INTHEMISSOURICOURTOFAPPEALS

EASTERNDISTRICT
_______________________________________________________________________

STATEOFMISSOURIEXREL.
GOTNEWS,LLCAND
CHARLESC.JOHNSON,

)
)
)
)MissouriCourtofAppealsE.D.
)
)CaseNo.___________________
Relators,
)
)St.LouisCountyCircuitCourt
)CaseNo.14SLJU00861
)(Family/JuvenileCourt)
vs.
)

)
HON.ELLENSIWAK,
)
CIRCUITCOURTJUDGE,DIVISION11, )

MISSOURICIRCUITCOURT,
)
TWENTYFIRSTJUDICIALCIRCUIT,
)
COUNTYOFST.LOUIS,
)
)
Respondent.
)
________________________________________________________________________

PETITIONANDSUGGESTIONSINSUPPORT
OFPRELIMINARYANDPERMANENTWRITSOFPROHIBITIONAND/OR
MANDAMUS
________________________________________________________________________

JohnC.Burns,#66462
TheBurnsLawFirm,LLC
1717ParkAvenue
St.Louis,Missouri63104
3142750326Telephone&Facsimile
john@burnslawfirm.com

DavidNowakowski,#66481
1717ParkAvenue
St.Louis,Missouri63104
3142750326Telephone&Facsimile
david@burnslawfirm.com

AttorneysforRelatorsGotNews.Comand
CharlesC.Johnson.

COME NOW Relators GotNews, LLC (GotNews.Com), a California limited

liability company andowner of GotNews.Com, an Internetbased newspaper, and Charles
C. Johnson (Johnson),a professional journalistand president ofGotNews.Com, and for
theirPetitionandsuggestionsinsupportofawritofprohibitionand/ormandamus,state:

RELIEFSOUGHT
Relatorsherebyseekpreliminaryandpermanentwritsofprohibitionand/or
mandamustovacateRespondentsSeptember9,2014OrderandtocompelRespondentto
releasethejuvenilerecordsofMichaelBrownJr.,dateofbirthMay20,1996.

STATEMENTOFFACTS

On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown, Jr., an unarmed, 64 tall, 300 pound, 18

yearold AfricanAmerican adult male was shot by Ferguson, Missouri Police Officer
Darren Wilson. Immediately following the shooting, the Saint Louis Region exploded in
protests, riots, looting, widespread property damage, physical violence, and chaos. The
chaos that followed the shooting pushed the story to become quite possiblythe biggest
newsstoryof2014,notonlyintheUnitedStates,butworldwide.

The momentum of the issue was primarily fueled by the assertion of several
supposed witnesses,who claimed not onlythat Brown was unarmed,but that he had been
attemptingto surrender at the time he was shotbyWilson.Theissuewasfurtherfueledby
local and national political and social leaders who seized upon the shooting as the
quintessential example of racial inequality in the American Justice System.Brownsdeath
has become a rallying cry and casus belli for those who believe the Justice System is
irredeemably racist, and a movement, the Mike Brown Movement for lack of a better
name for it, thriving on the outrage at Browns death, has coalesced, with Ferguson,
Missouriasgroundzero.
Brown himself has become a martyr. It is that martyr status that serves as the
foundation for the entire movement. Scores of media outlets have assisted the Mike
Brown Movement,leveraging the purported legitimacyoftheangeratBrownsdeath,the
righteous moral indignation, through human interest pieces, which have painted a
particular popular portrait of Brown as a funloving, poetic, upandcoming young man,
with a bright future and a relatively tranquil past. The pieces have been extremely
unbalanced and onesided, portraying Brown, almost without exception, in the most
positive light possible, without examiningany troublingelements in the young mans life
(See e.g., Ex.s JM). For example:hisstepfatherslongstandingstatusasakeylieutenant
in the Bloods gang organization, or Browns history ofviolence as a juveniledelinquent.
ThelattertwofactshavebeengiventoRelatorsbyaseriesofwhistleblowers.

On August 19, 2014, Relator Charles Johnson sent an open records (Sunshine)
request to the Circuit Court of Saint Louis County (SEE EXHIBIT A), requesting the
juvenile delinquency records of Michael Brown, Jr. About an hour after sending it, he
received a denial of this request from Director of Judicial Administration, PaulFox, who
redirected Relator Johnson, perCourt Operating Rule 2, to seekthe records fromfromthe
StateJudicialRecordsCommittee.(SEEEXHIBITB).
On August 25, 2014, Relators filed a motion for records request per V.A.M.S.
211.321 in the CityofSt.LouisFamilyCourt,Division30.Thatsameday,themotionwas
heard before the Honorable David Mason, who informed Relators that no such records
existed for Michael Brown Jr., date of birth May 20,1996in theCity of St.Louis.(SEE
EXHIBITC).
On August 26, 2014,RelatorsfiledanopenrecordsrequestperV.A.M.S.211.321
andRule122.02 withSaintLouis County CircuitFamily/Juvenile Court seekingaccessto
the juveniledelinquencyrecordsof Michael Orlandus DarrionBrown, Jr.(AKAMichael
Brown, Jr. or Michael Brown), date of birth May,20, 1996. (SEE EXHIBIT D). That
same day, a hearing wassetfor September 3, 2014. (SEE EXHIBIT E). On September2,
2014,RelatorsfiledtheirFirstAmendedPetition.(SEEEXHIBITF).
On September 3, 2014, a joint, full hearing on the record was held to hear the
requests of both Relators as well as The Saint Louis PostDispatch, which had filed a
similarpetitionasRelators.Thecourttookbothpetitionsunderconsideration.

On September 9, 2014, Respondent, theHonorableEllen Siwak, issuedanorderin

both matters, denying the requests, but also failing to give any specific reason for the
denial. (SEE EXHIBIT G). The Court having called and heard Petitioners Charles C.
Johnsonand Got News,LLCs FirstAmendedPetition,andhavingconsideredtherelevant
statutes,caselaw,andargumentsofcounsel,deniesthepetition.Id.1
Shortly after receiving the courts order,Relators senta recordsrequesttotheState
Judicial Records Committee. Relators followed up via telephone conversations on
September 19, 2014 with various agents of the Office of State Courts Administration to
confirm that the letter had been received. (SEE EXHIBIT H). On October 31, 2014, the
State Judicial Records Committee denied Relators request. (SEE EXHIBIT I). The
committee denied the release of Michael Brown Jr. juvenile records, if any, by the St.
Louis County Clerks Office, citing that the records are confidential pursuant to section
211.321,RSMo.2
On November 24, 2014, Saint Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCullough
announcedthat the Grand Jury, afterreviewingtheMichaelBrownshootingandactionsof
Police Officer Darren Wilson, had returned a no true bill, and that no indictment would
issue against Wilson for the death of Brown. Prosecutor McCullough further announced
that hewould be making available most orallof theevidence (most orall,depending
on whichnewsoutletwasreporting,soitisunclear)reviewedbythegrandjuryopentothe

Thisonesentencestatementconstitutesthecourtsfullreasoninggivenonthematter.SeeEx.G.
thedeniallettergoesontoquotefromV.A.M.S.Section211.321.1.SeeEx.I.

