Henry Stoever was one of five persons who crossed the property line May 31, 2021, Memorial Day, at the KC National Security Campus, where 85 percent of the non-nuclear parts for US nuclear weapons are made or procured. Henry’s case was “bifurcated” from that of the other four defendants because he is a retired lawyer. At Henry’s trial Feb. 23, 2022, Prosecutor Jesse Sendejas and Judge Katherine Emke prevented him from entering this trial brief as an exhibit, and blocked him from addressing his intent and purposes for his action.

IN THE 16th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF MISSOURI, MUNICIPAL COURT DIVISION AT KANSAS CITY, COURT G

CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, PLAINTIFF,

Ticket No. 5G058862, COURT G, TRIAL: January 26, 2022, 1:30 PM (Special Setting)

VS. HENRY M. STOEVER,  DEFENDANT.

DEFENDANT’S LEGAL BRIEF OF HIS RIGHTS AND DEFENSES: VIOLATIONS OF U.S. CONSTITUTION, 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, RIGHT TO LIFE, AND CLAIMS OF RIGHT, ETC.

COMES NOW the Defendant, Henry M. Stoever, and for his Legal Brief of his Rights and Defenses: Violation of U.S. Constitution, 1st Amendment Rights, Right To Life, and Claims of Right, etc., for the Special Trial Setting for Wednesday, January 26, 2022, at 1:30 PM, to be heard in Court G, states to the Court:

ISSUE:  Is there Constitutional Authority for the extermination of all life on Earth by the planning, making and launching of weapons of mass destruction?

ISSUE:  Who takes Responsibility for the nuclear dilemma in which weapons of mass destruction can and may destroy all life on this Earth, and the state of nuclear terror that impacts all of our lives?

ISSUE:  Do the principles of life and liberty as stated in the Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution, as well as the principles of equal protection and due process,  require this Defendant and others to challenge the policies for the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and the state of nuclear terror that impacts all of our lives?

ISSUE:  Does the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution protect the right of free expression of Religion whereby Defendant gives advance notice and expresses his beliefs that no government has the right to exterminate all or part of the world’s peoples, and whereby Defendant makes his beliefs known and steps across an alleged boundary line, when the state of nuclear terror impacts all of our lives?

ISSUE:   Does the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution protect the right of free speech and assembly whereby Defendant steps across an alleged boundary line in protest to the making and procuring of parts for nuclear weapons at the local weapons facility?

 

BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE

  1. The Nuclear Age began by the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima,

Japan on August 6, 1945, and on Nagasaki, Japan on August 9, 1945.  Both cities were obliterated instantaneously, each by just one bomb, killing over 200,000 persons near the epicenters.

  1. In response to the use of atomic weapons, Albert Einstein said in 1945:

“The release of atomic power has changed everything except our way of thinking … the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind.  If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.”

  1. Robert Oppenheimer, head of the wartime Los Alamos Laboratory, the

birthplace of the Manhattan Project, and seen as the father of the atomic bomb, witnessed the first detonation of a nuclear weapon on July 16, 1945, at Alamogordo test range, New Mexico. While watching the fireball of the Trinity nuclear test, Oppenheimer quoted from a piece of Hindu scripture from the Bhagavad Gita that ran through his mind: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”  Oppenheimer referred to these thoughts going through his mind in a 1965 TV broadcast.

  1. The Soviet Union detonated its first atomic bomb on August 29, 1949. In

response to this, the US tested the world’s first thermonuclear weapon, a hydrogen bomb in 1952.  The hydrogen bomb was approximately 1,000 times more powerful than an atomic nuclear device.  The Soviet Union tested its own hydrogen bomb in 1953. The US and the Soviet Union were engaged in an ever-escalating arms race.

  1. The nuclear weapon States have engaged in a massive build-up of such

weapons, engaged in testing (in the atmosphere, underground, under water and in outer space), which caused all the peoples of the world to suffer radioactive pollution, including Strontium-90 in the milk supply, increased thyroid cancers, and other illnesses, as well as deployment of nuclear weapons by air, sea and land.

