Predators in Missouri Cage Jeffrey Weinhaus For 25+ Years

Pending appeal, Jeffrey Weinhaus, a 47-year-old proponent of governmental transparency, will be caged until he’s 72-years-old due to a conspiracy by some who subsist on theft and claims of double standards.

This past Monday – November 25th, 2013 – Keith Sutherland told Weinhaus he was to be caged for 30-years each for armed criminal action and assaulting a law enforcement officer (LEO), two years for felony drug possession and one year for misdemeanor drug possession – sentences that will run concurrently. (The assault on a LEO mandates that Weinhaus be caged for at least 85% of the time, hence the 25-years minimum Weinhaus is facing.)


Apparently Sutherland and his cronies – including Robert “Bob” Parks, who in an effort to silence Weinhaus, has for over a year has told half-truths, Henry “HJ” Folsom, who shot Weinhaus twice in the chest, once in the neck and once in the head on September 11, 2012 (perhaps after being nudged by the top-dog at the Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP)), Scott Mertens, who was present when Weinhaus was shot and who has thus far failed to speak out about the injustice, and their colleagues at MSHP’s Troop C, who’s “investigation” of the shooting was in name only – have no moral qualms railroading Weinhuas who, by working to identify and oust political misdeeds, acted more closely aligned with the oaths of office they swore to uphold than they do themselves.

Instead, Parks noted that, “I was very happy with the sentence” but “I would have liked to have seen consecutive sentencing because he did not show remorse.” Apparently Parks is well-versed in Orwell’s doublespeak. Why the hell should Weinhaus show remorse when he didn’t himself act in the wrong? Shouldn’t it be the perpetrators who are remorseful?

Weinhaus was hospitalized for a month after being shot four times by Henry Folsom

Weinhaus was hospitalized for a month after being shot four times by Henry Folsom

After Sutherland’s “kangaroo court”, Weinhaus rightly called Sutherland a “fraud”, likened Sutherland and Parks to “predators”, and Folsom and Mertens to “cold-blooded murderers”.

This situation is but another unfortunate example of someone being targeted for speaking the truth and questioning the statist quo.

The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it.
– John Hay

Weinhaus asked during legaland, “Why would [governor] Jay Nixon want to be concerned about me? Why did he want to eliminate me?” Perhaps because Weinhaus’ reporting – unlike that from the lamestream media – was getting too close to Nixon or his friends?

It certainly helped the “official” version of events that the “investigation” was handled in-house. And that the lack of rigorous reporting by self-described “journalists” only advanced the false story.

For example, writers Bill Miller Jr., Gregg Jones and Ed Pruneau claimed:

That investigation culminated in the confrontation at the MFA Station on Highway K south of St. Clair where the officers fired when Weinhaus went for a gun.

Huh? Did Weinhaus go for a gun? Of course that little fabrication is needed to dissuade questions about Folsom’s actions, but had Miller, Jones or Pruneau seen the video captured by Weinhaus’ watch camera or listened to the audio of the interaction transmitted from a cell phone in Weinhuas’ pocket and recorded by his ex-wife Valerie Weinhaus, they wouldn’t be so apt to unthinkingly parrot the scenario as framed by culprits.

That same inaccurate version of events – that Weinhaus went for his gun – was put-forth by Leah Thorson in

… Troopers with the highway patrol’s drug and crime division met Weinhaus on Sept. 11, 2012, at a gas station on Highway K near St. Clair with a warrant for his arrest. Weinhaus reached for his pistol from a holster, and the troopers shot him, authorities said.

Admittedly, Thorson didn’t state as fact that Weinhaus reached for his firearm, though she parroted a version of events claimed by “authorities” – why, if Thorson believes herself a competent reporter, did she not give equal coverage to the version of events as told by Weinhaus – that he never went for his firearm yes was shot nevertheless?


Criminals employed at the Missouri State Highway Patrol shot Jeffrey Weinhaus and then their friends “investigated”. Perhaps someone there will act on their conscience and speak out?

Further, consider how this unattributed post at Daily Journal Online is framed:

Jeffrey “Bulletinman” Weinhaus was sentenced to 30 years in prison this week for assaulting Missouri State Highway Patrol troopers moments before he was shot repeatedly during a confrontation with officers in September of 2012.

Sure, it seems pretty innocuous, but read again – the author claim that Weinhaus was “sentenced to 30 years in prison this week for assaulting…” – can an assault caused by Weinhaus be identified? Because one can certainly point to an assault – an almost deadly assault – against Weinhaus by those who wear badges on their costumes that caused him to be helivaced to a hospital.

