The Billy bob Bramscher Liberty Journal, OG 07/27/11

Image

POINT OF CLARIFICATION:  Born William Robert Bramscher my mother re-married when I was very young.  I love my mother.  I did then assimilate the last name of Votel, although my name was never legally changed.  I love my Irish heritage and was planning on assuming my birth name and when I took citizenship in Santa Cruz, California, this correction was aided in the fact that Cali has stricter rules than any other state when it comes to Drivers License/ID and since fall of 2012 I reclaimed “Bramscher” yet you may call be “Billy bob”.

REVISIT:  FBI – Federal Jurisdiction and the Adventures of Billy bob Bramscher

Oh Dirty Detective Richard J. Infranca (20897)…  I was once told by Chief of Police Lee Birk’s administrative assistant that Detective Infranca is one of their “finest”.  If my bad-faith investigation, malicious arrest, and the false statements that were knowingly, intentionally and recklessly made with disregard for the truth on the part of Detective Richard Infranca – perpetuated by other agents of the Westminster Police Department – is an example of the work that the Westminster Police Department, Colorado, covets…  WTF???

The following is the Supplemental Information, WPD, Case Number: 2010-20293, dated 02/01/11 16:22:11 by (20897) Infranca, Richard J and supervised by (20906) Beren, Kevin M:

“On are (sic) about 12/28/10 I [Infranca] contacted the Denver office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation because in my conversation with [Billy bob Bramscher], and his conversation with police dispatch, he mentioned that he was contacting the FBI and  Secret Service.

I spoke with Duty Agent Kate Funk.  I explained to her the nature of my investigation into [Billy bob Bramscher] and told her that [he] might be calling in to their office, most likely to complain about Westminster Police and Court.

[As of August, 2013, Agent Kate Funk is on maternity leave and I do wish her and family the absolute best!!!  This information was made publicly available on Kate Funk’s outgoing voicemail message, FBI Denver Field Office.]

A few hours later I received a call back from Agent Funk who told me that [Billy bob Bramscher] had called in and was complaining about the legal issues and conspiracy against him.  Agent Funk told me that that she found that [Billy bob Bramscher] had also called and spoke to another FBI agent regarding the same issues [12/23/10] and the legal issues he was having with Judge Stipech.

02/01/11

I spoke with Agent Jason Malin, who is the other agent that spoke to [Billy bob Bramscher]. The agent told me that [Billy bob Bramscher] told him that he was having legal issues with Judge Stipech and with Detective Infrancea.  He told the agent that he kept being asked [by Detective Infranca] if he was going to blow something up.  Agent Malin said that [Billy bob Bramscher] began crying and professing that [he] would not do such a thing.  Agent Malin said that [Billy bob Bramscher] did not make any type of threatening statements during their conversation.

No additional information.”

NOTE:  Great Job FBI on the following:

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/105-juveniles-recovered-in-nationwide-operation-targeting-underage-prostitution

***And now… to our feature presentation!!!

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

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

NOTE:  As I was learning law is an enigma I was not aware of the difference between “substantive” and “procedural” Due Process when this correspondence was authored.  Be self-assured my substantive and procedural Due Process rights were violated!!!

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

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

NOTE:  The following petition was mailed to Adams County District Court Judge Popovich, 5280 Magazine (Denver), Denver Westword, The Denver Post and Michael Morrison, CMHIP with no responses/feedback:

The Billy bob Liberty Journal, OG 07/27/11

“Here Ye Hear Ye…  Today marks my 205th day of incarceration as I await a trial by jury against the false, liable, defamatory, retaliatory and ludicrous charge of “Retaliation Against A Judge. C.R.S. 18-8-615” defined as an “Act of Harassment”.

It is written within the state of Colorado Constitution, Article II of the Bill of Rights, section 25, that, “No person shall be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property, without Due Process of Law,” whereas, Due Process invokes natural, inherent and fundamental principles of justice, enforceable in the usual modes established in the administration of government with respect to kindred matters (16AmJ2dConstL§545).

The Defendant in this case, 10CR3690/11SA212, is also the competent author of this journal, William Robert Votel – Penname is birth surname, Billy bob Bramscher (~BbB~).  “Nothing Without the Divine Will” or “Nil Sine Numine” is the motto of Colorado and “Where there’s a Will (or William) there is a Way”.

