Saturday, March 15, 2014

Thought of the Day

This should be of interest to anyone that would like to know how the legal system functions.

The courts evade answering the question in the filing and when questions are answered they are answered fallaciously.  They will not rule on the logical foundation of the claim.

If the courts had to address any of the material that I have filed, on topic and with proper logic, I would not be in prison.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

The hoar frost in the fencing and razor wire is my northern lights.  There is usually not enough condensed ice to accumulate on the fencing here in S.E. Colorado to give out any more than hoar frost.  I am reminded of New England winters – ambient frozen moisture, and limited visibility.  I have grown disgusted with desert visibility … and summer heat!

The next big mission is executive commutation to be sent to the governor.  The plan is to send it immediately prior to Nov. 5th so that, win or lose, Governor Hickenlooper will not have a re-election in his future (for that position).

The last piece of the legal sequence, posted here in two previous pieces over six months, (egads! Too long) is as follows:

Submitted by certified mail to the district court house in Fort Collins, on July 01, 2013 – Testimony to the grand jury that I committed perjury to allow my fraudulent plea to proceed.  Detailed filing of the statute which says that any person may testify to the grand jury about any crime not yet under investigation.

[link to C.R.S. 16-5-204 (4) (lima)] lima=lower case “L”  Also explanation that perjury’s statute of limitations starts upon discovery – with “crimes of deception” precedent citations.

The clerk refused to forward the testimony to the court (head judge).  This filing represents the last link between the people and the criminal courts.  E.g. If you complain to the police/DA of a crime and are blown off, you are permitted to complain to the grand jury; to have your criminal complaint investigated!

I then sent the head judge – he is the link to the grand jury – an inquiry:  “Is it this court’s position that no action is required on this filing?” No response to that either.

Mandamus to state Supreme Court asking them to enforce the head judge’s obligation to forward my testimony to the grand jury is pending.  Since it was filed by me (NOT a member of the Colorado Bar) there will likely be no response.

Letters were also sent to the state Attorney General and the judicial disciplinary commission.  There was no response from the A.G.; and a ‘blow off’ response from the commission. I will write them again to impress upon them the state employment bureau has a statutory requirement that an employee has to report any crime discovered in the process of their duties!!!

[P.S. See previous entry / press release: “Murder Convict Attempts Mea Culpa To Nullify Plea,”  for more info on the Grand Jury and the investigation I hope to induce. 

Peace, Jason

Thursday, January 16, 2014

During the below appeal I filed this testimony to the Larimer County Grand Jury to address the criminal aspects of the [procedural] "deviations" in my case:

District Court; Larimer County, Colorado 201 LaPorte Ave.
Fort Collins, Co. 80521-2761
Motion To The 2013 Larimer County Statutory Grand Jury
In re: Perjury °1 (Class 4 felony)
Jason Pecci #111132 BCCF8-P
11560 Rd. FF 75
Las Animas, Co. 81054
C.R.S. §16-5-204(4)(1) states, in part, that: "Any person may approach the grand jury and request to appear before it to testify about criminal activity not yet under its investigation." (U.S. v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 46-8 (1992); full text on Annotated Citations page.). Following here is first hand testimony regarding perjury in the first degree. Attached are an affidavit of truth and indictment. The affidavit and an Information version of the Indictment have been sent to the Eighth District Attorney's Office. An accompanying letter addresses a potential conflict of interest as follows:
"I understand that this district attorney's office has
an interest in not pursuing charges against Mr. Pecci,
nor any defendant convicted of a felony equal or greater than perjury °1 (felony °4). Public interest in defrauded process and concomitant perjury should prevail over any interest to maintain a questionable plea." [underlining added here.]
C.R.S. §16-5-204(1), as well as precedent People v. Meyer (see Annotated Citations, other consistent precedents are omitted.), establish the grand jury's independence and functional need to remain free from prosecutorial influence. Thus the grand jury should be assisted by an attorney outside of the Eighth District Attorney's Office.
An exercise of the grand jury's investigatory and accusatory authority, under C.R.Crim.P. Rule 6(a)&(b) and C.R.S~ §16-5-204(3), will find grounds for indictment consistent with the rules and statutes, and the public interest.

