolt against the government" ( Defendant's Motion to Dismiss of Oct. 8, 2000, Page 2, Footnote #1); whining that Plaintiff wishes only to punish Defendant for abusing his office of trust and responsibility as Chief Election Official of the State of Missouri by NOT calling for new elections which would cost the electors of Missouri needless expense, but rather merely placing the Mark of [Political] Cain upon Defendant for a short season; and a circular plea that this Court dismiss this civil rights/election lawsuit on behalf of a Defendant who used his power of office to abuse fair election practices so as to render punishment for his misdeeds 'moot.' Something simple as Defendant merely placing Plaintiff's choice of nickname on the ballot and campaign web page on the Secretary of State's Official Candidate's web site -- something which is given as 'a right' to other candidates other than Defendant's Republican primary opponents -- was an onerous chore which Defendant as Secretary of State discovered a 'moral obligation' to refuse to do. Therefore, Defendant's attorney argues, that what would appear to normal people as a misuse of the power of Defendant's office to violate a rival candidate's CONstitutional right to run for governor, was rather something that this Court should praise and promote, not punish.
. . . . The first paragraph ends in a lie -- Defendant Blunt as Secretary of State was not present on March 10, 2004 when Plaintiff filed the paperwork as a Republican candidate for governor, but rather Defendant's employee Betsy Byers was. Plaintiff simply filed the paperwork all candidates are expected to file, and part of that paperwork consisted of how Plaintiff wished to appear on the ballot and Plaintiff's candidate web page. Plaintiff made it quite clear that he would not accept a repeat of the misconduct of the 2002 election cycle by Defendant as Chief Election Official when Defendant's employee/legal council Terry M. Jarrett refused to allow Plaintiff run for U.S. Senate as Martin 'Mad Dog' Lindstedt and came up with a lie that Plaintiff's 2002 web page was not accessible. Plaintiff showed Defendant's employee Betsy Byers the November 2002 Newton County general election ballot where Defendant ran as Martin 'Mad Dog' Lindstedt for Newton County Presiding Commissioner as a Libertarian candidate. (Plaintiff is Chairman of the Newton County Libertarian Party, and had his fiance hold that position until after Plaintiff lost the primary election, then 'drop' off the ballot so that a NCLP nominating committee could nominate Plaintiff for that position.) Plaintiff showed Betsy Byers the April 2003 and April 2004 municipal election ballots where Plaintiff ran for school board, municipal judge, and city councilman as Martin 'Mad Dog' Lindstedt. Plaintiff showed Betsy Byers several vendors of political signage and trinkets where they referred to Plaintiff as Martin 'Mad Dog' Lindstedt. Plaintiff asked Byers, "Is RuntBlunt around, or his lawyer stooge Terry Jarrett?" When Byers said, "No," Plaintiff told Byers that he had worked hard to true-up his claim to the nickname 'Mad Dog' and had bought his own domain name of 'www.martinlindstedt.org' and that if RuntBlunt, Son of SkunkBlunt, the Korporate Kongress- Kritter from the 7th Congressional District, was stupid enough to get caught using and abusing his office as Secretary of State to benefit himself then Plaintiff would use every legal method possible to make Defendant RuntBlunt rue the day that he misused his office of Secretary of State to improperly advance himself as a Republican candidate for governor at Plaintiff's expense. Byers let Plaintiff rave on while filling out his paperwork. Plaintiff asked Byers if she was going to pull the same crap that Terry Jarrett pulled when Plaintiff signed up as a candidate for US Senate in March 2002 and threaten to make Plaintiff waste a $200 filing fee if Plaintiff insisted upon being listed as "Martin 'Mad Dog' Lindstedt" on the ballot. Byers said that regardless of the Secretary of State's decision, Plaintiff was going to be on the ballot. Mollified a bit, Plaintiff asked when that decision would be made and Byers said, "Within 10 days or two weeks, but in any case before the end of the filing season on March 30th ." This promise was not kept, and Plaintiff was not surprised in the least that he had been lied to. Byers said that she had to take off work to see to the welfare of one of her children and Plaintiff thanked her for her time and attention and left to go bother the Missouri Attorney General about a Newton County circuit court judge named Perigo illegally appointing a lawyer to fill a City of Granby municipal court judge's position when rather a special, then municipal, election was lawfully supposed to be held to fill that vacancy.
. . . . B. On May 23, 2002, Plaintiff sent a letter off to Defendant's office asking in effect why he had not been allowed to run as Martin 'Mad Dog' Lindstedt on the ballot as a Republican candidate for US Senate against Jim Talent. On May 30, 2002, under Defendant's official state letterhead, General Counsel for Defendant, Terry M. Jarrett, brought up the same old tired worn-out-by-violation 'defense' that Assistant Attorney General Trevor Bossert does: State ex rel. Rainey v. Crowe, 382 S.W. 2d 38, 43 (Mo App 1964); Op.AttyGen.No. 257, Kirkpatrick, 5- 9-68: "According to Missouri case law and an opinion of the Missouri Attorney General, the "name" of a candidate generally means the legal name and usually excludes the use of titles and other descriptive matter unless the identity of the names of two or more candidates would justify some description to avoid confusion by voters."
. . . . Plaintiff then brought up, in a follow-up letter on June 8, 2002:
You are not enforcing your lackey's and general counsel's `reading' and `interpretation' of excluding "other descriptive matter unless the identity of the names of two or more candidates would justify some description to avoid confusion by the voters." Norma Champion has no more necessity to have a nickname of "Aunt Norma" versus Craig Hosmer than Martin `Mad Dog' Lindstedt versus Jim Talent. She merely uses the nickname allowed for her political advantage.. . . . That stung Defendant's General Counsel Jarrett so much that a June11, 2002 letter said:
You and your office have in a partisan manner given "Aunt Norma" an advantage over her Democratic rival just as other Secretaries of State, including your father, Roy Blunt did when he was a Secretary of State. Then you justify your refusal to give me a similar advantage against Jim Talent by quoting an interpretation of how you read a law that you shall not enforce against favored members of your own political party.
You are selectively enforcing your interpretation of the law to benefit yourself, your cronies, and your political party. This is unconscionable and corrupt. The governing idea behind our system of representative government says that there is to be equal justice for all according to the law, and that it shall be by means of choosing public officials in open, fair, honest elections. If you, as Missouri Secretary of State are to be allowed to put your thumb on the scales favoring ballot language for your partisan candidates, then how or why should or can you be trusted to impartially count the results of said elections, particularly since you have already skewed them by what is allowed on the official ballot with your connivance?
Your letter [of June 8, 2002] contains so many inaccuracies that it would be possible to respond to all of them. However, I will respond to your allegations regarding Norma "Aunt Norma" Champion. Ms Champion provided conclusive evidence that she has been known by the nickname "Aunt Norma" for many years. Furthermore, former Secretary of State Bekki Cook, a Democrat, approved the use of "Aunt Norma" on the ballot in the 1998 and 2000 elections. Ms. Champion appeared on the ballot using that nickname long before Secretary Blunt became Secretary of State. Secretary Blunt followed established Secretary of State precedent in approving the use of "Aunt Norma" on the ballot. In the upcoming election [of 2002], the Secretary of State approved the use of nicknames on the ballot for several Republicans and [emphasis Jarrett's] Democrats when they were able to show that such nicknames were well established and the public identified the candidates by the nicknames.. . . . Attorney Jarrett then went on to claim that the facts in Plaintiff's case were completely different. However, Attorney Jarrett abandoned the defense of State ex rel. Rainey v. Crowe in favor of 'Secretary of State precedent', which is not law, but rather political discretion to favor some candidates and disfavor other candidates, especially Plaintiff. Plaintiff realized that he could cause embarrassment for Secretary of State Matt 'Runt' Blunt by filing a federal civil rights lawsuit in 2002, but Plaintiff heard that Blunt was going to use his office as a stepping-stone to run for governor in 2004. Would Defendant Blunt act like a self-serving over-privileged moron and absolute moral imbecile with no sense of decency and restraint to abuse his office as Secretary of State and Chief Election Officer of Missouri to benefit himself directly by refusing to allow Plaintiff his nickname and to post Plaintiff's campaign web page if Plaintiff ran against RuntBlunt in 2004? Such seemed like a sure-fire bet to Plaintiff in 2002. Rather than set the trap against Jim Talent in 2002, Plaintiff decided to defer the pleasure of this battle from 2002 in favor of attempting to morally and politically destroy the Missouri Republican Party by attacking the inexperienced and mentally incompetent 'RuntBlunt' for Governor' in 2004.
. . . . Plaintiff then went on to 'shore-up' and 'homestead' his 'Mad Dog' moniker by getting on the Newton County election ballots in 2002, 2003, and 2004, as the future Defendant's General Counsel Jarrett suggested. Plaintiff bought a web domain of www.martinlindstedt.org in November 2003, because Plaintiff's 'Patrick Henry On-Line' web page up since Feb. 1996 was on a local ISP and the Secretary of State's office lied that they couldn't detect it from other web sites as the reason for their refusal to list Plaintiff's campaign web page in the 2002 election.
. . . . C. Plaintiff will now finish off, given these facts, Pages 3 and 4 of Defendant's Assistant Attorney General Bossert's Motion to Dismiss of Oct. 8, 2004. It is quite obvious that neither of Defendant's sundry attorneys representing him, either Jarrett or Bossert, are able to get their heads together regarding what the actual law in this case is to be quoted, or, more likely, overmuch care. Attorney Bossert quotes, like Jarrett in 2002, Rainey v. Crowe, then onwards to an Ohio case, Whetsel v. Murphy, 122 Ohio St. 620 (1930) then Sooy v. Gill, 340 N.J. Super. 401, 410 (2001). Much reverence is placed upon what the Richter v. Telford, 103 Ill.App.2d 132, 135 (Ill.App.1968) foresaw, like Nostradamus. And as everyone with access to foreign lawbooks outside the purview of laymen like Plaintiff ought to know, when "Grandpa" Al Lewis of the popular 1960's series "The Munsters" wanted to run with his nickname, Lewis v. New York State Bd. of Elections, why, that was a mere 'claim to fame' which would doubtless be discriminatory to standard professional politicians who couldn't compete with celebrities bearing "such descriptive terms [which] are not permitted on official election ballots."
. . . . Defendant Blunt's lawyers want to have it both ways in discriminating on behalf of some political candidates and against others -- like Plaintiff -- and what the law says be damned. 'Aunt Norma' Champion was, like 'Grandpa Munster' Lewis a fixture on local Springfield Missouri television programming in the late 1950s and early 1960s. She wanted to use her celebrity to benefit her running for state representative. And that meant filing in Jefferson City before the Secretary of State. Someone, probably the present Secretary of State's father, Roy Blunt, as Secretary of State allowed 'Aunt Norma' her nickname on the ballot. Then Bekki Cook, a Democrat, to benefit some politician she liked, then Matt 'Runt' Blunt allowed this to be a longstanding 'Secretary of State precedent,' cf. Jarrett's June 11, 2002 letter. But once these laws have been violated by the Secretary of State on behalf of favored candidates, they certainly cannot be lawfully resurrected suddenly to work to the detriment of disfavored candidates like Plaintiff. Any law which doesn't apply to some favored candidates but is used selectively against other candidates is not a 'law' but a device of rule by men dishonestly claiming to be under 'rule of law.'
. . . . Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is effectively gutted. There is no reason why Plaintiff couldn't choose a nickname of 'Mad Dog,' prove it up like a homestead, and use it. Nor why any Secretary of State and Chief Election Official for the State of Missouri cannot earn for himself a derogatory nickname (say 'RuntBlunt'?), which reflects his true nature of being nothing but a moral and mental fly-weight dependent upon a political machine and family name to take up an office of extreme responsibility in a democratic republic involving the elections process such as Secretary of State and Chief Election Official of Missouri. And then to demonstrate that lack of character, indeed criminality, in carrying out the public business . Furthermore, Plaintiff contends, that it is far better for this nickname to be a brand, a tattoo, a mark of political Cain, in this and future political endeavors rather than that the People of Missouri suffer the expense of another election, as the "relief" Attorney Bossert idiotically suggests on Page 2 of his Motion to Dismiss of October 8, 2004. Letting the punishment fit the Defendant's crime, making Defendant bear the nickname of 'Runt' Blunt for abusing his office as Secretary of State in any, maybe even all, future political endeavors, is like a chicken-killing dog forced to wear its dead victims. It is not 'cruel or unusual' political punishment, much less a 'violation' of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11(b)(1), a claim "presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass." Defendant Blunt chose to not allow Plaintiff to use his nickname on the ballot or to post Plaintiff's web site on the Official Candidates Listing, after long and continued warning in both election years 2002 and 2004, for no other reason than why a dog licks his nuts -- simply because he can.
. . . . D. On Page 2 of Attorney Bossert's Motion to Dismiss, there is a Footnote #1 claiming that "Plaintiff's website is inundated with racism, anti-Semitism, profanity and calls for open revolt against the government." There might well be a good deal of what government lawyers deem 'Politically Incorrect' and seditious in Plaintiff's web page, but that is irrelevant as to whether or not the Defendant as Secretary of State had any reason to censor by omission Plaintiff's political, religious and racial web page from the Official Candidate's Listing to be maintained by the Secretary of State. It is for the voters of Missouri to decide what sort of candidate they choose to elect and they make that informed decision by reading candidate web pages. Defendant Secretary of State unlawfully took it upon himself, absent any specific law, to choose what the electors of Missouri could read for themselves concerning Plaintiff's policies if elected governor. If this is not a willful degradation of the CONstitution and Bill of Goods of the jewnited Snakes, Under Satan's Administration of free and open political speech, and thus subject-matter jurisdiction of this federal district court, then nothing is.
. . . . Plaintiff's open racism doesn't hold a candle to that of the Founding Felons, especially George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, et.al, who owned entire herds of negro slaves and never thought for an instant that such 'persons' were anything other than property to be disposed of, much less being 'equal.' Add to that Benjamin Franklin, and we hear that none of them wanted to allow 'Asiatic' jews into their new nation. As for Attorney Bossert's whining about Plaintiff's "calls for open revolt against the government," let's remember another forty Founding Felons who overthrew King George in the name of Freedom and who then established a far more degenerate regime of mixed iron and clay in order to rule like kings and congress-critters over a scattered population. Insofar as 'profanity' is concerned, Plaintiff in over eight years of hard work on his web page hasn't even touched a bare five minutes of the profanity from anything heard from some damned whigger (white nigger) playing double- damned nigger 'rap music' at full volume from its automobile speakers at a Joplin, Missouri stop light. If Plaintiff knew how to sketch, there might be some 'obscene' political cartoons concerning Bill Clinton's invasion of Haiti or Theresa Heinz Kerry and George Bush as Private Lynndie England and a forced-to- masturbate Iraqi prisoner at Abu Ghraib, but regrettably Plaintiff doesn't know how to sketch.
. . . . Plaintiff has referred to himself as "probably the most clever and ruthless of the Revolutionary Resistance political activists in Missouri," "the only candidate . . . . who is an overt White Nationalist," as well as a "genuine racist," as Attorney Bossert says in Footnote #1 concerning what us 'whiteys' are up to. Has this federal district court, a division of ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government) came up with a new ruling or law that White Nationalist political activists have no political rights that this regime need respect in a new anti-White Dred- Scott decision? Is it a crime yet to be Breathing While White?
. . . . Attorney Bossert quoted Plaintiff's web page at http://martinlindstedt.org/ml070104.html as particularly offensive. That particular web page concerned the St. Louis Post- Dispatch Candidate's Survey, in which Plaintiff straightforwardly said exactly why Plaintiff was running for governor. Plaintiff specifically said that he was out to destroy the Missouri Republican Party by having the 3-5 percent of working-class rural racist Whites either stay home in November or to hold their noses and vote Democrat.
. . . . Attorney Bossert also whined that "Respect for the decorum of this Court makes it inappropriate for the Secretary (or Bossert) to extensively quote from Plaintiff's web site. But the Secretary invites this Court to briefly visit plaintiff's website, so that the court can see for itself what plaintiff wishes to post on the Secretary's official website."
. . . . This is, of course, a lie. This court, decorum or not, has been invited by Defendant's lawyer to see for itself what is on Plaintiff's web site. This is mighty big of Defendant and/or Defendant's lawyer to 'allow' this Court to see what it censored from the view of the electors. Nor was it eight years of work, thought, political, religious and racial policy of Plaintiff's which was demanded to be placed directly upon what is not the 'private property' of the Secretary of State, but rather a mere hyperlink to www.martinlindstedt.org, Plaintiff's web page on the Secretary of State's Official Candidate Listing website. Since Plaintiff was a lawful candidate, and was in the 2004 primary election, then by right any and every candidate's web page, including that of Plaintiff, was to be linked to that Missouri Secretary of State's Official Candidates Listing web page. Yet both Attorney Bossert, with Defendant Blunt's agreement, seem to think that they have some 'right' or duty to censor, without due process of law, Plaintiff's web page by means of discrimination against Plaintiff on the basis of what they find offensive.
