To: Colorado Commission on Judicial
Discipline
RE: Jason
Pecci, DOC #111132, Original complaint/suit filed with Denver 2nd District
Court is attached.
Jason is filing a Coram Nobis. The content of the
Coram Nobis is embedded in this missive.
His suit against the CDOC was an OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL by 2nd Judicial District Court
Judge Elizabeth Starrs.
Her order to DISMISS was on false premise. She
implied the suit contested the DOC’s Quasi-Judicial Hearing. There was no
hearing.
Jason was “asking to be heard,” in what may
or may not be a quasi-judicial action. Jason’s claim is that he was denied a
hearing; this is not a ‘contest’ of a hearing.
Judge Starrs did not read the claim correctly. In my
16 years of experience with all the Colorado Courts this misinterpretation of
documents is flagrant and would appear to be deliberate. I say this because I
have to assume persons placed in these detrimental positions by our executives
MUST be qualified to read and understand plain English and in many of the
denials Jason has experienced in his 15+ years in the Colorado system the
“question” Jason presented was never answered. It was ignored and instead, what
should have been an accurate answer was skirted by rhetoric. Judge Starrs maintained irrelevant rhetoric.
Judge Starrs used, as one ground of dismissal, that the
rule cited was wrong. Jason filed a 106 Complaint and Jury Demand and the rule
should have been a 106.5, she said; (“requesting a review of a decision entered
following the CDOC facilities quasi-judicial hearing”) Again—there was no
hearing, therefore she is in error!
For Judge Starrs response to be appropriate the
plaintiff, Jason Pecci, would have been allowed to apply for the evaluation (that
in itself unlikely meets the criteria of a quasi-judicial hearing.)
Please note in the Complaint and Jury demand which
is attached, [See para. 8.(1) regarding an application], that the plaintiff was
denied application. Many of the DOC staff feigned ignorance of the existence of
this application specified in the Administrative Regulations. Otherwise a
granted ICC Service Application would be attached and the complaint would be—debate
about an adverse decision.
The debate is about—denial of a statutory process and has nothing to do with
quasi-judicial action.
Since Jason received notice that they weren’t going
to hear his application in Denver District as it is improper venue—yet another
one of Judge Starrs reasons for dismissal, I would like the $414 fee I paid
returned. Judge Starr used ‘improper venue’ as reasoning therefore it would
appear that the Court should not keep my money. A copy of the check is enclosed
with its ‘certification of service’.
It is my understanding via various inmate statements
that this filing fee of $414 is unheard of therefore we would also like this to
be questioned. The original check I sent
was for $225 and it was returned as insufficient filing fee.
I think it is time for the courts to address issues
properly and if it takes hiring a lawyer to have them respect my and Jason’s
dad’s emotional and financial output then so be it. For 16 years I have been patient…
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Mary-Ellen Pecci, [Jason Pecci, the complainants,
mother]
23 Bay View Drive, Cohasset, MA 02025, 781-923-1285
1 comment:
Karma: do good things and good things will come your way.
Karma has no menu. You get served what you deserve.
Post a Comment