|
A Dream, an Ideal, lost . . . |
|
|
Colorado State Supreme Court STATE OF COLORADO Case number __________________ _________________________________________________________________________________
OPENING BRIEF _________________________________________________________________________________ Steve Douglas Gartin, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The Jefferson County District Court, Defendant-Appellee. _________________________________________________________________________________
ORIGINAL WRITS IN THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS - MANDAMUS - QUO WARRANTO - PROHIBITION ______________________________________________________________________________ Steve Douglas Gartin Plaintiff/Appellant No Representation c/o 200 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, Colorado 80401
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ARGUMENT I: Plaintiff is currently unlawfully incarcerated
ARGUMENT II: Plaintiff was unlawfully arrested in Colorado
ARGUMENT III: Plaintiff was unlawfully arrested in California
ARGUMENT IV: Plaintiff was unlawfully extradited from California
ARGUMENT V: Colorado State Attorney General has NO authority to prosecute
ARGUMENT VI: Statewide Grand Jury was NOT properly impaneled
ARGUMENT VII: Prosecutorial misconduct occurred during the Grand Jury process
ARGUMENT VIII: Plaintiff was unlawfully indicted by the Statewide Grand Jury
ARGUMENT IX: Prosecutorial misconduct occurred during pre-arraignment process
ARGUMENT X: Court erred by ordering a Psychological Evaluation of Plaintiff.
ARGUMENT XI: Unlawful Search and Seizures
ARGUMENT XII: Plaintiff has been denied the right to speedy trial
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114 (1964)................................................................................................ 43 Air Pollution Variance Bd. v. Western Alfalfa Corp., 191 Colo. 455, 553 P.2d 811 (1976)............................ 27 Baker v. Wingo 407 U.S. 514, 533 92 S.Ct.,................................................................................................ 53 Beavers v. Hauberk, 198 U.S. 77 (1905)....................................................................................................... 45 Brainder Dispatch newspaper co v. Crow wing county 196 Minn 194, 264, n.w. 779,780.............................. 33 Burns v. Erben, 40 N.Y. 463, 466 (1869).................................................................................................... 19 Butolph v. Blust, 5 Lansing's Rep. 84, 86 (1871)............................................................................................ 19 Caban, 728 F.2d at 75.................................................................................................................................. 18 Colo. Const. art. II, § 7................................................................................................................................. 40 Commonwealth v. Gorman, 192 N.E. 618, 620.......................................................................................... 19 County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 111 S. Ct. 1661, 1670 (1991).......................................................... 18, 21 County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 111 S. Ct. 1661, 1670 (1991)................................................................ 30 Cunningham v. Baker, 104 Ala. 160, 16 So. 68, 70 (1894)......................................................................... 19 Dominquez v. City & County of Denver, 147 Colo. 233, 363 P.2d 661 (1961)........................................ 19, 25 Dominquez v. City & County of Denver, 147 Colo. 233, 363 P.2d 661 (1961).............................................. 34 Dunbar v. County Court, Clear Creek County, 1955, 283 P.2d 182, 131 Colo. 483...................................... 22 Ekern v. McGovern, 154 Wis. 157, 142 N.W. 595, 620 (1913).................................................................. 17 Ex parte Russo, 104 Colo. 91, 88 P.2d 953 (1939)................................................................................. 45, 47 Faber v. State, 143 Colo. 240, 353 P.2d 609 (1960).................................................................................... 28 Federal Cases 97-N-1501, 97-D-1036, 97-S-1523 & 01-ES-1145.............................................................. 18 Fisher v. County Court, 796 P.2d 65 (Colo.App.1990).................................................................................. 48 Fisher v. County Court, 796 P.2d 65 (Colo.App.1990).................................................................................. 51 Gillies v. Schmidt, 38 Colo.App.233, 556 P.2d 82 (1976)............................................................................. 22 Hernandez v. People, 153 Colo. 316, 385 P.2d 996 (1963);.......................................................................... 41 Howe v. People, 178 Colo. 248, 496 P.2d 1040 (1972)................................................................................ 33 Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).............................................................................................. 42, 43, 44 Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983).................................................................................................. 44 Johnson v. Mcdonald, 170 okl. 117, 39, p.2d 150......................................................................................... 33 Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967),........................................................................................... 45 L.O.W. v. District Court, 623 P.2d 1253, 1256 (Colo.1981)......................................................................... 12 Lakewood Pawnbrokers, Inc. v. City of Lakewood, 183 Colo. 370, 517 P.2d 834 (1973)............................ 34 Lowrie, 8 Colo. 499, 9 P. 489, 54 Am. R. 558 (1885).................................................................................. 28 Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 163 (1803)............................................................................................ 12 Memorial Trusts, Inc. v. Beery, 144 Colo. 448, 356 P.2d 884 (1960)........................................................... 34 Moody v. Corsentino 843 P.2d 1355 (Colo.1993)......................................................................................... 