The presumption of responsibility of the grand jury to the "public interest" is manifest.
-> Criminal Rule 6(a) - The head judge may summon a grand jury in the "public interest”.
-) Statute §16-5-204(4)(1) - The court may compel a grand jury to hear testimony that "would serve the interests of justice.” (Justice is equanimity in the government's (via the courts) relationship with the "public”.)
-) Losavio v. Kikel, 529 P.2d 306 (1974) - *.. where "public concern" is great it is desirable to have the grand jury serve in the investigative role. (Is defrauded process and concomitant perjury in the criminal court not a public concern?)
-) 1976 Arapahoe County Grand Jury and Suppression of the Grand Jury Report, 572 P.2d 147 - the "public benefit" which may be achieved by the filing of the [grand jury] report.
[All quotation emphasis added here.)
This testimony comports with the public interest to the extent that if the grand jury investigated and chose not to return an indictment it would be obligated, under the "narrow definition of public interest" regarding grand jury reports, to produce a report. (C.R.S. §§ 16-5-205.5(5)(c), 18-1-901(3}(j); omitted from Annotated Citations.) Thus, this grand jury should accept this testimony for investigation and evaluation, in performance of its public remit.
The attached affidavit and indictment can be verified by: 1) investigation of access logs to L.C.D.C. on 13 September 2001 (will show a lack of access by attorney Kathryn Hay), 2) questions upon deposition of a) Ms. Hay or b) investigator Roy Bath re: their "recollection" of serving and explaining the plea contract to Mr. Pecci, and 3) the transcript of the providency hearing (case #01CR465, where Ms. Hay completed her portion of the contract at the Judges's bench). Considering that people have a much stronger recollection of acts committed than acts avoided; investigator Bath should provide more affirmative verification of serving the contract on Mr. Pecci - with notable lack of due legal counseling - than attorney Hay may verify not serving nor counseling on the contract at issue. These facts support indictment.
The statute of limitations for prosecuting perjury begins to
run upon discovery of the offense, as opposed to the date of commission. (See C.R.S. §16-5-401(4.5)(p), included in Annotated Citations.)
This testimony constitues disclosure of the previously occult perjury. There is no statute of limitation prohibition on indictment.
Testifier requests that any decisions and conclusions of this grand jury be forwarded in the supplied s.a.s.e.

On September 13th 2001 I, Jason Pecci, attended a providency hearing regarding criminal case 2001CR00465 in courtroom 5A of the Larimer County I averred, to former Judge, Terrence Gilmore, that my attorney had served upon me and reviewed to my satisfaction the plea contract at issue. That was a lie. That providency hearing was the first and only time that I, my attorney, and the plea contract were together.

201 La Porte Ave., Ste. 100
Fort Collins, Co. 80521-2761
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO    vs.        Defendant:   Jason Pecci                                                                                              
The 2013 Statutory Grand Jury, 201 LaPorte Ave.
Fort Collins, Co. 80521
The currently sitting grand jurors chosen, selected, and sworn, in and for the county of Larimer, in the name and by the authority of the people of the state of Colorado, upon their oaths, present:
On September 13th 2001 in courtroom SA of the Larimer County Courthouse; Jason Pecci did knowingly make a materially false statement to the court that greatly affected the outcome of the judicial process. Sufficient evidence exists to establish probable cause that this act violates Colorado Revised Statute §18-8-502 (Perjury °1).
Foreman of the grand jury:
Prosecuting attorney:

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Post Conviction Legal sequence (cont.)

Happy Holidays and New Year!  I hope to finish the story of the legal sequence since conviction.  The previous entry covered all the State of Colorado appeals / post-conviction remedies, both with the denials from the various courts.  Courts do not have an obligation to rationalize their denial to self-represented (pro-se) non-lawyers.  Access to the judicial system for non-lawyer citizens is the current milieu of this story. 

To recap the habeas corpus debacle, in the Federal District of Colorado:

Judge Zita Weinsheink (appointed to that court by Jimmy Carter), contrary to habeas rules, pulled the petition from the magistrate and denied it with no analysis.


The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals also avoided reading and analyzing the Memorandum of Law and denied the appeal with neither rationale nor rationalization.

Rationale = pissing on me; usually gratuitously from a superior position, occasionally with reason.

Rationalization =  calling it a liquid wizdom delivery system. 

The distinguishing act here was that I included a query letter sent to sentencing Judge Terrance Gilmore a year earlier, by which I advised the court that compelling Gilmore to answer the letter would in turn Answer the appeal.  This is likely the cause of their rapid and vacuous denial – and my first realization the judges despise being given deductive answers.  (Their raison d’etre is the wide and nebulous world of inductive, and usually fallacious, reasoning.)

It was then on to the U.S. Supreme Court – Petition for Certiorari – Case #_____.

