Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
c
ccc
cc
cc
c
c
c
c
c
COMES NOW, TERRY LEE HINDS, (hereinafter the ³[Accused]´) proceeding as a è
Defendant in the above cause files this motion and respectfully moves this Court to issue an
Order requiring the St. Louis County Counselor¶s Office and its prosecuting attorney, Molly
defense and this Court, as set forth herein. This motion is made pursuant to THE
MISSOURI AND U.S. SUPREME COURT DOCTRINES, relevant case law, the purview of the
Missouri Rules of Criminal Procedure, as well as, the shown to the Court through his
attached Brief and Memorandum of Law in support of the [Accused]¶s Motion states as follows:
c
do
(1)
not discuss the specifics of the particular case in which they are submitted. The allegations are:
In this criminal case, the [Accused] asserts that the [Prosecution] has failed to set forth specific
revealed above; therefore insufficient to give the [Accused] è è of any specific acts,
inactions or even the against which he must defend. The only significant or
fastidious criminal act of wrongdoing as set forth by the [Prosecution] in this case is the
A è alone does not constitute a crime. The
Supreme Court has controlling held for over 100 years of our Nation history: ³There are no
constructive offenses, and before one can be punished, it must be shown that his case is plainly
134 U. S. 624 (1890). This is a case which involves a fundamental principle of a lawful
society (³Equal Justice Under Law´) which has been needlessly changed in a way that
circumvents the entire legitimacy concerning the criminal justice system process.
(2)
c c
The [Accused] is not seeking any evidence and is not making a request for evidentiary
matters concerning his motion and this Second Request for a Bill of Particulars. The [Accused]
in holding to the true principles for a request for a Bill of Particulars, as well as his constitutional
concerns with the law enforcement practices in this case; the [Accused] seeks the duty of court as
an agency of justice and a custodian of liberty which forbids that a defendant should be
convicted upon a lack of particulars or circumstances as revealed herein. The [Prosecution] has
failed to uphold both the legal principles in the and in the è
inherent to our constitutional design. The present case, then, concerns a relationship
lying within the right to contract, and the [Accused]¶s free exercise of First Amendment rights
emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance, with the [Accused]
who now seeks particular relief that he is entitled to« as a matter of law and fact. The Plaintiff
or [Prosecution] have rendered their decision to prosecute the [Accused] as a malicious teaching
and will, in time; prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by the government and its
tribunal system in the Dred Scott Case. ³The history of liberty has largely been the history of
observance of è
. And the effective administration of criminal justice hardly
requires disregard of fair procedures imposed by law.´ See , 318 U.S.
offense of the St. Louis County Waste Management Code, â , [Waste to be
Collected] which is alleged to be punishable and enforceable under â [Penalties and
(3)
Enforcement]. Through his Motion the [Accused] makes the following limited, but essential,
a.) Please describe with particularity each and every fact that support a finding of probable
cause to believe a crime was committed inside the home of the [Accused] or within the
property line of his address and that the [Accused] committed said crime;
b.) Please describe with particularity the details regarding ³TRASH DISTRICT 4´ pursuant
# pursuant to â
c.) Please describe with particularity the details regarding ³DESIGNATED HAULER´ as
d.) Please describe with particularity the details regarding the [Accused]¶s account(s) and his
account status with ³Veolia´ on June 23, 2009 as well as before June 23, 2009 as well as
e.) Please describe with particularity the details as to the [Accused] being è è %
pursuant to â ;
f.) Please describe with particularity the details as to the [Accused] being ³ è
h.) Please describe with particularity the details with reference to the alleged failure of the
i.) Please describe with particularity the details with reference to the alleged failure of the
(4)
j.) Please describe with particularity the details with reference to the alleged failure of the
k.) Please describe with particularity the details with reference to è
l.) Please describe with particularity the details with reference to è
m.) Please describe with particularity the details with reference to a
n.) Please describe with particularity the details with reference to the kind or type of waste
found at the [Accused]¶s address that was allegedly generated on June 23, 2009;
o.) Please describe with particularity the details with reference to the kind or type of waste
found at the [Accused]¶s address that was allegedly generated before June 23, 2009;
p.) Please describe with particularity the details with reference to the kind or type of waste
found at the [Accused]¶s address that was allegedly generated after June 23, 2009;
q.) Please describe with particularity the details with reference to the exact or the proximate
position or the various locations of the waste to be collected that was allegedly generated
by the [Accused],
r.) Please describe with particularity the details with reference to the WASTE TO BE
COLLECTED at 438 Leicester Square Drive Ballwin, Missouri 63021 on June 23, 2009
s.) Please describe with particularity the details with reference to or concerning why June 23,
(5)
t.) Please describe with particularity the details with reference to that each day a violation
continues after service of written notice to abate such violation shall constitute a separate
u.) Please describe with particularity the details with reference to that no notice is required to
prosecute and convict a person of any violation of Waste Management Code as it pertains
to this case;
v.) Please describe with particularity the details with reference to witness or witnesses
w.) Please describe with particularity the details with reference to what extent the [Accused]
x.) Please describe with particularity the details with reference to waste collection service
being
%
for the [Accused]¶s address on June 23, 2009 as well as
y.) Please describe with particularity the identity of the è Molly Chestnut was
knowledge or information«´;
z.) Please describe with particularity the details with reference to the location of the alleged
crime or offense occurring outside the [Accused]¶s residence or inside the [Accused]¶s
The particulars requested are narrow and necessary and without this information, the
[Accused] is not sufficiently advised of the conduct the Government alleges violated §
(6)
[Waste to be Collected] or § (i.e.³..Each day a violation continues« shall constitute a
separate offense«´) and cannot adequately prepare his defense and avoid prejudicial surprise
during trial. The particulars requested by the [Accused] is factual information not recited in the
. None of the items requested are evidentiary material, rather, the [Accused] seeks,
through particulars, to determine what his participation was in the acts alleged in the
was suspected to have occurred. A reading of the [Accused] Second Request for a Bill of
Particulars shows that each question requested is only for factual information not provided in the
Plaintiff¶s . The grounds for this motion and a second request are set forth below.
c cc
c c
The Plaintiff¶s is vague, indefinite, uncertain, and insufficient in its terms and
conclusions. It is not possible to reasonably know the asserted
from the matters stated in the Plaintiff¶s . Thus, it is not possible to prepare a defense
to the charge in the Plaintiff¶s . To inform the [Accused] of the accusations and what
crime(s) have been charged, and so that a defendant¶s rights guaranteed by both the Missouri and
United States Constitutions may be fully protected; the [Prosecution] should be required to
critical piece in effectively performing a thorough and independent investigation on his own
behalf, thus maintaining the concepts of fairness or such conditions as justice requires. A detailed
Bill of Particulars is all the more critical here because this is a case of first impression. The
[Accused] is entitled to notice of the crime charged by way of a detailed and meaningful Bill of
Particulars. This protects the [Accused]¶s State and Federal constitutionally guaranteed rights to
effective assistance of counsel, due process of law, equal protection of the law, and confrontation
(7)
of the State¶s evidence. This second request for è
will lock the government in place and
not force the [Accused] to defend against moving targets, e.g., to date Plaintiff has set forth five
c
:
Is a Bill of Particulars necessary in the instant prosecution in order for the [Accused] to properly
prepare his defense and avoid surprise at trial and to adequately secure the rights guaranteed to
him by the United States Constitution, the Missouri State Constitution and applicable case law?
In particular, the Bill of Particulars requested in this case is necessary to assure the [Accused]
1. The è requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United
2. The Sixth Amendment rights of the United States Constitution insuring effective
assistance of counsel, notice and the opportunity to confront any accuser, with the right to
cross-examine all witnesses and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in
his favor, or protections afforded in Article 1, §19 of the Missouri State Constitution and;
3. To secure his Fifth Amendment rights of the United States Constitution or Article 1,
Section 19 of the Missouri Constitution against self incrimination and double jeopardy.
