Filings to the courts since 2005

POSTCONVICTION LEGAL SEQUELAE
     (Reverse chronology by seminal filing)

Please note that all pro-se filings (filed by the inmate without a lawyer)  were universally ignored. Petitioner submits that any of these filings (e.g. Habeas Corpus Memorandum) would have prevailed if they had been given the consideration of a filing by a State's Attorney.

2014 August - 28 U.S.C. §1983 (Fed. Dist. Colo. 14-cv-2375)

                   Obstruction of grand jury testimony by head judge and clerk of
Eighth Dist./Larimer Cnty. Colorado.

          Pending.

2013 July - Testimony to Larimer County Grand Jury, pursuant to C.R.S.
            §16-5-204(4)(lima)

        Testimony obstructed by head judge and clerk.

2013 October - State Supreme Court (13SA326)

            Court's superintending authority requires demand to remove
            judicial obstruction.

     Supreme court ignored.

2012 January - C.R.Crim.P. Rule 35(a)-Illegal sentence (8th 01-CR-465)
          Sentence "premised upon materially false information" is an illegal sentence.

          Dismissed as a duplicate of a 35(c) that was improperly dismissed in 2005. [Note that a 35(c)-ineffective counsel claim is
vastly different from a 35(a)-illegal sentence claim.]

2012 mid-year - Appeal (12CA926)

          District decision was coram non judice - not before proper judicial authority. Disqualified judge arrogated jurisdiction from assigned judge for political self interest (to quash unfavorable presentation of her in the 35(a) as committing malfeasance similar to recused sentencing judge) and created coram non judice.

    Appellate court ignored.

2013 - State Supreme Court (13SC159)

 Court's superintending authority requires ruling on coram non judice.

 Supreme Court ignored.

2012 - Commission on Judicial Discipline (12-54) & State Supreme Court    (12SA243)

Judge exercising illegal jurisdiction - coram non judice

           should be adjudicated by the Commission.

Commission ignored coram non judice. Supreme Court refused to compel the Commission to acknowledge the complaint.

2008 - Habeas Corpus (Fed. Dist. Colo. 08-cv-1235)

                     Numerous defects neglected by state post-conviction counsel
(Barrett Weisz #27601) found to be "unexhausted"; and thus inadmissible.

 Attempted 35(c) to bring unexhausted issues to the federal habeas. No   go. (See 35(c) below.)

      Contrary to habeas rules for a magistrate recommendation; Judge
Weinsheink pulled the Petition from the magistrate and dismissed, with no reference to the factual claim

2010 - Appeal of Habeas Petition's (Bizarre) Dismissal (10th Circuit10-1463)     

 Cited tenth circuit precedent (Miller v. Champion, 161 F.3d
1249 (10th Cir., 1998» that demands an evidentiary hearing,
if no evidentiary review has been executed, to properly dis-
miss a habeas corpus.

 Included recommended query to sentencing judge Gilmore (see
preceeding Request For Commutation) that could have resolved
the appeal.

 Tenth circuit ignored.

2011 - United States Supreme Court (11-5092)

 Petition for Certiorari paralleled two cases then under consideration.(Missouri v. Frye, 10-444 and Lafler v.
Cooper, 10-209).

 Supreme court denied consideration of similar subject
matter.

2008 - Colorado Criminal Rule 35(c) (8th 01-CR-465)

Attempt to bring issues neglected by post-conviction counsel (Barrett Weisz #27601) into consideration for habeas corpus.
(See above.)

 Infamous judge Terrence Gilmore recused. New judge (Dave Williams) refused to  acknowledge new - unexhausted - issues.

2004/5 - Colorado Criminal Rule 35(c) (8th 01-CR-465) 

           Attorney Weisz denied access to evidence; to preserve the lie
           underpinning conviction and sentence. (See preceding Commutation essay.)

     Filed an obviously handicapped single issue 35(c) petition.

     Denied, to keep the evidence occult and preserve the lie.

2005 - Appeal of improper denial of an evidentiary hearing.
    (05CA2168)

    Evidentiary hearing required to correct materially false               information and establish proper foundation for conviction and sentence.

     Went to oral argument; where AG representative Billotte slandered appellant. (See preceding Commutation essay.)

                               Appellate court preferred materially false information to the
potential rigors of correcting it, and affirmed the lie.

                   Pro-se petition for rehearing ignored.                            2006 - State Supreme Court ~~

                                           Petitioner proceeded to the state supreme court without
an appellate court response.

                                            Presented an enumerated list of thirteen lies and misconceptions that the appellate court had relied upon.

 Supreme court ignored.

Fi