Declaration of Rights & Grievances – For the Cause and Friends of Liberty


Real Honesty…  Pure Love…  True Integrity…”   ~Billy bob Bramscher

Note:  Please know that all case law presented within this blog is on file with the Adams County Colorado District/County Court 10CR3690 and the majority with Colorado Supreme Court 11SA212.  Copies were also sent to the Adams County District Attorney and Judge

At one point, September 01, 2011 I began a gorilla marketing campaign and from Adams County Detention Center the following persons/organizations were mailed the “Declaration of Rights & Grievances – For the Cause and Friends of Liberty”:

1)     President Barrack Huessin Obama – The White House

2)     Supreme Court of the United States

3)     Colorado Senate President Brandon Shaffer

4)     Colorado Senate Majority Leader John P Morse

5)     Colorado Senate Minority Leader Mike Kopp

6)     Colorado Senate Pro Tempro President Betty Boyd

7)     Supreme Court of Colorado – Christopher T Ryan

8)     Governor John Hickenlooper

9)     Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline – William J Campbell

10)  Colorado Supreme Court  Attorney Regulation Counsel – John S Gleason

11)  Colorado Criminal Justice Reform – Ellen Toomey Hale

12)  United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

13)  United States Department of Health and Human Services Colorado – Velveta Howell

14)  American Civil Liberties Union, Colorado – Mark Silverstein

15)  The Legal Center for People with Disabilities and Older People – Mark Ivandick

16)  The Denver Post

17)  Denver Westword

NOTE:  Copies were also sent to the Adams County District Attorney and Judge…

“On September 2nd, 2011, the defendant Billy bob Bramscher, in the district court of Adams County, Colorado, on the defendants two-hundred-and-forty-second (242) day in custody in defense of the false, liable, retaliatory and ludicrous charge of C.R.S. 18-8-615 “An Act of Harassment,” will participate in a pretrial motions hearing, case 10CR3690 [Alternative Defense Counsel did withdraw from my case and this hearing did not occur].  The purpose of this malicious prosecution may only be described and understood through the philosophy “Doctrine of Necessity,” or in the lines of Hamlet, “There’s a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will,” and also reflected with the state motto of Colorado “Nil Sine Numine” or translated, “Nothing without the divine will.”

A constant strategy by the accused in response to this malicious arrest and malicious prosecution is the legal principal that the truth constitutes a legitimate defense, and the unwavering faith in the American Creed, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” and faith in the Constitution of the State of Colorado and the declaration, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of the law” from the Bill of Rights and faith in the ideology expressed by the Beastie Boys in their debut album “License to ILL” that “You Gotta Fight for your Right to Party.”


The first argument for accused is “Motion to Dismiss” for failure to hold preliminary hearing within time limit:

Constitution:  Supremacy Clause, USC  Art VI, Clause 2

Case LawUnited States v Crawford, 738 F Supp 564, 05/25/90, affd (1990, APP DC) 1990 US APP Lexis 15486, “Defendant will be given preliminary hearing before being committed for competency evaluation because defendant entitled to probable cause determination prior to temporary commitment under 18 USCS § 4247(b).

USCS § 3060(b),(c):  Preliminary exam case anno, “Accused may gain unconditional release from custody if preliminary examination not held within time specified.

Case Law:  Only relief available to individual who is not given timely preliminary hearing is motion for release.  (United States v Milano (1971, CA 10 Colo) 443 F2d 1022; United States v Assenza (1972, MD FLA) 337 F Supp 1057; People v Driscoll, 200 Colo 410 (08/25/80); Chavez v District Court 17th Judicial Dist, 648, P2d 658 (07/26/82) – Adams County

United States Constitution:  1, 4, 5, 6, 8 & 14

Colorado Constitution:  Art II Bill of Rights sec’s 6, 7, 14, 16 & 25

USCS:  § 4241, § 4274, § 3060(a),(b)(1) & § 3161(h)(1)(f)

C.R.S.:  16-5-301(1)(a), (b)(II), 16-8.5-102(1) & 18-1-105(6)(a)

Rules:  FRCrP 5.1(c),(d), FRCrP 48(b) & CRCrP 5(a)(2)(VIII), (4)(I)

Case Law:  “Defendant in requesting and obtaining a preliminary hearing is exercising a right that is not only guaranteed him by statue and rule of court, but also one that has a constitutional foundation” (Lucero v District Court, 188 Colo 67, 532 P2d 955 (1975)).

*Judex Debet Junicare Secunam Allegata Et Probata*

I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.”  ~Thomas Jefferson

Case Law:  “Primary Purpose of preliminary hearing” (People v Weaver, 182 Colo 221, 511 P2d (1973); People v Quinn, 183 Colo 245, 516 P2d 420 (1973); People ex rel Farina v Dist Ct, 184 Colo 406, 521 P2d 778 (1974)).

Case Law:  “The purpose of a Crim P 5 proceeding” (People v Heintze, 614 P2d 367 (Colo 1980); People v Vigoa, 841 P2d 311 (Colo 1992)).

Case Law:  “Concisely stated, the guaranty of equal protection means that the rights of all persons must rest upon the same rule under the same circumstances, both in privileges conferred and in liabilities imposed” (Truax v Corrigan, 257 US 312, 66 L Ed 254, 42 S Ct 124, 27 ALR 375 (1921)).

Case Law:  “The phrases ‘Due Process of Law’ and ‘Law of the Land’ although verbally different, express the same thought, and the meaning is the same in every case.  But the ‘Law of the Land’ is most clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial.  The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society” (In re Lowrie, 8 Colo 499 (December, 1885)).

