Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Matt Blunt , Jay Nixon Report of a Crime, Cause No. CR203-1336M - SD26269


Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Matt Blunt                                                          Jay Nixon
Constituent Services                                       Missouri Attorney General's Office
Office of the Governor                                     Supreme Court Building
Room 216, State Capitol Building                 207 W. High St.
Jefferson City MO 65101                                Jefferson City, MO 65102

Re:  HELP !!!! HELP!!!! HELP !!!!  1,123 Follow up without a response
        Report of a Crime
        Cause No. CR203-1336M - SD26269
       
Dear People,
I say again, HELP !!!! HELP!!!! HELP !!!!  I have been openly chasing these issues for over three years.  This is not an appeal issue.  I should not have to appeal corruption in the courts.  I should not have to prosecute criminals to clear my name.  The state should prosecute the criminals.  This issue is about to again attempt to destroy me as it did with my Divorce.  I cannot drive.  I cannot work.  I cannot make next month’s rent.  I need your help.  I am about to be thrown in the street. 
All because the criminals in the court system in Camden County fabricated evidence and thus created the issue of False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution, Perjury, Suborning Perjury, Criminal Conspiracy and Professional Malfeasants
The Issue was listed in my recent divorce.  And the only thing that gives it any credibility at all is are the crimes of False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution, Perjury, Suborning Perjury, Criminal Conspiracy and Professional Malfeasants arising from the adjudication of Cause No. CR203-1336M - SD26269.
The Police, the Prosecutor were and are corrupted by their False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution, Perjury, Suborning Perjury, Criminal Conspiracy and Professional Malfeasants arising from the adjudication.
Time is of the essence.  If there is anything further, I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.

Thank you in advance.
 



David G. Jeep

David G. Jeep

Enclosure:      Copy of letter 4/23/07, Copy of letter 4/03/04
                       
cc:    St. Louis Post Dispatch, Editorial Department
         File


Monday, April 23, 2007

Missouri Attorney General's Office
Supreme Court Building
207 W. High St.
P.O. Box 899
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: 573-751-3321
Fax: 573-751-0774

Re:  Report of a Crime
        Cause No. CR203-1336M - SD26269
       
Dear People,

My attorney and now the Missouri State Highway Patrol tell me you are the ones that have the responsibility to investigate this type of crime.  There is very little investigation required.  You need only verify the documentation, I am enclosing.  Please consider this a sworn complaint based on the following.
I want to report a crime.  For law enforcement professionals such as yourself this is an unsavory one.  The perpetrators involved in the crime are law enforcement “professionals” and Officer’s of the court.  The crimes False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution, Perjury, Suborning Perjury, Criminal Conspiracy and Professional Malfeasants.  The state’s prosecutors and their witnesses have fabricated evidence out of false testimony and disgraced their office and their uniforms by breaking the law.
False Arrest, the arresting officer, Mr. Little, did not give me the opportunity as prescribed by the NHSTA standard[1] to remove my 2 ½” heeled cowboy boots[2].  That the made the results of the test unreliable and the resulting arrest, false.  Now if the police department had caught and admitted their error right off, this would not have been an issue. 
Mr. Taylor the officer that administered the breathalyzer test and contrived the refusal perjured himself by denying his prior sworn testimony that I had blown for 15 seconds on the certified arrest report[3].  This after I had a witness from the Missouri State Health Department, the authority over the breathalyzer test confirm under oath[4], that a 20 second continuous blow should not have been necessary.
They never admitted their mistakes, this in spite of being at pretrial motions[5] that highlighted this as an issue.  They chose instead to cover up and deny the issue with perjured testimony on the day of the trial.  You cannot give people badges and let them make arrests if they do not know how to make arrests and or not willing to admit when they have made a False Arrest
Malicious Prosecution, if the prosecutor had done his due diligence and confirmed the evidence and the testimony prior to trial, even a cursory review of the facts and the pretrial motions would have brought the credibility of the issue to light.  They either did not due any credible investigation to determine the validity of the issue or they were just lazy, either way, I see it as Malicious Prosecution.
Perjury, given that the police officers had prior knowledge of the issues via their unusual attendance at the pretrial motions and their continued denial of the facts through their false testimony ignorance is no excuse.  But even if they do want to claim ignorance at the time of the arrest, ok somebody made a mistake.  Informed ignorance 8 months later on the stand is no excuse.  They committed Perjury.
Suborning Perjury is the presentation of evidence known to be false through another party.  The Prosecuting attorney should have known that the issue of the 2 ½” heel was credible and he should not have allowed the police officers to commit perjury.  He let them commit perjury on the stand under oath in support of their otherwise unsupportable case.  They Suborned Perjury.
Criminal Conspiracy, in that both the police and the prosecutors had knowledge or should have had knowledge of the criminal actions of the other, they conspired to cover it up.  They committed a Criminal Conspiracy.
Professional Malfeasants, no one received any bribes and I am not claiming that they did.  But monetary benefit is not the only benefit to be had in this situation.  In that neither the police nor the prosecutor did their respective duties, they were just lazy at best.  They benefited from being lazy and disregarding their professional duties and there was Professional Malfeasants.


