IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

 NO.  09-1351  

STEVEN L. REED, PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

 VERSUS

 CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONSL, ET AL DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

 APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF

  Springfield, Missouri 65804

stevenlloydreed@hotmail.com

417-882-2942

Constitution concerning freedom of speech and the right of the

citizens to participate in influencing and participating in

governmental functioning.

All Appellee briefs refused to address police misconduct and

cover-up of the facts, such as lying on a police report and using

bogus charges of trespassing at a advertised public political event.

All Appellee briefs erred by refusing to address the

participation of the meeting of the minds of governmental

authorities, the police, Choice Hotels and Clarion officials,

including the chief of security, all who failed to address the

violation of the civil rights of Steven Reed and the other parties

at the event.

Appellee Briefs refused to address mental stress and

anguish, in that Reed was illegally arrested and detained. After

his arrest he was placed in a police car and told he was heading to

jail. During a four hour wait, over 300 people, including three TV

cameras and several newspaper reporters saw the event, which

included a total of six police cars and officers. It was quoted in the

Sunday News-Leader paper that Steven Reed was arrested

at the event for handing out leaflets that said "Draft Claire: she

inspires people." The late Bee Payne Stewart said it

was the worst thing she had ever seen.

Appellees rather than admitting mistakes and settling the

case, tried to pull every rabbit they could out of their hats to

create a web of legal maneuvers to make the case go away which

has caused more mental stress and anguish for Appellant Reed,

making him determined to try and attain some small amount of

justice.

The Defendants City of Springfield, Springfield Police

Department and John and/or Jane Does, refused in their brief to

address the falsifying of police reports, conspiring to force Reed to

drop this case, ignoring facts that the case really concerns the

constitutional freedom of speech rights, and many other serious

issues such as former Chief of Police Loveland’s memo, and the

City has had a habitual track record for arresting Appellant

Steven Reed. Both of the Springfield briefs should be squashed

and eliminated from the record for improper service since they

were mailed to Stephen Snead and not Craig Hosmer.

both ramble on about how they were not properly served yet Reed

could not find addresses for them in the phone book and they had

both threatened and yelled at Reed. By responding to the

Civil Complaint of Reed in many motions and arguing for their

clients they clearly crossed the line of "ACCEPTANCE" and

thereby there was no legal grounds to dismiss Campbell and

Salam, who must answer for their wrongs and apparent criminal

actions. Note it was pointed out that Campbell was served at her

employment and that the officer whom received it is authorized to

receive such service of process in a normal day of business.

Choice refuses to answer many of the issues and claims

against then, such as it was a public event. At least Choice now

admits there is a connection between them and Clarion.

Luke 6 28 "bless those who curse you, pray for those who

mistreat you."….Holy Bible New International Version

At the outset it should be noted that ALL

DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES did not and cannot dispute almost

any of the mountain of unrebutted evidence showing the

extraordinary pattern of Violations of THE FREEDOM OF

SPEECH. The City of Springfield claims Reed submitted no

evidence. The test of relevancy of evidence is not whether the

evidence necessarily proves or disproves a fact in issue, but

whether it tends to prove or disprove such a fact. [citing Oldaker

v. Peters, 817 S.W.2d 245, 250 (Mo.banc 1991)] In that pursuit,

the trial court must give weight to the inference most favorable to

the party offering the evidence. . . . According to our standard of

review, we must view the evidence and permissible inferences

most favorably to the plaintiff and disregard contrary evidence

and inferences.

Summary of the Case……….........................................................................................ii

Table of Contents……...…………………………………………………vi

Table of Authorities…………………………………………..…………………….x

Jurisdictional Statement………………………………………………………………….1

Statement of the Issues………………………………………………………………….…....1

Statement of the Case………………………………………………....................................6

Statement of Facts………………………………………………………........................6

Summary of Argument…………………………………………………………….……6

A. Standard of Review and Controlling Law………………………….................................................................6

E.) APPELLEE’S BRIEFS POINT WHY THE THE COURT ERRED BY NOT ADDRESSING LEGAL CASES IN REED MOTION TO AMEND PLEADING (02/01/08 DOCUMENT #68). SOME ARE BELOW AND HELP EXPLAIN THE PARTICIPATION OF ALL DEFENDANTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW WITH STATE ACTORS ..……………………………….13

F.) APPELLEE’S BRIEFS POINT OUT WHY THE COURT ERRED BY NOT ADDRESSING MARSHAL SERVICE ISSUE AND THAT APPELLEE’S CAMPBELL AND SALEM BOTH RESPONDED TO APPELLANT REED’S CASE AS A FORM OF ACCEPTANCE…………………..……………………...14

G.) APPELLEE’S BRIEFS HELPED POINT OUT TO

APPELLANT REED WHY THE COURT ERRED BY NOT ADRESSING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY CITY AND HOSMER WORKING TOGETHER TO SHUT DOWN A FEDERAL CASE…………………………………………………..….18

L.) APPELLEE’S BREIFS HELP EXPLAIN REED DID PROPERLY EXPLAIN MOHAMMAD, POLICE, AND CITY LUTENANTS WORKING WITH STATE ACTORS TO HOLD THEM LIABLE UNDER COLOR OF LAW AND WHY THE COURT ERRED BY NOT ALLOWING ENTRY OF EX-GOVERNOR BOB HOLDEN……………………………………..26

M.) INTERAGOTORIES WERE SENT TO PARTIES AND SOME COPIES AND CERTIFIED MAIL ARE INCLUDE AS PROOF SINCE THE CITY SAID THEY WERE NOT SENT APPENDIX # 10……………………………………………………..27

N.) CHOICE HOTEL AGREED WITH ALL COURT DECISIONS WHILE REED DISAGREES WITH ALL COURT ORDERS AND THE COURT ERRED BY NOT ADDRESSING RULE 59 MOTION OF 11/17/2008 DOCUMENT 139……….27

O.) THE COURT ERRED DAY ONE BY LISTING NATURE OF SUIT AS 320 ASSULT LIBEL AND SLANDER…………28

P. APPELLEE’S CHOICE AND SALAM ERRED IN RESPONSE BRIEF BY NOT INCLUDING CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND THEREBY THEIR BRIEFS SHOULD BR STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF COURT RULES AND THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DID NOT INCLUDE ATTORNEY HOSMER FOR STEPP AND THE CITY APPELLEE BRIEF SHOULD ALSO BE STRUCK FROM THE RECORD FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF COURT RULES………………………………………………………………….28

Q. APPELLEE SPRINGFIELD AND DISTRICT COURT FAILED TO ADDRESS APPELLANT REED DID NOT AGREE OR SIGN OFF ON GUILTY PLEA…………………..29

R.) COURT ERRED AND CITY REFUSES TO ADDRESS WRITE IN CASE DENYING REED AND 150,000 PEOPLE BALLOT ACCESS SENT TO SUPREME COURT……….......32

Conclusion…………………………………………………….…….…...31

Certificate of Compliance………………………………………………33

Certificate of Service……………………………………………….......34

A partial list of over 20 years of Volunteer Community

……………………………………………...…………………………….A-1

Memo of Chief of Police Loveland………………………………...…A-2

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/First+Amendment+to+the+United+States+Constitution...................................................................A-3

COURT DENIED MOTION TO AMEND PLEADING…………..A-4

COUNT 1: VIOLATIONS of 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, ARREST Point 50…………………………………..….……………..A-5

COUNT 10: FALSE ARREST 82………………………………...…A-6

Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amen

Judgment………………………………………………………………..A-7

Original Lawsuit with Bob Holden named over 9 times……..….A-8

12 page motion by Muhammad Salam on June 21, 2005 Document #25………………………,………………………………………...….…A-9

Recording of Deposition of Reed by City of Springfield……...…A-10

Interrogatories were sent to parties and certified mail copies also……………………………………………..……………….……...A-11

Amanda Moore and Steve Long Department of Corrections…A-13

Write in case denying Reed and around 150,000 People ballot access sent to Supreme Court……………………………..……….A-14

Beck v. Skon, 253 F.3d 330 (8th Cir. 2003)………………………..…2

This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1291. Reed’s Notice of Appeal was timely in that Reed filed it on

January 2, 2009, ten (10) days after the District Court had denied

his timely motion to alter or amend the November 7, 2008

judgment and within thirty (30) days of the trial court’s Order

dismissing the last remaining defendants.

Appellant raises the following issues on Appeal: The

Appellees and District Court erred/failed to address extensive

Motions, Legal Arguments, Precedents and Exhibits presented

by Reed. The Court erred by granting summary judgment

to Springfield and dropping the other Defendants thereby denying

Overwhelming Amounts of Evidence supposed to be reviewed by a

Jury. The Court erred by disallowing a jury to decide damage

awards for Reed concerning his illegal arrest, detainment and his

Constitutional Rights being violated. The government including

local, state, national authorities, the Justice Department and the

FBI turned their back on this case which includes possible cases of

obstruction of justice. Reed requested a federal grand jury be

allowed to look at this case and the assigning of a civil rights

lawyer from the justice department. The Magistrate Judge

strongly ruled NO.

Defendants/Appellee’s briefs had many misquoted cases

which actually favored Appellant Reed over their legal theories.

1.) The City Wrongly points to Beck v. Skon, 253 F.3d

330 (8th Cir. 2003) Reed has submitted hundreds of exhibits and

proof that City of Springfield violated his Civil Rights, a fact the

City Attorney will never admit. Reed believes there are many

genuine issues of material facts for the case to trial.

2.) The following case shows that the Appeals Court said the

lower Court was wrong because Thompson established

genuine issues of material fact. 456 F.3d 805 Linda THOMPSON

and Roy Hedbert, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.HIRANO TECSEED

COMPANY, LTD., Defendant-Appellee,v. Sheldahl, Inc., Third-

Party Defendant-Appellee. No. 05-2813. U S Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit 2006.

3.) The City wrongfully quotes and the Court erred in agreeing

Mounds and reams of paper and motions spelled out the

simple facts that John Does Sergants/Lieutenants and the Clarion

Security Chief worked with Police and likely Governor Bob

Holden and Steve Stepp to STOP REED AND KENKEL at all

costs and a JURY NEEDS TO DECIDE since a Bench Trial was

not requested. Ferguson v. United States, 484 F.3d 1068, 1072

(8th Cir. 2007)4.) Choice misrepresented the Dennis v. Sparks,

449 U.S. 24, 27-29 (1980). 42 U.S.C. § 1985

5.) CHOICE erred in using this case --- cruel and unusual

it is to be handcuffed and illegally detained:

On April 5, 2003, Steven Reed was apprehended and his

constitutional rights were violated. He was a victim of crimes

against his liberty and freedom and he had scars from handcuffs.

He has spent over four years trying to attain justice in the court

system against those who violated him and he has suffered mental

anguish trying to attain one bit of justice from government and

lawyers who have tag teamed Reed.

Appellant/Plaintiff Reed received a Right to Sue against

Springfield Police, Clarion Hotel, and the State Capitol. Reed

filed the Lawsuit on April 1, 2005 which had a total of 151

Document filings by all parties as of 03/17/2009.

Steven Reed was arrested and detained on April 3, 2003,

for handing out flyers saying "Draft Claire: for Governor she

inspires people." Reed filed a civil action on April 1, 2005 that

included 20 COUNTS AND 154 POINTS.

Appellant Reed realizes after review of Appellee’s responses there

was possible abuse of the 911 system and a misleading of public

servants by claiming a crime was being committed by US

Nationals Steven Reed and Jeff Kenkel, when in fact they were

the victims of the crime of violation of the US First Amendment of

the Constitution that allows public debate at public events.

The summary judgment fotr Springfield and the dismissals of

Choice/Clarion, Salam, Campbell, Stepp, John and Jane Does from

this action is against the weight of the evidence, against the

weight of the law and constitutes an abuse of the trial court’s

discretion.

The District Court claimed the case was frivolous.

The Facts of the Case are this is a Freedom of Speech issue

that interacts with the Federal Laws on the books protecting such

freedoms and liberties of the Citizens as their rights, not

privileges. The legal reason for the error to be reversed is the

law of the land allows free speech which this Federal Court as, a

legal Authority, must uphold and enforce when possible.

Testimony and evidence including pictures and timetables

submitted to the court would convince a jury it was more than a

ticket citation as alleged by Springfield. The 1st Amendment to

the Constitution, Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court have

realized that the most Fundamental, paramount, and critical

elements necessary to keep the United States together as a Nation

is the Protection of the Right of Free Speech, (not frivolous), which

was reason for the Foundation of the United States of America.

The legal reasons, in the context of this case that support the

claim of reversible error in THAT ALL Reed and Kenkel were

doing is practicing freedom of speech to around 300 people

entering a "Public Political Banquet".

From: http://www.answers.com/topic/first-amendment-to-the-united-states-constitution

Appendix A-4:

1.) The District Court and the City of Springfield erred by not

addressing the memo of former Chief of Police Loveland submitted

as evidence to court.

