SOLDIER IN BATTLE GOES TO COURT

10  MORE REASONS WHY WE AREN'T RICH, a commentary OBAMA,a change to what ? Part 2 by Brother Taalik November 2008 Angelsnupnup7's Visitor's Page Letter to a young misguided Black Muslim by Brother Taalik BARON d' HOLBOCH, a biography Imani  Entertainment Group's KEYSHIA COLE Angelsnupnup7's  December 2008 Visitor's Page Why I've chosen not 2 believe in God, a personal story REALITY'S  TEMPLE ON EARTH as hosted by Brother AdMinister Taalik Ibn'rad STATE OF MISSOURI PRACTICES LEGAL MURDER & ABUSE Yes  VIRGINIA , Allah ( GOD ) doesn't EXIST !!! STATE  OF ILLINOIS TERRORIZES RODNEY YODER SOLDIER  IN BATTLE-VOLUME TWO SOLDIER  IN BATTLE GOES TO COURT SOLDIER  IN BATTLE-VOLUME THREE POET'S CORNER VOLUME THREE ARE  AFRICAN AMERICANS ASHAMED OF BEING BLACK? SOLDIER  IN BATTLE-VOLUME FOUR ANGELSNUPNUP7'S  FAVORITE VISITOR OF THE MONTH I  FLEW OVER THE CUCKOOS NEST PSYCHIATRIC  ABUSE EXPOSED!!!!! I  DON'T WANT NO MILK,a commentary ANGELSNUPNUP7'S  VISITOR'S PAGE-JULY/AUGUST 2007 BLACK PSYCHIATRIST SPEAKS ON WHITE SUPREMACY IS  THE WHITEMAN THE DEVIL? THE  N' WORD GET OVER IT!!! ANGELSNUPNUP7'S  VISITOR'S PAGE-OCTOBER 2007 DO NOT 4 GET THE WHITES WHO HELPED BLACKS MESSAGE  TO THE MISGUIDED BLACKMAN OF AMERICA THE FINAL CALL HEADLINE NEWS HEALTH-NATURAL CURES.COM WOULD BEING AN ATHEIST BE BETTER FOR US? POET'S CORNER VOLUME ONE JUST HOW DISGUSTING IS ORAL/ANAL SEX? IS THIS MASTER WALLACE FARD MUHAMMAD? THE  BIOLOGY OF RELIGION,a commentary ISLAM  JUSTIFIES SLAVERY , a commentary DID  JESUS REALLY EXIST? a commentary DID PROPHET MUHAMMAD REALLY EXIST? a commentary WERE JEWS/HEBREWS HELD AS SLAVES IN EGYPT?, a commentary ANGELSNUPNUP7'S  VISITOR'S PAGE-SEPTEMBER 2007 COULD  THE HOLOCAUST BE A MYTH ? a commentary WHY SHOULD GOD BE BETTER THAN YOU? RESPONSE  2 THE RACIST CAUCASION MALE OFFICIAL RECORDS SHOW THE JEWISH HOLOCAUST AS FRAUD PORK the most dangerous meat of them all !!!! DOES THE U.S. REJOICE IN THE RETURN OF JIM CROW? HONKY should CAUCASIONS get over it ? A commentary OH GOD! IT'S A BLACKMAN WITH A GUN... BLACKS ARE OF A LOWER INTELLIGENCE ? a commentary ANGELSNUPNUP7'S  VISITOR'S PAGE-NOVEMBER 2007 WILL  THE SO CALLED NEGRO JOIN al-QAIDA? SHOULD THE SO CALLED NEGRO or BLACKS RECEIVE REPARATIONS? ANGELSNUPNUP7'S  VISITOR'S PAGE- DECEMBER 2007 WHY  DO CAUCASIONS ALL OF SUDDEN LOVE MALCOM x ? EUROPEAN  JEWS NO BLOODLINE TO ABRAHAM ? MAN TERRORIZED BY BLOODTHIRSTY MISSOURI STATE PSYCHIATRISTS,FREED! Psychiatric Evaluation of Brother Lorne Lei Wray 2007 Can the GOVERNMENT force psychiatric drugs on CITIZENS? PRETTY  RELIGION ( when good folks do nothing ) Brother Wray requests MERCY from the court Brother Wray petitions for release from PARASITIC psychiatrists Brother  Wray SPEAKS to JUDGE David Dowd Brother Wray,plaintiff versus Missouri Dept. of Mental Health,defendant  Angelsnupnup7's VISITOR'S PAGE- January 2008 CLOUD WITH A SILVER LINING - VOLUME ONE HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE that SILENT KILLER Fair Debt Collections Act of 1978 The Taalik & Khalifa SHOW-January 2008 VISITOR'S PAGE We Must STOP the rise of a BLACK MESSIAH (JESUS) Angelsnupnup7's Visitor's Page- The Taalik & Khalifa SHOW Episode 2 Angelsnupnup7's Visitor's Page - February 2008 Basic Knowledge of the Nation of Islam The Joke called Black Entertainment Television, a commentary Angelsnupnup7's Visitor's Page-March 2008 What does the REALITY'S TEMPLE stand for ? CLOUD WITH A SILVER LINING - VOLUME TWO Angelsnupnup7's Visitor's Page -April 2008 IN LOVING MEMORY OF MY FATHER LIONEL CHAVIS Slavery  Reparations - past over due ! a commentary Angelsnupnup's Visitor's Page as of MAY 2008 Slavery  Reparations from WIKIPEDIA Angelsnupnup7's Visitors page for JUNE 2008 The Nation of Islam, a Brutal Legacy ? Nation of Islam involved in the ZEBRA murders ? SOLDIER  IN BATTLE-VOLUME ONE Angelsnupnup7's Visitor's Page as of JULY / AUGUST 2008 Does B.C. mean before CHRIST, a commentary How To Buy a Good USED CAR , a commentary Congratulations to President- Elect BARACK OBAMA OBAMA , a Change to What?..a message by Brother Taalik Did Moses Exist ? a discussion November  2008-Angelsnupnup7's Visitor's Page Part 2 Zoroastrianism, a religion, a Commentary 2009/January  Visitor's Page PROPOSAL for the SOLUTION of the PROBLEMS of so called BLACKS POET'S CORNER VOLUME TWO How  2 Control People The plans for GLOBAL Dictatorship QUACKERY  is Psychiatry, NO DOUBT ! Hip Hop Nation the builders of a new Civilization SARA  SUTEN SET cancels great debate with Dr. WESLEY MUHAMMAD ....and the BLACKWOMAN made MAN This WORLD has made SEX very,very, NASTY Misery loves company in the BLACK Community  Brother Taalik SPEAKS !!! DARK  EUROPEANS calling themselves BLACK PEOPLE The Blackman GOD of the UNIVERSE ....understanding the WHITEMAN'S HISTORY Brother Taalik SPEAKS!!!## 2 GREAT REWARD 4 Black People MICHAEL JACKSON dies at age 50 Brother Taalik Speaks ## 3 MESSAGE  2 SARA SUTEN SETI Michael Jackson his Life & Times a GLOBAL ICON The Moorish American- A Brief History Being Sicilan & What I Think About GOD WHY  I DO NOT SUPPORT GLOBAL AFRICAN SUPREMACY The UnderCover Racist called KKILO34 The TROUBLEMAKER called Sara Suten Seti SUICIDE NOTE of a DOMESTIC TERRORIST The INTERRACIAL & HOMOSEXUAL in Black Liberation Is a RACE WAR Coming ? JEWS & The Black Holocaust



      PLEASE  REFER TO STATE OF MISSOURI PRACTICES LEGAL MURDER & ABUSE, Brother Wray was held against his will on a false charge and a false diagnois of mental illness, in this section is his personal writings and court petitions, also note mental health abuse is known & practiced by both the state & federal court system, abuse is allowed to maintain cenus levels in order to secure jobs, for it's illiterate citizens, jobs for very low level psychiatrists,jobs for everyone in the legal community, brother wray was sacrificed so others may live, least to say racism always play a part, blacks are more likely to be held for long periods of time than caucasions, examine the writings of an insane man?