! ""
Whether, pursuant to the [Accused]¶s other constitutional rights or in accordance with the
requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment or his Sixth Amendment rights, this Court
should grant the [Accused]¶s Second Request for a Bill of Particulars as set forth in his motion
having special regards to the insufficient notice of a violation constituting the offense, the
(8)
deficient in particulars with the nature of the criminal charge or to the extent the [Accused] has
Particulars should be filed, because the government [is] under no obligation to volunteer such
information unless requested; accordingly to properly inform the [Accused] of the charge made
against him with sufficient precision to enable him to prepare a proper defense, avoid surprise,
and enable him to plead his acquittal or conviction in bar of any further prosecution for the same
offense.
Particularly, for reasons or inadequacies stated herein, because this is a case where an
according to the complainant, Veolia. This is confirmed by Plaintiff¶s letter, dated
December 5, 2009 stating in part: ³St. Louis County has been notified that your account with
Plaintiff¶s letter, (Notice of Violation) dated February 17, 2009 stating in part: ³Veolia has
collection service at this residence.´ This arranged status or facilitated by Veolia;
transforms a è
è or positions
è to undergo criminal prosecution
for a '
This captivity condition of legal inferiority as established by §
[Penalties and Enforcement] is hostile to the Missouri Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article I,
Section 11: [Imprisonment for debt], declares: #That no person shall be imprisoned for debt,
except for nonpayment of fines and penalties imposed by law.´ As a practical matter, the
intervening constitutional right would make it unlawful for any court to imprison the [Accused],
è
of a bill or an alleged debt owed if a conviction should be obtained.
(9)
Plaintiff¶s endorsement of a or their enforcement of a is
completed by the underpinnings of a waste collection program, serving as the latest socially
unacceptable offense through the legal undertakings of a government benefit or its Waste
perfect path to hell paved with good intentions. This is accomplished in part by the County¶s
pertaining to Waste Management Code, program, or Veolia¶s and Plaintiff¶s actions. These
unjust actions are well documented in 32 letters written by the [Accused] concerning
constitutional considerations or his legal or lawful rights, of which the Plaintiff or the
Auspiciously, this Second Request for a Bill of Particulars will lock the government in place and
not force the [Accused] to defend against other various moving targets, e.g., (1) The
some cases, the status of , and (2) involves someone¶s ^ TO HAVE versus TO
ASSURE is in effect, with (3) the government¶s assumption that by not
particular person or classes of persons@ or engages the services of selective enforcement for a
and seek prosecution or punishment for a $while operating under the
color of the law. Plaintiff¶s policy, procedure, practice or ordinances are the moving force for the
(10)
constitutional violations involved in this case with officials deliberately indifferen[t] to the
for a Second Request for a Bill of Particulars are set forth herein.
:
³..acting upon the è belief, knowledge or information«´ who has not been identified at
this time. Since Missouri Rules of Criminal Procedure are not being complied with, the
[Accused] relies upon United States Supreme Court doctrines and its practices as set forth herein,
to assure the [Accused] of his constitutional rights. The Sixth Amendment requires that a citizen
It is a well-settled principle of law that a
person needs to know what law or duty was violated. " , 92 U.S. 542
(1876); èè &, 909 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir. 1989). This type of compliance plays an
important role in safeguarding and effectuating the [Accused]¶s Federal and Missouri
Constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel, due process of law, equal protection of
the law, and confrontation of the State¶s evidence. The [Accused] is apparently charged with a
specious offense of the Waste Management Code, under â [Waste to be Collected], that
(11)
Section states, in relevant parts as it relates to the requested Bill of Particulars:
³..Each day a violation continues after service of written notice to abate such
violation shall constitute a separate offense; however, no notice is required to
prosecute and convict a person of any violation of this Chapter«´
The [Accused] states that this language (µEach day¶ µconstitute a separate offense¶ or µno notice
unnecessarily and indefensibly burden[s] his exercise of his right to a jury trial, due process or
would even allow him to prepare a proper defense or avoid surprise. To make matters worse, the
charge in violation of ââ and against the [Accused] has never before been
leveled by the government in a Court setting having such arguments as presented in this case.
The Plaintiff¶s designated Trash District Plan for District #4 went into effect on September 29,
2008 with its enforcement of â beginning on December 5, 2008 with the [Accused].
However, Plaintiff¶s set forth the date of the violation as ³6/23/09´. In this unique
context, the government should at the very least be compelled to provide the requested
Particulars in this case of first impression and conflicting facts. Indeed, it is impossible to tell
from the charge sheet exactly in what way the [Accused]¶s actions were criminal. The possible
scenarios are vast because the charge is so vague and its alleged offense is complicated as
described herein. This fact is made more evident pursuant to â subsequent prosecution
"! !"
A detailed Bill of Particulars is all
the more critical here because each day a violation continues after service of written notice to
abate such violation shall constitute a . From a practical point of view, there are
serious problems with this legal approach. Considering â scope and severe penalties, a
(12)
possible defendant or the [Accused] should not have to guess which day or days he allegedly was
be advised of the day or dates of potential or existing violations, so that he will have a
meaningful opportunity to prepare and present his defense. The [Accused] is entitled to a specific
notice of the crime(s) charged by way of a detailed and meaningful Bill of Particulars.
Subsequently, this additional single arbitrary fact that ³.." is required "
and
" " of any violation of this Chapter«´ raises relevant constitutional due process
problems, as well as, the [Accused] being tried twice or perhaps numerous times in favor of the
that " is required "
and " " for the same crime on the
same set of facts. A Bill of Particulars in this case would allow or permit the [Accused] to
successfully plead double jeopardy, if he should be prosecuted later for the same offense
pursuant to â . These precarious positions and the potential future legal arguments of
double jeopardy, properly advances and/or is germane to the [Accused]¶s motion, since â
³..In addition to the penalties hereinabove authorized and established, the County
Counselor shall take such other actions at law or in equity as may be required to
halt, terminate, remove or otherwise eliminate any violations of this Chapter«´
The [Accused]¶s alleged offense and potential future offenses revolve around an alleged
violation of â [Waste to be Collected] and â [Penalties and Enforcement] of the
Plaintiff¶s Waste Management Code. However, the visible ³triggering´ ordinance for â
are not within â or even inâ$! within section %&Authorization for
most importantly, or thus far of !, the ³Waste Management Code´. This leaves the
(13)
[Accused] no legal guidelines to understand what overt act was allegedly committed in
legal language as written, is in direct conflict with the Plaintiff¶s to the extent
è § [607.140]). The [Accused] is of the proper legal opinion that â
[WASTE TO BE COLLECTED] was written for a Waste Collection Service (i.e., Trash Hauler-
è is: ³..the responsibility of the property owner and the person generating
of â confirms the [Accused] cannot meet this essential element of a crime as the
prosecutors, Molly Chestnut and Brian Malone, have maintained in the course of this criminal
case the
is the ³FAILURE ( A WASTE COLLECTION
practice because ³FAILURE´ is nowhere written in ââ &' &' with [the law]
declaring´ ³the property owner and the person generating the waste
that an agreement
because it is nowhere to be found in the County¶s ordinance â ['or
within the entire breath of the Waste Management Code- [Chapter 607]. More precisely, Plaintiff
^
without particulars of such a ; would
make any person rely exclusively on a prosecutors¶ presumed knowledge of [the law] that would
(14)
construe such or, in this case, as alleged a µ
The [Accused] has made a formal ³Request for Disclosure´ pursuant to Missouri Rule of
Criminal Procedure 25.03, requesting the Plaintiff and the [Prosecution] to: ³..produce all
material and information within its possession or control«´ which was filed with this Court on
August 21, 2009. However, to this date (approximately 13 months later) the Plaintiff has
produced little cooperation and no additional information apparently within their possession or
control. The [Accused]¶s ³Request for Disclosure´ is information sought being reasonably
calculated to lead to admissible evidence. As a threshold matter, and with an eye towards ±
among other factors; Plaintiff¶s and their ³total release´ of fifteen (15) documents,
of which produced only one (1) new document, received by [Accused]¶s legal Counsel on
Plaintiff¶s acts unilaterally in a manner which interferes with the [Accused]'s ability to discover,
documentation held in Plaintiff¶s possession or its agent and complainant, Veolia Environmental
Services. The [Accused] contends Veolia ES motivation for cooperating with Plaintiff and this
criminal charge § [607.140] . These significant facts make a Bill of Particulars
request more germane, necessary and applicable, as such being a condition that justice requires
it.