1
2

broader public, in an effort to promote complete and total governmental transparency

regardingtheshootingandthesubsequentinvestigation.
After careful inspection of the records that McCullough released, Relatorshavenot
uncovered any ofBrowns juvenile recordsandarelefttoconcludethattheGrandJurydid
notconsidersuchevidence.
It should be noted that in the weeks and months leading up to and after the
announcement of the GrandJury decision,theSaintLouisRegionexistedinastateof high
concern in some areas,panic.In thewake ofthe announcement,theCity of Fergusons
business district has been completely destroyed, and rioting, looting, shootings, and
violence have spread to nearby villages and towns. Protestors and rioters have shut down
roads, courthouses and government buildings, interstate highways, and threatened to
overrun police headquarters. Dozens ofschool districtstemporarilyshuttered.Hundreds,if
notthousandsof businessesclosed down outoffear. TheGovernorofMissourideclareda
stateofemergencyanddeployedthousandsoftroopstorestoreorder.
At this point, the Brown Movement has, to a degree, transcended its iconic
progenitor, Brown. However, the legitimacyof themovement isstill largely rooted in the
belief that the shooting of Brown was not only unjustified, but that Brown himself was
essentiallyaninnocentyouthkilledbyavicious,racistpoliceofficer.
Now that Relators have exhausted every legal alternative in seeking the Brown
juvenilerecords,RelatorshaveturnedtothisCourtforrelief.

ARGUMENT

I.

RESPONDENTLACKSAUTHORITYTOKEEPTHEJUVENILE
RECORDSOFDECEASEDADULTSCONFIDENTIALTHEPEOPLEOF
MISSOURIHAVEARIGHTTOKNOWTHECONTENTSOFMICHAEL
BROWNSJUVENILERECORDS.

A.

RespondentLacksAnyAuthorityToDepriveRelatorsOfMichael
BrownsJuvenileRecordsAndMustBeCompelledToProduceThe
RecordsForRelators.

Respondentsgeneralauthority over juvenile records is found in V.A.M.S. Chapter

211,specificallysections211.271.3,211.321.1and211.321.2:
Afterachildistakenintocustodyasprovidedinsection
211.131,alladmissions,confessions,andstatementsbythe
childtothejuvenileofficerandjuvenilecourtpersonneland
allevidencegivenincasesunderthischapter,aswellasall
reportsandrecordsofthejuvenilecourt,arenotlawfulor
properevidenceagainstthechildandshallnotbeusedforany
purposewhatsoeverinanyproceeding,civilorcriminal,other
thanproceedingsunderthischapter.

V.A.M.S.211.271.3(emphasisadded).

Recordsofjuvenilecourtproceedingsaswellasall
informationobtainedandsocialrecordspreparedinthe
dischargeofofficialdutyforthecourtshallnotbeopento
inspectionortheircontentsdisclosed,exceptbyorderofthe
courttopersonshavingalegitimateinteresttherein,unlessa
petitionormotiontomodifyissustainedwhichchargesthe
childwithanoffensewhich,ifcommittedbyanadult,would
beaclassAfelonyunderthecriminalcodeofMissouri,or
capitalmurder,firstdegreemurder,orseconddegreemurder
orexceptasprovidedinsubsection2ofthissection.

V.A.M.S.211.321.1(emphasisadded).
7

Inallproceedingsundersubdivision(2)ofsubsection1of
section211.031,therecordsofthejuvenilecourtaswellasall
informationobtainedandsocialrecordspreparedinthe
dischargeofofficialdutyforthecourtshallbekept
confidentialandshallbeopentoinspectiononlybyorderof
thejudgeofthejuvenilecourtorasotherwiseprovidedby
statute.Inallproceedingsundersubdivision(3)ofsubsection1
ofsection211.031therecordsofthejuvenilecourtaswellas
allinformationobtainedandsocialrecordspreparedinthe
dischargeofofficialdutyforthecourtshallbekept
confidentialandmaybeopentoinspectionwithoutcourtorder
onlyasfollows:

(1)Thejuvenileofficerisauthorizedatanytime:
(a)Toprovideinformationtoordiscussmattersconcerningthechild,
theviolationoflaworthecasewiththevictim,witnesses,officialsat
thechild'sschool,lawenforcementofficials,prosecutingattorneys,
anypersonoragencyhavingorproposedtohavelegaloractualcare,
custodyorcontrolofthechild,oranypersonoragencyprovidingor
proposedtoprovidetreatmentofthechild.Informationreceived
pursuanttothisparagraphshallnotbereleasedtothegeneralpublic,
butshallbereleasedonlytothepersonsoragencieslistedinthis
paragraph
(b)Tomakepublicinformationconcerningtheoffense,thesubstance
ofthepetition,thestatusofproceedingsinthejuvenilecourtandany
otherinformationwhichdoesnotspecificallyidentifythechildorthe
child'sfamily
(2)Afterachildhasbeenadjudicateddelinquentpursuantto
subdivision(3)ofsubsection1ofsection211.031,foranoffense
whichwouldbeafelonyifcommittedbyanadult,therecordsofthe
dispositionalhearingandproceedingsrelatedtheretoshallbeopento
thepublictothesameextentthatrecordsofcriminalproceedingsare
opentothepublic.However,thesocialsummaries,investigationsor
updatesinthenatureofpresentenceinvestigations,andstatusreports
submittedtothecourtbyanytreatingagencyorindividualafterthe
dispositionalorderisenteredshallbekeptconfidentialandshallbe
openedtoinspectiononlybyorderofthejudgeofthejuvenilecourt
(3)Asotherwiseprovidedbystatute
(4)Inallotherinstances,onlybyorderofthejudgeofthejuvenile
8

court.

V.A.M.S.211.321.2.

AdditionalguidanceissuppliedbyRule122.02cd(emphasisadded):

c.Confidentialfiles,asdefinedinsection211.319.3,RSMo,
andfilesandrecordsspecificallyorderedclosedbythecourt
shallbeaccessibleonlytopersonsthecourthasdeterminedto
havealegitimateinterestinsuchfilesandrecords.
d.Indeterminingwhetherapersonhasalegitimateinterest,
thecourtshallconsiderthenatureoftheproceedings,the
welfareandsafetyofthepublic,andtheinterestofthe
juvenileandanyotherjuvenileidentifiedinthefileor
records.

InadditiontothelimitsplacedonthecourtbythestatutesandRulescited,supra,
andtheaccompanyingbodyofcaselawdescribed,infra,suchcourtsauthorityisalso
limitedbyV.A.M.S.211.011,entitledPurposeoflawhowconstrued,andwhich
opensV.A.M.S.Chapter211.Thus,thelanguageofSections211.011,211.271.3,
211.321.1,andRule122.02cd,aswellasthecaselawinterpretingtheselawsandrules,
formtheboundariesoftheRespondentsgeneralauthorityoverjuvenilerecords.
ThecruxoftheissuebeforetheCourtiswhetherornotRespondenthadjurisdiction
todenyRelatorsrequestfortherecords.MissouriCourtsareadirectcreationofthe
PeopleofMissouri.Mo.Const.Art.V,Sec.1.TheMissouriSupremeCourtmayestablish
rulesrelatingtopracticeandprocedure,butsuchrulescannotchangesubstantiverights.
Mo.Const.Art.V,Sec.5.Respondentsgeneraljurisdictionoverjuvenilerecordshas
limits,andRespondentcannotsimplymanufactureauthorityoutofthinair.Thus,the

discretionaryauthorityofRespondentsdenialofRelatorsrequestforBrownsjuvenile
recordsmusthaveitssourceinenumeratedlaw.AsRelatorsshalldemonstrate,however,
Respondentexceededherauthority.
1.

ThePurposeofV.A.M.S.Chapter211IsToProtectTheInterests
AndWelfareOfLivingJuveniles.

