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.

 

See:  RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS, Rule 8, b. www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/2254-2255.pdf‎

 

The 10^th 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 8^th 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?