Denver Colorado and the Adventures of Billy bob Bramscher – PART VII

Flag Eagle

(Poster: abstract.desktopnexis.com)

“Freedom lies in being bold.”

~Robert Frost

“Responsibility is the price of freedom.”

~Elbert Hubbard

STORYLINE:  Within the next few days the following motion will be submitted to the Denver Municipal Court and the Colorado Supreme Court as I continue to fight and protect our constitutional freedoms…

The City and County of Denver

v.

BRAMSCHER, William R

Municipal Case Number: 14GS000200

District Court Case Number: 2014CV030627

Colorado Supreme Court Case Number: 2014SA318

***Motion to Dismiss for Want of Due Prosecution Part II***

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

II.  STATEMENT OF CASE

III.  STANDARD OF REVIEW

IV.  ARGUMENT

  1. Procedural Due Process
  2. Double Jeopardy

V.  CONCLUSION

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Ex parte Schechtel, 103 Colo. 77, 82 P.2d 762 (1938)

Watson v. People, 700 P.2d 544 (Colo. 1985)

United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996)

Other Authorities

Fifth Amendment, USC

Fourteenth Amendment, USC

C.M.C.R. 237

Colo. Crim. P. 37

16 of art. II, Colo. Const.

C.R.S. 18-1-405, Speedy Trial

USCS 3161, Time Limits & Exclusions

C.R.S. 18-1-301

Sixth Amendment, USC

I.  STATEMENT OF FACTS

The false allegations in this case are/were that on December 23, 2013, Defendant William Robert “Billy bob” Bramscher was terminated by his employer and that after leaving the building, Bramscher repeatedly called River Rock Dispensary harassing the employees by using foul language and threatening them. The General Sessions Summons and Complaint was issued and signed by Denver Police Detective D. Diaz Deleon #P04405 who is currently on paid leave as reported by The Denver Channel.

On February 11, 2014, Judge Johnny C. Barajas DISMISSED 14GS000200 ruling, “Okay, well it does say it has to be a brief description, so that suggests to me that there has to be more than just the boxes being checked off. So I am going to go ahead and dismiss it without prejudice” (pg. 14, 5-9) TRANSCRIPT

On February 12, 2014, Denver City Attorney’s Vincent A. DiCroce, No. 23157 and Megan A. Jones, No. 40197 filed a “NOTICE OF APPEAL AND DESIGNATION OF RECORD ON APPEAL” with the District Court 2014CV030627.

On April 25, 2014, Denver City Attorney’s Vincent A. DiCroce, No. 23157 and Megan A. Jones, No. 40197 filed a “MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CASE DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE” with the Municipal Court Judge Johnny C. Barajas 74 days or 2 months and 15 days after this case was dismissed according to rule/law.

On May 20, 2014, Municipal Court and Judge Johnny C. Barajas granted the prosecutions 04/25/15 motion reinstating this case 99 days or 3 months and 10 days after Barajas did dismiss this case according to rule/law.

On July 10, 2014, 161 days or 5 months and 11 days after the Arraignment and William Robert “Billy bob” Bramschers’ “Not Guilty” plea on January 31, 2014 Municipal Court Judge Johnny C. Barajas restarts SPEEDY TRIAL.

On September 09, 2014 the APPEAL to the District Court 2014CV030627 orchestrated and authored by Denver City Attorney’s Vincent A. DiCroce, No. 23157 and Megan A. Jones, No. 40197 is DISMISSED and ENDED.

II.  STATEMENT OF CASE

Defendant Bramscher was charged with violating the Denver Revised Municipal Code, Section 38-91 (Disturbance by Use of Telephone) and 38-92(a) (Threats). Case 14GS000200 was dismissed according to rule and law on 02/11/15 and the Denver City Attorney’s failed to file the “MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION” within the TIME FRAME allowable under STATE and FEDERAL law and this court fatally lacks jurisdiction.

The state of Colorado specifies that for any MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION the Defendant (i.e., William Robert “Billy bob” Bramscher) or the Prosecution (i.e., Denver City Attorney’s Vincent A. DiCroce, No. 23157 and Megan A. Jones, No. 40197) had ONLY 35 days from the date of dismissal to file a MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION and DiCroce/Jones KNOWINGLY/VINDICTIVELY/MALICIOUSLY filed their motion 74 days or 2 months and 15 days after this case was dismissed according to rule/law. See C.M.C.R. 237; Crim. P. 37.

III.  STANDARD OF REVIEW

Procedural due process refers to the aspects of the due process clause that relate to the procedure of arresting and trying persons who have been accused of crimes. It also applies to any other government action that deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property. According to the principle of procedural due process, if a person is deprived life, liberty, or property, s/he is entitled to adequate notice, hearing, counsel, and a neutral judge. This principle follows the concept of fundamental fairness.

Procedural due process requires the state and federal governments to follow certain procedures in criminal and civil matters. By placing such restrictions, it limits the government’s exercise of power.

IV.  ARGUMENT

Quoting Cornell University Law School, “The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be ‘deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.’ The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law (‘legality’) and provide fair procedures.”

Procedural due process

Defendant William Robert “Billy bob” Bramscher petitions this court that 14GS2000200 is a vindictive and malicious prosecution based on a bad-faith investigation. Bramscher has (1) suffered injury in fact deprived of fundamental fairness, (2) this deprivation constitutes a deprivation of life, liberty, property, and (3) DISMISSAL with PREJUDICE is required.

The fundamental right of an accused to a speedy trial arises from § 16 of art. II, Colo. Const. This section must be regarded as having been enacted for the purpose of rendering the constitutional guaranty effective and providing a method of securing the right declared. Ex parte Schechtel, 103 Colo. 77, 82 P.2d 762 (1938), overruled on other grounds in Watson v. People, 700 P.2d 544 (Colo. 1985). See, C.R.S. 18-1-405; USCS 3161.

Double Jeopardy

The Double Jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits anyone from being prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime. See, United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996); C.R.S. 18-1-301.  See Sixth Amendment.

V.  CONCLUSION

14GS000200 is a malicious and vindictive process fatally flawed as dismissed on February 11, 2014 according to rule and law lacking jurisdiction.

For the aforementioned reasons, William Robert “Billy bob” Bramscher, respectfully requests that this Court DISMISS with PREJUDICE 14GS000200.  See Fourteenth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, C.M.C.R. 237, Colo. Crim. P. 37, 16 of art. II, Colo. Const., C.R.S. 18-1-405 405(Speedy Trial), USCS 3161 (Time Limits & Exclusions), C.R.S. 18-1-301.

By: /s/ ~BbB~

William Robert “Billy bob” Bramscher, No. 1

FACEBOOK:  Blue Dakini

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