ThepurposeofV.A.M.S.Chapter211issetoutinV.A.M.S.211.011:

The purpose of this chapter is tofacilitate the care, protection

and discipline of childrenwho comewithin the jurisdiction of
the juvenile court. This chapter shall be liberally construed,
therefore, to the end that each child coming within the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court shall receive such care,
guidance and controlaswillconducetothechildswelfareand
the best interests of the state, and that when such child is
removed from the control ofhis parentsthe court shall secure
for him care as nearly as possible equivalent to that which
should have beengiven himbythem.Thechildwelfarepolicy
ofthisstateiswhatisinthebestinterestsofthechild.

Id.(emphasisadded).

Chapter 211 isdesignedtoinstructthejuvenilecourtonhowtodealwiththe

childrenfallingunderitsjurisdictioninaplethoraofdifferentcontexts,butcriticallyitonly
addresses and contemplates living children. Family/juvenile courts cover a lot ofground.
They can determine custody, seize children from abusive parents and guardians and, of
course, they work to discipline/rehabilitate delinquent children, among other related
charges. Unquestionably, part of the rehabilitative effort of the state is to spare the
emerging adult the embarrassment, shame and missed opportunities that general public
knowledgeofthenegative conduct record,broken home, or abuse,whichwasperpetrated,
10

endured or suffered by the adult when they were a child. Such stigmacan radicallystunt
onesfuture.

Clearly, this is what the Missouri Legislature had inmindwhen it wrotein

V.A.M.S. 211.271.1, that [n]o adjudication by the juvenile court upon the status of a
child shall be a conviction, nor shall the adjudication operate to impose any of the civil
disabilities ordinarily resulting from conviction nor shall the child be found guilty or be
deemed a criminal by reason ofthe adjudication.Or,inV.A.M.S.211.271.4,that[t]he
disposition made of a child and the evidence given in the court does not operate to
disqualify the child in any future civil or military service application or appointment.
Plainly, the state has an interest in givingkids an opportunity for a cleanslate a second
chance,ratherthandamningthemattheverystartoftheiradultlife.
While the welfare of a juvenileis ahighly placed priority for the state, it is
not the states sole objectiveor concern. In additionto theresponsibilitiesthe statehas to
protect juveniles, thestatealso has an obligation to protect the public and promotepeace,
prosperity, and democracy, among other duties. This is precisely what the Missouri
Legislature was referring to when it juxtaposed its promise to juveniles before the
juvenile/family court, and also its responsibilities to the general public: each child
coming within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court shall receive suchcare, guidance and
control as will conduce to the childs welfare and the best interests of the state
V.A.M.S. 211.011. Sometimes the interests of the state andthe protection ofthe public

11

are best served by removinga proven criminal threatfrom thegeneralpublic andplacing

them in adetention center. In other various instances, rehabilitative effortsaccomplishthe
states interest.Asdescribed, infra, the state alsohas an interest incarefullybalancingthe
rightsofothers,visvisthelimitedrecordsprivacyprivilegeofjuveniles
However, the state has no interest in orability to rehabilitatethe dead. The
state cannot protect the dead, nor preserve their opportunity for a second chance.
Whatsmore, setting aside the interpretation of wills or survival actions, thedeadhaveno
legally significant interests, whatsoever, to preserve, protect, or advance. See Holmes v.
Arbeitman, 857S.W.2d442, 444 (Mo.App.E.D.1993)(anattorney'srepresentationofhis
orherclientterminatesupontheclient'sdeath).
The purpose of V.A.M.S. Chapter 211 cannot be achieved by denying
Relators access to Michael Browns juvenile records, because the juvenile subject no
longer lives. Maintaining the privacy of Michael Browns records may well serve a
purpose,butitisnotapurposerecognizedunderMissouriLaw.

2.

TheConfidentialityAffordedToLivingJuvenilesinV.A.M.S.
Chapter 211 Is A Limited Privilege, AndNot An Absolute Right,
AndMayBeAbrogatedAndWaived.

TherecordsprivacyprotectionsofferedtolivingjuvenilesinChapter211is

alimitedprivilege,withaverynarrowpurpose.Thus,itismisreadingthestatutetosuggest
that the privacy protections are absolute or without exception. V.A.M.S. 211.271.3
explains:
12

After a child is taken into custody as provided in section

211.131, all admissions, confessions, and statements by the
child to the juvenile officer and juvenile court personnel and
all evidence given in cases under this chapter, as well as all
reports and records of the juvenile court, are not lawful or
proper evidenceagainst thechildandshallnotbeusedforany
purpose whatsoever in any proceeding, civil or criminal, other
thanproceedingsunderthischapter.

Id.(emphasisadded).

The privacy rights afforded to living juveniles are nontransferable. It is

evident to this court that the prohibition against the use of juvenile court reports and
records is for the exclusive protection ofthe juvenile, anddoes notextend to anyother
person or proceeding which is neither occasioned by or brought against the juvenile.
Smith v. Harolds Supermarket, Inc., 685 S.W.2d 859, 863 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1985)
(emphasis added). Thus, it is clear the privilege is that of the juvenileand not of the
[juveniles]parents.Stateexrel.Rowlandv.OToole,884S.W.2d100,102(Mo.Ct.App.
E.D.1994)
The privacy offered by V.A.M.S. Chapter 211 to living juveniles is not an
allencompassingorblanketprohibition against the use of alljuvenilerecordsandrelated
evidentiary matters in all cases not otherwise involvingthe juvenile... Smith v. Harolds
Supermarket, Inc., 685 S.W.2d at 863, accord State v. Mahurin, 799 S.W.2d 840, 843
(Mo. banc 1990) (rejecting an absolute prohibition on the useof juvenilerecords
211.271.3 only applies to use ofchildsstatementagainstthechild).Rather,thepurpose
of keeping the records private is to protect the child in the event civil or criminal
13

proceedings are later brought against the child. Id.A juveniles rightofconfidentialityas
to juvenile records is aqualifiedandnotanabsoluteprivilege.Stateexrel.Rowlandv.
OToole, 884 S.W.2d at 103. [Regarding V.A.M.S. 211.271.3] Statements made by
others in a juvenile court proceeding and court records and reports may be used against
others. Thus, those juvenilecourtrecordsand reports which do notrelate tothe juveniles
own statements against himself are not subject to the privilege. Id., at 10203. (internal
citationsomitted).
InSmith,an18yearoldwhitemale(Halstead)waskilledafterbeing
apprehendedandbeatenbyasupermarketmanager,whohadcaughtHalsteadstealinga
packageofcigarettes.Id.at861.Halsteadsmotherfiledawrongfuldeathsuitagainstthe
supermarketandmanager.Id.Duringthetrial,andafterextraordinarywrits,thedefendants
successfullysoughttheintroductionofHalsteadsjuvenilerecord,againstthestrenuous
wishesofHalsteadsmother,andthemotherultimatelyappealed.Id.TheCourtofAppeals
heldinfavorofthedefendants,andfoundthatthepurposeofV.A.M.S.Chapter211wasto
protectandsafeguardthebestinterestsofthejuvenile.Id.,at863.Further,thecourtfound
thattheprohibitionagainsttheuseofjuvenilecourtreportsandrecordsisfortheexclusive
protectionofthejuvenileanddoesnotextendtoanyotherpersonorproceedingwhichis
neitheroccasionedbynorbroughtagainstthejuvenile.Id.Thecourtexplainedthatits
rationaleinrefusingtocensorinformationwasallthestrongersincethatcaseinvolved
thejuvenilerecordsofadeceasedjuvenile.Id.

