First Amendment Retaliation

Lady Justice

Billy bob Bramscher’s weapon is words.  He seeks to destroy those who he feels has wronged him by using his weapon of choice to threaten people with his goal of getting people fired from their jobs.”

~Daniel T. Brechbuhl, Former Senior Deputy District Attorney Adams County

“What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech.”

~Watts v United States, 394 US 705, 707, 89 S Ct 1399, 22 L Ed 2d 664 (1969)

A. Legal Standard

The First Amendment is one of the most formidable sources of American Civil Liberties.  It includes several guarantees, of which the most important are the “Freedom of Speech” and the “Freedom of Press.”  Freedom of Speech and of the Press is a constitutional guaranty under the First Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to the Constitution of the United States and provisions in many state constitutions, embracing the concept that free discussion is essential to the growth, development, and well being of our free society under a democratic form of government (see N.A.A.C.P. v Button, 371 US 415, 435, 9 L Ed 2d 405, 419, 83 S Ct 328 (01/14/1963); Associated Press v United States, 326 US 1, 20, 89 L Ed 2013, 2030, 65 S Ct 1416 (06/18/45); Parsons v Age-Herald Publishing Co, 181 ALA 439, 450,461, So 345, 350 (1913)).

While some threats have no First Amendment protections, other threats are protected speech.  In Aguilar v People, 886 P2d 725, 728 (Colo 1994) the Supreme Court of Colorado recognized that “Constitutionally protected speech may be threatening” (see also People v Hickman, 988 P2d 628, 644 (Colo 1999); People v Smith, 862 P2d 939 (Colo 1993) in re “A state cannot prohibit speech in public places merely because it is offensively course, even if the speech is repeated and is made with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm” Id at 942).

Billy bob Bramscher’s petition of First Amendment Retaliation must be considered against the background of a profound national commitment to the principal that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials (see Terminiello v Chicago, 337 US 1, 4, 93 L Ed 1131, 1134, 69 S Ct 894 (05/16/49); DeJonge v Oregon, 299 US 353, 365, 81 L Ed 278, 57 S Ct 255 (01/04/37).

Citing New York Times v Sullivan, 376 US 254, 273, 84 S Ct 710, 11 L Ed 2d 686 (1964), “Injury to official reputation affords no more warrant for repressing speech that would otherwise be free than does factual error.  Where Judicial officers are involved, this court has held that concern for the dignity and reputation of the courts does not justify the punishment [376 US 273] as criminal contempt of criticism of the Judge or his decision.”

Citing Craig v Harvey, 331 US 367, 91 L Ed 1546, 67 S Ct 1249 (5/19/47), “If Judges are to be treated as ‘men of fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate,’ [at 1552] surely the same must be true of other governmental officials, such as elected city commissioners.  Criticism of their official conduct does not lose its constitutional protection merely because it is effective criticism and hence diminishes their official reputations.”

In broad terms, the First Amendment protects the right to be free from government abridgment of speech. Retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights is a blackletter constitutional violation. In fact, an act taken in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right is actionable under 42 Chap 21 USC § 1983 even if the act, when taken for a different reason, would have been proper.

To succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, Billy bob Bramscher must demonstrate three things. First, that Billy bob Bramscher engaged in protected conduct. This means that Billy bob Bramscher’s speech or expression was the type traditionally covered under the First Amendment. Second, an adverse action was taken against the Billy bob Bramscher that would deter “a person of ordinary firmness” from continuing to engage in that speech or conduct. Third, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between these two elements, i.e., the adverse action was motivated at least in part by Billy bob Bramscher’s protected conduct.

Citing Rocky Mt Rogues, Inc v Town of Alpine, 375 Fed Appx 887, 04/19/2010, “Any form of official retaliation for exercising one’s freedom of speech, including… legal harassment constitutes an infringement of that freedom.”

Citing Worrell v Henry, 219 F3d 1197, 1212 (10th Cir 2000) “The eight circuit’s approach in Helvey resembles one we have adopted in assessing First Amendment Retaliation claims against defendants other than the defendants employer.  We have stated that ‘any form of official retaliation for exercising one’s freedom of speech including prosecution, threatened prosecution, bad faith investigation, and legal harassment constitutes an infringement of that freedom’.”  (see also Lackey v County of Bernalillo, 1999 US APP Lexis 75, No 97-2265, 1999 WL 2461, at **3 (10th Cir 1999))

To establish a malicious prosecution claim under § 1983, Billy bob Bramscher must prove that the City of Westminster, Westminster Police Department, Westminster Municipal Court, Adams County/District Court, Adams County District Attorney, Colorado Public Defenders/Alternative Defense Counsel initiated or continued a proceeding against Billy bob Bramscher without probable cause (Belker v Kroll, 494 F3d 904, 913-14 (10th Cir 2007)).

The United States Supreme Court has held that because malicious prosecution claims are Fourth Amendment claims, Billy bob Bramscher must prove that he was also seized in order to prevail (Albright v Oliver, 570 US 266, 271, 114 S Ct 807, 127 L Ed 2d 114 (1994))

Citing Thorpe v Ancell 367 Fed Appx 914, 02/26/2010, “A § 1983 Malicious prosecution claim requires the following elements:  (1) That City of Westminster, Westminster Police Department, Westminster Municipal Court, Adams County/District Court, Adams County District Attorney, Colorado Public Defenders/Alternative Defense Counsel caused Billy bob Bramscher’s continued confinement or prosecution; (2) The original action terminated in favor of Billy bob Bramscher (NOT GUILTY!!!); (3) There was no probable cause to support the original arrest, continued confinement, or prosecution; (4) That City of Westminster, Westminster Police Department, Westminster Municipal Court, Adams County/District Court, Adams County District Attorney, Colorado Public Defenders/Alternative Defense Counsel acted with malice; and (5) That Billy bob Bramscher sustained damages.”  (see also Novitsky v City of Aurora, 491 F3d 1244, 1258 (10th Cir 2007))

42 USC § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983

For liability under 42 USC § 1983, direct participation is not necessary.  Any official who “causes” a citizen to be deprived of his constitutional rights can also be held liable.  The requisite casual connection is satisfied if the official(s) set in motion a series of events that the City of Westminster, Westminster Police Department, Westminster Municipal Court, Adams County/District Court, Adams County District Attorney, Colorado Public Defenders/Alternative Defense Counsel knew or reasonably should have known would cause others to deprive Billy bob Bramscher of his Constitutional Rights (see Snell v Tunnell, 920 F2d 673, 700 (10th Cir 1990); Buck v City of Albuquerque, 549 F3d 1269, 1280, Dec 9, 2008; Jenkins v Wood, 81 F3d 988, 955 (10th Cir 1996) whereas “[Billy bob Bramscher] may satisfy this standard by showing the official(s) supervisor(s) personally directed the violation or had actual knowledge of the violation and acquiesced in its continuance.”)

Qualified Immunity protects officials’ discretionary function from individual liability in Federal claims unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

To succeed in re Billy bob Bramscher’s claims in violations of 42 USC § 1983 et seq., Billy bob Bramscher must show (1) That officials violated his First Amendment Right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, a protected activity; and, (2) This First Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression was clearly established at the time officials of the City of Westminster, Westminster Police Department, Westminster Municipal Court, Adams County/District Court, Adams County District Attorney, Colorado Public Defenders/Alternative Defense Counsel acted (see Clark v Wilson, 625 F3d 686, 690 (10th Cir 2010); Deutsch v Jordan, 618 F3d 1093, 1099 (10th Cir 2010); Hope v Pelzer, 536 US 730, 741, 122 S Ct 2508, 153 L Ed 2d 666 (2002)).

Title 18 Chap 13 USC § 241 Conspiracy Against Rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any state, territory, commonwealth, possession, or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to Billy bob Bramscher by the Constitution or Laws of the United States, or because of Billy bob Bramscher having so exercised the same.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

Title 42 Chap 21 USC § 1985 Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights

(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1985 

Title 42 Chap 21 USC § 1986 Action for Neglect to Prevent Conspiracy

Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1986

B. Facts

11/12/09:  Email 10:01am

From:  Billy bob Bramscher

To:  Barnhardt, Carol [WMC]; Westminster Mayor Nancy McNally; Salazar, Melissa [City of Wesminster

Subject:  Billy bob Bramscher

“Carol Barnhardt…

Again… Thank You Thank You Thank You.

