40285 Neil RD
Loon Lake, Washington 99148
(509) 995-3882
Fax: (509) 233-8199

TO: Sheriff Krigbaum FROM: Raina G. Weiser, MA
PHONE: (636) 528-6100 PAGES:
FAX: (636) 528-8564
RE: Dario Busch, inmate at Lincoln County Jail
CC: Sean O’Brien, Presiding Commissioner - Lincoln County Missouri
Court File – Lincoln County Court
Lt. Lathrom, Officer - Lincoln County Jail
Lt. Swafford, Officer - Lincoln County
G. John Richard, Prosecutor - Lincoln County Missouri
Page Bellamy, Assistant Attorney General – State of Missouri
Mayme Miller, Attorney – Governor of State of Missouri
Erika Duenas, Minister Counselor – Bolivian Embassy, Washington D.C.
Javier Cusicanqui, Consul General – Bolivian Consulate, Washington D.C.
Lena Stenwall, Deputy Consul General – Swedish Consulate, New York, New York
Liselotte Fox, Honorary Consul – St. Louis, Missouri
Sheriff Krigbaum,
I am Dario Busch’s duly authorized advocate pursuant to Article VI, Clause II and the Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation between the American people and the people of the Republic [Estado] of Bolivia, Proclaimed January 8, 1868 as well as the constitutions and laws of the state of Washington and the state of Missouri.
I implore you to respect the power and the authority that I hold as to date; neither you nor your officers nor the representatives of Lincoln County and the state of Missouri mentioned above have been acknowledging me as Dario Busch’s representative.
As you know, Mr. Busch is an inmate in your jail at Lincoln County. As you also know; Mr. Busch suffers from an Arteriovenous Malformation, AVM, on his brain which neither you nor your officers/staff have treated with qualified medical care.
It has taken concerned involvement from the Swedish Consulate in New York City to apply enough pressure just to get your staff doctor, Dr. Bauer, to return numerous phone calls and verbally answer a fax to Mr. Busch’s physician, Dr. George Freibott, IV; this fax Dr. Freibott sent to Dr. Bauer on November 18, 2009. (See attachment)
When Dario Busch was arrested by your officers on September 30, 2009, he could walk without assistance. After 77 days of incarceration in your jail without qualified medical attention; Mr. Busch now has to be pushed in a wheel chair to get to the courtroom. Prior to his arrest and incarceration; Dario Busch was following oxygen therapies protocols monitored by Dr. Freibott his personal Naturopathic physician Both Dr. Freibott and I told Dr. Gene Smith from the beginning of Mr. Busch’s incarceration that Dario Busch’s health would quickly deteriorate under conditions of confinement in any county jail.
According to what I was told by staff at Mr. Smith’s private practice; Dr. Smith “resigned” his position with the jail. I assume Dr. Smith resigned because Lt. Lathrom and Officer Lynn Park refused to acknowledge Dario Busch’s written request to allow Dr. Smith to speak with me and Dr. Freibott on behalf of his health issues. Obviously Dr. Smith did not want liability for what he knew would happen to Mr. Busch if Mr. Busch did not receive proper medical attention while under his care at Lincoln County Jail.
Now then, we have a new problem arising. Although Dr. Bauer has finally recommended that Dario Busch be seen by a neurological specialist; she told Dr. Freibott that Mr. Busch would have to pay his own medical bill if he is seen by a neurologist. As well, Officer Lynn Park told Mr. Busch’s mother that Mr. Busch would have to be taken to a neurologist within the Troy or St. Louis area because he could not be released to go out of state or out of country. How can this be?
First your jail deprives Mr. Busch of proper medical attention for 77 days until his situation now warrants attention beyond Dr. Bauer’s expertise and the expertise of your officers and other medical staff at the jail, and as well; Lincoln County Courts have effectively divested Dario Busch of all of his worldly assets; income and possession to the point that a federal court has declared him legally indigent; and now you tell Mr. Busch that either he pay the exorbitant price to see a specialist in your area or what; Dario Busch can never leave Lincoln County jail to see a neurologist anywhere????
I think we are beyond the point of power struggles. It is time that Lincoln County and the State of Missouri take this situation seriously. (See report from Lisolette Fox, Swedish Consulate – St. Louis, Missouri) When the situation with Dario Busch has come down to an honorary consul from another country having to go see an inmate/citizen to see if he really looks all that sick and then reports back to her country that the inmate/citizen really looks all that sick; IT IS TIME FOR LINCOLN COUNTY TO LET GO!!!!!!!!
Dr. Freibott has worked hard from Washington D.C. to make connections with reputable neurologists at Gottlieb Memorial Hospital in Melrose Park, Illinois. These doctors are in the process of setting a concrete appointment with Dr. Freibott as to when they will be able to receive his patient, Dario Busch, at their hospital.
In addition, Dr. Freibott has found a hospital that has its own financial safety net for indigent people in need of health care. Dario Busch is already detained by Lincoln County under a Surety Bond in another criminal matter, therefore; Mr. Busch’s presence in Lincoln County Missouri is secured. As well, we have proof and evidence that other co-defendants arrested on the same charge as Dario Busch on August 22nd have already been allowed to leave the state while on bond Therefore, Officer Park’s order to restrict Dario Busch to the Troy/St. Louis areas is criminally discriminatory and inhumane as it constitutes Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law.
For this cause, I now implore you to respect my position as Dario Busch’s ONLY authorized legal agent and order your officers to communicate with me so that we can make speedy arrangements to transport Dario Busch to Gottlieb Memorial Hospital in Melrose Park, Illinois. The first thing that needs to be done is Dario needs to receive the application for financial assistance that is written in Mr. Busch’s language and attached to this fax. Mr. Busch needs to fill out the application and the officer on duty needs to be fax the application back to Dr. Freibott at:
Yungborn Institute - Fax: 775-227-9353
Dr. Freibott is arranging for an appointment for Dario Busch with Gottlieb Memorial Hospital and will fax this appointment with necessary paperwork to Nurse Cockrell at the jail. Dr. Freibott’s fax should be following my fax shortly. Dr. Freibott and I have been working fervently with the Swedish and Bolivian Embassies to gain their support for Dario Busch. It is embarrassing for us as Americans to have to tell these Embassies and Consulates the same story again and again of how your officers at Lincoln County Jail have so grossly treated Mr. Busch; his mother; Dr. Freibott and I. Please do not embarrass us any further. Let us now show how gracious as Americans we can be.
Raina G. Weiser, MA – Advocate for Dario Busch


40285 Neil RD
Loon Lake, Washington 99148
(509) 995-3882
Fax: (509) 233-8199

TO: Mayme Miller, Attorney FROM: Raina G. Weiser, MA
Jay Nixon, Governor
PHONE: (573) 751-3222 PAGES: 13 w/cover sheet
FAX: (573) 751 1495 DATE: December 16, 2009
RE: State of Missouri v Dario Busch
Inmate at Lincoln County Jail
Case No.: 09L6-CR01460
Mayme Miller and Governor Nixon,
I have repeatedly attempted to communicate with you concerning my client, Dario Busch, who has been incarcerated in Lincoln County Jail now for 77 days suffering from a serious medical condition without adequate medical care. Mr. Busch’s Naturopathic Physician, Dr. George Freibott, IV and I and Mr. Busch’s mother have all spent several thousand dollars to come to Washington D.C. to speak to the Swedish Embassy and the Bolivian Embassy on Mr. Busch’s behalf because Dario Busch has duel citizenship with Sweden and Bolivia.
Mr. Busch is a native from Bolivia. Mr. Busch’s mother, Elvira Busch, obtained citizenship in Sweden for Mr. Busch when he was ten years old. The courts in Lincoln County failed to establish Mr. Busch’s legal status before they began prosecuting him. We are now at the point that the Swedish government has successfully applied enough political pressure that the doctor at the Lincoln County Jail in Troy, Missouri has recommended that Dario Busch be seen by a neurologist.
However; Lincoln County is refusing to pay for Mr. Busch’s visit to a neurologist and the only hospital we have been able to find that has a financial assistance program for indigent people is at the Gottlieb Memorial Hospital in Melrose Park, Illinois and Officer Lynn Park at Lincoln County Jail in Troy, Missouri is refusing to allow Mr. Busch to be released on his own recognizance to travel to Illinois.
Please read all documents attached to this fax.
RGW – Advocate for Dario Busch


