St.

Louis County Council

St. Louis County Government Center
Administration Building, (1st Floor) September 24, 2009
41 South Central Avenue,
Clayton, Missouri 63105
Cert # 7003-2260-0004-8226-2514

Directed to the St. Louis County Council:

In regards to the subject matter of my last letter, I provided you a choice to answer certain
questions about “an agreement” that St. Louis County government expects me to have “in
effect,” or as a general matter consistent with the Missouri Constitution or a State statute. Your
failure to provide this essential information is self evident; accordingly as promised I will have
the attorney I hire initiate the appropriate legal process to obtain your sworn statement and/or
testimony as a material witness and of course to lay the proper foundation for the submission of
exhibits being of real, illustrative, and documentary evidence.

Just as you and the County government have made certain “choices”… I too, exercise my
freedom of choice, faith and the legal and constitutional rights concerning my life, liberty or
pursuits of happiness. However, the two choices as laid down by the County Health Department
(listed in Notice of Citation) are indifferent to my concepts of fairness, justice, or one’s legal
principles, including without limitation, my religious, ethical or personal beliefs and values.

Subsequently, I want to know exactly where in CHAPTER 607 WASTE MANAGEMENT

CODE that the phrase: “Within ten (10) days of receipt of this citation, you must take one of the
following actions”… was in fact authorized by law. The existing fact is, there a host of proper or
legal options a person can employ or use to resolve a legal issue. I am of the proper legal
decision that any enforcement action conducted by County government or its agents (Veolia” or
haulers) must obey the law, court doctrines and established procedures and practices. One of the
two actions listed on the Notice of Citation by the County Health Department has commanded
that I shall pay a $100 fine to “Solid Waste Management Program” without a single thought of
“due process” guaranteed by our legal system or even providing me an option “to state that you
are not guilty” as provided for by law [See 607.940 Citation for Violations]

The second action or purported legal alternative is to reinstate trash service, thus paying Veolia’s
restart fee of $25.00 and other service charges, being a fee and charge I never agreed to pay in
the first place. This action comes with some kind of reward, incentive or promise that a person
will suddenly or apparently not have to pay the $100 Health Department’s fine. The purpose of a
monetary fine has nothing to do with fine tuning the problems caused in a Waste Management
Program or accomplishing someone’s personal cause to “coax people into compliance” or
making a person/citizen participate with ad hoc legal decisions produced by legalism.

This type of discretionary punishment is not the worst form of government tyranny, however
demanding a fine, under the color of law, without providing a legal option of a court date, denies
or deprives:

(1) A court hearing or its legal jurisdiction

 (2) An opportunity to make a Plea - Guilty or Not Guilty
(3) A trial by jury (a fundamental right)
(4) Right to Counsel or to obtain legal representation (lawyer) before being “fined”
(5) An opportunity to make a legal defense with the right to subpoena witnesses
(6) An opportunity to present evidence or review evidence
(7) An opportunity to question my accusers (a fundamental right)
(8) A Court appeal process established by law
(9) “What section” of the code I had allegedly violated before being fined $100.00
(10) Certain Constitutional rights or legal rights (42 U.S.C 1983) as set forth by law.

Furthermore, I want to know where that action (the reward, incentive or promise program) was
authorized by law. If these above actions are not bad enough, the County is running a trash
program as if it was a monopoly game and using the fear of monetary fines, as well as the
additional threat of instituting legal proceedings against a person without further notice, merely
because I or a person did not answer or understand the legal issues at hand. I see this reward,
incentive or promise program involving a “($100 fine will be waived)” as an improper
enticement, pay off or just another corrupt practice not authorized by law or a legal act
established under 607.900 [Rulemaking].

Furthermore, the County Waste Management Program is operating, in part, as if I was some kind
of game contestant, or a movable piece on a monopoly game board, only to be forced to respond
and participate with some kind of a bizarre “wedding cake” model of criminal justice, all of
which is repulsive to my values and beliefs. Equally, what is offensive to my faith in County
government is the creation of elaborate mechanisms which aid deceptive appearances or
wrongful environments. One such example of a deceptive appearance is seen at…“..visit our
website at www.stlouisco.com/doh/waste/enforcement.html..” This particular webpage takes a
person down the dark path of inevitability; especially when a person, who, according to County
government, is already a violator, fills out the “Enforcement Notice Response Form.” See
attached document. This particular form provides the facts and evidence required to create the
fallout of additional legal proceedings if a person fails to cooperate according to their program.
This type of operation is similar to and perhaps in some ways no different than a “sting
operation” and certainly can be used as legal evidence as a confession or as an admission of guilt
in a criminal court of law.

This very innocuous looking form (Enforcement Notice Response Form) encouraging a person
by stating “Please Note: Sending multiple responses will delay a response to your inquiry” is
in fact a deceptive operation designed to gather evidence of the suspect’s wrongdoing, and even
to catch a person committing a crime by asking certain guilt seeking questions and admissions.
This is best seen by the language used on this one computer form: “..Please select up to two of
the following reasons (one from each column) describing why you believe the enforcement
notice was sent to you in error. (Please note that not all reasons are valid.)…” Please note the
words and phrase used here: “..notice was sent to you in error…” as the word “notice” was
used instead of “violation” or “citation” and of course the word “error” was used as if the
government or its agent(s) had made a mistake. My letters sent to the County government, and
the lack of a proper response to them, is material evidence that County government is not
interested in correcting its “errors” or its wrongful conduct. Also, in the phrase “Please note that
not all reasons are valid,” “please note” should be substituted for “WARNING” and the word
“valid” replaced with “legal” or correctly inform the citizen that the reasons they list can be, in
fact, “illegal,” and punishable by law. Nowhere is it stated on this Enforcement Notice
Response Form:

“ 607.960 Penalties and Enforcement.--1. Every person who shall be convicted of any
of the provisions of this Chapter shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars
($1,000.00) or imprisoned in the St. Louis County Justice Center for not more than one
(1) year, or punished by both such fine or imprisonment. Each day a violation continues
after service of written notice to abate such violation shall constitute a separate offense;
however, no notice is required to prosecute and convict a person of any violation of
this Chapter.
Or

That Section 607.940, listing some 48 section of the Waste Management Code as
violations that can incur penalties and enforcement actions

Or
Section 607.950 –[Authorization for Director to Accept Payment for Penalties Assessed
Herein;] See attached list of fines.

The Enforcement Notice Response Form is just another unfair practice “to coax people into
compliance” using (1) Warning Letter, (2) Notice of Violation, and (3) Notice of Citation, as a
deceptive operation designed to catch persons who are not committing a crime. Rather, County
government is committing certain citizens to a no-win situation, who are in fact victims of a
vicious circle of a government entity trying to establish probable cause concerning facts or
evidence of an offense… being totally based on “problems caused” or a “personal cause” such
as “..We do not want to be going to court against people to enforce [the law]…” As a retired
police officer I think a sting operation should be focused on those individuals or enterprises that
are engaged in benefiting from criminal activities, not citizens trying to benefit from commercial
activities (trash pick-up).

In law enforcement, a sting operation is a deceptive operation designed to catch a person

committing a crime. A typical sting will have a law-enforcement officer or cooperative member
of the public play a role as criminal partner or potential victim and go along with a suspect's
actions to gather evidence of the suspect’s wrongdoing. Sting operations are fraught with ethical
concerns over whether they constitute entrapment. Law-enforcement must be careful not to
provoke the commission of a crime by someone who would not normally be inclined to do so.
Additionally, in the process of such operations, the police often engage in the same so-called
crimes, often victimless, such as buying or selling contraband, soliciting prostitutes, and in this
case trash collection, etc. Remember, the County Council elected to criminalize 48 sections of
the Waste Management Code.

It is a sad state of affairs when County government sets up a sting operation for citizens who
have questions or legal issues with their waste hauler, hoping that government can answer their
problems, however, only later to be informed by an attorney that their statements are admissible
in a court of law. Subsequently, it is the “comment” section of this form, being nothing more
than a place for a “confession” or serving as a tool to develop an “admission of guilt” having the
set structure of an easy point and click answer form for this victimless crime [607.140] that
aggravates me. This is a proven point, since I wrote over 20 letters and countless e-mails seeking
answers to the many legal questions, concerns, issues and problems with the Waste Management
Program and its code and received continuing ill will or malevolence by certain County
government employees, officers, departments, and commission.

The criminalization of a waste code is bad enough, however when citizens/homeowners are
drawn into a “Waste Management Program” under threat of penalty, only to be mislead or
misinformed by the government or its agent (Veolia or other licensed haulers), the real threat to
society becomes legal environment. The environment I seek to preserve is an individual right to
be left alone and as you have allowed certain groups to “opt out” of this program, you best have
a shield of smart lawyers to defend yourselves in court from all those individuals who are forced
by law (the code) to participate, because the County Council elected not to believe in phrases
like “equal protection under the law” the “due process of law” or the County Charter that
mandates a vote on the establishment of trash districts.

Now that I have obtained a written copy of the County government and Veolia Environmental
Services, “WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES AGREEMENT” for District 4… I discovered under
“Specification” and “Terms and Conditions” that Veolia agreed to fixed fees and other charges
limited by contract, with no mention Veolia can or has a legal right to charge me or any other
person within that district a “Restart Fee” of $25.00. It is important to note the “service charge”
for picking up trash and recyclable materials is set by the terms and conditions of a contract,
however Veolia has demanded an additional “service charge” each month as shown on my
invoices issued by them. Apparently St. Louis County government Waste Management
Program’s web page is fictitious when it comes to “All prices are firm and fixed. There will be
no additional fuel or administrative charges added on.” See attached document title “District 4
Price List.” Any person can see this is a fabricated statement when examining Veolia
Environmental Services invoices that have been mailed to my home since the Waste
management program commenced.

It is this additional “service charge” of ($5.95) and their “restart fee” of ($25.00) that I take
issue with, along with a disturbing history of Veolia charging me other fees and charges I never
agreed to pay for, which clearly defines their actions as self-dealing. Self-dealing has been
defined as “a situation where one takes an action in an official capacity which involves dealing
with oneself in a private capacity and which confers a benefit on oneself.” Veolia Environmental
Services serving in their official capacity, acting as an agent for St. Louis County government is
prohibited from any acts of self-dealing. This is understated by the relevant or pertinent facts
that my wife and I have caused no threat(s) to the public health, safety and welfare, and were not
properly billed for services by Veolia or the fact County government cannot or will not disclose
what kind or type of an agreement that is to be “in effect”. Please take note, Veolia will not even
respond to my letters and email concerning their stated policy that is in opposition to 607.140
mandates for an agreement.
If you… the Waste Management program, the offices, departments or a commission of St. Louis
County government cannot answer these questions, how do you expect me or anyone else to
form a proper legal decision and action, based on [607.140] unreasonable demands for some kind
or type of hypothetical or undefined agreement which shall be in effect for the collection of waste
generated on the premises with a waste collection service.

I need to know what constitutes “an agreement” pursuant to 607.140 since County government
and Veolia have acted with an improper or wrongful motive. At present no one from St. Louis
County government can or will explain what type of agreement I am to have in effect (written
vs. verbal, express, or implied, etc.) including agreements that are prepared by others
(government, lawyers, etc.) or all the proper terms and conditions set forth and described in your
previous letter. Regardless of these facts; Veolia instigated a complaint in spite of their wrongful
actions with us. These actions of Veolia, in part, are self evident, self serving and evidence of
self dealing, being wrongful, especially when “an agreement” with County government exists
and certain government officers and employees have legal duties, one being enforcing the
contract terms and conditions established with Veolia as well as enforcing the Waste
Management Code with them.

On the other hand County government, via Ms Yates letter, dated, April 29, 2009 assured me that
she had contacted the Department of Public Works “..to address the Veolia service contract
questions (billing dispute, service contract provisions, etc.).” To this date I have heard nothing
from Department of Public Works. Approximately 4 ½ months have passed since that assurance
and other assertions and actions by others, producing a total disregard for my Constitutional
rights, (religious belief, speech, conscience, association, protest, petition and right to hold certain
beliefs). County government has forsaken or forgotten that the Due Process Clause contains a
substantial component that bars certain arbitrary or wrongful government actions regardless of
the fairness of the procedures used to implement them. It should be clear to anyone who has
received or read my letters sent to County government, I have protected my interest in “life,
liberty, or property” and that in itself is not unconstitutional; what is unconstitutional is the
deprivation of such an interest without due process of law.

That deprivation of such an interest, without due process of law, being individually or
collectively caused by: 1) Saint Louis County Department of Health, 2) The Office of Solid
Waste Coordinator, 3) Waste Management Commission, 4) Solid Waste Management Program,
5) The Office of Waste Management, 6) Saint Louis County Department of Public Works, 7) St.
Louis County Council, 8) St. Louis County Executive’s Office, 9) it agent (Veolia), including but
not limited to, 10) Saint Louis County Counselor’s Office, is patently obvious.

