|
'The game ain't over' Martin Lindstedt's civil suit dismissed
By Jim Burrows
"They won Monday here but the game ain't over," said Martin Lindstedt of his latest legal
loss in an attempt to call for a special election with his name on the ballot for Newton County
Sheriff.
Last week Judge D. Brook Bartlett, of the U.S. District Court, Western Missouri, dismissed
Lindstedt's federal civil suit against County Clerk Kay Baum, Secretary of State Bekki Cook
and the State of Missouri.
"Lindstedt failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and Lindstedt was
prohibited from relitigating claims in federal court that either were rejected in the courts of
the State of Missouri or were inextricably intertwined with claims raised in state court," wrote
Judge Bartlett in his order dismissing the suit which was signed April 28.
Lindstedt said he has 10 days from the Order "under Rule 59 or 60" to file a motion with
the court to reconsider his suit.
But, according to both the court and Lindstedt, the proper jurisdiction for his current lawsuit
is the U.S. Supreme Court. And he admits getting the high court to hear his case is a "long
shot."
Lindstedt now plans to file an appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Lindstedt is chairman of the Newton County Libertarian Party, although that party expelled
him from their roles at a meeting in Columbia April 20. He was an unsuccessful candidate for
governor at last year's August primary election and an unsuccessful, write-in candidate for
sheriff in November. In April, for a second time, he was defeated as a candidate for Granby
city judge.
In state courts, beginning on the county level, Lindstedt filed a civil suit for mandamus to
attempt to have the county clerk place his
Lindstedt loses civil suit, vows to file again
name on the November General Election ballot after he lost his primary election bid for
governor and after the filing period had closed.
In his suit he also wants a review of Missouri's election laws and any of those laws
ruled unconstitutional which don't allow him to become a candidate for sheriff.
In September Circuit Judge Tim Perigo denied Lindstedt's suit. He appealed to and
was denied at both the appellate court and the Missouri Supreme Court.
Lindstedt then filed his suit in federal court, claiming his constitutional rights were violated.
He continues to act as his own lawyer.
"Lindstedt's petition is a lengthy narrative attacking attorneys and individuals involved in
this case and various individuals in Newton County," Judge Bartlett wrote in his order.
Lindstedt could "prove no set of facts in support of (his) claim that would entitle plaintiff
to relief," the court wrote.
"He also does not specify any Missouri statutethat is alleged to be unconstitutional or explain
how Missouri's election laws deny him rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution
and its amendments.
"Lindstedt merely asserts that the defendants denied and interfered with his rights to free
speech, association and voting."
|
Initially, I did believe that Federal Judge D. Brook Bartlett was honest in his interpretation of
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. 263 U.S. 413; District of
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462) so that I couldn't appeal a Missouri
court system ruling, no matter how corrupt, to the lower federal court system.
Of course, upon further study I found out how Judge Bartlett
glossed over a case in point (Biddulph v. Mortham, 89 F.3d 1491, 1495, where, like
myself, a person seeking to get a valid ititiative petition placed on the Florida ballot was
jacked around in the Florida court system and refused his writ of mandamus.). In my
appellate brief I pointed out that election issues are almost always decided in federal
court unless you count the few instances where the state courts act responsibly in
overruling the 'election laws' that state people in power put into place specifically to deny
competitors a place on the ballot. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine doesn't apply at
all to election cases. Where Rooker-Feldman is almost always used is in licensing
cases, where the state and local corrupt gubbnmints say who can earn a living via 'licensing
laws.'
A case in point is in Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 where a federal district
court handled an election law case, was made to bring it before the Hawaiian supreme court
by the 9th Circuit, had it ruled on by the state court, had it dragged through the federal
district and applellate courts before winding up before the U.S. Supremes for a determination.
Rooker-Feldman was never mentioned at all, even though it was ruled that the
state courts should have first crack at fixing their own mess.
Judge D. Brook Bartlett has the notion that because he is a federal judge that he is God. Both this case and the one against the Missouri Libertarian Party are in the 8th Circuit because Judge Bartlett has the notion that he doesn't have to obey the law -- his whims are law. This is what necessitates all the legal fighting. Like most of the criminals in power, Judge Bartlett is essentially lawless -- the law is not something for him to obey and have applied to himself, but rather something to impose on others for his own benefit.
Which brings me back to the press. Having no knowledge of the law and not bothering to ever learn, the press only prints its prejudices. Jim Burrows was the Republican vote counter and election judge for Newton County in the November 1996 election. Jim really favors the two-party oligarchy, especially when his faction of it is in power as the senior partner. Can one really expect such a thing not to be reflected in his newspaper articles? Or for those prejudices to be openly acknowledged instead of being displayed as 'objective reporting?'
.
Back to Martin Lindstedt for Sheriff
Over to Patrick Henry On-Line?