Tuesday, February 7, 2017

The Orange Clown

The Orange Clown   © Justin Petrucci (2017)

Willfulness is my strength.
I will not read for great knowledge.
I will not listen for great insight.
I will not experience shame for greatness.

I am the Avatar of God and that is why you love me.
I remove your healthcare for your strength.
I remove your expenses to cost foreigners.
I decrease rich taxes for poor pride.

I have let you on my balance sheet.
You are welcome.

Don (Bozo the Nazi) Trump

Friday, July 29, 2016

Do You Understand the Separation of Power's?

Do You Understand Separation of Power’s?

The Powers of the three branches of government are established in section 1 of each Article, I, II, and III of the Constitution. 

Quite simply: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…Senate and House of Representatives; The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America…; The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts.”  

I have not found an explicit declaration that the branches may not intervene in the ‘business’ of the other branches. This is because their duties are described implicitly (by terms that have universal understanding—executive, legislative, judicial—with no overlap.

The current suit against the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) is claiming a violation of the separation of powers by a legal mechanism called “quo warranto.” The central claim is that the department—an executive branch agency—cannot repeal legislation; specifically Interstate Corrections Compact (ICC).  ICC is statutory authority granted to the executive by the legislative, to contract with other states to transfer inmates.  This contracting authority has to come from the legislature.  Imagine if the governor had free reign to enter the state into any contract!

The judicial branch, in turn, verifies the validity and legal integrity of statutes, as well as hears cases of non-compliance with statutes.  The claim at issue is:  Repeal of the Statute; by very intentional ignorance of the statute.

The primary intention of the suit is to break the obstruction prohibiting my application for transfer to Maine.  The secondary intention is as a ‘stalking horse’, to see if the Colorado Attorney General will argue for an executive branch right to ignore statutes.  They will have to first argue that there is not a separation of powers issue…that denial of the existence of a statute is not a repeal of statute…maybe just and option to obey a statute, but not an obligation! I do hope they pursue this optional statute argument, because it is a violation of the AG’s oath to the People and proves the claim.

If the AG should argue for CDOC omnipotence…I slipped in the power word because I’ve lived under their unchecked authority for so long…; let’s euphemize that a little from omnipotence to…authority to ignore statutes that may benefit inmate rehabilitation; I would ask who they argue for.  This is politically relevant, more than legally relevant. The answer is Corrections Corporation of America—the bĂȘte noire in the story.

This dovetails into the original piece I wanted to write, questioning how “The People” came to be so misrepresented. It spawns the foundational question of who our institutions are working for; the corporate construct? Did we let it happen or are we victims? Answer: Mostly victims, the authority was passed to the corporate construct away from public view and input.

Can we recover out arrogated liberty?  No. Revolution and reconstitution has become the only option.

I’m going to leave it parenthetically pushed off the cliff there—with revolution and reconstitution.  Any criminal defendant since Reagan, or maybe Bill Clinton’s AEDPA, can tell you this is the path.

Keep an eye on Colorado Appellate Case, 16CA949.

It is my only hope to get back to Maine and make a legal point about prison corruption.


Sunday, May 8, 2016

More Irrelevant Rhetoric from Colorado Courts

To: Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline

RE:  Jason Pecci, DOC #111132, Original complaint/suit filed with Denver 2nd District Court is attached.

Jason is filing a Coram Nobis. The content of the Coram Nobis is embedded in this missive.

His suit against the CDOC was an OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL by 2nd Judicial District Court Judge Elizabeth Starrs.

Her order to DISMISS was on false premise. She implied the suit contested the DOC’s Quasi-Judicial Hearing. There was no hearing.

Jason was “asking to be heard,” in what may or may not be a quasi-judicial action. Jason’s claim is that he was denied a hearing; this is not a ‘contest’ of a hearing.
Judge Starrs did not read the claim correctly. In my 16 years of experience with all the Colorado Courts this misinterpretation of documents is flagrant and would appear to be deliberate. I say this because I have to assume persons placed in these detrimental positions by our executives MUST be qualified to read and understand plain English and in many of the denials Jason has experienced in his 15+ years in the Colorado system the “question” Jason presented was never answered. It was ignored and instead, what should have been an accurate answer was skirted by rhetoric.  Judge Starrs maintained irrelevant rhetoric.

Judge Starrs used, as one ground of dismissal, that the rule cited was wrong. Jason filed a 106 Complaint and Jury Demand and the rule should have been a 106.5, she said; (“requesting a review of a decision entered following the CDOC facilities quasi-judicial hearing”) Again—there was no hearing, therefore she is in error!

For Judge Starrs response to be appropriate the plaintiff, Jason Pecci, would have been allowed to apply for the evaluation (that in itself unlikely meets the criteria of a quasi-judicial hearing.)

Please note in the Complaint and Jury demand which is attached, [See para. 8.(1) regarding an application], that the plaintiff was denied application. Many of the DOC staff feigned ignorance of the existence of this application specified in the Administrative Regulations. Otherwise a granted ICC Service Application would be attached and the complaint would be—debate about an adverse decision. 

The debate is about—denial of a statutory process and has nothing to do with quasi-judicial action.

Since Jason received notice that they weren’t going to hear his application in Denver District as it is improper venue—yet another one of Judge Starrs reasons for dismissal, I would like the $414 fee I paid returned. Judge Starr used ‘improper venue’ as reasoning therefore it would appear that the Court should not keep my money. A copy of the check is enclosed with its ‘certification of service’.

It is my understanding via various inmate statements that this filing fee of $414 is unheard of therefore we would also like this to be questioned. The original check I sent was for $225 and it was returned as insufficient filing fee.

I think it is time for the courts to address issues properly and if it takes hiring a lawyer to have them respect my and Jason’s dad’s emotional and financial output then so be it.  For 16 years I have been patient…

Thank you for your time.

Mary-Ellen Pecci, [Jason Pecci, the complainants, mother]
23 Bay View Drive, Cohasset, MA 02025, 781-923-1285