Select Page
Below is a typed updated version of a handwritten document I received in the mail from Jeff Weinhaus titled:  Attachment for Form 40–29.15 Proceeding (Ineffective Counsel).  If you prefer you may download this letter or read it in scrib’d.  Just scroll down below this document.
                                                                                       Attachment for Form 40
                                                                               29.15 Proceeding

(Ineffective Counsel)
IneffectiveIncompetent Assistance of Counsel–Hugh Eastwood hired counsel paid over seven thousand dollars ($7,000) from funds raised on internet failed to provide adequate (sic) legal defense.  His performance was so subpar that in effect I was denied legal counsel.  To wit:
1.      Failed to attack original search warrant issued 8/22/12 warrant was defective-absent probable cause-smell of marijuana to seize computers-cameras (printing press).  P.A. Parks notarized own signature.  Judge Hoven, P.A. Parks, and Sgt. H.J. Folsom (fired from MHP) failed to notify local Sheriff upon application breaking MO R.S. 043.200 Local Sheriff was not present upon execution of said illegal/unlawful search warrant.  Failed to summon Sheriff Toelke to testify to jury.  Eastwood knew:
a.       What Sheriff would have testified to
b.      Would have aided defense
c.       Sheriff was available and in Court-Eastwood’s failure effectively denied movant due process-Article 1, Sec. 10 Mo. Const. Article 1, Sec. 14 U.S. Const.

2.      Failed to renew Motion to Quash Grand Jury Indictment-“Folsom lied to Grand Jury”-about resisting arrest charge and Grand Jury indicted movant for “attempting to assault Sgt. Folsom and Mertens “by shooting them.”
        No evidence movant shot or shot at Troopers.  No transcript of alleged Grand Jury proceeding 11/28/12, violating Missouri Open Court Records Statute.  Eastwood’s failure to attack Grand Jury indictment denied movant due process Article 1, Sec. 10 Missouri Const. Article 1, Sec. 14 U.S. Const. Article 1, Sec. 6-no counsel afforded.

3.      Eastwood failed to summon FBI agents Cunningham and Maraschuk who witnessed the assault on movant.  Even though Eastwood knew after depositions were taken on 7/23/13 that the Special Federal Agents had an unencumbered view of movant’s right side, (which Troopers testified-TestiLied that movant was “attempting to draw” from) they saw no weapon or any attempt to draw said weapon.

Eastwood willfully-maliciously chose not to summon FBI knowing:
a.       What they would have testified to
b.      It would have aided in movant’s defense
c.       Agents were present in courtroom, ready, willing, and able to testify.  Agent’s testimony was so devastating to prosecution’s case they were removed from P.A. witness list.  Eastwood was asked to call agents to testify, which he refused, by movant at trial.  This egregious, unethical conduct of Eastwood is paramount to movant being falsely convicted and imprisoned for the last nine hundred and twelve (912) days.  FBI agents would have clearly impeached Troopers testimony of what side gun was on.  Eastwood’s failure rises to suborning of perjury.

4.      Eastwood failure to introduce any exhibits is proof positive that he willfully with malice aforethought attempted to sabotage movant’s defense.  He should have introduced:
a.       Still shot showing holstered weapon on movant’s “left” front hip, confirming FBI depositions/initial reports that gun was out of view and not on “right” side.  (See Supplemental Legal File ED100807)
b.      Eastwood also failed to introduce series of still shots taken from watch-camera video that showed Cpr. Mertens approaching movant at high ready gun drawn pointed down at ground unalarmed contradicting Troopers claim I was attempting to “draw,” before I (movant) was shot four (4) times.

5.      Eastwood failed to summon/call audio/video expert who came forward on his own accord, knowing that Jim Byrne would have testified-rebutting prosecution’s claim that I (movant) said “you are going to have to shoot me man!”  Byrne was/would have testified that movant said “you don’t have to shoot me man.”  Byrne had also rigged watch camera  to go live clearing up confusion to how watch video worked.  Byrne was ready, willing, and able to testify and was in Eastwood’s office the day before trial, insisting he be summoned.  Eastwood refused!

6.      Eastwood failed to ask for mistrial after only evidence for tampering charge, that was dismissed, the 8/16/12 video was played to jury repeatedly at trial tainting the jury.  Resisting arrest charge was also dismissed begging the question why was movant assaulted if I was not resisting?

7.      Eastwood allowed five (5) of twelve (12) Jurors to be seated despite their admission they had friends and family in Law Enforcement.  Jury forepersons daughter had drug charges pending.  Ms. Sieve claimed that she did not know who/where charges were pending.

8.      Eastwood also acted unethically and with malice aforethought by refusing to represent movant in an order of protection hearing held 9/27/13 in which movant’s estranged-ex-wife who hired Eastwood on behalf of movant before “divorce,” claimed that movant was harassing and stalking her despite being “locked up.”
Judy Kropf met Eastwood on 9/26/13 and gave him two hundred and fifty dollars ($250).  Eastwood called her to testify as to character of movant during sentencing phase of trial.  Kropf testified to the ten (10) woman jury that movant was verbally abusive.  Foreman Sieve also had domestic violence case she admitted to in voir dire.  This obviously tainted Jury to give maximum sentence to movant of thirty (30) years.  Never mind I was/am only injured party.
There are other claims as well, too numerous to mention.  Therefore, for good cause shown, it is clear, compelling, and evident that Hugh Eastwood was so ineffective that one can only surmise that his performance was ineffective on purpose!  How else would have a jury convicted movant of “assaulted Sgt. Folsom by shooting him” when no evidence was presented to the jury that I shot anyone and no injury, loss, or harm had befallen anyone but movant.

I doubt that there has ever been a clearer case of “manifest injustice” in the history of American Jurisprudence!

                                                              Attachment for Form 40
                                                                    29.15 Proceeding
                                                To Supplement #14—“Constitutional Claims”

            Herein are the “Constitutional Claims” in the matter 12AB-CR02409-01
1.      Article 1, Sec. 2 Mo. Const. Equal rights and opportunity under the law.  Movant has been denied equal protection, rights, and opportunity.  While in cusody movant has/is being denied equal opportunity to defend himself.
While the Attorney General has unfettered internet-e-mail-instant communication, cell-phone-computer word processing capabilities and time to use these “tools,” movant has a legal pad and a pen, less than four (4) hours a week to go to the law library where there is a thirty (30) year old typewriter.  Is that equal Justice?
Movant was acquitted of assault on Cpr. Mertens and resisting arrest.  Mertens admits that he shot me twice, though he is obviously “above the law” since he has not been charged or arrested and still on the payroll of Missouri tax-paying citizens.
Movant has paid over two hundred dollars ($200) in sales tax since I have been in prison!  More equal Justice?
Assault on a Law Enforcement Officer is twice the penalty as simple assault thus the Police are an obviously protected class-(Equal Justice or Just-Us? 9-11) above the law.  Of course that is the way the Show-Me State does “Business.”
Compare the State of Missouri with Maryland.  One hundred (100) days, no indictment, Ferguson burns as the Guard pulls out of town.  One (1) day, six (6) charged, Baltimore citizens dance in the streets.  Justice For All!
The welfare of the People is the Supreme Law of this State.  The organic point and purpose of our Government is to protect and maintain our God given rights of Life and Liberty.  When it fails to do so it has failed its chief design.
In not only this instant case but well over a dozen other matters, citizens of this State have been slain by Police.  Not one (1) officer of the “law” has even been charged.
The only legit justification for violence is in response to violence.  “Fearing for one’s life” is nothing more than a “cop-out” and a license to kill.  “Nothing can destroy a Government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of their own existence.”  Tom Clark “The Tyranny of Good Intentions.”

2.      Art. 1, Sec. 14 Mo. Const.  “Justice shall not be for sale, denial, or delay.”  On 9/7/12 I attempted to file a Writ of Replevin with the Missouri Supreme Court concerning the return of movant’s “printing press.”  For more than two (2) weeks I could not find an attorney to take up this matter.  On Friday, 9/7/12 I faxed the Writ to the clerk of the Supreme Court.
Unknown to movant, this “writ” was rejected by Mo. S.C. (though a copy was given to the Missouri Fusion Center) for lack of a seventy dollar ($70.00) filing fee.  Trooper Folsom on 9/11/12 called movant and told me that he had been “ordered” by the Court to return my “equipment.”  Despite my phone number and e-mail were on filing, I was not notified of the rejection, a letter arrived the afternoon of 9/11/12
Movant believes any filing fee in search of “Justice” would be selling Justice.

Denial-Eight points of appeal (ED100807) were presented to the Eastern District.  The majority of the points, along with the ineffective counsel claims were presented at sentencing 1/25/13.  Allocution was not granted by the trial court in addition to the ineffective counsel claims.  These facts were Denied and Ignored by the trial court.  On appeal, in an unpublished memo, the Eastern District once again Denied, thus Delaying.
            All eight (8) points of appeal, including the fact that movant was actually convicted of “assaulted Sgt. Folsom by shooting him” despite the fact that Supreme Court rules were not followed by Respondent (Attorney Gen) the appeals court would not grant rehearing and Missouri Supreme Court would not take up matter, thus Denying and Delaying Justice.
Obviously Justice Russell’s “State of the Judiciary Address 1-22/14” promise to support and defend our Constitution and treat everyone with fairness, dignity, and respect” is an out-right lie!

I have been held “hostage” for over nine hundred (900) days by the State of Missouri.  Justice delayed is Justice denied!

3.      Art. 1, Sec. 10 Mo. Const.  Due Process:  Movant has been denied “due process” throughout this matter.  The original search warrant issued on 8/22/12 was illegal in violation of RSMO 043.200.  It was without probable cause which was the smell of marijuana, though the warrant was to seize the computers and cameras used to produce movant’s newsletter and post videos on You Tube.
P.A. Parks notarized his own signature.  P.A. Parks, Judge Hoven, and Trooper Folsom failed to notify the local Sheriff upon application, in violation of RSMO 043.200 nor was the Sheriff present upon execution of said Illegal, Unlawful Search Warrant.
A second warrant issued on 8/24/12 in Cole County to “search” the illegally seized computers was also without the knowledge of the Cole County Sheriff.  Numerous other Due Process claims are detailed in Appellant’s Brief (ED100807).
Due Process was also denied in movant’s Motion to Dismiss-Quash Grand Jury Indictment.  (See Legal File Vol. I P. 36-48 ED100807)

It is clear, obvious, and evident Due Process has/is being denied movant.

4.      Art. 1, Sec. 16 Mo. Const. Willful Misconduct in Public Office:  P.A. Robert Parks III Franklin County has willfully engaged in egregious unethical practices since he applied for the 8/22/12 search warrant.  There was no probable cause to seize the computers and cameras used to produce a publication highly critical of his “Brothers in the Law.”  Are we to believe the source of the smell of marijuana was the computers (printing press)?
Mr. Parks actually notarized his own signature.  Furthermore, P.A. Parks should have known the statute requirements 043.200 RSMO. (Ignorance of the Law is no excuse)  Neither, he, Judge Hoven, nor Trooper Folsom notified the Sheriff, ignorance or a blatant disregard for the “Law?”
On 9/11/12 Parks issues an “arrest” warrant based on the illegal warrant (search).  Despite morphine not being listed as items to be seized, the arrest (Death) warrant was for possession of morphine, marijuana, and the tampering with Judge Parker “charge.”
Within twenty four (24) hours of the attempt on my life, P.A. Parks knew that the Troopers account of the shooting did not match the audio account which my ex-wife posted on Facebook prompting the Highway Patrol to seize the computer it was recorded on.
In addition to the Troopers lying about my “attempt” to draw, Folsom also claimed he told me “to remove my hand off the gun.”  Both Troopers claim they told me about “papers to sign” concerning the return of my computers.
Five (5) eye-witnesses, including two (2) Federal FBI Agents made no mention of an “attempt to draw.”  All of them saw me fall to the ground hands empty!  Instead of charging Folsom and Mertens with “attempted murder” on 11/1/12 Parks charged me with “attempted murder” as well as A.C.A. and “resisting arrest.”  The only evidence “probable cause” was the Trooper’s testimony already known to be inaccurate, a classic case of suborning perjury.
Parks to this day has willfully engaged in obstructing Justice and conspiracy to falsely imprison.  It is the pattern and practice of the “officers of the Court” in this case to ignore exculpatory evidence of movant’s innocence.
All of the following are well aware of the facts of this case which are clearly against the logic of circumstances before this Court, which are so absurd, arbitrary, and unreasonable as to shock the sense of Justice and not only indicate a lack of careful consideration but an on-going conspiracy to deprive movant of his Life, Liberty, and Enjoinment of the Gains of his Industry.
P.A. Parks’ co-conspirators are Judge Gael Wood, Judge David Hoven, Judge Keith Sutherland, Attorney Chris Kostner, Asst. A.G. Shaun Mackelprang, Appeals Judges, Cohen, Richter, and Clayton, Missouri Supreme Court Judges Teitleman, Breckenridge, Draper, Fisher, Russell, Stith, Wilson.  All are in violation of Art. 1, Sec. 16 Mo. Const. thus trespassing….