14

Moreover, living juveniles qualified privilege of confidentiality can be

abrogated when certain other rights or needs are affected. For example, crime victimsof
juveniles are entitled to general information regarding the informaladjustment or formal
adjudication of the disposition of a childs case V.A.M.S. 211.321.6. As another
example, a juveniles admissions and statements have also been used to preserve another
individuals Sixth Amendment rights. [W]e conclude that the right of confrontation is
paramount to the states policy of protecting a juvenile offender. Whatever temporary
embarrassment might result to [the juvenile] or his family by disclosure of his juvenile
record if the prosecution insisted on using him to make its case is outweighed by
petitioners right to probe into the influence of possible bias in the testimony of a crucial
identification witness. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 319 (1974). As in Alford, we
conclude that theStates desire that [thejuvenile]fulfillhispublicdutytotestifyfreefrom
embarrassment and with his reputation unblemished must fall before the right of the
petitioner to seekout the truth in the process of defending himself. Id.,at 320.Davishas
beenadoptedinMissouriinStatev.Russell,625S.W.2d138(Mo.banc1981).
Additionally, a living juvenile may waive his limited privilege of
confidentiality by placing his juvenile arrest and juvenile court proceedings in issue by
voluntarily filing suit OToole, at 103. The rationale is that permittinga plaintiff
[juvenile] to use the privilege to conceal trial facts relating to thevery issue theplaintiff
[juvenile] hadoriginatedforsubmissiontojudicialinquirywouldpermittheplaintifftouse

15

the privilege as a shield and adagger at oneand the same time (which we do not believe
the legislature intended). Id. (internal quotes and citations omitted). Compare OToole
with Smith v. Harolds Supermarket. In the latter case, where the deceased juveniles
mother hadbroughta wrongful death claim againstthesupermarket,themotherplacedthe
issue of the deceased juveniles future earning potential at issue, by seeking recovery,in
part, for his lost financial earning potential. Smith, at 86162. She had also called an
economist witness at trial to testify to establish lostearnings. Id. The defense hadsought
the release of the juvenile records to challenge the issue of the value of the deceased
juveniles future services. Id., at 862. The Court of Appeals held that the mothers
challenge of the defendants use of the juvenile records failed not only because (1) the
statutory confidentiality privilege did not belong to her, but also because she had (2)
pleadedand(3)putonevidenceplacingtherecordsdirectlyatissue.Smith,at865.
In sum, the privacy protections afforded to juveniles in V.A.M.S. Chapter
211areexclusive,nontransferableprivileges,whichexistsolelytoprotectlivingjuveniles
from having theirrecordsusedagainstthemincivilorcriminalprosecutions,topromotea
candid and effective relationshipbetween the juvenileand juvenile officer,and to prevent
the records from needlessly stunting the juveniles prospects of becoming a productive
memberof society. Theprivilegeisnotabsolute,andavarietyofstateandprivateinterests
canremovetheprivilege.Theprivilegecanalsobevoluntarilywaived.
Michael Brown can never be prosecuted in any court of law. Similarly,

16

Michael Brown cannot be subject to civil suit. Hecannot speakwith hisjuvenile officer.
He will never go to technical school or apply for a job his future ended. In short, the
purpose of the statutory privacy protections is completely and utterly moot. V.A.M.S.
Section 211.321requiresthoserequestingtherecordstodemonstratealegitimateinterest
in the records. Logically, the records should revert to public records, as there exists no
reason under Missouri Law to keep them secret and out of the reachof thepublic. Thus,
any interest is legitimate. Even were a showing of a legitimate interest still somehow
required, there presently exist real and compelling interests which display a worthy and
legitimateneedforinformation,asmorefullydescribed,infra.
3.

TheStatesPublicPolicyInterestInProtectingBrownsRecords
HasBeenMootedByBrownsDeath.

Upon lengthy review of Missouricase law,Relatorshavediscoveredseveral

decisionswhichcollectivelystandforthepropositionthatthejuvenilecourtcanbestripped
of its discretion as to the confidentiality of juvenile records and its jurisdiction over
juveniles ingeneral. The purpose of analyzing these cases istoestablishtheboundariesof
the juvenile courts discretion and jurisdiction, boundaries which shift based on the
personalcircumstancesofthejuvenile.
a.

Criticalchangesincontextualcircumstancescanstrip
juvenilecourtsofdiscretionaryauthority,transformingits
rolefromajudicialtoaministerial/administrative
capacity.

In a number of situations, critical changes in the circumstances

17

surrounding the individual juvenilecan work to stripthe juvenile courtofitsdiscretionary

authority tomakesubstantivedecisionsregardingthejuvenile.Suchchangescantransform
the role of the juvenile court judgefroma judicial to aministerial/administrativecapacity.
The destruction of juvenile records, per V.A.M.S. 211.321.5 provides an excellent
example. The authority vested in the juvenile courtin V.A.M.S. 211.321, whichplaces
that court asthegatekeepertojuvenilerecords,islimitedbyV.A.M.S.211.011,whichas
has been shown, explains the essential purpose of Chapter 211: the protection of living
children. V.A.M.S. 211.321.5 governs the Respondents authority to destroy or seal
juvenile records. Respondent or any juvenile court may only order the destruction or
sealing of such recordsafterthe juvenilehasreachedtheageofseventeen(17),andupona
findingthattodestroytherecordswouldbeinthebestinterestofthechild.Hereagain,
given Michael Browns death, Brown has no cognizable legal interest. Thus, the
Respondent cannotorder thedestructionorsealingoftherecords.Thisispertinentbecause
it demonstrates that changing circumstances can completely change the status of the
documentsand the role ofthe juvenile court. Whereas, whileBrown lived, the disposition
of the records was left to the discretion of the Respondent, Browns death has
transformedRespondents role intoa ministerial one, akin to a custodian of records.
Andthereareotherexamplesofthis.
Generally,thejuvenilecourtonlyhasjurisdictionoverjuvenileswho
violatestateormunicipallawpriortotheageofseventeen(17).V.A.M.S.211.031

18

J.O.N.v.JuvenileOfficer,777S.W.2d633(MoCt.App.W.D.1989).Suchjurisdiction
canbeextended,atmaximum,totheageoftwentyone(21).V.A.M.S.211.041.
However,inthelatterexample,onceajuvenileturnstwentyone,thejuvenilecourtonly
retainsnominaljurisdiction,forthesoleandexclusivepurposeofcertifyingthejuvenileas
anadult.[A]juvenilecourtmayretainjurisdictionuntilthejuvenileistwentyone
[A]ttainingtheageoftwentyonedoesnotdestroyjurisdictionaltogether.Instead,
becausetheindividualisovertheageof21andtherecanbenoreasonableprospectof
rehabilitationwithinthejuvenilejusticesystem,[211.041]mandatesthatthejuvenile
courtmaynolongerretainjurisdictionandmustcertifythejuvenileasanadulttobetried
bythecourtofgeneraljurisdiction.Statev.Larson,79S.W.3d891,895(Mo.2002)
(emphasisadded).Again,changingconditionscanautomaticallyworktostrip
Respondentofmeaningfuldiscretion,andtransformherroleintoa
nondiscretionary,ministerialcapacity.Inthisexample,thenondiscretionaryactof
simplycertifyingajuvenileasanadult.

b.

UponBrownsdeath,Respondentsroletransformedfrom
ajudicialtoaministerialcapacity,Respondentthuslost
discretiontodenythereleaseoftheBrownjuvenile
records,andtheBrownjuvenilerecordsrevertedto
thepublicdomain.