. . . . E. Initially none of the competing Republican primary candidates for governor, other than Defendant Blunt's web page, were allowed on the official Secretary of State's Candidates List website. Rather, Defendant Blunt, like Defendant's attorney Bossert, looked upon this public domain owned by the citizens and taxpaying subjects of Missouri as essentially Defendant Blunt's own personal private political property. This has been the underlying basis of all of Plaintiff's complaints against Defendant Blunt's behavior -- this reprehensible behavior all stems from Blunt's attitude that an office of public trust and responsibility is to be harvested for Defendant Blunt's own personal gain, or the gain of Defendant Blunt's Party of Republican thieves who would socialize costs and privatize their profits derived from the use of public capital. It was not until Plaintiff raised hell on June 24, 2004 ( http://www.martinlindstedt.org/ml062404.html ) by filing a complaint with the Missouri Ethics Commission and sent a copy of that complaint on to Defendant Blunt's office that sometime after the July 4th Holiday that Defendant Blunt allowed to be posted competing Republican candidate Jeff Killian's candidate web page on the Official Candidates Listing web page. And then probably only because Defendant Blunt and lackeys couldn't find an excuse under color of censorship to deny Killian. In addition, Plaintiff offered free, uncensored, web hosting on Plaintiff's server to those competing Republican candidates without web pages, namely Roy Lang and Jen Sievers. None of them had to embrace Plaintiff's overt White Nationalism. Rather, they could choose to use their free web hosting provided by Plaintiff in any fashion they chose, including criticism of Plaintiff and Plaintiff's political policies without censorship. They could simply place a blurb that they did not agree with Plaintiff's political, religious, or racial views, then both themselves and Plaintiff would benefit from this arrangement. Defendant Blunt wouldn't have the excuse of somehow being forced to censor their own political content but would still have to put up a hyperlink to http://www.martinlindstedt.org/jen-sievers.html or http://www.martinlindstedt.org/roylang.html on the Secretary of State's Official Candidates Listing web page. Then from there, the censorship blockade unlawfully imposed by Defendant Blunt would fail if the general public then chose to explore or read for themselves the rest of the http://www.martinlindstedt.org domain. In addition, it would be a matter of Defendant Blunt not only abusing his office as Chief Election Official to violate the civil and political rights of Plaintiff, but of other rival Republican candidates for governor of Missouri as well. Defendant Blunt would appear to be the crook and coward who couldn't allow for political competition against himself as a Republican candidate for governor, and any attorneys from the Missouri Attorney General's Office would be trapped into not only smarmily advocating the censorship of Plaintiff's lawful candidacy, as Assistant Attorney General Trevor Bossert has done, but of as well violating the lawful civil, CONstitutional and political rights of other political candidates.
. . . . Eventually Roy Lang chose to accept Plaintiff's offer and use his provided free web page to explain his views on alternative energy, machinery, family farming, and other solutions as 'Roy Lang -- the Man With A Plan.' See: http://www.martinlindstedt.org/roylang.html. Plaintiff has thus demonstrated that he had far more respect for the civil rights of competing candidates than the wannabe professional politician Defendant Blunt with his moronic political correctness.
. . . . F. On June 5, 2004, Plaintiff appeared with Defendant Blunt at Lake Ozark Missouri at a Candidate's forum sponsored by the Missouri Press Association. Also present were candidates Roy Lang and Jeff Killian. Plaintiff sat right next to Defendant Blunt and ridiculed Defendant Blunt's idiocy, hypocrisy, called Defendant Blunt 'RuntBlunt' until the Presiding Presstitute Scott Charon whined that Plaintiff shouldn't call Defendant 'RuntBlunt.' Plaintiff said that the nickname was apt, that RuntBlunt was a thief, a liar, and a hypocrite, but that if RuntBlunt would call Plaintiff 'Mad Dog' then Plaintiff would stop calling 'RuntBlunt' "RuntBlunt." Plaintiff had his fun. Paperwork was given to Defendant Blunt concerning his misconduct from 2002, the papers Plaintiff filed March 10, 2004 to run as a candidate, Plaintiff's campaign web site, and a letter from the Missouri Ethics Commission showing that they recognized Plaintiff as Martin 'Mad Dog' Lindstedt. Plaintiff made an open demand that Defendant Blunt do his duty and place Plaintiff on the Republican primary ballot as Martin 'Mad Dog' Lindstedt and put up his campaign web page on the Official Candidates Listing website. Defendant Blunt has just lost a lawsuit versus Democratic Governor Bob Holden and Attorney General Jay Nixon to where Blunt had to place the 'gay marriage' amendment on the August primary election as opposed to the November general election where it would do Blunt more good in terms of turnout of Republican voters. Therefore, any county ballots already issued without Plaintiff's lawful nickname would have to be reprinted anyway. Several times Plaintiff demanded, "Give me what I want and nobody needs to get hurt, especially you, RuntBlunt." Plaintiff gave ample warning that Defendant Blunt had better comply with the law or, "I'll sue your ass, RuntBlunt, in federal district court." (Plaintiff subsequently made good on his warnings, hence this lawsuit.)
. . . . Plaintiff spoke candidly about his efforts to destroy the Missouri Republican Party by encouraging working-class rural White voters to stay home in November or hold their noses and vote Democrat. The races for Senate and Governor in 2000 and 2002 were decided by a fraction of a percent. Taking away the White racist vote would cause the Missouri Republican Party to lose political power statewide. Plaintiff noted, "Both me and RuntBlunt don't want St. Louis and Kansas City niggers to vote -- it's just that I'm an honest open racist about it." By a policy of using his power as Secretary of State in disenfranchising negro voters in Kansas City and especially St. Louis to change the voting rules, Plaintiff stated that "pore Widder Minstrel- Show Mel Carnahan (speaking of Jean Carnahan) was fraudulently deprived of her Senate seat in 2002 in favor of the pencil-necked NAFTA-geek Jim 'No'-Talent."
