Tha Truth within Veracity

Image

Three things cannot be long hidden; the Sun, the Moon and the Truth.”

~Buddha

The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable.”

~James A Garfield, 20th President of the United States of America, EARTH


STORYLINE:  The following rhetoric was submitted pro se in my defense in a previous case where I was found NOT GUILTY by a jury of my peers after 399 days in county jail based another bad-faith investigation as well as vindictive and malicious prosecution.  The follow’n legalese was also submitted in a Federal Lawsuit that was dismissed.  I shall be refiling said petition again within the next few weeks…

The State of Colorado

v.

William Robert “Billy bob” Bramscher

County Court Case Number:  10CR3690

Supreme Court Case Number:  11SA212

Federal District Court Case Number:  1:14-cv-00281-BNB

***Motion to Suppress Arrest Warrant & Accompanying Affidavit, Motion for Veracity Hearing***

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.  Introduction

II.  Statement of Facts

III.  Standard of Review

IV.  Argument

V.  Discussion

VI.  Conclusion

Truth…

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Franks v. Delaware, 438 US 154, 155-56 L Ed 2d 667, 68 S Ct 2674 (1978)

Stewart v. Donges, 915 F2d 572, 582-83 (10th Cir 1990)

Strickland v. Florida, 466 U.S. 668,104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed. 2d 674 (1984)

People v. Naranjo, 840 P2d 319 (Colo 1992)

People v. Sparks, 914 P2d 544 (Colo App 1996)

People v. Russell, 36 P 3d 92 (Colo App 2001);

People v. Rivas, 77 P3d 882 (Colo App 2003)

People v. Davis, 849 P2d 857 (Colo App 1992) aff’d 871 P2d 769 (Colo 1994)

People v. Danley, 758 P2d 686 (Colo. App. 1988)

United States v. Munoz-Nava, 524 F3d 1137, 1146 (10th Cir 2008)

People v. Dailey, 639 P2d 1068, 1074-75 (Colo 1982)

People v. Winden, 689 P2d 578, 582 (Colo 1984)

United States v. Martin, 615 F2d 318 (5th Cir. 1980)

Cruse v. State, 584 P2d 1141 Alaska (1978)

People v. Kurland, 28 CAL 3d 376, 618 P2d 213, 168 CAL RPTR 667 (1980), cert denied, 451 US 987, 101 S Ct 2321, 68 L Ed 2d 844 (1981)

Wong Sun v. United States, 371 US 471, 484-85, 83 S Ct407, 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963)

People v. Lewis, 975 P2d 160, 170 (Colo 1999)

Doyle v. Okla Bar Ass’n, 988 F2d 1559, 1570 (10th Cir 1993)

Kendall v. Balcerzak, 2011 US App Lexis 6235 (Dec 9, 2010)

Weeks V. United States, 232 US 383, 58 L Ed 652, 34 S Ct 341 (1914)

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643, 6 L Ed 2d 1081, 81 S Ct 1684, 84 ALR 2d 933 (1961)

Silverthorne Lumber Co v. United States, 251 US 385, 391-392, 64 L Ed 319, 321, 322, 40 S Ct 182, 24 ALR 1426 (1920)

Silverman v. United States, 365 US 505, 5 L Ed 2d 734, 81 S Ct 679, 97 ALR 1277 (1961)

Katz v. United States, 389 US 347, 19 L Ed 2d 576, 88 S Ct 507 (1967)

Entick v. Carrington, 19 How St Tr (ENG) 1029, 1030, 1073, 1074 (1762)

United States v. Rabinowitz, 94 L Ed 653,339, US 56, 79-82 (1950)

People v. Warner, Court of Appeals No. 06CA2252, Jefferson County District Court No. 05CR2488 (08/09/10)

People v. Flores, 766 P.2d 114, 119 (Colo. 1988)

People v. Warner, No. 06CA2252 (2010)

Other Authorities

United States Federal Constitution

Colorado Constitution

Bill of Rights

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Judicial Rules of Professional Conduct

Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct


I.  INTRODUCTION

Citing Vice, “Misrepresentation, deception, and outright lying appear to be part of a police officer’s job description, so much so that the term “testilying,” now common vernacular for police falsifications, was actually coined by NYPD officers as something of an inside joke.”  Back in 1967, former U.S. attorney and New York criminal judge Irving Younger warned that the criminal justice system was providing cops with heavy incentives to lie in court.”  ~The Washington Post

II.  STATEMENT OF FACTS

11/09/11:  Detective Richard J. Infranca (20897) reports in CRN 2010:20293 on page 28 of 28:

“On 11/08/11 the Westminster Police Department received a letter from [Billy bob Bramscher] with a return address of the Adams County Detention Facility (ACDF) in Brighton, Colorado.  The letter was addressed to ‘Internal Affairs’ ‘Westminster Police Department’ and marked ‘Time Sensitive’.  The post mark on the envelope is Nov 7, 2011.  The rear of the envelope had written across it, ‘Information enclosed regarding Victim of an Illegal, Vindictive and Malicious Arrest & Prosecution!!!’ and ‘For the Love of God, Country, Puppies & Babies…  Please Help ~BbB~’.”

Copies of the letter and envelops were forwarded to the Adams County District Attorney’s Office along with this report.”

NOTE:  The Westminster Police Department does not have Internal Affairs per se…  they have something called the Professional Standards Unit, which completely showed unprofessionalism by giving douche-bag Richard Infranca the legal and confidential contents of the mail sent to Internal Affairs and in turn giving former douche-bag  District Attorney Don Quick and former douche-bag Senior Deputy District Attorney Daniel Brechbuhl my legitimate complaints.

DEFINITION:  Internal Affairs

11/16/11:  On my 317 day in custody for the vindictive, malicious and unconstitutional charge of C.R.S. 18-8-615 “An Act of Harassment” my case 10CR3690 was scheduled for Jury Trial and after Public Defender Cathlin Matson and Alternative Defense Counsel Richard Hernandez had removed themselves from my case, Fran E Simonet, Alternative Defense Counsel, was scheduled to represent.

Instead of competent and zealous representation, however, Fran Simonet, on November 7, 2011, filed with the court “Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for the Defendant” citing “complete breakdown in communication” as her reason for not wanting to do her job and protect Billy bob Bramscher.  I was then forced to precede pro-se and requested the trial be delayed so I could prepare my defense.

I would like to add, however, that out of the three ineffective counsel I did have to endure during my false imprisonment, Fran Simonet did file the following two (2) motions on 10/14/11 with the court that are so important in proving the civil rights violations committed against me, Billy bob Bramscher:

1)     Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Lack of Jurisdiction and Lack of Specificity in Complaint and Information, and

2)     Motion to Suppress Arrest Warrant & Accompanying Affidavit, Motion for Veracity Hearing.

Alternative Defense Counsel Fran Simonet did do an excellent job quoting case law in the Motion to Suppress Arrest Warrant & Accompanying Affidavit, Motion for Veracity Hearing  yet completely failed by not including examples of false statements or omissions within her motion in re Detective Richard Infrancas’ false and reckless manipulations as a requirement by rule and case law when filing a motion for “Veracity”.

As I have made the point in a past post, I did have over sum seven (7) judges in my case and Chief Judge Phelps was at the gavel during this very important Motions Hearing.  Chief Judge Phelps did commit judicial abuse of discretion by denying all three (3) motions.  And again, Fran Simonet, within a month withdrew from my case.

DEFINITION:  Veracity

DEFINITION:  Pro se

12/16/11:  Acting pro se, a motions hearing was held before Judge Popovich and I had re-submitted the Motion to Suppress Arrest Warrant & Accompanying Affidavit, Motion for Veracity Hearing and from the minute order case 10CR3690 the “Court Will Issue Written Order Due to the Lateness of the Hour”.

01/10/12:  Judge Popovich released his ORDER in re Motion to Suppress Arrest Warrant & Accompanying Affidavit, Motion for Veracity Hearing with the following conclusion:

“The Defendant, now proceeding pro-se, has further orally generally stated that the affiant’s statements are not credible and the affidavit contains falsehoods and non-credible statements, however, the Defendant has not submitted an affidavit nor has the Defendant identified specific statement.  Therefore the Court’s analysis is confined to the submitted affidavit.”

