12-14-2013 Branson Tri-Lakes News Article on the Complaint

12-04-2013 A Legal RSMo Action To Remove Prosecutor Merrell From Office

Read the Complaint HERE

12-03-2013 Reason’s there cannot be a lawful trial

Never understood the charges and still does not to this day

Never fully informed on the cause and nature of the charges

Never formally entered a plea

Never received a lawful Information

Still have not received full discovery – never received the recording of the June 4, 2010 Family Hearing which will show that a conspiracy developed to shift the charges from the mother to the ACCUSED and Det. Roberts stating that there was no evidence of Child Abuse

After over three years of demanding discovery I received enough discovery just over three months ago to find what appears to be the cause and nature of the charges against the ACCUSED. It took three months to wade through the mess of mostly non-relevant data that showed the prosecutors witnesses were less than honest and now you are forcing a trial two weeks later.

From the start of this matter the ACCUSED has stood on his Constitutionally Protected God Given Rights including a Trial by Jury and have not waved any of his Constitutionally Protected Rights

The MAI-CR is not available to the ACCUSED and the agent for the ACCUSED cannot afford the services that make them available

Never agreed to a jury trial, but have demanded a trial by jury all along

12-03-2013 AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINT Against Taney County Prosecutor Merrell

Read the Complaint HERE

11-21-2013 Interesting Facts In This Case

The ACCUSED has never formally entered a plea - required by law.

The ACCUSED has never received a Lawful Information - the charging instrument and certain information is required by law to be in the information.

The ACCUSED has not received full Discovery -  requirement of law so that the ACCUSED may prepare a defense against the charges.

The ACCUSED demanded a Constitutional Court and had lawful reason to expect that demand be met in that the only contract that the System has with the ACCUSED is an acceptance of their oath to we the people to to up hold our Constitutionally  Protected God Given Unalienable Rights that is on file for all elected officials

The ACCUSED has not waived any of those Constitutional Rights.

And, yet we are scheduled to go to trial on December 9, 2013.

I am not concerned about a trial, I have been arguing the case for Truth, Freedom and Lawfulness in many forums and arenas over the last 30 years and have been successful more often then not in winning the argument. What concerns me is what appears to me to be a total disregard for the law and the truth, the confidence and ease with which they speak their lies and their preconceived notion of the forgone outcome of finding the ACCUSED guilty.

It is not a problem of naivety that I struggle with, it is that innocence of a belief in justice that I have clung to through the years.  

11-20-2013 BAR Complaint Against Taney County Prosecutor Jeff Merrell

This complaint is filed with the Chief Disciplinary Counsel against prosecutor, Jeff Merrell for his actions in the alleged criminal matter before the 38^th Judicial Circuit Court in Taney County Missouri. The ACCUSED, RUSSELL L DOVE is facing false charges of child abuse and neglect and felonious restraint. RUSSELL L DOVE is being denied Due Process of law by prosecutor Jeff Merrell, and otherwise being thwarted in his good faith attempts to answer those false charges.
As a prosecutor, Jeff Merrell is under the jurisdiction of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel pursuant to the provisions of the Missouri Supreme Court Rules 4-3.8 Sections (a), (d) and (f). In the scope of authority of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, this complaint involves:

1. Malicious prosecution as Jeff Merrell prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause (or substantiating evidence)
   
2. Contempt of Court as Jeff Merrell has twice ignored instructions given to him in court proceedings by Judge Mark Orr.
   
3. Willful and persistent failure to perform duties in upholding the obligations of his office to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence
   