It is plain for a person to see that County government thinks it has the right to create repulsive
environments, whether being of fear, frustration or fate, as well as comprehensive conditions and
relationships involving presupposition, demanding obedience without question, until another
version of the code is written. These conditions and relationships eliminate any evidence
manifested by our legal system’s ideas found in the “presumption of innocence.” The force of
this presumption, like the presumption of innocence, is measured by the quantum of evidence
necessary to overcome it. That revelation, whether of mere suspicion or proof beyond a
reasonable doubt must yield to the absolute belief the criminal process presumes that the accused
or a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Why then assess or demand a fine of $100 or make
a person pay a restart fee or conduct comprehensive conditions and relationships involving
assumption, conjecture or a “best guess theory” of what reasonably available means in section
607.140.

However, it is the presupposition in Section 607.140 or the presumption “If waste collection
service is reasonably available…” I find most alarming because County Council elected and the
majority voted for the “criminalization” of the Waste Management Code. I need to know who
and what section of the code defines when “WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE IS REASONABLY
AVAILABLE”, as well as if...waste collection service is not reasonably available for a premise,
what legal action(s ) should a person take, if any, to avoid being issued a citation by the St. Louis
County Health Department. This term “reasonably available” is very ambiguous and to this date
no one from County government has or can answer this question properly.

I have contacted other St. Louis County licensed “waste collection services” who all refused to
enter into another trash district or make waste collection service reasonably available for my
premise because of the herein stated facts, (fear of fines, imprisonment) or due to an existing
contract or the possible suspension of their current contract, including but not limited to,
following the advice of their legal counsel.

Moreover, I contend that trash service is not reasonably available for the reasons stated herein,
and that the legal concept of “reasonably available” is a practical one that focuses on a legal
blueprint and its network of sections of the Waste Management Code, thus not being of a
financial or technical one involving Veolia or St. Louis County balance sheets. I summarize the
term “practical one” as being concerned with actual facts and real life and experience, not of a
legal theory and when used with the application of law; (Waste Management Code) is based on
the matters of law as listed below.

Herein, are some matters of fact or law why residential trash service is or is not “reasonably
available” at my premise: (1) St. Louis County established [607.1300] - Designation of
Collection Areas. (2) St. Louis County awards or grants a certain company with the right to do
business in these trash districts [607.1310] - Grant of Contract, (3) St. Louis County can
suspended such contracts and “such contracts shall require that the person awarded the contract
shall comply with all duties imposed by this Waste Management Code; shall provide for
exclusive services in the designated area or areas;” [607.1310] (4) St. Louis County requires
wastes collection vehicles to be license [607.150] and controls the application of a license
[607.160] (5) St. Louis County can grant or refuse a license [607.170] (6) St. Louis County has
set the standards for an issuance of license [607.190] (7) St. Louis County can suspend a license
for listed reasons set forth in [607.200]- Suspension of Licenses (8) St. Louis County has
established when license are not required [607.220] (9) St. Louis County has created, signed and
maintains “..an agreement shall be in effect for the collection of waste generated on the premises
with a waste collection service having waste collection vehicles licensed by the Director for the
collection, transportation, and disposal of waste.” [607.140] (10) St. Louis County has fulfilled
[607.140] the legal requirement of “an agreement” for the collection of waste generated at a
premise(s) and this Defendant has assured that an agreement for the collection of waste is in
effect, (11) St. Louis County has established SUBCHAPTER R. PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT
[607.940, 607.950, 607.960] being, in part, currently used against this Defendant, initiated
without probable cause, and maintained without any legal concerns, issues and questions as
presented through my numerous letters or without a concern for the legal consequences at hand,
including but not limited to, the County government engaging in various violations of certain
Constitutional and legal rights or duties.

Section 607.140 [Waste to be Collected] begins with an assumption: “If waste collection service
is reasonably available…” being presented as an antecedent clause which is based on someone’s
conjecture of what does reasonably available mean. As a consequence this assumption descends
into a world of ad hoc decisions and half measures – and our criminal justice system suffers
along with people who can be subject to laws of such improper construction. This environment
of administrative compliance procedures becomes the final decision of what is probable.
Subsequently, when used in this manner, “probable” is just a euphemism for “unproven.” How
and why would anybody want to criminally prosecute a person for what is “probable or
unproven” is far beyond the legal sphere of probable cause as required by 607.940 or the current
legal doctrines established or the lawful realm of the Constitutions of a state or this nation.

I am of the legal opinion, something that is ad hoc or that is done on an ad hoc basis (created on
the spur of the moment, impromptu) or is done only when the situation makes it necessary or
desirable, rather than being arranged in advance or being part of a general plan… supports a
complacent policy of indifference to evil. And that policy involving government action is
revulsion to me. Therefore, because of this, I maintain my free exercise of “quintessential
rights” of the First Amendment, to preserve, protect and defend those truths we hold to be self
evident in the United States and Missouri Constitutions, moreover, to protect my legal interest in
the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This kind of action elevates the
human spirit and allows a person the freedom to think, the freedom to speak and the freedom to
act. Freedom is the light of all sentient beings [emphasis added].

“It has been said that for the truth to exist, it takes two people - one to speak it... and another to
hear it.” This brings us all to the upcoming criminal trial, and my faith in facts and my facts of
faith in opposition to certain members of the County’s Health Department, County Counselor’s
Office, etc. who seek to use the court system as a tool, and their personal causes or professional
“justifications” as the maker of a better world to live in, through administrative compliance
procedures.

Unquestionably, these administrative compliance procedures are the dark side of a creation
called “legalism” which has no moral destiny and for the most part is unknown to the public at
large. Legalism is the belief in controlling ideas, as well as the actions of others, often by
someone lacking unquestionable sincerity. The dictionary defines legalism as: “strict, literal
adherence to the law, or to a particular code, as of religion or morality.” Legalism relates to
principals of right and wrong behavior, often executed through theses administrative
compliance procedures.

I am of the Constitutional opinion; your law (Waste Management Code, practices, policy,
program, customs etc.) as applied; is law respecting the establishment of religion and infringes or
abridges on my free exercise of “quintessential rights” of the First Amendment. When any
government can demand the payment of a fine from the accused, without first providing a court
hearing, or without the due process of law, or without maintaining a system of legal rights
established by law, or without obeying the Rule of Law and existing U.S. Supreme Court
doctrines, the presumption of innocence ceases to exist along with the word Mankind calls
“Justice”. I believe as the U.S. Supreme Court has stated: “The principle that there is a
presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and
elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.”

