ACTS OF EVIL USED AGAINST CITIZEN BY GOVERNMENT"!

“Our government have not only stripped us citizens from being able to protect our own God given rights, but the government refuse to protect our God given rights as they guaranteed under our USC! (9th Amendment)

I have e-mailed this petition to all U.S. and Missouri Congressmen and nothing is being done to protect our God given rights!

Corruption in government, “Acts of evil used against the citizen by government”! This petition is before the Missouri Congress.

I also have this petition before Govern Bob Holden of Missouri. He under his oath has an obligation to bring this case to justice, but he has chosen to remain silent. Also I have tried to put it in appeals courts and they refuse to accept this petition.

There are two more volumes that go with this petition, but they cannot be included because they are too large to include at this time.

If there are certain exhibits that you want, contact me for arrangements for me to send them to you.



VOLUME I

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

COMES NOW pro se Petitioner, Stanley Nick Ehnes; petition this Honorable Body of Jurist for a Writ of Habeas Corpus because the Respondent is HOLDING THE PETITIONER=S BODY ILLEGALLY. FOR THE CAUSES SHOWN IN THIS PETITION THE STATE OF MISSOURI MUST RELEASE THIS BODY FROM PRISON:

1-The Petitioner is currently unlawfully incarcerated at Tipton Correctional Center, 619 N. Osage Ave., Tipton, MO 65081-8038 on a charge of assault of a law enforcement officer, brought upon him by corrupt government officials and sentenced July 28, 1995 to seven years by Laclede County Circuit Court, Case # CR494-763FX.

This petition defines the fraudulent use and abuse of power by the justice system and/or by the officials involved acting in collusion to frame the Petitioner on the felony assault charge.

2-The petitioner has been put in prison by the use of FRAUD! The whole fiasco from the Respondent=s plan to arrest to the end of the so-called trial and direct appeal was loaded with fraudulent tricks, games and misleading acts; by many law enforcement officers, several public defenders, prosecutors, and the judges of the courts.

Due to the nature of some acts upon the Petitioner there is no way to produce evidence, as they were done as a surprise to the Petitioner and denial of evidence. However this petition is under the oath of truth where his statements of fact are prima facie evidence that are to be held as true until proven otherwise.

FRAUD: (As defined in Black=s Law.)

An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Anything calculated to deceive, whether by a single act or combination or by suppression of truth, or suggestion of what is false, whether it be by direst falsehood or innuendo (to insinuate), by speech or silence, word of mouth, or look or gesture. ---

ABad faith@ and Afraud@ are synonymous, and also synonyms of dishonesty, infidelity, faithlessness, perfidy, unfairness, etc. ---

3-The State of Missouri, are the respondents in this petition, also were the plaintiffs of the State action CR494-763F, and are the responsible party that put the Petitioner in prison by and through their corrupt officials using fraudulent acts and schemes.


The State of Missouri are to hold fair trials in all criminal cases. Trials are to be a search for the truth. The trial in the instant case was not a fair trial. There was no pretrial discovery afforded the Petitioner wherefore all of the prosecution=s evidence was a complete surprise to the Petitioner during the trial.

The State of Missouri harassed the Petitioner by allowing the City of Lebanon police to do the harassing for a period of several month prior to the arrest by not stopping it after Attorney Jay Nixon was notified. (Exhibit 1)

This police harassment was supported by the Lebanon City Justice System and Laclede County Justice System, leading to an arrest. Fraud was used in the arrest, conviction and appeal of the Petitioner by many government agents. To name a few of the officials involved: Prosecutor G. Stanley Moore, Lebanon City Police Officers Larry Honey, Randy Halstead, Steve Cunningham and Lieutenant Sam Mustard, Prosecutor Greg Kays, Prosecutor Jon A. Morris, Prosecutor James Icenogle, Judge James R. Moore, Judge Roger Wall, Judge Mary Dickerson, Judge James A. Franklin, Judge Bernhardt C. Drumm, Public defenders M. Christine Holiman-Hutson, Gary E. Brotherton, Ruth O. Schulte, Clerk of Court Lynn Stowe, Deputy Clerk Judy Hardesty, but not limited to only them.

The arrest, better defined as a Rodney King type lynching, took place around 9:00 p.m. on federal government post office property on July 1, 1994 in Lebanon, Missouri with no probable cause ever being established, and no Miranda Rights ever read.

City police have jurisdiction only on their corporate city property, not on federal property where the arrest was made, and where federal agents have the authority. More particularly when there is no hot pursuit as a result of a crime to give probable cause. In this case it was just to notify the Petitioner of a headlight being out, so they claimed three different times. Their fraudulent acts will be defined throughout this petition, but not limited to, as more discovery is being requested.

4-Fraud, corruption, perjury, etc. in this case are the major factors throughout the whole event. Fraud has been the major player in prohibiting the Petitioner in obtaining a complete true set of facts to put together a true and correct account of all the acts concerned in this Habeas Corpus. A fact is only so, when everything about it is true and correct!

Fraud and perjury were the most prominent things used in this case to convict the Petitioner. When people tell the truth, then they can tell the story a thousand times and it is always the same. In this case there was so much fraud and perjury by the prosecution, that their story changes from time-to-time.

This fraud also is prominent in the court system here in the State of Missouri. Fraud will be defined as clear as possible by the Petitioner in this Habeas Corpus.


A good lot of the Petitioner=s enclosed evidence is from a copy of the trial transcript past onto the Petitioner by Public Defender Brotherton. In reading over these transcripts the Petitioner has noted a number of changes that were made to reflect a different wording than what was originally said. The Petitioner will try to show in this petition many of these changes.

The records reflect, that there has to be many more changes made in these trial transcripts than the Petitioner can locate from memory and reason, but rest assured that they are there.

5-The government officials acted both under the color of law and out of uniform in their individual capacities to harass, unlawfully arrest and fraudulently participate in the prosecution of the Petitioner.

The State Attorney General, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon was petitioned to investigate these matters but failed or refused as shown in his March 9, 1995 letter. (Exhibit 1)

The Attorney General, through his Chief of Staff, Charles Hatfield, acted fraudulently by his acts and omissions of his legal or equitable duty to defend the Petitioner from the harm caused upon him as defined in this petition by government agents. For this reason the Attorney General cannot lawfully represent the Respondents of this petition for acting out of their official capacity.

The Attorney General is under oath to protect all the people=s Rights including the petitioner=s, not just represent a few corrupt officials of the State, for the benefit of the State of Missouri. The March 9, 1995 letter from the Attorney General=s Office clearly shows that he has more interest in filling prison beds than the protection of peoples Rights!

6-A brief run down of this whole affair would be as follows: In November of 1993 the Petitioner was arrested. This case has since been terminated.