The highest court, of course, will not deign to hear a petition so effectively ignored by the District and Circuit courts.  There were two concurrent cases before the court that paralleled mine, but no one read mine to make the connection.     Missouri v. Frye

This brings me to the scandalous return to state court with the meritorious claim that a “sentence premised upon materially false information is an illegal sentence, and that I possess exactly such an illegal sentence.

Colorado Eighth District Court – Criminal Rule 35(a) Petition to Correct an Illegal Sentence.


  • A sentence premised upon materially false information, such as mine, is an illegal sentence.
  • Cited consistent precedent going back to 1947.
  • Also cited cases within the district that explained the judicial contortions and distortions routinely undertaken by that district to create falsely premised conviction and sentences.


Case #1:  My attorney, Kathryn Hay, again had left a defendant undefended for a false conviction in Gilmore’s court.  The defendant had been convicted of child abuse, when her ex-husband’s new girlfriend had poisoned the defendant’s daughter.  The case had the same disregard of evidence and fabrication of alternative circumstances as my case, with the same critical players.  This citation should have demonstrated to any critical reader – Judge Williams (remember him?) -that the district, or at least my attorney and judge, operate deviantly from rules of evidence and procedure.


Case #2:  To ensure this point I cited an ongoing case in which a newly minted judge was employing the same deviant tactics, presumably for acceptance to the unaccountable standard of practice in that rouge district.  This example of ongoing and generational corruption” should have proven that my case was standard operations deviancy and thus, minimally, an illegal sentence.


Guess who snatched the case from Judge Williams and denied it as a duplicate 35(C) “other remedies” petition; ignoring that it was a 35 (a) “illegal sentence” petition?

Answer:  the judge from case #2 above; Julie Kunce-Field.


By this time the original judge in my case and of case #1 above – Terrance Gilmore – had been voted off the bench in the 2010 election.  Allow me an aside to explain the buried scandal.


Gilmore and my first prosecutor, Jolene Blair, had as co-prosecutors, exercised a 10 year vendetta on a 15 year old murder suspect to falsely convict him at the age of 26.  [search:  Tim Masters, Peggy Hetrick, murder, Fort Collins…]  When Masters achieved reversal of the false conviction, at age 36, the D.A. and co-prosecutors Gilmore and Blair could not have given a shit less. D.A. Stuart Van Meevren – had retired after 35 exclusively corrupt years as the regional emperor. (proof = an exploratory committee convened to research a 2006 run for governor and disbanded in two days!!  A mere glimpse of how foul his public (dis)service had been was sufficient for the committee to slam the book shut on him). Gilmore and Blair then occupied imperious positions as judges.  The city and county paid Tim Masters a combined $10,000,000 settlement, which Gilmore and Blair probably thought was the cost of doing business by their standards.  So what? The people voted on those standards and put their hubristic, smarmy, punk asses on the street. (with pensions?).

I challenge any reader to find any news report on this dual dethroning and its significance.  Totally suppressed!!!!!

A universal truth about dictators is that no matter how right they start, on any premise, they end up wrong.


Back to the 35(a) petition:

Kunce-Field arrogated jurisdiction of the case from assigned Judge Dave Williams presumably to quash the derogation of her as the 8th District’s newest avatar of “ongoing and generational corruption.” 

She dismissed the petition with no reference to any content; especially the central claim of “sentence premised upon materially false information.”

Appeal of Petition Denial – Colo. Appellate Court #12 CA926

Here I asked for the disqualification of Kunce-Field for her blatant impropriety and that she not be allowed to rule on the petition. (Legal standard only requires: “mere appearance of impropriety.”)  Also, even if qualified she assiduously evaded the central argument that the “sentence is premised upon materially false information.”

Remand was requested to a not disqualified judge, possibly in another district, such that a bona fide reading of the petition, by an unbiased and un-self-interested jurist, might occur.

This was denied without answer to either judicial qualification or merit of “materially false premise of sentence,” as illegal.

A further petition for rehearing was denied.

I went on to try and appeal the appeal with a Combined Petition of Certiorari and Mandamus to the Colo. Sup. Ct. #13SC159

The Mandamus claimed that the matter in the district was not before proper judicial authority, that Kunce-Field was disqualified by blatant self – interest know as “coram non judice”.

The Certiorari claimed that the appellate court did not rule on Kunce-Field’s avoidance of the materially false underpinnings / premises / foundation of the sentence.

The State A.G. filed a refusal to respond.

The Supreme Court ignored the matter for seven months, then denied only the certiorari claim and refused to respond to the mandamus.  Thus a refilling of the mandamus is underway.


Do you see the dictatorial imperiousness that makes autocrats so wrong?