4. Withholding evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the ACCUSED from discovery
   
5. Making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the ACCUSED.
   

I. On the issue of Malicious Prosecution

The charges against the ACCUSED, RUSSELL L DOVE, are related to an incident that occurred on April 12, 2010 that involved a warrantless, forced entry into the home of RUSSELL L DOVE’S neighbor, Christie Czajkowski, by Taney County Sheriff Deputy, Darin Carter, followed by a violent physical assault on Ms. Czajkowski by deputy Darin Carter. The incident resulted in the arrest of two neighbors (RUSSELL L DOVE and Brad Ward) on false charges that witnessed the physical assault on Ms. Czajkowski by Deputy Darin Carter. In executing the arrest in the course of a custodial interrogation, Deputy Darin Carter failed to read Ms. Czajkowski her Miranda rights, or inform here that she was free to end the interrogation at any time. This was a direct violation of procedure pursuant to the United States Supreme Court cases U.S. v. Craighead, 539 F. 3d 1073 (2008) and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).
These unlawful actions by deputy Darin Carter were compounded in the removal of Ms. Czajkowski’s children and termination of her parental rights without legal cause by Associate Circuit Court judge, James Justus, in an exparte proceeding conducted without notice to Ms. Czajkowski. As a result of that illegal proceeding related to the incident of April 12, 2010, Jeff Merrell has become aware of the huge potential legal liability to various public officials that acted illegally under the authority of the State of Missouri (himself included). The outright unlawful and unethical tactics of the prosecutor in the proceedings of this matter go to the desperation of the dishonorable prosecutor, Jeff Merrell, in attempting to conceal the criminal misdeeds of his office, the Office of the Sheriff of Taney County, and the Department of Social Services, Children’s Division of the State of Missouri by railroading the ACCUSED, RUSSELL L DOVE, into prison for an alleged crime that he did not commit. Mr. Merrell either knew or should have known that the violent, illegal, and unprofessional actions of Taney County Sheriff Deputy Darin Carter in committing a forced entry into the home of Ms. Czajkowski and the physical assault on Ms. Czajkowski in the course of conducting an “investigation” were violations of the 4^th, 5^th, 8^th, and 14^th Amendment Rights of Ms. Czajkowski. So it follows that the subsequent illegal proceedings in violation of the Rights of the ACCUSED, RUSSELL L DOVE, are being perpetrated in an attempt to justify the actions of the prosecutor, Jeff Merrell, and the aforesaid officials of Taney County Missouri against Christie Czajkowski in order to avoid a potential legal liability to said officials of Taney County Missouri.
By due diligence in the course of conducting a proper investigation in his official capacity as prosecutor of Taney County, Jeff Merrell should have ascertained that the statements of the complaining witnesses were lacking in veracity. Christie Czajkowski and her neighbor, RUSSELL L DOVE, were interrogated by Taney County Sheriff department, but their statements as to the events that occurred were ignored. Ms. Czajkowski’s other neighbor, Brad Ward, was never interviewed about the incident of April 12, 2010 by any officials of Taney County Missouri to ascertain all of the details related to the incident of April 12, 2010. This one-sided “investigation” demonstrates that the alleged investigation was looking for ways to railroad the ACCUSED, RUSSELL L DOVE, from the very start. The prosecutor, Jeff Merrell, acted upon information received from complaining witnesses of questionable reliability and character living in the same place as the ACCUSED and the statements of Taney County Official’s of what they claim the two pre-adolescent children that were rebelling against their mother supposedly said. In his official capacity as prosecutor, Jeff Merrell acted upon this hearsay evidence without bothering to verify any of the information. In this regard, Jeff Merrell failed to uphold the special responsibilities of a prosecutor in that Jeff Merrell did not “refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.” Jeff Merrell’s failure to conduct a proper investigation before bringing charges against the ACCUSED is a clear violation of Missouri Supreme Court Rules 4-3.8, and 4-3.8 (a) as this constitutes an outright denial of procedural justice to the ACCUSED and an attempt by the prosecutor, Jeff Merrell, to make certain that the ACCUSED is perceived as being “guilty” and that the “guilt” is not decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence. In pursuing this matter without conducting a proper investigation, Jeff Merrell is prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.
Furthermore, his relentless pursuit of these unsubstantiated charges goes to the malicious nature of this prosecution. Through his actions in the proceedings, Jeff Merrell has demonstrated his awareness of the fact that he must get a conviction of the ACCUSED, RUSSELL L DOVE, at all costs in order to justify his actions against Christie Czajkowski.

II. On the issue of Contempt of Court by the Prosecutor

In the arraignment hearing of February 16, 2012, the prosecutor, Jeff Merrell was ordered to provide the ACCUSED, RUSSELL L DOVE, with discovery after the agent for the ACCUSED cited Pitts v. Williams, 315 S.W.3d 755, 759 315 S.W.3d 755 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010). The prosecutor provided a partial discovery that he presented as being full discovery that contained 135 individual documents and exhibits. In another arraignment hearing on June 26, 2013, the agent for the ACCUSED revisited the issue of discovery as it related to the repeated insinuations by the prosecutor that the ACCUSED, RUSSELL L DOVE, had committed alleged sexual offenses for which he had not been formally charged. After the agent for the ACCUSED cited Pitts v. Williams again, 38^th Judicial Circuit Court Judge, Mark E. Orr, ordered the prosecutor, Jeff Merrell, to give the agent for the ACCUSED full discovery¹. The prosecutor complied with the order to provide discovery, and this time the discovery contained 450 individual documents and exhibits. This was a violation of Missouri Supreme Court Rules 4-3.8, and 4-3.8 (a) as the prosecutor did not accord the ACCUSED procedural justice and the prosecutor failed to “make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the ACCUSED or mitigates the offense and, in connection with sentencing, and disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating citing information known to the prosecutor.”

