PEOPLE'S LEGAL FRONT

In the Supreme Court of the United States o= f America

Lee Allen Martin, Movant/Appellant                       ) Declaration in Support of Request to Proceed
                                          &n bsp;                                          ) in Forma Pauperis
State of Missouri, Respondent                                 )
Michael P. Hutchings, Attorney                               ) Appeal from Missouri Supreme Court #80646
                                          &n bsp;                                          ) Appeal from Missouri Court of Appeals,
                                          &n bsp;                                          )   Southern Division # 21211-1
                                          &n bsp;                                          )Appeal from 37 Th Judicial Circuit Howell County
                                          &n bsp;                                          ) #CR495-338MX Honorable David Dunlop, Judge

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Lee Allen Martin
7050 County Road 2810
West Plains, Missouri 65775

Lee Allen Martin
%Howell County Jail
1106 Missouri Avenue
West Plains, Missouri 65775
 

Table of Contents
                                          &n bsp;                                            ;                                           &n bsp;        Page #

In Forma Pauperis Declaration
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Case History
Jurisdictional Statement
Issues
    1. Trial Court Record does not speak absolute verity.
    2. Trial Court ruled on issues of fact concerning MAI-CR 3rd 308.16.
    3. Denial of Constitutional Right to attack credibility of State's Witness.
    4. Trial Judge participation in plea bargaining.
    5. Trial Court did deny fair and speedy trial.
    6. Trial Court did allow Improper State's Evidence
    7. Trial Court did improperly impanel a jury.
    8. Trial Court did Deny Access to Rules of Court.
    9. Trial Court did not require mutual witnesses present in the court room as agreed.
    10. The Statutes of the State of Missouri are inaccurate.
    11. The Charge of Driving While Revoked is enforced ex post facto.
    12. The sentance of the Trial Court is cruel and unusual.
Arguments
    1. Trial Court Record does not speak absolute veri ty.
    2. Trial Court ruled on issues of fact concerning MAI-CR 3rd 308.16.
    3. Denial of Constitutional Right to attack credibility of State's Witness.
    4. Trial Judge participation in plea bargaining.
    5. Trial Court did deny fair and speedy trial.
    6. Trial Court did allow Improper State's Evidence
    7. Trial Court did improperly impanel a jury.
    8. Trial Court did Deny Access to Rules of Court.
    9. Trial Court did not require mutual witnesses present in the court room as agreed.
    10. The Statutes of the State of Missouri are inaccurate.
    11. The Charge of Driving While Revoked is enforced ex post facto.
    12. The sentance of the Trial Court is cruel and unusual.

Table of Citations

Attachments
 

In the Supreme Court of the United States of Ame= rica State of Missouri,

State of Missouri,Respondent                                        &n bsp;  )
Michael P. Hutchings, Attorney                                        )
                                          &n bsp;                                            ;       )
                                          &n bsp;                                            ;       )      Case #___________________
                                          &n bsp;                                            ;       )
Lee Allen Martin,                                          &n bsp;                    )
Appellant/Movant                                       &nbs p;                       )

In Forma Pauperis Declaration

        I, Lee Allen Martin, declare that I am the Movant in the above titled case; that in support of my moti= on to proceed without being required to prepay fees, costs , or give security there for, I state that because of my poverty, I am unable to pay the costs of said proceeding or to give security therefor; that I believe I am entitled to relief.

1) I am not presently employed, and have not been since 1996.
2) I have not received within the last 12 months any money from a business or form of self employment, or rent, interest or dividends; pension, annuities, or life insurance, gifts, or inheritances, or any other source other than Missouri Department of Social Services.
3) I have no checking or saving account, and no funds in a jail account.
4) I do not own real estate, stocks, notes, or other valuable property. I do own one vehicle a 1986 Mazda Pickup taxed at $500.00 and is not worth $500.00.
5) I have no dependents.
6) Am presently incarcerated in the Howell County Jail.
7) Was granted forma pauperis by the trial court, in its ORDER 7 Th of January 1997, pg. 43-44 of the legal file.
8) The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern Division, in case #21211-1, did grant the appellant to proceed as a poor person pursuant to a fore mentioned court order of 7-1-97.

        I, Lee Allen Martin, declare or state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.=
 
 

Signature,dated
address
West Plains, Missouri 65775
 
 

          I understand that a false statement of answer to any question in this affidavit will subject me to penalties for perjury.

 
 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this Day of July, 1998.

