COMES NOW Plaintiff/Petitioner, Bruce Woodruff Kurt, appearing inops consilii (destitute of counsel), in exercise of his vested right to regulate the internal government and police of this state [cf., Mo. Cons., Art I, §3], and his vested right to petition for the redress of grievances [cf., US Constitution, First Amendment] and calls to contest the propriety and legality of the seizure of his pick-up truck; and in support of said contest, Plaintiff/Petitioner submits the following facts, to wit:

1) This Petition is timely, as it is filed within the "ten days of receipt" stipulated upon FORM 4577 (see: attachment) which Petitioner received on November 7th, 1996.

2) All the Defendants/Respondents listed, are validly listed for these reasons; to wit:

a) Denny's Towing is listed as a defendant/respondent pro forma pursuant the instructional mandate to be found on FORM 4577 (attached). [At this writing, Plaintiff/Petitioner knows of no reason to believe said towing company acted in "bad faith" or with "malice" against him, of any kind, at any time. In fact, at this juncture, Plaintiff/Petitioner believes Denny's Towing's trust in government is as much betrayed by the rest of the Defendants./Respondents as his has been.]; and,

b) Kirkwood municipal patrolman Guyer #223 is a valid defendant/respondent because it was upon his very naked color of authority that Denny's Towing relied to "justify" the tow; and,

c) Chief of Police, Mr. Linza, is a valid defendant/respondent because, as will be shown in greater detail below, it was his illicit policy upon which patrolman Guyer relied for "justification"; and,

d) The private municipal corporation known as the City of Kirkwood, Missouri, is a valid defendant/respondent, as respondeat superior, because said municipal officers (ib.) manifestly(1) claim license, i.e., the authority for their actions, from the offices they hold, and it is the responsibility of said municipal corporation, as both employer and empowerer, to direct the activities of its employees to within constitutional and statutory limitations. {NOTE: The distinction between "officers" and "offices."]

3) As JUVENAL (Decumus Iunius Juvenalis, c. 60-140 A.D., Roman rhetorician, satirical poet) said: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Who will guard the guards themselves?

4) The executively legislated police policy under which the Plaintiff/Petitioner's pick-up truck was seized is a manifest execution of punishment for an alleged offense yet to be litigated.

5) Police officers, being executive officers, are expressly forbidden from exercising any power of legislation by the "separation of powers", Missouri Constitution, Article II, Section 1.

6) The legislation of any Bill of Attainder(2) is prohibited, both to the US Congress and to the states, by the US Constitution, Article I, Sections 9 and 10. Can the police legislate one, and thereby accomplish indirectly that which is expressly prohibited directly? {The question is rhetorical.}

7) Upon its face FORM 4577 (attached) speaks of the Petitioner's pick-up truck as having been "abandoned" in ERROR. {See: below.}

8) Plaintiff/Petitioner did NOT "abandon" his pick-up truck; on the contrary, plenary possession of said pick-up was seized pursuant Kirkwood police policy of towing and impounding vehicles when an arrest is made. [The issue of whether the arrest was lawfully or legally executed is now before the municipal courts of this Judicial Circuit and not properly within the subject matter of the instant Case; however, it is important to bear in mind here that the property seizure, for all intents and purposes, was effected at gun point. Petitioner risked being shot if he had resisted the arrest and seizure.]

9) The property in question was seized without "notice and opportunity to defend"; hence, in traversal of "due process of law," which is Petitioner's vested right pursuant Mo. Cons., Art. I. §10

10) The claimed authority for the seizure and tow cannot be any valid Kirkwood City Ordinance, as such traverses due process, the constitutional proscription barring bills of attainder, and the statutory limits of the City's authority as regards the towing of vehicles, viz., RSMo. §71.010.

11) FORM 4577 (attached) purports upon its face to levy "towing costs" and "storage costs" upon Plaintiff/Petitioner as "owner", even though it was not he who contracted for the same. This assessment is founded and based upon the erroneous presumption that the vehicle was "abandoned." The fact is that the vehicle was not abandoned, deserted, forsaken, or cast aside; but was instead taken from Plaintiff/Petitioner by force of arms! Under the law of contracts, the onus to supply remuneration for services lies against those who request (contract for) them; in the instant, this is NOT the Plaintiff/Petitioner.

12) It seems obvious to Plaintiff/Petitioner that Denny's Towing is operating under the misapprehension that it has some legal claim to plenary possession of the truck, and that Plaintiff/Petitioner owes remuneration for the tow and storage of the same; either that, or it is manifest that Denny's Towing openly and knowingly has entered into a conspiracy in collusion with the other Respondents. At present, Plaintiff/Petitioner, being wont to giving the benefit of any doubt, prefers to believe the former.

1) Because Denny's Towing has no lawful or legal right or Title to the pick-up truck in question, said Towing Company must relinquish plenary possession to its rightful owner.

2) Because the once valid "temporary moving tag" which was current and properly displayed in the rear window of said pick-up is now expired, and because Denny's Towing never had any lawful or legal authorization to effect the tow in the first instance; it is only fair and just that this Court order Denny's Towing to tow Plaintiff/Petitioner's pick-up truck to a location within the St. Louis area without charge.

3) A permanent injunction should issue from this Court against the Defendants/Respondents, barring further transgressions against people's property rights, with pains and penalties attached thereto in the case of transgression; as the Constitutions and Statutes have proven impotent to vouchsafe.

4) The unhappy circumstance of this Case has shaken the Plaintiff/Petitioner's ability to trust in government to its roots. Plaintiff/Petitioner has suffered the illicit seizure of his property, delay in his ability to work on it, and now that the weather has turned foul, restoration of his antique and classic vehicle to pristine condition has to be conducted indoors at greater expense. Therefore: the Plaintiff/Petitioner seeks damages from Defendants/Respondents in an amount commiserative to the distress he endures, estimated at $75,000.

Petitioner certifies that a true and valid complete copy of this Petition will be served upon the Respondents: DENNY'S TOWING, 941 S. KIRKWOOD RD., KIRKWOOD, MO 63122; and, patrolman Guyer, Chief of Police Linza, and the City of Kirkwood Missouri, at the Kirkwood City Hall, 139 S. Kirkwood Rd., Kirkwood, Mo. 63122; by the Sheriff of St. Louis County. Further: Pursuant the instruction on FORM 4577, a copy of this Petition is being served upon the Missouri Director of Revenue, who is not among Defendants/Respondents, by certified US Mail.

___________________
Bruce W. Kurt

(1) MANIFESTA PROBATIONE NON INDIGENT. [Things manifest require no proof.]
(2) Bills of Attainder allow the seizure of property without a court appearance.

Back