  1. The nuclear powers, including the US, have entered various treaties in regard to nuclear weapons, such as atmospheric test ban treaties, treaties in regard to nuclear weapons in outer space, and strategic arms limitation treaties.  HOWEVER, these nuclear countries are also engaged in a massive up-grade of their armaments, which they call modernization, but which creates even more deadly and effective weapons of mass destruction, costing us billions of dollars.  I consider these acts a violation of the letter and spirit of the treaties entered upon.
  1. NUREMBERG PRINCIPLES AND RULES OF CONDUCT:  Following the end of World War II, and the discovery of heinous crimes committed by the Nazi Government, and after the end of the first Nuremberg trial of Nazi leaders, the United Nations passed on November 21, 1947, General Assembly Resolution 177, in order to codify the “Nuremberg Principles.”  The seven principles were adopted on July 29, 1950.  Principle VI sets out crimes punishable as crimes under international law.  “(a) Crimes against peace: (i.) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii.) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). (b) War Crimes:  Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, … killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. (c) Crimes against humanity:  Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation or other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.”  The question is are we (the USA) engaged in war crimes and crimes against humanity by making, procuring, deploying, threating to use weapons of mass destruction, and having a policy of First Strike – that our weapons will always be armed and ready to launch and strike at a moment’s notice if we feel threatened, whether an actual threat or a mistaken false threat, thereby injuring most or all of the people on this planet?
  1. UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: Adopted on December 10, 1948, by the General Assembly of the United Nations, this Declaration sets  out fundamental human rights of all persons to be universally protected.  The Preamble speaks of “the inherent dignity and the equal inalienable rights of all members of the human family as the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”  “Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and whereas the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people …”  The thirty (30) Articles embody all rights essential for persons to live in freedom.  Nuclear weapons of mass destruction, their production, deployment and use would violate all of these essential rights found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  1. MAJOR RELIGIOUS LEADERS HAVE CONDEMNED NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Quoting from statements of Pope Francis and prior Popes, in a new pastoral letter issued January 11, 2022, Archbishop John Wester of Santa Fe, New Mexico, urges the local community and the world to join “a renewed commitment to the cause of peace” with the goal of eliminating all global nuclear weapons arsenals. The document, “Living in the Light of Christ’s Peace: A Conversation Toward Nuclear Disarmament,” challenges conventional political thinking that possessing nuclear weapons serves as a deterrence to potential attacks from other nuclear powers. “We can no longer deny or ignore the extremely dangerous predicament of our human family. We are in a new nuclear arms race far more dangerous than the first.” “Years of planned weapon modernization among the nuclear powers is contributing to a new arms race. It’s such an important topic that we really can’t dally.” The pastoral letter is not meant to criticize those who work in the nuclear weapons industry or the military, but is an invitation to begin conversations that can lead to abolishing such weapons in order to protect humanity and the Earth. The 52-page pastoral letter cites the words of Pope Francis, who several times during his papacy has urged the world to eliminate nuclear arsenals because of the threat they pose. The document also traces the history of the church’s long-held stance against nuclear weapons beginning with St. John XXIII in “Pacem in Terris” (“Peace on Earth”) in 1963 and continuing through the papacies of St. John Paul VI, St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict. The pastoral letter also serves as an invitation to readers to review the nonviolent practices of Jesus, and put them into practice. “To love our enemies means we have to begin the process of ending our preparations to kill them, including our preparations to drop nuclear weapons on them. Nuclear weapons are not the will of the nonviolent Jesus, and it is time we took his rebuke seriously. If we listen, we can hear Jesus’ voice crying out today: Stop building nuclear weapons, do not prepare for nuclear war, dismantle your nuclear weapons, and welcome God’s reign of universal love and peace.” The release of the pastoral letter follows Wester’s unveiling Dec. 19 of a sign outside of the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Santa Fe depicting Francis and a quote the pope offered during a visit to Hiroshima in November 2019: “The possession of nuclear arms is immoral.”

            Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Beyond Vietnam speech states: “…we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values.  We must rapidly begin the shift from a ‘thing-oriented’ society to a ‘person-oriented’ society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered. … A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” –“Beyond Vietnam” (April 1967). And MLK said, “It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence.  It is either nonviolence or non-existence.”

  1. TREATY ON THE PROHIBITION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS (TPNW): A major development occurred at the United Nations in 2017.  The General Assembly held a conference to negotiate a legally binding international agreement to prohibit nuclear weapons, with the ultimate goal being their total elimination. On July 7, 2017, one hundred twenty-two (122) member nations voted for the approval of the Treaty, with two (2) nations opposed, and one (1) abstention. There are 86 nations that have signed the Treaty and 59 nations that have ratified the Treaty within their own country’s legislatures.  The Treaty became International Law on January 22, 2021, three months after the 50th state (Honduras) ratified the Treaty.  It is expected that additional countries will adopt this Treaty into their domestic law in the near future.  Public opinion polls in at least six NATO member states show a high level of support to sign the treaty.  It is only a matter of time before political leaders will accede to the will of their people to join the TPNW.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) includes a comprehensive set of prohibitions on participating in any nuclear weapon activities.  The prohibitions include not to develop, test, produce, acquire, possess, stockpile, use or threaten to use nuclear weapons.  The Treaty also prohibits the deployment of nuclear weapons on national territory and the provision of assistance to any State in the conduct of prohibited activities.  States parties will be obliged to prevent and suppress any activity prohibited under the TPNW undertaken by a person or on territory under its jurisdiction or control.

The Ban Treaty came about due to interest in the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons.  Over 2/3 of the world’s countries support the Ban Treaty because nuclear weapons threaten all life on earth.  They do not keep us safe.  They could be set off by accident or by hacking, through theft by terrorists, or by war.  They are designed to burn cities, which would loft tons of soot into the atmosphere, block the sun, and plunge the world into another Ice Age.  Crop failures for years would cause billions to starve to death.  The only way to keep us safe is to eliminate these weapons of mass destruction. The Ban Treaty sets a worldwide standard even if the U.S. doesn’t sign it.  It’s an international traty between countries.  It is the beginning of the end of nuclear weapons.

Today, nine nations have nuclear weapons, and the United States and Russia possess around 91 percent of the world’s nuclear armaments. While China and Russia are modernizing and expanding their nuclear capabilities, in 2020, the U.S. increased its spending on nuclear weapons to $37.4 billion — more than twice what Russia and China spent combined.  We are in the midst of a second nuclear arms race. In 2020 and 2021, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set the Doomsday Clock at 100 seconds to midnight, dangerously close to devastation.  On January 20, 2022, the scientists kept the Doomsday Clock at the same time, 100 seconds to midnight.

So, we must make the Ban Treaty work by joining organizations such as The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), PeaceWorks-KC, etc., and by asking our elected officials to support the Treaty through resolutions and statements of support such as the ICAN cities appeal.  We need to press financial institutions to divest from nuclear weapon companies, like New York City recently did.  We must encourage faculty and students to demand their universities sever ties with nuclear weapon companies.  Honeywell, for example, has working agreements with many of our region’s major universities with the goal of recruiting students to work at Kansas City’s nuclear bomb parts plant.  We need to invest in things that truly build peace and security, such as stopping the pandemic, reversing climate change, building up infrastructure, investing in housing, education and job training.  If not, nuclear weapons could wreak global catastrophe at an unimaginable scale and bring life on Earth to a sudden and unexpected end.

