Motion to Reconsider Order of April 18, 1997

.

.


         IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
                WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
                      CENTRAL DIVISION
                              
MARTIN LINDSTEDT,             )
               Plaintiff,     )
                              )
v.                            )  No. 96-4262-CV-C-9
                              )
MISSOURI  LIBERTARIAN         )
PARTY, SECRETARY OF STATE     )
REBECCA  M. COOK and the      )
STATE OF MISSOURI, et. al.,   )
               Defendants.    )

                              
       MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER OF APRIL 18, 1997

   Comes now the Plaintiff, Martin Lindstedt, to ask this
Court to vacate, change, or set aside portions of its ORDER
of April 18, 1997 concerning joining additional defendants
to the current lawsuit.

   Under Federal Rule of  Civil Procedure 59 and 60, this
Court has the authority to amend its Orders or to grant
relief from its Orders upon reconsideration.


  Plaintiff Made 'Good Faith' Effort to Timely File Motions

   1. Plaintiff served by mail additional joindered parties
on March 14, 1997, which by the Feb. 28, 1997 Scheduling
Order of this Court was the last day  to file a motion to
join additional parties. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5 (b). As
far as the newly joined defendant parties were concerned,
they were properly and timely served. Plaintiff e-mailed a
text copy of this service to those defendants who had known
e-mail addresses. Defendants have not filed any response
against Plaintiff in this matter. Plaintiff also obeyed
F.R.Civ.P. Rule 6 provisions.

   2.  Rule 5 (d) Filing; Certificate of Service states that
"All papers after the complaint required to be served upon a
party, together with a certificate of service, shall be
filed with the court within a reasonable time after service,
. . ." (emphasis added by Plaintiff.)  Plaintiff did not
wait a "reasonable time," whatever that means, but mailed to
this Court his motion at the very same time he served all
the Defendants. Probably the very same mailbag was used to
take all of Plaintiff's mailings of March 14, 1997 from the
Granby, Missouri post office to the Springfield, Missouri
main post office.

   3. Plaintiff looks at Rule 5(e) -- Filing with the Court
Defined. This rule says "The filing of papers with the Court
as required by these rules shall be made by filing them with
the clerk of the court, except that the judge may permit the
papers to be filed with the judge, . . . . The clerk shall
not refuse to accept for filing any paper presented for that
purpose solely because it is not presented in proper form as
required by these rules or practices."

   Plaintiff filed his March 14, 1997 motion with the Clerk
of the Court in Jefferson City, and received back an extra
copy (in a stamped, self-addressed envelope) file-stamped
March 18, 1997. Plaintiff had no notion that his filing was
untimely and thus prepared no excuse for his behavior.

   4. There is a problem with any notion that just because
the clerk of the courts does not receive a motion before a
deadline that the motion is thus invalidated. The Rules make
no mention of any such requirement.    Plus there are delays
due to the nature of the postal system itself. Plaintiff
didn't receive a copy of this Court's order, signed by Judge
Bartlett on April 18 in Kansas City, Missouri until six days
later, on April 24, 1997. This Court's Order was mailed to
Plaintiff from Jefferson City, Missouri. This leaves
Plaintiff only 4 days to file a Rule 59 motion.

   There are also procedural delays in the court system
itself which mitigate against any such interpretation. On
Dec. 11, 1996, this Court ordered Plaintiff to re-file his
complaint, after verification. Plaintiff verified, then
mailed it to the Clerk in Jefferson City on Dec. 17, 1996.
Plaintiff had the complaint returned by the clerk asking him
why it should be filed if it was already present. Plaintiff
had to re-send the verified complaint, along with an
explanatory letter on Jan. 10, 1997. (Copy enclosed). Then
the clerk accepted the resent complaint and filed it on
January 14, 1997.  This delay is really quite excellent
service when Plaintiff compares it to papers sent to the
Kansas City courthouse.  In other cases, Plaintiff has had
to resubmit papers ordered by another judge three to four
times.

   Therefore, Plaintiff would argue against any
interpretation that in order for papers to be considered
"filed" that they must successfully run the gauntlet of
postal service and court procedure.  Also, Plaintiff lives
quite a distance from Kansas City (160+ miles), Jefferson
City (275+ miles) or Springfield (60+). It would cost quite
a bit in gas money and travel on Plaintiff's limited means
to physically place in clerk's hands his motions. Plaintiff
doesn't own a car. Filing by postal service is cheaper and
more convenient for Plaintiff. Nor do the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure mandate such extreme care by Plaintiff --
the opposite in fact.


    There Should Be No "Deadline" For Joining Additional
                          Parties.

   1. The Scheduling Order was derived as a result of
negotiation between the Plaintiff and Defendants. Since
Defendants have neglected to make a complaint as to when
Plaintiff filed his motion joining them, then perhaps it is
unwise for this Court to unilaterally protect their
interests for them.

   2. Plaintiff made known in October, 1996 to this Court
and the State of Missouri Defendants that the Missouri
Libertarian Party (MoLP) Defendants have been conspiring to
violate Plaintiff's civil and political rights.  Plaintiff
initially wanted joining of additional defendants and
amendment of pleadings to be past April of 1997, when
Plaintiff figured that the crunch would come. But Plaintiff
went along with Attorney Long's suggestion that joinder be
in March.  Plaintiff saw what was coming, so Plaintiff filed
his joinder on March 14, 1997 so as to round up as many of
the MoLP conspirators and gangsters as was possible within
the deadline. Since the events of April 20, 1997, wherein
MoLP members had Plaintiff arrested, then supposedly "kicked
out" of the Missouri Libertarian Party (in defiance of MoLP
constitution and bylaws, Revised Statutes of Missouri and
state court case law) it will be necessary to join some
additional defendants as these miscreants are identified and
they commit new crimes against Plaintiff.

3. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 17 says "Every
action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in
the interest."  Every single one of the defendants joined is
a party in the interest. Corporate defendant Missouri
Libertarian Party has no hands, will or capability in and of
itself to harm Plaintiff or violate his rights.  It is the
"Libertarian" party members who have harmed Plaintiff.
Therefore these defendants Plaintiff attempted to join and
the new ones Plaintiff must join who are real parties in
this matter.

   "No action shall be dismissed on the ground that it 
   was not prosecuted in the name of the real party in 
   interest until a reasonable time has been allowed 
   after objection for ratification of commencement of 
   the action by, or joinder or substitution of, the real 
   party in interest; and such ratification, joinder, or 
   substitution shall have the same effect as if the action 
   had been commenced in the name of the real party in 
   interest." Rule 17(a).

   Since individual and corporate defendants are real
parties of interest they should be joined as well as the
original defendants in Plaintiff's complaint back on July
22, 1996. To do this, this Court should reconsider its Order
of April 18, 1997.

4. F.R.Civ.P. Rule 18: "A party asserting a claim to relief
as an original claim, counter-claim, cross-claim, or third-
party claim, may join, either as independent or as alternate
claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as
the party has against an opposing party."

   This Court may well worry that if Plaintiff is suing
"approximately 38 defendants" that things might degenerate
into a circus, F.R.Civ.P. 18's allowance of such
notwithstanding. But Plaintiff would remind this Court that
there is considerable overlap among the joindered MoLP
Defendants. Also, any civil convictions against the
corporate defendant MoLP would apply in the same manner
against joindered individual Defendants.  Plaintiff cannot
foresee any more State of Missouri Defendants being joined
to this action.

5. F.R.Civ.P 19(a) title says that "Persons to be Joined in
Feasible."  Additional Defendants of March 14, 1997 do need
to be joined because it is feasible. (1) Complete relief of
Plaintiff's complaint cannot be accorded with present
allowable MoLP defendants. (2)(i) As a practical matter,
Plaintiff cannot do his duties as a public elected officer
representing his MoLP districts absent an ability to protect
those interests of himself and his electors if forestalled
by an ability to gain due process of law in this matter.