What I find most interesting, is that County Council’s “criminalization” of the Waste
Management Code allows a person only “..(10) days after receipt of the citation…” to make a
very important legal decision, to form a legal answer or actions, this being pursuant to Section
607.940:

“..607.940 Citation for Violations of Provisions of this Chapter; Form of Citation.--1. Any person designated by the Director to
enforce provisions of this Chapter may issue a citation to any person when having probable cause to believe that such person has
committed a violation of Sections 607.050, 607.060, 607.070, 607.080, 607.090, 607.100, 607.110, 607.120, 607.130, 607.135,
607.140, 607.145, 607.150, 607.181, 607.182, 607.183, 607.184, 607.185, 607.210, 607.230, 607.240, 607.250, 607.260,
607.270, 607.280, 607.290, 607.300, 607.310, 607.340, 607.720, 607.730, 607.740, 607.750, 607.755, 607.760, 607.800,
607.810, 607.860, 607.865, 607.1000, 607.1005, 607.1020, 607.1040, 607.1145, 607.1155, 607.1200, 607.1203 and 607.1205 of
this Chapter. The citation shall require the person in whose name the citation is issued to pay a fine either by mail or in person at
the offices of the Department of Health within ten (10) days after receipt of the citation…”

I am of the proper legal opinion Section 607.940, listing some 48 section of the Waste
Management Code as violations that can incur penalties and enforcement actions, is nothing
more than a public-oriented excuse for compliance and at the very least, the likelihood of
successful coercion. All of this is conducted through administrative compliance procedures “to
coax people into compliance.”

Consequently, this is produced and protected by an irrefutable environment of fear, frustration,

and fate established by legalism. Appropriately, I recognize this particular environment from its
derived concepts and wrongful actions involving problems caused or a personal cause
supporting a complacent policy of indifference to evil. And that policy I cannot but hate. I hate it
because I refuse to become a slave to poor ideas (sins) or become somebody who meekly accepts
being ruled by somebody else’s arbitrary rules or lawless sanctions. As a result, this kind of evil
environment of fear, frustration and fate, prevails when good people refuse to make a stand
against it. For additional evidence of this fact, see the attached letter sent to the County
Counselor Ms. Redington concerning her practice and County Government’s endorsement to
“COAX PEOPLE INTO COMPLIANCE” because “..THE PRICES ARE SO GOOD…”

Subsequently and lawfully, I have exercised my “quintessential rights” of the First Amendment
to overcome this kind of evil environment of fear, frustration and fate. Equally… if you or your
office cannot form an answer to my letter or make a legal decision that concerns your actions
within 10 days, why then did the County Council establish another unjust legal requirement?

The genuine evil is found in the criminalization of some 48 sections of the Waste Management
Code (pursuant to Section 607.940) where fines not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00)
or imprisonment in the St. Louis County Justice Center for not more than one (1) year, or
punished by both such fine and/or imprisonment can be administered pursuant section 607.960
[Penalties and Enforcement] which states:

“..607.960 Penalties and Enforcement.—

1. Every person who shall be convicted of any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars
($1,000.00) or imprisoned in the St. Louis County Justice Center for not more than one (1) year, or punished by both such fine or
imprisonment. Each day a violation continues after service of written notice to abate such violation shall constitute a separate
offense; however, no notice is required to prosecute and convict a person of any violation of this Chapter.
2. In addition to the penalties hereinabove authorized and established, the County Counselor shall take such other actions at law
or in equity as may be required to halt, terminate, remove or otherwise eliminate any violations of this Chapter.
(O. No. 23221, 5-29-07)...”

I define the term “criminalization” to mean the process by which behaviors and individuals are
transformed into crimes and criminals. I define the term “offense” to be (a) “A transgression of
law; a crime” or, (b) “A violation or infraction of a moral or social code; a transgression or sin.”
However, section 607.960 fails to make a distinction between County government’s conduct and
the crime (offense) providing no notice being required to prosecute and convict a person of any
violation of this Chapter. This is where the phrase “the lesser of two evils” should prevail,
thinking it is proper that “..no notice is required to prosecute and convict a person of any
violation of this Chapter.” versus a purported violation that may not ever affect the public health,
safety and welfare. Evil has many faces, and this is one of them. [Emphasis added].

See 607.960 “..Each day a violation continues after service of written notice to abate such violation shall constitute a separate
offense; however, no notice is required to prosecute and convict a person of any violation of this Chapter.”

The Waste Management Code and Waste Management Program is troubling because it does not
distinguish between County government’s conduct, that merely highlights the temptation of the
crime itself, and County government’s conduct that threatens, coerces, or leads a citizen to
commit an offense in order to fulfill some other obligation. This is certainly the case with section
607.140 [Waste to be Collected] and the obligation of an agreement that is to be in effect, as
well as with the Waste Code and the conduct of its enforcement program. The St. Louis County
Council, when acting outside the sphere of legitimate legislative activity, versus formulating and
expressing their vision of the public good within self-defined constitutional boundaries, creates
an evil environment of fear, frustration, and fate, allowing St. Louis County government to profit
from its lawless behavior (fines & constitutional violations, etc.) in which the County Council
has failed to discharge their legislative duty.

The County government along with its Health Department has established a large host of
wrongful practices and deceptive legal positions, such as: (1) picking and choosing who is a
defendant, (2) coaxing people into compliance, (3) demanding money ($100) from people
without citing a section or authority in the code (see Notice of Citation), (4) declaring someone
in violation of the Health code without telling them what section there in violation of, and
making them read the complete code (see Notice of Violation), (5) not protecting the citizens
interests, protecting the corporate interests (Veolia in my case) by prosecuting the citizen for
exercising their legal and constitutional rights, (6) criminalizing the behavior of certain citizens
through a series of specific practices and other actions that are determined to be unfair or
deceptive to the consumer/citizens and forcing them to participate rather than allowing an “opt
out” feature, which is provided for special groups, and (7) including but not limited to all the
issues, concerns and questions stated in my pervious letters to County government.