*Judex Bonus Nihil Ex Arbitrio suo faciat, Nec Propositione Domesticae

Voluntais, Sed Juxta Leges Et Jura Pronunciet*

I set out with firm resolution I think never to commit any meanness or injustice in the practice of law” and “The study and practice of law,” he reminded himself, “I am sure does not dissolve the obligations of morality or of religion.”  ~President John Adams

In Case 10CR3690/11SA212 defense did motion for preliminary hearing on 02/01/11 and because of incompetence, disability and prejudice by the court including the Judge Howell, Public Defender Cathlin Matson, District Attorney Don Quick and Senior Deputy District Attorney Daniel Brechbuhl, preliminary hearing was not conducted, without good cause, until 07/05/11.

Federal Rule 5.1 states, the magistrate judge must hold the preliminary hearing within a reasonable time, “But no later than fourteen (14) days after the initial appearance if the defendant is in custody” and accused had initial appearance on 01/26/2011 in Adams County via video court at ACDF.  Colorado rule states that within ten (10) days after initial appearance the preliminary hearing may be requested and the hearing shall be held within thirty days (30) of the day of setting.

FACT:  Defendant, Billy bob Bramscher, did not have his preliminary hearing to establish probable cause until 155 days after setting, a substantive violation of ‘Law of the Land’ and ‘Due Process,’ and the trial court is obligated to grant the unconditional release  of defendant, Billy bob Bramscher.


The second argument for accused is ‘Motion to Dismiss an Information’ whereas:

Case Law:  “A substantive defect in an information may be raised at any time during the proceedings” (People v Williams, 961 P2d 533 (Colo App 1997)).

C.R.S.:  16-5-202(c), 18-1-202(5), 18-1-201, 16-19-103 and 18-8-615

Rules:  FRCrP 3, FRCrP 12(b)(3)(B), (11)(C)(1)(42), FRCrP 12.1, FRCrP 18, CRCrP 3(a), CRCrP 7(b)(1), CRCrp 12(a), and CRCrP 18.

USC:  ART III, Section 2, Paragraph 3 and Amendment VI

“Be a light unto yourself.”  ~Siddhartha Gautama – Buddha

Term:  Jurisdiction –  In a criminal case, the jurisdiction which exists for the punishment of crimes; The power of a court to inquire into the fact, to apply the law, and to declare the punishment, in a regular course of judicial proceeding, embracing every kind of judicial action on the subject matter, from finding the indictment to pronouncing the sentence.

Term:  Venue – The county or district in which indictment is returned and wherein a cause is to be tried.

Case Law:  “It is jurisdictionally imperative that offense be committed within state and district of indictment” (United States v Grossman (1968, CA4 NC0 400 F2d 951).

Case Law:  “Whereas the priority of venue is a matter of law and fact, not discretion” (People v Reed, 132 P3d 347 (Colo 2006).

C.R.S. & USCS:  Complaint and Information in case 10CR3690/11SA212 fails to allege that the commission of [the false and] alleged 18-8-615 was consummated and/or furthered by accused within the State of Colorado pursuant to 18-1-202(5), § 1073 or § 3237.

FACT:  Defendant, Billy bob Bramscher, was knowingly absent from the state of Colorado from early October, 2010, until his arrest on 01/04/11.  Richard Infranca, Detective for Westminster Police Department, and prosecution witness, knew this fact from his investigation and also from his telephone interview with defendant on 12/23/10.  Defendant has receipts for room rental dated 11/23/10 until [01/10/11] from the Budget Suites off I-15 and Tropicana.  The above substantiates [the] claim of malicious arrest and prosecution.

Affliction is the good man’s shining time.”  ~English Poet Edward Young

FACT:  Defendant, Billy bob Bramscher, even if hypothetically, as [falsely] alleged by the State of Colorado and the prosecution, committed any offense on or about 11/29/10 described as an “Act of Harassment,” no county and/or district may claim jurisdiction in Colorado and the filing of the complaint and information, issuance of the felony warrant, and arrest and extradition, are substantive violations of ‘Law of the Land’ and ‘Due Process’ and the trial court is obligated to grant the unconditional release of defendant, Billy bob Bramscher.


The third argument for accused is “Motion to Dismiss for Want of Due Prosecution” (Violation of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974; see also Jordan v People, 155 Colo 224, 393 P2d 745 (1964); see also FIRST ARGUMENT).

FACT:  I want to go home!!

CONCLUSION:  My name is Billy bob Bramscher and I have a recognized mental disability suffering from Major Depression, Major Anxiety and I have Synesthesia.  On November 24, 2010 I registered a complaint against my “Bully” Magistrate John Stipech, with the Supreme Court of Colorado Attorney Regulation Counsel and I been in jail 242 days because I exercised my First Amendment Rights.  I am fighting for Justice and Liberty and in the words of Cato, “Surely every post ought to be deemed honorable in which a man can serve his country.”  Please Help Me… I Promise I Would Help You.

~Your Affectionate and Obedient Servant…  ~BbB~


Discussion:  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.

I am the victim of a “War of Attrition” and truly thankful I was well versed on The Art of War by Sun Tzu.  Out of the seventeen (17) recipients of this declaration the only individual/organization attempting to assist me was Velveta Howell, DHHS, Colorado.

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 “Knowingly” as incorrectly alleged for over thirteen (13) months…

In my jury trial, the Defendant’s Theory of Defense, provided to the Jury:

‘It is the Defendant’s theory of defense that the prosecution of this case was based upon retaliation by the City of Westminster. The Defendant contends that he was exercising his First Amendment rights of free speech and to redress grievances he had with the City of Westminster and that this prosecution is based on bad faith investigation, legal harassment and retaliation against him Defendant for exercising his First Amendment Rights’.”

I spent 400 days in county jail for the cause of Justice and Liberty…  I wore my county jail issued yellow and white striped uniform during the trial…



~Billy bob Bramscher~



Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s