 

 

 

CIVIL RIGHTS CASE LAWS, RE: MENTAL HEALTH

                                                           PAGE #  1   of   41.    OBSERVANCE  OF PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS    McNABB   V.  UNITED STATES   19432.          THE ACCUSED MUST BE GIVEN A NOTICE OF A CHARGE AND AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD  ( BLACKMER  V. UNITED STATES, 1934 )3.          DEFENDANT IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY  ( ESTELLE  V.  WILLIAMS, 1976    COFFIN  V. UNITED STATES , 1895 ) 4.          DEFENDANT WHO IS IMPROVISHED RIGHT OF ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL  ( POWELL  V. ALABAMA, 1932 )5.          COERCED CONFESSIONS ARE INHERENTLY SUSPECT AS EVIDENCE  ( BROWN  V. MISSISSIPPI, 1936 )6.          COERCED CONFESSIONS OR PROSECUTIONS ARE GENERALLY INFLICTED UPON THE POOR, THE IGNORANT, THE NUMERICALLY  WEAK, THE FRIENDLESS OR POWER- LESS  ( CHAMBERS  V. FLORIDA, 1940 )7.          COERCION CAN INVOLVE PSYCHOLOGICAL COMPULSION NOT MERELY PHYSICAL BEATINGS  ( MILLER  V. FENTON, 1985 )8.          LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS MAY NOT USE ACTIONS THAT MANUFACTURE OR STIMULATE A CRIME THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE OCCURRED WITHOUT THEIR INTERVENTION NOR CAN OFFICIALS IMPLANT IN THE MIND OF AN INNOCENT PERSON THE DISPOSITION TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE  ( SORRELS  V. UNITED STATES, 1932    SHERMAN  V. UNITED STATES, 1958 )9.          PROSECUTORIAL CONDUCT IS SO OUTRAGEOUS AS TO VIOLATE DUE PROCESS  ( UNITED STATES  V. RUSSELL, 1973 )10.     ENTITLED TO A TRIAL BY A PARTIAL JURY  ( 6th  AMENDMENT )11.     THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL IS TRIGGERED WHEN A FORMAL CRIMINAL CHARGE IS INSTITUTED AND A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION BEGINS ( UNITED STATES  V. Mc DONALD, 1982    6th  AMENDMENT   SMITH  V. UNITED STATES, 1959 )12.     THE ACCUSED SHALL BE CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM & TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBTAIN SUCH IN HIS FAVOR  ( 14th  & 6th  AMENDMENTS )PAGE # 213.     PROMPT ARRAIGNMENT  ( MALLORY  V. UNITED STATES, 1957 )14.     NO PERSON SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF, OFFICIALS MAY NOT PRY INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE FROM THE LIPS OF THE ACCUSED  ( 5th  AMENDMENT   QUINN  V. UNITED STATES, 1955   UNITED STATES  V. WHITE, 1944 )15.     ACCUSED HAS RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL  ( 6th  AMENDMENT   WILLIAMS  V.  KAISER, 1945 )16.     ACCUSED HAS RIGHT TO REPRESENT SELF  ( FARETTA  V. CALIFORNIA, 1975   McKASKEL  V. WIGGINS, 1984 )17.     EXCESSIVE BAIL SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED  ( 8th  AMENDMENT STACK  V. BOYLE, 1952 )18.     NO CRUEL & UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, PUNISHMENT MUST BE GRADUATED & PROPORTIONED TO THE OFFENSE COMMITTED  ( WEEMS  V. UNITED STATES, 1910 )19.     FREEDOM OF SPEECH / RELIGION  ( 1st  AMENDMENT )20.     THE RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE, ENGAGE IN EVERYDAY ACTIVITIES OF LIFE  ( OLMSTEAD  V. UNITED STATES, 1928  MYER  V. NEBRASKA, 1923 )21.     ATTEMPT AT RUIN OF REPUTATION  ( WISCONSIN V. CONSTANTINEAU, 1971 )22.     EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ON FIRST APPEAL ( DOUGLAS  V. CALIFORNIA, 1963   EVITTS  V. LUCEY, 1985 )23.     INDIGENT PERSONS WHOSE DEFENSE IS INSANITY APPOINTED PSYCHIATRIST  ( AKE  V. OKLAHOMA, 1989 )24.     COUNSEL IS NEEDED AT ALL STAGES OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ACCUSED  ( UNITED STATES V. WADE, 1967 )25.     COURTS DETERMINE IF A PERSON SHOULD BE RELEASED NOT MENTAL HEALTH  ( GRASS  V. NIXON, 1996 )26.     COURT RULES 6-3 A PERSON WHO DOES NOT DISPLAY VIOLENCE CAN NOT BE FORCED MEDICATED ( CHARLES SELLS  V. UNITED STATES, 2003 )27.     THE ACCUSED SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AN ESSENTIAL SAFEGUARD TO PROTECT A PERSON’S REPUTATION, HONOR OR INTEGRITY IS AT STAKE. WHEREAS, THERE IS NO CONVICTION ACTIONS CAUSE LOSS OF LIBERTY & PROPERTY RIGHTS  ( WISCONSIN V. CON – STANTINEAU, 1971 )PAGE #  328.     THE RIGHT FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO PURSUE THEIR INTERESTS, RIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL TO CONTRACT, ENGAGE IN ANY OF THE COMMON OCCUPATIONS OF LIFE, TO ACQUIRE USEFUL KNOWLEDGE, TO MARRY, ESTABLISH A HOME & RAISE CHILDREN, TO WORSHIP GOD ACCORDING TO HIS OR HER OWN CONSCIENCE, TO ENJOY ALL THE PRIVILEGES COMMON TO THE ORDERLY PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS BY FREE MEN  ( MEYER  V. NEBRASKA, 1923 )29.     A PERSON MAY NOT BE CONFINED IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT HE OR SHE IS NOT SUFFERING FROM MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, DUE PROCESS ARE VIOLATED IF STATE HOLDS A PERSON WHO IS NOT SUFFERING FROM SUCH, BEFORE A COURT CAN DENY CONDITIONAL RELEASE IT MUST PROVIDE EVIDENCE A PERSON IS INDEED SUFFERING  ( FOUCHA  V. LOUISIANA, 1992 )30.     CLEAR & CONVINCING EVIDENCE MUST BE PROVIDED TO SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF MENTAL DEFECT AND THE POTENTIAL FOR DANGEROUSNESS, A MENTAL ILLNESS MUST BE PRESENT NOT MERE TYPES OF DISORDERS  (  YOUNG  V. WESTON, 1995 )31.     A PERSON IS ENTITLED TO RELEASE WHEN HE HAS RECOVERED HIS SANITY & NO LONGER DANGEROUS, HE MUST BE MENTALLY ILL & DANGEROUS IN CO: EXISTENCE IN ORDER TO BE DETAINED  ( JONES  V. UNITED STATES, 1983 CONNER V. DONALDSON, 1975 )32.     IN ORDER FOR A CONDITIONAL RELEASE TO BE DENIED THE COURT MUST FIND THE PERSON STILL SUFFERS FROM ILLNESS OR DEFECT OF WHICH RENDERS HIM DANGEROUS TO OTHERS OR SELF, IT IS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS TO CONTINUE CONFINEMENT IF THE PERSON IS NO LONGER ILL OR DANGEROUS  ( VIERS V. STATE, 1997  STALLWORTH V. STATE, 1995 )33.     NO PERSON WHO DIRECTS OR EXERCISES ANY AUTHORITY IN A RESIDENTIAL FACILITY, DAY PROGRAM OR SPECIAL- IZED SERVICE SHALL EVICT, HARASS, DISMISS, OR RETALIATE AGAINST A PATIENT, RESIDENT, CLIENT OR EMPLOYEE BECAUSE HE OR SHE OR ANY MEMBER OF THEIR FAMILY HAS MADE A REPORT OF ANY VIOLATION OR  SUS- PECTED VIOLATION OF LAWS, ORDINANCES OR REGULA-PAGE # 4                 TIONS APPLYING TO THE FACILITY WHICH HE OR SHE HAS A REASONABLE CAUSE TO BE COMMITED OR HAS OCCURRED  ( MISSOURI 630.167.634.   NO PERSON SHALL BEAT, STRIKE OR INJURE, PATIENT, RESIDENT OR CLIENT NOR SHALL THE FACILITY FAIL TO PROVIDE SERVICES WHICH ARE REASONABLE & NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE PHYSICAL & MENTAL HEALTH OF ANY PERSON COMMITED WHEN SUCH FAILURE PRESENTS AN IMMINENT DANGER TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY & WELFARE OF A PERSON THAT COULD POSSIBLY LEAD TO PHYSICAL HARM OR DEATH ONE MAY NOT MISTREAT OR MALTREAT, HANDLE OR TREAT ANY PERSON, PATIENT, RESIDENT OR CLIENT IN A BRUTAL  OR INHUMANE  MANNNER ( MISSOURI 630.155 )                          IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DIV.

