“Judges and prosecutors, lawyers and psychiatrists, all protest their passionate desire to know why a person accused of a crime did what he did. But their actions completely belie their words: their efforts are now directed toward letting everyone speak in court but the defendant himself — especially if he is accused of a political or psychiatric crime.”
REVISIT: When I shared my disappointment with the FBI Denver Field Office in the post “FBI – Federal Jurisdiction and the Adventures of Billy bob Bramscher” it was based on the “Bystander-Effect” or “Diffusion of Responsibility” this agency showed in re 10CR3690/11SA212.
The following is from the FBI website:
“As an intelligence-driven and a threat-focused national security organization with both intelligence and law enforcement responsibilities, the mission of the FBI is to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and to provide leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners.”
And under “Priorities” number 4 reads, “Combat public corruption at all levels” and number 5 reads, “Protect civil rights” and the Federal Bureau of Investigation let me down and should have participated in my legal situation the moment it was discovered I was in custody in Adams County Jail… I’m just sayin’!!!
***And now… to our feature presentation!!!
Declaration of Liberty 08/14/11
NOTE: The following is a letter sent out to many organizations including Colorado Supreme Court, former District Attorney Don Quick and former District Attorney Daniel Brechbuhl. At this point of my gorilla marketing campaign I was not making it a point to share with everyone who else was on the list of recipients. I did, however keep notes and I will add the “list” when I discover the list in my huge massive gigantic phat stack of legal paper work I possess from my case:
“To: The Friends and Cause of Liberty
Re: Supreme Court of Colorado Case: 2011SA212
Adams County District Court Case: 2010CR3690
You and/or your organization are in receipt of this declaration on/about August 16, 2011, the 225th day, I, Billy bob Bramscher, have been in custody awaiting a trial by jury in defense of the false, liable, retaliatory and ludicrous charge, C.R.S. 18-8-615.
Although yours truly has pro se filed for relief with the Supreme Court of Colorado pursuant to Colorado appellate Rule 21, the defendant and defense finds necessity in reminding all the incredibly alarming issues with the case that cast the darkest of corrupt shadows on the truth, due process and the American Dream.
Please find to follow an accurate and updated list in chronological order of the errors against the defendant and please remember, “If the constitution, the statutes, the rules or case law require dismissal, it is the duty of the trial court to order that the case be dismissed” (Coca v District Court 7th Judicial District, 187 Colo 280 (01/13/75) and “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law” from the Constitution of the State of Colorado, Article II, Bill of Rights.
11/24/10: From Las Vegas, Nevada, defendant contacts, via telephone, The Supreme Court of Colorado Attorney Regulation Counsel files initial complaint against John Stipech, Municipal Court [Magistrate], with the female telephone operator.
11/29/10: [Chief Deputy] Matthew Samuelson contacts defendant via telephone and takes formal complaint.
12/02/10: [Chief Deputy] Matthew A Samuelson, assistant regulation counsel with the Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel, contacts via telephone the defendant explaining the concerns raised are legal issues and not ethical issues. Samuelson during call is informed defendant is a temporary resident of Las Vegas, NV, and it is arrange for Samuelson to mail confirmation of the interaction to relatives of defendant in Lone Tree, CO, where defendant, with normalcy, receives mail.
12/23/10: [Detective] Richard J Infranca, Westminster Police Department, contacts defendant in Las Vegas, NV, via telephone and is informed defendant has been in Nevada since on/or about the 10th of November and in early January is planning to head to California for the foreseeable future and will definitely not be returning to Colorado. Defendant denies any wrong doing and states truthfully the facts.
12/23/10: Don Quick, DA, files Complaint & Information count 1: Retaliation Against a Judge, C.R.S. 18-8-615 defined as “knowingly committed An Act of Harassment” against John Stipech.
Note: This plea for help was written before I was educated on the importance of the Mens Rea and the difference between “Knowingly” and “Specific Intent.”