Following the activity of this arrest November of 1993, much police harassment continually plagued the Petitioner for a period of many months.

The harassment lead to a brutal arrest of the Petitioner on property of the United States Post Office on July 1, 1994 that brought about this present case.

A public defender was brought into the case. The Petitioner was released on bail. Pretrial events were very unconstitutional on the part of the government. This gave the Petitioner little if any defense.

The case was brought to a jury trial on May 25, 1995.

A verdict of guilty was brought upon the Petitioner.

The Petitioner salvaged his own rights to appeal, even though a public defender was employed. The public defender would not work with the Petitioner and made a wasted attempt of the appeal.


The Petitioner went to prison then was released on parole.

Then the Petitioner=s parole was revoked through a fraudulent setup putting him back in prison where he is today.

7-CASE LAW The reasons the Petitioner does not engage in Case Law are:

A-Because United States has the highest conviction rate in the World. Even higher than Russia. The conviction rate in United States is in the high ninety per cents.

This means that the case law is stacked against the Defendant of a criminal case better than nine to one.

This is telling the citizens that case law is the governments game!

B-Case Law is a product of cases such as the instant case. Because of the corruption in government today as defined in this brief and the real high conviction rate of government, most case law is decided in the governments favor. This gives the government a massive arsenal of case law to work within furthering their corruption.

C-There are very few O. J. Simpson cases for the criminal Defendant to draw from. A Defendant has to look hard to find good case law to go against the massive arsenal of the government. O. J. Simpson case is a California State case, that is not generally accepted in other states because of State Constitutions and State Laws being different.

D-Unless a Defendant/Petitioner has full access to **@ALL@** Cases, it is not in the Defendant/Petitioner=s best interest to engage in a case law battle with the government!


STATEMENTS AND FACTS OF THE CASE

The AStatements and Facts of the Case@ and the AArguments@ sections of this Petition are number in parallel to each other. Sometimes to make more sense of this Petition it would be advisable to read the argument of the corresponding number directly after reading the facts.

PRETRIAL SECTION:

1-On July 1, 1994 about or in the neighborhood of 8:00 p.m. the Petitioner called his father in Rogersville, Missouri concerning some legal matters. The petitioner being unaware that his telephone was tapped by the government people involved, told his father that he was going to the post office to mail him a letter containing the material defined in the telephone conversation.


Approximately or around 9:00 p.m. the Petitioner and his dog went to the town of Lebanon with the intentions to mail this letter. To go into town he came in on Fourth street. As in Officer Honey=s trial testimony Exhibit 4 page 1-109, line 25, and page 1-110, lines 1 and 2, and in his police report Exhibit 5, page 1, line 1, he claims, A--- was westbound on 4th Street --- and met the Petitioner --- at Fourth and Monroe proceeding East ---.@

The truth is: The Petitioner never met any police car from any direction while traveling the entire Fourth Street at that time. Officer Honey was over on Third Street waiting for the Petitioner to come to town, as he knew the Petitioner would come to town on Fourth Street as he normally does. Then Officer Honey paced the Petitioner by traveling up Third Street. But not on Fourth Street as Officer Honey claims!

The Petitioner was approaching the post office parking lot when Officer Honey turned on his red emergency lights. The Petitioner saw a red vehicle was parked out front, with tinted windows and pulled in and parked just to the right of this red vehicle.

The Petitioner got out of his car, and saw a police officer parked in the street with his red emergency lights on, standing in the driver door of his police car while on his two-way radio looking at the red vehicle. A silhouette of a person in the red vehicle could be seen sitting in the driver seat. (Prosecutor Stanley Moore was the driver of the red vehicle, but his identity was unknown to the Petitioner at that time.)

The Petitioner, not knowing he was about to be arrested in a setup, went on into the post office and mailed his letter.

2-PROOF THAT BOTH PROSECUTOR STAN MOORE=S AND OFFICER HONEY=S TESTIMONIES WERE LIES MADE UNDER OATH, FOR THIS SETUP ARREST!

Exhibit 14 is a copy of a note written by the Petitioner to his attorney that was obtained from the Petitioner=s Public Defender M. Christine Holiman while the Petitioner was in jail. The details of this is in page one of a Afile memo@ of Public Defender M. Christine Holiman. (Exhibit 19 (F)) Also, another copy of this exhibit was found in Public Defender M. Christine Holiman=s files. (Exhibit 19 (G))

Exhibit 14 is a copy of a note with discovery requests, to Public Defender M. Christine Holiman, that was in the Petitioner=s files after receiving it from the Petitioner=s attorney while in jail just shortly after his arrest on July 1, 1994.

It must be understood that at the time of writing this note the Petitioner was in a jail cell and knew nothing of the outside world except the things he remembered from the arrest scene.


The Petitioner knew there was a red vehicle already parked in the post office parking lot that he had pulled in and parked along the right side of. He knew that he had seen a person sitting inside the red vehicle when he got out of his car to go into the post office. He knew that the person from the red vehicle got out of his vehicle and walked around to the front of the Petitioner=s car and watched the whole arrest procedure. That was all the Petitioner knew as he was in the jail cell with no access to any media or any of the prosecutions witnesses.

This note in Exhibit 14, is to the Petitioner=s Public Defender to find out things concerning this person in the red vehicle. In item number four of this note he asked his Public Defender, AWas he coming or going?@

This statement tells you that the red vehicle was stopped! That the red vehicle was parked. That the red vehicle was not moving.

In this statement it says, AWas he ---!@ This part of this statement tells you that there was a person inside the vehicle.

In this statement it says, A--- coming or going?@! This part of the statement tells you the person in the red vehicle was not moving his car backwards, and he was not moving his car forwards. It is telling you the red vehicle was parked! It means the red vehicle was indeed parked!

In this note the Petitioner asked, AWhat is his name?@, AWhy was he there?@, AWhat was he doing?@. This means the Petitioner knew nothing at all about the person that was sitting in the red vehicle.

The most important thing that the Petitioner knew was that the red vehicle was parked!

In Exhibit 4 starting on page 2-16 the person in the red vehicle is claiming to be Prosecutor George Stanley Moore and he claimed he was not parked in the post office parking lot. As in the trial transcripts Prosecutor Stan Moore states, AAs I crossed the railroad tracks going north on Adams before I got to the stop sign, I saw a City of Lebanon police car sitting on Commercial Street headed towards Jefferson from Adams, just out of the intersection of Adams --- the Adams Street side, it would be on the north side of Commercial -- with its red lights flashing on top.@ (Exhibit 4, pages 2-17 and 2-18)

From the above trial testimony to the end Prosecutor George Stanley Moore=s testimony was all nothing but lies! Prosecutor Stan Moore=s testimony was not evidence of fact!

Also, Officer Honey testified that he had come out of the post office and returned to the Petitioner=s car and states that, AHe was in his car. I held his arm, and I looked behind me. And Stan Moore had pulled into a parking space.@ (Exhibit 4, 1-120, lines 16, 17 and 18)

NO! THIS IS A LIE! STAN MOORE WAS ALREADY THERE!


3-Officer Honey at this time of the event is claiming the reason for his aggressive acts were because the Petitioner had one head light out. However this was only an excuse, a poor one at best! Had the Headlight being out, been a violation of law, then Prosecutor Icenogle would have used it in the trial for probable cause for the arrest, however this once claim of a violation was never, ever prosecuted anywhere! FOR THIS REASON, THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THIS CASE!

4-On July 6, 1994 just shortly after the arrest, the Petitioner made application for a Public Defender and as a result of the application on or about July 8, 1994 Public Defender M. Christine Holiman was assigned to the Petitioner.

The Petitioner was under the understanding that a defender was to defend the Petitioner and assist him with his needs. The Public Defender was to see that his living conditions meet the criteria of an innocent person being held for trial. Get the bond lowered so the Petitioner could be out of jail where he could work on his defense.

To the Petitioner=s surprise nothing was being done after Public Defender M. Christine Holiman was assigned to help him. He was being housed in a dirty old grimy jail, refused medical attention for three weeks when it was badly needed, with poor living conditions, such as the bathroom fixtures were old and stinky and near his bed, the shower was substandard, there was no writing facilities, the lighting conditions were substandard, no windows, no vents, and there was no air conditioning. After all at this time he was to be assumed an innocent person. As the Petitioner needed paper to write, media coverage, law books, and access to an untapped telephone to communicate with people that would help him on the out side of the jail

The Public Defender M. Christine Holiman did not assist in any of these manners.

It was the Petitioner=s father that filed Motion to reduce bond on July 11, 1994. And another brief on July 12, 1994 to answer the charges, demand a jury trial, demand witnesses and evidence of the charges, demand jury information and make a counter claim as shown in Exhibit 19 (A).

After the Petitioner=s father had written him and told all that he had done, the Petitioner wrote notes to his Public Defender requesting her to investigate the Prosecution=s case, to investigate every thread of it, to get a list of witnesses from the prosecution, to get all the witnesses complete testimony, to get a copy of all the prosecutions evidence, to find out the guy in the red vehicle=s name, find out why he was there, find out what he was doing, to find out whether he was coming or going, and to find out his complete statement. (Exhibit 19 (G))

Then on July 20, 1994, the Petitioner wrote two other notes to Public Defender M. Christine Holiman for more discovery to be made and requesting copies of everything, she has filed. (Exhibit 19 (E))

Public Defender M. Christine Holiman claimed in her AFile Memo@ that she had a conference with the Petitioner on July 21, 1994 about 9:45 a.m. She claims to have received three handwritten notes as seen in exhibits 19, E and G and that she made copies of them for the Petitioner. She indicates that the Petitioner wanted her to get on the discovery of his case.

Public Defender M. Christine Holiman claims in her file memo that she had to know the Petitioner side of the story, as to the details. The Petitioner does not have to reveal his story to no one, it is for the attorney of the case to get the facts of the case from the prosecution which the Petitioner insisted that she do. She claims she tried to assure the Petitioner that she was his defense attorney, however she was there to interrogate the defendant of the case.

This was happening on July 21, 1994 and Public Defender M. Christine Holiman did not say any thing to the Petitioner about her filing a motion to reduce the bond.

On or about August 1st or 2nd Public Defender M. Christine Holiman claims to have filed a motion to reduce bond that is shown in (Exhibit 19 (C)). In the court docket sheet Exhibit 19 (A) there shows no filing of this August 1, 1994 Motion to reduce the bond by Public Defender M. Christine Holiman. (Exhibit 19 (C)) Yet, on 7/8/94 it makes note of a motion by counsel of the defendant in the court docket sheet. The Petitioner believes this August 1, 1994 Motion to reduce bond was added after the Public Defender=s Office of Missouri investigated to make it appear that Public Defender M. Christine Holiman was doing her job. The truth is, the motion that got the Petitioner out of jail, was his father=s motion. (Father=s Motion Exhibit 19 (D))

The Petitioner sees nothing that the Public Defender M. Christine Holiman has done in his defense, as she had not answered to one of his request on the notes. She did not see that the September 20, 1994 hearing where sworn testimony was to be given by Prosecutor Stan Moore was recorded.

There was a CR494-2105T Criminal Case, on the headlight ticket of the arrest fraudulently created and dated back to the Petitioner=s arrest July 1, 1994 during the time that Public Defender Christine Holiman was representing the Petitioner as his attorney, yet not one bit of this case appears in her files.

Exhibit 19(F) is a copy of Christine Holiman=s File Memo. She explains how she was consulting with Deputy Clerk of Court Judy Hardesty over the Petitioner=s case numbers, but she never once mentions this CR494-2105T case at that time. From this, one would have to conclude that the CR494-2105T case was not in existence on July 21, 1994, yet the court docket sheet shows that it started on July 8, 1994, just thirteen day before her meeting with Clerk of Court Judy Hardesty. This case just seemed to appear in November of 1994 and never was brought to trial. (Exhibit 30 (A) (B))

As well as the AWarrant A dated July 2, 1994 of the CR494-763F case, was not in Public Defender Christine Holiman=s files. (Exhibit 7 (C)) If these things were in existence at the dates claimed, then the Petitioner=s attorney surely would have copies of them at that time or shortly thereafter and they would have been in Public Defender Christine Holiman=s files on September 20, 1994.

Had Public Defender M. Christine Holiman done what she was requested to do the prosecution
could not have fabricated a case against the Petitioner as they did.


5-The Petitioner has tried many times to make discovery into the police radio transmissions and other evidence, as in Exhibit 24 (A) to (D). The following are Discovery efforts:

* July 11, 1994 the Petitioner=s father mailed into the clerk of court AAnswer to Charges, Jury Demand, Demand for Witnesses & Evidence, Demand for Jury Information and Counter Complaint,@ that appears on the court docket sheet in Exhibit 19 (A) filed on July 12, 1994. Page 2 of this brief is Exhibit 24 (A). Evidence was requested here when Attorney Christine Holiman was employed by the Petitioner. This exhibit shows that all witnesses and evidence to be used in the trial was to be acquired. The two-way police radios were used many times during the trial as defined in this petition, and in item 30 of, Statements and Facts of the Case.

The Petitioner=s attorney Christine Holiman did not do any of this for the Petitioner.

* While the Petitioner was in jail, prior to July 20, 1994 around July 12, 1994, the Petitioner was short of paper and wrote a note on a small piece of paper and passed it onto Public Defender Christine Holiman, requesting discovery of all evidence, as shown in Exhibit 19 (G).

Here again the Petitioner=s attorney Christine Holiman did not do any of this for the Petitioner.

* July 20, 1994 the Petitioner wrote two notes to Public Defender Christine Holiman requesting discovery of evidence. (Exhibit 19(E)) These notes were found in the Public Defender Christine Holiman records that were ordered to be turned over to the Petitioner on September 20, 1994 by Judge Wall.

Here again the Petitioner=s attorney Christine Holiman did not do any of this for the Petitioner.

* Exhibit 24 (B) is a Memorandum to the Petitioner=s attorney M. Christine Holiman dated August 18, 1994. This Memorandum again gave a complete list of requests for discovery.

This is early in the Petitioner=s case when the prosecution should have not had too much opportunity to change evidence in the case which was done. Had the Petitioner=s attorney acted at this time, as requested, the prosecution could not have manufactured all the false evidence used against the Petitioner in the trial.

Here again the Petitioner=s attorney Christine Holiman did not do any of this for the Petitioner.

* Public Defender Christine Holiman had a File Memo in the file she turned over to the Petitioner on September 20, 1994 and in this File Memo she mentioned that the Petitioner had ask her to make discovery of the evidence. (Exhibit 19 (F))

Here again the Petitioner=s attorney Christine Holiman did not do any of this for the Petitioner.


* February 27, 1995 the Petitioner filed Demand for Indictments with Equal Opportunity to the Grand Jury and Motion to set Date for Evidence Hearing and Request for Jury Information. (Exhibit 21 (B)) In this document the Petitioner requested the court to set a date for an evidence hearing with magnetic tape recording of all testimony. (Exhibit 21 (B) and Exhibit 24 (D))

This was denied by Judge Franklin in the hearing on February 27, 1995 and again by Judge Mary Dickerson in the March 30, 1995 hearing.

* March 24, 1995 the Petitioner filed a comprehensive plan to take depositions of all the prosecutions witnesses, defining a schedule for each witnesses and how the depositions would be conducted. (Exhibit 21 (A)) This has been more defined in item 10 of Statements and Facts of the case.

This attempt to make discovery was terminated as defined in item 10 of Statements of Facts of the Case.

* In the transcripts of Judge Mary Dickerson=s court on March 30, 1995 it will show how her and Prosecutor Icenogle fraudulently danced around allowing the Petitioner an evidence hearing. (Exhibit 23)

6-During the pretrial period of this case, on September 20, 1994, Judge Roger Wall held a hearing (No recording of testimony of this hearing, and Public Defender Christine Holiman did not request that it be recorded.). During this hearing Prosecutor Stan Moore gave testimony to establish Probable Cause.

During the trial testimony on May 25, 1995, Prosecutor Stan Moore states, AHe turned around and made eye contact with me and said, Stan, help me. And so I went over to the car -- it was just a few feet away. He said, Stan, help me get this guy out of this car. And as I approached---@ A---And I took ahold of that hand by the wrist.@ (Exhibit 4, 2-24, lines 3 to 6, 11)

Here Prosecutor Stan Moore is claiming he participated in the Petitioner=s arrest by holding the Petitioner=s arm, and so forth.

As the Petitioner recalls Prosecutor Stan Moore=s testimony given in Judge Roger Wall=s Court on September 20, 1994, to show Probable Cause, Prosecutor Stan Moore testified that he was a witness of the arrest and that he stood in front of the Petitioner=s car on the sidewalk and watched the whole scene.

Here in the trial testimony, Prosecutor Stan Moore is claiming to be involved. (Exhibit 4, 2-24)
The truth is he never touched the Petitioner at any time of this arrest. How did Prosecutor Stan Moore get so involved as his testimony shows in the trial? This is a full line of perjury by all of these people that testified in the trial, showing how Prosecutor Stan Moore did so much during the arrest! It is absolute fraud! Yes, the story changes!

7-During this arrest there was an ongoing criminal case proceeding against the Petitioner by the City of Lebanon which started in November of 1993. The ongoing case involved Officer Honey and three other police officers. From soon after the beginning of the November case the police would continually harass the Petitioner every time they saw him in Lebanon. This harassment lead into the set up arrest of this present case on July 1, 1994.

Exhibit 6, consisting of trial testimony of the Petitioner on the harassment events by various law enforcement personnel prior to the July 1, 1994 arrest, shown in Exhibit 6, page 2 - 53 lines 23 to 25, page 2 - 54 line 1 and lines 16 to end of page, all of page 2 - 55, all of page 2 - 56 and all of page 2 - 57 defines a number of harassment events by various law enforcement personnel prior to July 1, 1994 arrest.

In Exhibit 6, it defines that there were roadblocks set up to harass the Petitioner. All these road- blocks need to be investigated by an independent grand jury, one that is independent of the government. As they were arrests by definition where no Miranda Rights are read, no probable cause is established prior to the arrest. An investigation will show they were a waste of tax money, an abuse of police power and fraudulent acts upon the Petitioner, done under the color of law!

This exhibit 6 defines how the police officers would harass both in uniform while acting under the color of law and while the police were out of uniform acting in their individual capacity.

In Exhibit 6, where the Petitioner was testifying about Officer Honey harassing him at the Pony Express Convenient Store on North Highway #5, Prosecutor Icenogle messed the Petitioners line of thinking up, so he could not concentrate on the acts of the event. Many of the details were therefore left out of the trial testimony.

The following is an improved testimony of the event. Just shortly after a road block June 1, 1994, Officer Honey pulled into a Pony Express convenience store where the Petitioner was at. Officer Honey tried to get the Petitioner to physically run into him, by stopping at the entrance going into the store. I didn=t know who he was at the time as he was in civilian clothes and not identified as a police officer. Then he stood by the store door just inside with another person staring at me real hard while I was buying a few things. Then when I was leaving he got into his brown van and got out in the road 30 seconds or so and raced up on me real fast, as I was getting ready to make a turn, he acted like he was going to run into me. This happened about 8:00 a.m. when I was taking a break for a snack. But he denied all this at the trial and this occurred on June 10, 1994, a few weeks before the July 1, 1994 arrest. (Exhibit 6, 2-55, lines 7---)

Also, Officer Honey set up a roadblock on the road the Petitioner travels going to and from Lebanon, 30 days before the July 1st arrest. Petitioner was driving the same car then, that he was arrested in on July 1, 1994. Officer Honey, even checked the Petitioner=s Driver=s License and gave testimony at trial of that stop, but claimed thirty days later on July 1, 1994, he did not know who the Petitioner was . (Exhibit 4, 2-107, lines 20-25) When Officer Honey was one of the arresting officers on the November 1993 case as defined in the first paragraph of this section.

In Exhibit 6, Prosecutor Icenogle stopped the Petitioner several times. The Petitioner was reading his testimony so he would not get mixed up and give a true account of the events pertaining to this case. Prosecutor Icenogle=s objections were an intentional effort to block the truth from the jurors, which is fraud. A prosecutor in the trial is to be under oath to seek the truth, regardless of how the Petitioner has to go about presenting the truth. Not to badger a Defendant, in a fraudulent attempt to destroy the true testimony needed in the trial to make it a search for the truth, as Prosecutor Icenogle did. A Prosecutor is under oath to defend the Defendant as well as prosecute.

Additional harassments are as follows:

* City police would tailgate the Petitioner as he would come into Lebanon.

* City police would stalk the Petitioner walking through town in their police cars.

* City police would try to intimidate the Petitioner on his jobs he worked on, in Lebanon for different people by parking down the streets.

*City police would stalk the Petitioner in stores by coming in and trying to get the Petitioner to bump into them.

* City police would use their police cars at stop sign intersections to harass the Petitioner by waiting for the Petitioner to pull out then they would race towards the Petitioner to act like they were going to run into his car.

* City police would set up roadblocks on New Buffalo road, the road the Petitioner lived on and used to travel to town because it was closest. City police knew this and used the excuse they were only doing safety checks, when their real reason was harassment checks.

* Officer Larry Honey and Officer Mike Rackly stopped the Petitioner on or about June 1, 1994 at this road block. The Petitioner was in his Chevy Chevette car, the same car Petitioner drove into town thirty days later on July 1, 1994 and Officer Honey came in behind the Petitioner again and claimed he did not know who the Petitioner was, but could testify at trial a year later on May 25, 1995 all about stopping Mr. Ehnes on June 1, 1994, road block, but claimed he could not remember who the Petitioner was on July 1, 1994, that was thirty days from the June 1, 1994.

8-Dress code in the court room required! Think not, then why has the Petitioner been blocked from getting the transcripts of the court hearing on February 27, 1995 presided by Judge James A. Franklin? It was recorded, as the court recorder was there recording all of it.


On February 27, 1995, the Petitioner and his father went to a pretrial hearing presided by Judge Franklin. There were fifteen cases on the court roster for hearings that morning. Each case had one or more attorneys to represent their defendants and prosecutors. Also, many sheriff deputies were in the court room. Each defendant was there with friends and family. The courtroom was packed with people. This means there were a lot of witnesses to what happen in the courtroom to the Petitioner that day.

Judge Franklin called the Petitioner to the bench, then began tearing him apart like the worst unwanted step child in the World. Judge Franklin came on the Petitioner like a mean vicious tiger that had no respect for man kind what-so-ever! Judge Franklin was totally disrespectful!

This happened about 10:00 a.m. The Petitioner was ordered to leave the court room and get a suit of clothes that was equal or better than any attorney in the court room and return for his hearing at 1:00 p.m.

As a result of all this the Petitioner filed a Memorandum on April 26, 1995 to set the record of the dress code being required. (Exhibit 27)

It is not right that citizens should be afraid to go into a court room for any reason. Court rooms must be a place of justice, not a room of intimidation, as in this case!

Court rooms must be a place of comfort to all citizens regardless of the clothing they can afford to wear. But not in this case!

9- *No warrant for the arrest! *Petitioner was never charged of a crime!

Exhibit 7, consisting of ( A ) through ( H ) showing the evidence where the Petitioner was never charged of a crime and no warrant was ever issued for this present case.

For a warrant to be issued, the number one criteria is that it must be a warrant! NOT A PIECE OF PAPER WITH INK ON IT!

The Missouri Supreme Court Rule 22.07 defines the criteria of a warrant. Rule 22.07 (a) dictates, A--- a warrant ---signed by the officer making the arrest, shall be delivered to such judge.@ Rule 22.07 (b) AThe judge shall inform the defendant of the felony charged ----.@

Exhibit 7, (A) is a CRIMINAL DOCKET SHEET (Associate Division) shows the beginning of the CR494-763F case. And the sequence of the case up to and including July 19, 1994.

Exhibit 7, (A) indicates that a Complaint was filed July 2, 1994. Exhibit 7, (B) is a copy of the Complaint. This complaint is signed by Prosecutor Greg Kays and under the oath of truth as the notary claims the Petitioner, on or about July 1, 1994 violated the quoted Missouri Laws.


Prosecutor Greg Kays never witnessed nor can he make a lawful claim of one alleged crime on that Complaint and Summons he signed because there was no crime committed in this Exhibit (B)! By law, the arresting officer is to sight a violation of a law, on that Complaint and Summons. Having a headlight out is not a violation of law under RSMO ' 307.105 as long as there is a lighted lamp on that side of the vehicle, which there was!

Exhibit 7, ( C ) is a mess the government is claiming to be the warrant served July 2, 1994 upon the Petitioner. First of all this document stems from the Complaint defined above signed by Prosecutor Greg Kays.

The Petitioner in a quest to find out what happened, made a discovery motion and as a result of this motion he was mailed a copy of this warrant on September 24, 1999 from the Lebanon Police Department.

Secondly, in the body of this mess it claims a date of August 27, 1993, this date seems to be fraudulently changed to July 1, 1994 and the change appears to be initialed by the Honorable James R. Moore. Here it appears that Honorable comes in all different definitions!

Third, this warrant claims it was an Officer Al Nutter, then at some time it was changed to Larry Honey in handwriting and once again initialed and signed by the Honorable James R. Moore on July 2, 1994. The Petitioner does not believe it was signed this day, but hard to prove different. Had it been signed then, it should show served then or shortly after.

Fourth, after the word RETURN there is number of blanks to be filled in to show that it had been served, which are still all blank and not signed. This warrant was never served or they would have filled it out, as required. (Exhibit 7(C))

Further more, September 20, 1994 Judge Wall directed Public Defender Christine Holiman Hutson to give the Petitioner a complete copy of her files. Her files were to be complete with a copy of every thing in them concerning this case up to this time. September 20, 1994 is more than two months later than July 2, 1994 when this Warrant was to be issued to her client. There is no copy of this warrant in that copy of her files. Why? Was it ever served? Was it ever part of this case? At this time the Petitioner does not know!

The Prosecution knowing that the Petitioner was never charged of a crime in this case, again they tried to put a charge upon the Petitioner.

Exhibit 7, ( D ) is the JUDGES=S DOCKET SHEET IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF Laclede County. Starting October 03, 1994. It shows the procedure Judge Mary Dickerson went through on October 24, 1994 to serve the Petitioner a document title Ainformation A Exhibit 7, ( E ) and advised the Petitioner of the charge. Here once again this was another botched-up mess.

Exhibit 7, ( E) is a document stamped filed Oct. 24, titled AINFORMATION A that is signed by a Prosecuting Attorney W. Steven Rives in Camden County, NOT Laclede County.


On December 07, 1994, the Petitioner filed what is Exhibit 7, ( F ). In this document the Petitioner shows the court that the charge given to the Defendant filed Oct. 24, 1994 by Judge Mary Dickerson, was signed by a Prosecuting Attorney W. Steven Rives of Camden County and that the Petitioner had not been notified that this prosecutor was authorized to be a prosecutor in Laclede County where the case was at. The Petitioner requested the court=s position on this. Also attached to this brief was a copy of an affidavit written and sent to all the Missouri Congressmen by Petitioner=s father Exhibit 7, ( G ).

Exhibit 7, ( G ) defines the corruption going on in the past concerning this case and at the present time of the document. It defines the fraud going on, and shows how Judge Mary Dickerson asked Prosecutor Jon A. Morris to read the illegal charge to the Petitioner and how he indicated that he wanted nothing to do with the fraudulent trick. It states that the Petitioner had been held from July 1, 1994 to October 24, 1994 and still never charged of a crime in this case!

As in Exhibit 7, ( D ) of the court docket sheet shows another AinformationA was filed on December 20, 1994 as shown in Exhibit 7, (H ). Apparently the court=s position was that the AinformationA filed Oct. 24, 1994 was fraudulent, so Prosecutor Icenogle fraudulently mailed another AInformationA that was received by mail December 20, 1994 as indicated in this exhibit. However, they still did not get it right because there is no authority made under oath to support this AINFORMATION,@ so once again the Petitioner was never charged of a crime in this case. And to this day the Petitioner has not been charge of a crime in this case! From all this the Petitioner gathers that the State of Missouri needs to build a college for people to attend to become attorneys.

10-Prior to March 24, 1995, after all attempts to get an evidence hearing the Petitioner devised a plan to find out the facts of the case by taking depositions, to build a defense for the coming trial. (Exhibit 26 (B))

Many attempts to make discovery of the evidence had been made in the past, as July 12, 1994 the Petitioner made his first request for discovery through his attorney and Public Defender Christine Holiman would not do her job. Then many other attempts followed that to gain discovery of the evidence that was to be used against the Petitioner in the trial, but all to no avail.

The Petitioner made a comprehensive plan to take depositions of seventeen witnesses, as defined in Exhibit 26 (B).

The Clerk of Court Lynn Stowe FAXed Judge Mary Dickerson March 24, 1994 requesting her to look over the document and tell him if he needed to act on the document. (Exhibit 26 (C)) Judge Dickerson called back the same day and said he would not have to do anything about the document.


Judge Mary Dickerson went on to say, AThey would take up motion to quash Thursday, March 30, 1995.@ Who are they? Judge Mary Dickerson is only one person. Apparently there is someone else involved making this decision. It would seem like it would be a prosecutor that would entertain a motion to squash. Was Prosecutor Icenogle involved in this decision? Is Judge Mary Dickerson a prosecutor and a judge, or both? In Exhibit 23, on March 30, 1995 transcripts of the hearing Judge Mary Dickerson presided in she not only squashed the Petitioner=s motion to take depositions, but she stumbled all over herself in denying the Petitioner an evidence hearing as he requested from her at that hearing.

Exhibit 26 (D) was a FAX=s from Clerk of Court Lynn Stowe to Judge Drumm concerning the Petitioner=s Motion to take Depositions. From this, it would appear that Athey@ were two judges. Are judges both acting as prosecutors in this case, moral and ethical? The Petitioner is to have a trial by an impartial judge. From the material in this exhibit it is very apparent the Petitioner was going to trial against at least two or more judges and Prosecutor Icenogle. That is a no win deal!

As a result of all this Judge Drumm filed an order on April 3, 1995 denying the Petitioner his depositions. (Exhibit 26 (E))

As a result of all this the Petitioner filed a request of the transcripts April 5, 1995 of the pretrial hearings and that was later denied. (Exhibit 26 (F))

The Petitioner being aware of the conspiracy mounting against him wrote the AResponse to Order Dated March 30, 1995@ on April 7, 1995. (Exhibit 26 (H)) With the letter of State Representative Vernon Thompson=s attached. (Exhibit 26 (I)) This filing was FAXed to Judge Drumm. (Exhibit 26 (J))

JUDGES:

11-During the length of the Petitioner=s case there were a number of judges involved in the case in some fashion or other, some possibly not known to the Petitioner. For this reason the Clerk of Court Lynn Stowe sent the Petitioner copies of their transfers. (Exhibit 12)

If it is the Missouri Constitutional law that authorizes transferring a judge from one area to another area, upon certain authorization, then so be it!

This exhibit 12 shows that none of these judges were transferred within the Missouri Constitution, Article V, Section 6 because there is no proper signature of authorization. Also the only signature that changed from time to time was the deputy clerk, as the Clerk of Court=s signature was done in the computer or a copier, as it never changes. It was like a rubber stamp.

If proper authorization for a judge to work in Laclede County is required, then Judge Bernhardt C. Drumm (19319) was nothing more than a citizen conducting the trial that put the Petitioner in prison!

THE JURY SECTION:

12-The jury selection process is suppose to be done in a fair and open fashion to give the Petitioner twelve honest, fair-minded, qualified peers. This was not the case in this event! (Rules of Criminal Procedure State Court Rule 27.01 (d))

July 28, 2000 the Petitioner made a discovery motion directed to Clerk of Court Lynn Stowe to find out all the details of how the jurors were drawn from the general public. (Exhibit 28 (A))

On August 21, 2000, Judge Drumm stepped in to protect his Clerk of Court by issuing an order denying the Petitioner=s requests and charging the Petitioner for filing the request. (Exhibit 28 (B))

Public officials that do their job correctly are proud of their work and want the public to know every step of their procedure. This is not the case here, as this information is being withheld from the Petitioner, and the general public for that matter. From this, the Petitioner would have to assume that the jurors were hand picked for the benefit of the government.

The trial transcripts are to be a true and correct account of all the events of the trial that includes the selection of the jurors to judge the case.

There is so much missing in the transcripts during the jury selection of the trial transcripts. As they are changed so much from the truth of some events that took place, it is hard to rely upon these transcripts.

There were forty-one people notified by the Clerk of Court Lynn Stowe as shown in Exhibit 2 to report for jury duty.

In Exhibit 3, pages 1-37 to 1-53, are 16 pages of the trial transcripts showing how Prosecutor Icenogle prejudiced the jurors, leading to the discontent of a number of fair and impartial jurors.

In this exhibit 3, Prosecutor Icenogle talked about the sentencing phase of the trial to prejudice the jurors for the purpose of eliminating all those jurors that would not convict in the respect that he wanted them to, concerning a five to fifteen year sentence! Here we must remember that Judge Drumm was allowing all this to happen and he was as much part of it as Prosecutor Icenogle while both were under oath to conduct fair proceedings.