54 North v. People, 139 Ill. 81, 28 N.E.966, 972 (1891)................................................................................... 19 Olin Mathieson Chem. Corp. v. Francis, 134 Colo. 160, 301 P.2d 139 (1956).............................................. 34 Olin Mathieson Chem. Corp. v. Francis, 134 Colo. 160, 301 P.2d 139 (1956).............................................. 28 Pate, 878 P.2d at 690................................................................................................................................... 44 People ex rel. Juhan v. District Court, 165 Colo. 253, 439 P.2d 741 (1968).................................................. 27 People ex rel. Brown v. District Court In and For Second Judicial Dist., 1976, 549 P.2d 774, 190 Colo. 486. 23 People ex rel. Coca v. District Court, 187 Colo. 280, 530 P.2d 958 (1975)................................................... 51 People ex rel. Coca v. District Court, 187 Colo. 280, 530 P.2d 958 (1975)............................................. 46, 47 People ex rel. Juhan v. District Court, 165 Colo. 253, 439 P.2d 741 (1968).................................................. 29 People ex rel. Juhan v. District Court, 165 Colo. 253, 439 P.2d 741 (1968)................................................... 21 People ex rel. Juhan v. District Court, 165 Colo. 253, 439 P.2d 741 (1968)................................................... 28 People ex rel. Tooley v. District Court 190 Colo. 486, 549 P.2d 774 (1976).................................................. 22 People ex rel. Witcher v. District Court, 190 Colo.483, 549 P.2d 778 (1976)................................................ 23 People v. Harris, 104 Colo. 386, 91 P.2d 989, 122 A.L.R. 1034 (1939)...................................................... 26 People v. Heckard, 164 Colo. 19, 431 P.2d 1014 (1967)............................................................................. 25 People v. Abeyta, 795 P.2d 1324, 1327-28 (Colo. 1990)............................................................................ 44 People v. Aponte, 867 P.2d 183.................................................................................................................... 17 People v. Aragon, 643 P.2d 43 (Colo. 1982)................................................................................................. 25 People v. Atley, 727 P.2d 376, 378 (Colo. 1986)............................................................................. 42, 43, 44 People v. Baird, 172 Colo. 112, 470 P.2d 20 (1970)..................................................................................... 41 People v. Baird, 173 Colo. 112, 470 P.2d 20 (1970)..................................................................................... 41 People v. Brethauer, 174 Colo. 29, 482 P.2d 369 (1971).............................................................................. 41 People v. Cerrone, 867 P.2d 143 (Colo.App.1993) aff’d on other grounds, 900 P.2d 45 (Colo.1995)........... 30 People v. Chavez, 779 P.2d 375 (Colo. 1989)......................................................................................... 45, 47 People v. Chavez, 779 P.2d 375 (Colo.1989).......................................................................................... 48, 51 People v. Corr, 682 P.2d 20 (Colo.1984), cet. Denied, 469 U.S. 855, 105 S.Ct. 181, 83 L. ed.2d 115 (1984). 40 People v. Diaz, 793 P.2d 1181, 1185 (Colo. 1990)...................................................................................... 44 People v. District Court, 185 Colo. 78, 521 P.2d 1254 (1974)...................................................................... 33 People v. District Court, 185 Colo. 78, 521 P.2d 1254 (1974)...................................................................... 25 People v. Gibson, 54 Colo. 231, 125 P.531 (1912)....................................................................................... 23 People v. Harris 914 P.2d 425 (Colo.App.1995)..................................................................................... 45, 47 People v. Heckard, 164 Colo. 19, 431 P.2d 1014 (1967).............................................................................. 34 People v. Leftwich, 869 P.2d 1260, 1266 (Colo. 1994);.................................................................. 42, 43, 44 People v. Leftwich, 869 P.2d 1260, 1266-68 (Colo. 1994).......................................................................... 44 People v. Max, 70 Colo. 100, 198 P. 150 (1921)......................................................................................... 29 People v. Pannebaker, 714 P.2d 904, 907 (Colo. 1986).............................................................................. 44 People v. Paquin, 811 P.2d 394, 397 (Colo. 1991)...................................................................................... 44 People v. Pate, 878 P.2d 685, 689-90 (Colo. 1994).................................................................................... 44 People v. Peschong, 181 Colo. 29, 506 P.2d 1232 (1973)............................................................................ 42 People v. Quintana, 785 P.2d 934, 937 (Colo. 1990)...................................................................... 42, 43, 44 People v. Slender Wrap, Inc., 36 Colo.App.11, 536 P.2d 850 (1975)........................................................... 53 People v. Small, 631 P.2d 148 (Colo............................................................................................................. 47 People v. Small, 631 P.2d 148 (Colo.)........................................................................................................... 46 People v. Small, 631 P.2d 148 (Colo.) cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1101, 102 S.Ct. 678, 70 L.Ed.2d 644 (1981). 52 People v. Swain, 43 Colo.App. 343, 607 P.2d 396 (1979)............................................................................ 38 People v. Swift, 59 Mich. 529, 26 N.W. 694, 698 (1886)............................................................................ 16 People v. Trujillo 712 P.2d 1079 Colo.App. 1985....................................................................................... 41 People v. Turcotte-Schaeffer, 843 P.2d 658, 660 (Colo. 1993)....................................................... 42, 43, 44 People v. Velasquez, 641 P.2d 943 (Colo.)