ERROR I – Jurisdiction
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) and both the United States Constitutions 6th Amendment and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require that defendants be tried in district where their crime was committed.
C.R.S.: Whereas defendant, Billy bob Bramscher, was knowingly absent from Colorado on or about November 29, 2010, temporary resident in Las Vegas Nevada and pursuant to 18-1-202(5) the indictment and information fail to alleged that the commission of offense 18-8-615 was consummated and/or furthered by defendant within the state of Colorado; whereas alleged offense does not meet the jurisdictional requirements of 18-1-201.
Case Law: “The propriety of venue is a matter of law and fact, not discretion” (People v Reed, 132 P3d 347 (Colo 2006).
Rules: Whereas Colorado Court Rule 18, venue, states that burden is on state to prove venue in a criminal prosecution and Federal Court Rule 18 states government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed.
Resolve I: Err in filing Complaint & Information. Err is jurisdictional and a prejudice violation of defendants’ rights.
NOTE: The point I was trying to make in “Error I” is that if a prosecution was to take place, it needed to be in Federal Court, Las Vegas, Nevada.
ERROR II – Complaint & Information
Case Law: “Placing defendant under the cloud of undetermined criminal charges for an indeterminate and unreasonable period of time is violative of Due Process” (People v Aragon, 643 P2d 43 (Colo 1982).
Case Law: “A Bill of Particulars cannot save an insufficient indictment” (People v Donachy, 196 Colo 289, 586 P2d14 (1978).
NOTE: A “Bill of Particulars” is a “A document, written by a plaintiff or prosecutor at the request of a defendant in a civil or criminal action, that sets out detailed information about the claims or charges being brought against the defendant. Knowing these particulars, the defendant is able to mount a defense.”
NOTE: Remember that the phrase “An Act of Harassment” was found unconstitutional by the Colorado Supreme Court in People v Hickman, 988 P2d 628, 624 (Colo 1999). Public Defender Cathlin Matson, Alternative Defense Counsel Richard Hernandez and Alternative Defense Counsel Fran Simonet all refused and failed to request a Bill of Particulars (see previous WordPress post “Complete Deprivation of Counsel”). Although pro se I did file this motion, on January 10, 2012, Judge Popovich, committing abuse of discretion, denied my motion stating the following on record:
“The court finds that the charging document is sufficient in that [it] sets forth the date of the alleged offense and the elements of the alleged offense and that the charging document fairly informs the Defendant of the charge against him and is sufficiently specific to allow the Defendant to enter a plea and defend this matter. The Court further finds that the Arrest Warrant affidavit does set forth the specific statements or communications that constitute the alleged offense and therefore under People v Pineda, supra. a bill of particulars is not mandated.
The Court Denies Defendant’s Motion for Bill of Particulars”
What is really funny and sad is that the word “supra” is used to refer to a case that has already been quoted within the same document and nowhere prior in the judge’s “Order” is this case mentioned so I have no idea what case the judge is referring to. As matter of fact, People v Pineda is State of Colorado Supreme Court case no. 08SC756 regarding the Fourth Amendment and has absolutely nothing to do with “Bill of Particulars.”
Rules: An information is a written statement, signed by the prosecutor and filed in the court having jurisdiction over the offense charged, alleging that a person committed the criminal offense described therein (Colo R Crim P 7(b)(1)).
Case Law: “Judge not to accept mere conclusion of complaint but should require and examine underlying facts” (People v Moreno, 176 Colo 488, 491 P2d 575 (1971).
Case Law: “That an indictment answer the questions of ‘Who, What, Where and How’” (People v Zupancic, 192 Colo 231, 557 P2d 1195 (12/13/76).
Rules: Pursuant to Colorado Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, Chapter 29(II) Rule 3(a) the felony complaint shall be a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged, signed by the prosecutor and filed in the court having jurisdiction over the offense charged and Rule 4(a)(2) requires “FACTS.”
