St. Louis County Council

St. Louis County Council St. Louis County Government Center Administration Building, (1st Floor) 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, Missouri 63105 Directed to the St. Louis County Council:

September 24, 2009

Cert # 7003-2260-0004-8226-2514

In regards to the subject matter of my last letter, I provided you a choice to answer certain questions about ³an agreement´ that St. Louis County government expects me to have ³in 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 ³choices´« 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: ³Within 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 ³Solid Waste Management Program´ without a single thought of ³due process´ guaranteed by our legal system or even providing me an option ³to 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 ³coax 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 ³fined´ (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) ³What 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 ³($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 ³wedding 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«³..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 ³Enforcement 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 ³sting 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 ³Please 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: ³..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: ³..notice was sent to you in error«´ as the word ³notice´ was used instead of ³violation´ or ³citation´ and of course the word ³error´ 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 ³errors´ or its wrongful conduct. Also, in the phrase ³Please note that

not all reasons are valid,´ ³please note´ should be substituted for ³WARNING´ and the word ³valid´ replaced with ³legal´ or correctly inform the citizen that the reasons they list can be, in fact, ³illegal,´ and punishable by law. Nowhere is it stated on this Enforcement Notice Response Form: ³ 607.960 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 ³to 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 ³problems caused´ or a ³personal cause´ such as ³..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 ³comment´ section of this form, being nothing more than a place for a ³confession´ or serving as a tool to develop an ³admission 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 ³Waste 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 ³opt 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 ³equal protection under the law´ the ³due 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, ³WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES AGREEMENT´ for District 4« I discovered under ³Specification´ and ³Terms 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 ³Restart Fee´ of $25.00. It is important to note the ³service charge´ for picking up trash and recyclable materials is set by the terms and conditions of a contract, however Veolia has demanded an additional ³service 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 ³All prices are firm and fixed. There will be no additional fuel or administrative charges added on.´ See attached document title ³District 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 ³service charge´ of ($5.95) and their ³restart 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 ³a 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 ³in 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 ³an 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 ³an 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 ³..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 ³life, 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 ³presumption 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 ³best guess theory´ of what reasonably available means in section 607.140. However, it is the presupposition in Section 607.140 or the presumption ³If waste collection service is reasonably available«´ I find most alarming because County Council elected and the majority voted for the ³criminalization´ of the Waste Management Code. I need to know who and what section of the code defines when ³WASTE 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 ³reasonably 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 ³waste 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 ³reasonably 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 ³practical 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 ³reasonably 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 ³such 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 ³..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 ³an 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: ³If 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, ³probable´ is just a euphemism for ³unproven.´ How and why would anybody want to criminally prosecute a person for what is ³probable 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 ³quintessential 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]. ³It 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 ³justifications´ 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 ³legalism´ 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: ³strict, 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 ³quintessential 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 ³Justice´. I believe as the U.S. Supreme Court has stated: ³The 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 ³criminalization´ of the Waste Management Code allows a person only ³..(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:
³..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 ³to 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 ³COAX PEOPLE INTO COMPLIANCE´ because ³..THE PRICES ARE SO GOOD«´ Subsequently and lawfully, I have exercised my ³quintessential 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:
³..607.960 Penalties and Enforcement.² 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 ³criminalization´ to mean the process by which behaviors and individuals are transformed into crimes and criminals. I define the term ³offense´ to be (a) ³A transgression of law; a crime´ or, (b) ³A 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 ³the lesser of two evils´ should prevail, thinking it is proper that ³..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 ³..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 ³opt

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 ³to 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 1st 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 ³effects.´ 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 ³reasonably 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 ³in 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 ±³FAILURE 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 ±³FAILURE TO HAVE A WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE AGREEMENT´ (See attached Court Summons). Interestingly, the County Health Department believes at this point the ³Failure to have in effect an agreement´ is the violation, whereas the County Counselor¶s Office believes ³Failure 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: ³FAILURE 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 ³title´ clearly is ³Waste to be Collected.´ How this particular section and its ³title´ 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. ³ 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 ³in 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: ³We 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: ³Therefore, 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 ³rules 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: ³..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« ³..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 ³If 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 ³open records´ concept and focus on the ³open 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) ³Warning Letter´, (2) ³Notice of Violation´, (3) ³Notice 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) ³Warning Letter´, (2) ³Notice of Violation´,

and (3) ³Notice 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) ³Warning Letter´, (2) ³Notice of Violation´, and (3) ³Notice 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 (³Rulemaking´) in which she stated: ³To 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 ³trash 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 ³..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 ³Form 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 ³..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) ³Warning Letter´, (2) ³Notice of Violation´, and (3) ³Notice of Citation´ all presented as ³administrative 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 ³make 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) ³Warning Letter´, (2) ³Notice of Violation´, (3) ³Notice of Citation´ (4) ³Trash 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 ³haulers´). This price can also be found in the high costs of hiring a lawyer or the loss of rights and ³real 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:
³..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 ³officer´ 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 ³the prices are so good.´ As a criminal defendant I now ask a question about our legal system: ³What 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 ³Q.U.E.S.T.´ document. QUEST is an acronym for ³Questions 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 ³What 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 ³.. 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 ³...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) ³Warning Letter´, (2) ³Notice of Violation´, and (3) ³Notice 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 ² Thomas Jefferson who stated: ³Upon 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 ³Waste 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 ServicesDistrict 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 (³by contract´) ³for 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 ³Household Waste´ as set forth and described in 607.040 (24) Definitions- ³24. 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 ³Household 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 ³Waste 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 RSMosection 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 ³quintessential 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 ³Protest 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 «³each 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- ³What Is It Used For?´ County Counselor Redington¶s letter, dated September 11, 2009 Mr. Greg Quinn¶s letter, June 6, 2009