The matters requested herein are absolutely essential to properly prepare the [Accused] a
defense and are well within the scope of Missouri R. Crim. P. [23.04], case law, Supreme Court
doctrines and constitutional law. There is no request to seek information as to how the
[Prosecution] will make its case and therefore this request is not for evidence, but only for
(15)
[Prosecution] will make its case and therefore this request is not for evidence, but only for
information to specifically identify the actual facts, persons, allegations and testimony relied
cc
)
)
On January 21, 2010 by and through the [Accused] previous legal counsel, Michael
Merritt presented to the Court the [Accused] First Request for a Bill of Particulars. The
Plaintiff filed their response/opposition on February 25, 2010 with the Court hearing the
[Accused]¶s motion and arguments on April 15, 2010. The Court denied the [Accused] First
was sufficient under Rule 37.35. Nevertheless, stripping the Plaintiff¶s response
of rhetoric, Plaintiff raises only two routine and fairly disputes for the Court¶s
determination: (1) Defendant¶s Motion is Untimely; and (2) The Information Contains All
Essential Allegations. Plaintiff¶s response or argument to the [Accused]¶s motion and his
*
This motion and Second Request for a Bill of Particulars is being filed within the timeline
established by Missouri Rules of Criminal Procedures. The Plaintiff had made the spurious
argument that the [Accused]¶s First Request for a Bill of Particulars was untimely. The
determination whether to grant a bill of particulars is left to the sound discretion of the trial
court. () , 273 U.S. 77, 82 (1927).
(16)
(1967). Furthermore, pursuant to Missouri R. Crim. P. 23.04, and for the other reasons set
forth herein, this Court should grant the [Accused]¶s motion and Second Request for a Bill of
Particulars because the time provided for the filing of pretrial motions by this rule or within
such other time as the judge may allow, a Defendant may request or the court upon its own
motion may order that the [Prosecution] file a statement of such particulars as may be
necessary to give both the [Accused] and the Court reasonable notice of the crime charged,
It has been said ³timing is everything´ however the as stated in this
memorandum and brief and in particular within sections * " and *
"
which holds to the timeless fact that the [Accused] is entitled by a« moment in
time, where the Founders of a Nation established a Bill of Rights, and a defendant was, at the
very least ³..to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor«´. A Bill of
Particulars is a part of that compulsory process. The Court has the power to advance this
process forward in the name of a good cause- 0 * simply because; acompulsory process
The Plaintiff in their opposition to the [Accused] First Request for a Bill of Particulars
time. This fact remains true in most criminal cases; because the accused person is subject to
time in jail, or is not given the time necessary to understand the criminal charge [or] enough
(17)
time to prepare a defense, as well as, the time to go to law school. This single fact alone,
involving the [Accused], is a proper showing of a to defeat any arguments for
Missouri R. Crim. P. 23.04 provides that a motion for a Bill of Particulars may be made
³
"! ! "
´ or #! "
" !
reasonable notice of the crime charged. [Emphasis added]. The Court, therefore, has the
discretion to hear and consider the [Accused] presented motion and his Second Request for a
Bill of Particulars.
It is important to note that Plaintiff¶s response and opposition to the [Accused] First
Request for a Bill of Particulars, the Prosecutor Malone declared on page 2 in section II:
³The Information Contains All Essential Allegations.´ The Plaintiff¶s novel response and
hollow argument admits to the essential fact, the legal existence of more than ³one
allegation´ as the learned County Counselor Brian Malone, used the word #
and
certainly the legal phrase µThe Information Contains All Essential ".¶ Even to a
The legal framework of the Plaintiff is misleading and its allegations are
vague, indefinite, uncertain, and insufficient in its terms and conclusions for the reasons set
forth herein. First and foremost there is no such legal designation within Waste Management
(18)
607, â[Designation of Collection Areas] allows the County Executive to ³establish
areas within the unincorporated County for the collection and transfer of waste and recovered
the term ³DESIGNATED HAULER´ in Chapter 607. Plaintiff¶s is so vague and
uncertain, the word ³VEOLIA´ being listed as the ³DESIGNATED HAULER´ fails to set
forth a proper legal description or its legal identity. The [Accused] is legally entitled to a
proper statement of è
pursuant to Missouri Rules of Criminal Procedure 21.04.
consequently, further supporting the [Accused]¶s grievances for
³Constitutional Considerations´ for è or
* "
1. The subject was sworn to on July 20, 2009 by Molly Chestnut. A single
count listed, encompassing two (2) short or insufficient paragraphs purporting to establish
a single colorable offense of the St. Louis County ordinance, involving § , [Waste
2. Enclosed with the n were five separate pages of official looking papers which
However, these official looking papers were not incorporated therein by reference,
(19)
creating additional guesswork for the [Accused]¶s defense.
styled format along with a court summons which contains only broad
4. The court summons, dated August 6, 2009 issued in this case to the [Accused] fails to
state the exact section of the alleged violation charged stating: ³WASTE
c
c
(c
c
order relief via the instructions by an assigned hauler¶s legal position or perhaps Veolia
assumed authority to serve as a judge or jury in this criminal case. !
6. The court summons, dated August 5, 2009 presented by the [Prosecution] in this case
pursuant to the [Accused]¶s discovery request also fails to state the exact section of the
by reference. (20)
7. However, this court summons, (Exhibit # S-2) is missing the
% statement
mentioned on Exhibit # S-1 as apparently, someone has from Exhibit # S-2
for undisclosed reason(s). Both summons (Exhibits # S-1 and # S-2) failed to have a
8. These two court summons filed and executed by the Plaintiff as official documents,
forces the [Accused] to defend himself against the entire breath of the Waste
Management Code, in lure by the fact that Plaintiff relies on â for its lack of
è
to prosecute, by holding that
³Each day a violation continues after
service of written notice to abate such violation shall constitute a separate offense;
however, no notice is required to prosecute and convict a person of any violation of this
Chapter.´
9. The surprise and uncertainty that these two court summons and filed in this
case poses to the [Accused], an unnecessarily and indefensibly burden to the exercise of
the right to a fair trial or to enable the [Accused] to mount an adequate defense, or avoid
10.To complicate matters further, currently there are +%* different various or so called
legal versions of the criminal charge of â issued by the Plaintiff or used in this
case and their alleged criminal analysis or its prosecution. See the argument herein
who the witness(es) of the offense were, what facts the government will rely on, and who
are the other suspect(s) in this criminal case that were deemed unnecessary to prosecute.
(21)
*"
From the inception of this criminal case, the government has made little information (one
new document) available pursuant to the [Accused]¶ discovery request made and filed on
August 21st, 2009. The [Accused] interests and right to know, the verbal or written
statements of a witness(es) or any agreements made concerning this case or the terms and
The Plaintiff has declared they will call Theresa Farrell, apparently serving as a character or
complaining witness on behalf of her employer Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, LLC. In
addition, the [Accused] has received only one discovery of document order by the Court
preparation of the [Accused]'s defense, however there were no particulars concerning
document signed by the Plaintiff and Veolia as the legal or contracting parties.
*! ""
"
The [Accused] contends that the Plaintiff¶s prosecution is both vexatious and frivolous,
law or fact. The [Accused] declares the prosecutor, Molly Chestnut is acting upon erroneous
! è
thus issuing an without personal ³..belief,
* "
Plaintiff¶s previous curtailed response and opposition to the [Accused]¶s First Request for
(22)
a Bill of Particulars; maintaining that the government does not have to provide a Bill of
Particulars to the [Accused] in this case suffers from a fundamental defect in legal
logic« obedience to the U.S. and Missouri Constitutions, (i.e., effective assistance of
counsel, due process of law, equal protection of the law, self incrimination and double
jeopardy rights with the right to prepare a proper defense or avoid surprise at trial). The
Plaintiff¶s response to the [Accused]¶s First Request for a Bill of Particulars is legally
deficient to recognize the [Accused]¶s free exercise of the right to petition the
lawful right to protest (his express opposition through words and action), being First
Amendment protections afforded under the U. S. and Missouri Constitution. See Exhibit
*"
!"