Case Law: “Whereas as indictment to meet the basic principles of fundamental fairness” Russell v United States, 369 US 749, 82 S Ct 1038, 8 L Ed 240 (1962).
Resove II: Complaint and Information fails to meet fundamental fairness, is overbroad, grossly lacking jurisdiction and facts.
ERROR III – Fugitive of Justice Warrant & Extradition
On January 4, 2011, defendant, who unknowingly had criminal charges filed against in Colorado, was in Las Vegas, NV, and was proactively sought and arrested. Arresting officer states, “I do not know who you pissed-off but you pissed someone off big-time.”
Case Law: “There are no constitutional requirements dictating that an arrest warrant be executed at the earliest opportunity” (People v Nisser, 189 Colo 471, 542 P2d 84 (1975).
Rule: Colorado Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, Chap 29(II) Rule 4 allows for issuance of summons.
Case Law: “Fugitive from justice is a person who commits crime within state and withdraws himself from such jurisdiction without waiting to abide consequences of such act” (People ex rel Higley v Millspaw (1939) 281 NY 441, 24 NE 2d 117).
Case Law: “To warrant extradition, fugitive must have been actually, and not merely constructively, present within demanding state at time of commission of offense” (Keller v Butler (1927) 246 NY 249, 158 NE 510, 55 ALR 349).
Case Law: “Extradition is unauthorized unless accused is a fugitive from justice” (Ex Parte Montoya (1943) 170 OR 499, 135 P2d 281).
Case Law: “Demanding state is not entitled under Federal Law to secure return of one who was not present in demanding state at time of commission of offense” (In Re Rowe (1981) 67 OHIO St 2d 115, 21 OHIO Ops 3d 73, 423 NE 2d 167).
Resolve III: Defendant committed no offense jurisdictionally & extradition was a deprivation of rights, USC § 1983.
ERROR IV – PRELIMINARY HEARING
Case Law: Whereas preliminary hearing not held within thirty (30) days of the day of setting, without good cause, court did [commit a substantive] err (People v Driscoll, 200 Colo 410 (08/25/80) which is an Adams County Court Case.
Case Law: [Refilling or] “Direct information not available after discharge for failure to gain hearing within thirty (30) days” (Chavez v Dist Ct for 17th Jud Dist, 648 P2d 658 (07/26/82) which is an Adams County Court Case; see also People v Driscoll, Supreme Court of Colorado No 79SA388, which is an appeal from the District Court of Adams County).
Rules: Whereas time for a preliminary hearing had expired pursuant to compliance with Crim P 4(a)(4)(I).
FACT: Whereas preliminary hearing held on 07/05/11, 155 days after setting.
C.R.S.: Pursuant to section 16-5-301(1)(b)(II)(2009) defendant allowed preliminary hearing.
Resolve IV: Court has jurisdiction (absent errors I, II, III) to dismiss charges and it is the duty of the trial court to order that the case be dismissed.
NOTE: Using Adams County/District Court Cases to me was like after your dog shit’s in your house you put his nose in his own shit to deter the behavior in the future… Also, like in the old west, it’s like shooting another cowboy with his own gun! LOL… Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1803) established judicial review of case precedent which basically meant that individual judges in separate geographical areas did not have create the law on every case yet could rely on rulings in other courts, especially higher courts, when they were deciding cases.