On 06.03.09 The Associated Press published an article entitled, “Public Defender’s In Crisis.”

The Supreme Court has ruled that a Public Defender cannot and is unable to provide suitable defense as guaranteed under The Constitution of the United States of America if they have a case load of more than 200 per calender year.

Could you please locate for the years of 2005 and 2006 the number of cases that the public defender had in my case?

This is itself should be grounds for dismissal much less everything else.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jul/08/nv-public-defenders-070809/?california

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=10666537

~Cheers…”

11/17/09:  Email 11/17/09 10:54am m/s/t

From:  Billy bob Bramscher

To:  Barnhardt, Carol [WMC]; Westminster Mayor Nancy McNally; Salazar, Melissa [City of Westminster]

Subject:  Billy bob Bramscher

“Greetings…

I wanted to follow-up and inquire if any of you were able to help me with this unfortunate situation?

I wholeheartedly know that I was not treated (by-a-long-shot) by the Westminster Court in a manner that reflects the guarantees and set up by the Constitution and Bill of Rights of these United States of America.

I am currently seeking a publishing agent in California for my writings which do include a detailed account of what happened in Westminster.

Again… I would really like to come back home to Colorado and my family with the Warrant for my arrested removed.  I have not been in Colorado for 2.5 years.

I failed my probation and left the state because I know I did not do the crime and the lady that does the probation stuff [Tracy Cutshaw] was as equally as rude and mean to me as my own public defender [Linda Lauchli] and the prosecuting attorney [Kimberly Kaufman].

I am anticipating your response(s) and I do appreciate your time…”

11/17/2009:  Email 10:58am m/s/t

From:  Salazar, Melissa [City of Westminster]

To:  Billy bob Bramscher; Barnhardt, Carol [WMC]; Westminster Mayor Nancy McNally

“Hello William:  I wanted you to know that I forwarded your information to Carol Barnhardt, Court Administrator for the City of Westminster.  I see from your email distribution list that you have already been in contact with her.  All complaints to the Mayor come through our office and we usually forward them to the appropriate department for a solution.  I wish you luck, and I believe that you are in good hands now.”

11/17/2009:  Email 11:03am m/s/t

From:  Billy bob Bramscher

To:  Salazar, Melissa [City of Westminster]

Subject:  Billy bob Bramscher

“Melissa Salazar…

I have not been in good hands for a long time… I have been so far away from family I think I have forgotten what a ‘hug’ is…

I sit here in a Coffee Shop in Santa Cruz California cold from a night of sleeping in my car.  I have tears in my eyes and running down my cheeks right now from your words ‘of being in good hands’.

You have no idea on how every night for the past 3 years + I have laid a ‘heavy’ head on my pillow because I just had no idea how to ‘right’ this ‘wrong’.

To you and yours… I truly wish you ‘success’ as you define it…”

~Cheers…”

11/17/2009:  Email 11:13am m/s/t

From:  Salazar, Melissa [City of Westminster]

To:  Barnhardt, Carol [WMC]

Subject:  FW:  Billy bob Bramscher

“Hey Carol:  Just forwarding my response to Billy bob Bramscher to you for your records.  At this point, I won’t be responding to him any longer.”

11/18/2009: Email 2:16am m/s/t

From:  Billy bob Bramscher

To:  Barnhardt, Carol [WMC]

Subject:  Billy bob Bramscher

“Wow…

I should not have to do any of this…

The PERSON LIED to get me arrested…

YOUR court continued the LIE…

We are still in the LIE…

I will take the chance of writing my book and ruining what you call the ‘law’ in Westminster Colorado…

You have FAILED ME…

I knew you would…

The PEN is….

You YOU have failed and the Constitution of these United States of America…  YOU ARE MAKING A LIAR OUT OF ME…  Again….

I will NOT be coming back to Colorado until I have vindicated myself….

YOU HAVE FAILED ME….”

11/18/09:  Email 11/18/09 2:22am m/s/t

From:  Billy bob Bramscher

To:  Salazar, Melissa [City of Westminster]

Subject:  Billy bob Bramscher

“Mel…

The hands that held me only sheltered me from the impending fall…

Read below and forward the complaint…

Are you serious… she [Carol Barnhardt] works at the court… you could not and cannot expect her [Carol Barnhardt] to RAT on her co-workers…

This is NOT the world I want or imagine…

I am a uncle, brother and son just the same….

WTF???????????????????

There is a RIGHT and WRONG still right?  PEOPLE cannot and should not lie on a police report right?

I would like to NOT REST on her decision and I employ the City Manager and the MAYOR to discover and correct this HUGE Bull Shat!”

11/18/2009: Email 4:07am m/s/t

From:  Billy bob Bramscher

To:  Barnhardt, Carol [WMC]; Westminster Mayor Nancy McNally; Salazar, Melissa  [City of Wesminster]

Subject:  No SHIt

Court says defendants can sue public defender

http://www.truthinjustice.org/pubdef.htm”

11/18/2009:  Email 7:19am m/s/t

From:  Billy bob Bramscher

To:  Salazar, Melissa [City of Westminster]

Subject:  Clear… Breath…

“Melissa…

The United States Supreme Court did rule that a Public Defender cannot supervise a case with any justice if that Public Defender has more than 200 cases a year…

What What?  The one I had had over 500+ in a year… [In WMC Only… Linda Lauchli practices at other county courts as well]

What What?”

11/18/09:  Email 7:36am m/s/t

From:  Billy bob Bramscher

To:  Barnhardt, Carol [WMC]

Subject:  Billy bob Bramscher

“Does the Judge know about this?

Ya know… he played professional football…

I was… and did create and implement the character of Billy Barnstormer…  The mascot for the Iowa Barnstormers Professional Arena Football Team.

Beyond the Dance girls and the cheerleaders… my favorite thing of the position was the kids and the people that most would consider ‘disabled’.

I am such a bad person… I coached soccer in W Des Moines Iowa… I coached 12 to 15 year-old-girls…  I was a Tech coach for two teams and the goalie coach for all.  I was the assistant goalie coach at Drake University too…

I am such a bad person…

Did I ever tell ya I am a writer…

Hmmmmmmm…..”

11/18/09:  Email 11/18/2009 8:57am m/s/t

From:  Billy bob Bramscher

To:  Barnhardt, Carol

Subject:  Billy bob Bramscher

“Over 500+ cases 2 Years Running… [in WMC ONLY]

You do know that The United States Supreme Court is NOT a topping on Taco Bell?

Class Action Lawsuit…

You guys are retarded Republican Ass-holes…

Aren’t You?

Tell that public defender I will be suing her… tell that Prosecuting Attorney that she might have won the battle but my PEN WIL win the war…

Fuck you and all the pain and sorrow you have caused me…

11/19/2009:  Email 11/19/09 10:00pm m/s/t

From:  Billy bob Bramscher

To:  Barnhardt, Carol [WMC]

Subject:  Right to Petition in the United States

“The American right of petition is derived from British precedent. In Blackstone’s Commentaries, first published in 1765, Americans in the Thirteen Colonies read that ‘the right of petitioning the king, or either house of parliament, for the redress of grievances’ was a ‘right appertaining to every individual’.

^Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England“. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk1ch1.htm.

“The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion“, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech and infringing on the freedom of the press. In the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_petition_in_the_United_States

12/03/2009:  Email 9:35am m/s/t

From:  Billy bob Bramscher

To:  Mile High Mayor John Hickenlooper

Subject:  Mayor John Hickenlooper…

“Sir…

I love rhetoric!

You and I have met.  I was at your office.

We met at the conference “The Fire from Within (?)” and I approached you as you were leaving and I asked you the question in the parking lot about the legalization of marijuana.

I was also in contact with your office whey you had the ‘Milargo Bean Field Wars’ book as a spot light at the library and I wanted to interview you because Professor David Kottenstette… at MSCD had us watch the movie for our Cultural Communications class…

I have ALWAYS believed in YOU!

Please BELIEVE in ME!

Thank you for your help… I just want to stop hating myself for things I never did.

