Westminster Police Internal Affairs and the Adventures of Billy bob Bramscher

Lee Birk WPD

Chief Lee Birk, Westminster, Colorado

The Pillar of Liberty Erected by Fourth Amendment Cannot Be Knocked Down in Aid of Law Enforcement.”

~Citing United States v 1013 Crates of Empty Old Smuggler Whiskey Bottles (1931, CA2 NY) 52 F2d 49

OPENING CREDITS

NOTE:  I had asked one of the County Sheriff’s at Adams County Detention Facility – and apparently it was a joke to him – because I was told Chief R. Coopman was the Chief of Police, Westminster, Colorado, and as you will read that was another lie.

NOTE:  Not a single recipient of this communication responded.

This is a copy of a letter and other documents that do support indubitably Billy bob Bramscher in re the bullying, bad-faith investigation and malicious arrest by Detective Richard Infranca and the conspiracy against by the entire Westminster Police Department:

To:  WPD Chief R Coopman & Internal Affairs [Westminster, Colorado – CRN 2010-20293

Plaintiff:  [Billy bob Bramscher] #201100001089, ACDF

Defendants:  Richard Infranca #897; Maiuche #807, et seq

Preface:  Today is my 311th day in-custody resulting from a Vindictive and Malicious arrest.  Please know a copy of this request will be sent to:

1)  FBI Field Office, Denver

2)  Sheriff Doug Darr, Adams County

3)  Governor John Hickenlooper

4)  Colorado Supreme Court

5)  The Denver Post

6)  KCNC News 4

7)  The Westword

8)  Iris Eytan, Reilly Ponzer LLP (A Litigation and Trial Practice); and, et seq

A:  INTRODUCTION

I.  The Plaintiff, [Bramscher], hereby declare the following crimes and injustices conceived, orchestrated and acted out by, yet not limited to, Richard Infranca #897, Maiuche #805, Scambelluri #854 and Clark #202:

NOTE:  Amended to the entire Westminster Police Department, Colorado!!!

1)  False Arrest (22Amj2dFalseImp §§ 1, 2)

2)  Malicious Arrest (Everett v Henderson, 146 Mass 89, 14 NE 932 (1888))

3)  Malicious Abuse of Process (1AmJ2dAbuseP§6)

4)  False Affidavit (41Am J1stPerJ§26)

5)  Tampering Evidence (United States v Tomicich (DC Pa) 41 Supp 33 (1941))

6)  Forgery (36AmJ2dForg§1; Green v State (FLA) 76 So 2d 645, 49 ALR 2d 847 (1954))

7)  Conspiracy to Commit Perjury (41AmJ1stPerj§2)

8)  Violation of Privacy (41AmJ1stPrive§§20, et seq)

9)  Violation of Civil Rights Under 42 USC §§ 1983 [1985;1986]

II.  Plaintiff [Bramscher] hereby declares the above acts were committed with purposeful, negligent, willful and wanton prejudice, discrimination, disregard for the safety and rights of plaintiff, [Billy bob Bramscher], and the following evidence/facts to follow provide a Quantum of Evidence; Proof Beyond Any Doubt of Plaintiff’s Claim.

B.  FACT

I.  Plaintiff in WPD CRN 2010-20293/10CR3690/11SA212 is charged with “Retaliation Against a Judge”, C.R.S. 18-8-615 “An Act of Harassment” amended as defined in section C.R.S. 18-9-111(1)(e).  The alleged victim, John Stipech, is an employee of the City of Westminster, Colorado, Municipal Court and in his public capacity per Colo Const Art XX § 6 and 13-10-105(1)(B) “Is an appointed attorney as an officer of the municipality, albeit he has many duties involving the enforcement of law (42AmJ1PubOf§21).

II.  Charge:  [Billy bob Bramscher] is charged with “Retaliation Against a Judge” for an single event that [NEVER] occurred on or about November 29, 2010 and allegedly spoke to Rosanna Minjarez who works as a receptionist and the “call was NOT recorded” (source:  “Peoples Notice of Intent to use Res Gestae Evidence of in the Alternative Evidence or in the Althernative Evidence of other Transaction under CRE 404(b)” as submitted in District Court, Adams County, by Senior Deputy District Attorney, Daniel T Brechbuhl, 08/12/11).