111 SOUTH TENTH STREET         ST. LOUIS, MO. 63102

 

LORNE  LEI WRAY                DATE: _____________________

116635-35300 ARSENAL STREET # 10ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI  63139-1463                                                  VersusDR. SUSAN  K. BOYER                        Page # 1 of  14DR. JOHN S. RABUN JR.DR. RICHARD SCOTTDR. ASHOK MALLAYADR. MICHAEL CHERAZARD KAROL KEILST. LOUIS PSYCHIATRIC REHABILITATION CENTER5300 ARSENAL STREETST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63139-1463 DAMAGE CLAIM  $ 10 MILLION > CIVIL LAWSUIT         I , LORNE LEI WRAY THE PLAINTIFF IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED ACTION NOW COME BEFORE THIS MOST HONORABLE COURT TO HEREBY REQUEST  JURY TRIAL DEMAND  TO ESTA- BLISH DAMAGES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UPON THE ABOVE MENTIONED DEFENDANTS. SUCH INSTITUTION AND THOSE EM- PLOYED BY HAVE CAUSED THE PLAINTIFF TO BE INCARCER- ATED FOR OVER SEVEN YEARS FOR NO VALID CRIMINAL OR MEDICAL REASON THRU THE PRACTICE OF FRAUD, RACISM & PERSONAL PREJUDICES, LEAST TO ADD FORMS OF COERSION & HARASSMENT IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY INCARCERATION IN THE GUISE OF HOSPITALIZATION FOR AN ILLNESS THAT HAS NEVER EXISTED MANUFACTURED FOR THE PURPOSE OF HELPING LAW ENFORCEMENT’S INCOMPETENCE SECURING EMPLOYMENT FOR THEMSELVES HAVING TO DO NO TRUE WORK AS THIS PLAINTIFF WAS NEVER SICK IN ANY FORM. THIS PRACTICE BY THE DEFENDANTS HAVE CAUSED SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AS WELL AS OTHER DAMAGES DESCRIBED IN THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM. THE PLAINTIFF PRAYS THAT THE MOTIONS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE GRANTED.RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,PAGE # 2                  PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED AS A POOR PERSON1.    ST. LOUIS CITY # 22MH03000002   JULY 20042.          FRANKLIN COUNTY # 20R039702116-01  JULY 20043.          ST. FRANCOIS CTY # 02CV613086  OCT./NOV. 20024.          ST. FRANCOIS CTY # 02CV613062  AUGUST 20025.          ST. LOUIS CITY # 012- 10298  NOVEMBER 20016.          ST. FRANCOIS CTY #  02CV613788  DECEMBER 20027.          MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS EASTERN DISTRICT #  ED81069, ED81582, ED82188  MAY- DEC. 20028.          U.S. DISTRICT COURT # 4: 00CV01060RWS  JUNE 20009.          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS # 00-3885EM  NOVEMBER 200010.     U.S. SUPREME COURT # 01- 6403 SEPTEMBER 2001               RELATED CASES FILED 1.          WRAY  V. ROSS et. Al.    # 4:00-CV-1060   20002.          WRAY  V. RABUN JR. et. Al.   # 4:03-CV-1572   2004              SUMMARY OF STATEMENT OF CLAIM1.     DEFENDANT  DR. SUSAN K. BOYER :   THIS DEFENDANT DUE TO HER PERSONAL FRIENDSHIP WITH DEFENDANT RABUN JR. WHO IS THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR AND THE MANUFACTURER OF A FALSE MENTAL DEFECT DESCRIBED LATER IN THIS COM- PLAINT DECIDED TO SUPPORT SUCH WITH THE FULL KNOW- LEDGE THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE DEFENDANT NOT TO KNOW ILLNESS WAS FALSE DUE TO HER EXPERIENCE, SHE BECAME VERY MALICIOUS IN HER FALSE ATTACKS UPON THE PLAINTIFF OF WHICH INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING SCENERIO:  A.     THE DEFENDANT HAD NO TRUE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF, ANY DIAGNOIS FROM HER WAS DUE TO HER OPINION ABOUT HIS WRITINGS OF GRIEVANCE A RIGHT HE HAS UNDER FACILITY POLICY & UNDER THE LAW, AND BECAUSE HE DOESN’T  BELIEVE OR LIKE THE PRACTICE OF PSYCHIATRY OR THE WAY HE HAS BEEN TREATED SHE CREATES FOR PLAINTIFF A MORE SEVERE & ADDITIONAL ILLNESSES. PLAINTIFF REFUSES TO TAKE MEDICATION BUT BEHAVIORS IS APPROPRIATE AT THE SAME TIME BOYER STATES NO MATTER HOW GREAT THE PLAINTIFF’S BEHAVIOR IS SHE WILL CHART HIM AS SEVERELY SICK AS WELL AS SEEK A COURT ORDER FOR FORCED DRUGS.PAGE # 3                  DEFENDANT BOYER FOR NO REASON BUT AS AN ATTEMPT TO FORCE THE PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT TO HER WILL GAVE ORDERS TO DECREASE HIS PRIVILEGE LEVELS SO HE MAY NOT MOVE FREELY ABOUT, TO SAY THE LEAST PLACED THE PLAINTIFF ON SUICIDE WATCH. THERE EXISTS NO OTHER STAFF OR OTHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT BOYER’S ACTIONS IN PLACING PLAINTIFF ON SUICIDE WATCH, AGAIN A TACTIC OF HARASSMENT IN AN ATTEMPT TO FORCE THE PLAINTIFF TO ACCEPT A MADE UP ILLNESS.B.            DEFENDANT BOYER DOCUMENTED THAT PLAINTIFF WAS HAVING SOME DELUSIONS IN THAT HE BELIEVED DEFENDANT WAS HIS GIRLFRIEND, PLAINTIFF HAS NEVER VOICED OR NO OTHER EVIDIENCE EXISTS IN SUPPORT OF THIS. DEFENDANT BASED ON THIS FALSEHOOD PLACED A NEW ILLNESS UPON PLAINTIFF AT THE SAME TIME MAKING THE ORIGINAL ILL- NESS DIAGNOIS MORE SEVERE. THE PLAINTIFF DID ASK THE DEFENDANT TO STAY AWAY FROM HIM AND DID STATE DUE TO HER PERSISTENCE IN WANTING SOME SORT OF INTERACTION HE DID STATE SHE ACTED LIKE A REJECTED GIRLFRIEND, AS THE DEFENDANT IS CAUCASION AND THE PLAINTIFF IS OF AFRICAN ORIGINS, THE PLAINTIFF DOESN’T BELIEVE IN AND HAS NEVER PRACTICED INTERRACIAL RELATIONSHIPS THUS THE DEFENDANT’S NEW ILLNESS IS INDEED FALSE.2.      