Art. 1, Sec. 23 Mo. Const. Sgt. Folsom on 9/11/12 questioned my right to have a firearm.  See video!

Art. 1, Sec. 18-Right to Counsel.  See ineffective counsel claim.  Eastwood was obviously compromised (sic).  The 29.15 Proceeding I understand prohibits me from the opportunity to appear and defend my claims.  This is unconstitutional as well.

Above are the State Constitutional claims.  The Federal are 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 14.  The D.O.J. Civil Rights Unit in D.C. is aware and opened an investigation.


Download File

Below is a typed version of a handwritten document I received in the mail from Jeff Weinhaus titled:  Ineffective Counsel.  If you prefer you may download this letter or read it in scrib’d.  Just scroll to the bottom of this page.

Ineffective Counsel Witness Formula-St. – Franklin 181 S.W.3d 611W.D. 2006
Witness counsel failed to call:
The following witnesses were taken off State’s witness list after their depositions were taken on 7/23/2013.

FBI agents Cunningham & Maruschak
 “Testify to the fact there was no weapon on right side.”
1.     ID known
2.     Testimony (Deposition)
3.     Counsel informed
4.     Areuts N Covet
5.     Viable defense-contradicts gun was on right side.

Sheriff Gary Toelke-Franklin County
“To the fact he was NOT notified by MSHP-Folsom upon applicant of search warrant.” 043.200 RSMO
1.     ID
2.     Letter
3.     Informed
4.     In courtroom
5.     Viable defense

Wrote letter to defendant stating he was not notified upon application of search warrant.  Folsom claimed that he contacted FCSD Major-name unknown to get assistance to serve arrest warrant 9/11/2012.  Folsom claimed that FCSD said they were too busy.

Who was this Major and did they really refuse to assist in arrest?  Did FBI contact Sheriff 9/11/2012?  When did Folsom contact Sheriff & Subke to apologize for not notifying him in a timely manner? (P. 279 Trial transcripts-10/9/2013)

Sgt. Baur-MSHP DDCC Troop C
1.     ID
2.     9/12/2012 Report
3.     Informed
4.     Sgt. Summoned
5.     Viable defense
     What did he mean in audio transmission “they’re” messing with Weinhaus again?  And radioman Smith’s reply “maybe he learned his lesson this time?”

Took report from Folsom 9/11/2012-scene walk through as well as Mertens testify to contents.

Jim Byrne-Defense-Computer Analyst Expert
1.     ID
2.     Voice/watch
3.     Informed
4.     Summoned
5.     Defense
“Analyzed watch video-had watch rigged to go live.”  He concluded that defendant said “you do not have to shoot me man” as opposed to “you are going to have to shoot me.”  ( )

1.     Did not file motion to quash search warrant (s).
A.   8/22/2012 s.w. obtained absent probable cause-what does smell of marijuana have to do with seizing computers, cameras, in effect “printing press?”  P.A. Parks notarized his own signature and in violation of RSMO 043.200 Sheriff was not notified of upon application by either Sgt. Folsom, P.A. Parks, or Judge Hoven.
B.   Did not notify Cole County Sheriff on 8/24/2012 about s.w. obtained 8/24/2012 to search computers.
C.   MSHP did not notify Cole County Sheriff 3/25/2013 to search watch.  Three (3) warrants-Sheriff never notified.

2.     Did not renew Motion to Quash Indictment that was obtained by false or fraudulent testimony.  There is no transcript of alleged “Grand Jury” held 11/28/2012 in open court violating “Court of Record” statute thus depriving the defendant of preliminary hearing and due process.  Not guilty of resisting arrest.

3.     Deficient counsel-Failed to challenge Prosecution substitute Information in Lieu of Indictment filed 9/12/2013.  Information was changed from “attempted to cause serious physical injury, kill to him (Sgt. Folsom) by shooting him” to “attempted to cause serious physical injury or kill by trying to draw a weapon to shoot at Sgt. Folsom” to wit this change would not rise to Class A “attempt to assault-kill” requires
A.   Specific intent
B.   Substantial step-State v. Mann 129 S.W. 3d 462 MO ADD SD 04

State v. McAllister 399 S.W. 3d 518 MO ADD 2013.

     In addition, in the instant case State v. Weinhaus this change resulted in great confusion to not only the jury, but the Court, Prosecution, as well as Defense.  Written instruction #8 (P. 178 Legal File) reads not “trying to draw a weapon” but “by shooting him.”