~Cheers…”

12/03/2009:  Email 11:33am m/s/t

From:  Billy bob Bramcher

To:  tate.pubdef@coloradodefenders.us

Subject:  Billy bob Bramscher

“Hello…

I talked with a really nice lady on the phone today from your office.

If she could please author an email to me explaining the jurisdiction stuff and that she cannot help me and that she was going to refer me to Linda Lauchli?

I need this in print for future use…

~Cheers…”

12/03/2009:  Email 11:33am m/s/t

From:  Billy bob Bramscher

To:  Barnhardt, Carol [WMC]; Westminster Mayor Nancy McNally, Colorado; Salazar, Melissa [City of Westminster]; Mile High Mayor John Hickenlooper; advocates@capitol.state.co.us; attorney.general@state.co.us; state.pubdef@coloradodefenders.us; newstips@9news.com; newsroom@denverpost.com;

Subject:  Natalie Merchant – Billy bob Bramscher

“Doctors have come from distant cities just to see me
Stand over my bed, they’re disbelieving what they’re seeing
They say I must be one if the wonders of God’s own creation
And as far as they see they can offer no explanation

Newspapers ask intimate questions, want confessions
They reach into my head to steal the glory, of my story
They say I must be one if the wonders God’s own creation
And as far as they see they can offer no explanation

Chorus:
Oooh I believe, Fate smiled and Destiny,
Laughed as she came to my cradle
‘Know this child will be able’
And laughed as my body she lifted,
‘Know this child will be gifted, with love, with patience,
and with faith, she’ll make her way, make her way’

People see me, I’m a challenge to your balance,
I’m over your heads how I confound you,
and astound you to know I must be one if the wonders of God’s own creation
And as far as you see you can offer me no explanation

Oooh I believe, that Fate, Fate smiled and Destiny,
And laughed as she came to my cradle
‘Know this child will be able’
And laughed as she came to my mother
‘Know this child will not suffer’
Laughed as my body she lifted,
‘Know this child will be gifted, with love, with patience,
and with faith, she’ll make her way, she’ll make her way’
‘She’ll make her way.’ Mmmmm,”

12/03/09:  Email 8:48am m/s/t

From:  Billy bob Bramscher

To:  Barnhardt, Carol [WMC]; Westminster Mayor Nancy McNally, Colorado; Salazar, Melissa [City of Westminster]; Mile High Mayor John Hickenlooper; advocates@capitol.state.co.us; attorney.general@state.co.us; state.pubdef@coloradodefenders.us; newstips@9news.com; newsroom@denverpost.com;

Subject:  Lie’in 4 Die’in

“I have nothing left to give…

No reason to live…

In a world filled with fear,

Dry and lonely without tears.

Where are my brothers…

Where are my sisters…

One world One love,

No feeling from the skies above.

I tried running with the crowd…

Lifeless and broken,

On loneliness I am choking.”

12/03/09:  Email 10:24pm m/s/t

From:  Billy bob Bramscher

To:  Barnhardt, Carol [WMC]; Westminster Mayor Nancy McNally, Colorado; Salazar, Melissa [City of Westminster]; Mile High Mayor John Hickenlooper; advocates@capitol.state.co.us; attorney.general@state.co.us; state.pubdef@coloradodefenders.us; newstips@9news.com; newsroom@denverpost.com;

Subject:  If…

“If I killed myself would that make your life better?
Random phatic communication gone…
What could be better?”

12/03/09:  Email 11:18pm m/s/t

From:  Billy bob Bramscher

To:  Barnhardt, Carol [WMC]; Westminster Mayor Nancy McNally, Colorado; Salazar, Melissa [City of Westminster]; Mile High Mayor John Hickenlooper; advocates@capitol.state.co.us; attorney.general@state.co.us; state.pubdef@coloradodefenders.us; newstips@9news.com; newsroom@denverpost.com;

Subject:  Kitty Genovese

“I am Kitty… My name is Billy bob Bramscher…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese

I have transcended “student” and I am a “TEACHER”.

Meditate with ME and Share MY Wine… Brothers and Sisters…

Enjoy…

Catherine Susan Genovese (July 7, 1935[1] – March 13, 1964), commonly known as Kitty Genovese, was a New York City woman who was stabbed to death near her home in the Kew Gardens section of Queens, New York on March 13, 1964. Genovese was buried in a family grave at Lakeview Cemetery in New Canaan, Connecticut.

The circumstances of her murder and the lack of reaction of numerous neighbors were reported by a newspaper article published two weeks later; the common portrayal of neighbors being fully aware but completely nonresponsive has later been criticized as inaccurate. Nonetheless, it prompted investigation into the social psychological phenomenon that has become known as the bystander effect (seldom: “Genovese syndrome”) and especially diffusion of responsibility.

I would HELP YOU WIL YOU HELP ME?”

12/14/2009:  Email 12:42pm m/s/t

From:  Billy bob Bramscher

To:  Wollack, Jim [WPD]; Barnhardt, Carol [WMC]; Westminster Mayor Nancy McNally, Colorado; Salazar, Melissa [City of Westminster]; advocates@capitol.state.co.us; tate.pubdef@coloradodefenders.us; attorney.general@state.co.us; melinda.taylor@judicial.state.co.us;

Subject:  PD with 500 and 600 cases a year…

If you take that in a work year that there are 2080 hours of “work” time and that Linda Lockely had 600+ cases that only gives her:

3.46 hours to work on each case…

Now… keep in mind that Linda is in Court alot of the day working on cases…

I am sure that my following Constitutional Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of THESE United States signed ratified on December 15th, 1791 (Happy Birthday) [were violated]

Amendment 1

Amendment 4

Amendment 6

Amendment 8

To name a few things Westminster Court is in Violation of…

My name is William Robert Bramscher by birth and William Robert Votel by mother’s re-marriage…

I am a writer… I am WIL make this famous and I wil help other people that are grossly neglected by the court system.  I am and ADVOCATE for MYSELF today and tomorrow… for my fellow citizens…

You really REALLY REALLY HAVE to be kidding me that Westminster is trying to put me in a ‘crazy’ house because I am standing up for the COMMON MAN and defending my rights with a VOICE!”

NOTE:  Email forwarded at 12:54 pm m/s/t to:  newstips@9news.com; newsroom@9news.com;

12/14/2009:  Email 1:52pm m/s/t

From:  Billy bob Bramscher

To:  Wollack, Jim [WPD]; Barnhardt, Carol [WMC]; Westminster Mayor Nancy McNally, Colorado; Salazar, Melissa [City of Westminster]; advocates@capitol.state.co.us; tate.pubdef@coloradodefenders.us; attorney.general@state.co.us; melinda.taylor@judicial.state.co.us; newstips@9news.com; newsroom@9news.com;

Subject:  Public Defender Crisis

“I WIL change how things are done!

I contacted the National Bar Association to ask about case-load limits and those are set by each STATE and was therefore referred to the state.

In Colorado the number is 303.860.1115 and they are a volunteer organization and could not provide (like other states) case load limits and they did not refer me!

So this is a dead I reached…

Just like trying to complain on Lockley!  REALLY

All you have to do is google or yahoo or whatever you do “Public Defender [Crisis]” and you will find article after article of citizens’ rights being violated from state to state…

Would it not be nice if COLORADO under ‘Purple Skies of Majesty’ corrected this corruptness to PROTECT ITS CITIZENS?

I would bet that LINDA LAUCHLI spent UNDER (<) ONE (1) HOUR on my case!

really? REALLY REALLY?”

12/14/2009:  Email 12/14/2009 2:18pm m/s/t

From:  Billy bob Brascher

To:  melinda.taylor@judicial.state.co.us;

Subject:  One Last One

“Melinda Taylor…

I have not heard from you and I have tried to get so many people to help me!  I hope your working on this… but I bet not!

Timeline:

Marchish – Served with Restraining order papers
March – Turned myself in on the warrant and still had to give $1500 bail
August – New Attorney.  An old guy [John Chesteen] retiring that never did a jury trial gets my case.  My uncle and I have lunch with him at that Brew Pub by MSCD and Pepsi.  We then goto MSCD to listen to the Audio…
September – am informed the old guy [John Cheteen] is not my attorney… [and I lose my right to a jury trial as Paul Basso is the presiding Magistrate]
Octoberish- Linda Lauchli never calls me and does not show up for court.  I am threatened by the [John Stipech] that I better do a continuance because the next Public Defender date is out of range.  I think I am innocent and will be protected so I do so.
November – Never in contact with Linda Lauchli I do not show up for court.
November through Janurary – I contact Linda Lauchli by phone to discuss my case and she never calls me back.

