URGENT CALL TO ACTION---PLEASE HELP IF YOU CAN! PLEASE ACT NOW!
Please print out this Friend of the Court Motion and send to the listed parties.
BING Steven L. Reed Case Lands in Supreme Court
Breaking----Petitioner Reed ask for help spreading new Motion “The 4th of July” Motion to the United States Court. Yes we need people sending letters to the Justices and need to raise some money to help on expenses or pay an attorney to help.
MUST READ MOTION:
ACTION PLAN Partial:
1. You send letter to S.C. why they should take.
2. Send site and ask others to send letter to Supreme Court
3. Help find an attorney
4. Send media
Please send to: Clerk William Kent Suter
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States,
Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice,
Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice,
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice,
Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice,
Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr., Associate Justice,
Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice,
Elena Kagan, Associate Justice,
Is the City of Springfield hostile to petitions? You decide I speak at 28 and a half minutes right behind a very good speech by attorney Joe Easter. http://cityview.springfieldmo.gov/media/
BREAKING World News
Springfield (MO) A case that has over 380 motions in federal Court now is waiting for review by the United States Supreme Court. Government Attorneys for the City of Springfield Missouri have filed a last ditch effort to stop the motion submitted by Steven L. Reed. Reed says “If you care about 1st Amendment Rights, Right to Petition at all Career Centers nationwide and Wal-Marts, and 14th Amendment, 3rd, 4th, 5th 6th….If you believe the People have the right to effect governmental functioning, Freedom, Justice, Right to Due Process, Government Corruption must be stopped” then you need to read this motion and get involved it is your future and your Country --- not a government owned by the government then read the Motion filed by Petitioner Steven L. Reed.”
Petitioner Reed responds to 3rd City Attorney for Respondent Police Officer Hicks attempt to stop Writ of Certiorari in United States Supreme Court
STATEMENT RELEASED----Steven L. Reed has sent up a request for the United States Supreme Court to review this case. Please take a look at the actual document at:
Petitioner Reed states that the extreme importance of the Free Speech and Constitutional issues is important enough that the “people are asked to send letters requesting the Court to take this case”….
Thanks Steven L. Reed
Notice to this Court and the public this request is for a review of the Interlocutory Appeal and that a final ruling has not been decided by the District Court or the Jury. The reversible errors including judicial errors must be reversed/remanded/corrected to allow for a fair jury trialand proper conclusion of case for Petitioner Reed. Reed has been denied basic due process by the lower court and the appeals courts which never wrote any rulings specific to the denial ofthe interlocutory appeals and whether the court of appeals, “has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power” under Rule 10(a) of this Court’s rules.
…Whether the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, public access, freedom of speech, public access and political association are required for career centers which are formed in each state under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 set up by the United States Congress….
Dear Freedom and Constitutional Supporters:
Please send these sites to people you know.
If you want to help either:
Please join my Facebook at Steven L. Reed Springfield MO
Mailing Address is:
Steven L. reed
1441 S. Estate Ave
Springfield, MO 65804
Notice: Statement Released to the World Community
The case in currently in the 8th Circuit Appeals Court in St. Louis as an interlocutory appeal requesting review of fabrication of evidence. Real evidence is needed to show the Jury. It will be coming back down to the District Court where 290 Motions have been filed and it will be heading to a Jury Trial by the end of this year or the start of next year---Thanks Steven Reed---
Up to the Appeals Court---please see link---thanks!
STATEMENT ISSUED JANUARY 1, 2012
Petitioning is the “Rights of the Citizens” to effect governmental functioning, and it along with liberties is included in the 1st, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th, 15th, and 26th amendments of the Constitution are in peril. The most paramount issue is the fact that our Constitution on the State and Federal level must be adhered to.
In February 2010, I was getting signatures at the Career Center in Springfield for two ballot issues. The property manager showed up and said no to petitioning claiming the sidewalk is private property, and I said “call the police” and a police officer showed up and stated if I did not leave he would arrest me. I read to the officer and several government employees the “CITY OF FLORISSANT. V. JEAN STUSSIE” case. The STUSSIE CASE is the exact same situation as in the instant case where Jean Stussie was Petitioning just as Steven Reed was and she was told to quit doing the action and taken to jail. In Conclusion Ms. Stussie’s conduct of collecting signatures for a petition to put an initiative on the ballot was a clear expression of the type of core political speech that our founding fathers intended to protect by ratifying the Bill of Rights. Because the License Center acts as a public agency and Bianco profits from the performance of a public service on its property, they are state actors for First Amendment purposes. Political expression must be granted the highest deference and protection by the courts. For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted and all charges against Ms. Stussie are ordered dropped.
So I filed a federal lawsuit, that in a year has over 150 motions filed. I ask you to take a look at this very important case by going to: www.allvoices.com/users/StevenL.Reed or e-mail http://mailto:email@example.com
We are at a time when less and less people want to get involved and part of the reason people feel what is the use if government does what ever it wants. In the Interest of Justice and Democracy, Freedom and the Constitution” and the PUBLIC INTEREST please take a look at this case when you can.