NOTE:  Ladies and Gentleman…  Here is the motion, part of fifty (50) pages I did submit to the court on 12/16/11 and as you shall see, my petition was more than “oral”, I provided specific examples and I did include an affidavit!!!  This information is on file with the Adams County District Court, former District Attorney Don Quick and former Senior Deputy District Attorney Daniel Brechbuhl…  Enjoy the truth/veracity…  MY STORY!!!  ~BbB~

PRO SE MOTION FILED BY DEFENDANT BILLY bob BRAMSCHER

Motion to Suppress Arrest Warrant & Accompanying Affidavit, Motion for Veracity Hearing

 “Franks [hearing] requires a defendant who challenges the veracity of an affidavit for a search warrant to make a ‘substantial preliminary showing’:

The following false statements (see Franks v. Delaware, 438 US 154, 155-56 L Ed 2d 667, 68 S Ct 2674 (1978)) and omissions of material fact (see Stewart v. Donges, 915 F2d 572, 582-83 (10th Cir 1990)) were knowingly, intentionally and recklessly made with disregard for the truth on the part of affiant-officer [Detective] Richard Infranca (20897).

1)     False Statement:  “The affiant informs the court that on 11/29/10, at approximately 15:30 hours, City of Westminster telephone operator, Rosanna Minjarez, received a call at the city’s main switchboard from a man identifying himself as “Billy bob Votel [Bramscher]”.

Truth:  Philip Maimone (20802) reported CRN 2010-20293 on 11/29/10 “[Rosanna Minjarez] stated that she DID NOT recall a last name if he had said it.”

2)     False Statement:  “Mr. [Bramscher] repeated the threat…”

Truth:  Philip Maimone (20802) reported CRN 2010-20293 “and then repeated it [threat] in different words.”

3)     False Statement:  “The incident was reported to the Police Department on 12/01/10.”

Truth:  Philip Maimone (20802) reported CRN 2010-20293 “On 11/29/10 [Maimone] was dispatched to Muni Court at 3030 Turnpike Dr., Westminster, Adams County, CO, on a COLD THREATS.”

4)     False Statement:  “On 12/02/10 the affiant contacted the court house…”

Truth:  Richard Infranca (20897) CRN 2010/20293 documented that it was not until “12/07/10 [Infranca] went to the Westminster Municipal Court.”  Infranca’s contact with Loretta Martinez and John Stipech occurred on 12/07/10.

NOTE:  At the trial, Loretta Martinez testified under oath that she never met with Detective Richard Infranca nor had she heard was she told the hearsay and self-interested rumor that yours truly, Billy bob Bramscher, ever threatened to “blow-up” anything!!!

NOTE:  Adding more to this complete lie…  I have a copy of the transcript from the Preliminary Hearing held on 07/05/10 where former Senior Deputy District Attorney Daniel Brechbuhl asks Magistrate John Stipech on the stand, under oath, “Now were you told that there was a threat made against you on November 29th of 2010” and John Stipech replies, “Ah, I don’t remember when it was or when I was told but yes”.  Brechbuhl continues, “It… it was towards the end of 2010” and Magistrate John Stipech responds, “I think so… yes”.  Would a normal person not consider 11/29/10 or 12/07/10 the beginning of the month?

NOTE:  At the preliminary hearing, 07/05/11, both Rosanna Minjarez and Magistrate John Stipech provided to the court in essence a deposition.  As I have stated in this blog before, Alternative Defense Counsel Richard Hernandez and Alternative Defense Counsel Fran Simonet failed to acquire a copy of this important evidence that is used at trial to impeach witness testimony by the facts and/or statements that differ from those at presented at trial.

NOTE:  On 12/14/10 the defendant, pro se, did file “Motion for Transcripts” in re preliminary hearing yet the defense did not receive copy until the very last day of trial on February 07, 2012, and was unable to utilize the transcript to impeach both Rosanna Minjarez and Magistrate John Stipech.  I did request from Judge Popovich the opportunity to recall both witness to the stand and this was of course “Denied”.  (see F.R.C.P. Rule 32).