............................................................................................. 45, 47 People v. Walker, 504 P.2d 1098.................................................................................................................. 26 Polland v. U.S. 352 U.S. 354, 361 77 S.Ct. 481 1 L.Ed.2d 393, 399 (1957)................................................ 54 Rooder v. Commonwealth, 508 S.W.2d 570 Ky.1974................................................................................... 41 S.E. Ed. S. 2.14 and 9.46 (Supra)................................................................................................................. 54 Simakis v. District Court, 194 Colo. 436, 577 P.2d 3 (1978)......................................................................... 45 Skinner v. Railway Labor E cutives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 616 (1989)........................................................ 18 Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374 (1969);.......................................................................................................... 45 Smith v. Hovery 393 U.S. 374, 377-79, 89 S.Ct........................................................................................... 54 Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 416 (1969).................................................................................... 43 State v. Roberts, 210 S.E.2d 396, 404, 286 N.C. 265................................................................................... 21 State v. Sims, 16 S.C. 486............................................................................................................................. 19 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 (1968)............................................................................................................ 18 Toland v. Strohl, 147 Colo. 577, 364 P.2d 588 (1961)............................................................................ 27, 42 Toland v. Strohl, 147 Colo. 577, 364 P.2d 588 (1961).................................................................................. 28 Turcotte-Schaeffer, 843 P.2d at 662............................................................................................................ 43 U.S. Const. amend. IV.................................................................................................................................. 40 United States v. Cancelmo, 64 F.3d 804, 807 (2d Cir. 1995)...................................................................... 43 United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 914 (1984)........................................................................................ 43 United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971)............................................................................................... 45 United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 542-44 (1985)......................................................... 18 United States v. Provo, 17 F.R.D. 183 (D. Md.), aff’d, 30 U.S. 857 (1955).................................................. 45 United States v. Tarlowski, 305 F. Supp. 112, 116 (1969).......................................................................... 16 Whimbush v. People, 869 P.2d 1245 (Colo.1994)......................................................................................... 35 White v. Davis, 163 Colo. 122, 428 P.2d 909 (1967).................................................................................... 27 Zavilla v. Masse, 112 Colo. 183, 147 P.2d 823 (1944)................................................................................. 29
Statutes §13-73-101.................................................................................................................................................. 23 16-4-105 Selection by judge of the amount of bail.......................................................................................... 12 18 U.S.C.A. § 1201. C.R.S. 18-3-301......................................................................................................... 21 18-12-105: Unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon...................................................................................... 36 18-3-207: Criminal extortion.......................................................................................................................... 35 18-5.5-102. Computer Crime........................................................................................................................ 34 18-5-114. Offering a false instrument for recording........................................................................................ 32 18-8-306 Attempt to influence a public servant............................................................................................... 33 24-31-101 defines the Powers and duties of attorney general.......................................................................... 22 28 U.S.C. § 1251............................................................................................................................................ 7 C.R.S. §13-25-106....................................................................................................................................... 38 C.R.S. 24-10-109......................................................................................................................................... 34 Rules Colorado Court Rules Rule 4. Warrant........................................................................................................... 16 Ethical Rule 4.5. Threatening Prosecution:.................................................................................................. 25 Model Penal Code, § 212.1........................................................................................................................... 22
Miscellaneous Treatises C.J.S. Crim.Law 578 & Seq.......................................................................................................................... 54 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 3.3, at 170 (3d ed. 1996).............................................................. 44
Index to Actors