40285 Neil RD
Loon Lake, Washington 99148
(509) 995-3882
Fax: (509) 233-8199

TO: Page Bellamy, Assistant Attorney General FROM: Raina G. Weiser, MA
Missouri Attorney General's Office
Supreme Court Building
207 W. High St.
P.O. Box 899
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Email: darla.iven@ago.mo.gov

PHONE: 573-751-3321 PAGES: 16 w/cover sheet
FAX: 573-751-0774 DATE: October 30, 2009
RE: State of Missouri v Dario Busch
Inmate at Lincoln County Jail
Case No.: 09L6-CR01460

Mr. Bellamy,
It looks as though we have finally had a breakthrough on the Dario Busch case. Dr. Bauer contacted Mr. Busch’s Naturopathic Physician from Lincoln County Jail this last Sunday and told him that based upon her examination, Dario Busch should be seen by a neurological specialist as soon as possible. You will see from the attached documents that Dr. Bauer informed Dr. Freibott that Mr. Busch will have to pay for his own medical appointment with a neurologist. There is no way that Mr. Busch can afford to pay to see a neurologist; as he is indigent. Therefore, Dr. Freibott has arranged for Mr. Busch to be seen by a team of neurologists at the Gottlieb Memorial Hospital in Melrose Park, Illinois where he can avail himself of a financial assistance plan for indigent people.
I anticipate resistance from Lincoln County in allowing Mr. Busch to go to Illinois to receive treatment for his AVM, Arteriovenous Malformation. Therefore, I am appealing to your humanity as I know you have the authority to influence the outcome of this situation. I will fax the appointment schedule to you as soon as I receive it from Dr. Freibott. Please do not continue to ignore me as you are violating Mr. Busch’s right to choose his own counsel to advocate on his behalf. I have attached his authorization for my services in case you have lost the numerous ones I have already emailed to you.

Raina Weiser, MA – Advocate for Dario Busch

40285 Neil RD
Loon Lake, WA 99148
(509) 233-8199
Cell #509-995-3882
Advocacy Project

Date: December 14, 2009
Lincoln County Sheriff’s Department
65 Business Park Drive
Troy, Missouri 63379
Attached is Request and Authorization for our services signed by Amber Vogler, Dario Busch, and Roy Stang on September 25, 2009. This letter is a formal letter of request for a full and complete copy of all files pertaining the above persons held by your department and Lincoln County Jail including, but not limited to, all paper documents, booking sheets, inmate request forms, medical records, radio logs, dispatch logs, video/audio tapes, property reports, evidence reports, lab reports, etc., pursuant to all applicable statutes from RSMo, federal codes and regulations, Article VI Clause 2 of the United States Constitution and Article XXXIII of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Republic of Bolivia, Proclaimed January 8, 1963, Treaty Series 32, 12 Statues at Large, 1003-22, 18 ibid., pt. 2, Public Treaties, 68-78.
Attached is verification of our project’s corporate status in the State of Washington.
Raina G. Weiser, MA
Executive Director


Corporations Division
UBI Number 602288637
Category REG
Profit/Nonprofit Nonprofit
Active/Inactive Active
State of Incorporation WA
Date of Incorporation 04/07/2003
Expiration Date 04/30/2010
Dissolution Date
Registered Agent Information
Address 40285 NEIL RD
State WA
ZIP 99148
Special Address Information

Washington Secretary of State
801 Capitol Way South
PO Box 40234, Olympia WA 98504-0234
(360) 725-0377

Mr. Bellamy,
Attached is a case from Lincoln County that took place around 1996. Evidently the authorities in Lincoln County equate my client, Dario Busch, with this case. I have been told by a witness that was in the Lincoln County courtroom the day that Judge Dan Dildine made a statement from the bench to the effect that Dario Busch was a member of "that Freemen cult." From what I am told, Dildine was presiding in a civil case and Dario Busch was assisting the party to the case that Dan Dildine was addressing from the bench when he alleged that Mr. Busch was "cult" member of a Freeman Society. This case has just been brought to my attention. We are attempting to obtain a transcript of the hearing wherein Judge Dan Dildine was suppose to have predjudiced himself against Dario Busch.

Please contact John Richards as soon as possible to investigate whether or not he also believes that Dario Busch is a member of the same group as the defendant's in the attached case as it appears that Mr. Richards prosecuted this case. This could explaine why Lincoln County has been violating ny client's rights all the way to hell and back.
Raina Weiser, MA
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Case Style: State of Missouri, Respondent v. Andrew Cella, et al., Appellants
Case Number: 72054
Handdown Date: 07/07/1998
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Lincoln County, Hon. Fred Rush
Counsel for Appellant: Scott Everett Walter, Daniel J. Dodson and David C. Hemingway
Counsel for Respondent: Theodore A. Bruce
Opinion Summary:
Dorsett Harry Gant, Andrew James Cella, Roger Allen Peek, James Tilden Ransdell, Roman Nelson Junior Haslag, Donald Ray Schaefer, Dennis Patrick Logan, Donald Lee Shaffer, Donald Lee Young, Floyd Lee Heubner, Michael Andrew Peek, Raymond Leslie Rees, and Clifford Keith Hobbs appeal the judgments entered upon jury verdicts finding them each guilty of Tampering with a Judicial Officer pursuant to section 565.084, RSMo 1994, for which all defendants except Logan and Hobbs were sentenced to two years imprisonment and a fine of $5,000. Logan and Hobbs were sentenced to seven years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine.
Division Four holds: The trial court erred in denying defendants' motion for recusal because the first application for a change of judge, even if it alleges bias or prejudice, should be treated as an application for a change of judge under Rule 32.07 and exhausts the party's right to one change of judge.
Opinion Author: Paul J. Simon, Judge
Opinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED. R. Dowd, P.J. and Hoff, J., concur.
Dorsett Harry Gant (Gant), Andrew James Cella (Cella), Roger Allen Peek (R. Peek), James Tilden Ransdell (Ransdell), Roman Nelson Junior Haslag (Haslag), Donald Ray Schaefer (Schaefer), Dennis Patrick Logan (Logan), Donald Lee Shaffer (Shaffer), Donald Lee Young (Young), Floyd Lee Heubner (Heubner), Michael Andrew Peek (M. Peek), Raymond Leslie Rees (Rees), and Clifford Keith Hobbs (Hobbs)(collectively defendants) appeal the judgments entered upon jury verdicts finding them each guilty of Tampering with a Judicial Officer pursuant to Section 565.084 RSMo 1994 (all further references shall be to RSMo 1994 unless indicated otherwise) for which all defendants except Logan and Hobbs were sentenced to two years imprisonment and a fine of $5,000. Logan and Hobbs were sentenced to seven years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine.
Defendant Gant contends that the trial judge erred in: (1) ordering him to proceed pro se; (2) failing to recuse himself; and (3) convicting the defendants after overruling objections to the state referring to defendants as "the freemen." Defendant Cella contends that the trial court erred in: (1) overruling his motion for recusal of judge because his requests for judicial recusal were proper; (2) allowing troopers Mark Inman and Corporal William Cooper of the Missouri State Highway Patrol to testify regarding the Amanda Brook Lenk-Judge Flynn case; (3) denying his motions to dismiss the information against him for lack of in personam and subject matter jurisdiction; (4) allowing Don Lock, the State's handwriting expert, to testify as to whether or not Cella's signature on the common law court's grand jury order was his; and (5) failing to admonish the jury that the repeated egregious and contemptuous conduct of defendants Hobbs and Logan were not to be inferred to Cella. Defendants Hobbs, Rees, Ransdell, Haslag, and R. Peek contend that the trial court erred in: (1) allowing the prosecution and conviction of defendants for conduct protected by right of free expression; (2) refusing to allow defendants a continuance from the original trial date to obtain counsel; (3) refusing defendants' motion for recusal of judge in that Rule 32.07 requires automatic recusal upon a timely motion; and (4) sentencing defendants under Section 565.084. Defendants Schaefer, Logan, Shaffer,Young, Heubner; and M. Peek essentially contend that the trial court erred in: (1) issuing arrest warrants upon an unconstitutional complaint; (2) permitting the alleged "special prosecuting attorney" to commit "prosecutorial legislation" in his efforts to construct an actionable offense out of an "obviously unconstitutional statute"; (3) "not personally inspecting and verifying the authenticity or validity of documents submitted into evidence"; and (4) "acquiescing and allowing the use of the judiciary as a means to perpetrate an intrinsic fraud in the initiation of the cause."
In their appeals, Gant, Cella, R.Peek, Ransdell, Haslag, Rees and Hobbs were represented by attorneys. Schaefer, Logan, Shaffer, Young, Huebner, and M.Peek filed their appeals pro se. We further note that R. Peek, Ransdell, and Haslag have together filed a pro se brief addressing points similar to those addressed by their attorneys. We reverse and remand.
The defendants failed to file motions for new trial, therefore any review is for plain error. Plain error relief is appropriate only when the alleged error so substantially affects the rights of the defendant that a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice results. State v. Isa, 850 S.W.2d 876, 884 (Mo.banc 1993).
We note that the record on appeal is voluminous containing a transcript of more than 3100 pages and at least seven legal files. The record viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict reveals that on February 3, 1996, Highway Patrol Officer David Flannigan (Flannigan) issued two traffic tickets to Amanda Brook Lenk (A. Lenk), which were assigned to the Honorable Patrick S. Flynn, Associate Circuit Judge of Lincoln County. On February 28, 1996, A. Lenk's maternal grandfather George Castle and Charles Detmer informed Judge Flynn in his chambers that it would be in his best interest to dismiss the case against A. Lenk and if he did not do so ". . . they would have to proceed with their proceedings in their court." Sometime on February 28, Judge Flynn received a document entitled "Caveat and Demand to All Public Officials" from Castle and Detmer informing Judge Flynn that he and all public officials would be violating her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983-1986 and 18 U.S.C. 41, 242, 2381, if they proceeded in the case of State of Missouri v. Amanda Brook Lenk. Judge Flynn did not dismiss the case.
On March 12, 1996, A. Lenk appeared with her father, Melvin Lenk (M. Lenk), Castle, Detmer, and Hobbs before Judge Flynn. A. Lenk stated that she represented herself and moved that the charges against her be dismissed because she had chosen not to live under the laws of the United States through a Declaration to Quiet Title. Hobbs informed Judge Flynn that he was there as A. Lenk's "counsel" but was not allowed to represent her because he was not a licensed attorney. Hobbs informed Judge Flynn that he had no jurisdiction, the case should be dismissed and Judge Flynn would be brought before "their court" if he did not dismiss the case.
On or about March 25, Judge Flynn received documents entitled "Order to Appear," ordering him to appear before "Our One Supreme Court . . . at the Knights of Columbus Hall in St. Clement, Missouri at 7:00 p.m., March 13th. . . . If you do not appear at the time, date and place so ordered[,] a default will be entered on your behalf and judgment entered against you in the sum . . . of ten million eight hundred and four thousand dollars of United States of America currency." Judge Flynn received two of these "orders," one on behalf of A. Lenk and the other on behalf of Hobbs, each of which had affidavits attached from M. Lenk and Hobbs and a list of "jurors" who entered the order.
Judge Flynn did not appear before "Our One Supreme Court." On March 30, 1996, defendants met at the Knights of Columbus Hall and issued an "order" signed by twenty-four grand jurors including Gant, Cella, R.Peek, Ransdell, Haslag, Schaefer, Shaffer, Young, Heubner, M.Peek, and Rees, which provided, in pertinent part:

Finding of Facts, Patrick S. Flynn failed to appear at the time, date, and place that he was ordered to appear, therefore a default and judgment is hereby ordered to be entered against Patrick S. Flynn. An Attested and Affirmed Affidavit was filed by Clifford Keith Hobbs stating that Patrick S. Flynn had violated his Const[i]tutional Oath of Office by violating Clifford Keith Hobbs' Constitutional Rights. Since Patrick S. Flynn failed to appear, or to make any attempt to rebut the Affidavit, the Affidavit shall stand as the truth. Our One Supreme Court hereby orders that an Affidavit of Information, Criminal Complaint For Public Notice Filing and an Affidavit in Support of Claim of Lien, Affidavit of Obligation, be filed with the Recorder's Office of Lincoln County[,] Missouri. It is also Ordered that this jury finds there is enough evidence against Patrick S. Flynn for violation of his Constitutional Oath of Office and that Criminal charges may be filed against him.
The above finding of facts by the Grand Jury is not reviewable by any other court of the United States as set forth under the 7th Amendment, nor subject to trespass upon the case, by the Judicial Power of the United States, per 11th Amendment, our national Constitution.

* * *

On April 1, 1996, M. Lenk and Castle filed liens in the Lincoln County Recorder's Office against the property of Judge Flynn, Lincoln County prosecutor G. John Richards (Richards) and trooper Flannigan. The liens, which Recorder Melba Houston recorded and filed, consisted of two documents: an "Affidavit of Information, Criminal Complaint" and an "Affidavit in support of Claim of Lien" and provided Judge Flynn with the option of paying the $10.8 million or dismissing the case against A. Lenk. Seeking to finance certain property, Judge Flynn discovered the liens. Subsequently, the Attorney General's Office filed a proceeding to expunge the liens. Circuit Court Judge Fred Rush presided over a hearing to expunge the liens and ordered the liens expunged.

On April 5, 1996, Judge Rush granted Richards' request to appoint a special prosecutor to pursue charges involving activities of "Our One Supreme Court." Attorney General Jay Nixon was appointed as special prosecutor and began an investigation using State of Missouri Highway Patrol Investigators (Highway Patrol). The investigators from the Highway Patrol interviewed the individuals listed on the grand juror sheet of the March 30, 1996 order. Twelve of the thirteen defendants who signed the order of "Our One Supreme Court" acknowledged that the signatures on the order were theirs, and the thirteenth individual's signature was subsequently established through a handwriting expert.
On April 9, 1996, A. Lenk appeared before Judge Flynn and requested that he disqualify himself. Hobbs, attempting to act as her representative, also requested that Judge Flynn disqualify himself. Both requests were denied. A. Lenk also requested a jury trial, which was granted related to the charge of failure to maintain a single lane and scheduled for April 29th. Judge Flynn found A. Lenk guilty of the speeding and seat belt infractions and imposed a $26.00 fine and $43.00 in court costs.
At the April 9th hearing, Highway Patrol Investigator Robert Stiefferman (Stiefferman), working undercover as "William Spencer," approached Logan and Hobbs about two traffic tickets of his own. Hobbs told Stiefferman that the motion to disqualify Judge Flynn and the lien filed against him was a procedure of the common law court and introduced Stiefferman to Logan.
On April 29, 1996, A. Lenk had a jury trial where she was found guilty of failure to maintain a single lane and ordered to pay a $25.00 fine plus $43.00 in court costs.
On May 18-19, Stiefferman attended a common law seminar in Hannibal at the invitation of Logan and Hobbs. About thirty-five people attended, including defendants Logan, Hobbs, Heubner, Schaefer, Shaffer, M. Peek, and R. Peek. Logan instructed the attendees on how to set up a common law "court." Stiefferman obtained documents including a quiet title, which declared an individual free from the rule of the United States government; a non-statutory abatement, which gave notice to a court that it did not have jurisdiction; a writ of prohibition; and a document entitled "precipice." Stiefferman also observed two computers, one belonging to Hobbs and the other belonging to Logan, that were used to prepare documents.
On June 17, 1996, the Highway Patrol executed a search warrant at Logan's home and seized a Packard Bell computer and some 300 computer disks, discovering documentation in regard to A. Lenk on a computer disk. Further, arrest warrants for eighteen individuals were issued.
On August 7, 1996, a preliminary hearing was conducted before Judge Calhoun, Associate Circuit Judge, Lincoln County Circuit Court. On August 23, 1996, the state filed informations against defendants, which provided, in pertinent part:
The Special Prosecuting Attorney for Lincoln County, State of Missouri charges that [the defendant] in violation of Section 565.084 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri committed the class C felony of tampering with a judicial officer, punishable upon conviction under Section 558.011.1(3) and 560.011 in that on or about April 1, 1996, in the County of Lincoln, State of Missouri, [the defendant], with the purpose to influence Judge Patrick S. Flynn, a judicial officer, in the criminal trial of the State vs. Amanda Brook Lenk, an official proceeding, tampered with a judicial officer by engaging in conduct reasonably calculated to harass Patrick S. Flynn, namely filing a lien with the Lincoln County Recorder of Deeds on the property of Patrick S. Flynn.

That day, defendants were arraigned before Judge Rush, and the state filed a motion to join all eighteen cases for a single trial. At some point prior to trial, three defendants had their cases severed and were not part of this action.
On September 13, 1996, several defendants filed motions that were similar in form and entitled "Affirmed Original First Article In Amendment Petition, In Affidavit Form, for the Recusal of Judge Fred Rush, Pursuant Missouri Supreme Court Rule 12.06, 28 U.S.C. 144, 28 U.S.C. 455 (a), and 455 (b)(1)." On September 23, 1996, defendants again filed motions requesting Judge Rush to recuse himself. On September 27, 1996, the court took under advisement defendants' pretrial motions:
Upon notice by the Defendants, who each individually filed various pre-trial motions, the Defendants motions were called and each individual Defendant was heard on said motion. All defendants appeared personally. The State, appearing through counsel, asks that the motions be overruled.
The Defendants motion, after hearing, are taken under advisement for decision by this court.
The transcript of that hearing on September 27, 1996, is not contained in the record on appeal.
On November 7, 1996, the trial court issued its order:
The Court having heard argument on all of the Defendant's motions that were pending on September 27, 1996 it is now ordered that all of the motions be denied. Counsel and pro se Defendants to be notified of this order. Defendants Motion for Jury Trial is ordered granted to the extent that this cause has been set for jury trial in this Court.
Trial was held from December 2 to December 12. The jury found all fifteen defendants guilty of tampering with a judicial officer. Defendants Logan and Hobbs were sentenced to seven years imprisonment, and the other defendants were each sentenced to two years imprisonment. None of the defendants filed a motion for new trial. Two defendants did not file an appeal.
On appeal, defendants Cella and Gant have filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief, which was ordered taken with the case. In his motion, Gant's counsel states that he prepared Gant's legal file based on files the trial court identified as consisting of Gant's individual file and a "consolidated" case file into which documents from all defendants were filed after the case was consolidated for joint trial. Subsequently, in defendants' individual case files located in Lincoln County, Gant's counsel discovered two motions to disqualify Judge Rush that were signed by all defendants and bear the clerk's stamp dated August 23, 1996. Gant contends that the issue of Judge Rush's compliance with Rule 32.07 is not new and has been briefed by other defendants in this appeal. Cella's motion for leave to file a supplemental brief presents a similar argument as Gant's motion, contending that Cella also filed a motion asking the judge to recuse himself on August 22, 1996, which was discovered soon after Gant filed his motion to file the supplemental brief. The State responds that defendants never brought these documents to the trial court's attention, and no one could be expected to know that these documents were a request for a change of judge.
Gant and Cella's supplemental legal file contains three documents, which are nearly identical in form and provide, in pertinent part:

* * *
Before the Court, for Case Number CR 196-429F, is the Petition of Dismissal and/or Recusal of the HONORABLE JUDGE FRED RUSH.
Because of the many Title 42 Complaints filed by the undersigned, ( Cases Filed in UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT COURT OF MISSOURI, SAINT LOUIS DIVISION,) it is believed that the HONORABLE JUDGE FRED RUSH should be held incompetent to preside, because the previous filed Law Suits could cause Bias and/or Prejudice upon the part of the Judge.

Dated this 22nd. Day of August, 1996.

* * *

The documents are signed by all defendants and bear the stamp of Melba Houston, Clerk of the Circuit Court Lincoln County, Missouri, dated August 23, 1996.
Gant's legal file contains a certificate of service indicating that Gant mailed four documents to the State via first-class mail on August 27, 1996, two of which were previously filed with the trial court on August 23, 1996: (1) "JUDICIAL NOTICES, DEMANDS, AND 'SPECIAL APPEARANCE' OF DEFENDANT -- TO JUDGE RUSH"; and (2) "RECTUM ROGARE for RECUSAL for CAUSE - TO Judge Rush."
During the arraignment of defendant Schaefer on August 23, 1996, the following exchange took place between the court, defendant Schaefer and the Assistant Prosecutor:
Schaefer: I have some papers here that I wish the bailiff to present to you.
The Court: If you'll just give them to the Clerk's office they'll hit the file and we'll look at them in due time.
Schaefer: I think these have bearing and need to be addressed at this time because also we have other matters in this issue that have been filed that have not been addressed and we feel that these issues need to be addressed before this matter can be proceeded any further at this time.

The Court: If you want to hand me those matters you may, sir.
Schaefer: Well, I enter the bar under duress, sir.
The Court: Well, it appears you're coming on your own, but that's fine. Thank you.
Have you seen these.
Assistant Prosecutor: I have not, your Honor.
The Court: If you want to look at them. Thank you.
Assistant Prosecutor: Thank you.
The Court: You're the - - Well, excuse me just a minute. Court at this time is not going to recuse itself.
* * *
The Court: Do you have any questions, sir?
Schaefer: Uh - -
The Court: About anything that's happened here today?
Schaefer: Not other than the previous questions about certain things that need to be addressed before this procedure can continue.
The Court: Very well. You can take those up. If you file your motions and notice them correctly they can be taken up on the 27th of September, sir.
Schaefer: Well, we have filed several of them. All right, sir.
The Court: I understand, but you need to give notice to the opposing party and I can't tell you beyond that.
* * *
During the arraignment of defendant R. Peek on August 23, 1996, the following exchange took place:
Peek: Also on the record I need to hand you a document or have your bailiff come here and hand it to you.
The Court: You can hand it to me. That's fine.
Peek: May I have your bailiff take it to you?

The Court: No. If you want you can file it in the Clerk's office or hand it to me, either one.
Thank you.
Peek: I'm gonna give one to your attorney.
The Court: Well, he's not my attorney. He's the State's attorney.
Peek: The State's attorney.
The Court: Thank you.
Peek: Also, sir, I need to enter again and give you an additional copy.
The Court: Of the same document?
Peek: No, sir.
The Court: Oh, okay. Thank you. At this time I'm going to deny the motion for me to recuse myself.
* * *
Our examination of defendants' briefs indicates that the issue of alleged error by Judge Rush in not recusing himself pursuant to Rule 32.07 has been previously addressed by defendants and therefore the issue raised by Cella and Gant's supplemental brief are pertinent to this appeal. A review of the record reveals that documents entitled "Rectum Rogare for Recusal for Cause" were presented to the trial court and the assistant attorney general at defendants' arraignment, Judge Rush acknowledged that such documents were requesting him to "recuse himself" and he denied the motions. Thus, Cella and Gant's motions for leave to file supplemental briefs are granted.
In his supplemental brief, Gant contends that Judge Rush erred when he failed to disqualify himself based on the timely motions to recuse signed by Gant and all the other defendants which were filed the day the initial plea was entered, August 23, 1996, because the written motion was timely filed under Rule 32.07 and therefore, the motions left Judge Rush with no jurisdiction to take any further action in the case except to send it to another judge.
In criminal and civil cases, the right to disqualify a judge is "one of the keystones of our legal administrative edifice." State ex rel. Mountjoy v. Bonacker, 831 S.W.2d 241, 244 (Mo.App.1992). No system of justice can function at its best or maintain broad public confidence if a litigant can be compelled to submit his case in a court where he sincerely believes the judge is incompetent or prejudiced. Id. Thus, statutes and rules are liberally construed in favor of the right to disqualify. Id. The right to disqualify a judge has been described as "virtually unfettered." Id. Therefore, if a request for trial judge disqualification is in proper order, the trial judge's duty is to sustain it. Id.
Rule 32.07 provides, in pertinent part:

(a) Except as provided in Rule 32.06, a change of judge shall be ordered in any criminal proceeding upon the timely filing of a written application therefor by any party. The applicant need not allege or prove any reason for such change. The application need not be verified and may be signed by any party or an attorney for any party.
(b) In felony and misdemeanor cases the application must be filed not later than ten days after the initial plea is entered. If the designation of the trial judge occurs more than ten days after the initial plea is entered, the application shall be filed within ten days of the designation of the trial judge or prior to commencement of any proceeding on the record, whichever is earlier.
(c) A copy of the application and a notice of the time when it will be presented to the court shall be served on all parties.
(d) Upon the presentation of a timely application for change of judge, the judge promptly shall sustain the application
* * *
Committee Note ----1982
* * *
The following application would be sufficient: "(Caption) .............................. requests a change of judge.
(Signature and address of attorney or party.)"
The first application for a change of judge, no matter how characterized, is treated as an application under Rule 32.07 and exhausts the party's right to one change of judge. Rule 32.07; State v. Hornbuckle, 746 S.W.2d 580, 587 (Mo.App. 1988); See also Judge Robert H. Dierker, Jr., Missouri Criminal Practice Handbook 173 (West Publishing 1998).
In Hornbuckle, the defendant was indicted for robbery first degree, two counts of attempted kidnapping, armed criminal action, attempted stealing of a motor vehicle, carrying a concealed weapon and making a false declaration. Hornbuckle, 746 S.W.2d at 581-582. After the case was assigned to trial judge, the public defender assigned to represent the defendant filed two motions asking the trial judge to disqualify himself. The first motion was made pursuant to Rule 32.09 and Section 545.660(3), RSMo 1978, and alleged that the trial judge was so prejudiced against defense counsel that defendant could not receive a fair trial. The second motion entitled "Verified Motion For Recusal and Request for Evidentiary Hearing" was filed pursuant to Section 545.660(3) and moved the trial judge to recuse himself because he was prejudiced against members of the Public Defender's Office.
On receiving the motion, the trial judge treated it as an application for change of judge under Supreme Court Rule 32.07, sustained the motion, and transferred the cause to another judge. Hornbuckle, 746 S.W.2d at 582-583. Defense counsel then filed a motion for change of judge pursuant to Rule 32.07 and Section 545.650, which was denied by the trial judge who noted that defendant had already filed and received the one change of judge he was entitled to under Rule 32.07. Id. at 583. Defendant was subsequently tried and convicted. On appeal, he contended the trial judge abused his discretion and committed reversible error by refusing to rule on his motion made pursuant to Rule 32.07 and Section 545.650, and electing to treat his "Verified Motion" as one for change of judge under Rule 32.07, thereby avoiding ruling on the motion, so that his actions foreclosed him from exercising his peremptory right to change of judge before the second trial judge. Id.
In ruling against Hornbuckle, we noted that the rules relating to change of judge did not use the terms "prejudice" or "bias." Id. at 585. Putting the rules and the statutes on which the rules are based in context, we treated the first motion to disqualify a judge for cause under Rule 32.10 or Section 545.660 as a motion for recusal under Rule 32.07 and stated:
5. If the first motion for change of judge is made on any of the grounds of "incompetency" stated in Rule 32.10 or for prejudice under Sec. 545.660, it does not follow that a party is thereafter entitled to a peremptory disqualification of the second or successor judge under Rule 32.07. A second or successive change of judge must be upon grounds embodied in Rule 32.10 that the judge is related to any defendant, or is interested or has been of counsel in the criminal proceeding, or, at the option of the judge under Rule 32.09 that fundamental fairness requires it. Prejudice is not a ground for a second or successive disqualification. Under our Rules, statutes and decisions, the policy of our law is that only one change of judge is to be granted for prejudice.
Hornbuckle, 746 S.W.2d at 585[6] (Mo.App. 1988).
We further noted:
Prior to the present Rules, in order to disqualify a judge on the ground of prejudice it was necessary to allege prejudice on the part of the judge to obtain a disqualification. This was a cumbersome procedure. The Supreme Court wisely and appropriately removed from the Rules any reference to the term "prejudice" and provided simply that any party is entitled to a change of judge upon request, thus avoiding the cumbersome arena of alleging prejudice with all its peripheral ramifications. Now, any party is entitled to one change of judge without entering that cumbersome arena. Thus unlike other jurisdictions, Missouri has made the procedure for disqualification for prejudice extremely simple.
Prior to the present Rules there were two classes of causes for change of judge--one was on account of prejudice or undue influence; the other was when the judge is related to either party, or was interested or had been of counsel to either party. For the former class--prejudice or undue influence--there could be but one change of judge; for the second there may be as many as is necessary to find a judge who is not related, interested or of counsel, i.e. where the judge was incompetent. See State v. Dabbs, 118 Mo.App. 663, 95 S.W. 275 (Mo.1906).
* * *
Now that the Supreme Court Rules have avoided the cumbersome procedure of alleging prejudice, the policy that a party is entitled to only one change of judge on the ground of prejudice whether stated or not, embodied in Rule 32.09, is of no moment whether the first motion alleges prejudice or requests a change of judge peremptorily--in either case, a party is entitled, as a matter of privilege, to only one change of judge. If a judge is in fact prejudiced there are other legal remedies to correct abuse of discretion. But, for the latter class--related to a party, interest or of counsel--which is now embodied in Rule 32.10, and consistent with the decisions interpreting the statutes, there may be as many changes of judges as are necessary to find a judge who is not related, interested or of counsel, i.e. a judge who is not "incompetent." Dabbs, supra, 95 S.W. at 276.