This fraudulent tactic of Prosecutor Icenogle was a underhanded process of illegally influencing the elimination of jurors in the prosecutions favor. This was a fraudulent, criminal act on the part of the prosecutor.

During the jury selection, Prosecutor Icenogle and the Petitioner each got six strikes to eliminate people to sit as jurors. This left twenty-nine people. Twelve of these twenty-nine people would be jurors, this left seventeen people to be eliminated from the pool of jurors. What happen to all seventeen of these people? Exhibit 4, pages 1-76 to 1-91, are 15 pages of the trial transcripts that
show the jury selection of the twelve jurors for the trial from the original forty-one. It does not show where every one of them went. They must be accounted for.


What happen to them? Trial transcripts must be true and accurate giving an account of all them! Is it possible the Prosecution got a total of twenty-three strikes? That is the six with the Petitioner, plus seventeen more. Exhibit 4, page 1-77, lines 8, 9, 10 and 11 shows Prosecutor Icenogle recognizes there are 22 strikes for cause. Then they disappear!

Is it fair for the government to get twenty-three strikes and only give the Petitioner six? What is the truth? This is intentional fraud!

13-In order for the Petitioner to receive a fair trial the jurors must be unbiased and of the opinion that the Petitioner is an innocent person going into the trial. At the time of jury selection the trial has not began. The prosecutor above all people has no right to prejudice this jury at this time! Which he did with the approval of Judge Drumm, because Judge Drumm did nothing to prevent it!

Exhibit 3, 1-23 Prosecutor Icenogle states:

Line 18 to 22, AIn short, the police officers were trying to get this defendant out of his car. The defendant was struggling, driving his car back and forth. And in the course of those events, the car struck a police car and struck Stan Moore=s car.@

Prosecutor Icenogle has no right to tell the jury this, at this time. There is no testimony by trial witnesses put before these people that gives the police the right to be around the Petitioner=s car at this time. It is a possibility that the police did not belong there.

No trial witness has testified to anything, at this time. This is out and out fraud for a prosecutor to misdirect these people for his own benefit such as he is doing! He is misleading all these people! If the true facts were to be known, not one of these police or the prosecutor should have been on the scene to harass the Petitioner like was done in this arrest!

Exhibit 3, pages 1-37 to 1-53 are sixteen pages showing how Prosecutor Icenogle continually brought in what was to be testimony in the prosecution=s side of the case and how much prison time the Petitioner would get for doing all these unproven acts to prejudice the jury prior to the trial!

The prosecution has no right to build his case and prejudice these jurors during the selection of the jury to eliminate all the jurors that will not rule in his favor as he was doing in these sixteen pages of transcript.

14-There are entirely too many unanswered questions concerning these jurors that are being kept from the Petitioner by fraudulent means.

The Petitioners needs to know all about his accusers and all about those that judge him to receive a fair trial, not just the limited amount the government will let him know!

Since the trial, a number of people have told the Petitioner things about some of his jurors, and through discovery motions, and acts of the Petitioner, things have been made available to the Petitioner that clarifies some of the reasons the Petitioner was convicted. These are as follows:

A-Juror David L. Rodden=s true reason for his decision to convict the Petitioner was he wanted to get the trial over with so he could go on home. For this reason he sided with the other eleven jurors.

A relative of his was renting a mobile home from the Petitioner=s mother, in the park the Petitioner managed, and he told the Petitioner this. The Petitioner taped the conversation and the Petitioner still has this tape for evidence.

B- Juror Sandra Nickols is a sister to Bill N. Owner of a car lot and Insurance place on 6th street next to the Modern cleaners.

C-Many of the jurors are like County Club Family of the rich and influential in the City of Lebanon. But the truth is not available to the Petitioner, as the truth is being blocked from the Petitioner.

D-Juror number one, Rebecca L. Carr, a close relative of the rich in Lebanon is a neighbor of juror number four, Gloria D. Marlow.

E-Juror number six, Lewis J. Maddex owner of Jack=s Market and Campground, has a Master Degree and is retired from WHERE? The Petitioner needs to know, as this was not known during jury selection.

F-The Petitioner was told by a person that knows some of the jurors, this person says, that five of them were good people, but they would not rule against government because they were afraid, if they did, the police would harass them like they did Stanley. This person said that it was clearly evident with all the highway patrol in the courtroom and the high security, and how the prosecutor and judge were toward Stanley during the trial.

July 28, 2000 the Petitioner wrote Clerk of Court Lynn Stowe requesting information concerning the jury selection from the public. (Exhibit 28 (A))

Judge Drumm issued an order, protecting the secrecy, of Clerk of Court Lynn Stowe=s picking of the jurors from the public. (Exhibit (B)) By not answering, the requests of the Petitioner, for the Clerk of Court Lynn Stowe, to make showing if this was an open, fair jury drawing, or was it a closed, carefully hand picked jury selection process, designed by someone in the court circle.

Most agents that do things in an open, fair manner are proud of their work and want everyone to know how they have done things. So, why is it a secret?


TRIAL PHASE OF THIS CASE:

15- Judge Drumm brought heavy security to the court building the day of the trial. Causing much bias of each of the jurors, and the psychological pressure of fear of harassment, by law enforcement people, that could be brought upon them in the future, that day.

There were metal detectors at the entrance, and all other doors were locked, and five or more Missouri Highway Patrol in the Court Room during the trial at all times. Another psychological biasing stunt of Judge Drumm and possibly others not known at this time to the Petitioner.

This was part of a psychological trick of Judge Drumm and possibly Prosecutor Icenogle, as the jurors had to go through these metal detectors, and they saw all these Highway Patrol in the court room all the time. During the trial they heard how the Petitioner had been harassed by these law enforcement people.

These jurors also saw how Prosecutor Icenogle badgered the Petitioner during his case and how Judge Drumm allowed it to happen, and they had to know they would be next for this kind of treatment if they ruled against government.

They had to know that if they ruled against government, they were to be next on the list of harassment. This is a very psychological intimidating tactic of the government to win cases and fill prison beds.

16-The court must have on record that the Defendant knew his rights and knowingly and intelligently waived his Rights!

In this trial much of what was testified to by the prosecutions witnesses came from the Petitioner.

No Miranda Rights were ever read to the Petitioner at any time of this arrest. There is no showing of this in all the records including the police reports. The Prosecution=s witnesses had no Right to bring into evidence with their testimony, anything the Petitioner said during the arrest to convict the Petitioner as they did.

For a fair trial, there must be NO surprise evidence brought into the trial by the Prosecutor. In this trial all the evidence was a surprise to the Petitioner because he was not allowed any access to all the evidence.

