.
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 MISSOURI LIBERTARIAN
PARTY'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Comes now the Plaintiff, Martin Lindstedt, to answer the
abovementioned Defendant's replies and motions to dismiss
and to move the Court to let this case proceed to trial.
Plaintiff notes that Defendant's Lawyer Moore neglected to
cite any law behind his asseverations to dismiss this case
well before the facts could be heard.
Reply Suggestions
1. Defendant Missouri Libertarian Party (MoLP) asks for
Plaintiff's complaint to be dismissed because it fails to
state a cause of action. This is typical lawyer shamanism in
action, asking Plaintiff to come up with a magic phrase
which will never ever be suitable to Lawyer Moore.
The civil complaint form used by this Court has four
lines and instructions to be brief. It also tells the
complainant to not give any legal arguments or to cite cases
or statutes. So for the Defendant's lawyer to ask this Court
to dismiss Plaintiff's case because Plaintiff followed
instructions is ridiculous.
Plaintiff's cause of action against the above-mentioned
Defendants is really quite simple: A small clique of the
MoLP, through the use of an extra-legal 'Expediting
Committee' determined to change the former procedure of
refunding candidate filing fees so as to use Plaintiff's
lack of funds to prevent him from running for governor under
color of Revised Statute of Missouri 115.357. While they
whine and bellyache about government laws preventing them
from smoking acres of pot or engaging in acts of sodomy,
when it suits them this clique of 'Libertarians' have no
problems in hiding behind color of election law to deny or
violate the rights of others.
Defendant MoLP deliberately used the color provided by
RSMo 115.357 to try preventing Plaintiff from running for
governor of Missouri. Plaintiff, knowing from past
experience the character of these 'Libertarians,' made sure
that this misconduct would not be successful by arranging
personal loans to be used if necessary. If the MoLP had
behaved itself according to its ideology, then this lawsuit
need never have happened.
Defendant MoLP still has $200 taken from Plaintiff under
color of election law. When this election law is ruled
unconstitutional, Plaintiff is due his money back from those
who took it.
There has not been time or discovery enough to enable
Plaintiff to fully develop this case. The complaint stated
provable facts beyond dispute. It is a little bit early to
dismiss this case, which this court on September 9, 1996
ruled by inference is not frivolous and therefore allowed to
proceed.
2. Of course this Court has subject matter jurisdiction in
this case. This Court knows it has jurisdiction. Lawyer
Moore is lying again.
If Lawyer Moore had the intelligence and competence of a
first-year law student he would be have gone to the Vernon's
Annotated Missouri Statutes and looked at RSMo 115.357. He
could have found out for himself that this Missouri
'election statute' was created in 1977 to get around the
1974 Supreme Court case concerning indigent candidates and
filing fees, Lubin v. Panish 94 S.Ct. 1315. The dodge used
by RSMo 115.357 is to allow candidates who do not have the
filing fees to run for office if they get so many petition
signatures. Plaintiff would have had to collect over 11,000
valid signatures to run for governor, a task costing well
over $200. This case hinges over whether this statutory
sneaking around Supreme Court case law is Constitutional.
If the United States Supreme Court had jurisdiction in
1974, then so does this Federal District Court in 1996.
3. This court also has venue.
Plaintiff did indeed try to get this matter settled
first by filing this case before the Missouri supreme court
on March 19, 1996. Since Plaintiff was running for the
office of Governor of Missouri, the election statutes and
Missouri Constitution specifically named that court as the
court of original jurisdiction. The Missouri supreme court
refused to hear the case and sent their lawyer, Bill
Thompson to stall, citing how they hadn't heard from some
unnamed lower court first. This violated Constitution of
Missouri, Article 5, Section 11. -- Want of jurisdiction --
transfers. --
In all proceedings reviewable on appeal by the supreme
court or court of appeals, appeals shall go directly to the
court or district having jurisdiction, but want of
jurisdiction shall not be ground for dismissal, and the
proceeding shall be transferred to the appellate court
having jurisdiction. An original action filed in a court
lacking jurisdiction or venue shall be transferred to the
appropriate court.
This section says nothing about sending a lawyer out to
stall the case and then refusing to transfer the case to the
state court which has proper jurisdiction or venue.
Plaintiff, disgusted with the way the Missouri court
system, especially at the highest levels, refuses to obey
the law, their own case law, or the Constitution of Missouri
which they are sworn to uphold, gave up and transferred this
case to the federal level since it became clear that no
relief would be forthcoming regarding Missouri judges ruling
on the constitutionality of Missouri law.
Plaintiff is presently fighting still another election
matter in the Missouri courts and finds that the Missouri
court system is more corrupt, dependent and lawless then
ever. Most Missouri election cases wind up on the Federal
level anyway.
Also, U.S. Constitution Art. IV, Section 4, Republican
form of government guaranteed clause makes this federal
court the guarantor of free, open, honest elections.