The following is written in the “Spirit of 1776” and against the tyranny and oppression against the Freedom of Speech and Press, as fought against the Alien & Seditions Act of the 1790’s.  The defense stated, argued and debated below is founded on the principals of “The Truth as an Acceptable Defense” and “The Truth Will Set You Free”.

Topic 1:  Placing defendant under the cloud of undetermined charges for an indeterminate and unreasonable period of time is violative of Due Process” (People v Aragon, 643 P2d 43 (Colo 1982); “Proper effectuation of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charge against on requires an indictment to meet the basic principles of fundamental fairness” (People v Donachy, 196 Colo 289, 586 P2d14 (1978); “An insufficient indictment does not legally charge a crime or subject Defendant to the jurisdiction of the court” and “Lack of jurisdiction or the failure of the indictment to charge an offense shall be noticed by the court at any time during the preceding” (People v Westendorf, Colo App 111 (11/13/75); see also Colo R Crim P 12(b)(2)).

IMG_1996

Resolve 1:  The charge against fails to meet the fundamental fairness requirement of appraising the defendant with reasonable certainty of the accusation against him, in violation of Due Process.

Topic 2:  “The rules of criminal procedure relating to a preliminary hearing are intended to create a preliminary screening device by affording a defendant an opportunity, at an early stage of the criminal proceedings, to challenge the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence before an impartial judge” (People ex rel Farina v District Court, 185 Colo 118, 522 P2d 859 (1974); People v District, 652 P2d 582 (Colo 1982); per Colo R Crim P, chap 29, II, rule 5(a)(4)(I) states that upon a valid request by either the defendant or the prosecution that a preliminary hearing will be held within thirty (30) days of setting, unless good cause is shown; per C.R.S. 16-8.5-102(1) a preliminary hearing is exempt from a stay of proceedings and non-critical susceptible of fair determination and shall not be precluded from the court to consider and decide.

Resolve 2:  On 02/01/11 the defense did motion for preliminary hearing and without good cause the preliminary hearing was not held until 07/05/11 sum 155 days after motion.  Status quo, [case] precedent and the law dictate’s dismissal, in violation of Due process.

Topic 3:  On 05/25/2011, the defendant was administered, by Michael Morrison, PhD, trained in forensic Psychiatry [The Science of Lies], a court-ordered competency evaluation as defined by C.R.S. 16-8.5-101(5)/16-8.5-102 by [malicious] motion of Cathlin Matson [see malicious prosecution as incompetent and insane Lowen v Hilton, 142 Colo 200, 351 P2d 881 (1960)], former ineffective counsel of Defendant, at CMHIP.  Whereas C.R.S. 16-8.5-105 evaluations and report defines acceptable and legal processes and whereas on his authored competency examination report dated 05/31/11, [Michael Morrison] identifies as “Sources of Information” telephone contact with [Public Defender] Cathlin Matson, telephone contact with [Senior Deputy District Attorney] Daniel Brechbuhl and telephone contact with [defendant’s family member’s] regarding [Billy bob Bramscher’s] background and mental health problems.

Matson, Brechbuhl and [Billy bob Bramscher’s family members] are non-experts in psychology and psychiatry also defined as “3rd Persons” and a competency evaluator, Morrison, cannot express an opinion based, in whole or in part, upon information obtained from third (3rd) persons who have not testified to the facts (see Ingles v People, 90 Colo 51 (12/7/31); Garrison v People, 158 Colo 348, 408 P2d 60 (1965); Rupert v People, 163 Colo 219, 429 P2d 276 (1967)).

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

Resolve 3:   Michael Morrison’s competency examination report and opinion admission [into] evidence did prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant and Morrison’s report and opinion[s] are the result of a trial of the defendant by CMHIP staff and that in seeking “3rd Person” opinions CMHIP acted beyond the power conferred by statue 16-8.5-101(5)/16-8.5-102/16-8.5-105 resulting in inadmissibility of Morrison’s report and opinion in this case (see Abbotts Trial Evidence (4th Ed), p. 226, note 28).  Additionally, Cindy Cox, CHP, CMHIP HIPAA Privacy Liaison, released to defendant that Adams County Court gave permission to Morrison to contact [Family] when the competency exam was ordered (letter, 07/04/11).