In another arraignment hearing of May 16, 2012, the agent for the ACCUSED pointed out the insufficiency of the information, citing State v. Collins, 154 S.W.3d 486, 494 (Mo.App.2005), State v. Kroenung, 188 S.W.3d 89, 93 (Mo.App.2006), and Missouri Supreme Court Rules Rule 23.01 and Rule 23.01(b)(2). Judge Mark E. Orr instructed the prosecutor, Jeff Merrell to “refile the information” pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rules 23.01 and 23.01(b)(2)².

In another arraignment hearing of June 26, 2013, the agent for the ACCUSED pointed out the insufficiency of the information for a second time, citing State v. Collins, 154 S.W.3d 486, 494 (Mo.App.2005), State v. Kroenung, 188 S.W.3d 89, 93 (Mo.App.2006), and Missouri Supreme Court Rules Rule 23.01 and Rule 23.01(b)(2). Judge Mark E. Orr instructed the prosecutor, Jeff Merrell to “file something more specific on the information” pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rules 23.01 and 23.01(b)(2)³. The new information that Jeff Merrell submitted was basically the same information used in all of the previous proceedings with the only change being two additional names added to the prosecutor’s witness list. In addition to the obvious failure to obey the order issued by Judge Orr (contempt of Court) this was another violation of Missouri Supreme Court Rules 4-3.8 as the prosecutor did not accord the ACCUSED procedural justice⁴.

III. On the issue of Willful and persistent failure to uphold the obligations to see that procedural justice is accord the ACCUSED

In bringing these charges against the ACCUSED the prosecutor, Jeff Merrell, has from the start of this matter refused to state the cause and the nature of this action against the ACCUSED. The ACCUSED was again denied procedural justice as he was not told the nature and cause of the accusations against him, until July 24, 2013, although prosecutor had lead the Court to believe that he had given the ACCUSED full Discovery on February 16, 2012 after an arraignment hearing before Judge Orr. The prosecutor has also engaged in tactics that are calculated to delay the proceeding in an attempt to put the ACCUSED at a tactical disadvantage. The use of this tactic of Oppressive Delay is most evident in the prosecutor’s denial of discovery to the ACCUSED for a period of over three years in the course of these proceedings in violation of the Missouri Supreme Court Rules of Criminal Procedure 25.01 and 25.02 on discovery and contrary to the decision in Pitts v. Williams, 315 S.W.3d 755, 759 315 S.W.3d 755 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010). This is a direct violation of the 6^th Amendment Rights of the ACCUSED, RUSSELL L DOVE, and as such is also another violation of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 4-3.8 as the ACCUSED was not accorded procedural justice. Yet another denial of procedural justice to the ACCUSED occurred in the initial arraignment proceeding for the ACCUSED, RUSSELL L DOVE, on February 16, 2012 before the 38^th Judicial Circuit Court of Taney County Missouri, prosecutor Jeff Merrell, continued to openly violate the 6th Amendment Rights of the ACCUSED to Due Process of law. In bringing the charges, the prosecutor, Jeff Merrell tried to slip in four charges that were previously dropped by Associate Circuit Court Judge, Tony W. Williams in a pretrial hearing back into the arraignment hearing.⁵ This maneuver on the part of Jeff Merrell was questioned by the judge presiding over the arraignment hearing, Judge Mark Orr, and Judge Orr stated to the prosecutor “I don’t understand what you’re trying to do.” Judge Orr refused to proceed on the charges in question, so Jeff Merrell responded that he would “…just refile them.” This was a violation of the procedure for filing charges a second time, and a violation of the 6^th Amendment Right to Due Process of Law of the ACCUSED as Jeff Merrell did not show a good cause nor offer any newly discovered evidence as justification for his refilling of the charges for a second time and the ACCUSED, RUSSELL L DOVE, was not informed as to the nature and cause of the accusations that have been brought against the ACCUSED for a second time. In his attempt to sneak the charges that were previously dismissed in the lower court back into the record of the higher court, Jeff Merrell, attempted to circumvent the process for the refilling of charges pursuant to the Court Rules Of The 38^th Judicial Circuit, Rule 37.7:
37.7 REINSTATEMENT OF CAUSE.
(1) A Motion to Reinstate May be Filed. Within thirty (30) days from the date of dismissal, an application or motion to reinstate the case may be filed. Cases will only reinstated for good cause shown.
The attempt by the dishonorable prosecutor, Jeff Merrell, to slip the four charges that had been dismissed back into the proceeding was a premeditated act as Jeff Merrell attended the arraignment hearing of February 16, 2012 intent upon acting on the charges that had been dismissed⁶. In reinstating the charges, Jeff Merrell offered no reason for this action and did not demonstrate a “good cause” for the reinstatement of the charges that were dropped by Judge Williams. That refusal to follow court rules on the part of the prosecutor, Jeff Merrell, is a flagrant violation of the 6^th Amendment Right of Due Process of law of the ACCUSED, RUSSELL L DOVE, and as such is yet another denial of procedural justice to the ACCUSED in violation of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 4-3.8.