The Ban Treaty stigmatizes nuclear weapons and restricts the 36 multinational corporations that make them. The treaty represents a new norm in which nuclear weapons are not only immoral, but also illegal. The 59 countries (and counting) that have ratified the Ban Treaty within their own legislatures can have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear weapons or assist these companies in any way.  For example, Ireland already has made this law punishable by fine or imprisonment for life!  Another example is Mexico.  Honeywell has a factory in Mexico that makes air conditioners.  Mexico could pass a law that prohibits government or private financial support for the factory.  And if the Honeywell CEO visited the factory, he could be arrested.

International treaties affect the U.S. even if we don’t sign them.  For example, we didn’t sign the landmine international treaty, but no company in the U.S. makes landmines anymore.  Furthermore, the US has contributed funds to help victims of land mines.

The Ban Treaty mandates assisting radiation victims and cleaning up contaminated environments.  A recent UN statement says, “Nuclear weapons testing has displaced Indigenous and Pacific Islander communities, rendering their lands unsafe, uninhabitable, and toxic.”  The U.S. exploded about 1,000 nuclear bombs in New Mexico, Nevada and the Marshall Islands during testing.

Also, uranium mining on the Navajo and Dakota (Sioux) reservations highly contaminated the lands, and the companies never properly sealed up these mines when they abandoned them.  This resulted in hundreds of thousands of people who suffer from dozens of types of deadly cancers and birth defects.

The U.S. Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to down-winders and atomic soldiers affected by radiation exposure, but many more have never received anything, including some General Service Administration workers at the former Bannister Federal Complex, here in Kansas City.  This compensation program is due to end in the U.S. on July 11, 2022.  The Ban Treaty could stimulate further assistance for victims, such as expanding RECA.

  1. The Kansas City National Security Campus (KCNSC) has expanded by 50% over the last year, the budget has soared from millions of dollars a few years ago to a projected $1.28 Billion dollars in 2022.  In 2014, when the new plant opened, there were about 2,500 employees, and now there are about 6,000 employees!  Their website says: KCNSC is one of eight sites that comprise the NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration). Our primary focus is manufacturing 85 percent of non-nuclear components that go into the nuclear stockpile. The KCNSC develops advanced solutions for complex national security issues, from prototype simulations to production to quality testing. At the former plant, they made 2/3 of the parts on-site and procured 1/3.  At the new plant, they make 1/3 on-site and procure 2/3.  As the plant finally admitted using 2,400 toxins at the former site, it is interesting to wonder if toxic processes are still used at the current site. The budget for Kansas City’s National Security Campus is known as follows: Every year the proposed budget for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) under the Department of Energy (DOE) is released.  The budget lists the amount of money requested for each specific bomb.

The programs for the bombs being made now are called Life Extension Programs (LEPs), that is, they extend the life of the bomb up to 90 years.

There are three categories of bombs, called the nuclear triad: Inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) (in underground bunkers), gravity bombs (dropped by the B-2 Spirit (Stealth Bomber) at Missouri’s Whiteman AFB), and sea-launched warheads from SSBNs (strategic nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines).

The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA) meticulously researches the yearly budgets and does annual lobbying in Washington DC.  Members of PeaceWorks-KC have participated in these lobby days since 2008.  Numerous other organizations lobby regarding nuclear weapons, such as Physicians for Social Responsibility, Peace Action, and the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), and people from Kansas City participate in these lobby days as well.

A sample of some of the bombs listed in the KC National Security Campus budget with their requested amounts for 2022 are:

B61 LEP                                         $290,000,000.  gravity bombs, some of which are deployed in European countries under NATO.

W88  Alteration Program                  $61,491,000 submarine launched.

W80-4 LEP                                         $176,066,000 air-launched cruise missile.

W80-4 Alteration Program-SCLM   $200,000 submarine-launched ballistic missile.

W87-1 Modification Program $75,000,000 ground-based.

W93 Program                          $3,000,000 submarine launched.

12. Imminence of the use of nuclear weapons or nuclear materials is a clear and present danger.  In the book “Nuclear Terrorism:  The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe,” Graham Allison, 2004, who served as former Assistant Secretary of Defense for policy and plans, on pages 5 and 6, quotes from a cover story in the New York Times Magazine, in May, 2002, which states, “Eugene Habiger, retired four-star general who had overseen strategic nuclear weapons until 1998 and had run nuclear antiterror programs for the Department of Energy until 2001. Summarizing his decade of daily experience dealing with threats, Habiger offered a categorical conclusion about nuclear terrorism: ‘it is not a matter of if; it is a matter of when.’”  These same conclusions were made by Daniel Ellsberg, weapons planner and whistle-blower during the Vietnam War, author of “The Doomsday Machine:  Confessions of a nuclear war planner.” When asked about the probability of nuclear war, Ellsberg said “It’s not a question of a precise probability, but in terms of betting odds:  Too great.  We shouldn’t have the right to keep it above 0.”