III.  See Exhibit ONE:  WPD Statement form, Rosanna Minjarez, date of occurrence 11/29/10 witnessed by Officer Maiuche #807, 12/01/10

IV.  See [Not included]:  WPD Case Report CN: 2010-20293, 12/2210 22:53:32, (20897) Infranca, Richard J, “12/03/10 I [Infranca] contacted Minjarez and confirmed the information she had written in her statement”.

V.  There is sufficient competent evidence, uncontroverted, corroborating evidence, to include the investigation of Infranca  #897, that [William Robert Bramscher] was absent of/not within the State of Colorado on or about November 29, 2010.

C.  ARGUMENTS

I. 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”.

II.  “Every person is generally presumed to know the law” (Carey, supra; People v Hayward, 55 P3d 803 (Colo App 2002); Dikeman v Charnes, 739 P2d 870 (Colo App 1987); and, Infranca #897 et seq, cannot claim ignorance of law as excuse (27AmJ2dCrimL§94) in re knowledge an arrest “must stand on firmer ground than mere suspicion” (People v Weinert, 174 Colo 71, 482 P2d 103 (1971)).

III.  See Exhibit ONE:  Rosanna Minjarez statement is suspicion at best; is hearsay pursuant to Colo R Evid 801 (29AmJ2dEv§493), “conflicting evidence” (see LeFrooth v Prentice, 202 CAL 215, 259 P947 (1927); and, is “scintilla of evidence – the least particle of evidence, a mere trifle of evidence” (Offutt v Columbian Exposition, 175 Ill 472, 476, 51 NE 651).

I.  “A complaint standing alone will not support an arrest warrant where NO facts are set forth to establish probable cause” (Sergeant v People, 177 Colo 354, 497 P2d 983 (1972)).

II.  “Probable cause for arrest is a reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently set forth to establish probable cause” (Brinegar v United States, 338 US 160, (93 L Ed 1879, P2d 983 (1949)).

III.  To support the issuance of an arrest warrant, the complaint must comply with the probable cause requirements of the USC Amend IV, Colo Const Art II § 7 and ColoRCrimP 3, 4(a).

 D. DISPROOF

I.  An essential element of offense is that [Bramscher] was in the State of Colorado on/about November 29, 2010 in re “Jurisdiction of the Cause” (Re Taylor, 7 SD 382, 64 NW 253, 25 LRA 136, 58 Am St Rep 138) and [Bramscher] was not in Colorado (see C.R.S. 18-1-202; 16-19-103 in re Light v Cronin 621 P2d 309 (Colo 1980); Briddle v Caldwell, 628 P2d 613 (Colo 1981))

II.  It is not alleged nor pleaded or is there proof:

  1. [FALSE LIE] C.R.S. 18-8-615 an act of “Harassment” was consummated or furthered by [Bramscher] (see 18-1-202(5)).
  2. [Bramscher] posed a “Credible Threat” as required in C.R.S. 18-8-615 defined in 18-3-602(2)(b) [as reported under oath as the offense committed in this case by Detective Infranca on the Application for Arrest Warrant and Affidavit].

III.  An essential element of C.R.S. 18-8-615 is a “Judge” as defined in 18-8-615(3) causing a Jeofail – error in pleading – because John Stipech is an Attorney and Officer of a court, NOT a “Judge”.

IV.  Citing United States v Tobin, 2008 DNH 42, 02/21/08, an essential of telephone harassment [18-9-111(1)(e)/47 USC § 223 et seq] is to provoke adverse emotional reactions in the called party [victim]” Id at 58, and; “The gravamen of the offense is the thrusting of an offensive and unwanted communication on one who is unable to ignore it [victim]” (People v Weeks, 197 Colo 175, 591 P2d 91 (1979)) causing a Jeofail – error in pleading – whereas it is not alleged nor is there proof that (1) [Bramscher] “initiated” – to bring to person, i.e. only victim John Stipech, into an activity; (2) “Telephone” – transmitting or receiving articulate speech electronically; and, (3) “Communication” – a statement made by word of mouth with/to John Stipech in any capacity and it is inconceivable to harass a third party [John Stipech] separate from alleged act.