Steven L. Reed
1441 S. Estate Ave
Springfield, MO 65804
NEW MOTIONS FILED DECEMBER 27, 2011 Total Motions over 154
DECEMBER 15 MOTIONS put total to 135 in a year!
BREAKING NEWS FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON THE LINE USE IT OR LOSE IT! If you have ever signed a petition and you believe in Freedom please read this! The picture above is Steven Reed Petitioning last year at the Library Center in Springfield, Missouri.
Springfield (Mo) Steven Reed of Springfield has announced that a federal case was filed back in December of last year. The Career Center Job Council of the Ozarks is supported and ran by the state and federal taxpayer’s money. The problem is the City of Springfield says they will not allow Petitioning or Freedom of Speech on the side walk at the entrance to the Career Center. The notices posted at the entrance quote city code saying no soliciting on Private Property.
Reed is asking citizens to: Please help spread to their family, friends, neighbors and local and national media. “The case concerns violations of the 1st and 14th Amendments to the United States and Missouri Constitutions and Reed says he will not stand by and watch city of Springfield walk all over the Constitution”. Over 120 Motions have been filed in District Court already as the case moves towards a jury trial. Steven Reed has announced that the latest motion notifies the Court that the City of Springfield is tangled up in obstruction of justice by allowing witness and evidence tampering.
To find out more and to see the complaint and MANY OF REED'S MOTIONS please Google: federalcasefreedomofspeech obstruction of justice Steven L. Reed
Or the Direct Link is:
Please join his facebook page: Steven L. Reed Springfield
THANKS SO MUCH!
NEW NOV. 23, 2011
COMES NOW Pro Se Plaintiff Steven L. Reed, by and through counsel of record, and, pursuant to Rule 36, submits the following Requests for Admissions directed to Defendant Police Officer Thomas Hicks. Defendant shall have up to thirty days to respond to same. Defendant must admit or deny each numbered request. Failure to admit an item or fact that is true may result in Defendant paying the costs of Plaintiff proving said fact including his attorneys’ fees.
For purposes of your responses to these Interrogatories, the following definitions shall apply:
A. Pro Se Plaintiff Steven L. Reed is referred to as Plaintiff Reed
1. Defendant Police Officer Thomas Hicks followed Plaintiff Reed to his car where Plaintiff Reed got the Stussie Legal Brief and Plaintiff said he was going to read it to the managers including Brian Cruse and Defendant. Defendant Hicks followed Reed to his car and said Plaintiff could not do that because “they said they do not want Plaintiff coming back again ever.”
2. There were no postings against soliciting or petitioning posted at the Missouri Career Center and Defendant Police Officer Thomas Hicks quoted no ordinance or law to Plaintiff Reed and said nothing about any complaints except that of property manager Brian Cruse.
3. Training procedures require that when confronted with a possible “Constitutional Violation of Rights” Defendant Police Officer Thomas Hicks would contact a superior (sergeant, lieutenant), or prosecutor to ascertain the proper process under the law of how to proceed and Defendant Police Officer Thomas has no proof he did that at the Missouri Career Center.
4. In question #20 of Defendant Hicks questions to Plaintiff Reed it states “Plaintiff was allowed, by Defendant Hicks, to enter the Missouri Career Center and read a decision of an associate circuit court judge…” Defendant Hicks thereby had control of Plaintiff Reed’s movement and actions thereby had him under arrest.
5. Defendant Police Officer Thomas Hicks and City Employees are told they can not sign petitions and that demand is followed by Defendant Police Officer Thomas Hicks and he has never signed a petition and thereby he really does not know what it feels like to be part of the process of putting issues on the ballot so people can vote on them.
6. Defendant Police officer Thomas Hicks is familiar with the United States and Missouri Constitutions especially with the rights spelled out concerning redress of grievances and the right to petition and thereby effect governmental functioning since he swore to uphold those principles when hired as a Springfield Police Officer.
7. Defendant Police Officer Thomas Hicks has been paid to be in or out of uniform for the private sector security.
8. Defendant Police Officer Thomas Hicks told/promised Plaintiff Reed that he would write an incident report since Reed insisted he wanted it in writing and Defendant Hicks said he would write a police report only if Reed did not leave he would be arrested.
9. Defendant Police Officer Thomas Hicks says his car video shuts off with the ignition. Yet Cruiser Videos are used to protect the public but most importantly to protect the police officers and one example would be if an officer is incapacitated the video may be the only witness to the crime.
10. Defendant Hicks in a small claims hearing when asked if he remembered talking with Plaintiff Reed said who could even forget that and laughed. Plaintiff Reed then asked him if it was proper thing to do in open court to make fun of someone under oath and Defendant Hicks said no.
11. Defendant Police Officer Thomas Hicks agrees that 1st Amendment Rights apply at a Government Sponsored Venue even if it is not Government Property.
12. Public Access is guaranteed under the United States and Missouri Constitutions.
13. To narrow the Public Access, so narrow to exclude, a place as reasonably Public as an unemployment/employment office would make future outcomes unknowable.
