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