If the prosecuting Attorney refuses to answer the Demand for Bill of Particulars and
brings a person before the court for a plea or to move forward to trial; the Defendant points
out the grounds of their legal deficiencies and that the prosecuting Attorney's job is to ³do
justice´. Just as it is the duty of a U.S. Attorney to do so, as quoted by this very relevant,
responsibilities in the case of Burger vs. U. S., to wit: ³The United States Attorney is the
obligations to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose
interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it should win a case, but that justice
(23)
shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the
twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffers. He may prosecute
with earnestness and vigor-indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he
is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods
about a just one.´ Berger v. United States, (1934) 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S.Ct. 346, ---, 79 L. Ed.
655, ---. To this point« to ³do justice´ the prosecuting Attorney should be forthright and
!
"
Amendment had been recognized as a restraint upon government, but, with the conspicuous
exception of the ! (Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 450 (1857),
is the exception) only in the narrower sense that a legislature must provide µdue process for
the enforcement of law.¶ This is apparent when the Supreme Court Justice ruled against Dred
and Harriet Scott and overturned the decision of a Missouri jury, returning the Scotts to
slavery, thus creating a or for the moment establishing a certain class or a
race as chattel or private property, and could not be taken away from their owners without
due process. The Thirteen Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished
and continues to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a
crime. However, the institution of slavery (in the eyes of the [Accused] administrative law
and its enforcement) has only been curtailed by the Supreme Court doctrines of substantive
due process protections or procedural due process rights. The [Accused] is a citizen of the
(24)
State of Missouri and a natural born citizen of the United States of America. The [Accused]
holds no license nor has he made any agreement with the County Health Department or is
subject to the jurisdiction of this administrative agency or its rules. The [Accused] is a
#
or municipality.´ This is a
involving certain actors. However, the [Accused] as
become a è - a è è % which is not defined in
â [Definitions]. It is not clear if a è is in fact a è è % as set forth
[Definitions]. The [Accused] argues that the Plaintiff cannot do directly (establish
trash districts without a vote) what it could not do indirectly (violate County Charter) by
violating a citizen¶s right to vote who lives within a Notwithstanding, the
historical or timeless controversy that has been waged concerning whether the founders of
the Constitution and the framers of our Constitutional Amendments intended the word
è to mean only artificial persons, or whether the word was substituted for the word
with a particular view to protecting natural persons, and not artificial persons still
(25)
is he an (a worker, typically a laborer or tradesman, under
to a business (Veolia) for a fixed period of time). Interestingly, the U.S. Constitution
quantifies a
as 3/5 of a person (³three fifths of all other Persons´) for direct taxing
purposes or for representation. While it¶s true that slaves weren¶t explicitly defined as 3/5th
of a person within the constitution, it is true, for the purpose of representation, that slaves in
the eyes of government weren¶t even considered people, but a form of è è . A è è
that could be easily µordered about¶ or even bought and sold under
, as well as,
live under any agreement or that reduces him to a form of property or which
The Accused properly notes for the Court, the Plaintiff¶s County Council denied a
under the Thirteenth Amendment. The [Accused] is not a slave to someone¶s sins (poor ideas
i.e., no vote) nor can he be define by the local government anything beyond that of a citizen
or as a natural person. In the eyes of the [Accused] with reference to the Waste Management
Program and its Code of Conduct; he has been forced by [law] to become a è to
work for an organization (Veolia) under which is not of his own choosing,thus
because the organization (Veolia) will receive a tangible benefit of his work is, almost by
definition, ³servitude.´ Because service is forced upon the [Accused] under the threat of
penalties and enforcement of law, the service is ³involuntary.´ Therefore, the [Accused]
servitude¶ is for the proper determination of the United States Supreme Court or perhaps ³We
the People´. Perhaps what¶s even more significant is that 3/5th is perhaps better than being
treated as if you didn¶t exist, or had no value or worth. You can¶t really justify slavery in any
of its many forms, if an enslaved man or woman (natural persons) has no value and can¶t be
"
Liberty of contract is a concept originally advanced by Justices Bradley and Field in the
Slaughter-House Cases, (83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873)) which was elevated to the status of
accepted doctrine in Allgeyer v. Louisiana case, 165 U.S. 578, 589 (1897). The U.S.
Supreme Court held: ³The liberty mentioned in that [Fourteenth] Amendment means not only
the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by
incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the
enjoyment of all his faculties, to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work
where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or
avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary and
essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned.´
Applied repeatedly in subsequent cases as a restraint on federal and state power, freedom of
contract was also alluded to as a property right, as is evident in the language of the Court in
Coppage v. Kansas case, 236 U.S. 1, 14 (1915). The U.S. Supreme Court held: ³Included in
the right of personal liberty and the right of private property--partaking of the nature of each-
(27)
-is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is
that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or
other forms of property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a
the Court acknowledged that liberty of the individual may be infringed by the coercive
conduct of other individuals no less than by the arbitrary action of public officials, the Court
modification of its views, liberty, in the constitutional sense of freedom resulting from
restraint upon government, was replaced by the civil liberty which an individual enjoys by
virtue of the restraints which government, in his behalf, imposes upon his neighbors. The
Liberty to Contract is a basic right, such as life or liberty, seen as constituting part of the
order of society and considered independent of and not subordinate to the body of human law
which is based upon someone¶s justification. The Plaintiff substantive rights are firmly
secured by the due process requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment making this
second request for a µBill of Particulars¶ a constitutional consideration for the court¶s
c* !ü
#
The government proffers in their opposition to the [Accused]¶s motion and First Request
for a Bill of Particulars, is that the in this case is sufficiently specific to apprise
the [Accused] of the charge against him or to enable him to prepare for trial, ignores the
(28)
new motion and Second Request for a Bill of Particulars. Plaintiff¶s previous response and
opposition to the [Accused] First Request for a Bill of Particulars blurs the legal line between
Plaintiff¶s previous response and its weak argument remind a sensible person of
the proverb ³the most dangerous thing in the world is to try to leap a chasm in two jumps.´
When boilerplate appears troublesome, some other mischief is often afoot. A boilerplate,
while not a vice itself, is frequently the symptom of a problem that the law
should appropriately address. Legal rules play a useful role in regulating a government¶s
ü
that are deemed ' but one can make no
progress in understanding this role through blanket assertions about the evils of boilerplate,
when lower Court¶s decisions deny a defendant¶s request for a Bill of Particulars only to
become a black hole where citizens¶ or the [Accused]¶s rights can vanish. This case involves
a number of complicated legal and factual issues. The Prosecutor¶s criminal charge against
the [Accused] in this case made use of a ³short form´ as the pretext for an
alleged offense of â which contained only bald allegations against the [Accused]
without any detail. The [Accused] notes these same boilerplate allegations are used in every
alleged violation of âby the Plaintiff concerning their waste management program¶s
enforcement. This has creating in part, a vexatious vacuum on the [Accused]¶s constitutional
rights and a leap of faith into a legal abyss requiring pure devotion of Plaintiff¶s own making.
The complicated legal issues arrive not just from the language used in â (i.e ³an
(29)
agreement,´ ³reasonably available,´ ³waste generated,´ or ³person generating the waste´).
But, subsequently fromâ unreal mandate that³..Each day a violation continues after
service of written notice to abate such violation shall constitute a separate offense«´ It is
substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare; therefore
!"