As discussed, supra, as a subject juveniles critical circumstances

permanently change, a juvenile court can be stripped of some of its discretionary

authority. It is this loss of discretion that transforms therole of the juvenilecourtfroma
19

judicial to a ministerial/administrative capacity. In the context of juvenile records the

juvenile courts discretion is the only thing that stands between the Public and a subject
juveniles records. Whenthatdiscretioniseliminated,therecordsmust,ofnecessity,revert
backtothepublicdomain,wheretheymayberequestedbyanymemberofthePublic.
From a public policy standpoint, per V.A.M.S. 211.011, Smith,
OToole, and State v. Mahurin, et al, cited supra, the state only has an interest in any
juveniles records so long asthe subject juvenile maintains an interest inthoserecords, or
so long as the juveniles interest in those records does not materially conflict with other
critical public policy interests (e.g., individuals Sixth Amendment rights in Davis v.
Alaska, discussedsupra). When thesubject juvenilelosesorwaives its interest in its own
juvenile records, the source of the states interest has been extinguished. The sole raison
d'tre for the discretion to deny the public access to the records ceases to exist. When
MichaelBrown died, his interest inthe records was eliminatedand, so toowasthestates.
The states interest in his records became moot, as the purpose of the Chapter211,thatis,
thejuvenilesbestinterestandwelfare,couldneverbeimplemented.
With no interest to defend,Respondent simply lost discretiontodeny
Relators request for the Brown juvenile records. Lacking discretion to deny the records,
Respondents role transformed from a judicial, to a ministerial/administrative capacity.
Thus becauseno state agent hasany legal authority to deny Relators requestforthe
records, or that of anyone else for that matter, the juvenile records, by default,

20

reverted to the public domain. Respondents proper function was simply that of a
custodian of records: to preserve the records for the benefit of the Peopleof theStateof
Missouri.Respondent hasnochoice andnostatutoryauthoritytodoanythingotherthanto
turn over the records upon the request of any member of the Public. As a result,
Respondentsdenial of Relatorsrequestfor the recordsisunlawful.Stateexrel.Keystone
Laundry& Dry Cleaners, Inc. v.McDonnell,426S.W.2d11,14(Mo.1968)([Mandamus
will issue]wheretheadministrativeboard(orcourt)hasactedunlawfullyorwhollyoutside
its jurisdiction,and alsowhere ithas abusedwhatever discretion may have been vestedin
it.)

4.

RespondentHasUnlawfullyFailedToRecognizeRelatorsPublic
RightOfAccessToBrownsJuvenileRecord.

a.

Other Jurisdictions have recognized the right of public

accesstojuvenilerecordsofdeceasedindividuals.

Relatorsknow ofnootherMissouricase,otherthanSmithv.Harolds
Supermarket, discussed supra, governing requests of the juvenile records of deceased
juveniles. Nationally, the cases are exceedingly rare. However, the general consensus of
the cases uncovered by Relators is that the records revert to the public domain because
theresimplyexistsnointeresttoprotect.
Forexample,inInreElijahS.,125Cal.App.4th1532(Cal.App.1st
2005),theSanFranciscoChronicle,amongothernewsoutlets,hadsoughtthejuvenile
recordsofadeceasedchild,aspartofajournalisticinvestigation.Id.,at1538.Thejuvenile
21

courthadreleasedtherecords,andtheSanMateoCountyHumanServicesAgency
appealed.Id.Thecourtheldthatthereleaseofthedeceasedchildrensrecordswas
appropriate,subjecttoincamerareviewofthedocumentspriortorelease,andredactionof
anyinformationaffectingtherightsofandinterestsofotherminors.Id.,at1539.Thecourt
found:Inconsideringsuchapetitionforobtainingaccesstojuvenilecaserecords,the
juvenilecourtmustbalancetheinterestsoftheminorandthoseofthepublic,andpermit
disclosureonlywherenotinconsistentwiththebestinterestsofthejuvenilewhosefileis
sought.However,thestatuteprovidesmoreaccesstocertainrecordsintheinterestsofthe
public.Specifically,undersection827,subdivision(a)(2),juvenilecasefilesofadeceased
childwhowaswithinthejurisdictionofthejuvenilecourtpursuanttoSection300,shall
bereleasedtothepublicpursuanttoanorderbythejuvenilecourtafterapetitionhasbeen
filedandinterestedpartieshavebeenaffordedanopportunitytofileanobjection.(Italics
added).Thus,wherethechildwhoserecordsaresoughthasdied,noweighingor
balancingofinterestsisrequiredthefilesshallbereleased...InreElijahS.,125
Cal.App.4th1532,15421543(Cal.App.1stDist.2005)(internalcitationsomitted)
(emphasisaddedandintheoriginal).
b.

RespondentactedunlawfullyindenyingRelatorsrequest
forpublicrecords.

Missourirecognizesacommonlawrightofpublicaccesstocourt
andotherpublicrecords.PulitzerPublishingCo.v.TransitCasualtyCo.,43S.W.3d293,
300(Mo.banc2001).Giventhepresumptioninfavorofopenrecords,anabuseof
22

discretionispresentwhentrialcourtordersinexplicablysealcourtrecords,donot
articulatespecificreasonsforclosure,ordonototherwisedemonstratearecognitionof
thepresumptiverightofaccess.Id.(emphasisadded).CitizensofMissourihavetheright
toinspectandcopyanypublicrecordevenifthereisnoapparentlegalinteresttobe
subservedPulitzerPublishingCo.v.TransitCasualtyCo.,43S.W.3dat300(quoting
toStateexrel.Grayv.Brigham,622S.W.2d734,735(Mo.App.1981).Althoughthe
ruleimposesapresumptionthatrecordsareopentothepubic,thereisanexpressexception
forrecordsthatareconfidentialpursuanttocourtorder.Nevertheless,thepresumption
ofopennessisintendedtoinformthedecisionofwhethertosealtherecordsinthefirst
place,ortounsealtherecordsifthejustificationforsealingtherecordsabates.The
policysupportingthepresumptionasreflectedintherulemeritsrepeating:Justiceisbest
servedwhenitisdonewithinfullviewofthosetowhomallcourtsareresponsiblethe
public.Onthebasisofthatpolicy,andconsideringthesubstantialauthorityfromother
courtsthisCourtaffirms,subjecttotheexceptionsofCourtOperatingRule2,thatthere
isapresumptioninfavorofthepublicsrightofaccesstocourtrecordsandthatthe
presumptioncannotbeovercomeabsentacompellingjustificationthattherecords
shouldbeclosed.Id.,at301.(collectingcases)(emphasisadded).Thereareimportant
exceptionsthatlimitthepresumptionofopenrecordswhensufficientlyimportantinterests
outweighthepublicsrightofaccessWheretherearehigherinterestsfavoring
nondisclosure,courtsandthelegislaturehaveroutinelyseenfittoclosesomepublic

23

recordsInordertoclosecourtorotherpublicrecords,however,acourtinitsorder
mustidentifyspecificandtangiblethreatstoimportantvaluesinordertooverridethe
importanceofthepublicrightofaccessVagueoruncertainthreatsclaimedbyone
partynormallywouldnotjustifyclosure.Id.,at302.(emphasisadded).
InherdenialofRelatorsrequestforBrownsjuvenilerecords,
Respondentfailedtoarticulateanyspecificreasonforrefusingtoprovidetherecords.See
ExhibitG(TheCourthavingcalledandheardPetitionersCharlesC.JohnsonandGot
News,LLCsFirstAmendedPetition,andhavingconsideredtherelevantstatutes,case
law,andargumentsofcounsel,deniesthepetition.).Respondentsummarilydenied
Relatorsrequestwithoutidentifyinganyspecificandtangiblethreatsimportantenoughto
overridetheimportanceofthepublicrightofaccess.AsdiscussedinPulitzer,supra,the
presumptionofpublicaccessrequiresthecourttoproviderecordsifthejustificationforthe
sealingtherecordsabates.Here,anytheoreticaljustificationforkeepingBrownsjuvenile
recordsconfidentialhasabatedBrownisdeceased.Asaresult,Respondentacted
unlawfullyandmustbecompelledtoproduceBrownsjuvenilerecordstoRelators.