IV. On the issue guilt being decided on the basis of sufficient evidence

In analyzing the evidence in the discovery that was given by the prosecutor it is evident that the prosecutor’s case is built on hearsay evidence and circumstantial evidence. The only element that remains consistent in the discovery is that the allegations brought forth by the prosecutor have consistently changed throughout the course of this matter according to the needs of the prosecution at any given point in time. The testimony of the various officials of Taney County and the Department of Social Services Children’s Division of the State of Missouri (DSSCD) conflict with one another and conflict with the video depositions of the alleged “victims” SK and AD. This was in violation of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 4-3.8(d) as the prosecutor failed to “make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the ACCUSED.”⁷
Another odd thing has been the removal of two key witnesses the DSSCD social worker, Emily Nichols, and the neighbor that originally filed the “anonymous” complaint, Carissa Bayer. Both of these key witnesses have been removed from the list of witnesses that the prosecution intends to call to testify against the ACCUSED. Instead of the key witnesses testifying in the trial proceedings, the prosecution intends to have other parties testify as to what the key witnesses are alleged to have told them⁸. This is a blatant violation of the 6^th Amendment Rights of the ACCUSED, RUSSELL L DOVE, as this denies the ACCUSED an opportunity to confront the witnesses against him. The use of hearsay evidence against the ACCUSED is another count in the denial of procedural justice to the ACCUSED another violation of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 4-3.8, and Rule 4-3.8(a) as proceeding on hearsay evidence is prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.

V. On the issue of evidence or information being withheld from discovery

Throughout the proceedings of this matter, the prosecution has sought to apply creative interpretation to the statutes pertaining to the allegations against the ACCUSED, RUSSELL L DOVE. The accusations of abuse of a child against the ACCUSED are ludicrous as there is no evidence to substantiate the charges. Even more outrageous is the fact that the prosecution has gone to great lengths to insinuate that sexual offenses were committed by the ACCUSED again without presenting any evidence to substantiate such allegations. These insinuations by the prosecutor have continued up to my last court appearance on July 24, 2013. Evidence of these outrageous insinuations have appeared nine different times on the Court docket listed as follows:

1-19-12- Docket Read, “Possible Section 589.405 RSMo. Charge.”
5-16-12- Docket Read, “Possible Section 589.405 RSMo. Charge.”
8-09-12- Docket Read, “Possible Section 589.405 RSMo. Charge.”
11-1-12- Docket Read, “Possible Section 589.405 RSMo. Charge.”
12-12-12- Docket Read, “Possible Section 589.405 RSMo. Charge.”
1-23-13- Docket Read, “Possible Section 589.405 RSMo. Charge.”
6-06-13- Docket Read, “Possible Section 589.405 RSMo. Charge.”
6-26-13- Docket Read, “Possible Section 589.405 RSMo. Charge.”
7-11-13- Docket Read, “Possible Section 589.405 RSMo. Charge.”
7-24-13- Docket Read, “Possible Section 589.405 RSMo. Charge.”⁹
Revised Statutes of Missouri Chapter 589, Section 589.405 is related to the registration of sexual offenders and reads as follows:

Chapter 589

Crime Prevention and Control Programs and Services

Section 589.405

August 28, 2012
Court's duties upon release of sexual offender.
589.405. Any person to whom subsection 1 of section 589.400 applies who is released on probation, discharged upon payment of a fine, or released after confinement in a county jail shall, prior to such release or discharge, be informed of the possible duty to register pursuant to sections 589.400 to 589.425 by the court having jurisdiction over the case. If such person is required to register pursuant to sections 589.400 to 589.425, the court shall obtain the address where the person expects to reside upon discharge, parole or release and shall report, within three business days, such address to the chief law enforcement official of the county or city not within a county where the person expects to reside, upon discharge, parole or release.

(L. 1997 H.B. 883, A.L. 2006 H.B. 1698, et al., A.L. 2008 S.B. 714, et al.)

Jeff Merrell, made a motion for a “section 491 hearing” in the proceeding of June 6, 2013. Section 491 of the Missouri Revised Statues also relates to sexual offenses. The prosecution has not brought any formal charges of sexual offenses against the ACCUSED, RUSSELL L DOVE, and the prosecution certainly has not brought forth any evidence of sexual offenses having been committed by the ACCUSED. This tactic of using the threat of this charge is an attempt to intimidate the ACCUSED, RUSSELL L DOVE, in order to bully him into a plea bargain with the prosecutor. The on-going insinuation by the prosecutor of an alleged sexual offense having been committed by the ACCUSED, RUSSELL L DOVE, further confuses the original charges of this matter and is prejudicial to the ACCUSED in his ability to get a fair trial as this poisons the pool of potential jurors¹⁰. The confusion created by the use of this tactic serves as a further violation of the 6^th Amendment Right to Due Process of law of the ACCUSED as the ACCUSED has not been informed of the nature of these charges and the ACCUSED has not been formally charged for these alleged offenses. This is another violation of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 4-3.8 as the ACCUSED, RUSSELL L DOVE, has not been accorded procedural justice in relation to the repeated insinuations of these charges. This is also contrary to the decision in State v. Collins, 154 S.W.3d 486, 494 (Mo.App.2005), “[A]s a general rule, due process mandates that a criminal defendant may not be convicted of an offense not expressly charged in the information or indictment.” This is also a violation of Missouri Supreme Court Rule Rule 4-3.8 (d) as no evidence or information related to these alleged charges has been released by the prosecutor to the agent for the ACCUSED. and Rule 4-3.8(a) as the prosecutor, Jeff Merrell, is prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.