And such a simplistic blame-the-victim framing of events by Vera Culley, over at does nothing to dissuade the initiators of violence:

In an online video, Weinhaus said he had the right to shoot corrupt officials. When troopers went to arrest him, they say he reached for a gun, so they shot him.

Can Culley point to a video clip to support her claim that Weinhaus made such a statement? Also, Culley completely fails to include pertinent information – such as the fact that shooter Folsom told Weinhaus that at the September 11, 2012 meeting, that Weinhaus was to receive back the computers he and his colleague Mertens had stolen? Also, the fact that the watch camera video shows both Folsom and Mertens not only had reached for their own guns but had them drawn and pointed at Weinhaus seconds after Weinhaus existed his vehicle? Not to mention the fact that – according to witnesses, Weinhaus never reached for his gun? (Missouri is an open carry state – Weinhaus was completely in the right carrying.)

Fortunately, some following the treatment of Weinhaus did think for themselves, including David George Baugh, who wrote in an editorial to The Sullivan Independent Press:

The police actions against Jeffrey Weinhaus reek in the stench of tyranny and oppression evidencing that Missouri government has become a socialist police state of fascist feudalism, ruled by absolute despotism! Sadly, as the jurors showed, they all have forsaken their liberty & freedom and that of their fellow man for the false safety & security of the police state

Jeffrey Weinhaus and Hugh Eastman during October 2013 legaland venture

Jeffrey Weinhaus and Hugh Eastman during October 2013 legaland venture

Hugh Eastwood, Weinhaus’ attorney correctly stated that though Weinhaus’ views are sometimes extreme, he never hurt anyone. That alone is why people should care about this situation. Yes, Weinhaus was passionate, even abrasive to some – but most-importantly, he didn’t do anything to violate the rights or property of another. There was no reason his computers should have been stolen in August 2012. There was no reason he was shot in September 2012. There was no reason he was caged for over a year. And there was no reason he is now ordered to be caged for over a quarter-century.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
– Voltaire

Hopefully an appeal will bring about a better conclusion.


When this post was made live (2013.11.29 10am CST) the Missouri Department of Corrections does not list the whereabouts of Weinhaus. Once that changes his address will be shared for those inclined to reach-out.

UPDATE 2013.11.29 3:38pm CST

Weinhaus can receive mail at this address:

Fulton Reception and Diagnostic Center
ATTN: Jeffrey Weinhaus, #1261778
1393 Highway O, PO Box 190
Fulton, MO 65251

For the most up-to-date mailing address check

A couple video updates about Weinhaus’ situation made the day he was sentenced and the day prior to his sentencing:

  • John Q Public


  • John Q Public

    25 years? Good! Don’t drop the soap Jeffery! And don’t worry, Pete will come see you in jail and raise money for your prison fund like he did with Mueller. And it seems that Pete can’t stand the fact that Jeffery was convicted by a jury of his peers. I guess nullification didn’t work out so well. If Pete knows so much about what happened, even though he was nowhere near the incident, maybe he should have testified on Jeffery’s behalf. All I see is a dangerous man is off the streets and where he belongs… in prison.

  • certain

    Double standard motherfuckers. Regardless of whether or not this nutcase tried to pull his roscoe on the cops, how the fuck do they justify 30 years when a cops can assault somebody and even if charged, it is typically as a misdemeanor. Or in the case of the Torrance cops, shoot 60 bullets at a completely innocent pair of ladies who posed no threat at all, and not even be charged with a crime.

    Hypocritical fucksticks. It’s thinking like this that has lead to the deadly officer safety problem that threatens everybody without a badge. How is it that a cops life has become so much more worthwhile than anybody else? Especially when most of them are morally bankrupt criminals, either by action or accomplice. Oh that’s right, because they “protect” us. LOL. The way I see it, you stand just as much chance of the cops hurting you or your family as you do of them being helpful.

  • John Q Public

    FRANKLIN COUNTY • The publisher of an anti-government newsletter who was shot by police during a confrontation in which he was armed was sentenced to 30 years in prison by a judge Monday.

    A jury on Oct. 10 convicted Jeffrey Weinhaus, who is known as the Bulletinman, of assault on a law enforcement officer, armed criminal action, illegal morphine possession and a misdemeanor marijuana charge.

    The jury recommended that Weinhaus, 47, be sentenced to 63 years. Determining his sentence was up to Judge Keith Sutherland, who could not exceed the jury’s recommendation.

    Sutherland followed that recommendation but ran the sentences concurrently, with credit for the more than a year Weinhaus has spent in the county jail.

    Weinhaus was furious, saying in a long and often repetitive rant that he was the only victim who was hurt and that it’s unfair he must go to prison. “You are a black-robed terrorist, an enemy combatant no different than Osama bin Laden,” he said to Sutherland.

