Runt Blunt's Second Reply 'Answer' to Civil Complaint


                            WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
                                 SOUTHERN DIVISION

           Plaintiff,              )
V.                                 )    Case No. 04-5062-CV-SW-RED
MATT BLUNT                         )
           Defendant.              )

                         REPLY SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT
                                OF MOTION TO DISMISS
      Plaintiffs "reply," filed with this Court on 10/26/2004, contains far too many

frivolous arguments, distortions, and inaccuracies for the Secretary to reply to everything.

Specifically, the Secretary does not address plaintiff's numerous unsupported statements of

"fact" his inappropriately offered "exhibits," and his stream of baseless personal attacks

aimed at the Secretary and his undersigned counsel. To the extent that the Secretary is able

to extract relevant "argument" from plaintiff's filing, the Secretary offers this reply. The

Secretary states:


I.   The Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction
     Plaintiff begins by arguing that this Court has "subject matter jurisdiction under 42

U.S.C. § 1983"(1) (Pltf Reply. 1). Neither section 1983, nor any other statute, confers this

Court with jurisdiction.
     Of course. section 1983 creates a cause of action for violations of federal rights. "But

the federal cause of action created by the section does not by itself confer jurisdiction upon

the federal district courts to adjudicate these claims." Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 534

(1974); Fountain v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. 678 F.2d 1038, 1042 n.7

(11 th Cir. 1982)(Section 1983 "creates a cause of action but does not itself bestow jurisdiction

upon the district court."). "No separate jurisdictional claim can be advanced on the basis of

§ 1983 alone." Brown v. New York, 1973 WL 1297, *1 (U.S. Dist. N.D. N.Y. 1973).
    Moreover, plaintiff has made no attempt to explain how he has any sort of

constitutional right to an inappropriate nickname. For the reasons stated in the Secretary’s

Motion to Dismiss, he has no such right, and this Court does not have jurisdiction because
      (1) Plaintiff also mentions 42 U.S.C. § 1985 as a source of jurisdiction. Plaintiff's

reliance on the section is puzzling, as it requires a "conspiracy" between "two or more

persons." 42 U.S.C. §1985 (1), (2), (3). The Secretary is the only named defendant to

this frivolous lawsuit, and plaintiff has never made any mention of any sort of


plaintiff has not identified any such constitutional right that the Secretary has violated. (2)

(Mot. To Dismiss. 3-5). For the reasons stated therein, plaintiff's petition does not state a

claim sufficient to fit "into one of the isthmian exceptions to [the] general rule" that federal

courts do not have jurisdiction over local election disputes. Bonas v. Town of North

Smithfield, 256 F.3d 69, 74 (1st Cir. 2001).
     Plaintiff now belatedly claims that the Secretary deprived plaintiff of his right "to run

as a political candidate" and that the Secretary has "censored" plaintiff's web page. (Pltf

Reply, 12.)  Of course the contentions are demonstrably false. Plaintiff's true and correct

name appeared on the primary ballot as a candidate for the Republican Party’s nominee for

governor.  He lost. And plaintiff's web page,, still exists, without any

government censorship whatsoever, per his right under the First Amendment to the United

States Constitution.

     (2)  Plaintiff does point to a candidate named Norma Champion, who allegedly ran
 for the state legislature under the moniker "Aunt Norma." (Pltf. Reply, 4-5). He does not

 explain how this alleged instance grants plaintiff the constitutional right to the appellation

 "Mad Dog."  He also does not explain how the circumstances surrounding "Aunt
Norma’s" candidacy are properly before this Court. If the actions of previous secretaries

in approving this name were in error, it was up to her opponents to properly challenge the

action in court. Plaintiff plainly does not have standing to do so now.


II.  Plaintiff's Claim Is Moot
    Plaintiff repeatedly asserts that the Secretary has committed a "crime," and that this

 "crime" needs to be "punished." (Pltf. Reply, 13-17). These contentions, as well as

plaintiffs disgusting statement that the Secretary "should argue . . . that a rapist/murderer

should be turned loose" (Pltf. Reply, 13) do not further his claim that the case is not moot.

