What is This Court's Legal Reasoning (If Any) Behind This Rubber-Stamping of the Political Status Quo?

.

.



    To the Missouri Court of Appeals -- Southern District
                  in Springfield, Missouri
                              

MARTIN F. LINDSTEDT,                      )
                 Relator,                 )
                                          )
                                          )
vs.                                       ) Case No. 21279 
                                          )
Newton County Clerk KAY BAUM,             )
Chief Election Official of Newton County, )
and Missouri Secretary of State,          )
Chief Election Official of Missouri       )
REBECCA COOK                              )
                  Respondents             )



Demand for this Court's Finds of Fact and Conclusions of Law
           Justifying Court Decision in Above Case
                              
                              
      Comes now the Relator, Martin Lindstedt, to demand of the
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, this court's
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law behind its decision
denying Relator's petition for writ of mandamus on October
10, 1996.   
     Relator has reason to suspect that there are no
valid factual or legal reasons behind this court's ruling;
but if there are, this court has a duty to state those
reasons, lest this court itself be adjudged a rubber-stamp
for the current political status-quo or as ruling by
judicial whim.

  Arguments favoring this Court's revealing its Findings of
                 Fact and Conclusions of Law
                              
1. Duty of Court to explain Court's actions.

Constitution of Missouri, Article V, Section 12, Judicial opinions -- filing and publication -- memorandum decisions and orders. The opinions of the supreme court and court of appeals and all divisions or districts of said courts shall be in writing and filed in the respective causes, and shall become a part of the records of the court, be available for publication, and shall be public records. The supreme court and the court of appeals may issue memorandum decisions or dispose of a cause by order pursuant to and as authorized by supreme court rule.
The very last sentence oft-revised amendment pretty well allows this court to get away with making a ruling under color of judicial discretion and clothing it with an aura of legality. As if that is not enough, so does the Rule 84.16 (b), Memorandum Opinions and Written Orders allow the Missouri appellate courts and the Missouri supreme court to get away with making a decree without explaining what legal basis, if any, underlies that decree. These lawyer-made laws are an example of self-interest legislation running wild under color of law. The purpose of Article 5, Section 12's requirement for an open, public written opinion is to codify the rational and reasons behind case law and to install public confidence in the judicial system. The Missouri court of appeal's decision stinks of merely being a rubber-stamping of ballot-access laws on behalf of the Republicans and Democrats by a gang of lawyers appointed by those politicians. It is instinctively understood that if a court can not and will not state the factual and legal reasons behind its rulings then it is because that court's rulings will not withstand scrutiny. An inability to justify their rulings and a refusal to do so is a sure sign that fraud is being waged upon the general public and using the coercive power of the state to uphold such rulings implies extortion. Since this is an election case concerning ballot access, the net result of this appellate decision without firm legal underpinnings is government rule in Missouri has no true mandate or legitimacy because it refused to take true, real, substantive chances on voter refusal or approval. This court has acted solely to protect the interests of the political status quo, thus obstructing peaceful political change based upon the true consent of the governed. 2. This court in its decision to deny Relator's writ petition states: ". . . and having been advised in the premises, does deny said application." This brings up the question as to what are the premises behind this court's denial. Are there any legitimate premises for denial? Relator quoted election statute, Constitution of Missouri and the United States, case law from Missouri and federal courts, political reality as Relator sees it. Relator did not receive a brief or an answer against Relator's petition for writ from the Respondent's lawyers. So if this court has really been advised in the premises, then what are those premises? Or is this court just making stuff up and saying that there are valid arguments behind its denial? Secondly, this court says ". . . and having been advised in the premises, . . ." Who advised this court? What premises did they give? Relator has no idea as to who whispered into this court's ear and what they whispered. Relator wishes to know the identity of the whisperer(s) and the contents of this legal regurgitation so important it took precedence over the interests of the electors and Relator's candidacy. 3. Relator made no secret that this matter should have been decided by the Missouri Supreme Court instead of making Relator jump through the additional procedural hoop of having Relator's writ petition appear before this court. Relator was so put out with this procedural dodging of responsibility contrary to statute (RSMo 115.333 Sec. 2), case law precedent (State ex rel. Coker-Garcia v. Blunt 849 SW2d 81), and Constitution of Missouri Art. 5, Section 11, that Relator filed a Petition of Grievance. This illegal and sordid jurisdictional shuffle cost an additional $20 dollars in printing and mailing costs to Relator. In addition, it cost another week's worth of absentee votes for Relator, since Relator's name isn't on the ballot as yet. The only value this procedural dodge indulged in by the Missouri Supreme Court had for Relator was to find out what, if any, legal justification the Respondents had for not placing Relator's name on the ballot and how the Missouri court system could justify not granting Relator his petition for mandamus. By refusing to justify its decision, Relator has no idea as to what legal reasonings prohibit Relator's name being placed upon the ballot as a candidate for sheriff. Relator is forced to conclude that there is no legal basis in Missouri election law or that any basis is merely a sordid recounting of how Missouri political special interests will not tolerate open, fair, honest elections -- and that is that. The Missouri court of appeals has no function other than to act as a judicial rubber-stamp serving the Missouri government, politicians, and special interests. Relator therefore has no idea of how to proceed further with any chance of success through the Missouri court apparatus, as mere quoting of the law has been hitherto ineffective. This court's silence as to what legal reasoning -- if any -- is adequate leads Relator with no option other than to pitch much the same arguments before the last judicial stop in Missouri, getting his ticket punched, before raising this matter in front of a federal court. In short, this Court's silence concerning the validity of its legal reasoning is an admission that no court in Missouri can be trusted to obey fundamental precepts of law underlying civilization in the face of a political status- quo which machinated special-interest 'election laws' transgressing against the rights of alternative candidates and political parties. There is no such thing as judicial independence of Missouri courts, rather they act as a judicial facade for the short-sighted interests of Missouri politicians and political special interests. Demand for Relief Wherefore, the Relator\Appellant demands this Court present its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law justifying its decision to not grant Relator his lawful right to mandamus against Respondents as this Court has a duty and obligation to prove that it knows and obeys the law and holds itself to its provisions. -s- Martin Lindstedt October 11, 1996 _______________________________ ___________________ Relator Date cc: Missouri supreme court
.

Commentary: Of course, the Missouri Court of Appeals will not grant me this Demand for their Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law because they have no valid legal reasons for their decision. They just made something up and hid behind rules they made up to avoid justifying their decision.

The purpose behind this demand 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 decision by the Missouri court of appeals 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, 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