4. Lawyer Moore states "Process in this case is
insufficient". This is nonsense. This Court's Order of Sept.
9, 1996, Page 2, Paragraph 3 told the U.S. Marshal to serve
Defendants by personal service or certified mail. The U.S.
Marshal did exactly what this court ordered on Sept. 16 by
mailing certified mail to defendants.
If Lawyer Moore and Defendant MoLP want to sue the U.S.
Marshal for everything he's got because of insufficient
process, it is none of the Plaintiff's concern.
5. Having in Statement 4 thrown out the general assertion
"Process in this case is insufficient" to see how much of
it would stick to the wall, Lawyer Moore repeats it and
tacks on the clause, " . . . because Plaintiff fails to file
a verified petition".
First of all, what Plaintiff filled out and filed on
July 22, 1996 was a standard civil complaint form provided
by this court, not a petition.
Secondly, because unlike Lawyer Moore, Plaintiff doesn't
believe in telling a lie when the truth will do, Plaintiff
admits that the Civil Complaint wasn't verified by a notary.
When Plaintiff went to the U.S. Courthouse in Jefferson
City, it was to first find out whether he had filled out the
correct form and followed the proper procedure. The clerk at
the desk informed Plaintiff he had filled out the proper
form, had the correct district court, and would have to have
his Affidavit of Financial Status approved by this Court to
proceed as a poor person. When Plaintiff asked whether he
would have to get the Civil Complaint form notarized,
Plaintiff was informed by the clerk that it was not
necessary to do so. Figuring that the clerk knew what she
was talking about and happy to save several dollars and time
spent in getting the civil complaint notarized, Plaintiff
got his copy stamped and left the U.S. Courthouse.
Plaintiff affirms that what he wrote on the civil
complaint form is still true. This court has already granted
leave to proceed with this case. Dismissing this case
because Plaintiff relied on the competence of court
personnel would be unfair and unjust. It would waste time
and money to make Plaintiff refile this case. Plaintiff is
willing to get the civil complaint notarized if that is what
this Court wants.
Suggestions by Plaintiff
A. Plaintiff in looking at Lawyer Moore's Entry of
Appearance is not sure that Lawyer Moore is on the Local
Rule 1.A. mandated Roll of Attorneys. Plaintiff suspects
that Lawyer Moore doesn't meet the Local Rule 1.B, 1.C, or
1I requirements. Plaintiff is pretty sure Lawyer Moore
violated the 1C oath part about ". . . and will never seek
to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false
statement of fact or law." in his Motion to Dismiss filed
October 2nd, or 4th or 5th. It should be apparent by now
that Lawyer Moore hasn't a clue as to what the local rules
of this court are.
However, Plaintiff hereby waives enforcement of these
court rules on his behalf and asks that all these
considerations be ignored for now because Plaintiff really,
really wants real bad for Lawyer Moore to be the attorney
for Defendant Missouri Libertarian Party.
B. Defendant Missouri Libertarian Party in the past violated
the civil rights of Plaintiff and others and is presently
plotting to violate the rights of Plaintiff in the future.
So Plaintiff might wish to amend the complaint to allow
possible Civil Rights and RICO actions and possible joinder
of other plaintiffs and defendants.
C. Presently Lawyer Moore is one of the ringleaders of an
attempt to further violate Plaintiff's rights by plotting
with others to make up some new MoLP party rules expelling
Plaintiff from the MoLP in January, 1997. Plaintiff will
seek to have Lawyer Moore disbarred for this criminal
activity. Enclosed is an e-mail message intercepted by
Plaintiff. The rest of the messages fomenting this
conspiracy to violate Plaintiff's civil rights will be
compelled via discovery procedure.
D. While Plaintiff is lawyerless, and therefore possibly
exempt (Local Rule 15 C. 1. a.) from the provisions of Local
Rule 15, Plaintiff would prefer to get the Local Rule 15 D.
and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 16 mandated
Meeting of the Parties and Initial Disclosures over with as
soon as possible and a Local Rule 15 Scheduling Order and
Discovery process initiated without delay.
Since Plaintiff has asked for a bench trial, once the
facts are uncovered this Court can quickly ascertain the law
and settle this matter without delay.
WHEREFORE, since Lawyer Moore's Motion to Dismiss is nothing
more than a tawdry collection of dishonest, irrelevant
nonsense intended to dismiss a legitimate clear-cut case,
Plaintiff asks that the case proceed without any more delay
plus whatever else this Court finds just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
-s- Martin Lindstedt
______________________________________
Martin Lindstedt, lawyerless Plaintiff
Certificate of Service
One copy of the foregoing was mailed October 15, 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 October 15, 1996
to: James Givens, Chairman of Defendant Missouri Libertarian
Party, 4182 N. Riviera Drive, Columbia, Missouri 65202 for
the sole interests of Defendant MoLP seeking, and getting,
adequate representation.
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.
.