They only show that plaintiff does not understand the difference between the criminal and

civil system. (3)  Plaintiff's "crime" and "punishment" arguments are simply frivolous.
    Nor does plaintiffs hypothesis that the Secretary’s practice "might well be challenged

again in 2006 by [p]laintiff or others" resurrect his claim. (Pltf. Reply, 16). Plaintiff has

made no allegation that he will run for any statewide office in the future. And Mr. Blunt will

not be Secretary of State after 12 noon on January 10, 2005. § 28.005 RSMo (2000).  He will

be governor. This case plainly does not fall within the "narrow exception’ to the mootness
      (3) While not seeking "damages," plaintiff's constant use of the words "crime" and

"punish," show that plaintiff's claim is punitive in nature. But government entities, such

as the Office of the Secretary of State, are "immune from punitive damages under 42
U.S.C. 1983."  City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271 (1981);

Morlock v. East Cent. Educ. Dist., 46 F.Supp.2d 892, 923 (U.S. Dist. Minn.
1999)("Government entities are immune from punitive damages claims under section


doctrine of issues which are "capable of repetition yet evade review" contemplated by

Republican Party of Minnesota v. Klobuchar, 381 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir. 2004).
     The Secretary will not, as plaintiff attempts to do, engage in a debate over whose

"fault" it is that plaintiff's claims are moot. (Pltf. Reply, 13-17). The fact remains that the

election was held on November 2. 2004. The ballot cannot be changed. Plaintiff's caustic

web page cannot retroactively be placed on a list of candidates for an election which has

already taken place. The only relief for which plaintiff prayed has, as he put it, "become

irrelevant in this election season."  Plaintiff's claim is moot.

III. Plaintiff Lacks Standing
     Plaintiff, having been given ample opportunity to do so, has been unable to allege a

single constitutional right that the Secretary has violated. There is no federal right to an

inappropriate appellation.
     Indeed, plaintiff has failed to allege that he has been harmed at all. At no point has

he claimed that the absence of his inappropriate nickname caused him to lose the election --

or even that he received one single fewer vote due to its absence. Plaintiff fails the first

prong of the standing test. (4)
       (4)   The Secretary has not, as plaintiff asserts, admitted that the Secretary has
inflicted "an injury fairly traceable to the actions of the Secretary." (Pltf Reply, 17). It

is abundantly clear that the Secretary acknowledges the obvious fact that if plaintiff had

sustained some sort of injury (which he hasn’t) that injury would presumably be traced to


      As for the third prong, plaintiff returns to his baseless "crime" and "punishment"

argument. Even were it possible to grant plaintiff's requested relief it would offer him no

remedy at all. Indeed, plaintiff himself admits that the relief has "become irrelevant." (Pltf

Reply, 18). He simply wishes to see the Secretary "punished" and "embarrassed."  And

plaintiff has unfortunately chosen this Court as part of his scheme to do so. Plaintiff fails

the third prong of the standing test.

1V.  Amendment and Joinder Are Inappropriate
     Finally, plaintiff desperately mentions what he refers to as alleged "additional

misconduct" which he claims that the Secretary committed against plaintiff and others. (Pltf.

Reply, 2). Plaintiff concludes that this "misconduct demands both an amendment of

pleadings and joinder of additional plaintiffs." Id. Plaintiff is wrong.
     This Court has already explained to plaintiff the black letter law that "Unrelated

separate claims should be raised in separate civil actions." Western District of Missouri,

Southern Division, Complaint Form, 2 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff makes no attempt

whatsoever to claim that the alleged misappropriation of federal funds is in any way related

to his present claim of not allowing plaintiff to place his inappropriate nickname on the

ballot.  Nor has plaintiff alleged that his proposed additional plaintiffs have any interest

whatsoever in participating in the present action. Plaintiff should not be allowed to amend

his claim.
the Secretary.