Please Please Please Help ME…  I just want to be ‘Free’ of this and move on…”

12/14/2009:  Email 10:06pm

From:  Billy bob Bramscher

To:  Wollack, Jim [WPD]; Barnhardt, Carol [WMC]; Westminster Mayor Nancy McNally, Colorado; Salazar, Melissa [City of Westminster]; advocates@capitol.state.co.us; tate.pubdef@coloradodefenders.us; attorney.general@state.co.us; melinda.taylor@judicial.state.co.us; newstips@9news.com; newsroom@9news.com; 7newsdesk@kmgh.com;

Subject:  Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics Washington DC

“All…

I would like to know tomorrow that the Warrant has been revoked and I wil be there at 8 am on Wednesday.

I am also now in contact with:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics Washington DC

Having not heard from any of you… I have to ‘market’ this to higher and higher powers.

I am not a student I am a Teacher!

I wil protect my rights and the Constitution.

This is a very very serious issue when your PUBLIC DEFENDER Linda Lauchli has 500/600 cases in Westminster and she works for other cities and courts in Adams County.  This an extreme neglect to common-wealth of man women and family.

I look forward to helping our fellow community members, OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS, after I have vindicated myself.

Now is the time to help me… I promise…”

02/11/2010:  Email 2:34pm m/s/t

From:  Billy bob Bramscher

To:  Wollack, Jim [WPD]; Barnhardt, Carol [WMC]; Westminster Mayor Nancy McNally, Colorado; Salazar, Melissa [City of Westminster]; advocates@capitol.state.co.us; tate.pubdef@coloradodefenders.us; attorney.general@state.co.us; melinda.taylor@judicial.state.co.us; newstips@9news.com; newsroom@9news.com; 7newsdesk@kmgh.com;

Subject:  Billy bob Bramscher

“Greetings…

I was assaulted twice (2) at the Jeffco Jail on my 45 day trip through hell.

I am free and drinking wine and safe…

Colorado cannot hide behind profits from a judicial system that collects money regardless of innocents.

I asked all of you to help me previously but because you are in a system that benefits from the failure of justice…

My book Wil be entitled ‘Over Eighty-Six Jobs I 86’d, My Personal Stories, and Why America is Failing’

I have only started writing.  Expect every Congress member to know this soon.

It takes a village to raise a family and all of you are more concerned individual agendas.

Read the Constitution…  Believe in that and not in me…

Thank you…”

02.11.10:  Email 11:09pm m/s/t

From:  Billy bob Bramscher

To:  Wollack, Jim [WPD]; Barnhardt, Carol [WMC]; Westminster Mayor Nancy McNally, Colorado; Salazar, Melissa [City of Westminster]; advocates@capitol.state.co.us; tate.pubdef@coloradodefenders.us; attorney.general@state.co.us; melinda.taylor@judicial.state.co.us; newstips@9news.com; newsroom@9news.com; 7newsdesk@kmgh.com;

Subject:  What I Imagine…

“Love…

I imagine a world filled with no commercials about a pill to cure depression~

A world where we care for another and every girl a princess~

Fill your mind and heart with givin’…

Not a feeling of lapse breathing and false prayin’

Were and Where we give instead of gettin…

Smiles from doing and not waiting!

When can I see you again?

Are you afraid cause I do not support major sports?

Give Peace Love and Understanding a CHANCE…

Instead of hiding from each other,

We can laugh and dance…

That is the world I want!

If I die trying to make that happen…

I tried for that and romance…”

08/02/10:  Email 7:30pm m/s/t

From:  Billy bob Bramscher

To:  Westminster Mayor Nancy McNally

Subject:  Billy bob Bramscher VS Westminster

“Mayor Nancy McNally…

I have to tell you how awesome it was to hear the Charlie Sheen got to just walk away from Aspen saying that he “was going to Disney World”…

What happened to me again because a guy called and threatened [to kill] me?

Here is an article for you and here are two ways it applies to me:

1) I lost my right to a jury trial in [September] when I was not represented by an attorney because John [Stipech] was absent and I did not see [John] Stipech I saw the other judge [Paul D. Basso]

2)  At the next court date Linda Lauchli never showed up and I was threatened by Judge Stipech that I “had” to take a continuance and wave my right to speedy even though I had the right to walk away that moment and not look back at this…

3)  When I came back on the 16th of December 2009 and was being badgered by the mean mean mean Probation Officer that desired nothing more than my failure I could not be represented by Linda Lauchli because I called the State of Colorado on multiple occasions to complain about her conduct only to be referred back to Linda Lauchli to express my complaint against the same.  So the prosecuting attorney who hated me all through the original fiasco 2007 – 08… was defending me against that mean mean mean probation officer [Tracy Cutshaw] and then [David] ‘Rocky’ [Rockwell] showed up and did do nothing…

http://www.colorado-criminal-lawyer-online.com/plea-bargaining/

Would love to hear back from you as you are the leader of that village…”

08/02/2010:  Email 4:37pm m/s/t

From:  Billy bob Bramscher

To:  rcarroll@aspentimes.com; scondon@aspentimes.com; letters@aspendailynews.com;

Subject:  Charlie Sheen

“Greetings…

The quote on TMZ regarding the Charlie Sheen reads as follows:

UPDATE 3:15 PM PT: Outside of court moments ago, Charlie said he was feeling ‘good…’ the understatement of 2010 considering the plea deal his lawyer worked out for him.

My story:  In 2007 I received a call from a male I had never met or interacted with leaving the following voice-mail, “If you ever call Holly again I am going to kill you”.

I had charges against me in both Boulder, CO and also in Westminster, CO for telephone Harassment and other charges because I called the guy up and asked where he wanted to meet and I left Holly a few messages on her cell.

Boulder found out that the two complaints lied all over the Boulder Police report and the case was immediately dropped.

During the course of my prosecution [WMC] my public defender changed 3 times within 6 months… I had horrible representation… somehow in September (arrested in March) I lost my right to a jury trial…  My second lawyer was John [Chesteen] and he “had never had a jury trial and this was going to be his first one” all of the sudden [John Chesteen] was no longer my lawyer and my first public defender became the 3rd… Linda Lockely… Linda was a horrible lawyer and never was in contact with me for 3 months before the [court] date… I had no defense and no jury… I was cooked…

From continued harassment from the Parole Officer… I left Colorado only to return 2 years later to turn myself in… I drove from Santa Cruz, CA to Westminster… it took 5 days and I was not sleeping and I was not eating…  I turn myself in December 16th and I stay[ed] all day at the court… my condition is getting worse… the warrant is dropped and I am PR’d and the court guard drives me to hospital and I am then put into Centennial Peaks…  I leave there unaware and over-drugged and then [wake up and] I am in Jeffco Jail in the SHU on suicide prevention some week after I remember things…

I then spend 43 days of a 45 day sentence in a corrupt jail and I was in Medium for 33 days and my record shows I did not deserve that…”

11/24/10:  Email 5:50pm m/s/t

From:  Martinez, Loretta [WMC]

To:  Torres, Neveda [WMC]

Cc:  Barnhardt, Carol [WMC

Subject:  Call on 11/24/2010

“Received a call at approximately 4:45pm from a caller who identified himself as Billy [b]ob.  Later in the conversation he said we would know him as William Votel.  He said he was writing a book called Oregon Trail.

He talked of Linda Lauchli [Public Defender] and wanted to know how many cases she has handled in this court and how many other courts in Adams County’s jurisdiction that she may have had cases in.

He asked about the female prosecutor (Kimberly [Kaufman]) if she was still here at the court.  He said that he didn’t like her when he first met her but he thought she was very helpful to him towards the end of his case.

He asked if the lady probation officer with curly brown hair was still at the court.  (no other questions about Tracy [Cutshaw])

He commented that Judge Stipech was very mean to him because he made him take a continuance and it’s all on record.

He mentioned that he was in Las Vegas and had recently move[d] to a cheaper apartment because the rent in Vegas is very expensive.