"
It is not a request for the
theory of the government's case and it is not an attempt to restrict the government in its proof
at trial. It is merely an attempt to determine what acts or omissions the government will
attempt to prove the [Accused] allegedly committed so that he may properly prepare a
defense, avoid surprise at trial and avoid a second prosecution for the same or similar act. In
this case, the [Accused] submits that the particular information requested in this motion is
necessary to afford him è by enabling him to know what acts the government
claims are illegal in order that he may be prepared to defend or explain those acts.
The information requested is narrow and necessary and without particulars, the [Accused]
is not sufficiently advised of the conduct the Plaintiff alleges violated â [Waste to be
offense«´) and cannot adequately prepare a defense and avoid prejudicial surprise during
trial. The grounds for granting this motion are further advanced below or set forth herein.
ccc
The government¶s bold assertion that it enjoys a free-wheeling legal discretion in this cause
(30)
of action (i.e., using Rule 37 et seq., vs. misdemeanor¶s rules) against the [Accused] or all those
whose exercise Constitutional rights or practice its doctrines, of which the [Accused] seeks to
properly challenge the Plaintiff¶s actions as well as, the [Prosecution]¶s conduct in this case;
waived, as stated in Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The accusations
of the Plaintiff have not been waived in this case. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted in many
using a verified complaint, is to inform the accused of the charges so that he may prepare a
defense, and ³..in case any other proceedings are taken against him for a similar offense«´ to
show accurately the extent of his acquittal or conviction. See Russell v. United States, 369 U.S.
at 749, 82 S.Ct. at 1047(1989); Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. at 78, 55 S.Ct. 629 (1935). The
Supreme Court has established ³A crime is made up of acts and intent, and these must be set
forth in the indictment with reasonable particularity of time, place, and circumstances.´ The
Court further declared: ³It is an elementary principle of criminal pleading that, where the
not sufficient that the indictment shall charge the offense in the same generic terms as in the
definition, but it must state the species -- it must descend to particulars.´(quoting United States
v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)). The Plaintiff¶s in this case does not give
sufficient notice to the [Accused] of what he is alleged to have done; he is therefore unable to
prepare an adequate defense, prevent surprises at trial by the [Prosecution] or avail himself of
(31)
As noted within this brief, the limited facts provided by Plaintiff¶s fails to
properly inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in
law to support a conviction if one should be had. For this, facts are to be stated, not conclusions
of law alone. The Plaintiff¶s legal counsel unitization of their ³short form´ and its
The [Accused] cannot, based upon language in paragraph 2, formulate a proper defense or
prepare for the anticipated proof to be offered by St. Louis County. To be sure, a reading of
paragraph 2 implicates seven possible scenarios: (a) Does Paragraph 2 intend to charge that the
collection of waste generated at a premise(s) failed on or before June 23, 2008; (b) Does
Paragraph 2 intend to charge that the [Accused] never had , or never had a
on June 23, 2008; (c) Does Paragraph 2 intend to charge that the [Accused] never
had a prior to June 23, 2008 or never had a on or after
June 23, 2008; (d) Does Paragraph 2 intend to charge that the [Accused] ³agreement´ never
existed or was not ³in effect´ because it was not the right kind of or
; (e) Does Paragraph 2 intend to charge that the [Accused]¶s was to have
versus a for waste collection that was to be ³in effect´ on the
alleged violation date of June 23, 2008; (f) Does Paragraph 2 intend to charge that the [Accused]
failed to have a ³waste collection service agreement´ with the St. Louis County
government or some other person or entity; (g) Does Paragraph 2 intend to charge that the
(32)
[Accused] was to assure that
for the collection of waste is which St.
The offense charged in the is unknown to the [Accused] and the gravamen of
this offense is centered on or on the status of . It is important for
this Court to note, Veolia established its own so called or arbitrary legal standards for the
of in this criminal case against the advice or consent of the [Accused]. The
[Accused] contends this case or its prosecution of him is for a .
This being the case, it is not sufficient to convict the [Accused] of an
alleged µfailure¶ when others may have conspired to use the [Accused] for illegal purposes,
holding to the fact the [Accused] part of to violate the Constitutions¶
of the United States or Missouri or the St. Louis County¶s Charter or its lawful ordinances made
in pursuance thereof. Thus, the [Accused] is at a loss to determine by what objects of law,
manner, or means he is alleged to have µfailed¶ to do or was to achieve, and/or what he agreed to
do in furtherance of this achievement or its failure. It is also proper for the court to note, the
law] to constitute a violation as charged and such further guesswork would render his defense
Finally, to defend against the Government¶s allegations, the [Accused] anticipates that it
law´. In order to focus the efforts of potential expert witnesses on the acts that will actually be at
issue at trial, the [Accused] must be allowed to know which of his acts will be in dispute. The
[Accused] cannot conceivably marshal evidence in preparation for his defense at trial in a
(33)
meaningful way without knowing the particulars of the ³probable cause´ used or obtained by the
Plaintiff as well as he was to have in effect, including the other requested
information filed in his motion. The surprise and uncertainty that the charging document filed in
this case poses to the [Accused] as he prepares to present his defense in Court unnecessarily and
c
c
c c c
c
c,c
c
The Plaintiff¶s allegations concern the conditions of a certain status of and/or
revolve around
that is to be in effect for waste collection. It is impossible to
defend against the legal elements of what is unknown or make a defense of è
% without
facts or particulars of that was to be for waste collection. Furthermore, the
In contract law, è is an excuse for the nonperformance of duties under a
contract, based on a change in circumstances (or the discovery of preexisting circumstances), the
nonoccurrence of which was an underlying assumption of the contract that makes performance
of the contract literally impossible. For such a defense to be raised performance must not merely
be difficult or unexpectedly costly for one party; there must be no way for it to actually be
accomplished. In addition, this criminal case involves someone¶s accounting standards. There are
general rules and concepts that govern the field of accounting. These general rules²referred to
as basic accounting è è
²form the groundwork on which more detailed,
(34)
complicated, and legalistic accounting rules are based. For example, the Financial Accounting
Standards Board (FASB) uses the basic accounting principles and guidelines as a basis for their
own detailed and comprehensive set of accounting rules and standards. If the government does
not apply honest accounting or insist on honest accounting at regulated institutions (Veolia),
administrative affidavits filed or written statements from potential witnesses made; with the
Plaintiff utilizing a one page #! criminal sheet which fails to make
reference to or even identify or incorporate the four (single page) attached documents.
The [Accused] has written a large number of letters concerning the problems, issues, and
questions to the Plaintiff, its employees and its agent (Veolia ES) in his attempt to figure out
what kind of agreement/contract that St. Louis County government expects him to have ³in
effect´ or as a general matter consistent with the Missouri Constitution or a State statute. The
complainant in this case, Veolia, has informed the [Accused] via their lawyers, that
agreement can exist between the [Accused] and Veolia ES. The reason(s) Veolia would pursue
criminal charges in this case, when they knew or should have known that cannot
exist in accordance with their policy and practiceis beyond legal reasoning or even the court¶s
herein by reference.
form paragraphs having four attached documents, along with a court summons containing only
general allegations not attached to or not incorporated by reference with the Information. One
(35)
document, according to the St. Louis County Health Department; the [Accused] was held to be
Citation, dated April 1, 2009) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. However,
according to Plaintiff¶s court summons the Saint Louis County Counselor¶s Office, holds the
SERVICE AGREEMENT´ (See attached Court Summons). Interestingly, the County Health
violation, whereas the County Counselor¶s Office believes ³Failure to have a«
allegation based on a sworn statement from the prosecutor: ³FAILURE TO HAVE IN EFFECT
specious arguments and deceptively attractive claims for the conceptions of a legalism
environment 0
è
è - whose only common denominator seems
to be that they were necessary for the emergence or existence of a waste management program.