_______________________________________________ Signature Let the appllicant proceed without prepayment of costs or fees or the necessity of giving security therefor.
__________ _________________________ Justice signature
 
 

In the Supreme Court of the United States of America

State of Missouri, Respondent                                         )
Michael P. Hutchings, Attorney                                       )
                                          &n bsp;                                            ;      )        Case #________________
                                          &n bsp;                                            ;      )
                                          &n bsp;                                            ;      )
Lee Allen Martin, Appellant/Movant                              )
 

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

        Comes now the appellant/defendant, Lee Allen Martin, pro se, pursuant to Part III of the U.S. Supreme Court Rules and presents this Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Jurisdictional Statement The final decision of the courts of the state of Missouri was issued in Mo. S. Ct. Case #80646 on April 21, 1998 to which the memorandum of the Mo. Southern District Court of Appeals issued on the 9th day of February, 1998 was affirmed in appeal case # 21211-1. The appeal presented to the Southern District Court of Appeals was from Case # CR495-338MX arising in the 37th Judicial Circuit for the State of Missouri; where, the defendant/ appellant raised the constitutional issues of denial of due process of law guaranteed by the V and XIV Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, appellant having exhausted all remedies in the courts of the State of Missouri notes that jurisdiction does lie in the Supreme Court of the United States.
        The following brief case history will be followed by issues, and arguments.

