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
TESTIMONY TO THE LARIMER COUNTY GRAND JURY PURSUANT TO C.R.S. §16-5-204(4)(l)
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.


AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH
On September 13th 2001 I, Jason Pecci, attended a providency hearing regarding criminal case 2001CR00465 in courtroom 5A of the Larimer County Court.house. 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.

DISTRICT COURT; LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
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
INDICTMENT Count I
FIRST DEGREE PERJURY Class 4 Felony
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:

No comments: