• I file for access to the public records of the Missouri Court of Appeals Southern Division. I file this action as a response to Ms. Margaret Schelacter, research attorney for the Court of Appeals Southern Division, remark "that I could ask for public disclosure of public records concerning the performance of the job duties of said office, but that I wouldn't get them." I filed a sunshine law request with Ms. Sandra Skinner Clerk of the Court to which it took over 2 weeks to receive a response, granting my scheduling a viewing of said documents. The Office had no information on the Y2K compatibility of the EC2004 project. Judge Holstein signed all information concerning the administrative functioning of the Court over 10 years ago. But they did comply.

  • I requested of the Secretary of State's Office information as to why they would not report the results of ballot tabulations concerning the reaffirmation of Appeals Judges. The results were provided yet late.

  • I requested the name of the custodian of record for the Jury Administrator for the 31st Judicial Circuit from Mr. Mike Carr, court clerk, and he told me that it was Judge Sweeney. Upon questioning Judge Sweeney's Secretary I am told that Judge Sweeney is not the custodian of record for any office. I have yet to do follow up on this incident as I requested information from your office concerning an audit.

  • I called the Attorney General's Office in Springfield and requested information on where a citizen would file a complaint for sunshine law violation? The Springfield Office referred me to a 1-800-392-8222 phone number where I did speak with a law student named Sara under the Supervision of Mr. Mike Zito P.O. box 899 Jefferson City Missouri 65102. Sara told me that her department, fraud, had no public information, and no custodian of records. Sara was unable to help me and referred me to #573-751-3321 and the resulting Mr. Klahr who refuses to accept or return my phone calls.

  • I mailed an official request for access to public documents to Ronald Larkin, Office of State's Court Administrator. Mr. Larkin last Monday told me the response was in the mail and had not changed his position concerning the documents in question. I have not received said response, and even if I had received on the 8th when I had spoke with him it was 9 days late.

  • I have requested the Missouri Approved Instructions Criminal 3rd and the Missouri Approved Charges 3rd from the Missouri Supreme Court Publishing Office. I could not receive them for free to publish on the Internet. I was charged 75 dollars apiece for them and 35 dollars apiece for the updates. I challenge you to justify and certify the cost of 35 dollars a diskette via the sunshine law. But, this is not the worst of the Missouri Supreme Court Publishing Office; the worst is that the Missouri Supreme Court Publishing Office does not even have the civil instructions available to the citizens of the State of Missouri.

    • As you can see I have been very active in the access of public records. As you may also notice I only want to put these records on the Internet for all. I have made every request for public governmental documents in accordance with the form supplied by the Attorney General's Office. I have also volunteered to put this information on the web for free. I only asked that the information be provided in electronic format. The Missouri Supreme Court Publishing Office and the Office of State Court Administrator refused to produce any documents for the benefit of the public. These offices would have you believe that 75.00 dollars per diskette is reasonable. In the case of the Office of State Court's Administrator they would ask .25 dollars a page for a bad photo copy. I could more readily understand the public governmental agency's position if these agencies had not been instrumental in the EC 2004 project, electronic courts 2004. I believe that if an agency is going to solicit funds from the public for computerizing the courts then they should have the basic documents that are required to be used in the courts on the Internet for public use.

    In the case of receiving public governmental records from the City of Springfield and the Springfield Police Department I have found that many lawyers do not agree with the ruling of Judge Sweeney in case #198cc4528 as previously mentioned, allowing the Standard Operating Guidelines of the Springfield Police Department to fall under 610.100.3. The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press at the above link states:

    "Law enforcement agencies are afforded discretion to withhold arrest, incident, or other reports or records if they contain information that is "reasonably likely to pose a clear and present danger to the safety of any victim, witness, undercover officer or other person." Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.100.3 (Supp. 1995). Law enforcement agencies may also withhold otherwise public records if disclosure would "jeopardize a criminal investigation", or would disclose the identity of a source wishing to remain confidential or of a suspect not in custody. Id. See State ex rel. DeGaffenreid v. Keet, 619 S.W.2d 873 (Mo.App. 1981) (held a "summons" does not constitute an arrest, and that § 610.105 does not shield such records); Charlier v. Corum, 794 S.W.2d 676 (Mo.App.1990) (inmate records retained by sheriff are public records subject to disclosure)."

    This would seem to tell me that the records that I have requested would not fall under the section 610.100.3 of the RSMo because the information does not jeopardize the life of anyone. I only ask for the procedures and policies that govern the everyday operations of the public governmental body, the Springfield Police Department. But, this issue gets worse. The revisions to 610.100 were made in 1995 pursuant to H. B. 135 offered by Representative Garcia Backer who replied to me via e-mail that her bill as introduced was only to provide telephone security for the deaf. The Honorable Representative Backer suggests that Senator Schneider may have added a rider to the bill. This is the same Senator Schneider that introduced S. B. 0316, 1999, calling for all circuit court clerks to be appointed, except his, St. Louis County, St. Charles County, and Jackson County.

    In summary, I would have to say if if isn't an organized conspiracy amongst the agents of the State of Missouri and the State's Local Governments' to deny access to public governmental records then the merit system is only providing employment in the state agencies to criminals. What do these people have to hide? I say it is only their criminal conduct. The same criminal conduct that keeps our prisons full and ever expanding. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and crimes in the performance of one's own office is inexcusable, although only a misdeamonor pursuant to RSMo 109.180. All who have or would violate the public's right to access of the records that we pay government to create and protect should be punished to the fullest. If they are not fully punished then we the people will know it truly is a conspiracy.

    Respectfully Submitted,

    Lee Allen Martin

    309 N. Jefferson, Suite 220

    Springfield, Missouri 65802