5)     False Statement:  “On 12/02/10 the affiant also learned Carol Barnhardt had received a voice mail message at her officer (sic) from Mr. [Bramscher] on 11/29/10.

Truth:  Richard Infranca (20897) CRN 2010/20293 documented on 12/07/10 affiant learned Carol Barnhardt had received a voicemail and the phone message was copied onto a CD and booked into evidence.”

6)     Omission Statement:  “On 12/07/10 your affiant learned John Stipech had presided over a case involving Charges of Harassment – Domestic Violence.”

Truth:  NG 6-2-2A5* DV Harassment – TELE CALL NO CONV

NOTE:  I wrote on this blog previously that I was contacted by an unknown male by telephone and was told “If you ever call Holly [Foote] again I am going to fucking kill you.”  So the charge of DV Harassment – TELE CALL NO CONV is unconstitutional as applied whereas you cannot have a conversation with voicemail.  I attempted to call Holly to find out what the heck was going on and left her multiple voicemails…

7)     Misrepresentation Statement:  Affiant documented “Failures to Appear” (plural) in re 2006-003163-DV, Westminster Municipal Court.

Truth:  Billy bob Bramscher failed to appear only once (1) as previously mentioned within this blog because of ineffective Public Defense.

8)     False Statement:  Affiant documented “Mr. [Bramscher] was found guilty at trial.”

Truth:  As previously documented on this blog, Billy bob Bramscher lost his right to a jury trial Associate Judge Paul D. Basso presiding, Westminster Municipal Court, and was forced into taking a plea bargain.

NOTE:  I possess a copy of the ROA Report from the Westminster Case 2006-003163-DV and this document was manipulated and does not reflect the truth because the date when Basso presided over this case was changed and the ROA only reflects that Magistrate John Stipech presided over this case.

9)     False Statement:  “On 12/07/10 Judge Stipech informed the affiant that Mr. [Bramscher] had filed a complaint against him with the Colorado Supreme Court’s Attorney Regulation Counsel [ARC].”

Truth:  See 12/06/10 3:13pm [m/s/t] email Deputy Chief Mike Cressman in re complaint to Attorney Regulations.

NOTE:  As previously documented on this blog “First Amendment Retaliation” Carol Barnhardt, 12/06/10 had emailed Westminster Chief of Police Lee Birk, John Stipech and so on regarding the Complaint with the ARC and on 12/06/10 Westminster Deputy Chief Mike Cressman sent an email to John Stipech and so on stating, “Rich Infranca has been assigned the [Billy bob Bramscher] 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 [Richard Infranca] get a hold of the judge directly as there may be some confidentially issues here. Thanks”.

10)   False Statement:  “On 12/22/10 the affiant came across a call back number” for Billy bob Bramscher.

Truth:  On 12/06/10 Westminster Deputy Chief of Police Jeff Jones requested via email for Carol Barnhardt to forward information to Infranca including Billy bob Bramscher’s number.

11)   False Statement:  “At approximately 17:55 hours [12/23/10] [Billy bob Bramscher] called the affiant and the affiant asked [Bramscher] if he planned on returning to Colorado and he avoided answering.”

Truth:  Billy bob Bramscher informed affiant he had no intention of coming to Colorado and would be leaving Las Vegas, NV, for California in the near future for the foreseeable future.

12)   Misrepresentation Statement:  “The court should be aware that even though Mr. Bramscher claims to be in Nevada his whereabouts are uncertain.”

Truth:  [Billy bob Bramscher’s] whereabouts were well known.

13)   Misrepresentation Statement:  “The affiant then contacted the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department and spoke to Detective Herring regarding an investigation…”

Truth:  Investigation was baseless and terminated [and most likely instigated and antagonized by Richard Infranca].

NOTE:  I was contacting Douglas County Sheriff’s office via telephone multiple times to go on record how I was being mistreated by the Westminster Municipal Court, Westminster Police and the City of Westminster.

14)   False and Misrepresentation Statement:  Affiant comments multiple times “Mr. [Bramscher] threatened to ‘Blow-up’ Westminster Municipal Court Judge John Stipech, the probation officer and the court house.