He mentioned that he would be spending Thanksgiving alone because his family does not have anything to do with him.  He was going to have [Ramen] noodles and a bologna sandwich for dinner on Thanksgiving.  He mentioned he was very fortunate for that because there are people that will go starving.

He said he was gonna have to be the one to change this world for the sake of his 8 year old niece.

He thanked me and wished me a Happy Thanksgiving.  He said he would call Monday for the information on Linda Lauchli.

Nevada, this is what I can remember of the conversation.  I did call Tracy to tell her of the phone call.”

11/29/2010:  Billy bob Bramscher via the telephone, from Las Vegas, Nevada, filed a formal complaint with the Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel (ARC), #2010-3798, against Westminster Municipal Magistrate John Stipech establishing and triggering the protection of the United States Federal Constitutions First Amendment.  The petition for investigation #2010-3798 submitted to the Attorney Regulation Counsel pursuant to CRPC Rule 251.5 and 251.9(a)(1), is a constitutionally protected activity (see United States v Cruickshank, 92 US 542, 552, 23 L Ed 588 (1875)).  Courts have held that the filing of grievances is protected under the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances and the United States Supreme Court has recurrently treated the right to petition similarly to, and frequently overlapping with the First Amendments other guarantees of Free Expression.

12/01/10:  Email 11:22am m/s/t

From:  Jim Wollack [Westminster Police Department]

To:  Birk, Lee [WPD Chief of Police]; Cressman, Mike [WPD Deputy Chief]; Stipech, John [WMC]; Cutshaw, Tracy [WMC]

Cc:  Jones, Jeff [WPD]; Sgambelluri, Doug [WPD]; Barnhardt, Carol [WMC]; Kaufman, Kimberly [WMC]

“I spoke with Phil Maimone [WPD] this morning and he confirmed that some possible threats had been made toward Judge Stipech and probation officer, Tracy Cutshaw.  These threats were made by telephone to an employee at city hall [Rosanna Minjarez].  Officer Maimone [WPD] will be completing a report on this incident today…”

NOTE:  “POSSIBLE THREATS”

NOTE:  Nothing is mentioned about “blowing-up the courthouse” the “judge” or the “probation officer”

12/06/2010:  Email 6:45am m/s/t

From:  Barnhardt, Carol [WMC]

To:  Sgambelluri, Doug [WPD]; Birk, Lee [WPD Chief of Police]; Cressman, Mike [WPD Deputy Chief]; Carlson, Tim [WPD Deputy Chief]

Cc:  Jones, Jeff [WPD]; Beren, Kevin [WPD]; Clark, Timothy [WPD]; Wollack, Jim [WPD]; Pepper, Vaughn [WPD]; Lindberg, Mark,[WPD]; Lutkus, Matt [Westminster Deputy City Manager]

Subject:  RE:  Billy bob Bramscher

“Billy bob Bramscher left me a voice message on 11/29/10 wanting to know who “regulates the judge.”  I was out of town and I did not return his call.  He left a cell number for me to call – xxx-xxx-xxxx.  Let me know if you want me to forward his voice message – it was non-threatening, only an inquiry and request for me to return his call…”

12/06/10:  Email 1:50pm m/s/t

From:  Barnhardt, Carol [Municipal Court Administrator]

To:  Birk, Lee [WPD Chief of Police]; Cressman, Mike [WPD Deputy Chief]; Carlson, Tim [WPD Deputy Chief]; Lutkus, Matt [Westminster Deputy City Manager]

Cc:  Stipech, John [Municipal Magistrate WMC]

Subject:  Billy bob Bramscher – Complaint to Attorney Regulations

“John got a letter today from the Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel regarding a request to investigate John Stipech that Billy bob Bramscher made to them on November 29, 2010.  Apparently Billy bob Bramscher had a conversation on December 2, 2010 with Assistant Regulation Counsel Matthew Samuelson who explained to Billy bob Bramscher that his issues were legal issues and not ethical issues.  Billy bob Bramscher disagreed with Samuelson’s analyses and asked Samuelson to send written confirmation of their phone conversation.  Samuelson did so and sent a copy to John.  Attorney Regulations closed this matter.

Do any of you want a PDF copy of the letter or is this enough info for you?”

NOTE:  On this phone conversation I told Matthew Samuelson that after I proved him wrong I would pay for him to take ethics classes at Denver University (DU).  Think the ending scene of “Billy Madison” (1995)!!!

12/06/2010:  Email 3:13pm m/s/t

From:  Cressman, Mike [WPD Deputy Chief]

To:  Barnhardt, Carol [Municipal Court Administrator]

Cc:  Stipech [Municipal Magistrate WMC]; Birk, Lee [WPD Chief of Police]; Carlson, Tim [WPD Deputy Chief]; Lutkus, Matt [Westminster Deputy City Manager]

Subject:  Billy bob Bramscher – Complaint to Attorney Regulations

“Rich Infranca has been assigned the Billy bob Bramscher’s case.  He may need this (may not) to help show that Billy bob Bramscher, besides threatening the judge, is looking for ways to make his life uncomfortable (harassment).  I’ll let Rich get a hold of the judge directly as there may be some confidentially issues here. Thanks”

NOTE:  This email is pure gold in my case…  My complaints were simply that I believed John Stipech was a “bad apple” in the tree of Justice and I thought he should be disbarred (fired) and that is the “threat” and the basis of the “harassment” was legally filling a complaint against John Stipech with the Attorney Regulation Counsel!!!

12/28/2010:  Billy bob Bramscher via telephone filed complaint with Randall Klein, Internal Affairs, Jefferson County, against Westminster Magistrate John Stipech and other allegations/complaints and also sent emails with evidence attached.  No response…

01/04/2011:  I was in Las Vegas, Nevada, I was proactively sought by LVPD and sum six (6) undercover officers arrested me at my weekly rental in the morning.  The arresting officer made the statement, “I do not know who you pissed-off but you pissed somebody off big-time.”

06/01/2011:  Billy bob Bramscher via the telephone filed a second formal complaint with the Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel (ARC), #2011-1728, against Westminster Municipal Judge John Anthony Stipech.

In a written response, Matthew A. Samuelson, Assistant Regulation Counsel, responds in part, “Specifically, you allege that the criminal charge was filed against you in retaliation for the fact that you filed a request for investigation with this office in 2010 against Judge Stipech asserting that he violated your constitutional rights.”

08/12/2011:  Former District Attorney Don Quick and Daniel Brechbuhl, Former Senior Deputy District Attorney, Adams County, motions to the court, “The Defendant’s weapon is words.  He seeks to destroy those who he feels has wronged him by using his weapon of choice to threaten people with his goal of getting people fired from their jobs.

11/02/11:  Lynn Vorhees completes a Westminster Police Department Adams and Jefferson County Statement Form:

“Sometime towards the latter part of November, 2010, I received a phone call from the City of Westminster Operator, Rosanna Minjarez, stating that she was transfereing a call to me.  She mentioned that the caller was upset and had been making “threats” to the Judge.

My conversation with Billy bob Bramscher was centered around his desire to write a book sharing the story of how he had been mistreated by the city.  I don’t recall it in great detail…”

01/30/2012:  Trial started ending on February 6, 2012 and as my own lawyer (pro se) I was found “NOT GUILTY” by a jury of my peers. At this time, I was charged with C.R.S. 18-8-615 via 18-9-111(1)(e) and the mens rea was changed to “Specific Intent” instead of “Knowing” as incorrectly alleged for over thirteen (13) months…

06/28/13 Email 1:45pm

From:  Billy bob Bramscher

To:  Klein, Randall [Jefferson County Sheriff]

Subject:  Billy bob Bramscher

“So apparently I make real complaints with substance and you never ever ever return emails about these complaints.