 Brief Case History         This case was instigated on 3-11-95 when defendant was issued two citations, one for driving while revoked, in violation of Section 302.321, RSMo; and the other for drug paraphernalia, in violation of Section 195.233, RSMo. Which resulted in the Cases #CR495-338MX, and #CR495-339MX both class A Misdemeanor carryin= g a penalty of one year in county jail and / or $1000.00 fine. It should be noted that the driver' license revocation stemmed from actions incurred on 6-14-92 and the Missouri Department of Revenue had admitted that the license was revoked on 8-13-92.
        The cases CR495-338MX and CR495-339MX were consolidated on 6-19-95 into #CR495-338MX.
        The defendant was found guilty by a jury on 6-14-96 to which he notified the trial court of his intention to file for New Trial which was timely done.
        Defense Motion for New Trial was heard and overruled on 08-19-96 and was sentenced on 8-19-96 to one year in the county jail.
        Defendant did notify the trial court of intention to Appeal Trial Courts Decision on 8-19-96 and was granted appeal bond of $500.00.
        Defendant filed Notice of Appeal on 8-29-96, and was granted poor person status on 1-7-97 per trial court order, maintained in the legal file page 43-44.
        The Legal File was filed 4-14-97 and the Transcripts were filed on 7-7-97 thus perfecting the Reco= rd on Appeal.
        The Appellant's Brief was filed on 9-8-97 with oral argument requested.
        The Respondent failed to file respondent' Brief.
        Oral Argument was granted and heard on 1-5-98 before the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Respondent was not allowed to address the Appeals Court because of failure to file Respondent's Brief.
        Appeals Court issued Memorandum on 2-9-98 and the Appellant did file Appellant's motion for rehearing or application to transfer to Supreme Court of Missouri on 2-23-98.
        Appellant was taken into custody on 3-19-98 and placed in the custody of the Howell County Sheriff
        On 3-20-98 the Missouri Supreme Court in the case #80646 did grant leave of the Court for defendant/appellant to file in forma pauperis.
        Defendant/Appellant filed Motion to Stay Execution of Sentence with the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern Division on 3-26-98 and was granted this stay on 4-14-98.
        On 4-21-98 the Missouri Supreme Court denied transfer of cause and overruled the stay of executio= n.
        On 4-22-98 defendant/appellant returned to the custody of the Howell County Sheriff.
        On 6-18-98 movant filed with the Supreme Court of the United States Petition for Writ of Certiorari which was received by the clerk of said court on 6-25-98 and returned to movant for correction and to be resubmitted before 60 days. ISSUES         Appellant/defendant notes due process of law has been denied in this case. Appellant requests that the honorable court take all issues in totality.
        1) The trial court failed to maintain a record that imports absolute verity. In State of Ohio v. Allen 159 NE 591 the court found that a record of the court should import absolute verity, and this case is quoted in Corpus Juris Secundum under heading Court of Record. Further, the appellant is entitled to a full and complete transcript in which to mount an appeal. Jackson v. State of Missouri 514 SW 2nd 532. Missouri S. Ct. Administrative Rule #4 notes the protection of the Court Record. Appellant believes that any discrepancies in the official record is grounds to have said case remanded back to the trial court to produce a record which does import absolute verity.
        2) The trial court made decisions that were in fact issues of fact which were not the domain of the trial Judge. The appellant notified the court of his intent to use an affirmative defense, BELIEF IN LEGALITY OF CONDUCT MAI-CR 3RD 308.16, and this instruction is a defense in this charge as stated in State of Missouri v. Miller 677 SW 2nd 938. The appellant/defendant's belief was a material fact and defense should have been able to call witnesses and produce evidence that the state's action upon his driver's license was a mistake.
        3) The trial court refused the defendant/appellant his constitutional right to attack the credibility of State's expert witness, David Nannaman, Laboratory chemist for Troop G Missouri State Highway Patrol. Appellant/defendant's right maintained in RSM0 491.074, and further supported in State of Missouri v. Chandler 860 SW 2nd 823, 825[5], and Washington v. State of Texas 87 S.CT. 1920 seems irrefutable.
        4) The trial Judge did participated in plea bargaining, and in fact went on a fact finding mission in violation of Missouri S. Ct. Rules 24.02(d), 37.58; further, Local Rule 67.8 specifically requires all plea bargains be submitted in writing. The trial courts actions are contrary to Missouri Appeal Court decisions in Plunkett v. Plunkett 757 SW 2nd 288, Grant v. State of Missouri 700 SW 2nd 170, State of Missouri v. Tyler 440 SW 2nd 474, and the appeals court lack of notice of these rulings in no way represents substantial Due Process of Law.
        5) Trial court did involve an unwanted attorney in defendant's case and did set trial date 118 days after the defendant announced ready for trial. This delay was a violation of Fair and Speedy Trial guarantees pursuant to RSMo 545.780, State of Missouri v. Knox 697 SW2nd 261, 262,[5], State of Missouri v. Bolin 643 SW2nd 806 [14], having been brought about by the calendar of unwanted public defender, in violation of RSMo 600.051, and U.S. Supreme Court decision Faretta v. California 95 S.CT. 2525.
        6) Trial court did allow improper State's evidence in violation to the IV amendment; Chimel v. Cal= ifornia 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.CT. 2034, U.S. v. Chadwick 433 U.S. 1, 15; 97 S.CT. 2476, 2485; State of Missouri v. Woods 637 SW 2nd 113, 116; RSMo 542.291. Said evidence, pipe, was the basis of the paraphernalia charge.
        7) Trial court did improperly panel the jury that was not a fair cross section of the community in violation of Article 1 sec. 22 (a) of the Missouri Constitution, State of Missouri v. Williams 659 SW 2nd 778, U.S. v. Potter 552 F 2nd 901, as well as misrepresented a juror in violation of Missouri Constitution Art. 1 sec. 22 (a) , Piehlor v. Kansas City Public Service Co. 211 SW 2nd 459, Lee v. Baltimore Hotel Co. 136 SW 2nd 695,698; 66 C.J.S. sec. 23; Kerr v. B.F. Goodrich Co. App. 31 NE 2nd 709.
        8) Trial court did deny defendant access to the rules of the court in violation of U.S. Constitutional Amendments V, VI, XIV, and Missouri Constitution Art. 1 sec. 18(a).
        9) Trial court did not make mutual witnesses present in the court room as agreed; and further, allowed said witnesses into close private space in violation of VAMR 4.25
        10) The statutes of the state of Missouri are not complete and have been abridged and /or deleted.
Appellant asks the Supreme Court to note p-130 of Vol. 9 of the RSMo's citing statute 217.775. Said statute is not contained in volume 3 of RSMo.
        11) The charge of driving while revoked is in fact ex post facto. The presumed revocation was founded on events occurring on 6-14-92 pursuant to RSMo 577.041, and at that time, pursuant to RSMo 302.304(12), the said drivers license should have been reinstated on 6-14-94. For the state of Missouri to continue the suspension by enforcing RSMo 302.541 which was enacted on 7-1-92 is ex post facto, and a violation of the constitution of the state of Missouri Art 1 sec 13, as well as the U.S. Constitution.
        12) The sentence is cruel and unusual in that one year sentence in county jail must be done day for day. Giving appellant a 365 day incarceration for a misdemeanor, while felonies incarcerated at the Department of Corrections only do 15% of a sentence before being eligible for release. The disallowing of good time by Howell County Jail unjustly punishes misdemeanor offenders in violation of the VIII amendment of the U.S. Constitution. ARGUMENTS         The following arguments have been documented in the Appellant brief and responded to by the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern Division, in its Memorandum date 2-9-98. The Appellant maintains that the arguments have not been properly analyzed and legal citations improperly applied by the Court of Appeals. Arguments follow the issues exactly:
        1) The trial court failed to maintain a record that imports absolute verity. Appellant has made a record of Malfeasance of Office against the clerk of the trial court. The complaint was filed with the Howell county Sheriff, and a Special Prosecutor was appointed by the Missouri Attorney General, Mr. Brown, who's investigation was a telephone conversation with the perpetrator. Mr. Brown at no time spoke with me. The complaint was also filed with Agent Smith of the FBI who could see no civil right violation. The specifics are as follows: On 9-5-95, p. 16 of the legal file, trial court did order case #CR495-338MX and Case #CR495-339MX Consolidated above the defendant's objection. All documents contained in CR495-339MX was to be placed in file for CR495-338MX. Upon notice of Appeal being filed with the clerk of the trial court said clerk issued a set of docket sheets, certified, for the appellant to construct the legal file from; however, these docket sheets were incomplete, Appellant filed Nunc Pro Tunc Motion to correct said docket sheets to which hearing was held and trial Judge refused to correct. However, the clerk of the trial court recognizing the presumed mistake reissued another set of docket sheets which was complete. Copies of these 2 sets of certified docket sheets are maintained in the Appellate Court File #21211-1 , FBI, Howell County Sheriff Office, and the Attorney General Office for the State of Missouri. The Originals are maintained by the appellant. For the clerk of the trial court to certify two sets of docket sheets which are not identical is a violation of RSMo 476.010; State of Missouri v. West 270 SW 279; State ex rel Caldwell vs. Cockrell 217 SW 524. Further, on page 333 of the legal file, defendant's Subpoena Duces Tecum for Trooper Ross has been altered and did in fact deny the defendant his constitutional right to attack the credibility of said witness. Alterations of the official record is not the only problem with the trial courts record. Further, the transcripts for the official record on appeal has been altered. Many portions have been deleted, altered, and in certain instances changed. Appellant will agree that proof is difficult. But, a specific incident as to inaccuracy of the official transcript must be addressed. Appellant did file MOTION FOR NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER TO CORRECT RECORD ON APPEAL where the events of 1-11-96, evidentiary hearing, was discussed. A Post trial hearing was held June 18, 1997 to which discussion concerning testimony and events of 1-11= -96 were taken up. The trial Judge did issue ORDER ON A MOTION FOR NUNC PRO TUNC TO CORRECT RECORD ON APPEAL AND CERTIFICATION OF TRANSCRIPT, page S-2 of the supplemental legal file. Said court order specifically notes appellant's disagreement with transcript. Appellant maintains that testim= ony of witnesses were deleted. The Trial Judge in his order goes into a long and in-depth discussion of events of that day and specifically mentions page 158 of the transcript where Judge released the troopers; however, the trial Judge fails to note that on page 158 of the transcript a single entry of a witness testimony is provided with no explanation as to where and when witness was sworn. This is exactly the point the appellant had made, and was ignored. The transcripts are inaccurate and in no way import absolute verity. Problems with the Missouri Courts as to taking notice of the record are not confined to the trial level. The Appellant Court did place the appeal at hand on the dismissal docket for lack of certification of the Record on Appeal when it had in its possession the trial courts facsimile of said order certifying said transcript. The appellant did object to this action and the appeal was removed from said dismissal docket.
        Therefore, on the fact that absolute verity of the official record was not protected. The Record on Appeal is neither complete or accurate. The Appellant Court was remiss in affirming the trial court's order. Appellant must request this honorable court over turn the trial courts decision.
        2) The Trial Court made decisions that were issues of fact which were not the domain of the trial Judge. Appellant did notify the Court of the affirmative defense belief in legality of conduct MAI-CR 3rd 308.16, which he intended to use as a defense. The Courts of the State of Missouri has found this to be appropriate via State of Missouri vs. Miller 677 SW 2nd 938. The Trial court's denial of said defense was incorrect. The Appellate Court in its Memorandum of 2-9-98 notes said instruction inappropriate without taking note of the Miller decision,. The affirmative defense was filed on 12-13-95 and was taken up on 1-11-96 at evidentiary hearing overruled on p. 102 of the transcript. On page 175 of the transcript the culpable mental state of the defendant was discussed. The argument is set out in the appellant brief as provided.
        3) The Trial Court refused the defendant/appellant his constitutional right to attack the credibility of the State's expert witness, laboratory chemist, David Nanaman, was subpoenaed by the defendant Duces Tecum, with request to bring defendant's personal property, pipe and pliers, confiscated on 6/14/92. The evidence for a prior paraphernalia change. Mr. Nanaman's report of this material was germane to the issue and should have been allowed. The Trial Court refused to allow said evidence presented because it would have discredited all of the State's witnesses. The appellant believes pursuant to Washington vs State of Texas 875 S. Ct. 1920 defendant has a constitutional right to attack the expert witness as to his credibility and to deny this is to deny due process of law.
        4) The Trial Judge did participate in plea bargaining and in fact went on a fact-finding mission in violation of Mo. S. Ct. Rules 24.02 (d), 37.58; further the Trial Court refused to produce said plea bargain in writing pursuant to local Rule 37.8 Appellate Court's Memorandum cite State of Missouri vs Tyler 440 SW 2nd 474, stating that on special instances the Trial Judge may participate in plea agreement. However, said case states that his should not be the norm, and that special criteria must be followed, None of which are consistent in this case. The Missouri Appellate Court Memorandum decision is contrary to previous Appellate Court rulings set down in Plunkett vs Plunkett 757 SW 2nd 288, Grant vs State of Missouri 700 SW 2nd 170.
        5) The Trial Court did deny the defendant/appellant a fair and speedy trial pursuant to RSMo 545.780 by involving an attorney, Public Defender, by postponing trial 118 days to meet said public defender's calendar. Defendant appellant never requested an attorney, never filled out an application for a public defender, and said public defender was not present at trial. The revision of the State of Missouri, fair and speedy trial statutes has been changed from a set amount of time to when a defendant expresses ready for trial, trial should be set at the earliest possible date. Trial in this case was set for 2-20-96 and on 2-19-96 defendant did file a motion for fair and speedy trial and so announced ready for trial before open court on that date. The Trial Court's delay of 118 days to correspond with the calendar of an unwanted attorney is contrary to Missouri Appellate Court rulings in State of Missouri. vs. Knox 697 SW 2nd 261.262. [5], State of Missouri. vs. Bolin 643 SW 2nd 806 [14]. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court in Faretta VS California 95 S. Ct. 2525 states the 6th Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to represent himself.
        6) The Trial court did allow improper State's evidence, pipe, in violation of the IV Amendment, Chimel= vs California 89 S. Ct. 2034, U.S. vs Chadwick 97 S. Ct 2476, 2485, and State of Missouri. vs. Woods 637 SW 2nd 113,116. Said evidence was not on the person of defendant, and was found in plain view after defendant was removed from his vehicle and placed in custody and being transported to jail. No less than four other individuals had access to the vehicle, and two highway patrolmen testified not seeing any paraphernalia and locked defendant's vehicle before a third Highway Patrolman used a slim jim to unlock said vehicle and make a plain view discovery. This sworn testimony was ignored and Trial Judge did require defendant to explain the presence of said pipe when he was no where near the scene.
        7) The Trial Court did improperly impanel a jury that was not a cross section of the community. Further by misrepresenting juror Don Charles as Dan Charles did deny defendant his constitutional right to challenge said juror. The trial Judge's remarks that as long as venire panel randomly selected from master list provides constitution cross section, this is not the case when the selection of the master list has been skewed. As was noted in Appellant' s Motion for New Trial, Appellant's brief, and orally in hearing on Motion for New Trial, 8-19-96, as maintained in transcripts.
        8) The State of Missouri and the Court of said State routinely deny defendants access to the rules of Court. Appellant did request that such rules be made available in evidentiary hearing held 6-7-95, and trial Judge did refuse such request. Appellant then filed written request as maintained in the legal file to which trial Judge did deny said action.
        9) The trial Court, State, and defendant did agree all mutual witnesses be made present during trial in the court. As maintained in the transcript, and Appellant Brief. Said request is demanded by the U.S. Court and only may, upon request, witnesses remain outside the court. The agreement which was never honored was a usurpation of justice. The defendant has the right to presume the courts know the law and recent court decisions and for the Trial Court to ignore the agreement and allow witnesses into private areas together is to deny justice.
        10) The records of the State of Missouri are suspect to the point that the statutes as contained in RSMo edition 1994 cite Section 217.775 on page P-130, Vol. 9 and said statute is not contained in the text. Because of the unexplained and numerable errors in the State's records for the Trial Court to rule is to allow miscarriage of justice.
        11) The charge of Driving While Revoked is in fact ex post facto as already noted.
        12) The sentence is cruel and unusual in violation of the VIII Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as noted.