See Also: People ex rel Farina v District Court, 185 Colo 118, 552 P2d (1974); People v District, 652 P2d 582 (Colo 1982); Holmes v District Court, 688 P2d 11 (Colo 1983); People v Hogland, 37 Colo App 34 (10/09/75); People v Pena, Colorado Court of Appeals No. 08CA0200, El Paso County Dist Court No. 07CR1848 (07/9/09); Id Accord People v Taylor, 104 P3d 269, 270, 271 (citing Gerstein v Pugh, 420 US 103, 95 S Ct 854, 43 L Ed 2d 54 (1975)) Colo App 2004; People v Abbott, 638 P2d 781 (Colo 1981)
ERROV V – CHANGE OF VENUE
C.R.S.: Pursuant to 16-6-101 Grounds for Change of Venue and 16-6-102 Motion for Change of Venue, the defendant, pro se, did, on 02/25/2011, file a motion to change venue and PO accompanied with an affidavit for Change of Venue as required and this motion was blatantly ignored by Judge Byron Howell and the court. Defendant pleaded with the court, “Judge Howell – It is beyond an evident conclusion that it is impossible for me to receive a fair and impartial hearing in Adams County. The fact is that John Stipech and all agents of Westminster Municipal Court have professional, political, social and other relationships including geographical with Adams County/District Court. May it be known I will be filing motion for change of venue to guarantee my constitutional rights.”
NOTE: The motion for Change of Venue was actually sealed by Judge Howell and therefore did not “exist.”
Case Law: In People ex rel Lackey, supra [used correctly… LOL], it is held that, “Where an application for a change of place of trial is made by defendant, based upon a ground which entitles him to the change as a matter of right, the court which it is addressed has no discretion except to grant the application.”
Resolve V: Judges and Courts behavior is prejudicial to defendant and court did lose jurisdiction of case (absent errors I, II, III, IV).
ERROR VI – COMPETENCY EXAM (CMHIP)
NOTE: “As a prominent New York Lawyer quipped, the courts consider a defendant competent if he can tell the difference between the Judge and a Bartlett Pear.” ~National Institute for Trial Advocacy, Notre Dame Law School
02/18/11: Former ineffective [Public Defender] Cathlin Matson, against protest of defendant, submitted by seal, motion to determine competency pursuant to C.R.S. 16-8.5-102.
NOTE: “The Fact that a defense attorney is ordinarily not qualified to make such mental health determinations, there would undoubtedly be a good faith basis for the attorney to believe that competency proceedings should be resisted.” ~Inga L Parsons, Attorney at Law, for the National Institute for Trial Advocacy, Notre Dame Law School
NOTE: Judge Howell, Public Defender Cathlin Matson and former Adams County District Attorney Don Quick/former SDDA 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)).
02/25/11: Whereas defendant filed the following statement with the court, “Judge Howell – Cathlin Matson did hamstring me I court by submitting via seal request questioning my mental capacity to stand trial. I have no idea of the evidence against if there is any and Matson’s action(s) were of complete surprise. I do understand the charge and feel safe and firm a not guilty verdict would be reached by a jury of my peers. I will be filing motion to remove Cathlin Matson as my counsel requesting [Private Counsel].
02/25/11: Defendant, pro se, did file Motion to Dismiss Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Petition for Appointment of Private Counsel.
NOTE: The motion to Dismiss Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Petition for Appointment of Private Counsel was sealed by Judge Howell and therefore did not “exist.”
05/25/11: Defendant is administered competency examination by Michael Morrison, PhD, Staff Psychologist, Court Services Department, CMHIP [Colorado Mental Health Institute in Pueblo], and Morrison’s expert opinion is that defendant “is currently competent to proceed to adjudication.
NOTE: As part of his investigation, douche-bag Michael Morrison included in his results telephone contact with ineffective Public Defender Cathlin Matson, former Senior Deputy District Attorney Daniel Brechbuhl and an interview with a family member of mine who shall remain unmentioned. I shall prove below that this practice was illegal and a violation of my rights!!!
C.R.S.: Whereas 16-8.5-105 and 16-8.5-110 define legal and ethical practices usable to Morrison in forming an expert opinion and article 8.5 “Competency to Proceed” was added with relocations in 2008 containing provisions of some sections formerly located in article “8” of same title 16.
Case Law: Whereas 1972 Colorado Sess Laws ch 44 § 39-8-106 deals with examinations and reports (see People v Lyles, 186 Colo 302 (10/07/74); Johnson v People, 172 Colo 72, 470 P2d 37 (1990); People v Vialpando, 954 P2d 617 (Colo App 1997); 1965 supp C.R.S. 39-8-2).