17-The apparent reason for the arrest was to be a headlight being out on the Petitioner=s car. This was to be probable cause as shown by Exhibit 16. However, it is not a violation of law as shown in Exhibit 17, where the law clearly reads, A---lighted lamp---.@ The Petitioner had this.


At the beginning of the trial, Judge Drumm states, AIt appears from the court file that there has not been an information filed and that there has not been a formal arraignment of that matter.@ The headlight matter was resolved then and never brought back up.

The headlight part was never used by the government in any trial, nor for probable cause in this trial to convict the Petitioner. It was just a phoney excuse trumped up by Officer Honey and possibly others working with him. (Exhibit 22, 1-5, lines 1 to 20)

18- MOTION FOR MISTRIAL

After the jurors were in place and the trial was announced to start, the Petitioner stood and requested to make a motion for mistrial. (Exhibit 29)

In order to keep the Petitioner from getting mixed up during his defense, the Petitioner had his material in a book form to read from. A complete copy of the Motion for mistrial, Exhibit 29 shows the details of this motion as it was to be presented in the trial.

In Exhibit 4 page 1-90 starting at line 13 and extending to page 1-91 line 17 gives an account of this activity, it shows how this was kept out of the trial transcript.

This motion for mistrial was intended for the jury, but Judge Drumm was blocking the Petitioner from presenting it to the jury as shown in Exhibit 4 pages 1-90 and 1-91. Judge Drumm insisted that it was to be taken up at the sidebar, then Judge Drumm kept it out of the trial transcript, once again showing that the trial transcripts are not an accurate account of all the events of the trial.

As in Exhibit 29 the Petitioner stated, AAs you know us citizens have certain United States Constitutional Guarantees. I am asking you to now uphold these Constitutional guaranteed Rights. The United States Constitution guarantees a Grand Jury Indictment which I did not get after I had demanded it. I also have Rights to an equal access to this Grand Jury. Under the United States Constitution in the Bill of Rights section, in Amendment 5 it states, no person shall be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, ---. I have demanded an indictment in this case where I would have equal access to the grand jury. This has been denied to me by two different judges in the past in this case.@

In the 14th Amendment of the United State Constitution it dictates to the states that their law can offer nothing less than the United States Constitution offers. Missouri has brought about their own State Constitution that eliminates this protected Right of a citizen. A extreme violation of the Petitioner=s guaranteed Rights. For this reason the Petitioner made his request under the United States Constitution which all officials in that court room are under oath to uphold. But they did not!


The Petitioner went on to state, AI was denied evidence hearings and a free access to take depositions in this case. I was denied the Right to know all the prosecutions evidence before this trial, so this has limited my defense in this trial. This also violates our United States Constitution, as it violates the Defendant=s Right to witnesses in the Bill of Rights. This is no trial, this is a prosecuting chamber for the government. I am now asking you to uphold our United States Constitution and order that I be brought before a Grand Jury to tell my side of the story to them. For you to allow this trial to continue without my request is a violation of our United States Constitution.@

Exhibit 26 is a comprehensive showing of the Court=s effort to block the Petitioner in taking depositions. Evidence hearings were blocked numerous times both through the Petitioner=s attorneys and all those prosecuting the Petitioner. This includes the judges that were involved in this case. There was no fairness at all, in this trial and the direct appeal thereafter!

19-There is something mighty fishy about Officer Honey=s police report. The last sentence on page one, AEhnes got in his@ then continued on page two, Avehicle and stated leave me alone.@ From page one to two in the middle of this sentence the typewriter font changes both in style and pressure. This is one of the places where evidence was changed to fit the manufactured case against the Petitioner! FRAUD! (Exhibit 5)

Had Public Defender M. Christine Holiman done her job and got the prosecutions evidence when first requested, the story could not have been changed!

Many months later after Prosecutor Icenogle came into the picture and manufactured evidence by arranging what was to be testimony in the trial, the story was changed.

20-Officer Honey states in his police report as in Exhibit 5 and in his trial testimony as in Exhibit 4, A---turned on emergency lights ---@ and A--- turned on the siren --- Aand the Petitioner A---never payed any attention ---.@ (Exhibit 4, 1-112, lines 11, 12 and 21. 1-115 line 1)

The truth is: Officer Honey never turned on his siren or his emergency red lights as defined in his testimony. The Petitioner was approaching the post office parking lot when Officer Honey turned on his red emergency lights. The Petitioner saw a red vehicle was parked out front, with tinted windows and pulled in and parked just to the right of this red vehicle.

The Petitioner got out of his car, and saw a police officer parked in the street with his red emergency lights on, standing in the driver door of his police car while on his two-way radio looking at the red vehicle. A silhouette of a person in the red vehicle could be seen sitting in the driver seat. (Prosecutor Stanley Moore was the driver of the red vehicle, but his identity was unknown to the Petitioner at that time.)

Prosecutor Stanley Moore later, in the trial, gave false testimony, denying he was already parked prior to Petitioner parking his car waiting for the Petitioner to arrive on the scene. The Petitioner, not knowing he was about to be arrested in a setup, went on into the post office and mailed his letter. As the Petitioner knew, he had not violated any law and the policeman talking on the radio was looking towards the red vehicle as the Petitioner got out of his car. The evidence that has been denied the Petitioner, many times, such as a copy of the police radio transmissions, will verify the facts stated above.

21-Exhibit 5, page 1 Lines 10. Officer Honey in his police report, claimed A--- he yelled stop! A at the Petitioner. In his trial testimony Exhibit 4, page 1-115, line 4, he stated, A--- told the driver to stop.@ The truth is: the only telling or yelling Officer Honey done was in the post office lobby he repeatedly yelled AYou cannot win!@ several times at the Petitioner.

22-Officer Honey clearly admits he was the first to assault the Petitioner after three times stating that he only wanted to tell the Petitioner he had a headlight out, twice in the trial testimony and once in his police report,.

Exhibit 4 page 1 - 119 line number 19. Officer Honey in the trial transcript stated, A--- so I hit him.@ And in his own police report he claims, that he was the person that first assaulted the Petitioner, in the United States Post Office. Officer Honey=s jurisdiction is on City property.

There is nothing giving Officer Honey authorization to go upon Federal Government property and assault anyone. He grabbed the Petitioner by the arm, then with his right closed fist swung on the Petitioner and hit him in the face! Exhibit 5

Exhibit 4, page 1 - 114 lines 22 and 23. Officer Honey states, A--- and I was just going to tell the driver to get the headlight fixed.@ Also, Exhibit 4, page 1 - 118, lines 2 and 3 A--- telling a guy to get his light fixed. ---A

If Officer Honey had been a gentleman about this, he would have just waited at the Petitioner=s car and told him his headlight was out when the Petitioner returned to his car!

23-Officer Honey=s testimony clearly defines the Petitioner=s will to be left alone in Exhibit 4, page 1