        Therefore, having been denied due process of law by fair and speedy trial, by the State of Missouri's incapability to maintain a proper record either at trial or in the statutes, by the enforcement of ex post facto laws, denial of defendant best defense, denial of defense attack as to credibility of witness, the prejudice of the Trial Judge's participation in plea bargain, the forced attorney on the State's payroll, illegal admissions of evidence, the improper impaneling of jury and the misrepresentation of the juror. The State of Missouri's deliberate denial of access to rules of Court, and the Trial Court's failure to have all witnesses present in the Court. The fact that a misdemeanor offender is more harshly punished than felons is unconstitutional. For the State's Courts to hold a pro se defendant to the same standards as a lawyer and then summarily deny the pro se litigant access to laws, rules, cases, etc., of the Court is to usurp justice. To fail to make a record of injustice when it happens as in this case, is tyranny, and for witnesses to lie under oath is perjury, but when these lies are changed or deleted constitutes a conspiracy to obstruct justice. And if our great nation doe= s hope to survive it must make a judicial system that is first fair and impartial. The State's exception to the heresay rule that allows certification of testimony to be admissible upon signature of State's representative must be struck down for our system cannot be just a highway to the gallows, when the records can be demonstrated to be so negligently compiled and so easily adulterated. For it is better that the guilty go free than for one innocent to be punished.