Case Law: Competency evaluator, Michael Morrison, cannot express an opinion based, in whole or in part, upon information obtained from third (3rd) persons who have not testified to facts (see Ingles v People, 90 Colo 51 (12/07/31); Garrison v People, 158 Colo 348, 408 P2d 60 (1965); Rupert v People, 163 Colo 219, 429 P2d 276 (1976)).
Case Law: “A competency evaluator [Morrison] cannot use opinions and information gleaned from sources other than his own knowledge, and then seek to make his opinion admissible in evidence because these sources happen to be hospital records kept in the regular course of business” (Garrison, supra).
Case Law: “An error that infringes upon the defendants right under the confrontation clause of the Sixth (6th) Amendment of the United States Constitution cannot be harmless” (People v Saiz, 923 P2d 197 (11/24/95); see also C.R.S. 16-8-107).
Case Law: “Where foundation testimony [competency evaluator Morrison’s examination report] fails to conform and where the proper guidelines are not adhered to in judging these requirements, it must be held that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the admission of non-expert opinion testimony” (People v Medina, 185 Colo 101, 521 P2d 1257 (1974)).
05/27/2011: After defendant passed competency exam on 05/25/11, Dr Allen in unit C-1 demanded defendant to submit to a blood test with the express intent to determine if defendant suffered from the sexually transmitted disease syphilis [Test was NEGATIVE ladies… No worries!!! ~BbB~].
07/14/11: CMHIP HIPPAA Privacy Liaison Cindy Cox, CHP, in a letter to the defendant did disclose incorrectly that “HIPAA allows healthcare providers (all employees of CMHIP, which is a covered entity), such as Mr. Morrison, to contact family members and others, as deemed necessary in their professional judgment to procure information to complete exams, reports etc… HIPAA also allows an exemption if you were court-ordered to have a competency exam completed, which you were, so we did not need to have your authorization to contact your [family]” and Judge Cox also informed defendant that the court gave permission for the competency evaluator to contact defendants [family] when the court and former ineffective [Public Defender] Cathlin Matson ordered the competency exam.
Case Law: Morrison did ignore the past 3.5 years of defendants mental health history as did all other CMHIP agents and “An assessment that ignores or cannot be tested against a defendants prior mental health history has marginal utility” and “If there is a reasonable possibility that a defendant could have been prejudiced, an error cannot be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” (People v Herra, 87 P3d 240 (Colo App 2003)).
Case Law: A competency exam does not contemplate a trial of the defendant by the hospital staff and it is contended that in seeking such information from outside sources that court services department staff psychologist Michael Morrison, CMHIP staff, Judge Howell, Judge Cox and former ineffective [Public Defender] Cathlin Matson acted beyond the power conferred by statue committing fraud and that Morrison’s expert opinion and competency examination reports admission in evidence did prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant and this cannot be doubted (see Ingles, supra) and Morrison’s opinion is not admissible (see Abbotts Trial Evid (4th Ed) p 226 note 28).
06/20/11: Defendant did file with Judge Byron Howell and the court a statement regarding the fraud committed by CMHIP and Michael Morrison and so on in re the deviations from appropriate standards on medical practice.
NOTE: I am a huge fan of Dr. Thomas Szasz!!! Psychiatry is the science of lies… I actually have a few email exchanges with him and how I wished I could have met him before he transitioned!!! You’re a HERO Szasz… ~BbB~
Resolve VI: The defendant’s, Billy bob Bramscher, rights have been grossly abused and violated. Judge Byron Howell, former ineffective [Public Defender] Cathlin Matson, [District Attorney Don Quick], Senior Deputy District Attorney Daniel Brechbuhl, Michael Morrison CMHIP, Dr. Allen CMHIP, Cindy Cox CMHIP, and other agents acted beyond the power conferred by C.R.S. 16-8.5-102 and this unethical and illegal misconduct is a fraud to the court and to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services violating the defendants’ rights guaranteed by HIPAA Act and other State and Federal laws [and rules].