. . . . At the end of an hour and twenty minutes of the forum, Defendant Blunt ran out of the room rather than sit next to Plaintiff. Plaintiff yelled, "You forgot the papers I give you, RuntBlunt!" Defendant Blunt had merely doodled over the top page and left them at the table where the forum panel was seated. Defendant Blunt was surrounded by six or seven suited faggy- looking young white males and journalists. Plaintiff waited politely to be noticed, and then gave the papers Plaintiff provided that Defendant Blunt had left behind to what Plaintiff suspects was 'Blunt's Brain,' i.e. Spence Jackson, Blunt's Director of Communications and general spokesman. Plaintiff told Jackson, "You tell RuntBlunt that I am serious about him putting up my nickname and web page just like any other candidate has a right to have, or I will do everything in my power to embarrass and humiliate that little moron you have as a sock-puppet to do the will of the big corporations." Defendant Blunt's press secretary said that he would give the papers to Blunt. Plaintiff then asked that since he was a press secretary, could he have one of the folders they left around concerning Blunt's positions. Blunt's press secretary said that the folders were reserved for the press. Plaintiff said that he was a member of the press as well, since he runs an Internet magazine called "The Greater Granby Cobb & Turpentine." When the press secretary refused, Plaintiff picked up a copy off of one of the tables.
. . . . Plaintiff has kept Defendant Blunt well aware of his grievances concerning Defendant Blunt's violations of Plaintiff's civil and political rights since June 5, 2004. Every time Plaintiff made a complaint to the Missouri Ethics Commission or filed this civil lawsuit Defendant was kept informed about due process. Defendant had ample opportunity to place Plaintiff's nickname on the primary ballot and Plaintiff's campaign web site on the Official Candidate's List web site. Defendant chose to refuse to do so because he thought he could use his power as a government official to be above the law.
. . . . Even today, Defendant Blunt is using the power of the state government to get himself out of abusing the power of his office to benefit his political campaign by having the Missouri Attorney General's office represent him in this federal civil rights lawsuit, when what is at stake is not a penny of Missouri taxpayer dollars. Rather, since Defendant Blunt has misused his office to benefit his political campaign against his political rivals, Defendant Blunt should be forced to hire his own legal representation out of his campaign treasury given to him by the big corporations and fat-cats, rather than have the Missouri Attorney General's Office paid for by taxpayer dollars defend him. In fact, if there is any role for the Missouri Attorney General's office in this matter, it is in prosecuting Defendant Blunt criminally for election law violations and diversion of his office as Chief Election Official in order to run for governor. More on this later.
2. This Court Has Subject Matter Jurisdiction
. . . . A. Plaintiff sued under provision of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985. The jurisdiction of this federal district court over litigation brought under a civil complaint involving U.S. Code is unquestioned by the honest, although almost always questioned by lawyers wanting a quick dismissal. Unsupported factual and legal assertions are not a sound basis for dismissal of suit. It is axiomatic that the arguments of counsel are not evidence. Goehring v. Wright, 858 F. Supp. 989, 993.
. . . . B. This is not a 'local' election dispute thus within the exclusive purview of the state courts. Attorney Bossert had to go over to the First and Second U.S. Circuits in order to find some inapposite cases to back his contentions. Federal courts get themselves involved in election disputes involving the construction of State election laws all the time, most famously four years ago in Bush v. Gore. Plaintiff has alleged, under 42 U.S.C 1983 and 1985 that his constitutional rights to run as a political candidate were violated. In fact, Attorney Bossert wanted this federal district Court to further violate Plaintiff's First Amendment to the Bill of Goods 'rights' to by saying that Defendant Blunt was right to censor Plaintiff's web page containing 'Politically Incorrect' writings involving White Nationalist political activity, Dual-Seedline Christian Identity religion, and sundry racial matters.
. . . . C. Like a perfect hypocrite, Attorney Bossert whines that Plaintiff's initial complaint somehow "violates Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b) in not averring separate claims in numbered paragraphs and in separate counts it is unclear what, if any, constitutional violation plaintiff alleges that the Secretary has committed." Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Page 3. Yet throughout the entire paragraph claiming that this Court lacks subject Matter jurisdiction there are at least four separate main arguments, none of which Attorney Bossert bothered to number himself. Perhaps as part of his training as a lawyer working for an accusatory branch of government such as the Attorney General's Office, Attorney Bossert has become immune to any sense of decency and shame arising from the fact that although you can accuse aplenty lacking any basis in truth for those accusations, that it looks foolish and corrupt to honest onlookers to be doing the very same behavior that he accuses others of doing, i.e., chiding Plaintiff for not numbering the reasons for his civil suit in a civil complaint using this district court's own civil complaint form while the same time not bothering to number these paragraphs containing the argument for a separate matter.
. . . . Plaintiff, in 508 words on his Civil Complaint filed July 21, 2004, did "State here as briefly as possible the facts of your claim" on this court's provided civil complaint form. Plaintiff made it quite clear, by his bare recitation of facts, that Defendant Blunt had refused to allow Plaintiff to have his nickname of 'Mad Dog' placed on the 2004 Republican primary ballot or to place Plaintiff's web page along with other candidates, on the Official Candidate's Listing website. All of this involved violations of Plaintiff's civil and political rights to run, without discrimination imposed by a government official, especially a government official who is supposed to be the Chief Election Official running for the same office as Plaintiff.
. . . . Plaintiff will scotch this attempt by Defendant sneaking in a motion to dismiss by quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48, 78 S. Ct. 99, 103, which noted that the "Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the proper purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits."