B.

EveniftheStateMustBalanceTheCompetingInterestsOfThe
PublicsRightOfAccessAndTheJuvenileCourtsNeedTo
SafeguardTheWelfareOfJuveniles,RespondentStillActed
WithoutAuthorityAndUnlawfullyAndMustBeCompelledTo
TurnOverBrownsRecords.

1.

Inweighingthecompetinginterests,thescaletipsinfavor
ofaccesstotherecords.

24

Even if this Court findsthat the juvenilecourtmustbalancethe interests of

the publics right of access with the juvenile courts need to safeguard the welfare of
juveniles, the scale clearly tips in favor of the Publics right of access. Therefore,
RespondentmustbecompelledtoturnoverBrownsrecords.Giventherarityofthecentral
focus of this case, it is again useful to observe how other courts have handled similar
situations.
In re Richmond Newspapers, Inc., is a Virginia case in which various
newspapers sought access to the records of a juvenile delinquent who had been found
murdered. 14 Va. Cir. 227 (Va. Cir. Ct. 1988). The trial court denied the newspapers
request for access to the records, reasoning that (1) the disclosure of the records would
cause damage to the family of the deceased juvenile (2) that the juvenile had a right to
privacy even in death and (3) that the records must be held in confidence in order to
protectthecourtsabilitytoobtainconfidentialinformation.
In finding for the newspapers, the Court of Appeals notedthat, ingeneral, a
juvenile courts determination of whether or not to turn over juvenile records involves
striking a balance betweenthe publics right of access and the potentialharmwhichsuch
access might cause. Id., at 231. In an unbroken line of cases starting in 1980, the
Supreme Courts of the United States and Virginia have recognized that one of the
demands ofa democraticsociety is thatthe pubic shouldknow what goes on inthecourts
by being told by the press what happens there Id. (collecting cases and quoting

25

Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 573 n.9 (1980)). On the other
hand, it is also clear that society has a legitimate interest in shielding juveniles from the
same level of scrutiny which sometimes attaches to adults. With reference to juvenile
offenders, that shieldislegitimatelydesignedtofacilitaterehabilitationand,assumingsuch
rehabilitation has occurred, to allow such offenders to take their place in society as
lawabiding adult citizens unfettered by the stigma of childhood indiscretions [T]his
interest of society,to protect juveniles from the types of consequenceswhichwouldresult
from their acts if such acts were committed by adults, is just as compelling as societys
interest in gaining access to court records. Only by balancing these seemingly competing
interests, then, can [the court properly interpret the privacy interest assigned by Virginia
juvenilelaws].Id.at233. Having weighed these two competing interests, the court
concluded that a blanket prohibition against disclosure of juvenile records was
inappropriate, andthatthetrialcourt failedtostriketherequiredbalancingofinterests.Id.,
at 23334,Compare with Smith v.Harolds Supermarket, Inc. 685S.W.2dat863(privacy
offered by V.A.M.S. Chapter211tolivingjuvenilesisnotanallencompassingorblanket
prohibition against the use of all juvenile records and related evidentiary matters in all
cases nototherwiseinvolving thejuvenile). Specifically, the appellate court foundthat
(1) any privacy interest ofa juvenile does notsimilarly attachto families [Compare with
State ex rel. Rowlandv.OToole,884S.W.2d100at102,(Thus,itiscleartheprivilegeis
that ofthe juvenile andnotofthe[juveniles]parents.)](2)deceasedjuvenileshaveno

26

privacy rights (3) deceasedjuveniles cannot be rehabilitated ([m]oreover, as morbid as

it maysound, the goals of rehabilitating andshielding [the subject juvenile], who is
now deceased, can no longer be met. [Compare with State v. Larson 79 S.W.3d 891at
895,(becausetheindividual is over the ageof21andtherecanbenoreasonableprospect
of rehabilitation within the juvenile justice system,[ 211.041]mandates that the juvenile
court may no longerretain jurisdiction and must certifythe juvenile as an adulttobetried
by the court of general jurisdiction.)] Thus, whatever interests society in general and
[the subject juvenile] in particular may have had in resisting disclosure so as to
facilitate his rehabilitation and to shield him from the consequences of his juvenile
acts no longerexist, and they maynot be properly relied upon now to deny access)
and that (4) whileinformation that isobtained on the promise that itwill not be disclosed
should not be disclosed,thetrialcourtcouldnotsummarilyrefusetodiscloseeverypartof
thedeceasedjuvenilesrecord.Id.,at23435.
Similar to In reRichmond,here,evenifinterestsaretobeweighed,thescale
clearly tips in favor of public access for almost exactly the same reasons as in In re
Richmond. Here, as there, whatever privacy interest held by Browndied with himand is
nontransferable.Further,theobjectivesofChapter211,namelyBrownsrehabilitationand
wellbeing, cannot be achieved, given his death. In fact, the analysis articulated by the
VirginiaCourt isstrikinglysimilartothatusedbyMissouricourtsinSmithandO'Toole.In
the Virginiacase,asintheMissouricases,theCourtsconcludedthattheprivilegeofsealed

27

juvenile records belongs exclusively to the subject of those records and that,morbidas it
may sound, the goal of shieldingthe juvenile issubvertedand renderedinert by thedeath
ofthejuvenile.
Relators do not object to anyin camera review of the records to redactthe
records to safeguard any other living juvenile, and Relators support the preservation of
confidentiality for any confidential informants used in deriving or generating any of the
Brown juvenile records. However, Respondents categorical denial of Browns juvenile
records is, at a minimum, toosweepingof a result, inthat itsealsallof theinformation
not just information gathered upon a promise of nondisclosure. For these reasons,
Respondents denial was unlawful and beyond her authority and discretion, and
RespondentmustbecompelledtoproducetherecordsforRelators.
2.

ThePublicsinterestsofDemocracyandgovernment
accountabilitytipthescalesinfavorofgrantingRelators
accesstoBrownsrecordsthePublicreliesanddepends
uponthepresstoaccuratelyinformthemaboutmatters
involving the courts and judicial branch and government
accountability.

Inasocietyinwhicheachindividualhasbutlimitedtimeand
resourceswithwhichtoobserveatfirsthandtheoperationsof
hisgovernment,hereliesnecessarilyuponthepresstobringto
himinconvenientformthefactsofthoseoperations....With
respecttojudicialproceedingsinparticular,thefunctionofthe
pressservestoguaranteethefairnessoftrialsandtobringto
bearthebeneficialeffectsofpublicscrutinyuponthe
administrationofjustice....Thecommissionofcrime,
prosecutionsresultingfromit,andjudicialproceedingsarising
fromtheprosecution...arewithoutquestioneventsof
legitimateconcerntothepublicandconsequentlyfallwithin
28

theresponsibilityofthepresstoreporttheoperationsof
government.420U.S.at49192(citationomitted).

CoxBroadcastingCorp.v.Cohn,420U.S.469,49192(1975).

Tensofthousandsofpeople,inMissouriandacrosstheUS,havemarched,
protested,shutdowninterstatesandschoolsandbusinesses,rioted,looted,pillaged,
burned,and/orengagedinviolence.Acityhasbeenburnedtotheground.Theseactions
havebeentakenrightorwrongbaseduponawidespreadbeliefthatMichaelBrown
wasmurderedincoldbloodbyPoliceOfficerDarrenWilson,andthattheBrownmurder
isthequintessential,microcosmicexampleofapervasivecrisisinMissouriand
nationwide.

Amovementhasformed,advocatingchange,andconstantlypointing

totheBrownmurderastheexampleoftheproblemthechangeisdesignedtoaddress.
TheBrownmurderhasbecomeanemotionallychargedsuperMeme.Indozensofcities,
protestershavestageddieins,layingonstreets,pretendingtobedeadinreferenceto
MichaelBrownslifelessbodylayingonthewarmpavement.Handsup,DontShoot!
hasbecomeanationallyrecognizedsloganandrallycryemployedbyprotestersand
professionalathletesacrossthenation.Nationallyandlocally,socialandpoliticalleaders
haveseizeduponthesuperMemeinordertoleverageitforvarioussociopoliticalagendas
andpropaganda.
ThePresidentoftheUnitedStateshasmetwithalargenumberofgroups
whocomprisetheMichaelBrownMovement,andhehasalsoencouragedthemtokeep
29

protestingandfightingforchange,andhehasspecificallyencouragedschoolchildrento
buildclassroommemorialstohonorthememoryofMichaelBrown,aswellasother
victimsofpoliceviolence.OnthebasisoftheBrownSuperMeme,TheU.S.Attorney
GeneralhasrepeatedlyaccusedlargeswathsofAmericans,generally,andscoresofpolice
officersandthejusticesystem,specifically,ofbeingracists.OnthebasisoftheBrown
SuperMeme,hundredsofmainstreammediaoutletsfromTheAtlantic,TheNewYork
Times,CNN,andothers,havelabeledFergusonandtheGreaterSaintLouisRegiona
hotbedofracism.FergusonitselfhasbeenrepeatedlydubbedaminiApartheidstate.
PerhapsthesinglemostimportantandfrighteningallegationthattheMichael
BrownMovementcontinuestomakeisthatthejusticesystemwithinSaintLouisCounty
conspiredtodeliberatelyscuttleanypotentialindictmentofOfficerDarrenWilson
Relatorstakenopositioneitherwayonanyofthis,butsimplywishtodraw
attentiontotheexistenceofthisstateofaffairs.Thedutyofthepress,asoutlinedinthe
CoxBroadcastingquote,supra,istoprovideaccurateinformationtothePublic,sothatit
maymakeinformed,reasoneddecisionsregardingmattersofseriouspublicimportance.
TheBrownincidentissuchamatterofseriouspublicimportanceliterallymillionsof
peoplehavebeenimpacted,andcitieshaveburned,liveshavebeenchanged.Further,a
shadowhasbeencastoverthesystemofjusticeinSaintLouisCounty.
Ingeneral,thepublicpolicybehindopenrecordsandthepublicrightof
accessiswellestablishedinMissouri.Pulitzer,at300.Inallinstanceswhere,bylawor

30

regulation,adocumentisrequiredtobefiledinapublicoffice,itisapublicrecordandthe
pubichasarighttoinspectit.Id.(quotingStateexrel.Kavanaughv.Henderson,169
S.W.2d389,392(Mo.1943)).Thepublicsrighttoinspectcourtandotherpublicrecords
stemsfromthepublicspresumedinterestintheintegrityandimpartialityofits
government[O]penrecordsdonotsimplyaccommodatethepublicsamusement,
curiosity,orconvenience.Instead,itissimplybeyonddisputethatpublicrecordsarefreely
accessibletoensureconfidenceintheimpartialityandfairnessofthejudicialsystem,and
generallytodiscouragebiasandcorruptioninpublicservice.Withoutpublicity,allother
checksareinsufficient.Id.,at30001(quoting1J.Bentham,RationaleofJudicial
Evidence524(1827)).
Normally,inthecontextoflivingjuveniles,thepublicenjoysnointrinsic
compellinginterestintherecordsofasubjectjuvenile.However,inthepresentcase,not
onlyisthesubjectofthejuvenilerecordsdeceased,butwithinsignificantportionsofthe
population,asuspicionhasarisenthatBrownwasgunneddownincoldblood,andthatthe
justicesystemhasessentiallyobstructedtheinvestigationinordertoprotectthekiller
policeofficer.Thus,notonlyhasanyjustificationforsealingtherecordsabate[ed],but
evenifithadnt,therearehigherintereststhatfavordisclosure.Ifthereexistrecordswhich
wouldcouldhelpconfirmordisconfirmsuchshockingallegations,thePublicmustsee
them.
Inthemonthsandyearsthatfollow,thePublicwillbeencouragedtomake

31

decisionsbasedontheirperceptionoftheBrownSuperMeme.Thechallenge,fromatruth
injournalismstandpointisthattheSuperMemeislargelycomposedofthree,
selfreinforcingsubmemes,eachofwhichrejectPopperianFalsifiability3:(1)thatBrown
wasmurderedbyWilson(2)thatthecourtsandSaintLouisCountyProsecutorRobert
McCulloughcovereditup,resultinginWilsonnotbeingindictedbythegrandjuryand(3)
thatAfricanAmericansaredeliberatelytargetedandabusedbypoliceandauthoritiesfor
sadistic,racistpurposes.

IfthesebasicthesesoftheBrownSuperMemecannotbeprovenor

disproven,thenthePublicisinseriousdangerofbeingmanipulatedthroughclever
propagandaastheplaythingsofoligarchsanddemagogues.4Thisdangerisaserious,open
andobviousthreattoDemocracy.AssomeofthePublichasbeguntounderstandthis
threat,thisknowledgehasonlyservedtoenhancepopularcynicismanddistrustof
government,drasticallyerodingfaithinthecourtsaswell.
Clearly,SaintLouisCountyProsecutorRobertMcCulloughhasrecognized
thisdanger,andthattheonlypossiblesolutiontosuchathreatwascompletetransparency

FromWikipedia:Falsifiabilityorrefutabilityofastatement,hypothesis,ortheoryisaninherentpossibilityto
proveittobefalse.Astatementiscalledfalsifiableifitispossibletoconceiveanobservationoranargumentwhich
provesthestatementinquestiontobefalse.Inthissense,falsifyissynonymouswithnullify,meaningnottocommit
fraudbutshowtobefalse.Somephilosophersarguethatsciencemustbefalsifiable.Forexample,bytheproblem
ofinduction,nonumberofconfirmingobservationscanverifyauniversalgeneralization,suchasAllswansarewhite,
yetitislogicallypossibletofalsifyitbyobservingasingleblackswan.Thus,thetermfalsifiabilityissometimes
synonymouswithtestability.Somestatements,suchasItwillberaininghereinonemillionyears,arefalsifiablein
principle,butnotinpractice.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability(lastaccessedDecember3,2014.
4
E.g.,theGulfofTonkinIncident,see
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/20140809/obamacelebrates50thanniversarygulftonkinresolutionbombingiraq
(lastaccessedDecember3,2014),orJonathanGruber,see
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/11/30/grubergatepart1thestupidityoftheamericanvoter/(last
accessedDecember3,2014)andhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI(lastaccessedDecember3,2014).

32

andopennessonthisissue.Justiceisbestservedwhenitisdonewithinthefullviewof
thosetowhomallcourtsareultimatelyresponsiblethepublic.Pulitzer,at301.
However,theproblemisthatevenwiththisexcellentdisplayof
transparency,thePublicisstillprivytoallthekeyfacts.Thereareothercriticalpiecesof
informationwhichhavethepotentialtofurthershedlightontheBrownSuperMeme.Such
informationcarriestheprospectofgettingmuchfurthertowardsprovingordisprovingthe
submemes.ThePublicespeciallythepublicwithintheStateofMissouriandtheSaint
LouisRegion,whohavebeenimpactedmostdramaticallyhaveenduredtheSuperMeme,
thepanicandstressofthismatterenoughtodeserveaccesstotheremainingpiecestothe
puzzle.
Relatorshavereceivedmultiplecommunicationsfromstateandfederal
confidentiallawenforcementsourceswhichhaveemphaticallyandrepeatedlyclaimedto
RelatorsthatMichaelBrownhadanextensiveandseriousjuvenilerecord,andthathewas
implicatedandinvolvedinmurderinganotherperson.Relatorshaveinvestedanenormous
amountoftimeandresourcesintotryingtodeterminethevalidityoftheseclaims,andit
thusgoeswithoutsayingthatRelatorshavefoundtheconfidentialsourcestobeentirely
credible.IfBrownsjuvenilerecordcontainsevidenceofaseriouscriminalhistory,then
suchevidenceradicallyaltersthecurrentnarrativesthatarebeinglaidoutinnewspapers,
inonlineblogs,andontelevision.MichaelBrownhasbeenportrayedbythemediaasan
averageteenagedyoungman,withabrightfutureandarelativelynonviolentpast.See

33

ExhibitJ,(whereBrownsfamilysassertionthathehadnojuvenilerecordgoes
completelyunchallengedbytheNewYorkTimes:Hedidnothaveacriminalrecordasan
adult,andhisfamilysaidhenevergotintroublewiththelawasajuvenile,either.),as
wellasExhibitsK,L,andM.Thishasonlyservedtoenhancetheoutrageathisdeath,asit
makesthepossibilitythathewouldattackapoliceofficerinapoliceSUVseemfarmore
remote,andnefarious,conspiratorialactionbypoliceorpublicofficersseemmorelikely.
Ontheotherhand,ifhehadahistoryofviolence,thenBrownsstrongarmrobberyofa
conveniencestore,andimmediatelysubsequentaltercationwithWilsonandresultingdeath
moreplausible.
II.

AWritofProhibitionand/orMandamusisAppropriateinthisCase

The Courts power to issue awrit of ProhibitionderivesfromArticleV,section4.1

of the Missouri Constitution.According toStateexrel. Noranda Aluminum, Inc v. Rains,
Situations where this Court has issued writs of prohibition generally fall within one of
three categories 1) where there is a usurpation of judicial power because the trial court
lacks either personal or subjectmatter jurisdiction 2) where there existsa clear excess of
jurisdiction or abuse of discretion such that the lower court lacks the power to act as
contemplated or 3) where there is no adequate remedy by appeal. State ex rel. Noranda
Aluminum, Inc v.Rains,706 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Mo. banc 1986). Theinstantcasefallsinto
both the second andthird categories. Respondent exceededherjurisdictionandabusedher
discretion in issuing her September 9, 2014 Order denying Relators access to Michael

34

Browns juvenile records because the death of Michael Brown rendered the purpose of
Chapter211mootandbroughthimoutsideofthejurisdictionofthejuvenilecourt,sinceits
purpose is to serve to protectthe interests of living juveniles,asargued supra. Further, in
the instantcase,thereisnoadequateremedybyappealbecauseRespondentissuedanorder
denying Relators access to Browns juvenile records. The trial court never had personal
jurisdiction, nor did the juvenile court have standing to withhold the juvenile records of
Michael Brown. His status as a deceased adult, according to Smith v. Harolds Super
Market and OToole, as well as V.A.M.S. 211.321 and 211.041,citedsupra,brought
him outside of the juvenile courts jurisdiction, since the Juvenile court no longer had the
dutyprotectBrownfromfuturelawsuits.Prohibitionisthereforeappropriate.
In the alternative, Relators seek Mandamus. As a general rule,mandamus will not
lie where there is another plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law, but it iswell settled
that this other remedy must be equally as convenient, beneficial and effective as
mandamus.Stateexrel.M.B.v.Brown,532S.W.2d893,895(Mo.Ct.App.1976).Whena
court undertakes a nondiscretionary act contrary to the directions of the law and was
without jurisdiction to do the nondiscretionary act, mandamus is the proper remedy. Id.
[Mandamus will issue] where the administrative board (or court)has acted unlawfullyor
wholly outside its jurisdiction, andalso whereit hasabused whatever discretionmayhave
been vestedinit. State ex rel. KeystoneLaundry&DryCleaners,Inc.v.McDonnell,426
S.W.2d 11, 14 (Mo. 1968).[E]xtraordinary writs areissuedwhennecessarytopreventan

35

excess ofjurisdiction,aswellastopreventorstopactionwherenojurisdictionexists.State
ex rel. Knight Oil Co. v. Vardeman, 409 S.W.2d 672, 675 (Mo. 1966). Mandamus is
appropriate to compel the commission of ministerial acts. State ex rel. R. Newton
McDowell, Inc. v. Smith, 67 S.W.2d 50 (Mo. 1933). Andthe discretion of the court with
regard totheissuanceofthewritissometimesinfluencedbythe"publicimportance"ofthe
matter. Stateexrel. Keystone Laundry &DryCleaners,Inc.v.McDonnell,426S.W.2dat
15.
In the present case, Respondent lacked any authority to deny Relatorsrequestfor
Michael Browns juvenile records. Upon the death of Brown, the natureofRespondents
role changed to a ministerial capacity, akin to a custodian of records. Mandamus is
appropriate because Respondent exceeded her authority and there is no other remedy
equally as beneficial, efficient or effective. Further,thesubjectmatterofthiscaseinvolves
the releasing of records for the purposeof informing thePublic of critical informationthe
Public will need in ordertobetterevaluatetheproprietyofgovernmentactions.ThePublic
hasanimmediate needfor Michael Brownsjuvenile records and thematter is anissueof
publicimportance.
CONCLUSION
Unless this Court issues a preliminary and permanent writ of prohibition and/or
mandamus, Relators and the Public will be deprived of their right of access to public
information necessary to evaluate the propriety of government actions which have

36

subsequently sparkedriots and protests.Relators respectfullyrequestthattheCourtissuea

preliminary writ of prohibition and/or mandamus, as well as a permanent writ of
prohibitionand/or mandamusvacating or otherwise reversingRespondents orderdenying
Relators the records they have sought, and compelling Respondent to produce Michael
Brownsjuvenilerecords.

Respectfullysubmitted,
__/s/JohnC.Burns____
JohnC.Burns,#66462
TheBurnsLawFirm,LLC
1717ParkAvenue
St.Louis,Missouri63104
3142750326Telephone&Facsimile
john@burnslawfirm.com

__/s/DavidNowakowski____
DavidNowakowski,#66481
1717ParkAvenue
St.Louis,Missouri63104
3142750326Telephone&Facsimile
david@burnslawfirm.com

Attorneys for Relators GotNews, LLC

(GotNews.Com)andCharlesC.Johnson.

37