Truth:  Rosanna Minjarez allegedly left a voicemail for John Stipech on 11/29/10 stating, “Just got a threatening call and it was about you and a-a-a probation officer.” (END) [Nothing about “harassment or “blowing-up” stuff!!!]

NOTE:  Number 14 is awesome for my First Amendment Retaliation Claim!!!  First, I only made the statement that I was going to work hard to get John Stipech and Tracy Cutshaw (Probation Officer Westminster Municipal Court) fired from their jobs as public servants and that statement was never made directly to either Stipech of Cutshaw.  I have a recording of the voicemail and I have to ask you as the reader…  If a call was made (which I proved was never made at my trial) that a “Billy bob” who is a “writer”, “poet”, “musician” and “movie maker” actually did threatened to blow-up the “Judge, Courthouse and probation officer,” does the message Minjarez left even remotely convey that message.  And in re perjury by Magistrate John Stipech, is this not fact that John Stipech was aware of the “threat” that I did file the complaint with the ARC on 11/29/10.”

NOTE:   Richard Infranca (20897) reported CRN 2010-20293, 11/29/11, pg. 29 of 29, “While I was attending an Omnibus Hearing re:  this case I was ordered by the Court to try and locate and retrieve a phone message that was left for [Magistrate] John Stipech on November, 29, 2010 by Westminster City Hall phone operator Rosanna Minjarez.”  LOL… this is exactly one year from the date that I did file the formal complaint with the Attorney Regulation Counsel against Magistrate John Stipech!!!  Great Police work…

II.  STATEMENT OF CASE

Pursuant Crim P IV Rules 12 and 16 defendant begs honorable court to reconsider, hear and rule on the “Motion to Suppress Arrest Warrant & Accompanying Affidavit, Motion for Veracity Hearing” whereas former ineffective [Alternative Defense] counsel Fran Simonet failed to file this motion with a substantial preliminary showing as defendant, pro se, is submitting and Simonet’s performance did prejudice the defense (see Strickland Test Strickland v. Florida, 466 U.S. 668,104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed. 2d 674 (1984) “clearly established Federal Law, as determined by the Supreme Court; People v. Naranjo, 840 P2d 319 (Colo 1992); People v. Sparks, 914 P2d 544 (Colo App 1996); People v. Russell, 36 P 3d 92 (Colo App 2001); People v. Rivas, 77 P3d 882 (Colo App 2003); CRPC Rule 1.1, 1.3).  Defendant petitions Simonet’s incompetence did undermine the proper function of the adversarial process (see People v. Davis, 849 P2d 857 (Colo App 1992) aff’d 871 P2d 769 (Colo 1994)) showing sufficiently ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v. Danley, 758 P2d 686 (Colo. App. 1988) resulting in [Chief] Judge Phelps dismissing said motion without argument or debate causing abuse of discretion with a judgment that is arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or manifestly unreasonable (see United States v. Munoz-Nava, 524 F3d 1137, 1146 (10th Cir 2008)).

DEFINTITION:  Ineffective Counsel

III.  STANDARD OF REVIEW

An affidavit does not provide probable cause to support a search warrant if the affiant intentionally or recklessly asserted material falsehoods (see Franks at 154, 164-65, 168).  Defendant hereby has provided fourteen (14) errors in the affidavit creating substantial preliminary showing for a “Franks Hearing” (see Franks, supra; People v. Dailey, 639 P2d 1068, 1074-75 (Colo 1982)).

False statements in affidavits must be stricken from the affidavit under the Fourth Amendment USC (see People v. Winden, 689 P2d 578, 582 (Colo 1984)) and misleading statements and omissions or material facts must be examined to determine if these falsehoods resulted in an erroneous finding of probable cause (see United States v. MartinCruse v. State, 584 P2d 1141 Alaska (1978); People v. Kurland, 28 CAL 3d 376, 618 P2d 213, 168 CAL RPTR 667 (1980), cert denied, 451 US 987, 101 S Ct 2321, 68 L Ed 2d 844 (1981)).