     As plaintiff put it, he has "had his fun." (Pltf. Reply. 10). The Secretary respectfully

requests that this Court dismiss plaintiffs petition with prejudice.
                                       Respectfully submitted,

                                       [s] T.B.
                                       JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON
                                       Attorney General
                                       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 10th day of

November 2004 to:
Martin Lindstedt
Granby, MO 64844
                                       T. B.        
                                       Assistant Attorney General



                       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 Martin 'Mad Dog' Lindstedt (hereafter Plaintiff), replies a second time to Defendant Matt 'Runt' Blunt, Secretary of State, winner of the Republican Party primary nomination for Governor, and governor-elect (hereafter Defendant), and the November 10, 2004 latest pathetic attempt by Defendant's improper counsel, Assistant Attorney General Trevor Bossert to get Defendant Blunt off the hook for abusing his office as Secretary of State and Chief Election Official against the interests of open, free, fair elections. If elections are a 'horserace' then it is in the interests of both the race and general public that a 'winning' horse be disqualified for cheating, after a proper inquiry or trial be held.

This is Plaintiff's second reply on the twelfth day after Defendant's second reply. However, Defendant was supposed to have filed an Answer to Plaintiff's complaint, and not simply a witless and dishonest pleading that this federal district court please dismiss Plaintiff's complaint irregardless of the facts and law. In fact, as Defendant's improper counsel, Assistant Attorney General Trevor Bossert, claims, Plaintiff's reply of Oct. 26, 2004 "contains far too many frivolous arguments, distortions, and inaccuracies for the Secretary to reply to everything." In actual fact, Defendant Blunt hasn't replied to anything. What has happened is that Defendant's counsel has made quite a few claims and specious arguments and been caught in a lie by Plaintiff's "inappropriately offered 'exhibits'" showing that Defendant Secretary of State and Defendant of State's counsel, Terry Jarret, routinely grant the use of nicknames to their favorites like 'Aunt Norma' Champion, but denies the use of the nickname 'Mad Dog' to Plaintiff running against Republican Candidate Jim Talent in 2002 and against Defendant Blunt in 2004. The lie indulged in by Defendant and Defendant's counsel was that state law prohibited Plaintiff's nickname when in fact this law had been violated routinely by Defendant, and was this violation of the law as improperly applied to the detriment of Plaintiff was justified as "Secretary of State 'precedent'". If Defendant's inappropriate counsel was competent then he would have discovered the exhibits from 2004 and not been caught out in a lie by Plaintiff. Perhaps it is not a matter of incompetence, but of dishonesty, that Defendant's counsel deliberately lied to this district court about the facts and law of this case, in which case Defendant's inappropriate counsel should be disbarred and censured. (Plaintiff has pointed out that since there is no threat to the Missouri treasury, that sovereign immunity doesn't apply, and that Defendant should be represented by private counsel, something not answered by Defendant or Defendant's counsel.) Plaintiff has not claimed overtly a right to a 'nickname' on the ballot, but rather that this right derives from Plaintiff's right to have his nickname of choice on the ballot as has been granted by Defendant and previous Secretaries of State to other political candidates. Plaintiff's case involves a simple complaint, with an abundance of evidence, that Defendant Blunt criminally abused his office of Secretary of State and Chief Election Official to benefit favored Republican Party candidates and himself to the detriment of Plaintiff. This is unlawful and corrupt behavior by Defendant.

In addition, Defendant's counsel invited this district court to look at Plaintiff's web site ( at Http:// ) and on the basis of that politically incorrect content deemed objectionable by Defendant Blunt as Secretary of State usurping the role of censor dismiss Plaintiff's suit. Plaintiff doesn't make the straw-dog complaint that he has a First Amendment right to publish a political, religious, and racial web site, but rather that Plaintiff as an official certified candidate had the right to have his web page listed, in competition against Defendant Blunt's web page, on the Secretary of State's Certified Candidates List, absent any commentary either for or against concerning the content of Plaintiff's web page.