Therefore both the Police Department and the prosecutor’s office must be extremely careful in dealing with these situations. If

the situation is not clear-cut, and if an arrest is made when the picketer is validly exercising his rights of free speech, then we are

exposing the City and the officer to lawsuits charging violations of

basic constitutional freedoms…..

The legal reasons for the claim of reversible error is this

evidence shows by arresting Reed the City was violating its

own written policy saying such actions were wrong and could

cause a lawsuit just like this case. The facts of this case interact

with the principles of the law including the U.S. Constitution.

2.) The APPELLEE’S BREIFS HELPED POINT OUT TO

APPELLANT REED WHY THE Court erred by not addressing

in rulings or actions the issue of whether Gale Ann Campbell

had proper police training requiring an officer to assess the

situation before an arrest and detainment. The law does not allow

illegal arrest of the citizens. The facts of this case present an

issue that should be heard by a jury to determine the truth.

The district court committed a reversible error since this is a

issue of proper law procedure not a frivolous issue in itself. The

only way to resolve it is by Campbell testifying to a jury. To arrest

for handing out leaflets "Draft Claire she inspires people" at a

public political event denied Plaintiff of both his right to liberty

without due process of law and his right to equal protections of the

law. The due course of justice was impeded, in violation of the

Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the

Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983. The

facts of this case interact with the law, federal rules of civic

procedure, constitution, and its amendments.

the outset it should be noted that Springfield does not and cannot

dispute almost any of the mountain of evidence including exhibits.

Their statement below is a cover all and hope for the best broad

stroke:

a case on the various counts."

Appellant Reed believes a Preponderance of clear tangible and

superior evidence which is More than enough of greater weight to

convince a jury that he was wronged in all 20 COUNTS AND 154

POINTS and that the Court erred by allowing the City of

Springfield a Summary Judgment.

The court claimed there was not enough evidence or claims

to take to the jury. This is clearly a reversible error. The legal

reasons, in the context of this case, that support the claim of

reversible error are that Reed believes he met the threshold of

burden of proof that states one must present evidence which is

more credible and convincing than that presented by the other

party or which shows that the fact to be proven is more probable

than not in order to decide the truth. One example is the pictures

showing it was daylight when arrested and total darkness when

the police let Reed and Kenkel go which means they were illegally

detained for over four hours and were told they were going to jail.

The City of Springfield states Reed had over 2 years to do

discovery which the plain evidence shows is false.

1.) The Magistrate erred by not enforcing her own ORDER,

allowing 2 - 3 years to go by before enforcing it, allowing time for

Defendants to submit any motions they could dream up to have

themselves dropped from the Civil Rights Case. The Court Order

issued on (04/26/2005 Doc. # 3) was never enforced since

all parties were ORDERED that no later than August 1, 2005, the

parties shall file a proposed scheduling order…… The Judge did

not take any action until Feb. 2, 2007 when Appellate asked for

COURT ORDER PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE on (02/02/2007

Doc, #56) which seemed to trigger the Judge when she realized

the case had went past acceptable time frames.

On (07/23/07 Doc. 64) the Judge denied Court Ordered

Production of Evidence and ordered Reed /City to get the

Scheduling Order together in 15 days which was Entered by the

Court on November 27, 2007. The Judge never took action on the

production of evidence possibly since it would show a pattern by

the city of civil rights and police actions against Reed. The legal

reasons for the claim of reversible error are the delay in time gave

unfair advantage to defendants lawyers giving more time to spin

legal theories and wear down Appellant Reed.

District Court erred by addressing the fact that Choice Hotels

lied in a motion filed a motion on April 22, 2005, but not taking

any actions against Choice/Clarion:

Now Choice Hotels lawyers in their Appellee Briefs use the names

interchangeably. The legal reasons for the claim of reversible

error in the context of this case support the claim of reversible

error because this Court is in charge of overseeing the legal

process and the enforcing laws in the country and giving false

information as evidence can only be resolved by either awarding

Reed his damages or starting the case over. "Fraud violates the

most solemn contracts, documents and even judgements.

the principles of the law which include contempt of court for

knowingly misleading a federal servant or judge.