Should the court find that any portion of the search unlawful, any evidence derived from information acquired by the police through such unlawful means is inadmissible in a criminal prosecution and is considered poisoness fruit (see Wong Sun v. United States, 371 US 471, 484-85, 83 S Ct407, 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963); People v. Lewis, 975 P2d 160, 170 (Colo 1999)).

IV.  ARGUMENT

Defendant petitions that a denial of the court to conduct a “Franks” hearing would be a deprivation of substantial and procedural due process as well as equal protection prejudicing defendant (see Doyle v. Okla Bar Ass’n, 988 F2d 1559, 1570 (10th Cir 1993); Kendall v. Balcerzak, 2011 US App Lexis 6235 (Dec 9, 2010)).

The exclusionary rule fashioned in Weeks V. United States, 232 US 383, 58 L Ed 652, 34 S Ct 341 (1914) and in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643, 6 L Ed 2d 1081, 81 S Ct 1684, 84 ALR 2d 933 (1961) excludes from a criminal trial evidence seized from the defendant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

Fruits of such evidence are excluded as well.  Because the [Fourth] Amendment now affords protection against the uninvited ear, oral states, if illegally overheard, their fruits are also subject to suppression (see Silverthorne Lumber Co v. United States, 251 US 385, 391-392, 64 L Ed 319, 321, 322, 40 S Ct 182, 24 ALR 1426 (1920); Silverman v. United States, 365 US 505, 5 L Ed 2d 734, 81 S Ct 679, 97 ALR 1277 (1961); Katz v. United States, 389 US 347, 19 L Ed 2d 576, 88 S Ct 507 (1967)).

Defendant 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, supra “That arrest under a warrant for ‘imanginary’ or ‘trumped-up’ charges is familiar practice in the past, is commonplace <*pg 669> 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).”

IMG_1932


DISCUSSION

 Judge Popovich did commit abuse of discretion failing to hold a “veracity hearing” on behalf of the defendant, pro se, Billy bob Bramscher.  The defense, upon submission of the Motion to Suppress Arrest Warrant & Accompanying Affidavit, Motion for Veracity Hearing did supply, as shown above, the court with good faith for the challenge with specificity in re precise statements being challenged.  The defendant, pro se, also did file an affidavit as required by court rule People v. Dailey, 639 P.2d 1068, 1074-75 (Colo. 1982):

IMG_1919

Citing People v. Warner, Court of Appeals No. 06CA2252, Jefferson County District Court No. 05CR2488 (08/09/10):

“A defendant challenging the veracity of a search warrant affidavit is entitled to a hearing only if he or she (1) establishes a good faith basis in fact for the challenge and (2) describes with specificity the precise statements being challenged.  Dailey, supra; People v. Flores, 766 P.2d 114, 119 (Colo. 1988). Thus, the defendant’s suppression motion must be supported by one or more affidavits to meet these threshold requirements.  Dailey, 639 P.2d at 1075.

At a veracity hearing, the court must first determine whether there are erroneous statements in the affidavit. If so, it must decide whether the source of the error is intentional falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth on the part of the affiant. If the court finds that the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the source of the error is intentional falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth, then the false statements must be stricken from the affidavit. Flores, 766 P.2d at 119. False statements resulting from any other source need not be stricken if the trial court determines that other sanctions, or no sanctions, are appropriate. Id.  (see also People v. Warner, No. 06CA2252 (2010)).

Citing Franks v. Delaware, 438 US 154, 98 S Ct 2674, 57 L Ed 2d 667, 06/26/78, United States Supreme Court No. 77-5176:

“In the present case the Supreme Court of Delaware held, as a matter of first impression for it, that a defendant under no circumstances may so challenge the veracity of a sworn statement used by police to procure a search warrant. We reverse, and we hold that, where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant’s request. In the event that at that hearing the allegation of perjury or reckless disregard is established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, and, with the affidavit’s false material set to one side, the affidavit’s remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit.”

CONCLUSION

I ask you, my reader… my jury…  With the above evidence and supporting material is it not obvious that I, Billy bob Bramscher, was never supposed to win this case at the Adams District Court level?  Does it not seem the truth/veracity that the judges, especially John E. Popovich, Jr., 17th Judicial District Judge, Colorado, 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?

