To the Missouri Supreme Court
in Jefferson City, Missouri
MARTIN F. LINDSTEDT, )
Relator, )
)
)
vs. ) Case No. ________________
)
Newton County Clerk KAY BAUM, )
Chief Election Official of Newton County, )
and Missouri Secretary of State, )
Chief Election Official of Missouri )
REBECCA COOK )
Respondents )
Petition of Grievance
Arising from Court Misconduct, Above Case
Comes now the Relator, Martin Lindstedt, exercising his
1st Amendment right, petitioning this unit of government,
the Missouri Supreme Court, with a listing of grievances
committed under color of law by the Missouri Supreme Court
willfully evading their duties and responsibilities and
violating the inherent rights of Relator.
Grievances
At 11:15 a.m. Monday, October 7, 1996, a clerk from the
Missouri Supreme Court called me to inform me that my
petition for writ of mandamus and judicial review of
election law would not be heard by the Missouri Supreme
Court because it would not be filed. Relator would have to
file it before an unnamed Missouri Court of Appeals first.
When I asked her how come, I was informed that Missouri
Rules of Court Rule 84.22 applied. I told her that one of
the election laws in question, RSMo 115.333 Section 2, said
specifically that the next court after the circuit court was
the Missouri Supreme Court. Also Art. 5, Section 11,
Constitution of Missouri says that the Supreme Court can't
pull the jurisdictional dodge on me because they are
supposed to transfer the case themselves to a court of
jurisdiction themselves. Didn't state constitution override
their procedure and rules? I quoted State ex rel. Coker-
Garcia v. Blunt (849 SW2d 81) as case law precedent that the
supreme court had formerly followed as well.
The clerk ignored all these arguments and insisted that
Relator had to file in the Court of Appeals. She said that
she could not give me the legal arguments or decide in my
favor against the court.
I have no doubt that the person was indeed a supreme
court clerk. I have had experience with the Missouri supreme
court getting flunkies to do their dirty work in refusing to
hear sensitive cases and since I sent an exhibit against
letting their lawyer, Bill Thompson do it again, this time I
only receive a phone call from an unknown clerk. Besides, if
it is a prank call, the Missouri Supreme Court is now
working towards a decision -- right?
Arguments against such misconduct.
1. Revised Statute of Missouri (RSMo) Section 115.333
Section 2 specifically names the Missouri Court of Appeal as
the appellate court required to hear an election matter.
"All such suits shall be advanced on the court docket and
heard and decided by the court as quickly as possible. Either
party to the suit may appeal to the supreme court within ten days
after a circuit court decision is rendered."
By what authority does the Missouri supreme court decide
that it will not obey this election law created by the
general assembly? Has it already decided that this provision
of the statute is unconstitutional and that its Rules of
Court for jurisdictional procedure takes precedence over
statutes created by the legislative branch of government?
Relator doubts that the Missouri supreme court, in the
interests of hiding from its jurisdictional duties, has any
right to annul the intent of the legislative branch of
government. If they can get away with this, what do we need
a general assembly for. The people can be ruled by judicial
decree. In fact, this usurpation is Constitutionally
repugnant and a violation of their oaths of office to
support the Missouri Constitution.
While Relator did indeed want a Constitutional review of
the election laws by which election officials deny Relator a
place on the ballot under his party banner, Relator did not
intend to have the Missouri supreme court change the
election law through judicial flight.
2. Article 5, Section 11, Constitution of Missouri says
that the Missouri supreme court can't pull the
jurisdictional dodge of dismissing cases by claiming a lack
of jurisdiction. If this court did lack jurisdiction, it
would be up to this court to transfer it to a state court
which does have jurisdiction.
By refusing to hear the case by giving instructions to a
clerk not to file it contrary to law, this court has
practiced by subterfuge a de facto dismissal. It was this
court's duty to send it to the proper appellate court, not
to tell the Relator to do the court's job.
This dodge has been played on Relator by this court
several times before. Twice this court has sent Lawyer
Thompson to stall and throw Relator's case in limbo.
The first time was in January and was Relator's suit
against the Administrative Hearing Commission acting on
behalf of the Missouri Department of Revenue trying to sweat
back income taxes out of Relator. Since Relator didn't want
to fight the case right then and the Department of Revenue
didn't want to pay thousands of dollars on court cases to
try to collect $681 dollars from an indigent Relator and
chance losing or being charged with mail fraud, it was a
'solution' both parties could uneasily live with.
The second time this court pulled off a dodge using Staff
Lawyer Thompson was last March when this court refused to
hear an election case. Relator ended up filing that case in
federal court, this court having shown that it refuses to do
its duty.
Relator is determined to have this matter ruled upon by
this court eventually. All this stalling by having a lesser
appellate court take up the matter merely shows bad-faith on
the part of this court if or when this matter comes up to
the federal level. Of all people who are supposed to obey
the State Constitution, this court is supposed to be first.
3. In the latest election case decided by the Missouri court
system, State ex rel. Coker-Garcia v. Blunt, 849 S.W. 2d 81,
this court did indeed obey Constitution of Missouri Art. 5,
Section 11's provision by transferring (Note: it was this
court which transferred it, not the Appellants who re-filed
it) the case to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western
Division. The case was transferred without delay so that a
decision could be arrived at before the general election.