  1. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded in 1945 by Albert Einstein and University of Chicago scientists who helped develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created the Doomsday Clock two years later, using the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero) to convey threats to humanity and the planet. The Doomsday Clock is set every year by the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 13 Nobel laureates. The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world’s vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, and disruptive technologies in other domains. In 2020 and 2021, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set the Doomsday Clock at 100 seconds to midnight, dangerously close to devastation.  On January 20, 2022, the scientists kept the Doomsday Clock at the same time, 100 seconds to midnight.
  2. “Five World Leaders Issue Pledge To Prevent Nuclear War,” dated Monday, January 3, 2022, was the joint statement issued by China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States, saying that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.  This joint statement was issued in advance of the latest review of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) review conference.  Yet work on nuclear weapon parts continues at the Kansas City National Security Campus (NSC).
  3. In approx. 1949, the old Kansas City Plant at Bannister Road and Troost Avenue, Kansas City, MO, began work in regard to nuclear weapons, their parts and the operation of nuclear weapons.  Prior to the closing of the old Kansas City Plant in 2014, that plant was found to be severely contaminated into perpetuity with over two thousand (+2,000) dangerous chemicals present at that site, which it is alleged caused persons to die and others to become seriously ill.
  1. In the last years of the old Kansas City Plant, Russ Ptacek, an investigative reporter for NBC Action News, Channel 41, in KC MO, in the early 2010s reported that many persons who had worked at the Kansas City Plant or other facilities at Bannister Federal Complex (BFC) had become ill or died. Why? From contaminants in the making of non-fissile parts for nuclear weapons. The toxins at the plant sometimes spread through the BFC halls and heating and cooling ducts. Ptacek gathered together persons sick from the contaminants and family members to participate in interviews about the contaminants. The list NBC Action News put together based on telephone reports from sick persons and the family members of dead employees at BFC included 154 dead persons (mostly employees) and about 250 persons ill from the contaminants.
  1. The newly built 2014 Kansas City nuclear weapon parts plant is located at 14520 Botts Road, Kansas City, Jackson County, MO 64145.  On August 22, 2014, this new Kansas City nuclear weapon parts plant held a Dedication to open this new nuclear weapons facility, named the Nuclear Security Campus (NSC).  This plant was built for the purpose of manufacturing, procuring and assembling parts for nuclear weapons for this country.   The NSC creates or procures or assembles the triggering system, the guidance system, and other non-nuclear interior and exterior parts for nuclear weapons, approx. 85% of the parts of U.S. nuclear weapons.  In effect, the NSC constructs the “gun weapon,” and the bullets for the weapon are constructed and installed elsewhere, although this may change in the near future.
  1. Since 2010, activists have protested and done civil disobedience at the old and new nuclear weapon parts plant.  There have been over 150 arrests of persons who have demonstrated their opposition to nuclear weapons and to the eco-genocide these weapons can cause.  During these years, Attorney Henry M. Stoever has communicated in advance with members of the Kansas City, MO Police Department, to confirm that a demonstration would occur at a particular date, time and place, that this event would be a totally non-violent protest, that there would be no difficulties in preventing the officers from doing their duties, and the number of persons who would risk arrest.  In the past five years, Attorney Henry M. Stoever has communicated with Kansas City Missouri Police Department Officers — Sgt. Hope, Captain Perne, Captain Todd Paulson, and Captain Ryan Mills.  Also, in these past five (5) years, Attorney Henry M. Stoever has communicated in advance directly with Honeywell’s Protective Force Lt. Bill Birkner, who has been a complaining witness.  And more recently, Lt. Bill Birkner has retired, and since then Henry M. Stoever has communicated with Lt. Mike Clark and Lt. Bryan Gomez, in advance of these protest actions, and they would share information.
  1. The National Security Campus (NSC), at 14520 Botts Road, KCMO, is open, with no staffed personnel or barriers such as a gate or check-point identification site.  The NSC is visited by vendors, by workers, staff members, contractors, politicians and other visitors.  The street entrance is staffed only on the date when a planned protest is scheduled, and these actions have often occurred on Memorial Day, a national holiday, when there was no production staff present.

THE ACTION

  1. Prior to the Action of May 31, 2021, Memorial Day, Henry M. Stoever communicated with the security guards at the National Security Campus and with KCMO Police officer Sgt. Craig Hope a number of times.  In addition, on May 16, 2021, Henry M. Stoever and James Hannah drove out to the National Security Campus to meet in person with the security officers Mike Clark and Bryan Gomez, and KCMO Police Officer Sgt. Craig Hope to answer any questions they may have.
  1. On May 31, 2021, the activists and supporters met one mile west of the Plant, at Missouri Highway 150 and Prospect, and walked the one-mile nature trail that passes directly in front of the new nuclear weapons parts plant.  This one-mile nature trail ends near the entrance of the driveway to the new National Security Campus, at 14520 Botts Road, Kansas City, MO 64145.
  1. On May 31, 2021, there were 70 supporters in attendance on the right-of-way who listened to speeches, music, prayerful reflections, and participated in a die-in where the names were read of some of the 154 persons listed as having died as a result of working at or near the old Kansas City Plant — giving the name, age at diagnosis, and illness of the deceased — and then persons laid down on the sidewalk or on the grass for a “die-in,” much like the 1960s sit-ins, teach-ins, bus counter sit-ins, etc.  Following a blessing from the supporters, then the five defendants, including Defendant Henry M. Stoever, approached the driveway entrance to 14520 Botts Road, KCMO, where they were met by security officers.
  1. On May 31, 2021, Henry M. Stoever read from his prepared statement, “WHY DOES HENRY M. STOEVER RISK ARREST AGAIN AT THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS PARTS PLANT,” and he gave a copy of his prepared statement to Sgt. Craig Hope, South Patrol, KCPD.  This prepared statement reads as follow:

WHY DOES HENRY M. STOEVER RISK ARREST AGAIN AT THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS PARTS PLANT: As a 72-year-old person who was born in Germany in December 1948, as an immigrant in 1951; as a conscientious objector to all wars, gaining this status in 1970; as one who has practiced law in Missouri and Kansas for forty (40) years; as one who deeply cares about justice, all life and family; as one moved by faith and hope, I feel I have fought war my whole life. I act as follows:

  1. A matter of conscience, that small voice within that asks me to be more faithful to a God of Love, to spiritual matters, to the whole of creation in regard to this grave, imminent situation at hand;
  2. A matter of justice for the entire world. Gandhi said “I regard the employment of the atom bomb for the wholesale destruction of men, women and children as the most diabolical use of science”;
  3. My German heritage compels me to speak out and take risks, for now is the time to protest and make objection to these weapons of mass destruction;
  4. Words such a UNSPEAKABLE, HOLOCAUST, GENOCIDE CULPABILITY, REPAIRERS OF THE BREACH, etc., touch my soul and compel me to act;
  5. Love of family, friends, all of nature, the world, and you;
  6. A sacrifice must be made, as in a religious liturgy, to involve oneself in a spiritual nonviolent way to touch hearts and minds, with the right mind of truth and mindfulness that we are all sisters and brothers who are inter-related, and are inter-dependent to see our way out of this tragedy.

I see our action as an “INTERVENTION” in a very dangerous situation.  When one sees a suicidal person, or someone who is of great danger to self or to others, a brave person is compelled to intervene.  We are addicted to war, and we are on the verge of omnicide.  I argue that it is necessary to do an intervention to rescue the planet, to disrupt the danger, to expose the danger, and to foster change.  Our tools are the courage of nonviolence.

Henry M. Stoever

  1. This writing serves as basis for Henry M. Stoever’s principled, nonviolent and lawful actions. Said Statement will be offered into evidence at trial, as part of the officer’s cross examination, and as part of Henry Stoever case in chief.
  2. After allegedly stepping over a painted line in the street, and after refusing to retreat, Defendant was taken into custody, hands were placed behind his back and into a plastic strap or handcuffs, and Defendant was escorted to folding chairs, for booking and for issuing a citation.  Defendant was cited on a trespassing charge.  Defendant has pled not guilty and seeks this trial.
  1. Defendant will assert that his very own life and those he loves are at risk, and that there is a clear and present danger of the use of nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
  1. Defendant asserts that the actions of the Kansas City National Security Campus have grown by the increase of personnel from formerly 1,800 to 2,200 to now an expansion of over 6,000 employees, that this weapons plant seeks more off-site space from its 160 acres for warehouse facilities, and this Plant is engaged in the modernization of nuclear weapons, despite treaties to restrict or limit the use of nuclear weapons.
  2. Defendant will testify that his actions were of a symbolic and preventative nature, in light of these nuclear weapon parts being produced, procured and assembled at this site, and Defendant will assert the following Rights and Defenses.

DEFENDANT’S THEORIES OF DEFENSE

ISSUE 1.  VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION:

Is there Constitutional Authority for the extermination of all life on Earth by the planning, making and launching of weapons of mass destruction? The Framers of our U.S. Constitution would never have imagined that we are in a situation where all life on earth could be irreparably destroyed, exterminated.  Such a concept is sheer madness, one used by despots and evil persons.  The very existence and threatened use of nuclear weapons is irreconcilable with this basic social contract, for we are to have a government of checks and balances and separation of power.  The purposes and intent of our US Constitution is to govern us as a people, to protect the people’s inalienable rights and privileges.  We take oaths to support and defend the US Constitution.  The Constitution has provisions for amending the Constitution, or we could vote to dissolve our country, or have a civil war.  But there is no provision for the extermination of life on this planet.  There was never an intent for “We the People” to join in a suicide mission, rendering null and void the US Constitution.

The U.S. has not declared war since 1942, despite the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.  Congress has shirked its duty to debate, oversee and enforce its powers.  At the present, our nuclear weapons are on “first strike” status, ready to be launched at a moment’s notice, at any time.  Today, when the U.S. President travels, the nuclear briefcase (football) is carried by security nearby the President.  Daniel Ellsberg book, The Doomsday Machine:  Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, December, 2017, states that U.S. government documents revealed that President Dwight D. Eisenhower empowered a few top military officers to be able to use nuclear weapons without presidential authorization in case there was incapacitation or no way to contact the president.  In his book, Ellsberg said that a Major in the US Air Force in South Korea told him that if he believed that a nuclear war had probably begun and his command communications had been broken, he would launch his dozen aircrafts with their nuclear weapons, which would likely reach their pre-assigned targets.  Ellsberg believes that similar procedures remain in place today, in sharp contrast to what the American public is told about how the “nuclear football” works.  This “nuclear football” concept makes the American public feel the US nuclear arsenal is safe, when it is not.

Our Framers never imagined that one person, the President, could order a launch of weapons of mass destruction, without the intervention of Congress, or We, the People.  The current status in effect disables the Legislative Branch, as a check.  The purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to make it difficult to go to war.  That constitutional check has been breached, and We, the Citizens, must take a stance.

This situation is not idle speculation. Daniel Ellsberg says in his book, supra, that every U. S. President, since Truman, with the possible exception of Ford, has considered the use of nuclear weapons, sometimes covertly.   President Truman threatened the use of nuclear weapons against the USSR and China.  President Eisenhower considered use of nuclear weapons on two (2) occasions, and he delegated the power to use nuclear weapons to certain field commanders if he were unavailable; President John F. Kennedy considered use of nuclear weapons on three (3) occasions, including on Cuba, coming within a hair’s breadth of a nuclear catastrophe; President Lyndon B. Johnson considered use of nuclear weapons; and President Richard M. Nixon considered using nuclear weapons on three (3) occasions, other than on Vietnam.

In the drafting of and the debates to ratify the Constitution of the United States, one of the purposes of the Founders was to “chain the dogs of war,” which was done by separating the powers among the three branches of government – wars must be declared by the Houses of Congress, funding authority was given to Congress, and the President is a manager of military affairs in a time of conflict. The more recent War Powers Resolution limits the amount of time that a President may act, unless Congressional approval is given. But that limited amount of time to act does not occur when nuclear weapons are at ready to launch at any time.  Further, our Government is one of limited, enumerated powers.  Given that nuclear weapons pose the greatest danger to the future of civilization and our planet, then nuclear weapons are seen as a direct threat to the continued existence of our Constitution of the United States, a direct threat to our form of government, a direct threat to all life on Earth, a threat to the rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, to due process, to equal protection under the Law.

With a nuclear war, we will have lost all of our Constitutional protections – as we sit “on death row” literally, we lack charges of any criminal nature, we lack the ability to mount a defense, we lack the power to take the witness stand, or to cross-examine, or to appeal an unjust decision.  We are at the mercy of a leader who boldly states to North Korea, “My nuclear button is much bigger and more powerful than your button, and my Button Works!”  Similar threats have been made directed to Iran and Afghanistan.  Faced with a mercurial, compulsive leader, as President Donald Trump was, we are at a constitutional crisis that must be addressed.

The U.S. Congress has had legislation introduced to restrict “First Use of Nuclear Weapons,” H.R. 669, Senate Bill 1148; however, that legislation was introduced in the House on January 24, 2017, and nothing has happened with that legislation.  I have been on zoom conference calls with Kansas Congresswoman Sharice Davids’ staff and with Kansas Senator Roger Marshall’s staff on this very topic.  I have been to Senator Jerry Moran’s office in person in regard to this legislation.  I have used conventional methods of bringing about change.

As officers of the Court, we, as the Judge, and as an attorney, have taken a solemn oath “to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.”  It is an obligation to raise these grave issues in light of this constitutional crisis.

All members of our federal, state and local governments also take an oath “to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution,” yet what have they done to protect us from these weapons of mass destruction?

According to the U.S. Constitution’s Ninth Amendment, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  As noted in the U.S. Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Since our federal and state governments do not address this state of mutual terror, it is for “we, the people” to raise these issues in a public and non-violent way.

ISSUE 2:  WHO TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE NUCLEAR DILEMMA IN WHICH WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CAN AND MAY DESTROY ALL LIFE ON THIS EARTH, AND THE STATE OF NUCLEAR TERROR THAT IMPACTS ALL OF OUR LIVES?

Each of us has a duty and responsibility to speak out and act in a manner that protects the “inalienable rights of all persons.”  What are the limits a government may take to protect safety and integrity of our society?  We speak of “over-kill” and “blindness to justice.”  Reflecting back on our history, no one has taken responsibility for the genocide that happened to the Indigenous Peoples of America. No one has taken responsibility for the enslavement of Africans forcibly taken from their homes in Africa, placed in bondage and enslaved.  Our society continues to suffer from these badges of slavery by too much violence and racial discrimination.    I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS DEATH WATCH IN REGARD TO NUCLEAR WEAPONS THAT IS OCCURRING AT THIS VERY TIME, AND I CANNOT IDEALLY STAND BY. We are starring into the face of nuclear annihilation.  What am I, or we going to do about this?  It is no accident that the US military budget for 2022 is $768 Billion, roughly $24 Billion more than the White House requested.  This military budget exceeds the combined military budgets of the next ten (10) countries, China, India, Russia, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Japan, ­­South Korea, and Italy. In 2020, the US military budget accounted for almost forty (40) percent of the world’s military expenditure.  And we say we are a peaceful people, yet armed to the teeth, with a policy to keep nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert to use at any moment. The five great nuclear powers say they do not approve of a nuclear war and made statements on January 3, 2022, “We affirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought…”  Yet we continue to possess these weapons of mass destruction, and these weapons are being made or procured and assembled in our midst at the National Security Campus, KCMO.  Is this hypocrisy?  Is this madness?  We must speak out and take nonviolent action.  We must confront this evil and speak for victims.  We must look at the totality of the circumstances, the grave situation we are in, and recognize the nonviolent efforts for reform.

ISSUE 3:  Do the principles of life and liberty as stated in the Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution as well as the principles of equal protection and due process, require this Defendant and others to challenge the policies for the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and the state of nuclear terror that impacts all of our lives?

The Founders of our country endorsed our rebellion for “certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” as stated in the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.  The Preamble of the US Constitution declares “establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”   Our US Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788.  Do we want to nullify our US Constitution by the use of nuclear weapons, an exchange of nuclear destruction, whether by accident or by design or intent?  Studies have shown that a mere exchange of 150 older nuclear missiles by India and by Pakistan will cause nuclear winter to this planet, which will fill the skies with soot and nuclear pollution, causing crops to not get adequate sunlight for growth. The consequences of ten years of nuclear winter will eliminate most of the world’s population.  The nuclear arsenals of Russia and of the US each have 3,500 nuclear missiles, far more than what would cause irreparable damage to this planet.  In effect, a mere 350 nuclear missiles can be a deterrent to go to war using nuclear missiles. Then, why continue to build and modernize nuclear weapons?

Then, who should enforce protections against such nuclear destruction?  It is for the peoples of the world to do so, such as the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) mentioned above.  It is for a person like myself to raise these grave issues in forums such as this court.  Court and the legal system like to speak of Justice, and to look at issues narrowly in order to fail to address the real issues presented.  Then, such courts are not doing Justice, but avoiding the issue of Justice.

ISSUE 4:  Does the First Amendment to the US Constitution protect the right of free expression of Religion whereby Defendant gives advance notice and expresses his beliefs that no government has the right to exterminate all or part of the world’s peoples, and whereby Defendant makes his beliefs known and steps across an alleged boundary line, when the state of nuclear terror impacts all of our lives?

The US Government has given special preferential rights in the area of the free exercise of religion, when balancing the free exercise right against other governmental interests.

By making, procuring and deploying nuclear weapons and being ready and willing to use nuclear weapons, a government has usurped all caution, all sacredness for life on this planet, by engaging in omnicide of all creation on this planet.  This is a gross over-reach of power and replaces any chance of Divine Creation or beliefs surviving.  We have usurped God.  It would be the height of arrogance, as well as suicidal. I would call this demonic.

ISSUE 5.  Does the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution protect the right of free speech and assembly whereby Defendant steps across an alleged boundary line in protest to the making and procuring of parts for nuclear weapons at the local weapons facility?

The 1st Amendment also speaks of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and the right to petition Government for the redress of grievances.

Defendant gave prior notice of date, time, place, schedule and what would occur – giving notice to local law enforcement and to a security guard of the Kansas City Plant.  Defendant was totally non-violent and cooperated with the officers and security at the scene.  The Defendant crossed an alleged painted sign on the roadway for only approx. 5-10 feet, when he was taken into custody.  Defendant did not go limp or cause any problems for the arresting officers.

Protest is a form of speech, and it is particularly relevant at the site of a nuclear weapon parts plant.  The locals called the old facility the “bomb plant.” There is no doubt that all was peaceable, even the arrests, with a row of chairs for processing.  The demeanor of all was peaceable.

One has a right to Petition the Government for redress of grievances:  Yes, public speaking with a “die-in” where there is a reading of the names of former plant workers who have died, and then stepping forward was a form of petitioning the Government for redress of grievances.

If one merely held a sign or spoke on the public right-of-way, there would be no cause to arrest Defendant.  However, in order to have a “case or controversy,” one must step across the line.  It is in the discretion of the National Security Campus (NSC) to ask that Defendant be arrested, however minor the step may have been.  In effect, the National Security Campus has given Defendant a forum in which to make known his cause, his protestations, and his rights.

The questions are (a) should the National Security Campus have required more intrusion onto its land before requesting arrest of Defendants, and (b) should the National Security Campus acknowledge that they are responsible for placing all persons and all life on earth in jeopardy by the products made and assembled there, and therefore, as part of the cost of doing this type of work, this National Security Campus must countenance this limited action with First Amendment ramifications?

Washington University (St. Louis, MO) Constitutional Law Professor Gregory Magarian in the September, 2019, Washington Magazine wrote about the formative years when the Supreme Court protected political dissents, socially marginal speakers and minorities of all kinds.  New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) helped the civil rights movement get its message out.  West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) shielded Jehovah’s Witnesses from enforced patriotic rituals.  Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969) let school children protest the Vietnam War.  .Magarian concludes that courts should promote robust debate and foster challenges to the established order.  That, I believe, is what the First Amendment is supposed to do.

If we balance the preferential constitutional First Amendment rights of this Defendant, against the property rights of the National Security Campus to this minor intrusion, I state that the rights of the Defendant are superior, and must be honored.

ISSUE 6.  RIGHT TO LIFE

All issues and rights are moot if nuclear weapons are used. Our Founders in the American Revolution enshrined the principles of the Magna Carta and the Great Charter of the Liberties of England, year 1215, which limited the powers of the King, and protected the rights of freemen in regard to certain liberties, into our founding documents.  The Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  President Abraham Lincoln used words to this effect in dealing with the Civil War and the emancipation of slaves.  Our U.S Constitution and its Amendments carry forth the same principles.

The United Nations has chosen to honor those same principles of unalienable (or inalienable) rights by the following quote:  The UN Human Rights Committee has adopted a new general comment on the right to life, with Para. 66 providing in full:  The threat or use of weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, which are indiscriminate in effect and are of a nature to cause destruction of human life on a catastrophic scale is incompatible with respect for the right to life and may amount to a crime under international law. States parties must take all necessary measures to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including measures to prevent their acquisition by non-state actors, to refrain from developing, producing, testing, acquiring, stockpiling, selling, transferring and using them, to destroy existing stockpiles, and to take adequate measures of protection against accidental use, all in accordance with their international obligations. They must also respect their international obligations to pursue in good faith negotiations in order to achieve the aim of nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control and to afford adequate reparation to victims whose right to life has been or is being adversely affected by the testing or use of weapons of mass destruction, in accordance with principles of international responsibility.

These inalienable rights are found in the Nuremberg Principles, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948.

Pope Francis has also been quoted during a visit to Hiroshima in November 2019: “The possession of nuclear arms is immoral.”

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) includes a comprehensive set of prohibitions on participating in any nuclear weapon activities.  These include not to develop, test, produce, acquire, possess, stockpile, use or threaten to use nuclear weapons.  The Treaty also prohibits the deployment of nuclear weapons on national territory and the provision of assistance to any State in the conduct of prohibited activities.

Defendant exercises his Right To Life in advocacy for the defense of others, in advocacy for all life on this planet, and in advocacy for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.  The issues presented are fundamental vital issues of our time.

All of the great religions contain the principles of “Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself.”  Their sacred texts call for peace, mercy, forgiveness, and recognition of the Divine.  Yet, these nuclear weapons are designed to create a global threat, a terrorist threat, to the entire world.  These weapons are politicized as a means to create a sense of security and deterrence.  Yet the dangers of global catastrophe seem to the Defendant to vastly exceed any supposed increase in security.

ISSUE 7.   CLAIM OF RIGHT

In Missouri, the claim of right defense has been codified in three separate statutes in

Missouri law.  Section 569.130, RSMo 2000, which provides that a person has a defense to “damaging, tampering with, operating, riding in or upon, or making connection with property of another if he does so under a claim of right, and has reasonable grounds to believe he has such a right.”

Defendant makes this Claim of Right, incorporating by reference all of the above contents of this Brief, including the Violations of U.S. Constitution, First Amendment Rights, Right to Life, as though set forth herein in full. I state that I have a Claim of Right to preserve our Government, our rights and privileges, and all rights and liberties accorded all persons.

My Claim of Right is further applicable to the Oath or Affirmation I have taken as an attorney in the State of Missouri.  That Oath states: “I do solemnly swear/affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Missouri.”  Manufacturing, assembly and deployment of nuclear weapons, which threatens all life, is in direct violation of the oath to “support the Constitution of the United States and Missouri.”  Further, the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct, Preamble:  A Lawyer’s Responsibilities section, states we attorneys are public citizens having a special responsibility for the quality of justice; a lawyer should seek improvement of the law and access to the legal system, and employ that knowledge in reform of the law; and a lawyer is also guided by personal conscience and the approbation of professional peers.  As an attorney (now retired), it is my duty and obligation to raise these grave issues in this forum.

My Claim of Right is further applicable to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, which prohibits genocide, torture, slavery, etc.  The use of nuclear weapons would create omnicide, far worse than any genocide in human history, prohibited by the Nuremberg Principles.