I spoke to someone at the jail and was informed that your not even Internal Affairs…

WTF Brother…  I spent 13 months in jail being arrested on Jan 4 2011 after I sent this complaint!!!  Talk about First Amendment Retaliation…

Please respond…  you are under “Color of State” and I would hate to think that you have also violated my civil rights and are now personally financially responsible for the severely poor service you have provided me…

As a cop your supposed to protect me and other citizens… not trample, piss, shit and so on all over my rights to Redress the Government for Grievances…”

C.  Case or Controversy

There is no question that speech critical of the exercise of the state’s power lies at the very center of the First Amendment and this case involves punishment of pure speech in the political forum (see Butterworth v Smith, 494 US 624, 632, 108 L Ed 2d 572, 110 S Ct 1376 (1990) in re “that dissemination of information relating to alleged governmental misconduct is ‘speech which has traditionally been recognized as lying at the core of the First Amendment’.”; Sheppard v Maxwell, 384 US 333, 350, 16 L Ed 2d 600, 86 S Ct 1507 (1966) in re “The press… guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism.”; Nebraska Press Assn v Stuart, 427 US 539,606, 49 L Ed 2d 683, 96 S Ct 2791 (1976) in re “Public awareness and criticism have even greater importance where, as here, they concern allegations of police corruption.”;  Whitney v California, 274 US 357, 378-379, 71 L Ed 1095, 47 S Ct 641 (1927) in re “Whenever the fundamental rights of free speech… are alleged to have been invaded, it must remain open to [Billy bob Bramscher] to present the issue whether there actually did exist at the time a clear danger; whether the danger, if any, was imminent, and whether the evil apprehended was one so substantial as to justify the stringent restrictions interposed by the legislature.”;  Landmark Communications, Inc v Virginia, 435 US 829, 56 L Ed 2d 1, 98 S Ct 1535 (1978) in re “A major purpose of the First Amendment protects the free discussion of Governmental Affairs.”)

The right of an American Citizen to criticize public officials and policies and to advocate peacefully ideas for change is “The central meaning of the First Amendment” (quoting New York Times v Sullivan, 376 US 254,273, 84 S Ct 710, 11 L Ed 2d 686 (1964); see also Weise v Casper, 593 F3d 1163, 1175 (10th Cir 2010) in re Halloway, J. dissenting, “Official reprisal for protected speech ‘offends the constitution because it threatens to inhibit exercise of the protected right,’ and the law is settled that as a general matter the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions… for speaking out.”;  Members of City Counsel of City of Los Angeles v Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 US 789, 804, 104 S Ct 2118, 80 L Ed 2d 772 (1984) in re “The general principle that has emerged from this line of cases is that the First Amendment forbids the government to regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints at the expense of others.”; Mesa v White, 197 F3d 1041 (10th Cir 1999) in re “Public comment period of public meeting.”; Kingsley Int’l Pictures Corp v Regents of the Univ of the State of N.Y.,360 US 684, 79 S Ct 1362, 3 L Ed 2d 1512 (1959) in re “Government cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination.”; Glasson v City of Louisville, 518 F2d 899 (6th Cir 1975) in re “Protesting in public forum.”; Hope v Pelzer, 536 US 730, 740, 122 S Ct 2508, 153 L Ed 2d 666 (2002) in re the City of Westminster, Westminster Police Department, Westminster Municipal Court, Adams County/District Court, Adams County District Attorney, Colorado Public Defenders/Alternative Defense Counsel] violated Billy bob Bramscher’s rights “on a pretext so flimsy that the violation was obvious.”; Watts v United States, 394 US 705, 707, 89 S Ct 1399, 22 L Ed 2d 664 (1969) in re “What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech”)

Government entities cannot be victims for purposes for the Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004.  Under the Federal Rules Crim P Rule 1(b)(11) “victim” means a “crime victim” as defined in 18 USC § 3771(e).

NOTE:  “For the purposes of this chapter, the term “crime victim” means a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3771

WPD Case 2010-20293 page one (1) reports the only victim as John Anthony Stipech, concurring in WPD case filing cover sheet for the warrant, 10CR3690:

John Anthony Stipech completed a victim impact statement reporting the impact of [Billy bob Bramscher’s] “Behavior, comments, THREATS, etc. have a PROFESSIONAL impact versus a Personal impact on my staff and other city employees.  [Billy bob Bramscher] has harassed, annoyed, disrupted, put in fear and upset several of the city and court staff.”

NOTE:  NO “Personal Impact” of “HARM

In addition to Stipech’s limited statement, “Information from the court administrator” Carol J Barnhardt, is included although she was never listed as a victim and irrelevant to the falsely alleged single act conduct in question in this case as set forth in the complaint & information filed against the defendant, Barnhardt complains “Starting November of 2009 thru December of 2010, [Defendant] sent numerous emails to the City’s Mayor, City Manager Staff and the Municipal Court Administrator, which were very disruptive, annoying, harassing, and concerning.”  Barnhardt completes her slanderous and liable rant requesting “That a protection order be put in place to restrain [Defendant] from contacting in any way (email, phone calls, etc) ALL CITY EMPLOYEES.”

Billy bob Bramscher, based on the statements offered by Stipech and Barnhardt, petitions that the “Act of Harassment” Billy bob Bramscher was unconstitutionally charged was a product and argument that emails and telephone calls irrelevant to case 10CR3690/11SA212 [in addition to the complaint the Attorney Regulation Counsel] resulted in bullying, bad-faith investigation, vindictive prosecution, malicious prosecution, First Amendment Retaliation and Civil Rights violations by City of Westminster, Westminster Police Department, Westminster Municipal Court, Adams County/District Court, Adams County District Attorney, Colorado Public Defenders/Alternative Defense Counsel as punishment for impeding the city’s undoubted interest in operational efficiency (see United States v National Treasury Union, 513 US 454, 473, 130 L Ed 2d 964, 115 S Ct 1003 (1995)).

There is, however, no evidence that Billy bob Bramscher’s numerous and legitimate emails and phone calls petitioning for a redress of grievances and freedom of press over the course of a year in any discernible way impeded, disrupted or harassed the efficiency of the City of Westminster.  Indeed, it can safely be said the governments interest in efficiency is simply not implicated on the facts which entail the brief distraction of the clerical staff who answered Billy bob Bramscher’s emails and calls (see United States v Popa, 337 US APP DC 411, 187 F3d 672, 677-78 (Dc Cir 1999) in re “Holding that telephone harassment statue was unconstitutional as applied to defendant who had placed seven calls to a US Attorney to complain about his treatment by the police and the prosecutor’s conduct in a case against him.”; United States v Bowker, 372 F3d 365, 393 (6th Cir 2004) in re “if Bowker had been charged with placing anonymous telephone calls to a public official with the intent to annoy him or her about a political issue, the telephone harassment statute might have been unconstitutional as applied.”; see also Chaplinsky v New Hamshire, 315 US 568, 571, 86 L Ed 1031, 62 S Ct 766 (1942); United States v Lampley, 573 F2d 783 (3rd Cir 1978); United States v Darcey, 342 F Supp 311 (ED PA 1972); H.R. No 1109, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, US Code Cong and Admin News p1915 (1968)).

Billy bob Bramscher was charged unconstitutionally with having allegedly committed “An Act of Harassment” in violation of C.R.S. 18-8-615, Retaliation Against a Judge.  The term “Harassment” is synonymous with “vex,” “trouble,” or “annoy” (see Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, at 721 (7th ED 1999) in re defining “harassment” as conduct that is directed at a specific person that “annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress and serves no legitimate purpose”); see C.R.S. 18-9-111. Harassment in re “A person commits harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person…”

Billy bob Bramscher maintains absolutely denial in re the allegations of City of Westminster operator Rosanna Minjarez who falsely completed a police report and further testified at the preliminary hearing (held 07.05.11) and at trial that she received an unrecorded and undocumented threatening telephone call from a “Billy bob” (no last name) on 11/29/10 at 3:30pm m/s/t as reported on the Westminster Police Deparment, CRN 2010-20293.  Citing People v Carey, 198 P3d 1223 (Colo App 2008), “Telephone Harassment requires PROOF of a telephone or computer communication that is obscene or is made in a manner intended to harass or threaten bodily injury or property damage.”

To meet the requirement of standing at an irreducible constitutional minimum, the Adam’s County District Attorney had to demonstrate that (1) John Anthony Stipech suffered and injury in fact [HARM]; (2) There was a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) It is likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

The Above established in re Case or Controversy the Adams County Former District Attorney Don Quick fatally failed to demonstrate standing and probable cause proving Billy bob Bramscher is a victim of bullying, bad-faith investigation, vindictive prosecution, malicious prosecution, First Amendment Retaliation and Civil Rights violations by City of Westminster, Westminster Police Department, Westminster Municipal Court, Adams County/District Court, Adams County District Attorney, Colorado Public Defenders/Alternative Defense Counsel.

