COMPLAINT, the People of the State of California vs. the defendants, Mel Leeper and Laurie Leeper, charged with violations of State and County codes 1026, 3 counts; 1490, 1 count; 1488, 1 count; 1498, 3 counts; 1440, 1 count.

Filed in the Yreka Division of the Justice Court, April 20, 1983. Robert Fiock states and declares on information and belief that the said defendants did in the County of Siskiyou, State of California, on or about the 18th day of January, 1983, commit the crimes of: AS SET FORTH BELOW:

Count 1. Failure to obtain required permits (to wit, a ramada on a mobile home).

Count 2. Same as above (to wit, a porch and deck on said mobile home).

Count 3. Same as above (to wit, a wood frame structure on a mobile home).

Count 4. Failure to follow requirements of design and construction for ramadas.

Count 5. Failure to follow requirements for location of ramada.

Count 6. Failure to follow requirements for design of porches and stairways.

Count 7. Same as above (to wit, failed to permit a door to open as far as 90 degrees).

Count 8. Failure to comply with requirements for plumbing (defendants did unlawfully install plumbing).

"We are doing what we think is right, We're minding our own business. We're not causing anybody any trouble and we're responsible for the way we built our roof," says Mrs. Leeper. The Leepers, who consider themselves "constitutionalists", believe the government should not interfere with private people's lives. "The bottom line on this whole thing is that God gave us permission to build a roof over our trailer to protect our family from the weather, and we do not have to pay the County for their permission. The Constitution of the United States guarantees us this right, particularly in the Fourth Amendment."

The Leeper's problems began when they were hauled into a government court where, throughout the land, judges routinely refuse to allow the Constitution to be entered as evidence. This is tragic and ironic because these very same judges strike down popular initiatives voted in by the people as "unconstitutional."

The Leepers got a jury trial. But not a jury of their peers. The jury was loaded with government employees, hardly the kind of people who could look at a charge of violating government codes in an unbiased manner. During jury selection, the Leepers found that three jurors were personal friends of the chief building inspector. Also, there was a county engineer, a deputy probation officer and the post mistress of nearby Kalmath River.

The jury quickly brought in a "guilty" verdict. Judge Taylor followed the DA's recommendation and sentenced the Leepers to 6 months in jail, 3 months suspended. Justice served!

In case you might form a harsh judgment of Judge Taylor and his court system, I must inform you that the DA suggested that Mel Leeper be released for the Christmas holidays.

Mel Leeper was told, "You have the keys tot he jail house door" by the county DA. But Mel sees it differently. "I'd have to go against what I believe in. If I submit to the permit, I have in effect, said that permits are OK as long as the government threatens me with enough force to change my convictions to preferences."

Apparently there was some mention of "concern for the children" as justification for prosecution. Said Mel, "I wonder at the 'concern' for our children. Could it have been 'concern' that sentenced their parents to a combined six month trip to the county jail?"

In view of all this, it is apparent that a crime has been committed and that punishment has been rendered. But who are the criminals and who was punished?

I define "crime" as any violation of a person's property right; a molestation of one's person or other property. In the case of Mel and Laurie Leeper they were plainly victims of criminal molestation. The Leepers suffered aggression by government criminals and yet they were punished. Is this justice?

I believe you will find the constitution says that all Americans have a right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. But, of course, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are void where prohibited by law.