E.) APPELLEE’S BRIEFS POINT WHY THE THE COURT ERRED BY NOT ADDRESSING LEGAL CASES IN REED’S MOTION TO AMEND PLEADING (02/01/08 DOCUMENT #68). SOME ARE BELOW AND HELP EXPLAIN THE PARTICIPATION OF ALL DEFENDANTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW WITH STATE ACTORS

The Court could and should have allowed the

amended pleading. See Appendix #5

The legal reasons for the claim of reversible error, in the context of

the case, support the claim of reversible error because due to Reed

being Pro Se and the fact that the Federal Government has as its

top priority to uphold civil rights of the people. Richard A.Woods

v. Sate of Missouri Dept. of Mental Health, Kansas City Reg.

Diagnostic Center No. 83-0838 CV W 1, 581 F. Supp. 437, 1984

U.S. Dist. Says:

F.) APPELLEE’S BRIEFS POINT OUT WHY THE COURT ERRED BY NOT ADDRESSING MARSHAL SERVICE ISSUE AND APPELLEE’S CAMPBELL AND SALEM BOTH RESPONDED TO APPELLANT REED’S CASE AS A FORM OF ACCEPTANCE

1.) The Court erred by never addressing the fact that Reed asked

the Federal Marshals to deliver lawsuit allowed by Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and they said they were too busy and no longer

did that. It appears to be part of the pattern from day one for

local agencies and defendants including the city government to do

whatever they could to shut this case down. See Benjamin

Harrison Willianms, Jr Plaintiff-Appellant V. Charlie Rhoden.

Charles Thompkins, J.S Padgett, Defendants-Appellees No. 79-

2884 (US Ct. App.1980) says:

Federal Rules Procedure required that on filing of the complaint the clerk issue a summons and deliver it for service to the marshal or to a person specifically appointed to serve it....service on all defendants.

2.) Gail Ann Campbell and Muhammad Salam The Court

erred by not addressing the motion of (11/22/2005 Doc. #34)

which Reed pointed out: that he did not want to appear to be

stocking the police officer.

The Court admits on April 6, 2005 the Complaint with a summons

was delivered to Officer Carlos Kerley at the Springfield Police

Department. Officer Campbell was sued in her capacity as a police

officer and denying that is itself a form of corruption and crime

allowing Springfield to shield itself in that way against civil rights

violations. Since the City accepted service to the police

department the City of Springfield should have defended her

actions as an employee but it seems clear that by sending her to

Lowther Johnson law firm Springfield could claim she was sued as

a private person and they need not respond.

If someone gives a price to roof your home and they start the

next day and you say hi in the morning as you head off to work

that is acceptance. Campbell’s and Salam’ s lawyers admit

receiving and responding to the lawsuit which is acceptance.

3.) See APPENDIX 8 which is a 12 page motion by Muhammad

Salam on (6/21/2005 Doc. #25) claiming no wrong doing

by answering many of the claims thereby accepting the complaint

and lawsuit by responding to Plaintiff Reed and moving to the

next stage of the legal court process. In an Order of (03/31/2006

Doc. 46) the Judge pointed out the motion actually had Mr.

Salam’s name spelled incorrectly as Mohamed. Appellant Reed

points out that in that motion Salam admits:

Reed points out that Salem’s attorney refused to address Count 11

Assault/Battery and that a Jury would hear testimony that Salem

put his hand on Reed after he took him into a separate room to tell

him he had to leave.

Like an offer, an acceptance consists of some outward expression of agreement. The acceptance can be express or implied, written or oral.

5.) Gail Campbell wrongly quotes:

BECAUSE it says a Court can allow questioned service if the

Court sees fit:

The Court erred by Not considering all parties properly

served in the lawsuit and the legal reasons for the claim of

reversible error is stated right above and the fact that everyone

who knows this case knows the parties accepted service and the

Court could have made it so.

(8th Cir. 1986) BECAUSE the main reason he was dismissed is he

had rights to file complaints against jail personnel before suing,

not because of "did not point out any basis for an alleged District

Court error,"

G.) APPELLEE’S BRIEFS HELPED POINT OUT THE

COURT ERRED BY NOT ADRESSING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY CITY AND HOSMER WORKING TOGETHER TO SHUT DOWN A FEDRAL CASE

The Court erred by not addressing the collusion of a

government agency and private attorneys to shut down a civil

rights case and as a legal authority the court, in the context of the

case, support the claim of reversible error.

Reed in deposition told City Attorney Thomas E. Rykowski

that Craig Hosmer tried to get him to Sign "STIPULATION

FOR DISMISSAL". Hosmer said he had just talked to City

Attorney who said if Reed did not drop lawsuit right away they

would be going after Substantial Attorney Fees possibly $50 to

$100 thousand and Reed would be paying the rest of his life.  A

jury should have had the right to hear under oath the facts

involved since it was never set for a bench trial. Brief of Appellee

Steven Stepp was received on August 23rd, 2009 and mainly states

Reed agreed to drop Mr. Stepp from this case in 2005. This

occurred as the above instances occurred and at the time Hosmer

told Reed he really wanted him to drop Stepp from the case and

Reed could always re-enter Stepp at a later time.

Court erred by using defendants statements as facts and not

addressing the real original issues which , in the context of the

case, support the claim of reversible error. If Reed’s trespass

charge was dropped, the real criminal charge should be against

the police and those in charge for violating civil rights laws. Reed

has suffered extreme cruelty and mental suffering because of the

original illegal arrest and detainment and because of the cover up

that followed. In De Cloedt v. De Cloedt, 24 Idaho 277, 133 P.

664,669:

Springfield lawyer argues that Reed did not get treatment

for mental issue. Reed admits he did not have money to pay for

hospital to address mental suffering , but that none the less Reed

has suffered because of this case for all the reasons given.

Clearly the facts of this case interact with the principles of the law

including Reed’s Rights secured by Federal law listed in original

complaint.

SEE APPENDIX # 5 COUNT 1: VIOLATIONS of 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, ARREST Point 50. Acting under color of law, Defendants, as alleged, worked a denial of Plaintiff’s rights, privileges or immunities secured by the US Constitution or by Federal law. (a) by depriving Plaintiff of

his liberty without due process of law, by taking him into custody and holding him against his will,…..

SEE APPENDIX # 6 COUNT 10: FALSE ARREST 82. At all times relevant herein, (a) the Defendants acted with the intention of confining Plaintiff with fixed boundaries, (b) the act directly or indirectly resulted in confinement….

CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS 55. As a result of their concerted unlawful and malicious arrest, detention, and confinement of Plaintiff, Defendants caused Plaintiff to…….

possible guilt and damages and they bought up possible

discrimination issue in motion of (04/22/05 Do. 2, 2005).

this case and the facts prove otherwise:

2.) Page 6 of motion:

This actually describes exactly what Appellant Reed laid out

in his case. On page 11:

Appellant Reed agrees with Choice’s assessment that trumped

up Trespass charges to shut down freedom of speech is improper

use of process.

3.) On page 11:

Language of this count:

Choice Lawyer: Plaintiff appears to be stating a cause of action for an unlawful arrest based upon his race and sex. The state of Missouri does not have a state cause of action for discrimination based on race or sex as a matter of state law. Race and sex discrimination claims should be pursued through Federal law.

Reed agrees with Choice the Court erred by not addressing it

and the truth is: A Lady would not have been handcuffed and put

in a police car. So Reed was discriminated against and being 44

his age also likely contributed to that.

the context of the case, by admitting possible admission of

damages by Choice the case should have proceeded to a jury and

since the court sidestepped the issue of whether a female would

have been arrested this supports the claim of reversible error

since a legal authority in charge of administering the law must

follow it.

J.) APPELLEE’S BRIEFS HELPED POINT OUT WHY THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED BY NOT ADDRESSING STATEMENT BY 4 TERM STATE REPRESNTATIVE

The Court erred by actions and ruling allowing Clerk Staff

JoRira Gicinto to Err and even possibly participate by obstructing

justice telling Reed he could take a deposition by phone. Appellant

Reed told the Clerk he was recording it for verification that he

could take a deposition by phone since the Federal Rules state the

deposition occurs where it takes place. Michael Schilling a three

term State Representative did give the Deposition submitted to

the Court (03/18/2008) and part of which follows: He was at the

event and saw the four police cars and three tv camera and

everyone watching as they went into the event. Mr. Schilling says

he believes clearly it was an illegal detainment.

Shilling: That’s right.

The legal reasons for the claim of reversible error are easy a state

representative testimony should be allowed. The legal reasons, in

the context of this case, support the claim of reversible error are

many and include the fact that a Jury should have been able to

hear Mr. Schilling and the facts he stated.

K.) APPELLEE’S BREIFS HELPED POINT OUT WHY COURT ERRED BY ALLOWING SPRINGFIELD 145 PAGE DEPOSTION

The Court erred by allowing and using as the only facts

a deposition done under duress by Reed. Under law being under

duress and forced to do something is not legal and a reason for

the claim of reversible error in that the same attorney dealing

with Reed on write in case was handling this case. Appellant

Reed did not know how to do depositions or interrogatories and

was overwhelmed and close to a nervous breakdown when the

City Attorney got him to say things he wanted to get Reed to say.

Appellant did record the whole deposition and may submit as an

appendix. At one point the City Attorney raised his voice and

leaned forward saying he wanted to know where Reed got the

inter office memorandum from Chief of Police Loveland?

Reed made a Recording in full view of Springfield Attorney and

Court Reporter. A. City Attorney raised voice at Reed for

not saying where he presently worked (Reed was afraid of

retaliation). B. City Attorney raises up in chair and leans

forward and yells who gave the internal police report? C. City

Attorney raised his voice and sad you do not know the sergeant

gave the orders to arrest responding to Reed who said that the

sergeant in charge likely said yes arrest him because we have had

a lot of trouble with him (note this Sergeant or Lutenant was one

of the unknown John Does which the City refused to verify). Reed

was ordered by Court under the threat of Contempt to be there

and was close to a nervous breakdown.

L.) APPELLEE’S BRIEFS CLARIFY REED DID PROPERLY EXPLAIN MOHAMMAD, POLICE, AND CITY LUTENANTS WORKED WITH STATE ACTORS UNDER COLOR OF LAW AND WHY TO HOLD THEM LIABLE AND WHY THE COURT ERRED BY NOT ALLOWING ENTRY OF EX-GOVERNOR BOB HOLDEN

The Court erred by not admitting Reed had presented

evidence that should have went to a jury concerning color of law

meeting of minds and Reed’s effort to bring Holden into case. The

legal reasons for the claim of reversible error is that in the context

of the case, a jury needed to hear the case and Bob Holden needed

to testify about his involvement and this supports the claim of

reversible error.

The Court claims Governor Holden was only mentioned ONE

time and refused to add Holden to this case. In fact he was

included many times in original filing, 9 times TOTAL.

Salem said those running the event said Reed was part of the

Opposition. The command to "get rid of Reed and Kenkel" most

likely came from the top official of Missouri Bob Holden who was

aware of what was going on. Holden was the hometown boy so

likely the local police and leaders agreed that was not a good thing

to allow people to openly campaigning against him on his home

turf. Many Democrats in attendance claim they think the

command came from Holden and a Jury should have the right to

decide what is the truth.

The Proof Is: See Appendix # 9

U. S. Senator Claire McCaskill

John G. Schultz for Choice and Clarion

Jim Morris/Clarion Hotel Owner

Mohamed Salam

Jim Kreider FBI and others.

address motion Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) and a reversible error since

the Court did not answer the content of the motion.

Parts of Rule 59 are: Plaintiff’s case rests upon the belief that he was engaging in political free speech – giving fellow Democrats leaflets urging them to draft Claire McCaskill for governor against incumbent Bob Holden, and the Democratic powers that be had a fit and pressured the other Defendants to have the police make a false arrest under color of law, i.e. trespassing. It is admitted that this is exactly what happened. The genuine material facts are admitted…….

Clearly the facts of this case interact with the principles of

the law that a jury must be allowed to decide a case.

Civil Rights it would raise eyebrows. The legal reasons for the

claim of reversible error is that in the context of the case by

keeping the case under the radar---no press or attention---is

enough to support the claim of reversible error.

Appellant Reed agrees with assault and slander but the real

case is CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, violations of freedom of

speech and the constitutional right to campaign for candidates

and it appears that the case was shoved under carpet since it

would not receive much attention.

The District Court insisted Reed prove his case entirely

before it would be allowed to go to a jury. The Court insisted he

meet every requirement of the Court in service, discovery and

other processes. Reed has been Pro Se and never paid.

The trial court erred in acting as if it was agreed upon to

have a bench trial which is the legal reason for the claim of

reversible error and the legal reasons, in the context of the case,

support the claim of reversible error are most of the quoted legal

cases were ignored along with the evidence and exhibits submitted

by Reed.

The crutch of this case is Cover up and make disappear. The

City of Springfield from the minute this Freedom of Speech issue

hit the newspaper apparently started the effort to squash it. A

jury needs to hear whether the City Prosecutor and Judge worked

with Attorney Robert Childers to plead Reed guilty on trespassing

charge when they knew the case was really about the right to

campaign for an issue or candidate.

In the past the City Court paperwork required the party

approving a plea agreement to sign along with their attorney. In

this case the court paper had no where for Reed to sign. Appellant

Reed hired and told Attorney Childress to plead him and Kenkel

not guilty. The City Court and the City knew a guilty plea would

make it harder for Reed to sue. A jury should hear all the facts.

Additionally Rhonda Bateman the lady who just died in jail

stole over a million dollars as clerk in the court. It appears

some of those funds were fees Reed paid to the court and means

since that money never reached the city bank account the

trespassing charge would have to be overturned/void.

Appellant Reed met with Department of Correction

Officials and sent letters to clear the charge. See copies of letters

Appendix A-13. Reed met with Amanda Moore on July 29, 2008

and did a complete several hour interview and she said they would

decide. Then a letter on September 22, 2008 from Chairman

Steve Long said it was a municipal case. Reed strongly believes

that since the case involved an event attended by and involving

then Governor Bob Holden made it a state issue and they should

have sent it on to Governor Matt Blunt to decide. It appears Long

stopped it when they realized they should not have let it get as far

as it did, I.E. move cover up. The legal reasons for the claim of

reversible error are being the court used that guilty plea to

hang all the denial orders on. The legal reasons, in the context of

the case, support claim of reversible error so the truth of civil

rights violations can be accounted for by the courts and

authorities who are paid/charged with enforcing laws of

the land. In Owen v. City of Independence Missouri, Et Al. No.

78-1779 Sup. Ct. US 445 U.S. 622 100 S. Ct. 1398 63 L. Ed. 2d 673

Springfield says Reed not taken to jail when truth is

cars were running and on route until stopped:

In Cook v Hastings 150 Miich. 289; 114 N.W. 71 1907:

The trial court should have directed a verdict against all three officers because they acted to deprive plaintiff of his liberty…after the arrest, Hastings placed plaintiff in a patrol wagon….The court reversed the trial court in favor of the officers and ordered a new trial.

Nick Tarr v. Maricopa County 256 71 2007 US Ct. App.

Tarr a political advocate appealed a summary judgment by US Dis. Court in favor of defendant county…An arrest for exercising political speech in public violated clearly established Fourth and First Amendment Rights. The officers thus were not entitled to qualified immunity…the lower court’s grant of summary judgment was reversed and remanded….

would be drawn to this case see Appendix #14. Reed also includes

a list of people who spoke at Jackson Days that was always open

to the public Appendix #15.

Reed sees two options: 1. Send case back to the District

Court to award 10 million dollars to Appellant Reed in damages

divided on a percentage of each Defendants net worth. 2. Appeals

Court can order the Justice Dept. to assign Civil Rights Lawyer

and send the case back down to the District Court and start the

process over with a Congressional Investigation of what has

happened in case. When Appellant applies job and they do a

background check and it shows up/or does not show up if the

employer hears Appellant has been arrested for trespassing

chances of being hired drop as will future employment for Reed

who is 49 which means lost of wages for the rest of his life.

told Ed Bradley that "the only person you have to think twice

about lying to is either yourself or to God."

Certificate of Service---I certify that on _________________ a true copy of the above was mailed, postage pre paid or electronically to the last known mailing address of each party to this lawsuit and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit.

Respectfully submitted, Steven L. Reed

_________________________________________________ 

Steven L. Reed, Plaintiff Pro Se

Springfield MO 65802

417-882-2942

Danial R. Wichmer, Esq.

Attorney Appellees City of Springfield, MO, Springfield MO Police Department, and John and Jane Does

John W. Housley, Esq.

Attorney for Defendant Gail M. Campbell

Taylor, Stafford, Clithero, Fitzgerald & Harris, LLP Attorney for Muhammad Salam

John G. Schultz

Attorneys for Defendant Choice Hotels and Clarion

Craig Hosmer Attorney Steven Stepp

Undersigned counsel for plaintiff-appellant hereby certifies,

pursuant to Rule32(a)(7)(C), Fed. R. App. P., and 8 Cir. th R.

28A(c), that the foregoing AmicusBrief was printed using

WordPerfect version 10, Century Schoolbook proportionality

peface in 14-point type size, and that the brief complies with the

type-volume limitations of Rule 32(a)(7), Fed. R. App. P. Exclusive

of material not counted under Rule 32(a)(7)(B)(iii), the brief

contains 6,996 words.