Hornbuckle, 746 S.W.2d at 586.
In Hornbuckle, it was of no importance whether these documents alleged "cause" or requested a change of judge peremptorily - - in either case, defendants were entitled, as a matter of privilege, to one change of judge. Id. at 586.
Further, the criminal procedure change of judge requirements contained in Rule 32.07 are parallel and contain nearly identical language to Rule 51.05. State ex rel. Director of Revenue, State of Mo. v. Scott, 919 S.W.2d 246, 247-248 n.1 (Mo.banc 1996).
In Hough v. Hough, 819 S.W.2d 751 (Mo.App. 1991), the question presented to the court was whether or not, in a civil case, the motion for change of judge alleging bias and prejudice against the trial judge should have been considered under Section 508.090 RSMo 1986, which allows for a change of judge in the event of prejudice, or whether it should have been considered as a motion under Rule 51.05. Id. at 752. The Hough court stated:
During the time within which Rule 51.05 applies, a party may obtain a change of judge without any cause, whereas if Sec. 508.090 is followed a party would be required to allege and prove prejudice. In that event Rule 51.05 supersedes Sec. 508.090 in the time frame within which Rule 51.05 allows a change of judge without any cause because the two are in conflict. Thus, during the time period that Rule 51.05 applies, a motion for a change of judge should be treated as a motion filed under the provision of the rule and any allegation of cause should be treated as surplusage.
Hough, 819 S.W.2d at 752.
We find the analysis in Hornbuckle and Hough persuasive. At their arraignment, defendants filed documents with the court requesting a change of judge and presented those documents to the judge and the special prosecutor. The judge denied their motions even though they were sufficient to inform the judge and the prosecutor that defendants were requesting a change of judge. The judge should have treated the allegations of bias and prejudice as surplusage and treated the motions as if they were filed under Rule 32.07. If the motions were treated as being a request for a change of judge under Rule 32.07, the judge had no choice but to grant the motions.
The state argues that defendants are not entitled to a new trial based on these motions because defendants failed to properly serve the state, and defendants never gave notice of a hearing date as required by the rule.

The notice of hearing requirement is not an integral part of an application for a change of judge, and the Rule 32.07 (c) time constraints do not apply to the notice provision. State ex rel. Director of Revenue v. Scott, 919 S.W.2d 246, 248 (Mo. banc 1996); see also State ex rel. Director of Revenue v. Scott, 920 S.W.2d 170, 171 (Mo.App. 1996). The purpose of the notice requirement is to provide the opposing party an opportunity to be heard and to contest the form, timeliness and sufficiency of the motion. In re Buford, 577 S.W.2d 809, 827 (Mo.banc 1979). The failure to include a notice of hearing in an application is not fatal to the right to disqualify a judge when the application is otherwise timely filed and timely served upon the opposing party, the opposing party had an opportunity to contest the application, and no other cause for denying the application was presented or apparent to the trial court. Scott, 919 S.W.2d at 248. A party for whose benefit the notice provision exists may waive the notice of hearing requirement. Mountjoy, 831 S.W.2d at 247.
Here, the assistant prosecuting attorney was present and viewed the motions when Judge Rush denied them at defendants' arraignment. Defendant Gant mailed a copy of the motion to the state on August 27, 1996. The record does not reveal that the state made a timely objection to the insufficient notice of the August 23rd motion, therefore, it has waived its right to contest the sufficiency of the form of notice and whether it had a reasonable opportunity to contest the form, timeliness or sufficiency of the application need not be addressed.
We are required to review this case for plain error because defendants failed to file a motion for new trial. The trial judge took great care in the trial of this matter and performed admirably under the circumstances. However, we are constrained to find plain error rising to the level of manifest injustice because the trial judge refused to recuse himself pursuant to a timely motion. Therefore, he was without jurisdiction to proceed further other than to transfer the case. Mountjoy, 831 S.W.2d at 243. In light of our disposition of this point on appeal, we will not address defendants' remaining points on appeal. The judgments are reversed and remanded.
Separate Opinion:

Dr George A Freibott IV
Yungborn Institute
PO Box 502
Nordman, ID 83848.
(208) 443-4319
(775) 227-9353 FAX

Dear Ms. Weiser,
As you know, Dr. Bauer finally contacted me yesterday to inquire about a referral to a neurologist for Dario Busch. I was hoping to receive a referral from Karolinska University in Stockholm, Sweden to a neurologist in the states that would receive Mr. Busch. From what I can tell through communication with Dario’s mother, Karolinska is not interested in having Mr. Busch seen by a doctor in the states. The University would prefer that Mr. Busch be flown to Sweden and seen by them immediately. According to what you told me that Officer Lynn Park said to Dario’s mother, Elvira Busch, this does not seem to be an option for Mr. Busch at this time. Therefore, I have chosen the Gottlieb Memorial Hospital in Melrose Park, Illinois as the closest hospital that I would be willing to approve to test; diagnose and administer care to Dario Busch.
Although the Washington University Hospital in St. Louis is a very prestigious health care facility that I would also recommend, the problem is that Dario Busch is indigent and cannot afford his own health care. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital in Melrose, Illinois has a financial assistance non-profit program for indigent patients. Attached is an application for Mr. Busch to fill out in Spanish which is his primary language. Gottlieb is a multi-lingual facility that can accommodate his cultural needs as he recovers and heals from the atrocities of racism that he has suffered in Lincoln County Jail in the state of Missouri.
I am in contact with Dr. John Wilson and his associates, at Gottlieb Hospital’s Neurological Division. This hospital, and associated facilities of Loyola University, I have had interaction with on a professional basis for a number of years. Loyola’s orientation in both research and development of new technologies, combined with their mission statement of patient concern, care and attitudes towards the indigent, all help to mold my attitude as to the level of professional care and interaction they would have with my patient, Dario Busch. As Dr. Bauer verified with her statement that “[I] am Dario Busch’s physician,” therefore; I cannot agree to allow my patient to be seen anywhere else but Gottlieb Memorial Hospital in Melrose Park, Illinois. It angers me to know that Dario Busch was able to walk on his own two feet when he was arrested and now he is wheeled in and out of the courtroom in a wheel chair.
It makes no sense to me that Mr Busch has to pay exorbitant medical bills himself when negligence, incompetence, and flagrant disregard for human life displayed by the officers and staff at Lincoln County Jail, is what caused Dario’s health to deteriorate in the first place. However; I will leave these issues up to you as his advocate and the courts to decide. I will contact you tomorrow with an appointment for Dario Busch to be seen by the Neurological Division of Gottlieb Hospital after I have spoken personally with Dr. John Wilson. When I have prepared my faxed recommendation to Dr. Bauer, I will send you a copy as well.
I appreciate all the time and work you have invested in advocating for Dario Busch. I only wish that we could have gotten to this point sooner for Dario’s sake. He should not have had to suffer to the extent that he has and it is appalling to know that another country had to step in to request that our system behave with human compassion before Lincoln County Missouri would seek qualified medical care for one of their inmates.
Sincerely yours,
Dr George A Freibott IV