E.  ERRORS

I.  Jurisdictional Defect (20AmJ2dCts§87)

II.  C.R.S. 18-8-615 Substantial (5AmJ2dA&E§778) and Prejudicial (5AmJ2dA&E§783) Jeofail and erroneously and illegally charged and error in fact (“the error made when a court gives a judgment or verdict and doesn’t know of a fact:  “What is ERROR IN FACT”? definition of ERROR IN FACT” (Black’s Law Dictionary) http://thelawdictionary.org/error-in-fact/#ixzz2c61L4u6W

III.  Statements by the affiant, Infranca, are false (see People v Winden, 689 P2d 578, 583 (Colo 1984); are also misleading because of the omission of material facts know to [affiant], Infranca (see People v Daily, 639 P2d 1068, 1074-75 (Colo 1982); see also Franks v Delaware, 438 US 154, 155-56 L Ed 2d 667, 68 S Ct 2674 (1978)).

IV.  See Exhibit ONE/THREE/FOUR:  Rosanna Minjarez has three (3) unique signatures and [multiple writing styles] and “Stipech” [is] misspelt three (3) times, never spelt correctly.

V.  Pursuant to C.R.S. 16-15-102(10) “[Bramscher’s] conversation with Detective Infranca was unlawfully intercepted”.

~Your Affectionate & Obedient Servant

~BbB~

DISCUSSION

As evident from the above and my other blog posts, the fact that Billy bob Bramscher never made a credible/true threat or committed “Harassment” as vindictively and maliciously alleged; proven false in trial and that 47 U.S.C.  §§ 223 et seq in re interstate calls “obscene” or “harassing” are subject to Federal Jurisdiction (i.e., FBI and Federal Court) the charge of “Retaliation Against a Judge” described only as “knowingly” committed an “Act of Harassment” is unconstitutional as applied in case 10CR3690/11SA212 – lacking any and all probable cause for arrest and confinement.

The Westminster Police Department, Colorado, did have power under 18 U.S.C. § 3041 to make arrest involving federal offenses (see Whitlock v Boyer (1954) 77 Ariz 334, 271 P2d 484) yet the Westminster Police Department and its agents were required by Federal Law/Rules, with undue delay, to bring Billy bob Bramscher before a Federal Magistrate (see Rule 5(a); 18 U.S.C. §§ 3041; see also Bennett v Campbell (1977, CA9 Cal) 564 F2d 329).

FACT:  The State of Colorado and/or the Westminster Police Department never had “Jurisdiction” to file charges against Billy bob Bramscher which also means there was never “probable cause”.

“In police agencies throughout the United States, Internal Affairs units are responsible for helping to ensure police ethics and integrity within their respective agencies by investigating officer conduct, particularly citizen complaints of officer misconduct. The presence and competent use of Internal Affairs units is one of the most important means of ensuring the agency’s adherence to community policing principles and sustaining community trust. Trust is an underpinning of community policing to such a degree that without a local public belief that an agency will resolve complaints of misconduct properly, the agency will likely engender public conflict, not partnership.”  http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/June_2008/internal_affairs.htm

The Westminster Police Department is lacking Internal Affairs opting to have a Professional Standards Unit “Responsible for employee background investigations and investigating allegations of misconduct against department members”.  http://www.ci.westminster.co.us/Safety/PoliceDepartment/AbouttheOrganization.aspx

The Professional Standards Unit at the Westminster Police Department, Colorado, never investigated the legitimate, legal and constitutional claims/petitions made within the letter and actually gave Detective Richard Infranca the confidential letter(s) and Infranca did forward copies of the letters and envelopes to the Adams County District Attorney’s Office.

IMG_2064 IMG_2065 IMG_2066

CONCLUSION:

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

~Billy bob Bramscher

~BbB~

https://www.facebook.com/BlueDakini

IMG_2063

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