Cruse had called the police a week earlier concerning petitioning at the License Bureau located a few doors down in the same shopping center.
16. Defendant Police Officer Thomas Hicks has received more training on the environment than constitutional rights issues.
week later and the city ordinance see EXHIBIT #1 states it can not be used contrary to State or Federal Constitutions.
18. Defendant Hicks has admitted in pleadings in the instant case that the Missouri Career Center receives over 3 million dollars a year in tax payer monies and that requires allowing public access as allowed by United States and Missouri Constitutions.
19. Defendant Police Officer Thomas Hicks called a Superior in connection to the incident at the Missouri Career Center while on site (after leaving, or in some other time about an actual event), concerning a constitutional issue and Defendant Hicks has the name of that person.
20. Defendant Police Officer Thomas Hicks understands the views, ideas, and conversations are necessary for a healthy society to participate in progress and acceptance of public conscience and conflicts.
21. Defendant Hicks agrees with Brian Cruse that the sidewalk is owned by the owners of Glen
22. Defendant Hicks had a legal duty of due diligence once Plaintiff Reed read the Stussie case to write a complete police report since a constitutional issue was involved therefore Defendant Hicks committed a breach of contract and duty in his official capacity.
23. Defendant Hicks has read the inter-office memo, ( included in the official complaint accepted from Plaintiff Reed by Court September 2, 2011), written by Lyndel Porterfield Assistant City Attorney to Gordon Loveland Police Chief concerning Public Access” and Free Speech and rules of conduct by officers.
24. Defendant Hicks agrees with an injunction allowing petitioning and voter registration at the Missouri Career Center in Springfield until this case is finished.
25. Defendant Hicks has heard about or read in the News-Leader about Plaintiff being arrested for handing out “Draft Claire” for Governor.
26. Defendant Hicks understands that many of Plaintiff Reed’s community efforts (from promoting rail passenger service, technology park, and others), from 1992 to present were mostly volunteer efforts Plaintiff Reed paid for.
27. Defendant Hicks promised Plaintiff Reed he would write an incident report that would detail the denial of constitutional rights.
28. Defendant Hicks is aware that under the law police car videos, 911 calls, and police reports are required to be kept forever.
29. Defendant Hicks believes that the Chief of Police Paul Williams job duties include making sure all police officers in Springfield Missouri are properly trained on the proper legal ways to handle constitutional rights issues when dealing with the public since policemen are officers of the law and are duty-bound to uphold its practices.
30. Defendant Hicks believes City Attorney Dan Wichmer is the person who is responsible for making sure the law is followed concerning “Public Access” and Constitutional Issues in dealings of Police with the Public at Large.
31. Defendant Hicks understands the “Controlling Law” is the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 created and controls the Missouri Career Center of Springfield, Missouri.
32. Defendant Hicks checked with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights which is now in the Missouri Career Center in Springfield about how to handle Public Access Issues.
33. Defendant Hicks understands 7 County Leaders, (CHIEF ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM Christian County, Dallas County Greene County, Polk County, Stone County, Taney County, Webster County, Note: Jim Viebrock serves as the Chairman at present), that help run the Missouri Career Center that represents over a have million Citizens.
33. Defendant Hicks believes it should be easy to locate the recording of the 911 call made concerning the request for him to go to the Missouri Career Center and should only take a day or so to get.
34. Defendant Hicks heard Judge Hass say in open court that his Small Claims Court can not hear Constitutional Issues.
35. Defendant Hicks has read the Federal and Missouri Constitutions, especially the Amendments to the Federal Constitution which are some of the primary basis for the lawsuit against him.
36. Defendant Hicks has read the 1st, 10th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 13th, 14, 15th and 26th Amendments to the Constitution that are the foundation of many of the charges against him.
37. Defendant Hicks is aware the City of Springfield lost a case in Greene County Court, (see EXHIBIT #2), since it was ruled that even though Wal-Mart is on private property Jean Stussie had the right to petition since it is the same as a Public Square because so many people go there and since the Missouri Career Center has many members of the community who have to go there to do unemployment checks and look for jobs it is clearly in the realm of a Public Square.
38. Defendant Hicks says in official pleadings to the Court that he does not remember what Plaintiff Reed read which was the Stussie V. Florissant order at the entrance to the Missouri Career Center and that shows deliberate indifference.
39. Defendant Hicks understands that Ms. Julie Gibson is the Director of the State Workforce Development which oversees and implements the Workforce Development Act of 1998 at the Missouri Career Center in Springfield, MO.
40. Defendant Hicks believes the Citizens right to petition for redress of grievances and effect governmental functioning is the most basis premise of Democracy.
41. Defendant Hicks believes the State of Missouri Attorney General website statement: “A crime committed against a person violates state law and thus is a crime against the state.”
42. Defendant Hicks agrees with the courts ruling in City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989): “The Court decided that a “failure to train” can be a basis for liability if the failure to train reflects the government’s “deliberate” or “conscious” choice. If...