     To add to the confusion, Instruction #9  (P. 179 Legal File) “First that Defendant committed the offense of ASSAULT of a law enforcement officer in the first degree as submitted in instruction #8.”

     Instruction #12 has definition of “attempt” (P. 182 Legal File) Jury asked for definition of assault in the 1st degree (P. 194 Legal File).

Instruction #18 as to Count IV-You have found the defendant guilty of “assault” of a law enforcement officer in the first degree (P. 188 Legal File) as submitted in Instruction #8.

Judge Sutherland told the jury that Instruction #8 “The Defendant Attempted to cause serious physical injury to Sgt. Folsom by trying to draw a weapon to shoot him.”  (P. 609 Trial Transcript 10/10/2013)

“As to Count IV, we the jury, find the Defendant guilty of assault in the first degree as submitted in Instruction #8.”  (Verdict P. 197 Legal File)

     The only person assaulted (shot 4 {four} times) 9/11/2012 was the Defendant, not Sgt. Folsom!  Insanity!

“There is nothing more terrifying than ignorance in action.”

By the instructions authored by the State, reviewed by the Defense, and put forth to the Jury by the “Honorable Court” Defendant Weinhaus has been convicted by the Jury of assault of a law enforcement officer in the first degree by shooting him.  WHO WAS THE ONLY ONE SHOT ON 9/11/2012?  WHO WAS THE ONLY ONE ASSAULTED AND GRAVELY WOUNDED?( )

Counsel was obviously, clearly, and evidently not prepared within requisite range of competence, thus falling below an objective standard of reasonableness.  These plain errors seriously affected the outcome of the trial.

     Thus Prima Facia evidence is non-existent to sustain this false conviction.  A massive manifest injustice to say the least and a clear fraud upon the Court in the 1st Degree!

4.     Conflict of Interest-Counsel failed to advocate the Defendant’s theory of the case.  On 9/27/2013 an “order of protection hearing” was held before Judge David Hoven (who issued illegal search warrant-8/22/2012, illegal arrest warrant-9/11/2012, and Prelim. Hearing-11/1/2012).

     Defendant’s estranged ex-wife (divorced 5/17/2013 which Defendant was not taken to on order of the Court Judge Gael Williams) filed for an “order of protection” on 9/16/2013.  She maintained that Defendant was harassing and stalking her while Defendant was confined in jail.  Defendant requested that counsel defend his interest in this matter.  Defendant theorized that this “order of protection” was solely designed to prejudice the jury in the upcoming “criminal” trial set for 10/8/2013.

     On 9/26/2013 “Kropf-Weinhaus” gave $250.00 to counsel Eastwood, who was well aware of the pending “hearing” set for the next day.  Defendant asked counsel to talk to “Kropf-Weinhaus” out of proceeding or at least delay the hearing until after the criminal case.

     On 4/26/2013 “Kropf-Weinhaus” retained Eastwood on behalf of the Defendant with a $6,500.00 payment.  She had an ongoing interest and information in the criminal case, in preparation for trial.

     Despite the fact that Defendant was in jail and no injury, loss, or harm had befallen “Kropf-Weinhaus” Judge Hoven entered “an order of protection” on 9/27/2013.  This appeared on CaseNet and prejudiced the 10 (ten) woman jury in the criminal and penalty phase of the 10/8/2013 criminal trial.

     Counsel Eastwood actually called “Kropf-Weinhaus” as the only “character” witness at the penalty phase of the trial.  Ironically, Jury Foreman Krista Sieve had been a victim of domestic violence.  “Kropf-Weinhaus” testified to the 10 (ten) woman jury that Defendant had been “verbally abusive to her in his letters.”  She refused to take any phone calls.  (P. 672 Trial Transcripts 10/10/2013)

     Why she opened and read the letters is beyond comprehension.  Could this be the reason why the jury found Defendant guilty and recommended a 63 (sixty-three) year sentence, despite the fact that Defendant’s actions NEVER caused any injury, loss, or harm to the Troopers or “Kropf-Weinhaus?”

FYI- Kropf-Weinhaus came to the trial all 3 (three) days with her live-in boyfriend, and to the 9/27/2013 hearing!

Serious errors deprived Defendant of a fair trial.  Including, but not limited to:
     Jury selection:  20 (twenty) out of the 70 (seventy) Jurors in the pool had relatives and/or friends that were admitted to, in law enforcement.