Yet again, and for all intents and purposes, the Waste Management Code, established by
the St. Louis County Council and pursuant to % ±[Authorization for Director to Accept
should be cited as or set forth as: ³FAILURE TO HAVE AGREEMENT FOR
This type of wording attempts to swing the pendulum in the other direction by suggesting that
(36)
other legal requirements and actors are involved, as if its newest legal offspring¶s are not
acceptable, but indeed, improper or insufficient. However, on the other hand, according to §
of the Waste Management Code, the # " #WASTE TO BE
COLLECTED.´ These (5) different allegations for an alleged single violation or ³offense´
requires particularization for a host of reasons, as set forth in this memorandum, excluding or
perhaps noting the " that â language, legal construction or its very
A Bill of Particulars is a proper pre trial request to the Court. ³Bills of Particulars are
defense, avoid double jeopardy, and prevent surprise at trial.´ United States v. Hallock, 941 F.2d
36, 40 (1st Cir.1991); United States v. Leach, 427 F.2d 1107, 1110 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 400
In this case the specious allegations contained in the against the [Accused],
are that he had improperly agreed with or had a disagreement with someone or others or with
person(s), known and unknown, including but not limited to seven possible scenarios listed
understand the current charge or the ³correct charge´ according to the St. Louis County Health
Department and County Counselor¶s Office and County Council, thus the [Accused] will not be
able to prepare his defense and in all probability be surprised at trial. Plaintiff¶s
failed to specify the name of the victim or victims, or the means of the alleged failure, or the
(37)
. If the only thing being alleged against the [Accused] concerns µ then it
certainly cannot be much of a burden for the Plaintiff to state ! the agreement was to take
place, ! it was to take place, ! type of agreement (verbal vs. written) and between !,
including but not limited to, all the required terms and conditions of
. If more
particularity is not provided, a number of defenses that may otherwise be present may be
unavailable to the defense. For example, if this Court granted the [Accused]¶s request, the
[Accused] may be able to show that on the date(s) the agreement is alleged to have taken place or
not taken place, he was elsewhere or the person(s) he established such with are, in
By not providing that information, the entire line of defense is precluded to the
information of where, when and with whom he was to have established such with
or not with. Furthermore, he cannot compel the appearance of necessary witnesses in court,
because, of course, he does not have the requisite information that would enable him to
determine what witnesses he will need. In other words, the pre trial preparation of the case is
simply cannot do adequate pretrial preparation. In short, the attorney¶s constitutional function of
providing an adequate defense for the client is compromised. Again, the [Accused]¶s right
against self incrimination may be compromised. If the information relative to the charge is not
specific he cannot know when he can assert his right against self incrimination and when that
The requested information is also necessary to complete the investigation of the case.
(38)
Otherwise, investigating the case for the defense becomes a practical impossibility. Instead of
concentrating on the people that the government claims were involved with the [Accused] on the
days and/or times that are pertinent, all persons, all days and all times must be investigated, i.e.,
the [Accused] must investigate divers of other persons, known and unknown. How can this be
done in a reasonable manner? The [Accused] does not have the adequate resources nor is there
Without a Bill of Particulars the [Accused] will have no way of knowing, through the
averments in the , or its four supporting documents which of the potential personal
contacts that he had on the potential dates in question are alleged by the government to give rise
to the allegations that are the subject of the criminal charges against him. The [Accused] in this
case argues that the is too vague to sustain a charge based on of
undeclared particulars. Furthermore, various agreements are subject to different agency policies
and practices, with the scope of authorization as to each being articulated in different documents,
different sets of oral instructions, and/or different customs and practices amounting to policies,
proof as to which may need to be marshaled through different witnesses, documents, or tangible
defense.
who¶s agreement he allegedly failed to establish, maintain, or enforce with persons, known or
unknown to the [Prosecution], or what date(s) or what time(s) understanding that ³..Each day a
violation continues after service of written notice to abate such violation shall constitute a
(39)
separate offense«´ pursuant to 607.960 as relative to the alleged criminal conduct, the
[Accused] would have no way to assert a double jeopardy claim. A subsequent prosecution could
be started with exactly the same language as this , allegedly referring to a different
agreement between this [Accused] and the same persons or other persons and the [Accused]
would have no way of differentiating for the Court, that the new prosecution is the same, or for
that matter is different, from the instant one. This would defeat his constitutional right to contest
cc
concerning the specific acts or omissions involved. The charge as written in no way enables the
[Accused] to understand the against him, as guaranteed by
the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution and to protect himself from double jeopardy as
The Plaintiff¶s for all intents and purposes, consists of a single page having
two paragraphs using a set of standardized information boxes. The first paragraph consists of one
sentence having standard non descriptive language used in most government style
The second paragraph consists of two sentences with the first sentence using approximately 32
words to set forth and describe the entire criminal charge made against the [Accused]. The
second sentence of paragraph 2 has a standard warning for failing to appear on said charge. Of
the 49 words used in the second paragraph, only 16 words describe an alleged action or more
(40)
accurately an alleged ³inaction,´ however, only 7 of those words set forth a meaningless ³nature
and cause´ of the accusation against him. These seven words are (listed in bold print):
In this case the Plaintiff¶s gives the [Accused] insufficient notice of the
mentioned, however not the nature of this agreement, or the overt acts he is alleged to have
performed in order to cause or perpetuate the charged alleged against him. Section
³If waste collection service is reasonably available for a premises where waste is
generated, an agreement shall be in effect for the collection of waste generated on the
premises with a waste collection service having waste collection vehicles licensed by the
Director for the collection, transportation, and disposal of waste. It shall be the
responsibility of the property owner and the person generating the waste to assure that an
agreement for the collection of waste is in effect.´
The Plaintiff¶s further fails to track the exact
wording of the relevant portion of the ordinance â with which the [Accused] has been
charged. The Plaintiff¶s alleges, in part: ³The above-named defendant to have
" a "" " for the following location in violation of St.
Louis County Revised Ordinance Section ['«´ However, Section [' simply
states, in part ³If "" " is reasonably available for a premises where waste is
(41)
notwithstanding, nothing in the evolution of this ordinance suggests that the County Counselor¶s
Office foreign adoption of a different view in favor their own failure to follow the ordinance â
as written, properly informs the [Accused] of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him.
and the person generating the waste´ thus the Plaintiff¶s once again fails to track the
exact wording of â or set forth particulars concerning the proximity of the [Accused] to
the relevant events. Such a role played by this exchange in Plaintiff¶s adherence to various
fictions, illegal agreements and future potential charges under â 607.960 is limited to certain
facts of law, i.e, ³..It shall be the responsibility of the property owner and the person generating
the waste to assure that an for the "" of is "«´ Furthermore,
the [Accused] argues ordinance [' fails to give fair warning of the illegal conduct
relevant facts using bald accusations, brought against the [Accused] requiring a person of
common intelligence to guess unnecessarily at its meaning and differ as to its application.
Plaintiff¶s is ferreting out criminal conduct, using conclusory terms that an offense
fails to even state if the ³agreement for the collection of waste´ involves or relates
(42)
è
to mislead the [Accused], rather than to enlighten him of the nature and
Section [Waste to be Collected] of the Waste Management Code uses 78 words
creating a host of special terms and phrases for the understanding of the meaning and use of
language for an innovative account of a law as the practical expression of the will of ³Waste to
be Collected´. The practices of this legal expression to which this passage alludes [Waste to be
Collected] could include the retroactivity of judicial decisions in a case of first impression, even
comes to mind currently. This being the case the [Accused] properly notes that the 78 words
used for its collective expressions and phrases makes no statements that any actions or most
reference to whether the alleged offense of â is a crime of violence, passion, or stealing.
While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime; e.g.,
and other civil law may rank as or as infractions. This in itself
makes the [Accused]¶s request for Bill of Particulars appropriate to permit a defendant to identify
with sufficient particularity the nature of the charge and its accusations against him, thereby
enabling a defendant to prepare for trial, to prevent surprise, and to interpose a plea of double
The [Accused] points out that this is not a case in which ³payments´ and ³services´ were
never delivered, and there is no allegation as such. The Government does not claim that the
[Accused] entered into an agreement with Veolia, just allegedly ³failed to have in effecta waste
collection service agreement´ apparently according to the terms and condition set by the County
(43)
Counselor¶s Office, not of the language in â. As noted by the [Accused], this is not a
case involving phantom procedures, goods, or services to compel a vain act. The [Accused]
needs to know with sufficient particularity the ³nature and cause of the accusation´ against him
setting forth certain applicable and material facts relevant to the issue of the charge.
ccc
c
-
c
c c c
The Plaintiff¶s makes no reference to the four attached ancillary documents.
