.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
MARTIN LINDSTEDT, )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 96-4262-CV-C-9
)
MISSOURI LIBERTARIAN )
PARTY, et al., )
Defendants. )
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S (SECRETARY OF STATE AND
STATE OF MISSOURI) ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Comes now the Plaintiff, Martin Lindstedt, to answer the
abovementioned Defendant’s replies and the sneaked-in motion to
dismiss and to move the Court to let this case proceed to trial.
Plaintiff notes that Defendant’s Counsel from the Missouri General’s
office neglected to cite any law behind their asseverations to dismiss
this case well before the facts could be heard. Plaintiff is pleased,
however, that no great big overt lies have been asserted as yet from
this Defendant.
Reply Suggestions
1. Defendant’s Council hits the nail on the head when she says that
Plaintiff wants the $200 filing fee extorted from him under color of
law returned from the very thieves who stole it.
However Defendant’s Counsel ignores the fact that it was above
Defendants’ special interest legislation which provided the weapon for
Defendant Missouri Libertarian Party (MoLP) to use in extorting the
$200 from Plaintiff before he could freely exercise his rights.
2. This response is not altogether true. Plaintiff did serve above
Defendants with a copy of a state lawsuit on March 18, 1996 when
Plaintiff tried to file as a pauper under the requirements of RSMo
115.357. When it became clear that a lawsuit would be filed in this
matter, Defendant Secretary of State’s office tried to run for cover
and hide by refusing to state orally or in writing as to whether
Plaintiff would be allowed to run as a pauper. On March 20, 1996, when
Plaintiff came up with the loans in order to run for governor on the
Libertarian Party ballot, these Defendants still refused to give a
straight answer as to why Plaintiff couldn’t run as a pauper and return
the loans. It wasn’t until the Missouri Supreme Court cravenly refused
to do its duty and rule on the matter according to law and constitution
that the lawyers for Defendant Secretary of State sent Plaintiff a
letter saying that his lawsuit was ‘moot.’
No, the Defendants Secretary of State and State of Missouri have
quite a bit of knowledge of what is going on because Plaintiff has
kept them very well informed as to his grievances. Now that it is in a
federal court and outside their captive judicial systems they can no
longer profess ignorance or afford to ignore this matter any more.
Also, it is very likely that more lawsuits against the Secretary of
State and the State of Missouri are in the works since Defendant MoLP
is essentially an ongoing criminal conspiracy working to hide its
fascist behavior under color of ‘election law.’ On February 18, 1996
Plaintiff tried to get the MoLP Expediting committee to refund candidate
filing fees and they hid under color of another Missouri ‘election law’
deemed unconstitutional by Federal District Judge Stephen Limbaugh in
April 1996. Since Defendant Missouri Libertarian Party will probably
continue to burrow like a tick into ‘election laws’ to justify violating
the rights of its members in the future, more lawsuits against the
Secretary of State’s office and the State of Missouri will likely ensue
if they insist on harboring criminal conduct under color of election
law while Plaintiff engages in ‘hot pursuit’ of criminal Party or Party
parties. Plaintiff intends to disabuse Defendants Secretary of State
and State of Missouri of any notions that they’re the Mexican Border
‘muy pronto.’
3. Plaintiff wants the return of his $200 from Defendant MoLP so he
can pay off the people who loaned it to him to run for governor. Other
actual damages spent in recovery and punitive damages assessed by this
Court should be paid by all Defendants found guilty.
4. The heart of the matter behind this case is whether States can
under color of election law disqualify political candidates from the
ballot. RSMo 115.357 was specifically enacted in 1977 to get around
the around the 1974 Supreme Court case concerning indigent candidates
and filing fees, Lubin v. Panish 94 S.Ct. 1315. If an indigent candidate
doesn’t have $200 to file for governor, how will he possibly be able to
fund a petition drive for 11,700 valid signatures? If Plaintiff doesn’t
have $200, then he certainly doesn’t have $11,700 or $30,000 or
whatever else is necessary to get that many signatures.
So, like the chicken thief caught in the coop denying guilt, Defendants
choose to deny guilt and proclaim that RSMo 115.357 is indeed
constitutional in the face of past precedent. Poor people have no right
to run for office because they don’t have hundreds of thousands of
dollars to spend on advertising telling idiots how honest they are, much
less money and power to buy votes directly.
Plaintiff is not surprised by Defendant’s protestations. Plaintiff
doesn’t expect them to admit anything. Let the trial commence and let
the matter be decided by law.
5. Yes, yes, yes, of course. These Defendants won’t admit anything.
Plaintiff wonders why this has not been an effective defense in the past
for ordinary, non-state-sponsored criminals.
Answer to Defendant Cook’s and State of Missouri’s Motion to
File out of Time
Plaintiff is all for it, if he has any say in the matter, which he
probably doesn’t.
Plaintiff understands how Secretary of State Rebecca Cook and
Attorney General Jay Nixon, running for election and re-election, are
so very busy in trying to harvest a corrupt crop derived from corrupt
‘election laws’ that they don’t have time to do their jobs gainsaying
the wishes of Plaintiff begging for some crumbs at the political table.
They suspect (rightly) that Plaintiff would gobble down the whole hog
if given fair chance.
But since Plaintiff doesn’t have any say in the matter as to whether
State Defendants will be allowed to dawdle, Plaintiff hereby gives his
permission to this state-sponsored delay and asks for future indulgence
on his part, if necessary, in the future.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks that the initial legal skirmishing come
to an end and that this case proceed, that the Order of this Court of
Oct. 23, 1996 be followed, plus any other relief that this Court chooses
to award Plaintiff.
Respectfully submitted,
-s- Martin Lindstedt, Nov. 4, 1996
______________________________
Martin Lindstedt, lawyerless Plaintiff
Certificate of Service
One copy of the foregoing was mailed November 4, 1996
to: Lawyer Mitchell J. Moore for the Defendant Missouri
Libertarian Party, 1210 West Broadway, Columbia, Missouri
65203.
One Copy of the foregoing was mailed to: the Missouri
Attorney General’s Office, as counsel for Defendants
Secretary of State Rebecca M. Cook and State of Missouri,
Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
.
Over to State Lawsuit vs. MoLP et. al.
Back to Federal Lawsuit, Lindstedt v. MoLP, et. al. or
Back to Patrick Henry On-Line.