Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Supreme Court Building
207 W. High St.
P.O. Box 899
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Re: Report of a Crime
Cause No. CR203-1336M - SD26269
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 to remove my 2 ½” heeled cowboy boots. 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. This after I had a witness from the Missouri State Health Department, the authority over the breathalyzer test confirm under oath, that a 20 second continuous blow should not have been necessary.
They never admitted their mistakes, this in spite of being at pretrial motions 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.
Replay to Dave@DGJeep.com
David G. Jeep
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
 See copies of the NHTSA Standard as attached to the copy of the 3/7/07 letter to the MSHP
 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
 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
 See a certified copy of the trial transcript
 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