Time is of the essence, if there is anything further, I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.
                                                                                                                                      
Thank you in advance.
 



David G. Jeep

David G. Jeep

enclosure
            Copy of letter dated 4/24/07 to James F. Keathley, MSHP
Copy of letter dated 4/9/07 to MSHP
Copy of letter dated 3/7/07 t o the MSHP
           
cc:    Richard Edwards, Edwards Schramm Young and Beilenson L.L.P.
         Michael Young, Edwards Schramm Young and Beilenson L.L.P.
         St. Louis Post Dispatch, Editorial Department
         file


Saturday, April 03, 2004

Missouri Attorney General's Office
Supreme Court Building
207 W. High St.
P.O. Box 899
Jefferson City, MO 65102

Phone: 573-751-3321
Fax: 573-751-0774

Re:   Perjury and Prosecutorial Suborning of Perjury
         Case # CR203-1336M, Camden County, MO
Dear Sirs,
I was arrested last year on May 17, 2003 for DWI.  Now before you get all excited and afraid this is not a DWI case that involved any loss of life or property.  I was pulled over for failure to use my blinker.  From the beginning they had no case, just a case of zeal that has lead them to Perjury and Suborning Perjury.  The state of Missouri has no defined instructions for giving the breathalyzer test.   After I failed the first attempt, I blew, per the police report for a steady 15 seconds, the machine responded with an invalid result.  I never refused to do anything. 
The arresting officer did not know how to administer the One Leg Stand nor the Walk and Turn test, and if you can believe his testimony, he still does not know some 11 months later.  You see in the prescribed National Highway and Safety Administration Standard prior to both test the suspect should be given the opportunity to remove his shoes if he has more than a 2” heel, cowboy boots have a 2 ½” heel.
Those are the facts and they are not disputed.  My issue arises from the testimony given by the arresting officers and thus the testimony supported by the prosecution.  At trial the arresting officer testified that it was a 4” heel not a 2” heel that required the prior notice. At trial the officer who had administered the breathalyzer test testified that I had not blown for a solid 15 seconds as he had represented in his prior statement. 
You could almost believe that these two officers were idiots without the mental ability to remember the facts, but you need to be aware of an additional fact.  Prior to the trial I made pretrial motions.  The three key pretrial motions were:
Motion for discovery of the Standardized procedure for performing the Standardized Field Sobriety test.
Motion to exclude all reference to the Field sobriety test because I was wearing Cowboy boots with 2 ½ heel.  And the high heel condition is in conflict with the state procedure for the test.
Motion to exclude the non existent refusal, having blown 15-16 seconds.
All three motions were denied.  For whatever reason the prosecution had the arresting officers in court during these pretrial motions, they were therefore coach and made aware of the issues prior to trail.  Therefore the prosecution at minimum by providing them the information gave them information prior to their at trial testimony.  The prosecution told them what my issues were and what I would be asking them to testify to at trial.   And because of that I feel the prosecution suborned perjury in that they coached them, and then they allowed them to lie at trial, on the stand.
Time is of the essence, if there is anything you need from me in this regard, please let me know.
Regards
David G. Jeep

enclosure

cc: file









[1] See copies of the NHTSA Standard as attached to the copy of the 3/7/07 letter to the MSHP
[2] See copies of the of the arrest report dated 5/17/03 and as attached to the copy of the 3/7/07 letter to the MSHP
[3] See copies of the of the certified arrest report dated 5/18/03 and as attached to the copy of the 3/7/07 letter to the MSHP
[4] See a certified copy of the trial transcript
[5] See copies of the of the pretrial motions dated 9/30/03 as attached to the  as attached to the copy of the 3/7/07 letter to the MSHP

Post a Comment