Charles T. Hoppin........................................................................................................................... 25 Clyman...................... 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 25, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 45, 50, 54 David J. Thomas........................................................................................................................ 25, 47 Dennis Hall................................................................................................................................ 25, 45 Douglas Dean.................................................................................................................................. 27 Ed Loar........................................................................................................................................... 44 Estep..................................... 7, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42, 44, 45, 48, 54 F.B.I. Office in San Rafael, California............................................................................................... 19 F.B.I. S.W.A.T. Team..................................................................................................................... 19 Federal Defendants.......................................................................................................................... 25 G. Roscoe Anstine, II...................................................................................................................... 48 General Assembly........................................................................................................................ 21 Governor Bill Owens.................................................................................................................... 21 Greenwood Village Police............................................................................................................ 16 Henry Nieto.................................................................................................................................... 25 Holstlaw......................................................................................................................................... 34 Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department Multi-Jurisdictional S.W.A.T. Team...................................... 16 Joint Domestic Terrorism TaskForce................................................................................................ 47 Judge Jack Berryhill................................................................................................................... 39, 41 Kenneth Salazar.................................................................................................................. 24, 35, 39 Lakewood S.W.A.T. Team........................................................................................................... 18 Langfield..................................................................................... 8, 12, 13, 22, 25, 31, 32, 33, 35, 47 Leland P. Anderson......................................................................................................................... 13 Maleri............................................................................................................................. 8, 34, 36, 54 Marilyn Leonard.............................................................................................................................. 25 Mark Stadterman......................................................................................................................... 16 Maurice Knaizer.............................................................................................................................. 54 Multi-Jurisdictional Domestic Terrorism Task Force......................................................................... 14 Multi-jurisdictional Joint Domestic Terrorism TaskForce................................................................... 52 Robert Grant................................................................................................................................... 27 Roy Olson....................................................................................................................................... 25 Terry Manwaring............................................................................................................................. 16 Tina Olsen....................................................................................................................................... 25 U.S. Marshal’s Office...................................................................................................................... 48 U.S. Marshall.................................................................................................................................. 19
Table of Contents
ARGUMENT I: Plaintiff is currently unlawfully incarcerated on excessive bond. ARGUMENT II: Plaintiff was unlawfully arrested in Colorado Discussion: Unlawful Arrest – a pattern of criminal conduct (18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242) 3 Unlawful Arrests: by quasi-military S.W.A.T. Agents: 26 February 1997: No valid warrant existed 19 September 2000: No valid warrant existed 13 March 2001: No valid warrant existed ARGUMENT III: Plaintiff was unlawfully arrested in California ARGUMENT IV: Plaintiff was unlawfully extradited from California ARGUMENT V: Colorado State Attorney General has NO authority to prosecute Powers of the Attorney General Deprivation of Equal Protection of the Law ARGUMENT VI: Statewide Grand Jury was NOT properly impaneled ARGUMENT VII: Prosecutorial misconduct occurred during the Grand Jury process ARGUMENT VIII: Plaintiff was unlawfully indicted by the Statewide Grand Jury N Intentional Mis-Application of Statutes 18-5-114. Offering a false instrument for recording 18-8-306 Attempt to influence a public servant. 18-12-105: Unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon ARGUMENT IX: Prosecutorial misconduct during the pre-arraignment process ARGUMENT X: Court erred by ordering a Psychological Evaluation of Plaintiff. ARGUMENT XI: Unlawful Search and Seizures ARGUMENT XII: Plaintiff has been denied the right to speedy trial
STATE OF COLORADO Case number __________________
______________________________________________________________________________
OPENING BRIEF ______________________________________________________________________________ Steve Douglas Gartin, Petitioner,
v.