Three of these documents obfuscate the fact that they have been altered or changed in a violable
way. This becomes visible when compared to the original mailed versions to the [Accused]
address. The [Accused] has identified three of these official documents as (1) Warning Letter, (2)
Notice of Violation, and (3) Notice of Citation, all of which are presented as ^
è
è (hereinafter set forth as #& '´) stated in Ms. Patricia Redington¶s
letter, of June 1, 2009. The fourth document is titled ³Assessment Information´ and the
relevance of this document is unknown at this time. The [Accused] who is well versed in the
application of the law has taken note that ! " +* that specifically
establish a (1) µWarning Letter¶, (2) µNotice of Violation¶, and (3) µNotice of Citation¶ thus, these
& ' were instituted without the force and effect of law, with its alleged violation(s) void of
any criminal penalties or sanctions. The Plaintiff¶s and these & ' are
fundamentally ambiguous and do not adequately explain the [Accused]¶s actions or the criminal
This is evident as Chapter 607 of the Waste Management Code makes no mention of
(44)
these & ' authorizing such government actions. Furthermore, !
pursuant to
&
'that sanctioned or establishedthese & 'This is confirmed, in part, by
the letter from Ms. Frank, Administrative Director of the County Council to the [Accused],
dated, September 1, 2009 regarding 607.900 (³Rulemaking´) in which she stated: ³To date, no
rules or regulations established pursuant to Section of the St. Louis County Waste
Management Code have been filed with the Administrative Director of the County Council.´ See
Exhibit # W-1, (Ms. Frank¶s Letter) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Simply put, NO RULES AND NO LAWS have been established for these & ' or any other
forms or types of
è
è
The [Accused] observed that the (1) ³Warning Letter´ and (2) ³Notice of Violation´
make no mention of ordinances or . The ³Notice of Citation´ does cite
ordinance $ however the words of the actual charge is moderately different from
Plaintiff¶s All three of these & ' are in support of the enforcement of ³trash
district´ or a district hauler¶s agreement with the Plaintiff. However, AUTHORITY can be
granted to establish ³trash districts´ or a district hauler in the unincorporated areas of the County
the majority of voters approving it. To this date no vote has been granted to the voters of
this County or the [Accused] to lawfully establish â- [Designation of Collection Areas
of the Waste Management Code] or be subject to such collection areas. Pursuant to "cc
"./+.* !
!
$!"!! $
"
! ! voters within these trash districts to approve a trash collection
district plan. This kind of debasement or dilution of a Constitutional right to vote has been
created or established through the unlawful actions of the Plaintiff¶s creation and enforcement of
the release of one new discovery document by the Plaintiff is unknown at this time. The
[Accused] observed, as a skilled, educated and experienced retired police officer, is that the
existing witness to the offense or witnesses statements; (2) the existence of a criminal complaint
or a verified complaint filed; (3) known victim or victims identified; (4) investigator or
investigators utilized; (5) customer account records or the [Accused]¶s account information from
Veolia was not provided; (6) a personal affidavit in support of or sworn statements from any
person, except from the Assistant Counselor Molly Chestnut; (7) a preliminary statement that a
(8) facts or documents concerning the [Accused]¶s written statements or letters mailed to
Plaintiff, its employees, officers or Veolia; (9)facts of the severity or seriousness of the violation
(10) facts whether the alleged violation was willful or intentional; (11) facts whether the
[Accused] acted in good faith to avoid or mitigate the violation, or to correct the alleged
violation when contacted; (12) facts whether the respondent has engaged in similar violations in
the past (13) Copies of pertinent reports; or of the ' ; (14) facts of a
specific practice or the service involved in the alleged offense; (15) facts involving the denial of
services or the proper access to a governmental benefit program. For reasons stated herein and
above, the [Accused] has made the requisite showing of ³actual surprise and substantial
prejudice´ required by U.S. Supreme and Circuit Courts precedents for a Bill of Particulars.
c(
³It is axiomatic that a criminal defendant should be given enough information about the
(46)
offense charged so that he may prepare adequately for trial.´ & , 617 F.
Supp. 1024, 1027 (D. Colo. 1985). To the extent a criminal defendant identifies defects in an
government [is] under no obligation to volunteer such information´ unless requested. See
³A bill of particulars serves to inform the defendant of the nature of the charge against
him with sufficient precision to enable him to prepare for trial, to avoid or minimize the danger
of surprise at trial, and to enable him to plead his acquittal or conviction in bar of another
prosecution for the same offense when the indictment is too vague or indefinite.´ United States
v. Hernandez, 299 F.3d 984, 989-90 (8th Cir. 2002). It is well established that in order to show
reversible error from the denial of a motion for a bill of particulars, a defendant must show that
he/she was actually surprised at trial and suffered prejudice from the denial. United States v.
Hernandez, 299 F.3d 984, 989-90. The granting or denial of a bill of particulars lies within the
broad discretion of the trial court. United States v. Hernandez, 299 F.3d 984, 989-90 (8th Cir.
2002); United States v. Maull, 806 F.2d 1340, 1345 (8th Cir. 1986); United States v. Arenal, 768
F.2d 263, 268 (8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Gray, 464 F.2d 632, 635 (8th Cir. 1972). A bill of
particulars, however, is not a tool for discovery and is not to be used to provide detailed
disclosure of the government's evidence. United States v. Wessels, 12 F.3d 746, 750 (8th Cir.
1993). A motion for a bill of particulars should not be granted if the desired information has been
provided through pretrial discovery or in some other acceptable manner. United States v.
Wessels, 12 F.3d 746, 750 (8th Cir. 1993). All of these purposes will be served by a bill of
particulars in this case. All of these purposes or legal standards will be served by a Bill of
Rule 23.04 of the Missouri Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may
direct the filing of a Bill of Particulars upon a Motion by the Defendant. Rule 23.04 states:
(a) The indictment or information shall be in writing signed by the prosecuting attorney, and
filed in the court having jurisdiction of the offense. The indictment shall also be signed by the
foreman of the grand jury.
1. State the name of the defendant if known, or if his name is not known, the defendant may be
designated by any name or description by which he can be identified with reasonable certainty;
2. State plainly, concisely, and definitely the essential facts constituting the offense charged;
3. State the time and place of the offense charged as definitely as can be done;
4. Cite the section of the statutes alleged to have been violated and the section of the statutes
which fixes the penalty or punishment therefor; and
(c) The name of the defendant, if known, shall appear in the caption of an indictment or
information and thereafter the word 'defendant' wherever used in the indictment or information
shall refer to the defendant named in the caption.
(e) All indictments or informations which are substantially consistent with the forms of
indictments or informations which have been approved by this Court shall be deemed to comply
with the requirements of this Rule 23.01(b).
(48)
(f) The names and addresses of all material witnesses for the prosecution except rebuttal
witnesses and witnesses who will appear upon the trial for the production or identification of
public records shall be listed. Additional witnesses may be listed at any time after notice to the
defendant upon order of the court.
(g) A copy of a document may be attached to, and incorporated in, an indictment or information,
by reference.
èè
#
$
"
A defendant should not be deprived of information needed to prepare a defense, simply
because the information might be used by the government as evidence. See United States v.
Moreover, a Motion for Bill of Particulars cannot be denied on the % a defendant
³knows´ what he or she ³did.´ Such a ruling effectively stands the presumption of innocence on
its head, in assuming a defendant has knowledge of his or her own acts, which were in fact
³guilty.´ See United States v. Tanner, 279 F.Supp. 683, 695-696 (D.Del.1971).