. . . . D. Plaintiff has already destroyed Defendant's argument that Rainey v. Crowe, 382 S.W.2d 38, 43 (Mo App 1964) any longer applies by showing that the Secretary of State's office long ago dumped that law at least a dozen years ago, maybe longer, in order to benefit their favored candidates who wished to take a nickname for political advantage. See sub-paragraph B & C of paragraph 1, Facts, on pages 4-7 of this Plaintiff's Motion in Reply.
3. Plaintiff's Claim Is Not Moot -- Criminals Should Not Escape Justice
. . . . Attorney Bossert makes an outrageous conclusion that someone who violates the rights of others, commits a crime in order to benefit himself, should not somehow be punished simply because as a result of the successful crime that all loose ends are tied up. Perhaps Attorney Bossert should argue for the state that a rapist/murderer should be turned loose, at least for the rape charges, if the murderer successfully terminates the victim. What was that useful term of legal fiction used? "There is no live controversy in the present case." Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Paragraph III, Page 5.
. . . . First of all, Attorney Bossert claims that since the Missouri primary election was held on August 3, 2004, that it is all Plaintiff's fault that Defendant Blunt abused his office to benefit himself in the matter of non-placement of nicknames on the ballot and candidate web pages on the Official Candidate Listings because Plaintiff somehow didn't sue in the state courts while the criminal activity was ongoing. Under this novel theory of Attorney Bossert's, then any criminal could claim that it was all the victim's fault that they didn't initiate legal action in a timely manner while being victimized. The facts are undisputed -- Plaintiff warned Defendant that he was violating Plaintiff's civil rights and Plaintiff took the appropriate administrative action when these misdeeds by Defendant were taking place.
. . . . Attorney Bossert then goes on to note the obvious, that the Missouri general election is to be held on Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2004, barely 20 days after the filing of his Motion to Dismiss on October 8, 2004. (And postmarked 'received' in the FRDCC mailroom, probably in Jefferson City, Missouri on Oct. 12, 2004; Plaintiff did not receive this Motion until Friday, Oct. 15, 2004.) "The ballots have already been printed, and absentee and military ballots have been distributed." "As plaintiff puts it, (when the civil complaint was filed on July 21, 2003) "it is too late and too costly at public expense to change the ballots." "Moreover, "No court shall have authority to order an individual or issue be placed on the ballot less than six weeks before the date of the election, except as provided in sections . . . ." "It is simply too late to change the ballots to effectuate plaintiff's proposed remedy." Attorney Bossert couldn't have put it any more smugly than Jeffrey Dahmer with a full stomach. "The relief is moot, and plaintiff's claim should be denied." is Attorney Bossert's legal conclusion. Jeffrey Dahmer couldn't have put it any better, except offering to save what remained of his victims by boxing up his next bowel movement and offering it to the aggrieved victims' families.
. . . . Let's review the timeline. Plaintiff got tired of trying to serve Defendant Blunt at Republican meetings in Newton County Missouri so Plaintiff sent Defendant Blunt a waiver of service form on Aug. 10, 2004. Attorney Bossert signed this waiver on Sept. 1, 2004. Having sixty days to respond with an answer or motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12, Attorney Bossert takes thirty seven days to file a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12, supposedly on Oct. 8, 2004. Then this Motion sits in the Post Office for at least four days and Plaintiff must reply to this Motion. Now Attorney Bossert gloats about how Plaintiff's lawsuit is mooted simply because it is somehow Plaintiff's fault for the delay, and the election will be over long before then.
. . . . Attorney Bossert's derangement continues: "Moreover plaintiff does not allege that he may run for elected office in the future. In the event that plaintiff does run for statewide elected office in the future, the Secretary is not running for re-election -- he is running for Governor. A new official shall occupy the Office of Secretary of State of Missouri. It is entirely possible that, if he does run for elected office, plaintiff will have no conflict with the next Secretary of State. This case does not fall within the "narrow exception" to the mootness doctrine of issues which are capable of repetition yet evade review." Republican Party of Minnesota v. Klobuchar, 381 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir. 2004). " Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, page 6, 7.
. . . . Attorney Bossert is engaging in speculation and hypothetical fantasy concerning what Plaintiff or the next Secretary of State or the current Defendant might or might not do in the future, and then extrapolating that under those hypotheticals that a case decided in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals a few months ago, Republican Party of Minnesota v. Klobuchar, is some sort of magic bullet to this case at hand. This case instead is a bullet to the head of Defendant Blunt's case.
. . . . From Republican Party of Minnesota v. Klobuchar that Attorney Bossert quoted in bits and pieces one finds "A case becomes moot if it cannot be said with assurance that there is no reasonable expectation that the violation will occur or if interim relief or events have irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation." Kennedy Building Associates v. Viacom, Inc., 375 F.3d 731, 745.
. . . . There is every reasonable expectation that the violation of Plaintiff's civil rights would occur, and that others will be affected as well. As has been demonstrated, Plaintiff demanded in 2002 that his nickname of 'Mad Dog' be placed upon the ballot. It was further demonstrated by facts in exhibits that Defendant Secretary of State's own general counsel, Terry Jarrett, initially claimed on May 30, 2002 that State ex rel. Rainey v. Crowe was the law which always applied, and then when goaded about the 'Aunt Norma' exception on June 11, 2002 claimed that it was Secretary of State precedent which took priority. In other words, the use of nicknames had gone beyond the application of law to a matter of discretion of Secretaries of State indulging their favorites and punishing their political enemies. Defendant Blunt chose to disallow Plaintiff's chosen and trued-up nickname this year, without giving any valid reason for this abuse of what is clearly today, because of past precedent, a matter of Blunt's discretion. That this matter would be challenged in 2004 by Plaintiff was as sure as Plaintiff's nickname is 'Mad Dog.' That this matter might well be challenged again in 2006 by Plaintiff or others unless this federal district Court decides that this and future Secretary of States cannot pick and choose who are allowed to have nicknames and what the limits of candidate choice in nicknames are. The only way this matter will go out of the hands of the federal courts is if the Missouri General Assembly cracks down on the discretion concerning nicknames that these Secretaries of State created by whim in order to unlawfully reward their political friends and punish their political rivals, as Defendant Blunt did when Defendant Blunt chose to abuse his position of power and responsibility against a rival Republican political candidate. Even if the Missouri General Assembly does make or remake a law regarding candidate nicknames, then federal district courts will have to deal with constitutional issues arising from executive officials breaking or violating these laws.