VI. On the issue of making extrajudicial comments that have biased the public in condemnation of the ACCUSED

On January 30, 2012, the folloing report appeared on the web site of a local Branson, Missouri television station:
UPDATE: Child Abuse Charges Dismissed in Case Against Former Internet Radio Host

Christie Czajkowski will testify against her neighbor as part of an agreement with the state.

January 30, 2012|Greg Leuthen | KSPR News Producer
http://articles.kspr.com/2012-01-30/child-abuse_31007761
TANEY COUNTY, Mo. — A former internet radio host who was scheduled to go to trial Monday on child abuse charges will instead testify against her neighbor. Taney County, MO prosecutor Jeff Merrell tells KSPR the state reached an agreement with Christie Czajkowski to dismiss all charges against her without prejudice in exchange for truthful testimony in the state's case against Russell Dove.
In April of 2010, investigators said Czajkowski asked Dove to tie up her daughters at his house.
Police say dove admitted to tying up the girls and spanking them when their mother asked him to. The girls were 11 and 12 years old at the time. Dove is charged with child abuse and felonious restraint. He's scheduled to be arraigned February 16.
This story is written in such away as to make it appear that the former neighbor of the ACCUSED, RUSSELL L DOVE, has turned state’s evidence against the ACCUSED. The story quotes Taney County prosecutor, Jeff Merrell, as stating that the charges against the former neighbor of the ACCUSED, Christie Czajkowski were dismissed “in exchange for truthful testimony in the state’s case against Russell Dove.” The news report also quotes an unnamed police source as saying that “dove admitted to tying up the girls and spanking them when their mother asked him to.”¹¹
The ACCUSED, RUSSELL L DOVE, made no admission of guilt to any law enforcement officers. The ACCUSED did make a statement to police in which he gave a truthful account of what happened, but did not make an admission of guilt to the charges. The quote attributed to Taney County prosecutor, Jeff Merrell, is a documented attempt by Jeff Merrell to bias the public in condemnation of the ACCUSED in order to taint the potential jury pool in Taney County with another insinuation of guilt that is not substantiated by evidence. This is a clear violation of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 4-3.8(f) as this statement by the prosecutor, Jeff Merrell, was not “necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose.” It should be obvious that this extrajudicial comment will “have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the ACCUSED.” Furthermore, in his capacity as Taney County prosecutor, Jeff Merrell failed to “exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees, or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 4-3.6 or this Rule 4-3.8.” In this case, the statement regarding an “admission” from the ACCUSED, RUSSELL L DOVE, attributed to an unnamed police source.

VII. Summary

In summary of this complaint, I have alleged seven violations of Missouri Supreme Court Rules 4-3.8, four violations of Missouri Supreme Court Rules 4-3.8(a), two violation of Missouri Supreme Court Rules 4-3.8(d), and one violation of Missouri Supreme Court Rules 4-3.8(f). I have presented this complaint to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel against prosecutor, Jeff Merrell for his actions before the 38^th Judicial Circuit Court in Taney County Missouri in the hope that this Counsel will remind prosecutor Merrell that he is not above the law, and that in his capacity as a public official he is held to a higher standard in regard to his adherence to the law. It is my hope that this counsel will maintain the integrity and credibility of the judicial system by administering the appropriate disciplinary action against Jeff Merrell for his clearly inappropriate conduct in regard to the handling of the matter of Case No's 10AF-CR01742, 12AF-CR00675 and 10AF-CR01742-01 – State of Missouri v. RUSSELL L DOVE.






