Martin Lindstedt                                         March 22, 1996
Rt. 2, Box 2008
Granby, Missouri 64844
(417) 472-6901

Judge Dean Whipple
United States District Court
Western District of Missouri
Room 201 U.S. Courthouse
Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Re: Lindstedt vs. Missouri Southern State College et. al. 
     Case No. 95-5070-CV-SW-1, briefing schedule.

Judge Whipple:

   I have received and answered the motions to dismiss coming from both 
the lawyers for the defendants Missouri Southern State College and The 
City of Joplin. Lawyer Urbom, on behalf of  the City of Joplin and its 
police officers, had requested a delay until Feb. 15 to answer 
Plaintiff's complaint.

   In January of this year, when one of your clerks called to ask me if 
I would give the City of Joplin group of defendants an extra month to 
respond and after I said yes, I asked when the case would continue. I 
was informed that a briefing schedule would be set by this court.

   While I have learned a bunch of law in answering the Defendants' 
motions, I am indeed wondering when discovery will proceed. I will be 
happy to answer any questions the Defendants and their lawyers have; I 
am in turn interested in finding out the identities of the two unknown 
Joplin police officers, the whereabouts of Police Officer Denis, and 
other matters concerning this case. In order for this case to proceed 
in a manner fair to all parties, the question of guilt and the parties 
involved must be brought to light. Conversely, the Defendants might 
wish to settle with the Plaintiff in an out-of-court settlement.

   Perhaps the clerk who answered my question was wrong and it is up to 
the plaintiff to initiate discovery proceedings.
   Plaintiff has looked at local rule 15 B.1. This rule states that 90 
period begins on the date on which defendant appears or files any paper. 
In that case, the last Defendant appeared on Feb. 14th, the date Lawyer 
Urbom filed her motion on behalf of the City of Joplin. The rule says 
that "a scheduling order shall be entered no later than 90 days . . .," 
implying an action to be taken by the court.
   Of course, since Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, perhaps local rule 
15 C.1.a. applies, although in that case there seems to be no allowance 
made for having a scheduling order at all.
   Plaintiff would like for this case to continue. If it is Plaintiff's
duty to start this ball rolling by proposing a meeting of all parties 
in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), then Plaintiff 
proposes just such a meeting to be held in Joplin sometime in March or 
April. Joplin is the area wherein the Defendants and Plaintiff live.

   Plaintiff thinks that sending a flurry of motions and memorandum back
and forth between the judge, plaintiff, and defendants is a waste of 
time and postage. This case should be decided in a court of law, not 
through the public mails.

   In case Plaintiff does not understand the procedure and is getting 
unduly impatient, Plaintiff apologizes and awaits your decision as to 
the proper scheduling order, Judge Whipple. If Plaintiff must take the 
initiative in this matter, I hereby request a meeting between the 
various parties to this suit to be held in Joplin, Missouri.

   Thank you for your time and attention. 

Sincerely yours,


Martin Lindstedt
Plaintiff, Pro-Se

P.S. Regarding my candidacy for governor of Missouri on the Libertarian 
Party ballot. I tried to file as a poor person on Monday, March 18, 
1996. When I was refused, I filed as pauper's lawsuit before the 
Missouri Supreme Court to get judicial review of the Constitutionality 
of not allowing poor people to run for public office. On Wednesday, 
March 20,  I obtained personal loans of two $100 checks and filed for 
the office of governor. The people involved loaned me the money 
specifically for the purpose of filing for governor, not for my personal
upkeep or for lawsuits. I will not be allowed to accept any campaign 
money until after the Missouri General Assembly adjourns at the end of 
May.


Martin Lindstedt

cc: Lawyer Ron Mitchell, Joplin
    Lawyer Joy Urbom, St. Louis

Back to Patrick Henry On-Line or Case Table of Contents?