    The jury acquitted Weinhaus of other counts.

    Weinhaus put out a newsletter in which he railed against government officials and wrote that the country has been taken over by communists, Freemasons and devil worshippers.

    On Aug. 16, 2012, he posted a video on YouTube that concerned authorities. That video was shown to jurors.

    “What I’ve been trying to lay down over the last 16 years is my right to go in there and blast you (expletive) out of there if we have to,” Weinhaus said in the YouTube video. “You’re going down one way or another.”

    He was a candidate for Crawford County coroner at the time.

    Soon after he posted the video, Missouri Highway Patrol officers seized Weinhaus’ computers from his home in Franklin County. They also smelled marijuana and returned with a search warrant, finding marijuana and related paraphernalia, as well as morphine tablets, according to testimony.

    Troopers with the highway patrol’s drug and crime division met Weinhaus on Sept. 11, 2012, at a gas station on Highway K near St. Clair with a warrant for his arrest. Weinhaus reached for his pistol from a holster, and the troopers shot him, authorities said. He was shot twice in the chest, once in the neck and once in the head.

    Weinhaus said in court Monday that he was stupid to bring a holstered gun to the meeting, but maintained he never pulled it and key evidence wasn’t revealed during his trial. He also questioned the jurisdiction of the court because the American flag in the courtroom had gold fringe.

  • certain

    And if it comes to a choice between the cop being honest and supporting you, or lying through his teeth to back up another cop, what do you think happens 99% of the time?

  • John Q Public

    Some interesting insight to Jeffery:

    While not a native of St. Francois County, Jeffrey Weinhaus has quite a history in the county. In the late 1990s and following few years Weinhaus operated his publication, the “Bulletin”, out of a rented home in Farmington where he repeatedly exercised his freedom of speech by taking local political and justice system leaders to task, often in slanderous tirades.

    He would routinely visit the newspaper office and purchase a copy of the latest edition, and then within days distribute his next issue of the “Bulletin” with stories which mirrored those found in the newspaper but with his own twist and take on the details. He gave his publication away for free. If a business refused to display a stack of his papers on their counter he would sometimes go after them in the next issue with racial or other obviously-vindictive slurs.

    He later moved to a leased property north of Bonne Terre which has previously housed the “Christmas In Lights” drive-through seasonal display. While there he began holding rave parties which involved blaring music from rented sound systems, huge crowds of hundreds of mainly teens and young adults, and the oft-reported use of drugs including Ecstasy.

    The parties grew to the point where law enforcement had to direct traffic on U.S. 67 and Berry Road leading to the location of the gatherings. Court appearances became commonplace with continued concerns from law enforcement agencies and complaints from neighbors. On at least one occasion undercover officers infiltrated a rave party and documented the activities with video footage. The action led to an injunction by a judge demanding Weinhaus cease hosting the events.

    Weinhaus even made a run for sheriff of St. Francois County, losing miserably in the next election.

    Eventually Weinhaus, known by then as the “Bulletinman”, left the county and took up his freedom of speech campaign in Jefferson County. He first published his periodical in print, but later moved to the Internet as it continued to gain popularity. Once again he signed up for a public office, but again the voters were not behind him. His attention quickly turned to the Jefferson Count sheriff, court officials and local government, but he still dabbled in the affairs of St. Francois County … occasionally blogging on stories which appeared in the Daily Journal, and sending an occasional letter to the editor.

    Like St. Francois County, he soon seemed to wear out his welcome in Jefferson County and turned his attention to Franklin and Crawford counties. By this time the Internet site You Tube became one of his preferred methods of spreading his own form of political views. Ironically it was one of those “freedom of expression” You Tube video clips which was used against him during his trial this week.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    Sucks to be Weinhaus…

  • t

    Ahhhh….sweet accountability.

  • Dan1100

    As someone who is from where Jeff is from, good riddance to bad rubbish. We are glad he is gone.

    If you want to get to the real problem here, why was a well known lunatic like Jeff not given the mental health help he needed (which would have meant being locked up in secure mental hospital at least for a while) and why was he allowed to have a gun in the first place?

  • Don Francisco

    Hey Jeff, don’t drop the soap.

  • Dreamthenact

    Everything stated in this article about the attempted murder of this man and the media coverage of it seems accurate. There is a history of such assassinations by the police in this country. Hopefully this time the courts will do the right thing and the public will become aware of the issues.

