Who Does This Happen
To?
Webster defines a “doormat” as:
1.) a mat that you put on the floor or ground on one side of
a door so that people can wipe the bottoms of their shoes on it.
2.) one that submits without protest to abuse or indignities.
I have drawn the short straw and exist as
a “doormat.” An example of this would
be: After joining the U.S. Air Force in
peace time I submitted, after protest, to a mandatory flu vaccination which
paralyzed me.
Below is the unusual post-conviction legal sequelae inflicted
upon me as further proof of the “doormat” status.
Direct Appeal, Colorado Court of
Appeals, #01CA????-
This was an “abuse of discretion” sentencing appeal that
questioned the false pre-assumptions, contrary to the evidence, made by infamous
Judge Terrence Gilmore, regarding the circumstances of the case.
The court of appeals rubber stamped affirmation of the
judge’s right to make false assumptions.
Basically it is within their discretion to exhibit no discretion!
Reconsideration
This Rule 35(b) Sentencing Appeal, Colorado 8th District, #01CR465-
was ignored by Judge Gilmore, a recurring phenomena, (see
below) until called by
post-conviction counsel Barret Weisz (#27601)
This appeal was summarily dismissed by Gilmore, with liberal
citation of the false presumptions or pre-assumptions. All his false presumptions
arise from a planted belief of what happened, devoid of presentation of
evidence! This is Gilmore’s hubristic investment.
Rule 35(c )
Petition for evidentiary hearing, same district and #-
My Attorney, Barret Weisz, attempted to test evidence to
determine range of gunshot and was verbally abused and hung up on by
prosecutor, now judge (!) Greg Lammons.
Access to evidence was denied.
The petition was denied for lack of proof of what the
evidence could have proved. WHAT!
MEP’s definition of this crap is “circular conspiracy.”
How do you think this aligns with their oath to represent
the public interests? This is typical
business in your judicial branch!
Appeal of the 35(c)
Petition denial, Colo. App. Ct. ????CA??
In appealing the petition for an evidentiary hearing it was
denied, in deference to the district’s circular reasoning.
My mother attended the oral arguments
at a Colorado Springs
high school and witnessed the state’s attorney, Roger Billott, tell the auditorium
of high school students that I had killed the victim’s dogs. This is not only as preposterous as it is
irrelevant; it is impossible! It was
established that the victim moved around Dec. of 2000 and I did not know where he
moved to. Yet his dogs disappeared in early 2001 in such a fashion that any
prosecutor can libelously state that shooting the owner equals killing the mission
(not necessarily deceased!) dogs. No inquiry was ever made of animal control!
MEP
notes: After researching which animal
clinic animal control used, I called them and inquired after the missing
dogs. I was left hanging on the phone
for 20 minutes and the woman finally came back and told me she wasn’t allowed
to give me any information – not “I have no information.”
Attorney Weisz was dumped at this point and I filed pro-se, (for
self) a petition for rehearing. The appellate
court did not respond. (see above
reference to recurring phenomena.)
Certiorari to
State Supreme Court, #07SC????
Here I restated the argument in the unanswered petition for
rehearing to the lower appellate court.
This was denied because Attorney Weisz would have prevailed
over the libelous, fabrication, and meritless state’s attorney had there been
arguable merit to the still not established actual facts.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Habeas Corpus, Federal Dist. Of Colo. , #08CV1235
The next two years were spent haggling
with magistrate (Kathleen Tafoya) over matters of “unexhausted claims”.
Interim 35(c) of unexhausted claims to
state district, 01CR465
The infamous and soon to be voted off
the bench, Judge Gilmore, recused himself. Judge Dave Williams assumed
jurisdiction of the case and he could not distinguish the unexhausted claims
from the original 35(c) and denied the petition as duplicative even though
there was no overlap with the original 35(c).
The Petition for Rehearing explained
how the federal court was distinguishing the unexhausted claims as never
previously heard in state court. Williams still sticks to Gilmore’s denial of
different, and exhausted, issues. Thus, Judge Williams is denying the federal
court's analysis of what has been exhausted and what has never, hitherto, been
heard!
Appeal of Interim 35(c), #?? 2010?
This was procedurally denied
because the petition for rehearing did not toll the time for filing notice of
appeal - although a petition for rehearing to the appellate court does toll the
deadline for filing certiorari to the supreme court.
How fucking ignorant is this?!
The rehearing cannot but expand any
appealable issue (if it doesn't resolve the conflict). Yet, nothing occurring
after a notice of appeal is admissible to the appellate court. So, a malfeasant
response to a district petition for rehearing has to be appealed separately.
This is systemic obstruction. Courts should consolidate matters instead of
bifurcating the original ruling and the petition for rehearing.
Habeas Corpus, (continued)
Judge Zita Weinshenk, contrary to
habeas corpus rules, pulls the petition from magistrate Tafoya.
She summarily dismissed it with
neither legal analysis nor magistrate recommendation. Thus the task allocated
to the magistrate by the rules - to conduct legal investigation and produce a
recommendation - was entirely subverted.
This occurrence is so capricious
and unprecedented that it is the impetus for the title: "Who Does This
Happen To?". One possible explanation is that Weinshenk received a
terminal diagnosis and executed the "setting affairs in order" phase
of preparing for death by throwing out her docket. This is consistent with her
execrable treatment of my petition, and metaphoric of how courts receive pro-se
filings.
Appeal of Habeas Corpus, Federal 10th
Circuit, #?? 2010?
Here I cited
10th Circuit precedent (Miller v. Champion, ??? f.3d ??? (200?)) that states
that an evidentiary hearing is required to deny a habeas corpus and
demonstrated consistency with that precedent.
The Court did not deign to read
the supporting pro-se Memorandum of Law and dismissed the appeal with neither
counter argument nor reference to Miller v. Champion.
Jason
(MEP’s comment on the functioning of our courts; “The circular
conspiracy in the functioning of our courts sabotages civil rights.” The legalese of this epistle will be beyond
the understanding of most but, just reading through it you will understand the
basic premise.
No comments:
Post a Comment