Please also remember the within the Affidavit and Application for Arrest Warrant Detective Richard Infranca swore to the court, “The affiant feels that because [Defendant] THREATENED to “blow up” Westminster Municipal Court Judge John Stipech there is sufficient probable cause to believe that the offense of Retaliation Against a Judge, as that offense is described in C.R.S. 18-8-615(1)(b) [Credible Threat], was committed and that [Defendant] committed that offense” which is drastically different than the unconstitutional charge on the Complaint and Information which stated that the offense of “An Act of Harassment” was “knowingly” committed in violation of 18-8-615 – Retaliation Against a Judge.

In addition, the word “threat” can be found on this blog with this post eighty-seven (87) times completely contradicting former District Attorney Don Quick and former Senior Deputy District Attorney Daniel Brechbuhl statement, “Counsel [Fran Simonet] stated that there’s some requirement of the Court to do some analysis as to the arrest warrant, as to the validity of a credible threat.  Well, nowhere in the statute or anything that was filed, in the information under 18-8-615 – WE’RE NOT ALLEGING A CREDIBLE THREAT.  What we’re alleging is an ACT OF HARASSMENT.  So when counsel says that the Court has to analyze the potential of a credible threat, that’s not even a part of what we’re doing here.  I – I just wanted to clarify that.”  Page 17, Lines 6-15 from Motions Hearing presided by Chief Judge C. Vincent Phelps, 10/21/11.

As I have written previously, “I am the victim of a ‘War of Attrition’ and truly thankful I was well versed on The Art of War by Sun Tzu.

01/30/2012:  Trial started ending on February 7, 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 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 the City of Westminster, Westminster Police Department, Westminster Municipal Court, Adams County/District Court, Adams County District Attorney, Colorado Public Defender/Alternative Defense Counsel.

FACEBOOK:  Blue Dakini

“I am the blue lightning which shatters locks and chains…”

~BbB~

What TIME is IT?  Time to love and be loved…  Tune IN Drop IN!!!


Truth…

“I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality.  This is why right, temorarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.”

~Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Our duty is to encourage every one in his struggle to live up to his own highest idea, and strive at the same time to make the ideal as near as possible to the Truth.”

~Swami Vivekananda

“There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth;  not going all the way, and not starting.”

~Buddha

Buddha Shakyamuni

Advertisements

One thought on “Tha Truth within Veracity

  1. americanscheme Post author

    Reblogged this on Lonesome Lozer and commented:

    IN RE Outlaw Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer Billy Bob Bramscher, esq.:

    Last year I published this WordPress blog “Tha Truth within Veracity” sharing my true story and secrects of a case that kept me locked-up in county jail for 399 days as I fought against a corrupt system included police, district attorney’s, judges and other civil servants.
    Three (3) public defenders quit my case and I was forced to be my own attorney. In a five (5) day jury trial while I was my own attorney and wearing my jail clothes white and yellow strips, I was found NOT GUILTY.

    As I continue to learn “storytelling” and how to advocate for myself I have a true goal that this information that I am posting can and will help others learn the rules and laws of our great nation putting compassion into action helping others help themselves…

    Abraham Lincoln gave advise to Isham Revis on November 5, 1855, “If you are resolutely determined to make a lawyer of yourself, the thing is more than half done already. It is but a small matter whether you read with any body or not. I did not read with any one. Get the books, and read and study them till, you understand them in their principal features; and that is the main thing. It is of no consequence to be in a large town while you are reading. I read at New-Salem, which never had three hundred people living in it. The books, and your capacity for understanding them, are just the same in all places.”

    Om Mani Padme Hum!!!

    ~BbB~

    ‪#‎Humble‬ ‪#‎Compassion‬ ‪#‎Faith‬ ‪#‎Hope‬ ‪#‎Charity‬ ‪#‎LonesomeLozer‬ ‪#‎Billyrella‬ ‪#‎Law‬ ‪#‎Truth‬ ‪#‎Justice‬ ‪#‎Testilying‬ ‪#‎ROYKO‬

    Reply

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