    I am posting on for another reason. The quote from Baugh, “a socialist police state of fascist feudalism, ruled by absolute despotism!” This is actually a non-sense statement. It reflects the same sort of knee jerk parroting that your article was criticizing in the media. For libertarians, whose beliefs are so often stereotyped and not given fair consideration,to do the same to socialists is sad. It is also very short sighted. Your views have a great deal in common with those of anarchistic socialists. There have been more assassinations of members of the left than of the right historically. Human rights and civil rights organizations have historically been associated with the left more than right. The fact that libertarians view themselves as closer to the right than left is astonishing. By left I don’t mean the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

    We need to find common cause to address police misconduct. You won’t find common cause if you keep working so hard to alienate your natural allies. You need to create spaces for people who don’t share all of your beliefs to support your efforts.

  • t

    Act: right. Sure there is.

  • steve

    Was it a peaceful consensual interaction when Weinhaus foolishly brought a gun with him to the meeting, giving the police a good excuse to fire him up. He screwed himself with stupidity and gave them just what they needed.If he didn’t foolishly bring the gun , he would not be in the situation he is in today.A lack of forethought and common sense was left behind or just plain never there.

  • Common Sense

    Guess that sovereign logic didn’t work out so well.

  • t

    Clearly the jury didn’t see it Jeffery’s way. Go figure. Apparently they didn’t want an armed lunatic running free in their midst threatening to kidnap judges and other officials. Shocking

  • Dan1100

    The minimum sentence for assault 1st is 10 years. The minimum for armed criminal action is 3 years. The jury (not the judge, not the police, not the prosecutor) gave him 30 years on each count.

    The jury didn’t just find him guilty, they wanted him locked up forever.

    Why? Because they thought (rightly) he was a dangerous threat to the community.

  • LegalEagle

    Some of these comments are outrageously funny.

    Why did Weinhaus bring a gun to a peaceful meeting? I don’t know. Why did the Troopers bring guns to a peaceful meeting?

    There was no evidence submitted at trial wherein Weinhaus was alleged to have retrieved any weapon after being contacted by the Troopers. No evidence was submitted that indicated Weinhaus put a weapon on his side for that meeting.

    Weinhaus was contacted by the Troopers about 15 minutes before he met with them at the MFA station. It is possible that Weinhaus, so excited to be getting his computers back, was not even conscious of the fact that he was still wearing his sidearm.

    —-Suggestion to law enforcement agencies: When arranging impromptu meetings with civilians, make sure to request that they disarm themselves prior to the meeting. This should be mandatory in states that permit both open and concealed carry.

  • LegalEagle

    t said “Apparently they didn’t want an armed lunatic running free in their midst threatening to kidnap judges and other officials.”

    Thank you for confirming what the defense had already alleged, and the reason why the two Motions to Sever were incorrectly denied.

    You see, Weinhaus was acquitted of the charge of Tampering with a judicial officer, by the judge, on a Motion for a directed verdict after the Prosecution rested. You, t, were just as improperly influenced by the video of August 16th as the jury was.

  • steve

    I guess he wasn’t a very upstanding and likable person of the community.

  • t

    I guess the “irrefutable” video evidence was refuted.

  • steve

    To say a bit more,the video shows nothing in his defense.

  • LegalEagle


    1. The Troopers claimed to have told Weinhaus to get his hands away from his gun.

    The video demonstrates that they made no such statement.

    2. Trooper Fulsom stated that he had a conversation with Weinhaus immediately after Weinhaus stepped out of his car. Fulsom stated that he told Weinhaus “Jeff, I got some paperwork for you to sign.” and that Weinhaus replied with “ahh. OK”, or something like that.

    The video demonstrates that no such conversation ever took place.

    3. Fulsom claimed that Weinhaus stopped his car and jumped out and stood there looking around.

    The video demonstrates that after coming to a stop, Weinhaus remained in his car for approx. 10 seconds. When he did step out, he immediately proceeded to the back of his vehicle. Weinhaus immediately went to the rear of his vehicle when he after exiting. It was less than 1.5 seconds between the time Weinhaus stepped out and the time he engaged with Fulsom.

    You might not want to recognize the video as helping Weinhaus’ defense. However, only a fool would fail to recognize that anything that impeaches the Troopers statements is beneficial to Weinhaus defense.

  • t

    You must have sen a different video. The one posted here shows the God fearing Jeffrey dropping f-bombs like crazy as he drove around not being able to find anyone who wanted to be near him. After that he arrives, exits the car and there is some conversation before he appears to reach for his waistband….where his gun was located…and the officers shot him.
    Apparently the jury concluded that the police had it right and Jeffery did it wrong.
    Face it that he was a dangerous and violent man who called for violence against those he didn’t agree with.