NOTE: Even though I was found competent to stand trial, Michael Morrison’s competency report could have been used against me at sentencing and from what I can figure, if I was found guilty, I was going to get around a fifteen (15) year sentence in prison. I am so happy and proud I did stand-up for myself and a jury of my peers found me NOT GUILTY!!!
07/05/11: Preliminary Hearing held, 155 days after motion.
07/18/11: Arraignment Held, defendant pled “NOT GUILTY!!!”
ERROR VII & VIII – SPEEDY TRIAL
NOTE: in re Speedy Trial pursuant C.R.S. 18-1-405 and pursuant to C.R.S. 24-60-501 ART III(a)
Case Law: “The right to a speedy trial is a basic constitutional right guaranteed by both the Colorado and United States Constitutions in essentially the same language” (Valdez v People, 174 Colo 2 68, 483 P2d 1333 (1971); Jaramillo v Dist Ct, 174 Colo 561, 484 P2d 1219 (1971); People v Small, 177 Colo 118, 493 P2d 15 (1972); Lucero v People, 173 Colo 94, 476 P2d 257 (1970)).
Case Law: “Right of accused to speedy trial is an important right and when the constitutional mandate is invoked, the matter should receive careful consideration by the by the courts” (Ex Parte Russo, 104 Colo 91, 88 P2d 953 (1939)).
Case Law: “The right to a speedy trial is not only for the benefit of the accused, but also for the protection of the public. It is essential that an early determination of guilt be made, so that the innocent may be exonerated and the guilty punished” (Jaramillo, supra).
Case Law: “It is duty of prosecutor and trial judge to secure and protect the defendant’s right to speedy trial” (People v Chavez, 779 P2d 375 (Colo 1989); People v Abeyta, Montoya & Santistevan, 195 Colo 338, 578 P2d 645 (05/08/1/78)).
C.R.S. & Rules: 18-1-105(6)(a) and Federal Court Rules Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedures, Part II, Chap 208 § 3161(1)(F),(G) establish time limits and exclusions.
Case Law: “Prejudice to the defendant could dictate that a case be dismissed for failure to grant a speedy trial, even though the six-month period set forth in the rule has not expired” (Small, supra).
C.R.S.: Article 19 Fugitives and Extraditions 16-19-101 to 16-19-134 effected by Article 60 of Title 24 and Title 24 is the Western Interstate Corrections Compact 24-60-101 to 24-60-3402.
C.R.S.: 24-60-501 ART III(a), “He shall be brought to trial within 180 days after he shall have caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court of the prosecuting officers jurisdiction.
Case Law: In direct relationship to ERROR I, C.R.S. 16-19-103 stresses the presumption of defendants presence in demanding state at time of crime (see Light v Cronin, 621 P2d 309 (Colo 1980); Briddle v Caldwell, 628 P2d 613 (Colo 1981)).
C.R.S.: 16-19-101, also known as Uniform Criminal Extradition Act effected by the Western Interstate Corrections compact effected by the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act.
Case Law: Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act is one of several Colorado Statutes implementing a defendant’s right to a speedy trial as provided in § 16 of ART II, Colorado Constitution (see People v Bean, 650 P2d 565 (Colo 1982); People v Lewis, 680 P2d 226 (Colo 1984)).
Case Law: “Failure to hold trial within prescribed time period pursuant to C.R.S. 24-60-501 ART III(a) required dismissal of charges. This article by its express terms is jurisdictional, hence dismissal is required regardless of whether defendant was prejudiced by delay” (People v Naulls, 937 P2d 778 (Colo App 1996)).
