IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NEWTON COUNTY, MISSOURI
DIVISION I, AT NEOSHO, MISSOURI
Filed 5-19-98
STATE OF MISSOURI )
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. CR498 - 990F
) Alleged Class I Election Offense
)
RICHARD J. DOYLE, SR., )
Defendant )
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
COMES NOW the Defendant, Richard Doyle, Senior to demand a
continuance. Defendant points out the following points of fact and
law behind this motion.
1. Defendant demanded, and filed, on April 30, 1998 for a grand
jury investigation of himself, Prosecutor Greg Bridges, the 40th
Judicial District, and the Newton County Clerk’s office to determine
whether a non-lawyer could run for the office of judge. Also to be
determined by this grand jury was whether and upon whom any criminal
indictments would be brought forward concerning this controversy of
whether the electors of Newton County would have free open elections
to choose their judgeships, or whether the elections were unfreely
closed to where the people could only choose candidates from among
a clique, faction, or combination of legal guild members who comprise
less than one percent of the population. See: Constitution of
Missouri, Article I, Section 25. Elections and suffrage. -- That
all elections shall be free and open; and no power, civil and
military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of
the right of suffrage.
Defendant, aware of this provision and other U.S. Constitutional
provisions saw fit to run for a judgeship as a Libertarian candidate.
Even though Defendant was threatened and extorted by Prosecutor
Bridges to withdraw from election, Defendant chose to not be
intimidated by the threat of criminal prosecution for exercising his
political rights. Whereupon Defendant has been brought forward and
falsely charged with a felony election offense by a corrupt
prosecutor who demands that judgeships be limited only to
Motion for a Continuance 1 Richard Doyle, Sr.
State of Missouri vs. Richard Doyle 420 Morrow
Neosho, Missouri 64850
his fellow legal monopolists and guild members. Defendant is not
being criminally charged upon a complaint brought forward by Newton
County election officials, but by an politically interested party
without any standing or jurisdiction to file an election complaint.
Defendant demanded that a neutral party, one composed of the
population, look at the controversy and file indictments if so
warranted. This way, if the Newton County election officials have
a valid complaint, it can be heard by a disinterested party under
law, and if valid, Defendant could be indicted and the Prosecutor
could carry out his duty according to law. If the grand jury thought
that this proposed prosecution was uncalled for, the grand jury could
return indictments for false and malicious prosecution, obstruction
of justice, or tampering with sufferage and elections.
However, this has not been allowed to happen. Prosecutor Bridges
has taken it upon himself, after terrorism and extortion failed to
yield results, to make a complaint on his own initiative and absent
standing or jurisdiction. Prosecutor Bridges has been allowed by
this Court to proceed absent indictment or information.
The collusion of this Court, and Judge Perigo, with Prosecutor
Bridges is a given. Defendant had to haggle for over an hour with
court clerks over whether they would file his Demand for Grand Jury
Investigation on April 30, 1998. This in violation of Rule 20.02(a)
and 20.04(f), Missouri Rules of Court. The docket sheet was
falsified by the deliberate omission of mention of this Demand for
Grand Jury being filed. Defendant believes that this obstruction of
justice and falsification of the record was aided and abetted by
Judge Timothy Perigo.
On May 4, 1998, Judge Perigo refused to bring up Defendant’s
Demand for Grand Jury Investigation. When pressed upon the point,
Judge Perigo lied, saying that a grand jury investigation would be
after a pre-trial hearing on May 19, 1998 for the purpose of a
preliminary hearing to ascertain whether Prosecutor Bridges’
fraudulent complaint would be brought to trial. Since a
preliminary hearing is contrary to the purpose of a grand jury
indictment as it calls into question the jurisdiction and powers
of a grand jury, Judge Perigo in effect lied, because there
shall be no provision for a grand jury after a
Motion for a Continuance 2 Richard Doyle, Sr.
State of Missouri vs. Richard Doyle 420 Morrow
Neosho, Missouri 64850
preliminary hearing. Judge Perigo will not allow a grand jury to
hear this matter, preferring in collusion with another lawyer-guild
member to railroad Defendant for the political crime of not being a
lawyer and yet running for a judgeship.
Judge Perigo also lied when one moment he said that Defendant was
being arraigned and yet again when he said that Defendant would be
formally arraigned on May 19, 1998 after the preliminary hearing.
Defendant does not acknowledge the validity of this May 19, 1998
preliminary hearing. If a grand jury indictment against Defendant
had been handed down then there could be no preliminary hearing as
such would question the power of the grand jury. Rather the purpose
of a preliminary hearing is to ratify this bogus criminal complaint
brought forward by Prosecutor Bridges. Judge Perigo cannot pretend
otherwise. Thus Judge Perigo has chosen to assist Prosecutor Bridges
in his maliciously criminal prosecution of Defendant by denying in
effect Defendant’s right to a grand jury investigation of this matter.
Wherefore, Defendant demands that this farce of a preliminary
hearing, reached by Judge Perigo and Prosecutor Bridges acting in
collusion be put aside, and that a continuance be granted until which
time a grand jury investigation of this matter has been concluded.
If a grand jury indictment is reached against Defendant, then
Defendant will face trial, a trial by petit jury.
2. Defendant has chosen to ask for a public defender to help
represent him as co-counsel. Defendant is being charged with a felony
and is a poor person with the right to counsel from the public
defender’s office.
However, Defendant is not giving up control over his case by using
this public defender. Defendant is well aware that the public
defender’s office is filled with incompetent lawyers under obligation
to lose their cases for criminal defendants whom the regime courts
choose to prosecute. Most of them are only skilled in haggling
with the prosecution over plea bargains. Therefore, Defendant
retains overall control over his case, seconded by his counsel of
choice, Martin Lindstedt, Chairman of the Newton County Libertarian
Party, with the public pretender a distant third in command.
Motion for a Continuance 3 Richard Doyle, Sr.
State of Missouri vs. Richard Doyle 420 Morrow
Neosho, Missouri 64850
However, since both Defendant and Chairman Lindstedt lack objectivity in this matter, the public pretender would pose most of the questions that we write. Defendant applied for a public defender on Thursday April 14, 1998, giving the case number involved. Since the public defender’s office has not responded, and Defendant has a supposed right to counsel, then it is necessary, for this second reason that any railroad of a preliminary hearing be continued until another day, until Defendant has the supposed benefit of a public pretender as co-counsel. Wherefore, Defendant demands a continuance until after a grand jury of the people has brought forth a true bill of indictment against himself, as opposed to this criminal collusion between Judge Perigo and Prosecutor Bridges in convening a bogus preliminary hearing to rubber-stamp a bogus criminal complaint brought forth without jurisdiction or standing; and until a public defender is prepared to act as Defendant’s co-counsel under Defendant’s control.
_________________________________
Richard J. Doyle, Senior
(417) 455-2591
Certificate of Service
Defendant hereby certifies that on May 19, 1998 he mailed/personally
delivered a copy of this filing to the Office of the Newton County
Prosecutor, Newton County Courthouse, Neosho, Missouri 64850.
_________________________________
Richard Doyle
Motion for a Continuance 4 Richard Doyle, Sr.
State of Missouri vs. Richard Doyle 420 Morrow
Neosho, Missouri 64850
.
Comment:.
Back to Richard Doyle 4 Judge
Over to Patrick Henry On-Line?