Respectfully submitted,
 
 

Lee Allen Martin
address
West Plains, MO 65775

% Howell County Jail
1106 Missouri Avenue
West Plains, MO 65775
 
 

TABLE OF CITATIONS

 
 

State of Ohio vs. Allen 159 NE 591
Jackson vs. State of Missouri 514 SW 2nd 532
Missouri S. Ct. Ad. Rule #4
MAI-CR 3rd 308.16
State of Missouri vs. Miller 677 SW 2nd 938
RSMo Section 491.074
State of Missouri vs. Chandler 860 SW 2nd 823, 825 [5]
Washington vs. State of Texas 87 S. Ct. 1920
Missouri S. Ct. Rules 24.02 (d), 37.58
Thirty-Seventh Judicial Circuit Local Rule 67.8
Plinkett vs. Plunkett 757 SW 2nd 288
Grant vs State of Missouri 700 SW 2nd 170
State of Missouri vs. Tyler 440 SW 2nd 474
RSMo 545.780
State of Missouri vs. Knox 697 SW 2nd 261,262 [5]
State of Missouri vs. Bolin 643 SW 2nd 806 [14]
RSMo Section 600.051
Faretta vs. California 95 S.Ct. 2525
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Chimel vs. California 89 S. Ct. 2034
U.S. vs. Chadwick 433 U.S. 1, 15, 97 S. Ct. 2476, 2485
State of Missouri vs. Woods 637 SW 2nd 113, 116
RSMo Section 542.291
Missouri Constitution, Article 1 Section 22 (a)
Sate of Missouri vs. Williams 659 SW 2nd 778
U.S. vs. Potter 552 F. 2 nd 901
Piehlor vs. Kansas City Public Service Co., 211 SW 2nd 459
Lee vs. Baltimore Hotel Co., 136 SW 2nd 695, 698
Sixty-Six C.J.S. Section 23
Kerr vs. B.F. Goodrich Co., App. 31 NE 2nd 709
U.S. Constitution, Amendments V, VI, XIV
Missouri Constitution, Article 1 Section 18 (a)
V.A.M.R. 4.25
RSMo Vol 9, page P-130 RSMo Section 217.775
RSMo Section 577.041
RSMo Section 302.304(12)
RSMO Section 302.541
Missouri Constitution, Article 1 Section 13
U.S. Constitution, Amendment VIII
RSMo Section 476.010
State of Missouri vs. West 270 SW 279
State ex rel. Caldwell vs. Cockrell 217 SW 524

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

[Forum] [EMail] [Index] [Home]

Self Help Law Library

Case Law $7/Month 50 States + Fed
I use this service.

We push the limits on discount hosting!