. . . . The second issue before this Court, concerns whether Defendant Blunt has any right to censor away any hyperlink from political rivals from the Official Candidates List website. Attorney Bossert, Defendant Blunt, and 'RuntBlunt's Brain' Spence Jackson have claimed in the press, and now in a Motion before this Court, that they have a 'right' and 'duty' to censor objectionable political content. Plaintiff's suit before this Court argues that any regime claiming to have a First Amendment basis for its legitimacy cannot ever grant the right to its officials to violate the First Amendment proactively and upon their own initiative, regardless of how offensive some might find the content of Plaintiff's web page. Today this Court has the duty to not only find this matter relevant, but to eventually rule that the Defendant Secretary of State must not only allow all candidate web pages to be displayed on the Official Candidate's Listing, but that an acceptable policy of not allowing 'overbreadth' against the First Amendment is limited to merely requiring a warning that candidate web pages are not necessary the views or political policies of the Missouri Secretary of State or the State of Missouri. This, as opposed to censorship, was supposed to be the law that Defendant Blunt as Chief Election Official was supposed to not only obey, but to inherently understand. That Defendant Blunt decided on his own to violate the civil rights of a White Nationalist rival political candidate for governor indicates that Defendant Blunt is not only unfit to be a Chief Election Official, but Chief Executive as well. Perhaps this Court should consider something not yet 'moot' -- like a restraining Order to keep Defendant Blunt from counting the statewide ballots given his history of criminal abuse violating the civil and political rights of political opponents.
. . . . The question as to how Defendant Blunt is to be punished for violations of Plaintiff's civil rights cannot be deemed 'moot' until both Plaintiff and Defendant Blunt have had due process to decide whether civil and political rights have been violated in the first place. Attorney Bossert has veered from demanding no punishment at all to demanding new elections, something Plaintiff has not asked for. Rather, Plaintiff has asked for declarative and injunctory relief so that this and future Secretaries of State dare not violate the rights of others. In addition, there has been no time for Plaintiff to amend his complaint nor to joinder additional parties with an interest in this matter. Thus there can be no dismissal of this case just yet.
4. Plaintiff Has Standing.
. . . . Attorney Bossert, with his new gimcrack case of Republican Party of Minnesota v. Klobuchar then claims Plaintiff lacks standing. As in the discussion of 'mootness' this argument simply is a restating via semantics of what has already been discussed under jurisdiction and mootness. This federal district Court has jurisdiction to hear this case under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985. The issue is not moot. Now as to standing:
. . . . Attorney Bossert claims that a three-part test exists in that Plaintiff must show: 1) that Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact; 2) that the injury is fairly traceable to the actions of the Secretary; and 3) that the injury will likely be redressed by a favorable decision. Attorney Bossert claims that item #2 exists but that Plaintiff has not established the first or third elements.
. . . . Logic would tend to show that since item 2, an injury is fairly traceable to the actions of the Secretary is admitted, that item 1, an injury exists. And this matter is before this Court, and Plaintiff wants a favorable decision. Thus item three holds as well. But let's go through this by the numbers, shall we?
. . . . Plaintiff sued Defendant Blunt because Defendant Blunt didn't put Plaintiff's proven-up nickname of 'Mad Dog' on the primary ballot and Plaintiff's campaign web page was censored by Plaintiff by refusal of its inclusion upon the Secretary of State's Official Candidates Listing website. These violations of Plaintiff's civil and political rights were as a result of Defendant Blunt abusing his powers as Chief Election Official to benefit his own political campaign at the expense of Plaintiff and other Republican primary opponents for governor. That's item #1. Defendant Blunt as Secretary of State did this, contrary to law and custom, as has been admitted by Attorney Bossert. That's item #2. Plaintiff wants this federal district court to come to a decision that Defendant Blunt violated Plaintiff's civil and political rights by abusing his office as Chief Election Official. At the very least, this decision will mean that Plaintiff will be able to either use a nickname in running for office at the state level or no one will be able to use a nickname. A favorable decision will mean that Plaintiff will not have his web page censored by this or any other Secretary of State, and that in the future everyone running for office in Missouri will be able to have a hyperlink to their web page. Plaintiff benefits by living in a lawful society and being known as someone who brought miscreants to justice. In addition, if this Court decides to punish Defendant Blunt for violating Plaintiff's rights that also in some manner soothes Plaintiff's injuries. And that is Item #3.
. . . . Attorney Bossert acts as if this Court rendering a verdict against Defendant Blunt for violation of Plaintiff's civil rights is some sort of 'cruel and unusual' punishment. When Plaintiff filed this action on July 21, 2004, Plaintiff could only hope that this matter would be tried and solved in a timely manner. Instead, Defendant Blunt and his attorney took as much time as was necessary so that the relief asked for by Plaintiff would become irrelevant in this election season. Why should Plaintiff's case be dismissed because of Defendant's running the clock out? There is nothing preventing this Court from imposing a fine upon Defendant for his misconduct. Nor is there anything preventing this Court from imposing a requirement that if Plaintiff Blunt ever attempts political activity again, that Defendant Blunt must be saddled with the nickname of 'Runt' before his last name. How is that any worse than saddling the taxpayers or electors with a new election simply because of Defendant Blunt's willful violation of law and civil rights? Would Defendant Blunt prefer to have to forfeit the election to the next winning candidate in terms of votes cast? In any case, some punishment of Defendant Blunt is necessary so that the next Secretary of State doesn't pick and choose who gets to use a nickname on the ballot or pick and choose, based upon nothing more than personal dislike or political advantage as to whether or not a political candidate's web page shall be censored once they reach Official Candidate status, and so to avoid punishment doesn't violate Plaintiff's or others' civil rights.