My Claim of Right is that President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Nuclear

Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968, and that Treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1970.  The purpose of the NPT Treaty was to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to reduce the number of nuclear weapons, with the goal of total elimination of all nuclear weapons.  The NPT Treaty remains in effect.  Former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George P. Shultz, former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, and former Congressman Sam Nunn have issued a statement in the January 4, 2007, Wall Street Journal.  Their statement, “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,” states that total elimination of all nuclear weapons is essential to our continued survival as a world.  However, this KC Plant continues to manufacture, procure, and assemble more nuclear weapons parts, and to make upgrades to those weapons, in conflict with the NPT Treaty in effect.

My Claim of Right extends to the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which was signed on July 7th, 2017, by one hundred twenty-two (122) nations, and ratified by over fifty (50) nations in order to enter into legal force, on January 22, 2021.  As of this time, fifty-nine (59) nations have ratified this Treaty, and more nations are expected to ratify this Treaty in the near future. For their efforts, the International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017.

My Claim of Right is that we do not voluntarily accept or enter into this “Suicide Pact” that is being used by our and other governments.  The threatened use of nuclear weapons is terrorism.  We do not consent to being enslaved to this ultimate destructive bargain with evil.  My opposition says that production of nuclear weapons “Shall Not Occur In My Name.”

My Claim of Right is that this country has a long history of non-violent actions that have led to major changes.  While southern states enacted laws to maintain segregated status in regard to African-Americans, the freedom riders and the lunch-counter sit-ins were all illegal under southern laws, yet Martin Luther King, Jr. and supporters marched on and awakened the conscience of Americans, compelling this nation to enact and enforce Civil Rights Laws.  Our non-violent history also includes the Abolitionists who worked to free slaves, the Suffragettes who won the vote for women, the campaigns of Cesar Chavez on behalf of the farmworkers, the anti-war movement, the actions to end discrimination in all of its forms, including the LGBTQI persons and communities, etc.

My Claim of Right is that as a person of conscience, and as a means of upholding our integrity and religious beliefs, I must take some step that says a NO to the manufacturing, procurement and assembly of these weapons of mass destruction.  These weapons of mass destruction violate our principles of the sanctity of all life; violate our right relations with our God or whatever Divine Spirit we choose; our right relations with all peoples of the world; violate our right relations with the environment, this planet and the entire solar system; and violate my conscience to the deepest depths of my core beliefs.

My Claim of Right is that direct non-violent action by allegedly physically stepping across a marked line and risking arrest, all in the spirit of non-violence and love, speaks volumes as to my commitment to create peaceful change.  Yes, I have been involved in numerous efforts to create change, among them: part of the campaign on four (4) occasions to gather 5,000 signatures of registered voters to place a measure before the voters of KCMO, a ballot measure to prevent the City of KCMO from supporting the nuclear weapons plant by funding, loans, or other support; a party to a federal lawsuit filed in Washington, DC to challenge the lax environmental standards of an environmental assessment rather than the more strict environmental impact statement for this new KC Plant; numerous trips to KCMO Council and City Committee meetings to testify; personal contact with U.S. Senators and House of Representative members, and other elected representatives; travel to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference at the United Nations in New York City in 2010;  public communications through radio interviews and writing letters to the editor of the Kansas City Star; appearing in court on behalf of numerous protesters of this nuclear weapons plant; as well as being part of the Poor People’s Campaign here locally and in Jefferson City, MO.

ISSUE 8.  LACK OF CRIMINAL MENTAL ELEMENT – NO MENS REA

Defendant states that in all of his actions, intent, motives, and purposes, they were of a symbolic and preventative nature, an intervention in light of these nuclear weapon parts being produced, procured and assembled at this site.  Defendant acted much like a private attorney general who seeks to right a wrong.  Defendant acted in the spirit of love, life, justice, and grave concern for all children, grandchildren and for all of creation.  Our country has a rich history of non-violence – from the time of the American Revolution, concern about the mistreatment and enslavement of our black and native sisters and brothers, from the Abolitionists, from the Suffragettes, from the Civil Rights Movement and Martin Luther King, Jr., from the Women’s Movement, from the Anti-War Movement, from the work to help migrant workers, led by Cesar Chavez and Delores Huerta, from protecting LGBTQ, from protecting the Environment, etc.  That is what makes America great.  Do we criminalize or jail such persons using truth force, persons following a higher power and higher values, persons of integrity, persons willing to put their bodies on the line for a higher purpose?

WHEREFORE, Defendant files his Legal Brief giving Notice of his Defenses of Violations of U.S. Constitution, First Amendment Rights, Right To Life, Claims of Right, and Lack of Mens Rea, and Defendant asks this Court to admit into evidence said Legal Brief, and to find him not guilty of the charge of general trespass.

DEFENDANT’S LIST OF EXHIBITS:

  1. Henry Stoever’s Statement “WHY DOES HENRY M. STOEVER RISK ARREST AGAIN AT THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS PARTS PLANT” given to Kansas City, MO Police Office Craig Hope at the site. Said statement is inserted in Paragraph 23 above.

DEFENDANT’S LIST OF WITNESSES: Defendant anticipates calling no other witnesses than himself.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Henry M. Stoever

Henry M. Stoever

8405 W. 88th Terrace

Overland Park, KS 66212-3033

(913) 375-0045 (Cell phone)

henrystoever@sbcglobal.net

Pro Se

Certificate of Service:

I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing was sent by e-mail this 20th day of January, 2022, to the Court, The Honorable Judge Katherine Emke, at Katherine.emke@kcmo.org, to Assist. City Prosecutor Jesse Sendejas at jesse.sendejas@kcmo.org, to the Prosecutor for Court G, at g.prosecutor@kcmo.org., and to KCMO Municipal Court at court.filing@kcmo.org.

/s/ Henry M. Stoever

Henry M. Stoever

Pro Se