All of this is conducted through administrative compliance procedures “to coax people into
compliance” while infringing/abridging on my First Amendment rights of conscience,
association, and religious beliefs. This kind of evil environment produces a chilling effect on free
speech (1st Amendment right) as well as other violations against the U.S. Constitution and the
deprivation of rights through the use of administrative compliance procedure, the Waste
Management Program, its enforcement, practices, customs, including but not limited to, the
Waste Management Code. Even so, it is the County government’s total lack of proper concern
for my constitutional right to protest, petition and to hold certain beliefs (Supreme Court
decisions) that is being conducted without merit. County government is indifferent, unresponsive
and uninterested in providing answers and a proper response or action regarding the legal
concerns, issues and questions as documented in my many letters. The County government’s
ultimate answer to the free exercise of my 1 st Amendment rights and their ongoing violations of a
person/citizen 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment rights… was to issue a court summons. However,
County government’s answer concerning violations of the Article II- Section 2.180 (24) of the
St. Louis County Charter, or State Statue (section 260.247) and Article I-Section 31 of the
Missouri Bill of Rights… was silence. No letters of response, no emails, no phone calls, and no
investigations as requested concerning these three important legal issues and requirements.
Malice has many faces, and this is one of them. [Emphasis added].

The County government and Veolia’s actions, individually and collectively, go far beyond
systemic errors or a reckless disregard of constitutional or legal requirements. This is not a guilty
and innocent situation. It is a question of personal values and the legal, moral and ethical
principles I and others live by. The County government takes a position I should comply with the
self serving interest of a waste hauler (pay Veolia restart fee of $25.00 and other service charges
not allowed by contract, law or even agreed to by me) or pay the County a pre assessed fine of
$100.00 (without any legal authority or section cited) being the answer, in part, to their problems
caused by the Waste Management program. County government has made an unreasonable
seizure on my time, money, other “effects.” This has produced a domino effect of
unconstitutional actions, creating a deprivation of rights while infringing, abridging, and
intruding as well as being indifferent to establishing legal/lawful principles and practices. St.
Louis County government has firmly established a conscious disregard for the legal
consequences at hand, beginning with a lack of probable cause, not conducting an adequate
investigation or proper legal research, to the issuance of a Court summons for a criminal trial.

For all intents and purposes, my free exercise of the First Amendment right through free
speech/expression will be terminated by County government’s action (mandating a Court
Appearance), effective September 24, 2009, when I will be forced to enter a plea in a criminal
court action. This occurred simply because I elected to obey the U.S. Constitution and the
Missouri State Constitution, while exercising certain Constitutional and legal rights and duties.
This is evident based on the facts, evidence and my investigation of County government and its
programs as revealed through the numerous letters or emails, which negate the guilt of this
Defendant as to the offense charged, and mitigates the degree of any suspicion of the alleged
violation of 607.140.

As one can see, all my letters are of a common design to seek the truth, to preserve; protect and
defend my life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, understanding that no human authority can
control or interfere with the rights of conscience. These letters, in part, articulate my moral
principles, in addition to my aesthetic legal sensibilities and were “reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence.” They were prepared in good faith, due diligence and
while conducting a proper investigation of the Waste Management Program and its codes,
customs and policies. This was carried out while I was exercising my Federal/State
Constitutionally protected First Amendment rights. The truth is, I… like most Americans, do this
to assert our rights, acknowledge our duties, and proclaim the principles on which our
government is founded.

I place these very same problems, issues, and questions before you, as I am attempting to figure
out what kind of agreement/contract that St. Louis County government expects me to have “in
effect” or as a general matter consistent with the Missouri Constitution or a State statute, only
currently to be subjected to the force of law and threat of penalty legal concept of some person’s
arbitrary standards pursuant to a section of the Health code. As you know or should know,
according to the St. Louis County Health Department, I am held to be in violation of Section
607.140 –“FAILURE TO HAVE IN EFFECT AN AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION
OF WASTE AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS” (See attached Notice of Citation).

However, according to the Saint Louis County Counselor’s Office I am held to be in violation of
Section 607.140 –“FAILURE TO HAVE A WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE AGREEMENT”
(See attached Court Summons). Interestingly, the County Health Department believes at this
point the “Failure to have in effect an agreement” is the violation, whereas the County
Counselor’s Office believes “Failure to have a…service agreement” is the violation.

Yet again, and for all intents and purposes, the Waste Management Code, established by the St.
Louis County Council and pursuant to 607.950 –[Authorization for Director to Accept Payment
for Penalties Assessed Herein;] declares a violation of Section 607.140 …should be cited as or
set forth as: “FAILURE TO HAVE AGREEMENT FOR COLLECTION OF WASTE WITH
HAULER HAVING LICENSED VEHICLES WHERE WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE IS
REASONABLY AVAILABLE FOR THE PREMISES.” This type of wording attempts to swing
the pendulum in the other direction by suggesting that other legal requirements and actors are
involved, as if its newest legal offspring is not acceptable, but indeed, improper or insufficient.
These three charges shall be argued before a trial judge as I would not expect you to understand
the significance of presently three total different concepts for a single or stated violation.

However, on the other hand, according to Section 607.140 of the Waste Management Code, the
“title” clearly is “Waste to be Collected.” How this particular section and its “title” had, or has
ever had, anything to do with me or any other citizen/homeowner… God only knows, because
County government does not have a clue, producing four stated choices for a single violation of
the code. These are specious arguments and deceptively attractive claims for the conceptions of a
legalism environment (administrative compliance procedures) - whose only common
denominator seems to be that they were necessary for the emergence or existence of a waste
management program. For the record, I have committed no such violations which have been
alleged against me and/or my wife by St. Louis County government or its agent, Veolia
Environmental Services.

I shall never accept, from any government, the concept involving momentary judgments, having
the force of law or monetary fines by the latest levels of monarchs for their new age of religious
trials or tribulations. This brings me to a statement made by Richard Evans and the wisdom he
provided to those who could hear the truth. “ We find our lives misquoted, misrepresented,
undermined in one of the cruelest courts that was ever convened. A court which has no judge or
jury, no rules of evidence, maybe not even any evidence. No one sworn to tell the truth. A
courtroom where the accused is never present to defend himself or hear what is said. A court in
which someone simply said, that is what someone said, that something is so. Even our enemies
could not convene a worse court. But history is full of tragedy of such trials” This is certainly
manifested in my case beginning with my refusal to pay a fine or pay some monetary form of
tribute to Veolia; to now being a Defendant in a criminal action.

I refuse to become one of the many victims of a Waste Management Program or its enforcement
actions only to be misquoted, misrepresented, and undermined by certain employees of County
government and Veolia Environmental Service. If the County government cannot explain the
meaning or interpretations of an ordinance, how do you expect a citizen/homeowner to
understand or explain what makes up an agreement that is to be “in effect” meeting the
ambiguous requirements of 607.140.