The Jefferson County Court, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________
ORIGINAL WRITS IN THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS – MANDAMUS - QUO WARRANTO -PROHIBITION ______________________________________________________________________________
The Petitioner Steve Douglas Gartin submits this opening brief.
On September 19, 2000, Steve Douglas Gartin, (hereinafter or "Plaintiff") suffered an unlawful arrest in Lakewood, Colorado at the hands of Colorado State Attorney General Investigator Gary Clyman (hereinafter “Clyman”) in command and deployment of the Lakewood S.W.A.T. Team. Plaintiff was departing from a business meeting with two business associates in a private conveyance when a “Felony Traffic Stop” was conducted by the Lakewood S.W.A.T. Team and all three parties injured were arrested without warrants, without exigent circumstances and without anyone witnessing any sort of crime in commission. The arrest was conducted unlawfully, with excessive force and unnecessary torture of the Plaintiff and witnesses. Plaintiff was then unlawfully arrested and illegally incarcerated in the Jefferson County Detention Facility for four days. (See: Attachment Exhibit # 1 – UnSigned Warrant – 97M811) Plaintiff’s business associates were subjected to a roadside custodial interrogation by Colorado State Attorney General Investigator Gary Clyman while in hand-cuffs and surrounded by quasi-military S.W.A.T. Agents brandishing and menacing deadly weapons . Later that night, Clyman conspired with Jefferson County Sheriff’s Deputy Donald L. Estep (hereinafter “Estep”) to use the fruits of that unlawful roadside custodial interrogation to construct a false and misleading untitled document purporting to be an affidavit in support of a search warrant of Plaintiff’s business location and private conveyance. Clyman and Estep did then conspire with a Jefferson County Judge, to-wit: Judge Jack Berryhill to devise a plan to unlawfully obtain a search warrant for a business location in the City and County of Denver, which appears to be an abuse of judicial power in addition to the unlawful predicate actions leading up to and supporting that departure from appropriate judicial conduct. Clyman and Estep then elicited aid and assistance from the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Special Agent Curtis Maleri (hereinafter “Maleri”), to conduct the midnight search and seizure of private registered business equipment and private papers which were then held in FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION custody and were copied, searched and eventually turned over to the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department for further investigation. That private, registered property remains in the custody of the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department and the District Court cannot hear a motion to suppress unlawfully seized property and a motion to return that property until after arraignment. Arraignment cannot be made until after the grand jury challenge is heard, and the grand jury challenge cannot be heard until the Rule 16 Discovery relating to the Grand Jury impanelment, colloquy between the Prosecution and the Grand Jurors, the written Order from the Governor authorizing the Prosecution of this matter and the Grand Jury Voir Dire and Attendance is tendered to the Defense. The un-authorized Prosecution, to-wit: COLORADO STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE has neglected, refused and denied full discovery in this matter although the Honorable Leland P. Anderson has very directly ordered the Prosecution to comply and has stated that the un-authorized prosecutor, to-wit: Marleen M. Langfield , Esquire Reg. No. 10355 would loose her license to practice law if she were to refuse to comply. Ms. Langfield has refused to comply. Grand Jury misconduct is clearly established by the fact that two Co-Defendants were indicted on EXACTLY the same charges as the Plaintiff in defiance of the fact that Charles Harry Clements was only mentioned in ONE count and Eric Gordon Mitchell was only mentioned in ONE count and no evidence or testimony was presented that implicated either of them in any of the other Sixteen Counts with which they were BOTH charged, arrested and incarcerated. All charges have since been dismissed against Charles Harry Clements. [See Attachment: Exhibit #2 Affidavit by Charles Harry