5. Defendant Blunt Should Not Be Represented By The Missouri Attorney General
. . . . Defendant Blunt chose to abuse his office as Chief Election Official not for the benefit of the State of Missouri, but solely for his own personal and political gain. Plaintiff has not asked for a single penny from the State of Missouri to pay for Defendant Blunt's violation of Plaintiff's civil and political rights. Nor does Plaintiff ask for anything, like new elections, that will cost the State of Missouri or Missouri electors or taxpayers any money. Therefore, while Plaintiff's federal case involves suing Defendant Blunt under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985 as a state actor, the state is not held liable for Defendant Blunt's misconduct. Additionally, the Missouri Attorney General probably should sue Defendant Blunt criminally for violation of election laws as Chief Elections Officer, and thus has a conflict of interest in defending Defendant Blunt in this Plaintiff's federal case.
. . . . Plaintiff suggests that Defendant Blunt's corporate and fat- cat political contributors pay for Defendant Blunt's counsel in this case. Defendant Blunt's defense for abusing his office should be paid for by Defendant Blunt, not the Missouri taxpayer. There are plenty of campaign contributions wasted on lying advertisements against political opponents, Defendant Blunt can use them funds to hire a lawyer to defend himself for his abuses of his power in office.
. . . . This would also mean that Attorney Bossert could no longer represent Defendant Blunt and that their Motion to Dismiss of October 8, 2004 is worthless. Of course, their Motion to Dismiss was worthless already because it was inadequate in addressing both the facts and law of this case.
6. Plaintiff Did Not Have Adequate Time To Reply:
. . . . Although Attorney Bossert claims that he mailed off his Motion on Oct. 8, 2004, the file-stamp on the envelope is stamped 'Received Oct 12 2004 FRDCC Mailroom.' Plaintiff did not receive the Motion until Friday, Oct. 15, 2004. A week went by for mailing, time Plaintiff did not have to do legal research or writing for this reply motion.
. . . . Therefore, Plaintiff asks that Defendant Blunt's counsel in future briefs send to Plaintiff either an Adobe PDF file or a Word for Windows file to Plaintiff's e-mail address of firstname.lastname@example.org when they also mail it via the Post Office.
. . . . Every attorney for a miscreant government official tries to gain a knockout blow for his client according to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They argue that their client is not guilty of anything, they try to shade the facts, they split legalistic hairs in talmudic discourse as to how undeniable facts and law don't apply if it favors their client.
. . . . There are genuine material facts present so that this case merits trial on its merits. It has not been denied that Defendant Blunt as Secretary of State denied Plaintiff his proven- up nickname of 'Mad Dog' on the Republican party primary ballot for governor, the same office Defendant Blunt was competing with Plaintiff for the nomination. It has been proven by a letter from Defendant's own General Counsel that this policy of allowing nicknames for some and denial of preferred nicknames for others like Plaintiff was not based upon any law, but has been for at least the past dozen years a policy left to the Secretary of State, and thus in Plaintiff's case, one of discretionary abuse by Defendant Blunt.
. . . . Also, it has been admitted by Defendant Blunt that he censored Plaintiff's web site by deliberately refusing to put a hyperlink to it from the Official Candidate's Listing website, although Plaintiff was indeed an official candidate. Defendant Blunt and Attorney Bossert have insisted that they have some sort of 'right' to censor those political candidate's web sites that they find objectionable solely at their discretion. Initially Defendant Blunt blocked the web pages of all the Republican candidates, not just Plaintiff's and didn't put up another rival Republican candidates' web site until Plaintiff made an administrative complaint. Thus they have violated the First Amendment not only of the Plaintiff and other candidates, but have disrupted the ability of the electors to make informed choices concerning the Republican candidates for governor of Missouri. Defendant Blunt furthermore chose the most overbroad means to violate the First Amendment, when simply placing a notice at the top of the Official Candidates Listing website that the opinions expressed by candidate web pages were not necessarily those of the Secretary of State or State of Missouri would have passed constitutional muster.
. . . . Due to Defendant's lawful delay in accepting service and filing a Motion to Dismiss, the remedies Plaintiff suggested which would only punish Defendant Blunt and not the electors or taxpayers of Missouri have become partially irrelevant. However, although some of these punishments for misbehavior may no longer apply due to the fact that the general election shall take place before any trial doesn't mean that the offenses against Plaintiff are invalid or should be dismissed. Rather this Court needs to make sure that these abuses of power are both punished and remedied so that they do not happen again.
. . . . Therefore, Plaintiff moves that this matter proceed to trial, that other aggrieved parties be allowed to join into this suit as necessary, and that this matter be decided in an expeditious manner.
Martin 'Mad Dog' Lindstedt, Plaintiff Pro Se
338 Rabbit Track Road, Granby Missouri 64844
Certificate of Service
. . . . I hereby certify a copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on Oct. 21, 2004 to Assistant Attorney General Trevor Bossert, Post Office Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
Over to Martin 'Mad Dog' Lindstedt, Republican Candidate for Governor of Missouri -- 2004
Over to My Struggle -- The Rants of a Resistance Political Operative
Over to Thought for the Day
Over to Martin Lindstedt's CI Church & State WWW Page
Back to www.martinlindstedt.org or Patrick Henry On-Line