D.  Substantive & Procedural Due Process Claims

Complaint & Information

Billy bob Bramscher petitions that the Information in 10CR3690 is fatally flawed lacking probable cause for both warrant and prosecution failing to meet fundamental fairness and legal guidelines.  Placing Billy bob Bramscher under undetermined criminal charge(s) or under the cloud of undetermined criminal charges for an indeterminate and unreasonable period of time is a violation of Due Process (see People v Aragon, 643 P2d 43 (Colo 1982)).

The Complaint and Information filed by the Adams County District Attorney Don Quick on 12/23/10:

Count 1 – Retaliation Against A Judge (F4)

On or about November 29, 2010, [Billy bob Bramscher] unlawfully, feloniously, and knowingly**, as retaliation or retribution against John Stipech, a judge*** who has served or is serving in a legal matter assigned to the judge involving the defendant or a person on whose behalf the defendant is acting, committed an act of harassment**** against or upon John Stipech, the judge; in violation of section 18-8-615, C.R.S.

**Both the terms “Retribution” and “Retaliation” by definition require SPECIFIC INTENTIONAL conduct.  See 18-1-503(4); 18-1-501(5); citing Adams County District Court No 02CR3167, People v McIntier, 134 P3d 467 (Colo App 2005); Supreme Court of Colorado No 05SC203 People v Manzo, 10/02/06; People v Hickman, 988 P2d 628, 644-45 (Colo 1999); see also United States v Houlihan, 937 F Supp 75,76 (D Mass 1996) in re “intent to retaliate” in 18 USCS 1513 requires proof either of “sole or abiding purpose” or “purpose mixed in with other purposes”); see also Welhsler, The Challenge of a Model Penal Code, 65 Harv L Rev 1097 (1952).

***John Anthony Stipech is NOT a Judge. In his public capacity, John Stipech is an attorney appointed as an officer of a municipality; albeit he has many duties involving the enforcement of law (see Colorado Court Rules for Magistrates, Chapter 35 C.R.M. 3, Rule 3. Definitions (a) “Magistrate: Any person other than a judge authorized by statute or by these rules to enter orders or judgments in judicial proceedings.”)

****Whereas the phrase “ACT OF HARASSMENT” is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad failing to charge defendant with a crime (see People v Hickman, 988 P2d 628, 11/9/1999 in re “that the phrase ‘act of harassment’ in the statute [CRS 18-8-706] is unconstitutionally over-broad and strike it from the statute,” see Id at 643)

Citing People v Westendorf, 37 Colo App 111, 11/13/75, “An insufficient indictment does not legally charge a crime or subject defendant to the jurisdiction of the court” and an Information is sufficiently particular if it elucidates the elements of a crime, enlightens a defendant as to the nature of the charges against which he must defend and enables him to plead double jeopardy in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense (see United States v Whiffen, 121 F3d 18, 08/29/97; see also United States v Sepulveda, 15 F3d 1161, 1192 (1st Cir 1993).

The constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of an accusation, generally, is rooted in the United States Constitutions Sixth Amendment.  The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation is substantial and cannot be denied (quoting Grimsley v United States (1931, CA5 FLA) 50 F2d 509) and the information must answer the questions of who, what, where, and how (quoting People v Joseph, 920 P2d 850 (Colo APP 1995); see also People v Tucker, 631 P2d 162 (07/13/81); People v Steiner, 640 P2d 250, 05/20/81)).  A defendant charged with a crime must be brought into court on a complaint, information, or indictment made or found according to the requirements of the law (quoting Bustamante v People, 136 Colo 362, 317 P2d 885 (1957)) and there can be no conviction or punishment for a crime without formal and sufficient accusation (quoting Spence v Dowd (194, CA7 IND) 145 F2d 451).

Fatal Errors in the Complaint & Information case 10CR3690 include, yet are not limited to:  (1) Failure to specify date & time of the commission of offense (see People v Timmes, 643 P2d 780 (Colo APP 1981); (2) Failure to allege essential elements of crime (see Magee v People, 79 Colo 328, 245 P708 (1926); (3) Failure to allege offense with specificity (see People v Westendorf, 37 Colo APP 111, 542 P2d 1300 (1975); and (4) There are numerous ways to commt the crime of C.R.S. 18-8-615 and the information did not state manner in which it was allegedly committed (see People v Tucker, 631 P2d 162, (07/13/81); Reimer-Gross Co v United States (1927, CA6 OHIO) 20 F2d 36 ; State v Prejean (1950) 216 LA 1072, 45 So 2d 627).

Preliminary Hearing

Case 10CR3690 was set for Preliminary Hearing on 02/18/2011 yet the Preliminary hearing was not held until 07/05/2011, 158 days after the setting without good cause (see People v Hogland, 37 Colo APP 34, 543 P2d 1298 (1975) in violation of Crim P 5; see also C.R.S. 16-1-104 (14); C.R.S. 16-5-301.)  Judge Howell, Public Defender Cathlin Matson and Adams County District Attorney Don Quick/Daniel Brechbuhl did attempt to maliciously prosecute Billy bob Bramscher as incompetent and insane (see Lowen v Hilton, 142 Colo 200, 351 P2d 881 (1960)) and Judge Howell committed abuse of discretion ordering a stay of proceedings to include the Preliminary Hearing with a ruling that did not conform to the statutory criteria of 16-8.5-101(7) (see United States v Crawford, 738 F Supp 564, 05/25/90 in re “Defendant is entitled to a probable cause determination prior to commitment” under C.R.S. 16-8.5-102.”; see also United States v Marino, 148 F Supp 75 (N.D. ILL 1957) in re “Probable cause establishes jurisdiction, without which the competency  provisions themselves cannot operate.”)

Citing Lively v Cullinane, 451 F Supp 1000, 05/09/78, “The standard by which the court is to judge whether the defendants processing procedures before presentment pass constitutional muster is whether they lead to the detainment of the arrestee only so long as need to complete the administrative steps incident to arrest.  After that short period of time the core guarantee of the Fourth Amendment moves into the foreground – the individual arrested and held by police must be brought before a judicial officer who determines if probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed by the person detained.”  As the Court in United States v United
States District Court
, 407 US 297, 316 92 S Ct 2125, 32 L Ed 752 (1972) pointed out, the “Very heart of the Fourth Amendment Directive” is that a search and/or seizure necessarily involves “the judgment of the magistrate that collected evidence is sufficient to justify invasion of a citizen’s private premise or conversation.”

In Gerstein v Pugh, 420 US 103, 114, 43 L Ed 2d 54, 95 S Ct 854 (1975) the court explained it’s holding that “an individual could be detained before trial only upon a finding of probable cause by a neutral magistrate.  A prosecutor’s information was not sufficient.”  A person detained under a civil commitment statue must be given a hearing “within a reasonable time” to ensure probable cause exists to believe that confinement is constitutionally and statutorily warranted” (see Brown v Fauntleroy, 143 US APP DC 116, 117,442 F2d 838, 839 (1971).

In case 10CR3690 Judge Popovich mad an erroneious ruling on 12/16/11 that C.R.S. 16-8.5-111 et seq. granted indefinite “Stay Proceeding” completely ignoring the language in C.R.S 16-8.5-102(1); 16-8.5-101(7); Crim P 5; and, the Federal Speedy Trial Act (1974); see Chavez v Dist Ct 17th Jud Dist, 648 P2d 658, 07/26/82; People v Driscoll, 200 Colo 410, 08/25/80;  United States Federal Constitutional Amendments 4, 5, 6 & 14.

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_18799133

http://www.thelegalcenter.org/index.php?s=10188&item=126628

NOTE:  I was in contact with Mark Ivandick, Attorney #27041, with The Legal Center for People with Disabilities and Older People, via USPS from Adams County Jail starting on 06/08/11, 06/29/11, 07/31/11, 08/19/11 and 08/31/11.  He never bothered to help me or even inform me of the lawsuit…  Starting in September I was also in contact Iris Eytan with Reilly Pozner LLP in re my six (6) month wait for a Preliminary hearing and other violations and they could have cared less about me…  Some lawyers only really care about the media and fame for their “ego’s” and actually do not help the victims of civil rights violations.