In both 2002 and 2004, Defendant Blunt chose to not allow Plaintiff his chosen nickname on the ballot and listing of candidate's web site in order to favor the preferred Republican candidate or to benefit Defendant personally. This is an abuse of power by the very official who is supposed to be in charge of elections. If Defendant cannot be expected to obey the law and custom of equal treatment of all candidates, especially those running against himself, then how can Defendant be trusted with the power to hold elections and count the votes? The answer is that Defendant Blunt is simply a corrupt moronic puppet run by unseen corporate masters who now want to sear off loose ends, like Plaintiff's lawsuit. Rather than that this district court allow this to happen, far better than to simply listen to the lies of a lying lawyer making claims while his client sits safe, is to bring this matter directly to trial where Defendant Blunt will have to take the stand, be placed under oath, and do his own lying if he dares as to why Plaintiff was denied his nickname on the ballot and listing of candidate web site on the Official Candidates Listing. These are genuine material facts, admitted to by both sides. Defendant's counsel simply wants to hold a mini- trial through motions without putting Defendant on the witness stand. This should be prohibited by this Court.

I. This Court Has Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Attorney Bossert cites some inapposite cases arguing that since Plaintiff filed a civil suit in a federal district court over United States Code 42 USC 1983 and 1985, that this Court has no jurisdiction. Who other than this United States District Court has jurisdiction to hear cases involving violation of United States Code? This is complete corrupt nonsense, taking a citation out of context from a few cases outside the 8th Circuit. Plaintiff just bets that Defendant and Defendant's inappropriate counsel from the Missouri Attorney General's Office would love to drag this federal complaint to a state court swamp now that Defendant is governor-elect thanks to crimes committed as Chief Election Officer. Attorney Bossert's claims are dishonest and idiotic.

Attorney Bossert then goes on to state that Plaintiff "has made no attempt to explain how he has any sort of right to an inappropriate nickname." Why should Plaintiff 'explain' that he wants an "inappropriate nickname." It is merely Attorney Bossert lying that Plaintiff claims that Plaintiff wants an 'inappropriate nickname.' None other than Defendant and Defendant's counsel claim that Plaintiff's nickname is 'inappropriate.' Is it written in Defendant Blunt's job description that he has power to determine which candidate nicknames are 'inappropriate?' Plaintiff has claimed that other candidates are allowed to have whatever nicknames they choose, but that Defendant Blunt unlawfully refused to allow Plaintiff to use his chosen nickname in order to benefit Republican candidate Jim Talent in 2002 and Defendant Blunt in 2004. Plaintiff has shown by exhibit that there is no law left underlying Defendant Blunt's lawless refusal of 2002 and 2004. Plaintiff has no obligation to cripple his case in order to answer the lying mischaracterizations made up by Defendant's counsel arguing points never brought up by Plaintiff.

( In a Footnote 1 on Page 2 of Defendant's Reply Suggestions of Nov. 10, 2004, Attorney Bossert mentions the 42 U.S.C. 1985 "conspiracy" between two or more persons. Attorney Bossert is 'puzzled.' Plaintiff has already shown that there are no shortage of lawyers willing to misstate both facts and law in order to allow Defendant Blunt to violate the law and rights of Plaintiff. Nor does Defendant Blunt lack corporate and government lackeys willing to do Defendant Blunt's lying for him. Having met Defendant Blunt and noting the lack of much, if anything, in the way of mental activity coming from Defendant Blunt, Plaintiff thinks it is quite likely that there is 'a vast blight-wing-ding-a-ling conspiracy' to advance a mindless sock- puppet like Defendant Blunt to the office of governor and really rape over the People and State of Missouri but good. A trial will tell. )

Attorney Bossert then claims that Plaintiff claims direct censorship of Plaintiff's web page. That is another of Attorney Bossert's lies. Plaintiff claims, and the facts prove, that Defendant Blunt refused to allow a link in the Secretary of State's web page of Official Candidates List to Plaintiff's web site even though Plaintiff was an Official Candidate. This also happened in 2002, when Plaintiff was running against Jim Talent. Attorney Bossert in his first 'Answer' in fact invited this Court to visit Plaintiff's web page and tried to get this Court to agree that Defendant Blunt has 'a right' -- as Defendant Blunt's lackey Spence Jackson has claimed -- to refuse to list a web site that Defendant Blunt claims is racist, sexist, (homophobic and full of impermissible -ists) and objectionable. Having been caught in that lie, Attorney Bossert now claims that simply because Plaintiff's eight-year web site still exists independent to Defendant Blunt's wishes, that no censorship has occurred. Plaintiff's claims are that Defendant Blunt abused his power as Secretary of State and Chief Election Official to violate Plaintiff's right to 'equal access' to the general voting public in order to benefit Defendant Blunt's campaign and the campaigns of other Republicans, specifically Jim Talent. Whether, given these professional politicians' advantages of corporate money and name recognition that this petty cheating was really necessary to defeat Plaintiff's candidacy is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Defendant Blunt deliberately abused his office to benefit himself and his corporate backers -- that is the whole basis for this lawsuit.

( Footnote 2 of Page 3, the case of 'Aunt Norma' Champion involves Plaintiff showing that Defendant Blunt has no objection over allowing favored Republican candidates their choice of nickname. The point is that Defendant Blunt chose to disallow Plaintiff's choice of nickname but allowed the nicknames of others while claiming that he was obeying statutory law. Attorney Bossert's first 'Answer' went into cite after cite concerning how both statutory law and case law forbid nicknames, especially for show-business personalities. Then Plaintiff showed letters between Plaintiff and Defendant Blunt's general counsel, Terry Jarret, showing a similar pattern of lying involving the 'Aunt Norma' exception. That Attorney Bossert got caught red-handed telling lies in his Answer of Oct. 8, 2004 shows that Attorney Bossert is at best incompetent. In his latest 'Reply Answer' of Nov. 10, 2004 bringing up this matter of the 'Aunt Norma' exception proves that Attorney Bossert is a deliberate disingenuous liar. )

II. Plaintiff's Claim Is Not Moot -- Defendant Blunt Can Be Penalized For His Crimes

Plaintiff's claims are that Defendant Blunt misused his power as Secretary of State and Chief Election Official to violate Plaintiff's rights as a political candidate in order to benefit his political party and himself directly as a candidate for the office of governor. Attorney Bossert indulges in the same old tired misapplications of Republican Party v. Klobuchar, 381 F.3d. 785, 790 (8th Cir. 2004) in order to claim that now that Defendant has accomplished the perfect crime that now Defendant should get away with it.

Plaintiff has argued, and Attorney Bossert has not answered, that Defendant Blunt in deliberately abusing his office for personal political gain, has committed election fraud and other crimes. Attorney Bossert whines that since Defendant Blunt is a government official that he has 'sovereign immunity.' Plaintiff reminds this court and Defendant Blunt that the principle of sovereign immunity isn't supposed to say that the government is above obeying its own law (although that is indeed often the case, and what Attorney Bossert is treasonously and lawlessly claiming on behalf of Defendant Blunt) but rather that this principle is designed to protect the Treasury of the State of Missouri from claims against it arising from the criminality of its elected and unelected officials. Since there is nothing other than declaratory and injunctive relief requested, and no almighty dollars at risk for the Missouri state treasury, then this federal district court cannot accept a claim of sovereign immunity. Nor is the Missouri Attorney General's Office legitimately representing Defendant Blunt for Defendant Blunt's crimes committed in office because the Missouri Attorney General should be prosecuting Defendant Blunt, not defending Defendant Blunt. Since Defendant Blunt committed these crimes to benefit himself as a candidate, the cost of legal counsel should be borne by Defendant Blunt's campaign committee and the corporate interests which supported Defendant Blunt.

Defendant Blunt had and has the right to full and due process of law and procedure. Defendant Blunt chose to take advantage of this so as to delay the hearing of this matter after the general election when it could have been decided at a bench trial after a few hours of presenting the known exhibits. Instead, Defendant Blunt got to enjoy the fruits of his criminal endeavors, and Attorney Bossert now proudly admits that the thief has swallowed and digested the proceeds of Defendant's criminal endeavors. Defendant Blunt is now governor-elect and the election can't be done again.

Fine. However, Defendant Blunt can be punished so that future elected officials, especially those who are election officials, can be deterred from abusing their offices to the detriment of competing candidates in order to benefit themselves: This district court can disqualify Defendant Blunt from taking office as governor of Missouri because Defendant Blunt cheated in the primary race (and possibly the general election) against Plaintiff. Then the next candidate, probably Claire McCaskill, can either take office, or Governor Bob Holden can keep office or name a replacement until such time as a new primary and general election can be held.

At the very least, a declaratory and injunctive judgment on behalf of Plaintiff could mar the legitimacy of Defendant Blunt forever as a thief and a cheat, and upon Defendant Blunt can be affixed the label (not libel) of 'RuntBlunt' in any future election.

If this punishment is beyond the pay-grade of this federal district court, then Plaintiff is willing for this matter to be heard by a jury. Let them decide the facts of this matter, and impose a suitable political punishment upon Defendant Blunt if found guilty. In any case, punishing Defendant Blunt upon a finding of guilt is not ever 'moot.' Criminals must pay for their crimes if there is to be any rule of law.

III. Plaintiff Has Standing As Plaintiff's Rights Have Been Violated By Defendant Blunt.

Plaintiff, given ample opportunity to allege that Defendant Blunt deliberately violated Plaintiff's CONstitutional rights, has done so by proving the facts in this mini-trial by motion. Plaintiff showed that Defendant Blunt has a policy of allowing some favored candidates to use their choice of nicknames, but arbitrarily and unlawfully refused to allow Plaintiff to use his choice of nickname (i.e. 'Mad Dog') even though the Newton County clerk as chief election official allowed Plaintiff to run as Martin 'Mad Dog' Lindstedt in 2002, 2003, and 2004. Even though the Missouri Ethics Commission allowed Plaintiff his nickname without demurral. Plaintiff proved, and Defendant Blunt admits, that although Plaintiff was an Official Certified Candidate versus Defendant Blunt in the Republican primary election, that Defendant Blunt refused to place a hyperlink to Plaintiff's web site on the Official Candidate's List. It has also provable as fact that Plaintiff personally and by writing and by an attempt through administrative action via the Missouri Ethics Commission placed Defendant Blunt on alert that Defendant Blunt was violating Plaintiff's civil and electoral rights as a competing candidate. To which now that Defendant Blunt has benefited from his little crime spree as Chief Elections Officer of Missouri, all that Defendant Blunt's improper counsel can do is make specious arguments and offer speculation as to what might have happened if Defendant Blunt hadn't been a crook.

Speculation as to whether or not Plaintiff lost a single vote. Anyone with half a brain knew that Defendant Blunt would win the primary election. Defendant Blunt, lacking in even that half of a brain, decided that overwhelming name recognition and millions in corporate campaign contributions were not enough. Defendant Blunt had to make sure that Plaintiff wasn't allowed his choice of nickname on the ballot and a hyperlink to Plaintiff's web page as a certified candidate on the Official Candidate's Listing. Plaintiff made it quite clear that as the only genuine racist, religiously bigoted, fag-o-phobic, White Nationalist Christian Identity candidate on the ballot that he wanted the votes of other genuine working-class rural White racists and that they were to not vote for any other Republicans other than those endorsed by Plaintiff in the general election. Since Defendant Blunt (or his lackeys) knew that he needed those voters to defeat the Democrat nominee, Defendant Blunt (and his lackeys) decided to not allow Plaintiff widespread access to these 'Republican' voters via a nickname on the ballot or a hyperlink on the Official Candidate's List. If Defendant Blunt had been anything other than a coward, a sneak, and a crook then Defendant Blunt would have stood by his nonexistent 'principles' and allowed Plaintiff to run as 'Mad Dog' and allowed the voters to decide if they wanted as their primary candidate an openly racist, bigoted, homophobic White Nationalist Dual-Seedline Christian Identity religious fanatic. Plaintiff was sure that after Defendant Blunt's behavior of 2002 not allowing Plaintiff his nickname or web site hyperlink, that Defendant Blunt would have no more sense nor character than to again do the same unlawful, reprehensible cowardly criminal behavior on his own behalf.

Plaintiff was correct. Thus this lawsuit.

IV. Amendment and Joinder are Appropriate.

Attorney Bossert claims that Plaintiff has no right to amend his lawsuit and to joinder additional plaintiffs or defendants. Attorney Bossert needs to read the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow joinder of interested parties all the time and the amendment of pleadings necessary to accommodate them. Attorney Bossert is grasping at straws by citing the wording of Plaintiff's initial complaint. That was the initial complaint. As a lawsuit moves on, sometimes it attracts additional parties with differing complaints. Attorney Bossert merely proves his incompetence and dishonestly in not being able to mention these inconvenient facts and law.

Plaintiff filed a second complaint before the Missouri Ethics Commission against Defendant Blunt for using $48,000 of federal funding for newspaper advertising with Defendant Blunt's name and picture on it as opposed to merely mentioning his office. There were no guidelines mentioned in the federal law, so Defendant Blunt's chief lackey Spence Jackson simply made up his own guidelines and designed the newspaper ads in order to improperly put Defendant Blunt's name and address before the voters, again to the detriment of Plaintiff and other rival candidates. The statement was, "Missouri Secretary of State Matt Blunt wants to count every vote!" along with a picture of Matt Blunt. If this would have been legitimate, the Plaintiff should have gotten the chance to spend $48,000 of the taxpayer's money on newspaper advertising with his picture and name saying, "Martin 'Mad Dog' Lindstedt, Republican Candidate for Governor, wants every vote counted -- but only as long as you are a White heterosexual Christian man or female knowing your place -- and not a nigger, beaner, faggot, jew or atheist, regardless of whether you vote Republican or not. RuntBlunt feels the same way, but RuntBlunt is a liar." That would have been fair. The other four Republican candidates should have gotten their $48,000 in taxpayer funds to spend for newspaper advertising too.

Three of the other four competing Republican candidates filed an ethics complaint as well, after Plaintiff showed them how, along with a Democrat. All of us got our complaints denied by the Missouri 'Ethics' Commission a week after the general election. So these potential complainants might want to join into Plaintiff's lawsuit now that Plaintiff has done most of the heavy lifting. If so, then that is their right. If not, then that is their right as well. Defendant Blunt has no right to complain about how many people victimized by his abuse of office exercise their rights to sue or how.


Attorney Bossert says that now that Plaintiff "has had his 'fun'", that this case be dismissed. Not withstanding the proof of Plaintiff's claims that Plaintiff's rights have been violated in that Defendant Blunt abused his office as Secretary of State and Chief Election Official in order to make sure that Defendant Blunt's Republican Party and Defendant Blunt himself got elected to higher statewide office. It doesn't really matter whether Defendant Blunt's behavior was really necessary or not to win, it still was criminal for Defendant Blunt to abuse his office to skew the results.

Attorney Bossert whined that Plaintiff's analogy of comparing his arguments that Defendant Blunt should be turned loose from this lawsuit with those of a rapist killing his victim was 'disgusting.' Maybe so, but the analogy was apt. Defendant Blunt and his improper counsel, Attorney Bossert are morally nothing more than rapists screwing that raddled syphilitic whore called democracy. Democracy is a whore, but she is the only sport in town. Defendant Blunt and Attorney Bossert has invited this federal district court to have 'sloppy thirds' and dismiss this assault on the democracy whore. If this court indulges in screwing the democracy whore and dismisses Plaintiff's lawsuit, then that means Plaintiff might make three more of this court's black-robed brethren on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals have to endure sloppy 'fourths, fifth's, and sixths' and then if they rule against Plaintiff then that means en banc 'sevenths through fifteenths.' If it makes it to the Supremes, that means sloppy 'sixteenths through twenty-fourths or twenty-fifths.' That's a lot of unnecessary screwing of the pretension to democracy whore. Far better to simply say that Defendant Blunt and Assistant Attorney General Trevor Bossert are like bad little black boys going out on a wilding expedition of virginal democracy, that we give them a trial, preferably either quick before this bench or before an all-white jury, and then castrate and lynch them politically. Plaintiff thinks that Defendant RuntBlunt would make an excellent Missouri wind chime.

Plaintiff knew in 2002 that Defendant Blunt was a corrupt moron, so he baited a trap in 2002. When Defendant took the bait, Plaintiff set the trap again in 2004. Now Plaintiff is reeling this sucker in.

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
(417) 472-xxxx

Certificate of Service

. . . . I hereby certify a copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on Nov. 22, 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 or Patrick Henry On-Line