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:
Post a Comment