6. F.R.Civ.P. 21 states:

   "Misjoinder of parties is not ground for dismissal of 
   an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order 
   of the court on motion of any party or of its own 
   initiative at any stage of the action and on such 
   terms as are just. Any claim against a party may be 
   severed and  proceeded with separately." (Emphasis 
   Plaintiff's)

   Therefore the Scheduling Order is more of a guideline
rather than something written in stone acting contrary to
the interests of justice.  Rather than write up a whole new
set of motions, Plaintiff would prefer to wrap up most of
this matter by asking this Court to reconsider its Order of
April 18, 1997.  Plaintiff understands that if this Court
chooses to sever and proceed with the individual MoLP
defendants separately, that it can do so, but Plaintiff
wishes for this matter to proceed without the need for
separate trial of several defendants.

7. Due to this Court's Order of April 18, 1997 and this,
Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider, the Scheduling Order's
demand that Amendment of Pleadings on or by April 30, 1997
will have to be delayed since the question of joinder of
which particular defendants is now up in the air and must be
sorted out.  Therefore, Plaintiff requests a continuance of
the deadline for amendment of pleadings past April 30, 1997.

8. This Court and Plaintiff are the interested parties in
this Motion to Reconsider of Plaintiff's. However, Plaintiff
will send a copy of this motion to the lawyers for the
present defendants anyway.


   Wherefore, based upon a matter of law and of fact,
Plaintiff asks this Court to reconsider, set-aside, vacate,
or modify its present Order of April 18, 1997 and allow
Plaintiff to joinder the MoLP defendants of March 14, 1997;
plus whatever other relief is necessary and just.

                   Respectfully submitted,

                 -s-
                 __________________________
                 Martin Lindstedt, Plaintiff


                   Certificate of Service

   One copy of the foregoing was mailed April 28, 1997 to:
Attorney Mark E. Long, c/o 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.

   One copy of the foregoing was mailed April 28, 1997 to:
Lawyer Mitchell J. Moore for the Defendant Missouri
Libertarian Party, 1210 West Broadway, Columbia, Missouri
65203



.

Commentary: Judge Bartlett's Order of April 18, 1997 violated several Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Independent of his Order, even if upheld, I can proceed to joinder and sue as many AnarchyFascists as defendants as I please.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 gives me up to a year. But I had to file it under Rule 59 within 10 days in order to stop the clock. Now if he rules for me by overruling his decision rather than wait for me to get around it by refiling in total or in part against the AnarchyFascists, then fine. If not, then when he refuses to overrule his decision, it will go up to the 8th Circuit, which will rule against him because the F.R.Civ.P. is against him, and so is the case law. Either way, now the clock has been stopped by my timely filing the above motion.

No judge likes being made to eat his own shit decisions. I did the same thing against Judge Whipple and that particular snake has been sulking ever since. However, rather than have the judges on the 8th Circuit rub his nose in his own mess, most judges prefer to reconsider their more foolish and hasty decisions.

However most judges hate getting caught out. It is human nature, especially when you are a demi-god on the federal bench. You would hate being caught out by a non-lawyer to boot. However, I hope Judge Bartlett is made out of sterner stuff, and will not hold the above motion against me. After all, I had to forestall his Order of April 18, 1997.

One thing to note: The NSDAMoLP-PP is firmly on the hook. And, when the Order of April 18, 1997 is reconsidered, the AnarchyFascist Defendants will be caught as well. After all, they neglected to make an argument against joinder. LawyerMore was too stupid and arrogant to file one in a timely matter.

.

.

Back to Lindstedt v. MoLP-PP -- the federal lawsuit, or
Back to Patrick Henry On-Line