As I previously stated, I request a copy of all the rules and regulations (administrative
compliance procedures) concerning the Waste Management Code, however no one from County
government has elected to provide this important information to me. It was through my ongoing
investigation of the Waste Management Program, that I discovered St. Louis County government
has established no existing or valid rules and regulations concerning Chapter 607- Waste
Management Code, pursuant to 607.900 [Rulemaking]. This fact was confirmed in a letter,
dated, September 1, 2009 by Ms. Genevieve M. Frank, Administrative Director of the County
Council who stated: “We have conducted a thorough search of records contained in the Offices
of the St. Louis County Clerk and the St. Louis County Council. To date, no rules or regulations
establishing pursuant to Section 607.900 of the St. Louis County Waste Management Code have
been filed with the Administrative Director of the County Council.”

I have cited the following code section 607.900 [Rulemaking] as it is quite apparent that County
government policies, practices, and procedures or the County Council itself cannot properly
control government employees or even make them follow the law pursuant to 607.900
[Rulemaking]. I am of the opinion the County Council and its government should have the
desire to pass laws that control County government employees and their agents, not the yearning
to control a citizen/homeowner through administrative compliance procedures to coax people
into compliance because the price are so good.

For your review and remembrance I quote 607.900 Rulemaking:

607.900 Rulemaking.--The Director is authorized to make such rules and regulations as will
 implement the purposes of this Chapter. Such rules and regulations shall only be promulgated
following notice to the public of the public hearing to be held and the subject matter of the
proposed rule or regulation. The Director shall hold such a public hearing. Upon issuance of
such rule or regulation, the text of such rule or regulation shall be filed with the Administrative
Director of the County Council. Failure to comply with provisions of such rule or regulation shall be a
violation of this Chapter and subject to the penalty provisions of Section 607.960. (O. No. 23221, 5-29-07)

Because of 607.900 [Rulemaking], I take particular issue with Ms. Patterson’s letter, dated
August 19, 2009 and its vicarious positions concerning my request for information and
documents, stating in part: “Therefore, we will not respond to your requests, other than requests
for open records.” Apparently Ms. Patterson must think there are documented rules or has
personally read the “rules or regulations” established pursuant to Section 607.900, however
Genevieve M. Frank conducted a search and found no such documents or records exist. I believe
Genevieve M. Frank properly answered my questions, despite the fact that Ms. Patterson did not,
stating in part: “..However, we will not engage in written or oral debates with you over the
meanings or interpretations of County ordinances, nor will we debate the merits of the
ordinances or your objections to them…” Ms. Patterson’s position is clear enough, as is Patricia
Redington’s letter, of June 1, 2009 stating… “..We regret that you are dissatisfied with St. Louis
County’s trash program and your service from Veolia Environmental Services…” So far, the
responses from these two individuals have not solved my service problems with Veolia or with
government actions. They have not provided the proper kind of service a citizen is entitled to.
Ms. Patterson did state in the last sentence of her letter “If you have any questions regarding this,
please call me at (314) 615-6878” and Ms. Redington’s letter had made a similar statement.
Nonetheless, I have asked precise questions of Ms. Redington and Ms. Patterson and as their
words may look good on paper, they have little or no value in the world I know.

Moreover, I think we should all ignore the “open records” concept and focus on the “open court”
conception, where Ms. Patterson and many others shall be called to testify to the facts and the
discovery of admissible evidence as well as answer the questions they or their office(s) will not
answer now, where they will be provided an opportunity to share their knowledge about the
many legal issues, questions, policies, customs and practices of County government and of its
Waste Management program and enforcement of its codes.

Nevertheless, St. Louis County government has made certain unreasonable, unconscionable and
unconstitutional demands on my life, liberties and pursuits of happiness as well as on established
rights, privileges and immunities of the greatest importance. St. Louis County government’s
actions even deify established Supreme Court doctrines and opinions, including my governing
principles and practices in the realm of legal logic and religious belief. This is evident,
manifested by the written commands issued in a (1) “Warning Letter”, (2) “Notice of Violation”,
(3) “Notice of Citation” and the creation of a Waste Management Code, its Waste Management
program’s practices, procedures and the execution of its enforcement agenda. Unfortunately this
has developed an irrefutable environment of fear, frustration and fate that is hostile to free
markets, constitutional doctrines, liberties interest and my understanding in the County
Counselor Office’s application of [THE LAW].

A person who is well versed in the application of the law would take note that there are no
ordinances (law) that specifically establish a (1) “Warning Letter”, (2) “Notice of Violation”,
and (3) “Notice of Citation” thus, these administrative compliance procedures were instituted
without the force and effect of law, with its alleged violation(s) void of any criminal penalties or
sanctions. This is evident as Chapter 607 of the Waste Management Code makes no mention of
these administrative compliance procedures authorizing such government action. Furthermore,
there are no rules pursuant to 607.900 [Rulemaking] that sanctioned or established a (1)
“Warning Letter”, (2) “Notice of Violation”, and (3) “Notice of Citation”. This is confirmed, in
part, by the letter from Ms. Frank, Administrative Director of the County Council, dated,
September 1, 2009 regarding 607.900 (“Rulemaking”) in which she stated: “To date, no rules or
regulations established pursuant to Section 607.900 of the St. Louis County Waste Management
Code have been filed with the Administrative Director of the County Council.” Simply put, NO
RULES AND NO LAWS have been established for these administrative compliance
procedures. Furthermore, NO AUTHORITY can be granted to establish “trash districts” in the
unincorporated areas of the County without the majority of voters approving it. To this date no
vote has been granted to the voters of this County to lawfully establish Section 607.1300-
[Designation of Collection Areas of the Waste Management Code.] This is pursuant to Article
II- Section 2.180 (24) of the St. Louis County Charter which has been violated because
there was no vote by the voters to approve the trash district plan. This debasement or dilution of
a Constitutional right to vote has been created or established through the unlawful actions in
establishing 607.1300 Trash Districts.

This brings us to the same legal position. Because the County established Trash Districts with a
zealous enforcement program, waste collection service is no longer reasonably available for my
premises. This is beyond my explanation, as I have tried to correct the problems that affect me;
County government has apparently taken a wrong position, that I am the problem, thus issuing
me a Court summons. My investigation of this matter has revealed, in part, the County
government and its Health Department failed to establish or use the required or correct form of
citation as set forth in Section 607.940. In cases where uniformed citations have been issued
pursuant to Section 607.940, the Director is authorized to accept payment of fines as provided in
Section 607.950 [Authorization for Director to Accept Payment for Penalties Assessed Herein;
Prosecution of Violations] The legal position… no uniformed citation, therefore no fines can be
authorized.