     5 (five) of the 12 (twelve) seated were friendly to law enforcement.  Should they not have been struck for cause?

     Krista Sieve, former paramedic “9/11/2012” (prejudiced by Defendant’s actions on way to air-evac 9/11/2012 after shooting –See reports-Discovery

Current Nurse Sieve ended up as the foreperson of the jury despite, in voir dire she admitted that her daughter was/is a Defendant in a “drug case.”  “She did not have a problem with the police but with her daughter.”  She also went on to claim that she did not know who was prosecuting her daughter’s case.  She was also a victim of domestic violence.  (P. 62 Transcripts Vol. 1 10/8/2013)  (P. 42 Transcripts Vol. 1 10/8/2013 & P. 110 Transcripts Vol. 1 10/9/2013)

     She went on to explain her pill placement theory and her expertise on pain management as a nurse.  P.A. Parks used her analogy in closing arguments.

     Furthermore, Asst. P.A., Eastwood corrected his “Boss”mistaken I.D. of Juror #22,  (P. 130 Transcripts Vol. 1 10/8/2013) the one juror I needed!

     Was there no cause to strike?  It is clear, obvious, and evident that representation was so inadequate and deficient that it has denied Defendant right to counsel.  Representation so far has been negligent to suppress evidence and raise legal issues.

     Now we turn our attention to FAILED TO INTRODUCE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE that clearly demonstrates that their performance was below an objective standard of professional conduct.  THEIR INCOMPETENCE IS CHRONIC.

5.     A. At trial, in cross examination of Sgt. H.J. Folsom, counsel failed to question Sgt. Folsom’s alleged command for Defendant Weinhaus “to get his hand off the gun.”  Eastwood got, oh, so close to asking the BIG Question (P. 44 Legal File) but failed to do so. (P. 325 Trans. 10/9/2013).  Defendant insisted that counsel recall Folsom for defense.  “They” refused and ridiculed Defendant!

     After depositions 6/6/2013, counsel was made aware of this alleged command by Folsom both verbally and in writing.  Eastwood also failed to question Cpr. Mertens, as well as Perry Smith, Hwy Patrol investigator to the veracity of this command.  This critical command was crucial to Folsom’s credibility.  IT WAS THE KEY ISSUE IN THIS TRIAL.  How could counsel miss this?

NOTE:  It was also in missing motions to dismiss from Legal File.  Eastwood was/is well aware of this statement (command).  P.A. Parks and Judge know, as well as Bill Miller, Sheriff Toelke, H.J. Folsom, Cpr. Mertens, and Governor Nixon).

B.   Failed to question Folsom further about his statement “Jeff, I got your computers here.”  Did not ask Cpr. Mertens or Investigator Perry Smith as to the veracity of this statement (P. 44 Legal File, P. 302 Trial Transcript 10/9/2013.

     Neither one of these statements are heard on either recording made by Defendant 9/11/2012.  One of over a dozen lies, errors, and omissions by Sgt. Folsom and Cpr. Mertens.

     The only testimony that Weinhaus “attempted” to draw his lawfully carried, legally owned firearm was from the assaulters of Defendant Weinhaus.  It was demonstrated to the Court, P.A., and Defense the “Troopers” were untruthful in their reports, depositions, and trial testimony.  Direct evidence shows that the only one suffering injury, loss, and harm was and still is Defendant!

C.   Failed to question Folsom about what holster the weapon was in on 8/22/2012 when the illegal search warrant was executed at the Piney Park home office.  In his interview with investigator Perry Smith on 9/12/2012 maintains the weapon was in a “black” holster.  He contradicts this statement (P. 306 Trial transcript 10/9/2013).

D.   Failed to question Folsom about his answer to investigator Perry Smith’s question-how long it was between the time Weinhaus exited the car till shots were fired.  12 (twelve) to 15 (fifteen) seconds.  Just long enough.

     Folsom also in his audio interview with investigator Perry Smith uses 529 (five hundred and twenty-nine) words to describe what happened in less than 13 (thirteen) seconds.  “Contradictory testimony shall be legally disregarded.”  State v. Williams 481 sw 2D 1-2-3 mo 1972

E.    Failed to Introduce ANY EXHIBITS!  Not one, including, but not limited to:

1.     Still shot which showed the holstered weapon on the LEFT side of the Defendant not the RIGHT as testified to by Sgt. Folsom (P. 325-327 10/9/2013 Trial transcript)  and Cpr. Mertens (P. 415-417 Trial transcript)

     The FBI did not even see a weapon on the Defendant having an unencumbered view of right side.  (FBI depositions 7/23/2013)  Of course, ineffective, incompetent, compromised Counsel did not call FBI even though prosecution took them off their witness list (Page 7 Legal File) after depositions.

