The Billysburg Address – November 19, 2013

Image

Today in history, one-hundred and fifty years within our countries past (1863), Abraham Lincoln spoke to the nation in what was to be forever known as The Gettysburg Address concluding, “that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Through my personal true story, however, I may only reveal contradiction to those great words.  My name is Billy bob Bramscher and I am the “Lonesome Lozer”.

11.24.10:

On this day prior to Thanksgiving as a Gonzo Journalist I was in contact with the Westminster Municipal Court on a fact-finding mission in re writing.  Please read the internal email in re my contact with Loretta Martinez:

Image

12.03.10:

The following complaint was filed with the Attorney Regulation Counsel via telephone against Magistrate John Anthony Stipech.  I had initially contacted this office providing limited information and I made this call, as reflected by my phone bill, on November 24, 2010 after my contact with Loretta Martinez (above) and not as reflected in the document below.  I at first was in touch with a female administration assistant who seemed “shocked” by my story.  As the holiday weekend was swiftly approaching I was informed I would receive a call after the weekend.  Mathew A. Samuelson seemingly, per his own admission closed my complaint lacking any investigation.

IMG_2638 IMG_2640

11.16.10:

The following Westminster Police report again affirms the intentions of your present gracious author…  I am a writer!  I was threatening to expose corruption and my weapon is “the pen”.

“The Pen is mightier than the sword” ~Edward Bulwer-Lytton

IMG_2641

12.23.10:

The below document contains a fatal error!  There was no C.R.S. 18-18-615 on the records.  This invalidates the Arrest Warrant.

IMG_2073

***Notice the bond was set at $75,000?

***”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)).

12.23.10:

In this next internal email Carol Barnhardt documents how Detective Richard Infranca “walked the warrant through” resulted in the judge to “deviate” from the standard bond.

This in and of itself is a violation of my Fourteenth Amendment Rights:

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

IMG_2643

***Please also know, the Westminster Municipal Court and the Westminster Police Department were well aware I was in Las Vegas, NV, as previously documented on this blog.

***Colorado Constitution Amendment VIII:  “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

12.23.10:

The following “Information” is fatally flawed and fails to actually state an offense wheras this court had no jurisdiction to prosecute this case.  The “Information” fails to convey probable cause.

IMG_2644

***Both the terms “Retribution” and “Retaliation” by definition require SPECIFIC INTENTIONAL conduct.  See 18-1-503(4); 18-1-501(5); citing Adams County District Court No 02CR3167, People v McIntier, 134 P3d 467 (Colo App 2005); Supreme Court of Colorado No 05SC203 People v Manzo, 10/02/06; People v Hickman, 988 P2d 628, 644-45 (Colo 1999); see also United States v Houlihan, 937 F Supp 75,76 (D Mass 1996) in re “intent to retaliate” in 18 USCS 1513 requires proof either of “sole or abiding purpose” or “purpose mixed in with other purposes”); see also Welhsler, The Challenge of a Model Penal Code, 65 Harv L Rev 1097 (1952).

***John Anthony Stipech is NOT a Judge. In his public capacity, John Stipech is an attorney appointed as an officer of a municipality; albeit he has many duties involving the enforcement of law (see Colorado Court Rules for Magistrates, Chapter 35 C.R.M. 3, Rule 3. Definitions (a) “Magistrate: Any person other than a judge authorized by statute or by these rules to enter orders or judgments in judicial proceedings.”)

****Whereas the phrase “ACT OF HARASSMENT” is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad failing to charge defendant with a crime (see People v Hickman, 988 P2d 628, 11/9/1999 in re “that the phrase ‘act of harassment’ in the statute [CRS 18-8-706] is unconstitutionally over-broad and strike it from the statute,” see Id at 643).

***Colorado Constitution Article II Bill of Rights Section 16. “Criminal prosecutions rights of defendant.” In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person and by counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation; to meet the witnesses against him face to face; to have process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf, and a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed.”

***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)).

***

01.11.11:

Below, you will see that John Anthony Stipech fails to satisfy the requirements of a “victim” failing to allege or state any personal harm caused by yours truly.

Because John Anthony Stipech is the only person listed as a victim in this case it therefore seems extremely peculiar Carol Barnhardt would be allowed to include her opinions.

IMG_2646

***John Anthony Stipech does not define himself as a “victim” whereas the legal definition of a “victim” is “Person harmed by criminal acts, attack target.”  By John Anthony Stipech’s own words, he was not “harmed” and therefor was never a “victim” causing a fatal error in this case.

IMG_2647

IMG_2648

***Please compare comments above by Carol J. Barnhardt, Court Administrator in comparison to the remarks document in the above supplemental police report by James Wollack!!!

***The above Victim Impact statement again affirms the intentions of your present gracious author…  I am a writer!  I was threatening to expose corruption and my weapon is “the pen”.

***Citing New York Times v Sullivan, 376 US 254, 273, 84 S Ct 710, 11 L Ed 2d 686 (1964), “Injury to official reputation affords no more warrant for repressing speech that would otherwise be free than does factual error.  Where Judicial officers are involved, this court has held that concern for the dignity and reputation of the courts does not justify the punishment [376 US 273] as criminal contempt of criticism of the Judge or his decision.”

In conclusion, it was an adjudicated fact that the falsely alleged telephone harassment call was NOT recorded and case law states specifically:

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.”

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=6583&courtid=1

This ruling by the higher Colorado Appellate Court is known as “Case Precedent” and citing Marbury v. Madison5 U.S. 137 (1803), a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

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

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