Interestingly, section 607.950 only applies in cases where a uniformed citation has been issued
pursuant to Section 607.940, [Citation for Violations of Provisions of this Chapter; Form of
Citation]. The citation(s) issued pursuant to 607.940 declares “..shall be in substantially the
following form:..” (See attached document of the uniformed citation to be used) It should also
be noted… I was never issued this required “Form of Citation” pursuant to section 607.950.
Moreover, only in cases where uniformed citations have been issued pursuant to Section
607.940, is the Director authorized to “..Refer to the County Counselor for prosecution any
matter where a person charged with an offense which may be paid to the Director under this
section fails to appear and pay the fine within the time or in the manner prescribed by
ordinance…” The outermost realms of legal logic would never allow for a person to be issued a
Court summons by the County Counselor’s Office for prosecution of an alleged offense, or even
assess a fine, if Section 607.940 and section 607.950 are not complied with by the employees or
officials of County government. However this has happened in my case.
I was issued a (1) “Warning Letter”, (2) “Notice of Violation”, and (3) “Notice of Citation” all
presented as “administrative compliance procedures” as stated in Ms. Patricia Redington’s
letter, of June 1, 2009. (See the attached Letter.) Since I was never issued or received a
uniformed citation pursuant to Section 607.940, a fine of $100 cannot be legally assessed nor
can a court summons be issued, this being pursuant to 607.950. Furthermore 607.940 maintains
the legal requirement of probable cause, thus it follows that since a uniformed citation was not
issued pursuant to Section 607.940, no probable cause exists in my case.

I have witnessed as a police officer, the massive tools of government and its elaborate
mechanisms which have unfortunately developed an irrefutable environment of fear, frustration
and fate leaving the entire needs of our legal system of commerce, customers, citizens or any
person to fall victim to the same immutable laws. It is apparent this kind of environment is
supported by Ms. Redington’s peculiar legal views. A person can see this by her offensive use
and the stated purpose involving the Criminal Court system, and by the lawless methods used to
obtain compliance with a Waste Management program. This is confirmed, in part, as there are no
rules or regulations established pursuant to Section 607.900 of the St. Louis County Waste
Management Code. Furthermore, my investigation of this matter has revealed the allegation that
the County Counselor Office’s is allowing the practice of certain waste haulers to talk with
and/or “make deals” with certain defendants’ during their Municipal Court proceedings,
apparently to manipulate or coax people into compliance. At this time this is only an allegation,
however, if my investigation confirms this as a material fact, I will forward a complaint to the
F.B.I and D.O.J and request a proper investigation of this entire matter.

Furthermore, St. Louis County government actions are wrongfully using (1) “Warning Letter”,
(2) “Notice of Violation”, (3) “Notice of Citation” (4) “Trash Enforcement Response Form”
(posted on the County’s web site) collectively, as if… these administrative compliance
procedures operate with the full force and effect of law, using criminal penalties of code
violation(s) as a tool and our attitude (fear) of these administrative compliance procedures as the
maker of a new sanctioned order. The truth is… our attitude or the legal health of a Nation
depends on how we make or use the tools that are set before us, to extend our abilities, to further
our reach, and fulfill our aspirations. However, we must never let them define us as a nation or
as free people. For if there is no difference between tool and maker, then who will be left to
build our world? 

The evil of this is in the price we will settle for, or be forced to pay. Whether found in the twin
imaging of fines issued by the County’s Health Department, or the fees, service charges or other
costs a person never agreed to pay to County agents (Veolia or “haulers”). This price can also be
found in the high costs of hiring a lawyer or the loss of rights and “real time” in fighting for
one’s right of conscience or for a Constitutional cause. I think Ms. Patricia Redington’s statement
made before a news service is wrongful and extracts a high price no person should have to pay or
costs a person should not have to bear. Ms. Patricia Redington’s stated in her news interview, in
part:

“..WE DO NOT WANT TO BE GOING TO COURT AGAINST PEOPLE TO ENFORCE [THE LAW].. WE
WOULD LIKE TO COAX PEOPLE INTO COMPLIANCE BECAUSE AS I SAID BEFORE THE PRICES
ARE SO GOOD…”
This brings us to the question of being judged by someone lacking unquestionable sincerity. Ms.
Patricia Redington is a lawyer and an “officer” of the court. The purpose of the criminal court
system is to enforce the law and NOT TO COAX PEOPLE INTO COMPLIANCE. The criminal court
system is not a tool for someone’s personal agenda, policies, rules or customs and certainly not
used to reinforce someone’s religious belief system in legalism, because “the prices are so good.”
As a criminal defendant I now ask a question about our legal system: “What Is It Used For?” An
answer to this question, regarding the proper use of the courts or our legal system itself is found,
in part, in the attached “Q.U.E.S.T.” document. QUEST is an acronym for “Questions Utilizing
Evidence Seeking Truth” and this document is an unconditional statement of my faith in God and
in our legal system. See attached Quest document title “What Is It Used For?”

The purpose of government is not to generate penalties for creating revenues or violations as a
tool for a system of an environment of fear, frustration and fate. Currently, there are (80)
different penalties for violations for which citations under St. Louis County’s Waste
Management Code can be written, which allows the Director pursuant to 607.950 to accept
payment for penalties assessed therein. These 80 different penalties for violations have a range of
fines from $25 to $1000 with a second offense creating or having, for the most part, fines that are
twice as much as the first alleged offense. Ms. Patricia Redington apparently believes in, or has
factual faith with this kind of environment of fear, frustration and fate, because as she stated
before “.. WE WOULD LIKE TO COAX PEOPLE INTO COMPLIANCE BECAUSE AS I SAID BEFORE
THE PRICES ARE SO GOOD…” It is fair to state the costs for waste collection services also
includes the costs of fines and, depending on your position in government, if you can charge a
person a $1000 fine, the County Counselor can truly say “...the prices are so good…”

I think it’s important to state; the legislative authority of St. Louis County government is vested in
the County Council. Legislative authority is not vested with: 1) Saint Louis County Department of
Health, 2) The Office of Solid Waste Coordinator, 3) Waste Management Commission, 4) Solid
Waste Management Program, 5) The Office of Waste Management, 6) Saint Louis County
Department of Public Works, 7) St. Louis County Executive’s Office, or the 8) Saint Louis
County Counselor’s Office, including without limitation any other government agency, agent
(Veolia), or commission. It is not the duty and job of these arms of government TO COAX
PEOPLE INTO COMPLIANCE.

In absence of an ordinance, charter or constitutional provision that serves as a source of authority

authorizing the County government to act, the St. Louis County Health Department cannot create
obligations, responsibilities, conditions or processes having the force and effect of law by the
issuance of (1) “Warning Letter”, (2) “Notice of Violation”, and (3) “Notice of Citation” or any
other administrative compliance procedures. You do not apparently believe in the content of my
last letter, have faith in the legal positions I have chosen, or even acknowledge the letter I sent,
regarding a particular environment involving problems caused or a personal cause, all in support
of a complacent policy of indifference to evil.

I believe this County, State and Nation has a true moral destiny with truths we hold to be self
evident (Constitution & Charters). I do not worship the unknown nor do I have any faith in
legalism or a government that supports justification over the concepts of Justice. I am of the
same spirit of — Thomas Jefferson who stated: “Upon the altar of God I pledge eternal hostility
against every form of tyranny over the mind of man”
Significantly and specifically… the Saint Louis County Council’s enactment of 607.140 was
established with a simple title listed or set forth as “Waste to be Collected” If someone would
take the time to research 607.140, a reasonably educated person would find it is about a waste
collection service being legally held responsible for [Waste to be Collected] using vehicles
licensed by the Director for the collection, transportation, and disposal of waste.

The agreement that is to be in effect is in fact an agreement for Waste Collection Services-
District Bid #2008-04-02-TP. Plainly put, the only responsibility of the property owner and the
person generating the waste under 607.140 is to assure that an agreement for the collection of
waste is in effect. I have completed that duty, if it was ever a proper legal duty in the first place,
of which I do not believe it to be so, being contrary to the letters and spirit our Constitutions.

At present no one from St. Louis County government can or will explain what type of agreement
I am to have in effect (written vs. verbal, express, or implied, etc.) including agreements that are
prepared by others (government, lawyers, etc.) I am of the proper legal decision that an
agreement for the collection of waste is in effect, when St. Louis County government and Veolia
(a waste collection service) entered into an agreement with each other for the collection,
transportation, and disposal of waste. Furthermore, this waste collection service (Veolia) is
legally responsible (“by contract”) “for the collection of waste generated on the premises with
a waste collection service” using vehicles licensed by the Director. It is important to note that
607.140 makes no mention of the term “Household Waste” as set forth and described in 607.040
(24) Definitions- “24. Household Waste means any solid waste, including garbage and trash,
derived from households including single and multiple residencies, hotels and motels,
bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew quarters, picnic grounds and day-use recreation areas.” Thus, I
have not violated 607.140 of the Waste Management Code as alleged for a host of legal/lawful
reasons; including 607.140 has no requirements or duties involving “Household Waste.”

Subsequently, my moral and legal duty now, is to remove your complacent policy of indifference
to evil and change this evil environment in which I am forced to live. Furthermore, I am
notifying the Saint Louis County Council, it is my religious belief that certain sections of the
“Waste Management Code” and its applications, is law respecting an establishment of religion,
in light of the fact that our local government failed to follow the lawful directions of RSMo-
section 260.247 and Article I-Section 31 of the Missouri Bill of Rights and Article II- Section
2.180 (24) of the St. Louis County Charter.

I have claimed a property and liberty interest that qualifies for protection under the U. S. and
Missouri Constitutions, in the form of a 9th Amendment injury with the right to hold to certain
beliefs, arising under a Plaintiff’s or Defendant’s moral character, conscience, religious beliefs,
Constitutional views and practice of law, being a class of persons often defined by their Faith;
which are among the most effective advocates of their religion, speech, conscience, association,
protest, petition, and the lawful or legal holding of certain beliefs.

As a plaintiff, or now as one of your many putative defendants… created and generated by the
Waste Management program, as well as other wrongful government actions… I am a protected
individual and class in his own right, who continues to exercises his First Amendment Right of
(1) religion & religious belief, (2) speech & expression, (3) conscience, (4) association, (5)
protest, (6) petition, and (7) the lawful or legal holding of certain beliefs (collective forming
quintessential rights). These seven expressive activities are the “quintessential rights” of the
First Amendment, guaranteed by the 9th Amendment and reserved by the power vested in the
people by the 10th Amendment. This is produced by my faith in facts and facts of faith.

These seven expressive activities are in conflict with certain County government actions,
policies, and customs as established in this letter of complaint, and through the many letters and
personal actions I have lawfully exercised, including but not limited to a pending legal action.
The unique nature of federalism, nor the Missouri or United States Constitutions, nor its Bill of
Rights can so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. This in itself is a denial of equal
protection in the literal sense. A legal interest and issue at the heart of the First Amendment, is
my free exercise in two constitutional rights using the “Protest Clause as a Sword and the
Petition Clause as a Shield” which bears a direct rational relationship to a legitimate end.
Obviously, if the primary right of self-preservation and self-determination in an individual’s
free exercise right of the Protest and Petition Clause does not exist, the rest of the rights
prescribed in the Bill of Rights become meaningless.

Since St. Louis County Waste Management program directed me to read 92 pages of the Health
Code, (see Notice of Violation) your reading 18 pages of what I believe is important is not much
to ask from a representative body who has elected to take no corrective action concerning the
many legal issues, concerns and questions regarding the application of law, its program and its
environments that are offensive to me. I previously requested an investigation of this matter, (See
attached copy of Mr. Greg Quinn letter, June 6, 2009) with no response from him, and I now
request for a second time an investigation of this matter. I thank you for your prompt attention to
this matter in view of the existing fact that …“each day a violation continues after service of
written notice to abate such violation shall constitute a separate offense…” this is pursuant to
section 607.960 [Emphasis added].

Respectfully Submitted:

Terry Lee Hinds

438 Leicester Square Drive
Ballwin, Missouri 63021
Attached Documents:
Enforcement Notice Response Form (from Web site)
List of fines pursuant to 607.950
District 4- Price List for services
Warning Letter, dated December 5, 2008
Notice of Violation, dated February 17, 2009
Notice of Citation, dated April 1, 2009
Court Summons, dated August 6, 2009
Document of the uniformed citation that is to be used
Quest document- “What Is It Used For?”
County Counselor Redington’s letter, dated September 11, 2009
Mr. Greg Quinn’s letter, June 6, 2009