Case Law: “Four factors relate to the constitutional concept of a speedy trial”:
1) Length of delay – over 180 days in re ERROR VII & VIII
2) Reason for delay – error by court
3) Prejudice to the defendant:
a) Former ineffective [Public Defender] Cathlin Matson
b) Judge Byron Howell
c) District Attorney Don Quick/former Senior District Attorney Daniel Brechbuhl
d) Michael Morrison, competency exam, as well as other CMHIP agents.
4) Defendant, Billy bob Bramscher, has/is demanding Speedy Trial.
(see Falgout v People, 170 Colo 32, 459 P2d 572, (1969); People v Spencer, 182 Colo 189, 512 P2d (1973); People v Buggs, 186 Colo 13, 525 P2d 421 (1974); Gefland v People, 196 Colo 487, 586 P2d 1331 (1978)).
Resolve VII & VIII: Speedy Trial EXPIRED. Dismiss without Prejudice.
ERROR IX – ADDITIONAL ALARMING ISSUES
1) Count 1: Retaliation Against a Judge, C.R.S. 18-8-615 [An Act of Harassment] violates the Due Process Clauses of the Colorado and United States Constitutions because its critical language is impermissibly vague and is overbroad on its face and unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and ART II, section 10 of the Colorado Constitution as the charge applies to case 2010CR3690/11SA212 and its inherent elements of Political Expression.
2) In violation of the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments, United States Federal Constitution whereas defendants excessive bond in violation of Due Process and Equal Protection of the Laws.
3) At Clark County Court, Las Vegas, NV, defendant not informed of right to counsel in extradition proceeding (see Mora v Dist Ct, 177 Colo 381, 494 P2d 596 (1972)).
4) Between 02/18/11 and 05/18/11 defendant denied opportunity to consult with former ineffective [Public Defender] Cathlin Matson and defendant’s legitimate 5th Amendment USC concerns (see People v Cole, 195 Colo 483, 584 P2d 71 (1978); People v Branch, 786 P2d 441 (Colo App 1989); C.R.S. 16-8-107(1)(a),(1.5)(a)(2003)).
5) “Duty of Prosecution and Courts to disclose evidence favorable to defendant” Cheatwood v People, 164 Colo 334, 435 P2d 402 (1967); People v Millitello, 705 P2d 514 (Colo 1985); People v Terry, 720 P2d 125 (Colo 1986); People v McKnight, 626 P2d 678 (Colo 1982)).
Resolve IX: Defendants rights have been grossly neglected and purposefully denied with prejudice.
Undoubtedly, case 2010CR3690/11SA212 is a malicious prosecution – a criminal prosecution begun with malice, without probable cause or jurisdiction to believe it can succeed, and finally ending in FAILURE, perpetuated by abuse of process – the malicious perversion of a irregularly issued criminal process, for a purpose, and to obtain a result not lawfully warranted or properly attainable thereby, and for which perversion and action will lie to recover the pecuniary loss sustained.
In addition, the above resulted in a malicious arrest of defendant – causing an arrest by maliciously making false affidavit (see Everett v Henderson, 146 Mass 89, 14 NE 932 in re “false imprisonment”).
“Application of a courts supervisory powers in dismissing a criminal case may be proper if the governments conduct has violated fundamental fairness and is shocking to the universal sense of Justice” and “Outrageous governmental conduct need not be prejudicial to defendant to constitute a violation of Due Process (People v Auld, 815 P2d 956 (Colo App 1991)).
The defendant, Billy bob Bramscher, has been maliciously denied his unalienable constitutional rights to a speedy trial by jury, competent and zealous counsel, an impartial judge(s) and not to incriminate one’s self [in re CMHIP and its agents and maliciously prosecuted as incompetent and insane (Lowen, supra)] whereas “If the Constitution, the Statutes, The Rules or the Case Law require dismissal, it is the duty of the trial court to order that the case be dismissed” Coca, supra.”
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 Court, Adams County District Court, Adams County District Attorney, Colorado Public Defender/Alternative Defense Counsel.
~Your Affectionate & Obedient Servant…
~Billy bob Bramscher