NOTE:  This law suit was a joke…  All Colorado did was comport to Federal Standards which they are obligated to do because of the Supremacy Clause in the United States Constitution.  I promise to write more about my interactions, observations and Gonzo opinion(s) in the near future on this blog on this topic!!!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause

Judicial Abuse of Discretion

In addition to the above noted abuses by Judge Howell and Judge Popovich, The judge who issued the warrant did so based on zero evidence relying on only one hearsay witness, Rosanna Minjarez, causing a fatal error and violating Billy bob Bramscher’s rights.  In addition, Chief Judge Phelps, on 10/21/11, committed abuse of discretion by his active role in the presentation of the prosecution’s case encouraging and participating in the Amendment of Substance and Jurisdiction of Count 1:  Retaliation Against John Stipech, C.R.S. 18-8-615, “An Act of Harassment” to now include “as defined in section 18-9-111(1)(e),(3) after the District Attorney made full proffer on 08/12/11.

Case 10CR3690 endured sum six (6) different judges with Chief Judge Phelps appearing during two critical hearings.  The Supreme Court of Colorado said in Hartun v District, 178 Colo 118, 495 P2d 539 (1972), “[T]he semblance of Due process is a sham when the Judge is both prosecutor and Judge.”  After all, they were protecting one of their own, Former NFL Football Player John Stipech!!!  In re Chief Judge Phelps, Judge Popovich, Judge Howell, Judge Cox, and Judge Bowen all have committed abuse of discretion and a wilfull, wanton, prejudice for Billy bob Bramscher’s Due Process (see People v Milton, 732 P2d 1199 (Colo 1987)).

NOTE:  Playing musical chairs allowed for “bystander-effect” aka “Diffusion of Responsibility”

In re Chief Judge Phelps, Judge Popovich, Judge Howell, Judge Cox and Judge Bowen pursuant to Colorado Court Rules CRCivilP Chap 20 Rue 251.4 “it is the duty of the judge to report misconduct or disability of counsel.  A most sacred duty is to maintain the integrity of the law profession by disciplining lawyers who indulge in practices which are designed to perpetrate a fraud of the courts” in re to former District Attorney Don Quick and former Senior Deputy District Attorney Daniel Brechbuhl. (see People v Radinsky, 176 Colo 357, 490 P2d 951 (1971))

In re Judge Bowen and Judge Cox, probable cause is necessary for issuance of arrest warrant and at preliminary hearing to hold individual over and the judge is not to accept the mere conclusion of Complainant but should require and examine underlying facts. (see People v Moreno, 176 Colo 488, 491 {2d 575 (1971); Sergent v People, 177 Colo 354, 497 P2d 983 (1972))

NOTE:  In case 10CR3690, no facts existed.

In re Chief Judge Phelps, Judge Popovich, Judge Howell, Judge Cox and Judge Bowen all were actively aware that former District Attorney Don Quick and former Senior Deputy District Attorney were in violation of CCR CRCiP Rule 3.8(a),(c),(d),(e)(2) of the CRPC, prosecuting a charge that the prosecutors knew was not supported by probable cause.

So, the issue before us is whether “sufficient factual grounds exist to cause a reasonable, objective person, knowing all the relevant facts, to question the Judge’s impartiality.”  (see United States v Pearson, 203 F3d 1243, 1277 (10th Cir 2000); Liteky v United States, 510 US 540, 555, 114 S Ct 1147, 127 L Ed 2d 474 (1994) in re “evidence the degree favoritism or antagonism required for recusal”.)

Billy bob Bramscher petitions the Judges conduct case 10CR3690 displayed a deep-seated favoritism and antagonism that would make fair judgments impossible.  Billy bob Bramscher makes claim that the trial courts decisions were manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, and unfair and the trial court failed to articulate a reason for some decisions and not such reason was readily apparent from the record or the Judges articulated reasons which had no basis in fact or the reason so articulated is contrary to law.  (see In Re Bueno, 248 B.R. 581, 582-83 (D COLO 2000); Todd v Bear Valley Village Apartments, 980 P2d 973, 977 (Colo 1999) in re “trial court’s broad discretion to act in a “managerial role”); CRCP 16 Committee cmt in re “It is expected that trial judges will assertively lead the management of cases to ensure justice is served.”)

The role of the Judiciary, if its integrity is to be maintained, is one of impartiality.  (see People v Martinez, 185 Colo 187 (Colo 1974); Cannon 1, Colorado Code of Judicial Ethics (1973)).  The Judge who presides over civil and criminal cases should be fair, unbiased and completely impartial.  Any bias, hostility or prejudice or even interest in the outcome of a given civil or criminal case will disqualify a judge from presiding over that case.  (see Tumey v Ohio, 273 US 510, 47 S Ct 437, 71 L Ed 749 (1927); Whitaker v McClean, 73 APP DC 259, 118 F2d 596  (1941); Cf Berger v United States, 255 US 22, 65 L Ed 481, 41 S Ct 230 (1921); Offutt v United States, 348 US 11, 99 L Ed 11, 75 S Ct 11 (1954))

E. Conclusion

I am Billy bob Bramscher and I am a victim of bullying, bad-faith investigation, vindictive prosecution, malicious prosecution, First Amendment Retaliation and Civil Rights violations by City of Westminster, Westminster Police Department, Westminster Municipal Court, Adams County/District Court, Adams County District Attorney, Colorado Public Defenders/Alternative Defense Counsel.

Billy bob Bramscher’s criticisms focused on matters of “Public Concern” as required by Connick v Myers, 461 US 138, 75 L Ed 2d 708, 103 S Ct 1684 (1983) and Billy bob Bramscher’s constitutional protections were clearly established (see Glover v Mabrey, 384 Fed Appx 763 (06/04/10).

Official retaliation against on who threatens to expose governmental corruption may, in certain circumstances, amount to political persecution warranting relief.  (see Hayrapetyan v Mukasey, 534 F3d 1330, 1337 (10th Cir 2008) in re “explaining  that persecution requires the infliction of suffering or harm by the government itself, or by a non-governmental group that the government is unwilling or unable to control.”; see Ahang v Gonzales, 426 F3d 540,542 (2nd Cir 2005) in re “Retaliation for opposition to government corruption may… constitute persecution of political opinion.”; Hasan v Ashcroft, 380 F 3d 1114, 1120-21 (9th Cir 2004) in re exposure of political leader’s corruption is “inherently political.”; Grava v INS, 205 F3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir 2000) in re whistleblowing against abuse of public trust is necessarily political, even where whistleblower does not espouse political theory.”)

Billy bob Bramscher relies on Lord Camden’s discussion of the warrant as a powerful weapon for suppressing political agitation in Entick v Carrington, 19 How St Tr (ENG) 1029, 1030, 1073, 1074 (1762) and “The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is a common-law” (see Boyd v United States, 116 US 616, 29 Led 746, 6 S Ct 524 (1886)) and from Weeks v United States, 232 US 383, 58 L Ed 652, 34 S Ct 341 (1914), “That arrest under a warrant for ‘imaginary’ or ‘trumped-up’ charges is familiar practice in the past, is commonplace in the police state of today, and all too well-known in this Country” and “It may safely be asserted that crime is most effectively brought to book when the principles underlying the constitutional restraints upon police action are most scrupulously observed.”  (see United States v Rabinowitz, 94 L Ed 653,339, US 56, 79-82 (1950).

NOTE:  In the movie “Good Will Hunting” (1997) Matt Damon’s character “Will” quotes case law going back to 1789 stating to the judge, “There is a lengthy legal precedent, Your Honor, going back to 1789, whereby a defendant may claim self-defense against an agent of the government where the act is shown to be a defense against tyranny, a defense of liberty-”

Well, LOL…  “Good Billy bob Hunting” goes back to 1762!!!  How ya like them apples Matt Damon and Ben Affleck!!!  ROFLMBO…  Wicked’ F’n Awesome!!!

~Your Affectionate and Obedient Servant…

~BbB~

~Billy bob Bramscher

http://www.facebook.com/BlueDakini

One thought on “First Amendment Retaliation

  1. Pingback: Happy Fathers’ Day 2017 Universal Compassion!!! | Lonesome Lozer

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s