______________________________ Russ Dove, acting agent for the ACCUSED. RUSSELL L DOVE






Attached:

First and Last Information’s given to the ACCUSED

02-16-2012 Charges Filed By Prosecutor Merrell

States Original Witness List ~VS ~ States Current Witness List

An image of the Docket

10AF-CR01742-ST_V_RUSSELLLDOVE_07-07-2010-to-01-19-2012

12AF-CR00675-ST_V_RUSSELLLDOVE_03-14-2012-to-09-14-2012

10AF-CR01742-01-ST_V_RUSSELLLDOVE_01-23-2012-to-11-07-2013

1    06/26/2013 Order State by P.A.; Defendant appears in person; Motions heard and ruled on the record; 1. Resubmit: Motion: Demand for Justification of references to 589.405 heard and overruled. Defendant is not charged with 589.405 offense in this case. 10. Motion for Court Order to Compel Additional Discovery - State agrees to provide discovery. Hearing on 491 motion set for 7-24-13 at 1:00 p.m.; Jury Trial 9-23-13 at 8:00 a.m. Judge Orr/ss

2    05/16/2012 Hearing Continued/Rescheduled Hearing Continued From: 05/16/2012; 10:00 AM Hearing Order State by P.A.; Defendant in person; State given leave to file Amended Felony Information (filed 4-12-12); 7. Motion to Order Prosecutor to clearly define charges - Construed as Motion for Bill of Particulars - Sustain Motion, 20 days for State to respond. Set for reappearance 7-5-12. Judge Orr/ss

3    06/26/2013 Order State by P.A.; Defendant appears in person; Motions heard and ruled on the record; 9. Motion to Clarify the Charges - Treated as Bill of Particulars, State to respond by July 11, 2013. Hearing on 491 motion set for 7-24-13 at 1:00 p.m.; Jury Trial 9-23-13 at 8:00 a.m. Judge Orr/ss

4    First and Last Information’s given to the ACCUSED

5    12/15/2011 Hearing Scheduled Associated Entries: 01/19/2012 - Hearing/Trial Cancelled Scheduled For: 02/06/2012; 9:00 AM ; TONY W. WILLIAMS; Taney Hearing Held Cause taken up for decision on motion to dismiss, motion overruled. After hearing PH and considering all of the testimony, the court dismisses Ct's 1, 2, 4, and 5. Counts 3 and 6 are bond over for arraignment. Clerks to notify Pros. Office and deft and set court date for announcement to deft and Pros. Office on 2-6-2012 @ 9 a.m. tww/adp

6    02-16-2012 Charges Filed By Prosecutor Merrell

7    http://russdove.com/Discovery/00_10-09-2013_DiscoveryReportDVD-Index.htm

8    States Original Witness List ~VS ~ States Current Witness List

9    An image of the Docket

10    07/24/2013 Hearing/Trial Cancelled [Sic] Scheduled For: 09/23/2013; 8:00 AM ; MARK ESTLE ORR; Taney Hearing Held Scheduled For: 07/24/2013; 1:00 PM ; MARK ESTLE ORR; Taney Order State by P.A. Deendnt [Sic] appears in person pro se. Defendants motion to quash prosecutors 491 hearing heard and overruled. Defendants motion to quash 491 hearing for violation of statutes heard and overruled. Motion to demand lawful information heard and overruled. Jury trial set 12-9-13 at 8:00am. MEO/sd

11    There were numerous Media Reports on this case – it appeared that the media had more information on the case than did the ACCUSED – All Hearsay based on an analysis of States Discovery. - http://russdove.com/LeaveChristieAlone/?cat=7&paged=2 and http://russdove.blogspot.com/2012/02/02-13-2012-controlling-news-local.html

Page 8 of 8

I will finish formatting this document and code the links for a full view of this complaint ASAP.

-->

11-09-2013 Motions Filed On November 6, 2013

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

Notice Of Intent To Litigate If Case Continued

or see 11-06-2013 Post

_____________________________________________________________

See the complete Motion HERE

_____________________________________________________________

See the complete Motion HERE

_____________________________________________________________

11-06-2013 Filed A Motion To Dismiss For Lack of Evidence Along with the First Salvo of Charges Against The Kidnappers

See the complete letter and all of the supporting documents HERE

The .PDF's and .MP4's are large files see file sizes in the Index or at the bottom of the Intent Document.

I've heard it said that Discovery is a Bitch - interesting what this Discovery puts on the line - Taney County's Actions from this point on well answer the question, "Does the Law matter or is it true that the Courts have become a Private Cult known only to Judges, Prosecutors and Attorneys?" We will see.

09-29-2013 Prosecutor Merrell You Have A Duty To Find The Truth Before You Prosecute

“In Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995), the Supreme Court held that ‘the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the police.’ ” Id. at 54-55

DISCOVERY IS A BITCH

07-30-2013 1st Notice of Intent to Bring A Federal Lawsuit

The last round of Discovery given to me by Prosecutor Merrell on July 24, 2013, was the proof I required to show that crimes were committed against the girls, their mother, the other neighbor and the ACCUSED. At this point the only one I can legally speak for is the ACCUSED. I will take these charges to the Federal Court in the forum of a Title 42 USC Section 1983 Denial of Rights Under Color of Law lawsuit for violations of the 4th and 6th Amendment Rights of the ACCUSED. This is the 1st Notice on the parties I can show damaged the ACCUSED in their criminal actions under color of law.

