“The duty of youth is to challenge corruption.” ~Kurt Cobain
“The great constitutional corrective in the hands of the people against usurpation of power, or corruption by their agents is the right of suffrage; and with this when used with calmness and deliberation will prove strong enough.”
~Andrew Jackson, 7th President of The United States of America EARTH
Within these next few weeks I am a defendant proceeding Pro se in three (3) criminal cases within the City and County of Denver, Colorado. Two (2) of these cases were being handled by the same Judge, Johnny C. Barajas, and I shall be reporting specifically upon the case “River Rock” 14GS000200 GO/CAD 2013-616157.
I am the victim of a BAD-FAITH INVESTIGATION by the DENVER POLICE to include INTERNAL AFFAIRS, a VINDICTIVE and MALICIOUS PROSECUTION by Denver City Attorney’s Vincent A. DiCroce (No. 23157) and Megan A. Jones (No. 40197) as well as a victim of FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION and other CIVIL RIGHTS violations.
The following GENERAL SESSIONS SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT is UNCONSTITUTIONAL granting NO jurisdiction in any court in Colorado or The United States of America:
Billy bob Bramscher petitions that the Information in 14GS000200 is fatally flawed lacking probable cause for both warrant and prosecution failing to meet fundamental fairness and legal guidelines. Placing Billy bob Bramscher under undetermined criminal charge(s) or under the cloud of undetermined criminal charges for an indeterminate and unreasonable period of time is a violation of Due Process (see People v Aragon, 643 P2d 43 (Colo 1982)).
Citing People v Westendorf, 37 Colo App 111, 11/13/75, “An insufficient indictment does not legally charge a crime or subject defendant to the jurisdiction of the court” and an Information is sufficiently particular if it elucidates the elements of a crime, enlightens a defendant as to the nature of the charges against which he must defend and enables him to plead double jeopardy in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense (seeUnited States v Whiffen, 121 F3d 18, 08/29/97; see also United States v Sepulveda, 15 F3d 1161, 1192 (1st Cir 1993).
The constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of an accusation, generally, is rooted in the United States Constitutions Sixth Amendment. The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation is substantial and cannot be denied (quoting Grimsley v United States (1931, CA5 FLA) 50 F2d 509) and the information must answer the questions of who, what, where, and how (quoting People v Joseph, 920 P2d 850 (Colo APP 1995); see also People v Tucker, 631 P2d 162 (07/13/81); People v Steiner, 640 P2d 250, 05/20/81)). A defendant charged with a crime must be brought into court on a complaint, information, or indictment made or found according to the requirements of the law (quoting Bustamante v People, 136 Colo 362, 317 P2d 885 (1957)) and there can be no conviction or punishment for a crime without formal and sufficient accusation (quoting Spence v Dowd (194, CA7 IND) 145 F2d 451).
Fatal Errors in the Complaint & Information case 14GS000200 include, yet are not limited to: (1) Failure to allege essential elements of crime (see Magee v People, 79 Colo 328, 245 P708 (1926); (2) Failure to allege offense with specificity (see People v Westendorf, 37 Colo APP 111, 542 P2d 1300 (1975); and (3) There are numerous ways to commit the crime of 38-91/38-92 and the information did not state manner in which it was allegedly committed (see People v Tucker, 631 P2d 162, (07/13/81); Reimer-Gross Co v United States (1927, CA6 OHIO) 20 F2d 36 ; State v Prejean (1950) 216 LA 1072, 45 So 2d 627).
The following is the Court CASE INFORMATION MINUTES:
*Please NOTE I have never ever gone by the last name “VOGEL”
**Please NOTE in the UPPER LEFT CORNER under “Status” the Clerk of Court “crossed” out “CLOSED” as this case was dismissed on 02/11/14!!!
On 2/11/14, I, Billy bob Bramscher, did file the following MOTION(s) Pro Se resulting in the DISMISSAL:
The following portion of the COURT TRANSCRIPT is what I refer to as SCREENPLAY DIALOGUE and PROVES as adjudicative FACT what truly transpired within this Kangaroo Court!!!
On, 2/12/2014 Vincent A. DiCroce, No. 23157 and Megan A. Jones, No. 40197 filed a “NOTICE OF APPEAL AND DESIGNATION OF RECORD ON APPEAL:
On 2/21/14, I, Billy bob Bramscher, did file the following MOTION(s) Pro Se:
On 04/25/14 Vincent A. DiCroce, No. 23157 and Megan A. Jones, No. 40197 filed a MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CASE DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE:
On 5/09/14, I, Billy bob Bramscher, did file the following MOTION(s) Pro Se:
On 07/10/14 Vincent A. DiCroce, No. 23157 and Megan A. Jones, No. 40197 filed a APPELLANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL AS MOOT with the District Court 14CV30627:
Also on this UNCONSTITUTIONAL date in history, Johnny C. Barajas ordered “SPEEDY TRIAL STARTS” exactly 161 days or 5 months 11 days after the ARRAIGNMENT of this case occuring, as documented on 01/31/14!!! WTF!!! Seriously?!?
~Gonzo journo Billy bob Bramscher