Gottlieb Memorial Hospital
701 West North Avenue
Melrose Park, IL 60160
(Patient Notice of Financial Aid)
El Hospital Gottlieb Memorial (GMH) se enorgullece de su misión “sin fin de lucro” de brindar atención de calidad a todos aquellos que la necesiten, sin tomar en cuenta su capacidad para pagar. GMH tratará a todos sus pacientes de manera equitativa, con dignidad y respeto.
Si el ingreso es menos de 300 por ciento de los Directrices Federal de Pobresa, usted puede ser elegible por ayuda financiera. Gottlieb Health Resources brinda ayuda financiera a nuestros pacientes basándose en sus ingresos, sus bienes y su necesidad. Además, quizás podamos ayudarle a obtener algún seguro médico provisto por el gobierno o acordar con usted los arreglos necesarios para obtener un plan de pagos que le resulte más accesible.
Responsabilidades del paciente:
Para que un paciente que carece de seguro (o cuya cobertura de seguro médico es limitada) pueda ser considerado por nosotros para recibir asistencia financiera, deberá cooperar con el hospital proveyéndonos la información y los documentos necesarios para solicitar otros recursos financieros disponibles.
Para poder recibir algún descuento bajo nuestras políticas de ayuda financiera, una persona que carezca de seguro médico (o cuya cobertura de seguro médico es limitada) deberá proveer a la organización toda la información financiera y demás elementos necesarios para determinar su elegibilidad.
Para mayor información, favor de ponerse en contacto con nuestro Departamento de Servicio al Consumidor, al (708) 450-4902. Trataremos sus preguntas con confidencialidad y cortesía.
Hospital Gottlieb Memorial
(Financial Assistance Application)
Nombre del/de la paciente: ___________________________________ Fecha:____________________
Nombre del/de la solicitante:
¿Algún miembro de su familia está incapacitado para trabajar debido a alguna lesión? Sí ____ No____
¿Cuántas personas viven en su apartamento? ______________________________________________
¿Cuáles son las edades de cada miembro de la familia? ______________________________________
¿Cuántos miembros de su familia están trabajando? _________________________________________
¿Es el/la jefe(a) de familia viudo(a) o divorciado(o)? Sí ____ No____
Si es divorciado(a), ¿recibe o paga manutención para los hijos o ex cónyuge?
____ Recibo manutención para mí y/o mis hijos $_____________ por mes
____ Pago manutención para mis hijos y/o mi ex cónyuge $_____________ por mes
¿Existen algunos otros problemas médicos o financieros que le gustaría que nosotros tomaramos en cuenta?
Bienes - Fondos en cuentas de cheques/ahorros $________________________
Ingresos anuales $ _________________________________________
Otros ingresos (favor de explicarlos) $ __________________________
Para procesar esta solicitud, necesita proveer copias de los siguientes documentos (NO ENVÍE LOS ORIGINALES):
1) La más reciente declaración de impuestos (Formulario 1040) y/o declaración del seguro social

2) Los dos más recientes talones de cheques de todas las personas que residen en su hogar y están empleadas

3) Los dos más recientes reportes de su cuenta del banco

4) Los dos más recientes reportes del banco donde tiene la hipoteca de su casa, o si renta, entonces los recibos de los pagos de la renta

5) Facturas de los gastos de los servicios (como electricidad, gas, etc.) y cualesquier otras facturas que usted desee considerar

Favor de entregar esta solicitud de ayuda financiera completamente llena con fotocopias de los documentos que estén relacionados, a:

Gottlieb Memorial Hospital
Patient Accounts Department
701 W. North Avenue
Melrose Park, IL 60160
___________________________________ _______________________

Dear Governor Nixon,

Please find attached copy of a mail I received today. It is from Ms. Raina Weiser, Executive Director of Sentinel of the Rockies Advocacy Project, to Mr. Bellamy, who I believe is in charge of Lincoln County Jail. My son, Dario F. Busch is incarcerated there since 30 September 2009 and Ms. Weiser is his authorized advocate.

My son, Dario, has a rare brain disorder. He has a congenital Arterial-Venous Malformation (AVM) which was being treated since 2006 by Dr. George Freibott, Md and ND, President of the American Naturopathic Association. Dario´s treatment was interrupted when he was incarcerated. Now, without the natural treatment, he is suffering severe symptoms and his health is deteriorating rapidly. This fact can be confirmed by Ms. Liselotte Fox, Honorary Consul of Sweden who visited him a few days ago. She has sent a report to the General Consulate of Sweden in New York stating Dario´s condition, which can be sent to you upon request.

Dario and I are nationalized Swedish and are Bolivian by birth. I am at present in Bolivia but I will be in Missouri shortly. I need you to please give me an interview so that I can express my concerns about my son´s health.

Governor Nixon, he needs a Gamma Knife procedure since the previous treatment he was having from Dr. Freibott would not be efficient enough now after so many seizures he has been having at the jail. If he continues to have seizures and other symptoms, he might have a haemorrhage from his brain and it could be fatal. He can die from it; he is only 38 years-old. I beg you to please consider verifying his health condition by allowing him to see a specialist. He needs to go immediately to a hospital and have an angiogram performed in his brain in order to save his life.

Please reply to this plea for my son’s life. My email address is:elvirabusch@hotmail.com.

Sincerely yours,

Martha Elvira Millán de Busch
Swedish ID: 460116-8182
Bolivian ID:229014 LP
Phone number: +591 725 29465

Dr. George Freibott
IOP Technologies Inc.
P. O. Box 502
Nordman, Idaho 83848

Date: Monday, November 30, 2009, 6:45 AM

Mr. Bellamy,

Attached are concerns; complaints and grievances from Dario Busch, an inmate in Lincoln County jail directed towards you. I do not know whether or not you have received these documents via U.S. Mail but I am forwarding them to you now with request that you read and respond to them on Dario's behalf in an effort to help him understand why it is that he has not been taken to the emergency room at the hospital to find out why he continues to suffer from blackouts and seizures while inside the medical unit at Lincoln County Jail.

Reports have come back to me from Ms. Fox at the Swedish Consulate in St. Louis and Dario's ex-wife, Robyn Busch, that Dario's physical health is deteriorating and it
is startlingly visible. Ms. Fox has sent her report to the Swedish Embassy in New York. Dario saw a doctor inside the jail yesterday; her name is Dr.Bauer. Dario was not allowed to see Dr. Bauer alone in confidence. Officer Lynn Park and another duty officer were in the room with him and he reported to me that Dr. Bauer was visibly intimidated by the officers' presence in the room so that she and Dario could not speak freely. Dario showed her that a lump has formed on his head and that it first appeared after he had a blackout. Dr. Bauer instructed the officers to get her the tape of the day the lump first appeared.Dario said the officers became angry and do not want to produce the tape for Dr. Bauer.

We have a former inmate that was housed with Dario Busch in the jail medical unit that reports to us that he pushed the button when Dario was having a seizure and an officer named "Peggy" came on the line and asked him to state his emergency. The inmate told the officer that Dario Busch was on the ground experiencing a seizure. Peggy told the inmate to just ignore Dario Busch;" "he has seizures all the time." "He will come out of it eventually."
I sent you a recorded tape of Lt. Lathrom threatening Dario Busch and you did not respond back. Every day that goes by we are gathering more evidence from Dario Busch's journal entries and recorded conversations with Lincoln County Jail to support Dario's allegations of Human Rights violations and 8th amendment right violations pertinent to cruel and unusual punishment.
In a previous email I sent you an attachment of Dario's Naturopathic doctor's recommendations that Dr. Bauer requested. In that document Dr. Freibott
recommended that Dario Busch be taken to the emergency room at the local hospital every time he has a blackout because Dario Busch is at risk of brain hemorrhage due to his AVM. No one has followed Dr. Freibott's recommendations. As a matter of fact, Officer Lynn Park told Dario that his doctor's recommendations would not be followed because she and Lr. Lathrom are in charge of all of Dario's
medical decisions.

I am curious as to why you never respond to my emails when I have tried to keep you informed of civil rights violations taking place in Lincoln County Jail and you do nothing to stop them from happening. You are allowing the state of Missouri to accumulate infractions that could easily result in a lawsuit under 42USC1983 yet you do nothing to intervene. I wonder why this is? Missouri statutes, constitutional law and now the treaty of 1863 between the United States and Bolivia, support my advocacy of Dario Busch and prohibited the kind of treatment he is getting in Lincoln County in terms of due process, and inhumane treatment, yet you do nothing and you ignore me and my pleas on behalf of Dario Busch. I would like to know the premise you are standing on that makes you comfortable in ignoring what is going on. Please respond as soon as possible.