DEFENDANT  JOHN S. RABUN JR. :  THIS DEFENDANT WAS THE FIRST PHYSICAN THAT EVALUATED THE PLAINTIFF HIS DIAGNOIS WAS PREJUDICE AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF FOR UN- KNOWN REASONS IN FAVOR OF THE STATE, HE SPOKE TO NO PERSONS IN THE PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR. THE DEFENDANT TOOK A PERSONAL SIDE WITH THE STATE IN THE BELIEF THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS GUILTY OF A CRIME, FOR IF THERE IS NO CRIME A MENTAL ILLNESS DIAGNOIS CAN NOT BE MADE. THE CRIME EVEN AT THIS TIME REMAIN UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS NOR WAS THERE SCRUTINY BY A JUDGE, JURY OR CONFESSION IN ANY FORM. RABUN CAUSED THE PLAINTIFF’S BOND TO BE REVOKED BASED ON A BIASED OPINION TELLING THE COURT PLAINTIFF IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS IN NEED OF IMMEDIATE INCARCERATION, BESIDES A PREJUDICE OPINION HE OFFERED NO FURTHER EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT IN VIOLATION OF PAGE # 4                 MISSOURI LAW  544.676.  THIS DEFENDANT OFFERS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A DANGEROUSNESS IN NEED OF A FORM OF IMMEDIATE INCARCERATION, EVEN WITHIN THE ALLEGED CHARGE ITSELF THERE IS NO TYPE OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE, THE OFFERING IS A SET OF “ SOUND LIKE “ THREAT ING WRITINGS WHICH BRINGS THE QUESTION WHAT IS SOUND LIKE? A SNAKE IS EITHER POISONOUS OR NON-POISONOUS IT’S EITHER ONE OR THE OTHER. THE DEFENDANT’S NOT PROFES- SIONAL BUT DUE TO PERSONAL BELIEF AS A PROFESSIONAL OPINION WITHOUT FACTS IN SUPPORT COULD NOT PRODUCE SUCH BEHAVIOR, THE DEFENDANT IGNORES ANYTHING THAT MAY FAVOR OR SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S INNOCENCE OR SHOW THAT SO CALLED DELUSIONS INDEED ARE TRUE, THUS THE DEFENDANT BEGINS A CRUSADE TO PAINT THE PLAINTIFF AS AN INSANE CRIMINAL IN NEED OF DRUGS AND THIS CAN EASILY BE DONE AS THE COURTS NEVER ASK FOR FACTUAL EVIDENCE ONLY OPINION, IN THIS CASE FOUNDED ON A PERSONAL LEVEL NOT PROFESSIONAL. ACCORDING TO THE MEDICAL DICTIONARY THE DEFENDANT NOT THE PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, THE DOCTOR MUST SHOW PINK ELEPHANTS DON'T EXIST NOT THE PLAINTIFF, THE DEFENDANT ( S) OFFER NOTHING. SINCE THE PLAINTIFF HAS NEVER BEEN IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW BE- FORE THIS DEFENDANT TAKES ADVANTAGE OF HIS IGNORANCE OF BOTH LAW & MENTAL HEALTH AS THE PLAINTIFF IS ALSO VOID OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION. IN REFERENCE TO CHAM- BERS  V. FLORIDA ( 1940 ) RABUN’S ACTIONS ARE MALICIOUS NOT ONLY TOWARDS THIS PLAINTIFF BUT OTHER SO CALLED CLIENTS COULD TESTIFY ABOUT HIS PREJUDICE ACTIONS AGAINST THE POOR, IGNORANT, THE NUMERICALLY WEAK, THE FRIENDLESS OR POWERLESS. THE PLAINTIFF HAS NO CRIMINAL, MENTAL, OR SUBSTANCE ABUSE HISTORY.  A.      THIS DEFENDANT MADE EFFORTS TO TRY TO BRAINWASH THE PLAINTIFF INTO BELIEVING HE WAS GUILTY BUT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HIS ACTIONS DUE TO A MADE UP ILLNESS LEAST TO SAY A PRACTICE OF TELLING PLAINTIFF HORROR STORIES OF PRISON LIFE IN ORDER TO SELL MENTAL HEALTH AN EFFORT TO USE FEAR TO GET PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT TO HIS GUILT HOSPITALIZATION IS BETTER THAN INCARCERATION.PAGE # 5B.          WHEN THE PLAINTIFF REFUSED TO ACCEPT ILLNESS AND CONSUME PRESCRIBED DRUGS, THIS DEFENDANT BEGAN TO MAKE THREATS THAT HE’LL MAKE SURE THE PLAINTIFF WILL BE INCARCERATED THE REST OF HIS LIFE REGARDLESS OF ACTUAL BEHAVIORS. IN 2001 THE DEFENDANT ( S )  PLACED THE PLAINTIFF ON THE LOWEST FUNCTIONING WARD IN THE FACI- LITY, THIS DEFENDANT DID POINT TO ONE OF THE CLIENTS AND STATE TO PLAINTIFF THIS WOULD BE HIS FATE MIND YOU CLIENTS ON THIS WARD SUFFER FROM FRONTAL LOBOTOMY IN DIRE PHYSICAL, GERATRIC & SEVERE MENTAL IMPAIRMENT. C.         TO FURTHER SUPPORT THE PRACTICE OF HARASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION THE DEFENDANT (S) STOPPED PLAINTIFF FROM VISITING HIS FAMILY AS WELL AS SUSPEND HIM FROM ONE OF THE MORE VALUABLE CLIENT WORK JOBS, DEFENDANT DID CARRY OUT AND MAKE THE THREAT TO SEND PLAINTIFF TO ANOTHER FACILITY AWAY FROM FAMILY & FRIEND SUPPORT. THE DEFENDANT BRAGGED THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT FOR THIS POWER IS THEIRS AND THERE IS NOTHING THE PLAINTIFF OR HIS FAMILY CAN DO ABOUT IT. EVEN THOU THE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED ILLNESS FOR YEARS IS SUPPOSE TO BE MINOR DELUSIONS WHEN PLAINTIFF FILED A CIVIL ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT (S) STRANGELY THE SEVERITY OF ILLNESS WAS INCREASED.D.         THE DEFENDANT(S) HAVE WRITTEN FALSE REPORTS ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S ACTUAL BEHAVIORS IN ORDER TO SUPPORT A MANUFACTURED ILLNESS AS SUCH REPORTED SYMPTOMS DO NOT CONCISE WITH THE DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS MANUAL IF RESEARCHED.E.          THIS DEFENDANT (S) USED FORMS OF HARASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION EVERY TIME THE PLAINTIFF EXPRESSED OR EXERCISED HIS RIGHTS THRU USE OF THE INTERNAL COM- PLAINT SYSTEM OF THE FACILITY OF HIS INCARCERATION OR EXPRESS HIS 1st, 5th AMENDMENT RIGHTS. DEFENDANTS EXTREMELY DISLIKE THE PLAINTIFF’S DISBELIEF IN THE PRACTICE OF PSYCHIATRY ITSELF, AGAIN IN THE EX- PRESSION OF PLAINTIFF’S RIGHTS FORMS OF RETALIATION ARE USED AGAINST HIM IN VIOLATION OF SUPREME COURT  PAGE # 6                   RULING IN CRUZ v. BETO (1972) AS WELL AS MISSOURI 630.167.6  NO FORM OF PUNISHMENT MAY BE USED AGAINST A PERSON FOR EXPRESSING OR EXCERCISING HIS OR HER RIGHTS.F.          MENTAL ILLNESS OR NOT THE DEFENDANT(S) PURPOSELY FOR NO TRUE VALID MEDICAL OR CRIMINAL REASON AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI DENIED THE PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT, ENGAGE IN ANY COMMON OCCUPA- TIONS OF LIFE, TO ACQUIRE USEFUL KNOWLEDGE, TO MARRY, ESTABLISH A HOME, RAISE CHILDREN, TO WORSHIP THE WAY HE SEES FIT, TO ENJOY ALL THE PRIVILEGES COMMON TO THE ORDERLY PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS BY FREE MEN. MEYER v. NEBRASKA (1923)G.         THE DEFENDANT(S) HAS NO EVIDENCE PRIOR TO PLAINT- TIFF’S INCARCERATION OR EVEN SO CALLED HOSPITAL- IZATION TO VERIFY MENTAL DEFECT, THUS HAVE CAUSED GREAT HARM BECAUSE KNOWINGLY WITH THE INTENT TO COMMIT FRAUD THE DEFENDANT MADE UP AN ILLNESS TO PLACE UPON THE PLAINTIFF, THIS WAS DONE TO SECURE FUTURE EMPLOYMENT AS WELL AS TO JUSTIFY THE OUT- RAGEOUS & MALICIOUS BEHAVIOR SO THE STATE WILL NOT HAVE TO ADMIT ERROR AS ALL KNOW PLAINTIFF IS NOT A CRIMINAL NOR MENTALLY ILL. UNITED STATES v. RUSSELL (1973).H.         THE STATE AS WELL AS THE DEFENDANT(S) GAVE THE PLAINTIFF FALSE INFORMATION IN THAT HE WAS FACING A MAXIMIMUM SENTENCE OF 13 YEARS WHEN IN FACT IT WAS ONLY FOUR THE DEFENDANT EVEN USED SCARE TACTICS FOR EXAMPLE TELL THE PLAINTIFF THAT HE IS INDEED GUILTY & HE’LL BE SENT TO PRISON AND THIS IS NOT A PRETTY PLACE HOWEVER WITH INSANITY THE TIME SERVED WILL BE FAR LESS THAN 13 YEARS SINCE PLAIN- TIFF IS NOT A TRUE CRIMINAL, SUBSTANCE ABUSER, SEX- UAL PREDATOR OR HAVE NOT A MENTAL HEALTH HISTORYI.     THE DEFENDANT NOR THE STATE MAY NOT REPORT FALSE ACCUSATIONS OR PRACTICE PSYCHOLOGICAL COERSION IN ANY FORM, ESPECIALLY IN AN ATTEMPT TO FORCE ONE TO BELIEVE THAT WHICH HE DOES NOT   MILLER v. FENTON  1985I.             THE DEFENDANT(S) FROM THE VERY BEGINNING AND DUE TO THEIR YEARS OF EXPERTISE IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVEPAGE # 7                THEY MADE SOME ERROR IN DIAGNOSING PLAINTIFF WITH SOME MENTAL DEFECT, PLAINTIFF SUGGESTS DEFEND- KNOWING HIS OPINION WOULD NOT BE QUESTIONED ON PURPOSE MANUFACTURED SYMPTOMS OF ILLNESS TO GIVE PLAINTIFF MENTAL DEFECT AS PLAINTIFF AT NO TIME EVER CLAIMED TO BE ILL. THERE IS NO DOUBT THE DEFENDANT HAS COMMITTED FRAUD THUS THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE COM- PENSATED AT THE ATTEMPT TO PURPOSELY RUIN HIS REP- UTATION  WISCONSIN v. CONSTANTINEAU (1971) PLAINTIFF SUGGESTS A VIOLATION OF THE 8th  AMENDMENT AS IT IS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL TO PLACE DEFENDANT WITH THE CRIM-INALLY INSANE AS MENTAL ILLNESS OR NOT HE IS NOT ON THIS LEVEL.3.          DEFENDANT RICHARD SCOTT -  FALSELY ACCUSED THE PLAINTIFF OF MAKING THREATS AGAINST THE FACILITY AS WELL AS ATTEMPTING TO START SOME SORT OF RIOT WITH NO EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES IN SUPPORT SO HE COULD JUSTIFY SEPARATING PLAINTIFF FROM A SOURCE OF SUPPORT.A.     DEFENDANT SCOTT KNOWINGLY DECIDED TO SUPPORT THE FALSE DIAGNOIS OF HIS FELLOW COLLEAGUES AS HIS EXPER- TISE WOULD TELL HIM PLAINTIFF WASN’T IN MENTAL DEFECT IN THIS THE RESULT EXTREME HARM TO PLAINTIFF.B.      THIS DEFENDANT HAS TAKEN NORMAL BEHAVIOR TO MAKE IT LOOK IN DEFECT ALSO SAYING PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPTS AT USING THE COMPLAINT SYSTEM AS WELL AS THE CIVIL COURTS SOME FORM OF ILLNESS, THIS DEFENDANT ALSO MAKES UP SYMPTOMS OF SOME ILLNESS AS HIS OPINION IS NEVER CHALLENGED OR NO EVIDENCE OF A FACTUAL NATURE IS PRESENTED.               DEFENDANT DR. ASHOK MALLAYA – DEFENDANT  ALSO SUPPORTS THE ORIGINAL FALSE DIAGNOIS, DEFENDANT AS WELL AS ALL THE DEFENDANTS DECIDED TO IGNORE ALL THE FACTS AS WELL AS OTHER MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SURROUND CHARGES THAT WERE QUESTIONABLE, DEFENDANT TRIED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF PLAINTIFF’S IGNORANCE AND LACK OF LEGAL COUNSEL IN AN ATTEMPT TO BRAINWASH THE PLAINTIFF IN THE BELIEF OF MENTAL ILLNESS.     PAGE # 8                 WHEN THE PLAINTIFF RESISTED THE IDEA OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR PSYCHIATRY ITSELF, THIS DEFENDANT(S) BEGAN A CAMPAIGN OF OPPRESSION & HARASSMENT.A.          THIS DEFENDANT BECAME EXTREMELY ANGRY WHEN HE WAS INFORMED PLAINTIFF NEVER CONSUMED DRUGS AND WITH DREW HIS SUPPORT FOR RELEASE EVEN THOU PLAINTIFF SHOWN EXCELLENT BEHAVIORS IN FACT A G.A.F. OF 80  ONE WOULD THINK A DOCTOR WOULD BE HAPPY TO LEARN THAT HIS PATIENT DOES NOT NEED THE HELP OF DRUGS IN FACT BE HAPPY THAT HIS PATIENT IS NOT ILL AT ALL, THIS IS NOT THE CASE AS THIS DEFENDANT MAKES A LIVING EXPLOITING THE POOR, IGNORANT & DEFENSELESS.B.          DUE TO THE FACT NO ONE QUESTIONS OPINIONS THE DE- FENDANT  DID THREATEN TO INCREASE THE SEVERITY OF THIS MADE UP ILLNESS IN ORDER TO FORCE STATE GUARD- IANSHIP, THIS WOULD ALLOW FORCED MEDICATION & TAKE THE POWER OVER PLAINTIFF’S OWN SELF ANOTHER FORM OF INTIMIDATION. IN MARCH 2003 THE DEFENDANT GAVE THE ORDER TO FORCE DRUGS UPON THE PLAINTIFF DUE TO AN ALLEGED ANGER PROBLEM NOT PSYCHOSIS. THERE WAS NO ANGER OR PSYCHOSIS THE PLAINTIFF ONLY WAS EXERCISING HIS RIGHTS IN A NON- VIOLENT MANNER NO PROFANITY WAS USED, THE DEFENDANT NEVER INVESTIGATED THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR SHOWN NO TYPE OF CON- CERN AFTER THE DRUGS WAS FORCED. LATER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT THE PLAINTIFF DID EXPERIENCE A THROBBING PAIN IN HIS LEGS THAT DID NOT OCCUR UNTIL THIS DRUG WAS FORCED UPON HIM. DRUGS MAY NOT BE FORCED UPON A NON- VIOLENT PERSON IN REFERENCE TO CHARLES SELLS v. U.S. 2003C.    DEFENDANT ALSO SHOWN CONCERN WHEN PLAINTIFF WENT ON A SIX DAY HUNGER STRIKE IN PROTEST OF THIS ILL AND UNJUST TREATMENT. THE PLAINTIFF IS A CHILD OF AFRICAN ORIGIN AND THE DEFENDANT(S) KNOW THE PLAIN- TIFF IS PROUD OF THIS, IT CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED AN ACT OF HARASSMENT THAT THE DEFENDANT GAVE THE ORDER TO NOT ALLOW THE PLAINTIFF TO PARTICIPATE IN FACILITY’S BLACK HISTORY MONTH CELEBRATION AN EVENT HE HAS PAR- TICIPATED SINCE HIS INCARCERATION.

PAGE # 9

                THE DEFENDANT(S) HAS NO RESPECT FOR PLAINTIFF’S RELIGIOUS RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AS HIS RELIGION TEACHES THAT PSYCHIATRY IS IN FACT FRAUD, THE DEFENDANT PUNISHED THE PLAINTIFF FOR WANTING TO DEFEND HIMSELF AFTER BEING THREATENED IN FACT PLACED PLAINTIFF ON A CLOSED WARD AND ALLOWED THE PERSON WHO WAS MAKING THREATS TOWARDS NOT ONLY THE PLAIN- TIFF BUT OTHERS TO CONTINUE TO ROAM THE FACILITY FREE WITH NO CONSEQUENCES FOR DOING SUCH THREATS. THE PLAINTIFF HAS THE RIGHT AS A NON- VIOLENT PERSON PRE- SENTED WITH NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE EXISTENCE OF SOME ILLNESS TO REFUSE DRUGS TO PROTECT HIS PERSON FROM HARM AS THESE DRUGS WERE NEVER TESTED ON PERSONS WITH PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED ILLNESS AS WELL AS PLAINTIFF WAS NEVER INFORMED THESE DRUGS CAN CAUSE MENTAL DEFECT, DIABETES, STROKES, OF WHERE IS THE BENEFITS WORTH THE RISK? THE PLAINTIFF SUGGESTS FRAUD OR SEVERE INCOMPETENCE.          DEFENDANT KAROL KEIL -  CONTINUED THE GROUP EFFORT  TO SUPPORT THE MAUNFACTURED ILLNESS CREATED BY HER FELLOW COLLEAGUES, SHE ALSO USED HER POSITION AND THE FACT HER ACTIONS ARE NOT QUESTIONED  TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT ALSO EXAGERRATED THE PLAINTIFF’S EFFORTS TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHTS TO MAKE HIM SEEM PSYCHOTIC USING FORMS OF INTIMIDATION AND HARASSMENT IN AN EFFORT TO FORCE PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT.          DEFENDANT DR. MICHAEL CHERAZARD-  IN 1999 THIS DE- FENDANT DID STATE THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFER FROM SOME MENTAL DEFECT ONLY SOME PERSONALITY DISORDER. IN FACT DID SUSPEND MEDICATION, HOWEVER DEFENDANT DID NOT KNOW PLAINTIFF WASN’T CONSUMING DRUGS ANY WAY. UNDER THIS DEFENDANT’S CARE THE PLAINTIFF PASSED EVERY TEST OR GROUPS ASSIGNED TO HIM, BEHAVIOR IS AGAIN EXCELLENT AND WHY NOT PLAINTIFF IS NOT ILL BUT YET DEFENDANT TOOK NO ACTION TO RELEASE PLAINTIFF? THIS DEFENDANT SUSPENDED THE NEED FOR DRUGS BUT WOULD LATER ADVISE PLAINTIFF TO CONSUME SUCH.PAGE #  10                     THE DEFENDANT ADVISES PLAINTIFF TO TAKE A SMALL AMOUNT OF DRUGS AS THE FACILITY HE SAYS AS WELL AS THE COURTS DO NOT LIKE TO RELEASE PERSONS WHO DO NOT CONSUME MEDICATION, WHY SHOULD THE PLAINTIFF CONSUME WHAT HE DOESN’T NEED? THIS DEFENDANT HAS CAUSED PLAINTIFF GREAT HARM AS HE KNOWS THE TRUTH BUT CHOSE NOT TO ACKNOWLEDGE SUCH OR PROTECT THE PLAINTIFF FROM UNNECESSARY SO CALLED CARE & TREAT- MENT.C.          THIS DEFENDANT CONTINUED THIS ILL BEHAVIOR AS HE HAS HAD NO CONTACT WITH PLAINTIFF SINCE EARLY 2000 BUT YET IN 2003 HE TESTIFIES CONTRARY TO HIS ORIGINAL FINDINGS THAT PLAINTIFF IS INDEED ILL LEAST TO SAY NO EVIDENCE OF A FACTUAL NATURE IS PRESENTED IN SUPPORT, THIS IS IN RETALIATION FOR THE FACT PLAINTIFF MADE HIM FEEL FOOLISH AS HE SUSPENDED DRUGS THAT PLAINTIFF WAS NEVER TAKING ALSO THIS TESTIMONY WAS TO HURT THE PLAINTIFF FOR FILING A CIVIL ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR FAILING TO PROTECT HIM FROM HARM WHEN HE SAID HIMSELF PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFER MENTAL DEFECT. 

GROUNDS & FACTS FOR FILING THIS CASE

 

A.   FRAUD /  WISCONSIN v. CONSTANTINEAU ( 1971)

B.    MENTAL & EMOTIONAL DISTRESSC.   WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENTD.   VIOLATION OF AMERICANS WITH DISABLITIES ACT – NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO FURTHER PLAINTIFF’S EDUCATIONE.    SELLS v. UNITED STATES ( 2003)F.    MILLER v. FENTON ( 1985)G.   MEYER  v. NEBRASKA ( 1923 )H.   VIOLATION OF MISSOURI 630.155 (2)(4), 630.115, 630.167.6I.       CRUZ v. BETO (1972)J.      FACTUAL EVIDENCE EXISTS IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT MUCH WITHIN THE DEFENDANT’S OWN CHARTINGK.   PLAINTIFF HAS NEVER CONSUMED PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS HE WAS FORCED TO PRETEND TO DO SUCH IN ORDER TO PLEASE MENTAL HEALTH, IN FACT THIS MEDICATION WAS SAVED

PAGE # 11

                   BY PLAINTIFF AND GIVEN TO RELATIVES, IN A BAG THERE IS YEARS OF CUFFED PSYCHTROPIC MEDICATION BUT YET IT WAS REPORTED DRUGS HAVE IMPROVED PLAINTIFF.L.    IN 1999 THE PLAINTIFF WAS FOUND NOT TO HAVE A MENTAL DEFECT ONLY PERSONALITY DISORDER AND DRUGS WAS SUSPENDED.M.  IN 2002 THE PLAINTIFF WAS SENT TO ANOTHER MENTAL FACILITY AWAY FROM THE DEFENDANTS AGAIN IT IS REPORTED NO SIGNS OF AN ILLNESS THUS NO NEED FOR DRUGS, PLAINTIFF BEING IN FACILITY FOR EIGHT MONTHS.N.   IN 2004 AGAINST THE ADVICE OF THE OTHER DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANT MALLAYA REPORTS THERE ARE NO SIGNS OF MENTAL DEFECT THUS NO DRUGS ARE PRESCRIBED, OUT OF ANGER THE DEFENDANTS WHO ARE PART OF A BOARD THAT DETERMINES RELEASES DENIED MALLAYA’S APPLICATION FOR PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL RELEASE.O.   WEEMS v. UNITED STATES (1910)P.    DONALDSON v. O’CONNOR (1975)Q.   1999 SUPREME COURT RULING IN THE OLMSTEAD DECISIONR.   TAMPERING WITH PLAINTIFF’S MAILINGS.    CONTINUED THREATS OF LIFELONG INCARCERATION IF PLAINTIFF DOESN’T SUBMIT TO DIAGNOIS AS WELL AS STOP INFORMING OTHERS OF THE DANGERS & MYTHS OF MENTAL ILLNESS & IT’S DRUGS OR HELPING OTHERS FILE FOR RELEASE A RIGHT THEY HAVE UNDER THE LAW ONCE A YEAR              THERFOR, IT IS CLEAR ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE IS FACTUAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT SOMETHING IS TERRIBLY WRONG IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI OR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH TO SAY THE LEAST AS THERE ARE MANY WHO NEED TREATMENT CAN NOT GET SUCH BUT PLAINTIFF SUCH IS FORCED UPON EVEN IF FRAUD MUST BE PRACTICED. WHY THE DEFENDANTS HAVE CHOSE TO PRACTICE SUCH CAN ONLY BE GUESSED BUT THE DAMAGE PLACED UPON THE PLAINTIFF IS ALMOST IRREPAIRABLE LEAST TO SAY SUCH ACTS ARE MALICIOUS. THIS COMPLIANT IF INVESTIGATED IS FAR FROM BEING FRIVOLOUS AND THE DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE PROTECTED BY NO FORM OF IMMUNITY AS WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IS ON PURPOSE WITH THE INTENT TO HARM NOTPAGE # 12                    TO CURE AS THEIR OWN RECORDS SHOW THERE NEVER WAS AN ILLNESS TO BEGIN WITH. THE PLAINTIFF HAS BEEN TREATED IN AN UNJUST MANNER, SUFFERED FEAR, EMOTION- AL DISTRESS, RUIN OF REPUTATION,  ETC. AND SHOULD BE COMPENSATED. THE PLAINTIFF PRAYS HE IS GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION AND ALL MOTIONS CONTAINED WITHIN GRANTED.

 

                   THE PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY IS THE AUTHORITY OF THIS COURT. THE COURT SHOULD NOT ALLOW THOSE WHO REPRESENT THE STATE OF MISSOURI DO SO IN AN ILL BEHAVED MANNER AS THIS COMPLAINT IF INVESTIGATED ONE SHOULD FIND THE PRACTICES CONTAINED WITHIN FRIGHTENLY PER- TURB. SUCH OUTRAGEOUS BEHAVIOR SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED AS THE DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN PERFORMED IN GOOD FAITH BUT WITH A FRAUDALENT NATURE, INCOMPETENCE OR GROSS NEGLIGENCE AS THE EVIDENCE NOT OPINION, FACTS, NOT OPINIONS WILL BARE WITNESS TO. AGAIN THE PLAINTIFF PRAYS ALL MOTIONS WILL BE GRANTED OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE THAT WHICH THE COURT FINDS JUST & PROPER.RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,                                                           _____________________________                                                             LORNE   LEI   WRAY          IN THE 22nd JUDICIAL CIRCUIT STATE OF MISSOURICIVIL COURTS BUILDING        ST. LOUIS, MO. 63101-2097 

WRAY                                                     DATE : ______________________

                 VersusJUDGE  JOAN MORIARTY# 10 N. TUCKER  BLVD.ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63101                ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT (S) JUDGE  SHERRI   B.  SULLIVANWAINWRIGHT STATE OFFICE BUILDING111 NORTH SEVENTH STREETST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63101 

CIVIL LAWSUIT > UNSPECIFIED DAMAGES

            I, LORNE LEI WRAY THE PLAINTIFF IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED ACTION REQUEST THAT THESE ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS BE ADDED TO THIS COMPLAINT. THESE DEFENDANTS HAVE USED THEIR POSITIONS IN ORDER TO DENY THE PLAINTIFF’S RIGHTS UNDER BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW AS THESE DEFENDANTS ARE PREJUDICE IN FAVOR OF MENTAL HEALTH WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT MENTAL HEALTH ON MANY OCCASSIONS HOUSE PERSONS WHO DO NOT HAVE MENTAL ILLNESS SO THEY HELP TO COVER UP SUCH IN- COMPETENCE. THE PLAINTIFF OFFERS THE FOLLOWING:A.      DEFENDANT JUDGE JOAN MORIARTY- UNDER THE MISSOURI RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 552.040 ANY PERSON HELD IN MENTAL HEALTH INVOLUNTARILY MAY SEEK RELEASE ONCE A YEAR, THIS DEFENDANT IN 2003 DID DENY THE PLAINTIFF THIS RIGHT FOR NO REASON AT ALL, THE RESULT BEING FURTHER UNJUST INCARCERATION.THE PLAIN- TIFF’S APPLICATION WAS IGNORED BY DEFENDANT MORIARITY SINCE HE IS GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COUNSEL WAS IGNORED, NEVER THE LESS PETITION WAS DENIED FOR NON- COMPLIANCE, THIS SO CALLED NON- COMPLIANCE WAS NEVER EXPLAINED NOR WAS THE PLAINTIFF GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING SUCH INTO. THE PLAINTIFF FILED PETITION IN JANUARY BUT DEFENDANT DOESN’T RULE UPON IT UNTIL MAY OF 2003, WHY DOES THIS TAKE SO LONG IF PETITION IS IN NON- COMPLIANCE? THE DE- FENDANT HAS VIOLATED PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT WITH NO DOUBT.PAGE # 14 C.     DEFENDANT JUDGE SHERRI  B. SULLIVAN -  THE DEFEND- ANT(S) IGNORE THE PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO SEEK LEGAL RESOLVE OR ACCESS TO THE COURTS AS THE PLAINTIFF ACTING PRO SE IS PREJUDICE AGAINST AND DENIED THE BENEFIT OF A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OR COUNSEL TO ASSIST NEVER GRANTED BUT AT THE SAME TIME UNDER MISSOURI LAW AN APPEAL MAY NOT FORWARD PRO SE, ALSO THE PLAINTIFF IS IGNORED EVEN THOU HE IS ACTING IN GOOD FAITH. THIS DEFENDANT REFUSES TO GRANT COUNSEL EVEN THOU UNDER MISSOURI LAW 33.6 (B) AND 33.10(4) THE PLAINT- TIFF HAS THE RIGHT TO ALL TRANSCRIPTS AS WELL AS ASSIST- ANCE OF COUNSEL UPON FIRST APPEAL. DEFENDANT ALSO WOULD NOT ALLOW APPEAL TO FORWARD FOR LACK OF A TRANSCRIPT, THERE WAS NO TRANSCRIPT AS DEFENDANT MORIARITY DENIED THE PETITION ITSELF, THERE WAS NO HEARING OF ANY FORM.THERFOR, IT IS IN THE OPINION OF THE PLAINTIFF THAT THERE IS A DELIBERATE EFFORT TO DENY HIM ACCESS TO LEGAL RESOLVE AS THE STATE OF MISSOURI  KNOWS IT HAS INCAR- CERATED A PERSON WHO DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME & VERY FAR FROM A SUFFERER OF MENTA DEFECT. THE COURT KNOWS MENTAL HEALTH IS A TRAP TO EXPLOIT THE POOR, IGNORANT AND DEFENSELESS. THE PLAINTIFF MUST BE MADE ILL AS LONG AS POSSIBLE TO AVOID A CIVIL ACTION SUCH AS THIS. THE DEFENDANTS ACTIONS ARE PERTURB, UNJUST AND OUT RAGEOUS SUCH SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED IN MISSOURI OR THIS NATION. IN RELATION TO THESE DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF PRAYS ALL MOTIONS ARE GRANTED OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE THAT WHICH IS JUST & PROPER.RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,                                                             _____________________________                                                               LORNE  LEI  WRAY  IN THE 22nd JUDICIAL CIRCUIT STATE OF MISSOURI#10 N. TUCKER BLVD.              ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63101-2097 

LORNE  LEI WRAY

116635-35300 ARSENAL STREET # 10ST.LOUIS, MISSOURI 63139-1463                                                           Versus                  PAGE # 1 of  2ANTHONY MILAN ROSS1104    WOODGATE DRIVEST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63122-1030 
DAMAGE CLAIM $ 10, 000.00 > CIVIL LAWSUIT
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPRIS
MOTION FOR INTERROGATORY 

       I , LORNE LEI WRAY THE PLAINTIFF ACTING PRO SE AT THIS TIME IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED ACTION NOW COME BEFORE THIS MOST HONORABLE COURT TO REQUEST A JURY TRIAL TO DETERMINE DAMAGES THE DEFENDANT HAS PLACED UPON THE PLAINTIFF, HE OFFERS THE FOLLOWING IN SUPPORT:

 A.   ON MARCH 12, 1998 IN THE 20th  JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ST. CLAIR COUNTY IN BELLEVILLE, ILLINOIS CAUSE # 97SC-4135 THE PLAINTIFF DID WIN THE MAXIMUM AWARD IN SMALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT INCLUDING INTEREST OF WHICH WAS $ 3, 400.00.B.    DEFENDANT HAS MADE NO ATTEMPT TO SATISFY THIS JUDG-MENT IN THIS, PLAINTIFF SEEKS APPROPRIATE INTEREST OF OVER SEVEN YEARS.C.   THE DEFENDANT IS ALSO SEEKING UNSPECIFIED DAMAGES IN THAT THIS DEFENDANT DID FALSELY REPORT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS STALKING HIM WHEN IN FACT HE HAD ALWAYS KNOWN HE HAD STOLEN PRO- PERTY FROM THE DEFENDANT, MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS AND MONIES FROM COMPACT DISC SALES ALSO KEEPING ALL PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS THAT PLAINTIFF DID PAY FOR, THIS DEFENDANT ENTERED INTO A VERBAL AGREEMENT TO PROMOTE A COMPACT DISC, HE WAS TO RECEIVE NO COM- PENSATION UNTIL ALL DEBTS WERE PAID. THE DEFENDANT DECIDED TO STEAL ALL THAT WHICH WENT INTO THE PRO- JECT AS HE SPENT NOTHING IN THE MANUFACTURE OF THE PAGE # 2                  DISC OR PAID FOR ANY MUSICAL EQUIPMENT. THE DE- FENDANT KNOWS THE PLAINTIFF HAD NO REASON TO SO CALLED STALK HIM HOWEVER HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO GET WHAT WAS STOLEN FROM HIM. THE PLAINTIFF WAS NEVER SEEN AROUND THE DEFENDANT’S HOME OR WORK, HOW EVER THE DEFENDANT DID WRITE SOUND LIKE THREATENING LETTERS OUT OF ANGER DUE TO THE FACT HIS BEST FRIEND OF SEVEN YEARS WOULD DO SUCH A HORRIBLE THING AND NOW LIE TO THE POLICE FOR MATERIAL GAIN. EVIDENCE EXISTS THAT SHOW THE DEFENDANT HELPED LAW ENFORCEMENT TO ENTRAP THE PLAINTIFF NOT DUE TO A CRIME BUT DUE TO THIS MALICIOUS LIE BEING TOLD, EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THIS IS A CASE OF THEFT NOT STALKING & THE PLAINTIFF IS THE TRUE VICTIM & SHOULD BE COMPENSATED & REPUTATION CLEARED.D.   AFTER THE COURT HAS RULED IN THE PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR HE MOTIONS THE COURT TO ORDER THE DEFENDANT UNDER OATH TO REVEAL HIS ASSETS & PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT IN RELATION TO SEEK GARNISHMENT IMMEDIATELY.E.    DUE TO SEVERE POVERTY CAUSED BY INCARCERATION THE PLAINTIFF AT THIS TIME IS UNABLE TO PAY FOR THE FILING OF THIS CASE OR DOCKETING FEES, THE PLAINTIFF WOULD HOPE THE COURT WOULD REIMBURSE ITSELF FOR ANY EX- PENSE IT HAS BURDENED IN THE PROCESS OF COLLECTING THIS AWARD.THERFOR, THE PLAINTIFF PRAYS THAT ALL MOTIONS HEREIN ARE GRANTED OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SINCE THE PLAINTIFF IS GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION THAT WHICH IS JUST AND PROPER.RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,                                                         _____________________________                                                            LORNE  LEI  WRAY     IN THE 20th  JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FRANKLIN COUNTY300 EAST MAIN ST. # 301       UNION, MISSOURI  63084 

WRAY, LORNE LEI                     JANUARY 10, 2005

                                   Versus                                           Page # 1 of  3STATE OF MISSOURI            CAUSE # 20R039702116-01 

PERMISSION TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CONDITIONAL, UNCONDITIONAL RELEASE & MOTION TO BRING ORIGINAL CAUSE BEFORE STATE TRIBUNAL

MOTION TO INVESTIGATE VIOLATION OF 630.155 

        NOW COMES THE PETITIONER LORNE LEI WRAY BEFORE THIS MOST HONORABLE COURT TO REQUEST PERMISSION TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION AND THE MOTIONS CONTAINED HEREIN. THE PETITIONER HAS ENCLOSED A COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN RELATION TO A RESTRAINING ORDER HE FILED, HE WOULD LIKE TO OFFER THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS IN RELATION TO:

*** PLEASE NOTE,  IT SHOULD BRING CURIOUSITY TO THE COURT THAT THE PETITIONER WHO IS SUPPOSE TO BE DETAINED INVOLUNARILY FOR HEALTH REASONS HAD TO FIND IT NECESSARY TO SEEK A RESTRAINING ORDER, EVEN THOU SUCH WAS NOT GRANTED, THIS ACTION CAUSED MENTAL HEALTH TO CEASE IT’S EXTREME PRACTICE OF CHARTING FALSE BEHAVIORS & METHODS TO FORCE PETITIONER INTO IT’S BELIEF OF PSYCHIATRY & THE ILLUSION THAT IT’S SO CALLED CARE & TREATMENT IS THERAPUTIC. AT THIS TIME MUCH OF THE HARASSMENT DUE TO THE FILING OF THIS ACTION HAS CEASED BUT DUE TO MENTAL HEALTH ANGER & PREJUDICE AGAINST PETITIONER IT CONTINUES TO SEEK LIFE LONG INCARCERATION FOR THE PETITIONER FOR NO TRUE MEDICAL OR CRIMINAL REASONS EXCEPT PERSONAL HATRED AND THE JOY & MORBID THINKING TO HAVE POWER OVER ANOTHER. THE PETITIONER ASKS THE COURT TO BRING AT- TENTION TO THE UNDERLINED 1-7  OF THE ENCLOSED COPY OF THIS RESTRAINING ORDER.1.     ( Page 3 ) -  THE PETITIONER WAS ENTRAPPED & GIVEN IN- EFFECTIVE COUNSEL IT TOOK EIGHT MONTHS FOR PETITIONER TO SUBMIT TO AN INSANITY PLEA.PAGE # 2                  PETITIONER’S SUBMISSION WAS BASED ON FALSE INFO IN THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ONE OF PETITIONER’S FUNCTIONING LEVEL FOR HIM TO SERVE THE AVERAGE STAY OF 8-9 YEARS BASED ON SEVERE ILLNESS & VIOLENT BE- HAVIORS AS WELL AS SUBSTANCE ABUSE BUT PETITIONER HAS ALREADY DONE SO, OF WHICH SHOULD BE QUESTIONED. HE WAS TOLD AT THE MAXIMUM THREE YEARS ALSO TOLD FALSELY IF INSANITY WAS PLEAD PETITIONER WOULD NEVER HAVE CONTACT WITH ALLEGED VICTIM IN CASE BUT WHEN PETITIONER FILED FOR RELEASE, THIS VICTIM WAS PRESENT TO TESTIFY ABOUT HIS TERROR EVEN THOU THERE HAS BEEN NO CONTACT IN OVER THREE YEARS.THE COURT SHOULD ASK THE QUESTION AS WELL AS DEMAND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO JUSTIFY PETITIONER'S EIGHT YEAR INCARCERATION, THE TERROR OR DANGER TO SOME VICTIM OR SOCIETY THIS PETITIONER PRESENTS. IF INVESTIGATED PROPERLY THE COURT WILL DISCOVER THIS PETITIONER HAS BEEN PUNISHED FAR OVER BOARD IN A MALCIOUS MANNER THAT IS NOT JUST AND A MOCKERY OF LAW.1A.    THE COURT FINDS THAT THE PETITIONER REPRESENTS HIMSELF IN A CIVIL MANNER WITH REASONED ARGUMENT HOW IS HE ABLE TO DO SUCH WITHOUT DRUGS & WHY DOES NOT MENTAL HEALTH ACKNOWLEDGE SUCH?2.            WHY DOESN’T ANY OF THE LAWYERS WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER OBJECT TO PETITIONER’S ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE , OPPRESSION OR HARASSMENT NOR DO THEY CALL PETITIONER A LIAR?3.            AFTER HEARING PETITIONER’S DESCRIPTION OF BEING TREATED IN AN ILL MANNER THE COURT FOUND SUCH ACTIVITY TO CHILL THE SANEST OF US WALKING AS FREE PEOPLE, THIS COURT SHOULD ALSO FIND THAT THIS CAUSE IS VERY PERTURB.4.            PETITIONER’S DESCRIPTION OF HIS SO CALLED TREAT- MENT & VARIOUS GIVEN ILLNESSES OF WENT WITH NO OBJECTION, THE COURT FOUND VERY CONFUSING. ALSO TO NOTE PETITIONER’S ILLNESS EVEN AFTER CALLED VERY MINOR FOR YEARS SUDDENLY BECOMES SEVERE WHEN THE PETITIONER BECAME KNOWLEDGEABLE TO FILE CIVIL ACTIONS AGAINST MENTAL HEALTH.PAGE # 35.            PETITIONER IS BEING HELD NOT DUE TO SOME ILLNESS BUT DUE TO HIS DISBELIEF IN PSYCHIATRY HIS MOCKERY OF THE INFANTILE MANNER OF SO CALLED TREATMENT THAT IS ALSO BASED ON PERSONAL OPINION NOT ROOTED IN THE DIAGNOSTIC SYMPTOMS MANUAL. MENTAL HEALTH AT THIS TIME HAS NEVER DESCRIBED PETITIONER’S SYMPTOMS NOR THE SUPPOSE DELUSIONS. PETITIONER’S WILLINGNESS TO HELP OTHERS AND INFORM THEM OF THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW IS ALSO LOOKED DOWN UPON, MENTAL HEALTH DOESN’T LIKE TO BE CHALLENGED OR QUESTIONED IN THAT WHICH THEY DO OF WHICH THE PETITIONER FINDS NOT HEALTH BUT SAD TO SAY EVIL IN THE PRACTICE OF EXPLOITATION OF THE POOR AND IGNORANT, THE DEFENSELESS.6.            THE COURT FOUND THE PETITIONER TO BE AN INTELLI- GENT PERSON, UNDULY HOSTILE IN SPITE OF THE TENSIONS BUT YET, MENTAL HEALTH CHARTS HIM AS AN ANGRY DANGEROUS PERSON IN NEED TO BE DRUGGED.WHY DO PERSONS OUTSIDE OF MENTAL HEALTH VIEW THE PETITIONER DIFFERENTLY?7.            THE COURT HAS EMPATHY FOR THE PETITIONER & HE IS GRATEFUL IN THE COURT LISTENING TO THIS COMPLAINT.IN CONCLUSION, EMPATHY IS BEST SERVED BY GRANTING THE MOTIONS IN THIS APPLICATION, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. TRUE EMPATHY IS THE RELEASE OF THIS PETITIONER AND THOSE WHO HELD HIM FOR NO VALID CRIMINAL OR MEDICAL REASON THRU THE PRACTICE OF FRAUD & HARASSMENT MADE AC- COUNTABLE & SUFFER CONSEQUENCE AS PETITIONER HAS BEEN MADE TO SUFFER UNJUSTLY. THE PETITIONER PRAYS MOTIONS ARE GRANTED OR  IN THE ALTERNATIVE THAT WHICH IS JUST & PROPER.RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,                                                         ____________________________                                                          LORNE   LEI    WRAY         

 

This is where you enter the text that you want to appear on your page. Simply press the Edit button below to delete this text and enter your own. You can format the text using several different fonts and attributes.