Clements] The status of the Mitchell case is unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has additionally specifically identified FRAUD, PERJURY, and testimony by instruments of the Prosecution, to-wit: C.S.A.G. Investigator Clyman calculated to inflame the passion of the Grand Jury against the Plaintiff. [See Attachment: Exhibit #3 Grand Jury Points 9-1-2001 and Grand Jury Challenge Impaneling 9-16-2001] The mandatory discovery pursuant to Rule 16 has been verbally, in open court, and formally by motion, requested and those requests have been refused or denied. [See Attachment: Exhibit #4 – Motions for Grand Jury Discovery] No hearing has yet been held relative to the matter of Quashing the Grand Jury Indictment. [See Attachment: Exhibit #5 – Notice of Mistake 11-5-2001]. To date, the only issues that have been ruled on by the Honorable Court have been: 1. Probable Cause: Found 2. Private Advisory Counsel and Investigator: Granted 3. Computer Access for exculpatory information and Defense preparation: Granted 4. Bond Reduction: Granted Reduction from $100,000 to $50,000 – P.R. Denied 5. Law Library Access pursuant to the Right to Access the Courts: Granted 6. Full Discovery: Ordered by the Court, but contemptuously denied by Prosecution 7. Psychological Evaluation of Prosecution Witnesses: Denied
Motions outstanding and awaiting ruling (See EndNotes # [1]) The last Bond Reduction hearing was deliberately diverted by the Jefferson County Attorney in order to attempt to limit the law library access granted to the Plaintiff by the good grace of the Honorable Leland P. Anderson in order to provide Plaintiff a somewhat equal opportunity to prepare a defense. The Honorable Court has heard direct testimony and received documentation and affidavits from the Defense establishing malice and vindictiveness by the Prosecution. The Honorable Court has termed the Defense’s accusations of a malicious, vindictive and retaliatory prosecution as “vituperative.” The Defense does not believe that the truth could be construed as verbally abusive. The Defense has presented documents and affidavits establishing outrageous government conduct that any reasonable person would perceive as just and sufficient cause for dismissing case #00CR3371 with prejudice. For some reason, currently unknown to the Plaintiff, the Honorable Judge Leland P. Anderson has instead chosen to instigate Competency Proceedings against the Accused, presumably to delay the proceedings and toll the Speedy Trial timeline in order to gain time for some purpose yet unknown to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff does not object to the Honorable Judge Anderson taking the time to research and ponder the issues that have been presented by the Defense, but the Accused does take issue with the fact that he is unlawfully incarcerated in draconian, overcrowded prison conditions that constitute cruel and unusual punishment while the Court and the Prosecution continue to deny, deprive and circumvent the Right to Speedy Trial. In this matter, the Plaintiff was assaulted for the third time by S.W.A.T. Teams on March 13, 2001 in his hometown of Fairfax, California, once again at his business location, but worse yet in the presence of over thirty women and children arriving for AfterSchool Children’s martial arts class. There is clearly a pattern firmly established that removes any doubt that the government agents are not only endeavoring to place Plaintiff in real and credible fear of death or serious injury but it is also obvious that each of the S.W.A.T. Assaults and police threats have been targeted at Plaintiff’s businesses, business associates and economic consortium. Agents Clyman and Estep have brazenly and criminally hacked into Plaintiff’s websites and email and completely destroyed and disabled all internet advertising vehicles and websites. [See Attachment: Exhibit #6 - Charles Harry Clements Affidavit of Computer Crime] Estep and Clyman have openly threatened business associates with “blanket prosecution” and have then made good on those threats on at least three occasions, again establishing a pattern of criminal conduct that shocks the conscious of any reasonable person. [See Attachment: Exhibit #7 - Clyman & Estep Criminal Complaint] Therefore, the Plaintiff has thoroughly exhausted all possible remedies before applying to the Supreme Court for relief in the nature of Original Jurisdiction Writs enumerated above.