  • t

    But it’s ok dude. Rock on in your beliefs. They will keep you warm this winter.

  • Valarie Weinhaus

    Here is a fact about Jeffrey that you all might not know. Jeff is a BIG CHICKEN. There is NO way he would have mustered even HALF the courage to try to pull a gun on a trooper; especially one already pointing a .40 cal at him!

    I was with Jeff for two and married to him for six years, and I know him very well. He is ALL bark and no bite. If he was really serious about half the BS he posted on youtube or wrote anywhere else, he would have been gone LONG ago.

    Jeff is ALL mouth – obnoxious, yes, VERY, but WAY to yellow to ever try to shoot a cop.

  • goodriddensweinhaus

    Jeff was a nut case. He was becoming ever more violent that’s why all of the woman in his life divorce him and half get restraining orders on him. He is were he belongs. All Jeff ever wanted was a free ride in life. Well he finally got it. Good riddens jeff hope you never get out.

  • Jake C

    I looked up his record. He was a bad person through and through. He deserves to be in prison for life. Leave it to Pete to try and defend violent guilty people. I believe Pete is as crazy as the criminals he tries to pain in a good light.


    I think the point is here did he do something at that moment to be shot or was he setup to be killed? Who gives a shit what he says words are one thing acting on your words are another. If these troopers set him up they deserve to be locked up for 30+ years, if they want to set someone up they now feel they can do it to say YOU or YOUR FAMILY or FRIENDS cause they got away with it once already. Iv seen both sides of the dam law Iv watched law enforcement LIE threw there teeth and screw people that didn’t do anything wrong and Iv seen them nail the assholes that need to be put down and locked up but no one should be allowed to be above the law no matter what.

  • Helen Jo Butts Ryan

    Jeffery Weinhaus had a mini camera that also had audio and it was not seen by anyone because no one knew about it and was not NOT able to tell anyone. But after he was released by the hospital and well enough he posted it on the internet. I can not recall if it was on youtube, copblock, or what but I saw it. It had only been posted like 18 minutes or something close, a short time. I will tell you, he did absolutely nothing to get shot for nor did he reach for his gun. As a matter of fact, he was turning away from the officers as he was saying your just going to have to shoot me. He was saying that as a reply to them telling him to get on the ground. He had not done one thing I would call threatening at all, but was refusing to get on the ground for no reason. When he said ‘you’ll just have to shoot me” he wasn’t even speaking in a forceful threatening manner. I do not know Mr. Weinhaus except for watching his video. I have watched most of the ones on the internet about his shooting since in my attempt to find the original but can not find it. there is even one that says it is the original video but it IS NOT. This man was railroaded plain and simple. You all can believe whatever you see on the media now if you want but I know that someone has removed his original video and replaced many that are close but have important incriminating evidence removed. I wish it WAS NOT TRUE, I DO, BUT IT IS. And the video I saw was very disturbing, very. I could not and still can not get it off my mind.

  • Helen Jo Butts Ryan

    I know no one wants to believe this man was gunned down by the police for NOTHING. No one wants to believe that because it scares the hell out of us. As it should. BUT CONSIDER, what if it is true and you are not recognizing it. CONSIDER THAT.

  • Helen Jo Butts Ryan

    They also portrayed RANDY WEAVER as a really bad guy. He was not. Thank to the good LORD, Randy kept his head and got in touch with Bo Grist who came up to Ruby Ridge and spoke to him and got the whole story.

  • Helen Jo Butts Ryan

    I totally agree. They shot this man for no reason. I could not understand how anyone could believe that Weinhaus cause this. But then I went and tried to pull up the video I had seen and I could not find it I found a lot that started off ok but when I watched the complete video none of the ones I could locate now are the one I watch right after this man posted it. And watching them really pissed me off because they were changed !

  • Helen Jo Butts Ryan

    But both parties should show up unarmed. Not just the civilian. And he was aware he had his gun because the video I saw showed him calling a few people trying to get someone to go with him because he did not trust the officers. The officers also picked the location of the meet which was out in the middle of basicly nowhere. The MFA was the only thing.

  • CaptainUSA

    Johnson is handling Ferguson.

  • TheJudge

    hey did Alex mention me today?

  • Butch Lake


  • Butch Lake


  • Butch Lake


  • Butch Lake


  • Butch Lake


  • Butch Lake


  • Butch Lake


  • Butch Lake


  • Butch Lake


  • Butch Lake


  • Laurence Lee Pinney

    “You’re.” “You’re a cop.” It’s a contraction of, “You,” and, “Are.” “Your” is possessive. Sorry, but it’s hard to take you seriously when you write like a junior high student texting her bestie.