Now why can't this court obey the Constitution in my case
and do the same for Relator as you did for Laura Coker-
Garcia? Would you do it if Relator called himself a
Relator/Appellant instead of a mere Relator obeying the term
assigned him by your Rule 94 mandamus procedure? Need
Relator\Appellant invoke lawyer witch-doctory by
Relator\Appellant hopping on one foot and mouthing the
"magic words?" Or does Relator\Appellant need become more
than the common herd and find himself a legal shaman to
mouth the legal words and show his guild-membership? If so,
what will Relator\Appellant use to buy himself some justice
from the justice mill? Relator\Appellant don't have much
money to hire a lawyer, although the offer of Two Dollars
and Forty Three Cents Relator\Appellant offered this court
to hear and act upon my habeas corpus petition when
Relator\Appellant was in jail last April still stands. Pro
Bono only exists in lawyer shows on the television set or
whenever the entire guild is trying to defend their
government-imposed monopoly status benefiting their private
interests.
4. This court's refusal to obey the law and the Constitution
of Missouri set me back at least 10-15 bucks in printing
costs and $5.20 postage. Relator\Appellant had to borrow
most of that money and it will act as a drain on my
intermittent cash flow when Relator\Appellant has to pay it
back.
5. By not sitting down and behaving yourselves and obeying
the law, Relator\Appellant has to now bother the Missouri
Court of Appeals with what you refused to do. If they hold
true to form and violate Article V, Section 12, Constitution
of Missouri by not giving a written opinion of their
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and just say
"denied" under color of the last sentence of Rule 84.16 (b)
like they always do, then this court will be responsible for
giving the appellate court still another chance to act in
their typical base fashion. That's not good.
6. While the federal courts have a Rule 60, Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, to allow Relator\Appellant to file a motion
to urge a federal judge to reconsider, this court's Rule
84.24 pretty much allows state appellate courts to run wild
doing foolish and illegal stuff. You don't have a Rule 60
equivalent to allow yourself to clean up your own messes, so
it would be better if you didn't make Relator\Appellant send
it to the Missouri Court of Appeals for them to add to the
pile.
7. This court doesn't really think that if the Missouri
Court of Appeals rules against Relator\Appellant that this
matter will end there does it?
8. The November election is coming up pretty soon and if the
Respondents eventually lose the case then they will have to
pay for a special election for sheriff if the vote is close
enough. Relator\Appellant is confident that
Relator\Appellant will win Relator\Appellant's case because
Relator\Appellant doesn't believe that the federal courts
will ever admit that there are no such things as free, fair,
open elections in Amerika due to people like
Relator\Appellant not being allowed on the ballot as a
candidate due to the political establishment's made-up
special interest laws designed to keep trouble-makers like
Relator\Appellant off the ballot.
Suggestions Supporting Grievance
Relator has placed the case, statutory and Constitutional
cites in his Petition of Grievance. There is no need to
create additional paperwork restating the obvious.
Request for Relief
Wherefore, the Relator\Appellant presents this petition
of grievance stating why he is mad as hell at this court's
'sliming' (Relator\Appellant's favorite descriptive term for
quasi-judicial misbehavior) him on October 7, 1996 and
asking this court to in the future settle down and start
obeying the law and stop making up stuff and otherwise act
like this court has heard of proper civil behavior, plus
whatever other relief this Court finds just and proper.
-s- Martin Lindstedt October 8, 1996
_______________________________ ___________________
Relator Date
.Commentary: Of course, the Missouri Supreme Court will ignore this Petition of Grievance because they have no valid legal reasons for their misconduct. They just made something up and hide behind government personnel and made-up rules.
The purpose behind this Petition of Grievances is to further trash out the Missouri court system by showing them up for the lawless gang of government criminals that they really are. Eventually this case will wind up in Federal court and this maneuvering in the Missouri court system will show how the current government allowed itself to decay for no other reason than to protect its power.
This cowardly retreat from legal responsibilities by the Missouri supreme court shows that there is no justice or independence from government to be found by government judges in government courts. No Justice eventually means No Peace, as people find self-help remedies since they have no chance for justice unless they make their own.
In the short term, all this cowardly retreat did was to delay the case by a week or so and to further illustrate that the Missouri court system cannot be trusted to obey the law agianst its own interests and the interests of their fellow government parasites. The Missouri court of appeals, Southern District, will probably kick it on back, anything other than grant the mandamus, and it will be back to them judges on the Missouri supreme court well before Nevember 5, 1996. Eventually the Missouri supreme court will have to render a decision against me and then it will be before a federal court to answer.
In the short term, whenever the ballot asks if Judge "CrookedWeasel" should be retained on the bench, go ahead and vote 'NO.' While his replacement will probably be no better, at least the replacement will run scared by seeing his predecessor humiliated by the people's vote of 'no-confidence.'
Don't worry that you will be ruining the career of an honest lawyer. For years I voted 'NO' on judge retention as a matter of principle, but then I got to see firsthand the conduct of the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western and Southern Districts, and the Missouri Supreme Court and it confirmed my suspicions. As far as the judges in the Eastern District are concerned, I am positive they are no more honest than their brethren on the bench in the other Missouri districts.
--Martin Lindstedt
.
Back to Lindstedt for Newton County Sheriff or
Back to Patrick Henry On-Line