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.
Appeals, #01CA????- Colorado
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!
This Rule 35(b) Sentencing Appeal,
8th District, #01CR465- Colorado
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
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! Colorado Springs
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
, #08CV1235 Colo.
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.
(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.