1. Whether Plaintiff is currently unlawfully incarcerated due to excessive bond. 2. Whether Plaintiff was unlawfully arrested in Colorado on 19 September, 2000. 3. Whether Plaintiff was unlawfully arrested in California on 13 March, 2001. 4. Whether Plaintiff was unlawfully extradited from California on 4 April, 2001. 5. Whether Colorado State Attorney General has authority to prosecute case #00CR3371 6. Whether Statewide Grand Jury was properly impaneled. 7. Whether Prosecutorial misconduct occurred during the Grand Jury process. 8. Whether Plaintiff was unlawfully indicted by the Statewide Grand Jury. 9. Whether Prosecutorial misconduct and due process violations have occurred during the pre-arraignment process in Case 00CR3371. 10. Whether the court erred by ordering a Psychological Evaluation of Plaintiff. 11. Whether Government agents conducted Illegal Searches and Seizures 12. Whether Plaintiff has been denied the right to speedy trial. Request for Relief
1. Habeas Corpus relief as Immediate Release from Jefferson County Detention Facility
2. Mandamus to the District Court ordering a Granting of Personal Recognizance Bond
3. Mandamus to the District Court Ordering Dismissal of all charges with prejudice
4. Quo Warranto and estoppel of State Attorney General from Prosecution
5. Prohibition of District Courts improper Order for Competency Evaluation
Related and Connected Cases:1. 91CR25: Malicious prosecution in Douglas County - Dismissed 2. 93CV211 through 93CV233: Civil Suits for malicious prosecution above #1 3. 95B1747: #2 Removed to Federal Court by U.S.D.O.J. after I.R.S.defaulted 4. 95DR2718: Separation/Divorce caused by malicious I.R.S. actions 5. 96CO7019: Gartin v. Merritt – Restraining Order Denied by Judge Roy Olson 6. Golden Municipal: #55233 – Golden Community Center Incident 7. 97-N-1501: Federal Civil Rights Action concerning above #6 8. 96CO7386/96CO7387/96CO7388: Void for Fraud Restraining orders – Rule 365 – Recused Judge Charles T. Hoppin – irregular proceedings - no service of P.R.O. 9. 97M811 / 97M812 / 97M472: Retaliatory Prosecutions to Cover-up S.W.A.T. Assault on Plaintiff’s home on 26 February, 1997 10. 97-D-1036: Federal Civil Rights Action Concerning #8 & #9 11. 01CV1311: Appeal of 97M811/96CO7386-7-8 12. 00CR2419: Retaliatory prosecution to increase bond after Lakewood S.W.A.T. Assault on 19 September, 2000 and to cover-up warrantless arrest of three innocent Citizens. 13. 00CR3371: Malicious prosecution by unlawfully impaneled Statewide Grand Jury instigated to cover-up retaliatory S.W.A.T. assaults and preceding vindictive prosecutions #1, 8, 9 & 11. 14. 97-S-1523: Federal Civil Rights Action concerning draconian prison conditions from April 7 to September 22, 1997 – incarceration without charges 15. 01-ES-1145: Federal Civil Rights Action concerning draconian prison conditions from April 4, 2001 to present – incarceration on excessive bond 16. Original Actions in the Supreme Court related to #00CR3371 in the Nature of: a. Habeas Corpus b. Mandamus c. Quo Warranto d. Prohibition e. Notice of Intent Pursuant to 24-10-109
ARGUMENT I: Plaintiff is currently unlawfully incarcerated on excessive bond.THE COURT ERRED[1] BY ASCRIBING A $100,000.00 BOND IN CASE #00CR3371.