In evaluating any motion for a Bill of Particulars, the Court is called upon to make a
³particularized decision´ which takes into account the amount of facts stated in the indictment or
in this case the . See United States v. Thevis, 474 F.Supp. 117, 123 (N.D.Ga. 1979);
It is well settled that ³..when a State opts to act in a field where its action has significant
discretionary elements, it must nonetheless act in accord with the dictates of the Constitution --
and, in particular, in accord with the Due Process Clause«´ Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 401
(1985). Unquestionably, a bill of particulars is not meant as ³a tool for the defense to obtain
detailed disclosure of all evidence held by the government before trial.´
%, 983 F.2d 1369 at 1375 (citations omitted).
(49)
c
$c-
c
c
c c
Plaintiff¶s , its¶ attached documents or the Plaintiff¶s regulated release of 15
discovery documents, delivered on December 28, 2009 has taken the imaginative -- but legally
unsupported leap to conclude that by blurring the legal requirements placed on licensed waste
haulers by St. Louis County; the [Accused] has ³somehow´ surrendered certain Constitutional
rights and is suddenly chargeable under â , [Waste to be Collected] and deemed
conclusions of fact and law are apparent and become self evident when examining Plaintiff¶s
The !
!
appears in the United States Constitution, " c$ " $
"
. It declares, in relevant part: ³..No State shall... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto
Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts«´ Article I, Section 10, of the United States
Constitution contains a list of prohibitions concerning the role of the states in political, monetary,
and economic affairs. The [Accused] has exercised his right to contract, while understanding a
duty to fulfill those obligations under the semblance of a liberty found in the Due Process Clause
The [Accused] also conceives that it is his constitutional duty to µ
è
è è
when
evils arising from such ordinances [607.140, 607.960 and 607.1300] which could be more far
reaching than those that might come to our system of government if he or the judiciary, abandons
their moral or lawful spheres assigned to them by the fundamental law of a Nation, a State or a
(50)
has nothing to do with the right of a majority in a legislative body to embody their opinions in
law, as seen within [607.140, 607.960 and 607.1300]. A Bill of Particulars is therefore necessary
to provide adequate notice concerning this case. Otherwise, the Constitution of the United States
1. Due process, as required by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
2. The effective assistance of counsel, the opportunity to confront any accuser, and the
right to cross-examine all witnesses and a compulsory process are not protected as required by
the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or Article 1, Section 19 of the Missouri
3. The [Accused] is not properly afforded his Fifth Amendment rights to the United
States Constitution or Article 1, Section 10 of the Missouri State Constitution against self
incrimination or to the protection of the double jeopardy clause of the same documents.
A Bill of Particulars, unlike most criminal discovery devices, directly implicates the Sixth
Amendment's guarantee of the Right to make a vigorous and prepared defense in a criminal case.
See United States v. Tanner, è , 279 F.Supp. at 473-74. The Sixth Amendment to the United
States Constitution guarantees that a criminal defendant shall ³
against him; in turn, the Fifth Amendment ensures that no one ^
è
@ @ è è @ è
U.S. Const. Amend. VI.
Interpreting these provisions, the Supreme Court has stressed that due process requires notice of
#
, 287 U.S. 45,
(51)
SIXTH AMENDMENT states: ±
³In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public
trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been
committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses
against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have
the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.´ U.S. Const. Amend. VI.
Î
. The Sixth Amendment, which is applicable to the states through
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, see In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273-74
(1948), guarantees a criminal defendant a fundamental right to be clearly informed of the nature
and cause of the charges against him. In order to determine whether a defendant has received
constitutionally adequate notice, the court looks first to the information. James v. Borg, 24 F.3d
20, 24 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 333 (1994). ³The principal purpose of the information is
to provide the defendant with a description of the charges against him in sufficient detail to
right to be clearly informed of the nature and cause of the charges in order to permit adequate
preparation of a defense.´ Sheppard v. Rees, 909 F.2d 1234, 1236 (9th Cir. 1989). Thus, ³Due
process entitles an accused to know the charges against which he must defend in order to have a
reasonable opportunity to prepare and present a defense and not be taken by surprise at trial.´
Usher v. Gomez, 775 F. Supp. 1308, 1313 (N.D. Cal. 1991), aff'd, 974 F.2d 1344 (1992), cert.
The Sixth Amendment requires that a citizen ³be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation.´ It is a well-settled principle of law that a person needs to know what law or duty
was violated. " , 92 U.S. 542 (1876); èè &, 909 F.2d 1234
(52)
(9th Cir. 1989). The notice provision of the Sixth Amendment, which is applicable to the states
through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, see In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257,
273-74 (1948), guarantees a criminal defendant a fundamental right to be clearly informed of the
nature and cause of the charges against him. In order to determine whether a defendant has
received constitutionally adequate notice, the court looks first to the information. James v. Borg,
24 F.3d 20, 24 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 333 (1994). ³The principal purpose of the
information is to provide the defendant with a description of the charges against him in sufficient
When the charging document lacks sufficient particularity to allow a defendant to prepare
a defense, as in this case, the Defendant's ability to confront adverse witnesses and to use
compulsory process is seriously inhibited, if not irreparably obstructed. Obviously, due process
requires that an accused enjoy the opportunity to defend, including being able to examine
witnesses, offer evidence in defense, and be represented or assisted by a fully prepared trial
counsel. See In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948). Denial of the Right to defend is an error of
constitutional magnitude, requiring proof that the error involved was harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 (1967). Therefore, any judicial
doubt concerning the [Accused]¶s Motion herein must be resolved in favor of disclosure, due to
the fundamental public interest in giving the accused a right to mount a defense. See United
States v. Manetti, è , 323 F.Supp. at 696. #% impairment of the ability to mount a defense
The ! to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of
(53)
FIFTH AMENDMENT states: ±
³No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall
any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation´
The Fifth Amendment, in relevant part, provides that no person ³shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself.´ It has long been held that this prohibition not only
permits a person to refuse to testify against himself at a criminal trial in which he is a defendant,
but also "privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil
or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal
The Fifth Amendment can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative
or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory; and it protects against any disclosures which the
witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other
evidence that might be so used.' Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441, 44-45 ('72).
connection to the Fourteenth Amendment due process requirements, especially when Plaintiff¶s
interference with the right and liberty of the individual to contract, or his liberty interest in the
Beginning with #
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as providing substantive protection to private contracts and
(54)
thus prohibiting a range of social and economic regulation, under what was referred to as
³freedom of contract´.
³All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.´
In , 157 U.S. 160 (1895), the Court, speaking through Justice David
Brewer, offhandedly declared that ³generally speaking, among the inalienable rights of the
citizen is that of the liberty of contract.´ The Supreme Court gradually accepted the notion that
liberty of contract was an enforceable constitutional right under the due process clause. The rule
is an aid to construction and in some instances may be conclusive, but it must yield to more
compelling considerations whenever such considerations exist. The fact that the right involved is
of such a character that it cannot be denied without violating those "fundamental principles of
liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions" (/
which must prevail in determining whether it is embraced within the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
In the present case, a Bill of Particulars is necessary here to afford the [Accused] a full
of the criminal acts, or elements of $all being based on the interpretations of the
prosecutor purporting a µcriminal charge¶ leveled against the [Accused]. To decide otherwise
(55)
c
In order to preserve the [Accused]¶s constitutional rights, as outlined in the Fifth, Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the related section of the Missouri
Constitution, pertinent case law, as well as, that the basis the purpose of a Bill of Particulars is to
which are omitted from the Plaintiff¶s against him and which are necessary to enable
the [Accused] to understand the charge against him (as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to
the Constitution) and to protect him from double jeopardy (as guaranteed by the Fifth
should require the government and the [Prosecution] to produce a written Bill of Particulars as
Respectfully Submitted,
_______________________________
Terry Lee Hinds, ,
438 Leicester Sq Drive
St. Louis, Missouri 63021
Tel# 314-795-3115
Executed 15th day of October, 2010
The above signed certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing, was provided to the
Plaintiff on this 15th day of, October 2010 by U.S. Certified Mail, first class postage prepaid, to:
(56)