Raina G. Weiser, MA


George A. Freibott IV, ND, MD (H).
Yungborn Institute
Nordman, Idaho 83848
(208) 443-4319
Fax: (775) 227-9353

TO: Dr. Bauer FROM: Yungborn Institute
PHONE: (636) 528-6100 PAGES: 2
FAX: (573) 242-3744 DATE: 11/18/09
RE: Dario Busch, Inmate Lincoln County Jail

It is my understanding that Dr. Martin in St. Louis is a Neurosurgeon and cannot take Dario as a patient without a referral from a neurologist. In 1999, Dario was referred to Dr. Martin by a Dr. Vaughn. It is my understanding that Dr. Vaughn is now retired and so is Anthony Dangelo, the fellow that evaluated Dario’s MRI in 1999. Dario last saw Dr. Vaughn in 2001. His files are in storage but his office is getting them together to send to you. Dario’s business partner, Donald Barber is in possession of Dario’s X-rays showing his AVM. It is my understanding that Dario took the X-rays to Sweden with him to Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm for another opinion and treatment. Dario kept his X-rays. Dario was afraid to do further testing and/or gamma knife surgery or radiation. He did not see another doctor for his AVM until he saw me.
I have seen Dario Busch in person numerous times and have been treating him from the state of Idaho where I live. I am semi-retired. I am the President of the American Naturopathic Association, Washington, DC. I have been treating Dario with oxygen therapies as his AVM is directly related to issues of oxygen flow to the brain. It is my understanding that you offered Dario Darvoset to help relieve his pain. I am not opposed to small doses of Darvoset, however continual utilization of Darvaset will impede oxidative functioning and continued healing in said patient.
It is my opinion that Dario should be taken to be evaluated by a neurologist as soon as possible to assess the damage that he has sustained under the conditions of his confinement in Lincoln County Jail. It is my understanding that Dario is being taken to and from his court hearings in a wheel chair. This is unconscionable as Dario was able to walk on September 30th when he was arrested, so deterioration is visually evident. It is also my understanding that a Lt. Lathrom has performed a “Sternal Rub” on Dario during moments that Dario passes out from the pressure of his AVM swelling when he is under stress. Lt. Lathrom, even if “qualified” to perform such a procedure, doesn’t mean that such should be implemented, especially without supervised medical personnel present.
We all understand that such procedures are extremely painful, and adding insult to injury isn’t necessarily a wise option if other medical complications are occurring. (i.e. hemorrhaging, spasms, etc.) When Dario looses consciousness he could be hemorrhaging and should be taken to a hospital.
I am going to contact the University Hospital in Sweden to confer with Darios’ doctors there to get their opinion and referral to a neurologist in the state of Missouri. Until I find a neurologist that both Sweden and I can agree upon, I consider Dario my patient and take responsibility for his care. The conditions that he is living under in Lincoln County Jail are extremely detrimental to his health as oxygen flow to the brain is vital to sustain life and in Dario’s case even minimal lack of oxygen could ultimately be fatal. The oxygen content in the air in a jail cell is restricted. Dario should have fresh air every day all day long. The oxygen content in the water he drinks in the jail is restricted. Dario needs an abundance of fresh water that is not chemically treated. Dario needs an abundance of oxygen rich foods that he cannot get inside the jail. He needs a special diet. My wife is a nutritionist and naturopath. She has a special diet that Dario needs to be on.
My suggestion is that Dario be released on his own recognizance for medical/health care reasons, the sooner, the better. It is my understanding from talking to his advocate, Raina Weiser, that Dario hasn’t even been formally charged with a crime and will not see a judge until December 22nd.He could be dead by then living under the conditions he is living under because his health is deteriorating and being under constant pain is extremely stressful.
Dr. George A Freibott IV

CC: Raina Weiser
Ms. Millán Busch,

In response to your e-mail below, I would like to inform you as follows.

Pursuant to the report by Liselotte Fox, Honorary Consul of Sweden in St. Louis, from her visit to your son on November 20, 2009 (annexed below), and to the claims expressed by your son, the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs has instructed the Swedish Consulate General in New York to request from the pertinent U.S. authority that your son be examined by a competent specialist with regard to his neurological condition, and that the required care be provided.

Establishing whether or not the period of imprisonment elapsed is compatible with the local legal system in relation to the cases involving your son, and taking into account that a hearing is scheduled for December 22, 2009, will require the examination and the legal actions of an attorney-at-law. From Ms. Fox report follows that Ms. Weiser is in the process of finding legal counsel for your son.

Very sincerely yours,

Jenny Malmquist
Desk Officer
Ministry for Foreign Affairs
Department for Consular Affairs and Civil Law
Phone: +46 8 405 1000
Direct no: +46 8 405 22 24
Fax: +46 8 723 11 76
E-mail: jenny.malmquist@foreign.ministry.se

Saint Louis

St. Louis 11.20.2009

Ms. Solveig Linka
Consulate General of Sweden
One Dag Hammarksjöld Plaza
885 Second Avenue, 45th floor
New York, NY 10017

Dear Ms. Linka,
I met, for the second time in 4 weeks, with Dario Busch in Lincoln County Jail, Missouri on Friday, November 20, 2009 for about 1.15 hours. The reason for my visit was to discuss with him how he was feeling and how he felt he was being treated.
Mr. Busch appeared noticeably frailer today than when I met with on October 16, 2009. During our meeting, I observed that he was limping, or dragging his feet, and that his hands and legs were shaking. I asked him about his condition, and Mr. Busch stated that his mental and physical state is deteriorating every day. He also stated that he has head aches, pain in arms and legs, and that his right ear and eye is functioning at only 50 %.
Here are claims by Dario Busch.
• He has spent 44 days in the jail hospital.
• The hospital is like solitary confinement with no windows, but that he has access to a TV.
• He has been denied any kind of medicine for bodily aches and pains.
• The nurse, Dianne Cockrell, and other jail staff are ignoring most of his requests.
• He has been denied any type of treatment for his AVM.
• He has had over 20 seizures and 8 mini strokes since his confinement in jail.
• He has seizures every night and wakes up with blood in his mouth.
• That he would like to have the homeopathic medicine prescribed by Dr. George Freibott in Idaho. Mr. Busch states that this medicine is some form of oxygen therapy and relives the headaches.
• The jail nurse has offered him Tylenol and Motrin, but that Dr. Freibott strongly recommends against Dario Busch taking this form of medication due to his AVM. However, Dr. Freibott stated that Dario Busch can take a pain medication called Darvisett.
• The newly appointed jail doctor, Dr. Bauer, has offered Darvisett to Mr. Busch, but that he prefers not to take it.
• That he had a hearing last week before Judge Amy Kinker, requesting a change of venue, but was denied.
• That he has not yet been formally charged.
• Raina Weiser is his legal counsel.
• He has been asked, by Raina Weiser, to keep a daily journal.
• That the jail is blocking most of his calls. He is only allowed to make phone calls to his friends Don Barber and Raina Weiser.
• That most of his requests, (toilet paper, blankets, medicine and doctor) are either denied to takes longer than 48 or process.
I spoke with Raina Weiser, Mr. Busch’s legal counsel, who lives in the state of Washington. Although she is not an attorney by trade, she states that she has enough legal knowledge and is therefore legally able to represent Mr. Busch. Ms. Weiser is in the process of finding an attorney for Mr. Busch and has been in contact with a Louis Horrowitz in St. Peters, Missouri.
Please note that I am only reporting on what was said by Mr. Dario Busch and by what I saw when visiting him in the Lincoln County Jail.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about this report.
Best Regards,

Liselotte Fox

Liselotte Fox, Hon. Consul 7701 Forsyth Blvd. Suite 600
(314) 889-0899 St. Louis, MO 63105

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *