c

 cc





c
 

  c
cc

cc

 

cc

ST. LOUIS COUNTY, )

)
Plaintiff, )
) Case I-09063201
vs. )
)
TERRY LEE HINDS )
) West Division
Defendant. )
)
) No Trial Date Set

   
c 
 




   
c



c
c 


COMES NOW, TERRY LEE HINDS (hereinafter the ³[Accused]´) proceeding as a ÿ


 Defendant in the above cause, hereby moves this Court for an Order, prior to jury selection

and trial, excluding the mention in the presence of the jury, by counsel, witnesses, or any other

person in the courtroom, of the following words
 !
"#
$#!%
including the terms

&#'(
)#*+,!% and ,"
-'!%
or words with related meaning or effect .&,

("(,"+
&#'(
)#*+,!%
The motion is based upon the grounds thatthese words, terms

and phrase are confusing and meaningless and create the improper impression that the [Accused]

[³
,"
-'
+
(,

.&,
("(,"+
&#'(
)#*+,!% when in fact, the issue is

ÿ

 
  ÿ
ÿ 
    ÿ 
      
    

 



   , and therefore any mention of this terminology

in bold print will unfairly prejudice the [Accused]. This motion is based upon relevant case law

to exclude ³loaded words´ and confusing or misleading evidence that throws no light on the

controversy, has no discernible connection to the case or injects a false issue that would confuse

(1)
the jury, or being of a speculative nature or contains irrelevant conclusions, with the probative

value substantially outweighed by the risk of undue or ³unfair´ prejudice to the [Accused]. In

support of his motion and for the 

 shown, states, as follows:

1. Witnesses ordinarily speak in terms of ³opinions,´ rather than ³facts.´ Because of this a

steadily increasing number of courts across the United States are prohibiting witnesses

and victims from uttering certain words in front of a jury, banning everything from the

words ³rape´ to ³victim´ to ³crime scene.´ In addition to ³rape,´ courts also have banned

the terms ³homicide,´ ³drunk,´ ³murderer,´ and ³killer´.

2. It is not hard to guess why courts might see fit to institute bans on ³loaded´ words or

certain terminology at criminal proceedings. The Constitution protects a criminal

defendant¶s right to a trial at which jurors must presume that the defendant is innocent

unless or until persuaded that person who is charged is in fact guilty beyond a reasonable

doubt.

3. The two most ³loaded´ words used in the courtroom are )$,/! versus +",
)$,/!

when asked ³how do you plead?´ It is this exchange where the courtroom terminology

begins and the place where legal principles of the person pleading them are often defined.

4. These two preceding words and the expressions conveyed by them are of accountability

or innocence and are not words a person should have to live by. Neither should these

³loaded´ words turn into a ï

 ï 

 
 
 
ÿ  
 

ÿ 
 
  ï

  
 

 
  
 ÿ

  


ÿ ÿ 
   
  

5. These two D"
0#+, words above do not operate in a vacuum; they are part of our

legal system. Our legal system establishes a presumption of innocence for every person

charged with a crime and it is a well-settled principle of law that a person needs to know

(2)
 what law or duty was violated. ³A crime is made up of acts and intent, and these must be

set forth in the indictment with reasonable particularity of time, place, and

circumstances.´ ï  , 92 U.S. 542 (1875).

6. Also, these two loaded words are not a moral statement, but a legal one, encompassing

the plethora of issues and challenges inherent in the criminal justice system. To utter

them in response to ³how do you plead´ in the courtroom is never to be immoral, for

morality plays no role in the proceedings; however Court doctrines or our principle in

legal standards, from ÿ
to ÿ    does. To measure the word +",
)$,/!

by some other yard stick is futile.

7. It is an elementary principle of criminal pleading that, where the definition of an offense,

whether it be at common law or by statute, including generic terms; it is not sufficient

that the indictment shall charge the offense in the same generic terms as in the definition,

but it must state the species -- it must descend to particulars. ï  ,

92 U.S. 542 (1875).

8. The Plaintiff¶s

 states, in part: ³The above-named defendant failed to have in

effect a waste collection service agreement for the following location in violation of St.

Louis County Revised Ordinance Section 607.140 and punishable under Section

607.960.´

9. However, Chapter 607 
12342 [Waste to be Collected] states: ³If waste collection

service is reasonably available for a premises where waste is generated, 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. It shall be the responsibility of the

property owner and the person generating the waste to assure that an agreement for the

(3)
 collection of waste is in effect.´

10.The words
 !
"#
$#!% do not even appear in 
12342
neither are they used

in the entire breath of Chapter 607 of the Waste Management Code. Furthermore, there is

no act or action that has been declared as ³UNLAWFUL´ in 
12342 or even within the

entire breath of Chapter 607 of the Waste Management Code. Thus the 2



  !   !
   are engaged to defeat the government

from depriving the [Accused] of a protected liberty interest.

11.The terms&#'(
)#*+,!%
or
,"
-'!%
do not appear in 
12342 neither are

they used in the entire breath of Chapter 607 of the Waste Management Code. The phrase

.&,
("(,"+
&#'(
)#*+,!% does not appear in 
12342 neither is it used in

the entire breath of Chapter 607 of the Waste Management Code.

12.Thus herein the [Accused]¶s 

 ïÿ
 rights are engaged in two ways:

first to identify a particular line of case law, and second to signify a particular attitude

toward "   ï  under the Due Process Clause in order to protect O

 O

 

13.The words
 !
"#
$#!% or the terms &#'(
)#*+,!%
or
,"
-'!%

and the phrase .&,
("(,"+
&#'(
)#*+,!%
are ³loaded´ words and are

confusing or misleading and throw no light on the controversy, have no discernible

connection to the case and inject a false issue that would confuse the jury being

irrelevant, speculative or containing legal conclusions, with the probative value

substantially outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice to the [Accused].

14.The Plaintiff and the prosecution in this case have created a 
 O

 with these

ÿ    words, terms or phrase,    

   
 
     



#$%
 &  ÿ

& 

  
 
 

 
&
 This is the pretense or invented process by which behaviors and

individuals are transformed into crimes and criminals.

15.The [Accused] has determined that the coming tide of 




 and its legal

atmosphere or its common effects is a    more frightening than global

warming. This case and its lack of ÿ    to ÿ


  for a criminal charge

have placed the power of law enforcement in the hands of a dominant corporate interest,

known as Veolia Environmental Services. The Plaintiff has failed to control the process

of criminalization.

16.The [Accused] has further determined the words
 !
"#
$#!% or the terms

&#'(
)#*+,!%
or
,"
-'!% and the phrase .&,
("(,"+
&#'(

)#*+,!% in this case
are not just ³loaded´ words for Plaintiff¶s
O

they are

in fact, testimony of their religious indoctrination of the [Accused] or others for their

system of faith based programming, in part based on,   ! an acronym meaning:

alse vidence ppearing eal.

17.This kind of alse vidence ppearing #eal, as produced in this case, should be

suppressed, if not, excluded or not even mentioned in the presence of the jury, by

counsel, witnesses, or any other person in the courtroom, because of the due process

clauses or of its doctrines, as well as, the risk of undue or ³unfair´ prejudice to the

[Accused].

18.The Plaintiff¶s devoted values in these ³loaded´ words, terms or a phrase mentioned

herein supports a religious practice and a certain faith in a system of beliefs, practices or

convictions based on 

, produced on   ! or established by what the

[Accused] refers to as a




 which has caused injury to the [Accused]¶s moral

(5)
 principles and aesthetic
sensibilities.

19.The




 of this new religion has established its waste dump firmly located

within the human mind, to contaminate the human spirit, poison the soul and has forced a

 

  


 into a legal abyss fraught with evil consequences, only to be

consumed by the ³unfair prejudice´ in words, terms or a phrase of evil¶s making.

20.Thus, to defeat this




 an issue of first impression, the [Accused]¶s has evoked

the spirit within Article IV, section 1, of the U.S. Constitution which provides that: ³Full

Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial

Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the

Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect

thereof.´ This Article of the U. S. Constitution has the power to overcome any form of a




 through ³such Acts, Records and Proceedings´.

21.The [Accused] has evoked Article IV of the U.S. Constitution against the Plaintiff which

provides that ³The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities

in the several states´ to restrict the plan or forced benefits from government action and to

be entitled to an exemption from prosecution of 
O


 based on
  !

22.The word or words the [Accused] lives or works by are not by [the law] an argument.

5
"$,
,-
#&-!
is the '   of a First Amendment right
because it is the

[Accused]
,#$
&#
+
.$
#)-,6

+",
-&
$,/6
,"
(-+)
.-,
&
-00++)

,"
"$#
,"+
+
,-
"#
+
.-(-
.

'
5
"$,
,-
#&-!
&

(*

+
#
7#(&
"

#&,
*+ *+,
#)-,
.-(-
(++",
D
("+'#,
+,"


(#*

23.This case is not about the government controlling waste, or even about the collection and

disposal of it. This case is not about controlling crime. This case is about 





(6)
 and its effects utilizing religious indoctrination and O
 
 which is

substantially motivated by religious beliefs, practices and convictions in a code and its

 ÿ 

 
  


24.This case is not about controlling crime, nor is the Waste Management Program about

who can legally 5
"$,
,-
#&-!%
It is about the trashing of lawful rights of those

few who do not think like the ³government´ or those who refuse to practice legalism or

unconstitutional activities as documented in a ³white paper´ by Lauren E. Chellis, United

States Naval Academy, December 7, 2006 (³Talking Trash´). A true and correct copy of

this ³white paper´ is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit D-1.

25.This First Amendment expression 5
"$,
,-
#&-!%
of the [Accused] and his 

'   of such a right
is also an Article IV constitutional privilege and immunity from





 and its effects. The [Accused]¶s constitutional rights are secured against

any form of prosecution for a   


 that is generated by the main stream of

eatable or palatable garbage instituted within the thoughts or actions of legalism.

26.The [Accused]¶s  


in this case concerns his belief and practices, not in what

waste was to be collected, rather how to
5
"$,
,-
#&-´] that was dumped into

his human mind or was collected by the passions of his spirit, to defeat the safe harbors,

and climates within or the built environments of his life, liberty or pursuits of happiness.

27.³The term µunfair prejudice,¶ as to a criminal defendant, speaks to the capacity of some

concededly relevant evidence to lure the factfinder into declaring guilt on a ground

different from proof specific to the offense charged.´ See ›  ï , 519

U.S. 172, 180, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997).

28.The [Accused] further relies on Missouri case law where the court may exclude evidence

that will create a substantial danger of confusing the issues or misleading the jury. See

(7)
 Haffey v. Generac Portable Products, L.L.C., 171 S.W.3d 805, 809 (Mo.App.2005)

(³evidence that throws no light on the controversy should be excluded as it tends to

confuse the issues and operate to prejudice a party before a jury´).

29.The [Accused] further relies on Missouri case law where the court may exclude evidence

that would inject a false issue in the case, would confuse the jury and would unduly

prejudice the defendants: See 
 
 ï ( , 770 S.W.2d 291, 295 (Mo. Ct.

App. W.D. 1989).

30.The [Accused] further relies on Missouri case law where, in general, it is improper to tell

prospective jurors what law will be applied or to discuss legal definitions: See State v.

Mitchell. 975 S.W.2d 191, 199 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1998).

31. Which words, terms, phrase, or certain terminology is necessary to this case will end

with the Court decision, nevertheless it begins with this motion and ultimately with this

pronouncement: ³Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the

argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.´-
*
,,6
Speech in the House of

Commons (November 18, 1783).

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set herein, and such arguments as the Court will entertain at

the motion hearing; the [Accused] respectfully submits that this Court issue an order, prior to

jury selection and trial, excluding the mention in the presence of the jury, by counsel, witnesses,

or any other person in the courtroom, of the following words
 !
"#
$#!%

including

the terms &#'(
)#*+,!% and ,"
-'!%
or words with related meaning or effect

.&,
("(,"+
&#'(
)#*+,!%
and with the premises considered, prays that the Court

grant this Motion in all things. The [Accused] further moves the Court to instruct the Plaintiff

and Plaintiff's counsel and to instruct counsel to advise all witnesses:

(8)
 A.)Not to mention, refer to, or attempt to convey to the jury in any manner, either directly or

indirectly, any of the facts mentioned in this motion, without first obtaining permission of

the Court outside the presence and hearing of the jury; and

B.)Not to make any reference to the fact that this motion has been filed; and

C.)To warn and caution each of Plaintiff's witnesses to strictly follow the same instructions.

Respectfully Submitted,

_______________________________
Terry Lee Hinds,

438 Leicester Sq Drive
St. Louis, Missouri 63021
Tel# 314-795-3115
Executed 10th day of January, 2011

c c 

8c

The above signed certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing, was provided to the
Plaintiff on this 10th day of, January 2011 by U.S. Certified Mail, first class postage prepaid, to:

County Counselor Molly Chestnut

The Office of the County Counselor
41 South Central Ave. Clayton, MO. 63105
Certified Mail Return Receipt #7008-3230-0001-6638-2508

(9)