---

---

---

---

---

---

07-30-2013 Finally! I know the Cause and Nature of the Charges

For three years I have stated that I did not know the Cause and Nature of the charges against the ACCUSED, RUSSELL L DOVE. For three years I have demanded that Discovery be provided and that the Criminal Information be made clear that I might know the Cause and Nature of the charges against the ACCUSED. 

The Limited Discovery provided to me by Prosecutor Merrell on behalf of the ACCUSED on February 16, 2012, had a lot of repeated information in it, but really nothing on making clear the Cause and Nature of the charges.

Finally on July 24, 2013, Prosecutor Merrell handed me a DVD and on that DVD I discovered the seeds that created the current cause against the ACCUSED, the Cause and Nature of the charges. The documents I speak of were created in April, May and June of 2010, why did it take Prosecutor Merrell three years to give them to the ACCUSED?

I still don't understand the charges against the ACCUSED, I've never been good at understanding lies beyond those lies that I wanted to hear and then I found a way. I wonder if Judge Orr understands the charges against the ACCUSED? Better yet; I wonder if Prosecutor Merrell understands them?

Up until now all I have had is hearsay testimony of what went down behind the scenes to bring me before the Missouri 38th Judiciary, nothing I could sink my teeth into and nothing I could fight but shadows. This is the reason that my motions have been vague. Now within the fullness of the current Discovery I have; I can show the crimes committed against the girls, their mother, the other neighbor and myself, agent for the ACCUSED.

Very Interesting!!!!!!!!!!!!

P.S. Really? 3 years to get Discovery and the Criminal Information is still in violation of the RSMo requirements and rulings of the Higher Courts. It looks an awful lot like Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law to me.

07-23-2013 Let Us Be Lawful At A Minimum

<!--[if gte mso 9]> sovereign7 Normal sovereign7 2 7 2013-07-24T04:12:00Z 2013-07-24T05:01:00Z 2013-07-24T05:01:00Z 5 1693 9652 80 22 11323 14.00 <![endif]
-->

In the Missouri 38^th Judicial Circuit Court, Taney County, Case No. 10AF-CR01742-01, before Judge Orr to be read into the record July 24, 2013.

I need to clear up a few things here for the Record:

I am russ dove and have been living as russ dove for 30 years.

I am a Genesis One man; a blood of the Spirit, blood of the flesh man on the land and draw my authority to stand on the land from the Word of God:

Gen 1:27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God

Gal 2:20  I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Joh_1:12  But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God,

I am a sovereign

Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition 1951 page 1568: defines a SOVEREIGN in part as: A person, or other ruler with limited power.

Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Wood v. Breier, 54 F.R.D. 7, 10-11 (E.D. Wis. 1972); and Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 (E.D. Pa. 1973) "Each citizen acts as a private attorney general who 'takes on the mantel of sovereign."  

 Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967). “In the United States the People are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to the People by taking away their citizenship.”

I am an Agent of non-compliance/non-consent with prejudice, and under duress appearing from the land in a special appearance to ascertain the cause against the ACCUSED, RUSSELL L DOVE and seek a lawful resolution founded in justice:

Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition 1910 page 703: defines LAWFUL as, Legal; warranted or authorized by the law; having the qualifications prescribed by law; not contrary to nor forbidden by the law.

Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition 1910 page 1027: defines RESOLUTION as, The determination or decision, in regard to its opinion or intention, In practice. The judgement of a court. 5 Mod. 438; 10 Mod. 200.

Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition 1910 page 682: defines JUSTICE as. v. In old English practice, To do justice; to see justice done; to summon one to do justice. JUSTICE, n. In jurisprudence. The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due. 

I am not a corporation

Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition 1951 page 409: defines CORPORATION as. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state or nation, composed, in some rare instances, of a single person . . .

I am not the party of accommodation

This is not a defense, it is simply who I am and as a sovereign I have certain unalienable rights; including the right to demand that the laws be followed in this matter.

RUSSELL L DOVE, the ACCUSED, is the name given to the Corporate Fiction by way of the system and proceeds Sui Juris, un-represented and not Pro Se, re-presenting itself.

That my demands, for cause against the ACCUESED be heard in an Article III; Constitutional Court, were ignored even though the ACCUSED does have a contract with you Judge Orr,  where the ACCUSED accepts your Sworn Oath to the people of Taney County, Missouri, to up hold the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution and the Constitution of the Great Sovereign State of Missouri; the ACCUSED has the same contract with the Taney County Prosecutor, Sheriff and Court Clerk, there was a reasonable lawful expectation that you would do your best to meet that demand. I let myself believe that you might attempt to comply with my demands; I found out just how wrong I was on June 26, 2013. 