2.     Still shot sequence of Cpr. Mertens approaching Defendant with gun drawn with right hand and left hand in pocket.  Mertens posture does not change until Folsom fires.  The video tape contradicts Cpr. Mertens statement (P. 392-21, 22) that he extended before Folsom fires.

     In deliberations, the jury asked for the “still shots” (P. 194 Legal File P. 602-616 Trial transcript 10/10/2013).  The “still shots” were critical to the defense and the Judge did not send them back to the Jury because Defense did not introduce them.

3.     Picture of crime scene photo of bullet in ground.  This proves that final shot was “kill shot.”  The only way the bullet could end up in the ground.  This shot proves Folsom is the one who attempted to murder, not the Defendant!  I was on the ground plain and simple.  Counsel failed.

4.     Picture of bullet divot in building proving that gutter workers were fired upon by Troopers.  Sgt. Folsom reported that he had thought he shot at workers (P. 571 Trial transcript 10/10/2012.) in his report to MSHP investigator Perry Smith on 9/12/2012.

5.     Picture of victim/Defendant taken by MSHP upon arrival at St. John’s Mercy E.R. 2:10 p.m. 9/11/2012, 1 (one) hour after shooting.  These show entry/exit wounds and extent of injuries sustained in shooting.  This contradicting P.A. Bob Park’s closing statement (P. 639 Trial transcript 10/10/2013), which Judge Sutherland overruled.

     The fact these photos were not introduced, jury had more sympathy for Sgt. Folsom than they did for the only “real victim!”  Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil.  Isaiah 5:20.

6.     Picture(s) of gun halfway out of holster.  Countering Folsom’s claim that he shoved gun back in holster.  There is dust from parking lot gravel on green holster.  One of the road officers (Troopers) asked: is that a gun in there?

     Defendant maintains that Folsom and/or Mertens made it look like gun was halfway out of holster.  There are numerous pictures of crime scene, gun with different evidence markers, proving that there was tampering.

Counsel Hugh Eastwood and Christopher Combs failed to advocate Defendant’s theory of the case set forth in Pro se Motion to Dismiss filed 3/11/2013 and 4/1/2013.

     These motions were not included in certified “Legal File,” along with the endorsement of the 108 (one hundred and eight) witnesses.  Why were these motions missing?  In these motions I set forth the reasons why this matter should have been dismissed.  P.A. Park’s motion to quash witness list-which Judge Sutherland did grant.

     Was/is so blatant that 6th Amendment right to counsel was denied to Defendant.  The battle field is in the courtroom.  The P.A. and the Judge are the opponent.  Defendant’s counsel was obviously the Enemy Spy!

     The best way to defeat the opposition is to be the opposition.  This performance inquiry demonstrates beyond any doubt that paid $10,000 counsel actions, were, to say the least unreasonable considering the circumstances such as the only injured party is Defendant.

That all the evidence indicates the Troopers were untruthful in their reports, deposition, and testimony.  These circumstances were contrary to the prevailing norms of practice as reflected in the American Bar Association, Strickland at 677.  Counsel performance was way, way, way below the objective standard of professional conduct.

Their deficient performance has resulted in extreme prejudice and manifest injustice to not only the Defendant and his family, but also the American people.  Simply put, Eastwood and Combs and this whole matter are a fraud!  One BIG LIE…

Now, let us turn our attention to the Constitutional rights of the Defendant that have been violated and trampled!  The whole point and purpose of the Constitution of Missouri and the United States is to protect our God given individual rights.

     The only justification for violence is in response to violence.  So called preemptive measures, “crime prevention,” are not justified nor can they be in any circumstance, including Police Officers fearing for their “safety!”

The principle office of Government, its chief design is to give security to our inalienable rights.  Our elected leaders-employees of, we the people all take an oath to uphold the Constitution and defend it against all enemies foreign and Domestic.

Among our God given rights are Life.  The most important aspect of “Police Power” is to protect life from acts of violence that cause serious physical injury or death, no matter who are the aggressors, especially those acting under the color of law and in the name of “Law Enforcement.”

     The highest law in the land of America is the Constitution, or should we say, it was?  Or it should be.

     Liberty.  “When a Government imprisons its citizens through unjust laws and crooked, perverse Courts, the only place for a just man seems to be a prison.”  In 21st century America, one is considered guilty until proven innocent.

The only” victim” in case #12AB-CR02409-01 is the Defendant.  The only one who has suffered injury, loss, and harm is theVictim/Defendant and his family, brother Grant, the victim’s children, Bethany and Kailey 22, Levi 20, Trinity 12, Aliyah 10, and Josiah 8, his wives, Nicole, Valarie, and even Judith.

     All have suffered the loss of the victim’s support and presence in their lives.  They have all had to endure the harm that law enforcement, the Courts have wrought upon their lives.

Pursuit of happiness and enjoy the gains of their industry.  It is quite difficult to pursue happiness and enjoy anything when one is locked away in prison unjustly and solely for “Political reasons.”

     And treatment for his numerous injuries suffered at the hands of the “State.”

     When Government fails to give security to these things (Constitutional God given rights) it has failed its chief design.  Bulletinman, for the last 18 (eighteen) years have endeavored to simply expose and educate the people to the fact that our rights are in jeopardy.  This case is proof positive of that fact.

It is clear, obvious, and evident to anyone, learned and unlearned, believer or infidel, communist or combatant, that the Courts of law (Constitutional Government?) have failed most miserably in this matter.  The victim is in jail for over 30 (thirty) years if this matter is not thrown out and overturned while the “criminals” those causing provable personal injury, loss, and harm are at liberty and getting paid to usurp the rights of the American people.  Woe unto them!

     In closing, let’s review the Constitutional rights of Defendant/Victim that are being violated by the Court and its Officers. USC:1983!

1.     Article 1, Section 2, Mo. Const.  Article 14 U.S. Const.  Equal Protection, Rights and Opportunity under the “Law.”  On the façade of the U.S. Supreme Court Building it is written “Equal rights under the Law.”  It is clear, obvious, evident, and undeniable that Victim/Defendant is being denied Equal Rights, Opportunity, and Protection by the Courts of law and its Officers.

     Had it not been for so called “law enforcement” officers who attempted to murder (assassinate) Defendant/Victim there peacefully into the incident that occurred 9/11/2012, arrest would have been made and criminal charges would have been brought.

     It is clear in this matter the fact the aggressors are so called “Law Enforcement.”  They are above the law they purport to uphold.  “There is no substantial step in assault of a law enforcement officer.  It’s either this or that.”  P.A. Bob Parks (Trial transcript P. 548 10/9/2013).

     Obviously, the P.A. Parks believes that Law Enforcement is an elevated class, hence, no charges have been brought against Cpr. Mertens even though I was acquitted of assaulting him and found not have been resisting arrest, along with my free speech was within the bounds of Constitutional Law.

2.     Article 1 U.S. Const.  Free Press-Free Speech-Defendant was targeted for his publication and broadcast which pointed out the ongoing insurrection and treason against the Constitution and the people it is supposed to protect, by members of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branch and the police there of, as well as the media.

3.     Right to Bear Arms-Article 2 U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 23 Mo. Const.  The first thing Sgt. Folsom did on 9/11/2012 was question my right to have a gun.  10 (ten) seconds later he shot me 4 (four) times.  No evidence proves I was trying to draw that weapon.

Article 4:  Unreasonable Search and Seizure-Article 4 U.S. Const. Probable cause for warrant was smell of pot.  Why seize computers?

Article 5:  Due Process-No Grand Jury transcripts denies due process, preliminary hearing.

Article 6:  Right to Counsel-I believe it has been demonstrated that counsel was ineffective, incompetent, and in cahoots with the Prosecution (State).

     The reason why I had to hire a lawyer is because I was denied bail, Article 1, Section 20, Missouri Constitution, and did not have equal access to the internet, phone, computer, and witnesses.  I had no privacy in custody.  None.  So much for Equal Opportunity!

     I have limited meaningful access to the Courts, especially now at the appeals level.  Simply put, I have trust issues with lawyers, especially since this case, which proves everything I have maintained over the last 18 (eighteen) years is Fact!  The playground for the Devil is in the Courthouse.  He is alive and well, a card carrying member of the Bar.  (British Accredited Registry)


Download File

Below is a copy of the above document titled INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL that can be viewed in scrib’d.
Please keep checking back at this website, it is still under construction.  Thank you for your patience.