Washington County, MO

102 North Missouri, Potosi, Missouri 63664

ST V Bruce W. Kurt                                                                             Case No: 700602973

Lawful notice and demand for an honorable de jure judge, notice of estopple:

COMES NOW the Defendant, Bruce Woodruff Kurt, destitute of counsel, demanding his vested rights to: 1) “justice without sale, denial, or delay”; 2) “trial by jury”; and, 3) de jure government which comports its conduct within the constitutional paradigms.  And in support of these just demands presenting the facts and uncontested assertions enumerated herein below as evidence, to wit:

1) The establishment of THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MISSOURI BAR, which for all intents and purposes rules the State of Missouri, was unlawful ab initio  in violation of Missouri’s BILL OF RIGHTS and Article V, Section 5 of Missouri’s Constitution.  Said “GOVERNMENT” exists, de facto, as an unlicensed, private, and for profit corporation which stands above the law and is beyond the regulation of Missouri’s public; resulting in oligarchic government rather than the “Republican Form of Government” of, by, and for the public guaranteed to “every State” by the US Constitution.  Too, no appellate judge, and none of the judges in St. Louis or Kansas City in Missouri is elected to office; yet the provision in Amendment XIV, Section 2 to the US Constitution that such want of elective control “shall” result in diminishment of representation has never been enforced…

2) Since time immemorial (or at least since the Mosaic Law) English Common Law is based upon trial by jury existing as a check-n-balance against judicial corruption, and the sovereign Public of Missouri is not stupid enough to let only the judges judge the judges.  We reserved “inherent, sole, and exclusive right to regulate ” government to ourselves, and have never been so stupid as to repose such regulatory authority upon any of our servants.  Our form of government is republican (ministerial special trust), not a blind trust. “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” ~ James Madison, Federalist #10: likewise, no oligarchy can lawfully rule an egalitarian state.

3) The right to trial by jury is vested as an “inviolate” right, and to change the BILL OF RIGHTS of Missouri’s Constitution will require a full blown public referendum/vote.  No mere Statute can lawfully amend Missouri’s Constitution; because the Constitution is superior thereto.  {Cf.: Marbury v Madison [Madison quoted supra], and 16th AmJur 2d §256.}

4) Judge HYDE, in collusive conspiracy with the prosecutor and members of Missouri’s Legislature have contemptibly and feloniously [18 USC §241] attempted to defraud me of my “inviolate” right to the benefit of a trial by jury.  Missouri Rule 36.01 (b) states: “If the contempt charged involves disrespect to or criticism of a judge, that judge is* disqualified from proceeding at the trial or hearing except with the defendant’s consent” [*“is” is a present tense modifier].  Judge Hyde does not have my consent; ergo, Judge Hyde is estopped from proceeding by the express mandate of the Rule of Court...

5) If judge Hyde has a problem playing by the Rules of Court as written, and wishes to challenge my upbraiding of his character and conduct, his legal recourse is in defamation, and “the province of a jury” per Missouri Constitution, Article I, Section 8.  Redundantly, conspiring against my “inviolate” right to trial by jury is a felonious crime, 18 USC §241, and lastly: “The Trial of all Crimes, -----, shall be by Jury;” per Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution and mandatory upon Missouri per Mo. Const., Art. I, §4.

As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an “unreviewable and irreversible power.. to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge”.... US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972)

 “If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power, to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)

6) For over 115 years Missouri’s so-called “licenses to practice law” have been colorable in violation of the separation of powers which is supposed to be a bulwark against corrupt government.  Every other Missouri State License, without exception, is issued and regulated through the executive magistracy of government…

7) Owing to the asserted fact [#6 supra] that Missouri never issues lawful licenses to practice law, considered along together with the constitutional requirement that all Missouri judges be licensed to practice law [Mo. Const., Art. V, §21], Missouri has no lawful judge with whom to replace Judge Hyde.  Missouri is a rogue state!

8) Forasmuch as “public Ministers” (Judge Hyde and his cronies, namely, Missouri’s illicit de facto only judiciary), “Counsels” (prosecuting attorney), and the “State” of Missouri are Party to the felony crime exposed herein above, “original Jurisdiction” of this Case reposes in the one supreme [sic] Court of vested right per the express mandate of The Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2; to which Missouri is “subject” per Missouri’s Constitution, Article I, Section 4.

9) Righteous recalcitrance (justified contempt for biased and corrupt courts) helped give birth to the United States, or so the legend goes.  Now the situation has gotten so bad that the Bush/Cheney Cabal can commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, apparently with impunity.  Titled Nobility that is above the law is what America’s Revolutionary Troops fought to end, and it makes no difference what name such an oligarchy goes by...

 “There is no worse heresy than that the office should sanctify the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of Liberalism meet and keep high festival, and the end learns to justify the means.” – LORD ACTON (John E.E. Dalberg, 1834-1902, English historian). From the same letter to Mandell Chrighton, Apr. 3, 1887, in which LORD ACTON wrote the immortal line: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

 “color of office” = “A pretence of official right to do an act made by one who has no such right.  9 East 364.  Such person must be at least a de facto officer; Burrall v. Acker, 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 606, 35 Am. Dec. 582.

“An act wrongfully done by an officer, under the pretended authority of his office, and grounded upon corruption, to which the office is a mere shadow of color.”  Griffiths v. Hardenbergh, 41 N. Y. 464.  Source: BOUVIER’S LAW DICTIONARY (1984 edition, ironically)

“EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW”  and government under an oligarchy are antithetical.


 1 Latin: “From initiation.” Black’s Law.

 2 Missouri Constitution, BILL OF RIGHTS, Article I, Section 3.

 3This slogan is carved in stone atop the Supreme Court Building in Washington DC.