I’m still reeling from the fact that this court feels it has the authority to overrule rulings of a higher court. You tell me that you will hold me to the same requirements of a lawyer/attorney, even though the higher courts have ruled otherwise. Prosecutor Merrell tells you that he wants the full rights that the law allows him to prosecute the ACCUSED. So, as agent for the ACCUSED, I demand that you both follow the law, the rules and procedures that govern your respective positions of authority and that you provide agent for the ACCUSED the time to introduce his arguments and the laws that support those arguments into the Record. To do anything less would be to darken the purity this court is meant to represent.

The Right to be Heard is secured in Rule 2: Rules Governing the Missouri BAR and the Judiciary

Code of Judicial Conduct : 2.03. Canon 3.

 (7) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.

There is no provision in law for local customs

I therefore demand that at a minimum you abide by the very same statutes you use to charge the ACCUSED and that you operate within the established Rules and Procedures that govern your positions of power given to you by We the People.

In the Missouri Constitution, Article II § 14 ~ "That the courts of justice shall be open to every person, and certain remedy afforded for every injury, property or character, and that right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay."

In Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489 (5th Cir. 1956) "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."

Owens v. City of Independence, 100 S.Ct 1398 (1980) "The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental authority is assured that he will be compensated for his injury."

I want to remind Prosecutor Merrell of has lawful duties and responsibilities to the ACCUSED

RULE 4-3.8: SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

[1] A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence. Applicable law may require other measures by the prosecutor and knowing disregard of those obligations or a systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion could constitute a violation of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 4-8.4.

McCurdy v Montgomery County, Ohio, 240 F.3d 512 (6th Cir. 2001). “Government officials in general, and police officers in particular, may not exercise their authority for personal motives, particularly in response to real or perceived slights to their dignity. Surely, anyone who takes an oath of office knows - or should know - that much." 

Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S. Ct. 1038 (1960) “The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.”

Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990). “Federal law & Supreme Court cases apply to state court cases.”

I want to remind you, Judge Orr of your lawful duties and responsibilities to the ACCUSED and his agent:

Rule 2: Rules Governing the Missouri BAR and the Judiciary Code of Judicial Conduct

Rule 2.02 (h & p) of the Judicial Code of Conduct defines the words “law” and “shall” as follows:

 "Law" denotes court rules as well as applicable constitutional provisions, statutes, ordinances and decisional and other law.

"Shall" or "shall not" intends to impose binding obligations the violation of which can result in disciplinary action.

2.03. Canon 2. A Judge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All of the Judge's Activities

A. A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

2.03. Canon 3. A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently

(2) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism.

(4) A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity and shall require similar conduct of lawyers and of staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control.

(5) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge, in the performance of judicial duties, shall not by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, disability or age, and shall not permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control to do so.

 (8) A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently and fairly.

The Sheriff is the final Constitutional Authority and in an Executive Branch position not bound by or to the Judicial System

Bailiffs are Sheriff’s Deputies and all have sworn to uphold the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution and the Missouri State Constitution and abide by the laws.

The charges against the accused are without merit

Given that there is no physical evidence only circumstantial evidence and the two(2) eye witness in two(2) separate accounts on the record collaborate the accused’s defense there is no lawful reason to continue this matter. All other witnesses for the state should be excluded as hearsay and or improper bolstering.

Constitutional violations have occurred

No Due Process

No True Probable Cause

Jurisdiction has been challenged

"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250

The defense stipulates that SK and AD were restrained with rope once in early February 2009 as a disciplinary act.

The legal question here is; was a crime committed and did the ACCUSED violate the statues as charged?

The statutes must be applied as written and have no need of interruption.

State v. Rowe, 63 S.W.3d 647, 649 (Mo. banc 2002).  “Courts apply certain guidelines to interpretation, sometimes called rules or canons of statutory construction, when the meaning is unclear or there is more than one possible interpretation.”

Id. (citing State ex rel. Mo. Pac. R.R. v. Koehr, 853 S.W.2d 925, 926 (Mo. banc 1993)). When the wording of the statutes is clear a different standard applies. “When the words are clear, however, there is nothing to construe beyond applying the plain meaning of the law.”

Requirements of a crime

Actus Reus (Guilty Action), Mens Rea (Guilty Mind), Concurrence, Harmful Result and Causation

It is incumbent upon Prosecutor Merrell to prove all four elements of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Barnes, 245 S.W.3d 885, 889 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). “The State has the burden to prove each and every element of a criminal case.“

Unless New Discovery produces some physical evidence the trial you have planned can be no more than a he said they said affair and in that case the character of the witnesses involved is the only thing that can be judged. That fact alone makes that any conviction handed down would fall short of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” required by law in a criminal court

This is a criminal matter that is not to be judged on emotion based on what you think you see or you think might have happened it is about the facts and what the facts say did happen.

-->