[Public Defender] Cathlin Matson, former ineffective counsel, and Adams County Court Judge [Byron] Howell acted beyond the power conferred by statue 16-8.5-101(5)/16-8.5-102/16-8.5-105 and did prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant constituting errors structural in nature to include but not be limited to a deprivation of the right to competent and zealous counsel (see Gideon v Wainwright (1963) 372 US 335, 9 L Ed 2d 799, 83 S Ct 792, 23 Ohio Ops 2d 258, 93 ALR 2d 733) and the lack of an impartial trial judge, in violation of Due Process.

[see also Mattox v United States, 156 US 237, 243, 39 L Ed 409, 15 1s Ct 337 (February 4, 1895) in re English authorities and early state cases indicate that the right of the accused to be confronted with witnesses against, Amendment Six (6), is most naturally read as reference to the common-law right of confrontation.]

Topic 4:  On 02/25/11 [Billy bob Bramscher] did motion to remove [Public Defender] Cathlin Matson as ineffective based on her [malicious] conduct on 02/18/11 when she submitted motion by seal regarding competency to proceed whereas my letters to Cathlin Matson dated 02/06/11, 02/08/11 and 02/13/11 revealed that defendants thinking processes were clear and logical and that defendant understood the charge against and was/is capable of assisting in said defense.

From 02/18/11 until 06/13/11 Cathlin Matson refused defendants pleas for help and valid question regarding case, competency exam and defendant had legitimate Fifth (5th) Amendment concerns regarding the competency examination as a critical stage of aggregate adversary proceedings (see People v Branch, 786 P2d 441 (Colo App 1989); Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981)).

On 06/13/11 Cathlin Matson called defendant [Billy bob Bramscher] “Severly Mentally Disturbed” [which was really F’n mean!!!].  This same day Cathlin Matson offered me a deal from District Attorney Don Quick and Senior Deputy District Attorney Daniel Brechbuhl where I would catch a felony yet everything would be over and I could leave Adams County Detention Facility [except Matson never told me I would have to go to the intake for prison for a month to catch a number].  I shared with ineffective Public Defender Cathlin Matson she could go “Fuck Herself!!!”]

[On 06/24/11 “Court finds a complete breakdown in communication” and Cathlin Matson is allowed to remove herself from case 10CR3690.]

Resolve 4:  Defendant [Billy bob Bramscher] is entitled to competent and zealous representation at all stages of court proceedings and [ineffective Public Defender] Cathlin Matson’s conduct is/was prejudice to defendant and Matson’s misconduct and disability is a fraud to the court (see People v Radinsky , 176 Colo 357, 490 P2d 951, (1971)) and her motion C.R.S. 16-8.5-102 was unnecessary (see Brensnahan v People, 175 Colo 286, 487 P2d 551 (1971)) and Cathlin Matson’s conduct and agenda(s) constitute gross negligence and a violation of Due Process.

NOTE:  As evidence to Public Defender Cathlin Matson’s ineffective counsel and incompetence I wanted to share three (3) letters where I was begging the Supreme Court of Colorado for help…

IMG_1993 IMG_1994 IMG_1995

Summary:  Due Process of Law is a summarized Constitutional Guarantee of respect for those personal immunities which are so rooted in the traditions and conscience of the people as to be ranked as fundamental, or are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty (see Toland v Strohl, 147 Colo 577, 364 P2d 588 (1961)) and the right to equal protection of the laws is included within the Due Process Clause of the Colorado Constitution and the right to counsel, the right to an impartial judge and the right not to incriminate one’s self are unalienable constitutional rights.

Application of a courts supervisory powers in dismissing a criminal case may be proper if the government’s 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.

The truth is self-evident.  Defendant’s competency is self-evident.  Please contact Honorable Judge Popvich and “Votel-L” [Get it… “Votel” LMAO] to dismiss!!!”

~Your Affectionate & Obedient Servant

~BbB~

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 on January 30, 2012 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 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.

~Aloha

~BbB~

~Billy bob Bramscher

https://www.facebook.com/BlueDakini

IMG_1216

Advertisements

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