Amendment Eight of the Federal Constitution[2] and Article II §20 of the Colorado Constitution[3] clearly forbid the imposition of excessive[4] bond. The purpose of bail is to ensure the defendant’s future appearances in court and not to punish a defendant before conviction.[5] Excessive bond[6] serves only to punish an Accused prior to trial. In this case, no consent is required by the “district attorney” because no convictions are applicable. Some unknown judicial officer imposed a $100,000.00 bond in this case, presumably upon application by the unauthorized prosecution, to-wit: Marleen M. Langfield , Esquire #10355 to keep Plaintiff unlawfully incarcerated on excessive bond, for the reason and purposes further discussed below. The frivolous charges in this case are “victimless” infractions without any allegations of violence or capital offense and in each of the seventeen counts the statutes are deliberately misconstrued and tortured into misfit with the actions alleged. No credible witnesses have been offered and no real evidence has been presented to prove any of the allegations presented. The Grand Jury Transcripts establish no fact upon which an indictment could issue and is rife with conclusory allegations, inflammatory rhetoric, innuendoes, unsubstantiated theories and testimony from COLORADO STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE Investigator Gary Clyman that is calculated to inflame the prejudice of the Grand Jury against “Patriot-type” activities based upon hearsay of hearsay of hearsay. Discussion: Excessive BondAfter the unlawful warrantless arrest of Plaintiff on 19 September, 2000, in an effort to “get him off the streets until we could get this case filed and get him on significant bond” (Clyman: Grand Jury Transcript page 11) patently false and frivolous charges were filed against the Accused in connected case #00CR2419, in a meeting of the minds and by a conspiracy between Deputy District Attorney Dennis Hall, Judge Roy Olson, Donald Estep and Gary Clyman; in order to exacerbate, increase and aggravate an already excessive bond generated from another connected case, #97M811, which was void ab initio due to fatal defects in the charging instrument. [See Attachment: Exhibit #8 – Defective Charging Document] Case #00CR2419 was dismissed on 4-30-2001 [See Attachment: Exhibit #9 – Defective Charging Document - $5000 Bond – Dismissal of Case #00CR2419], but the unlawful and unconstitutional design and purpose which Gary Clyman admitted to under oath before the Grand Jury, to-wit: “to get him off the street for a while until we could get this case filed and get him on a significant bond” had been consummated and Accused had again been financially damaged by excessive bond, imposed as an extortion for constitutionally guaranteed freedom. Subsequently, when Mr. Clyman “got this case filed” (see Grand Jury Transcript page 11 – for this admission) he petitioned the court for $100,000.00 bond and it was granted to him in case #00CR3371. This constitutes excessive bond in light of the fact that Mr. Clyman and Mr. Estep have operated clandestinely and fraudulently to completely destroy Accused’s business consortium, family relationships and friendships to whence the Accused could turn for assistance with excessive bond as extortion for conditional freedom. The Honorable Leland P. Anderson reduced bond to $50,000.00 over the objection of Marleen M. Langfield, Esquire, but that is equally as out of reach of this Accused and is constitutionally excessive. The ultimate affect is to unlawfully imprison, fetter and handicap the Defense in the above captioned matter to the extreme prejudice and damage to the Accused. This is the exact same pattern as in case #97M811, where Plaintiff was unlawfully incarcerated without charges for six months while that case was instituted and conducted in violation of speedy trial and without effective assistance of counsel, denial of due process, fraud, perjury and a litany of outrageous government acts that shocks the conscious of any reasonable person and are now on appeal, although the entire excessive sentence has already been served, in case #01CV1311. Government agents have established a pattern of conduct whereby Plaintiff is unlawfully imprisoned on bogus and fraudulent charges while more frivolous charges are added to which Plaintiff must defend from draconian and overcrowded prison conditions without access to the accoutrements of modern communication or professional assistance. It appears that the purpose of the aggregate conspiratorial actions of the various government agents is to gain an unfair advantage in criminal prosecutions in order to prevent, obstruct and impair the Plaintiff’s prosecution in civil cases #97N1501, 97D1036, 97S1523, 95B1747 & 01ES1145 of affiliated and connected government tortfeasors who are represented by the COLORADO STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. Jefferson County case #00CR3371 is the first fabricated case in which Clyman’s stated goal of “getting him on a significant bond” has become a reality. Although Estep and the Multi-Jurisdictional Domestic Terrorism Task Force have been investigating, terrorizing business associates, friends, family and threatening prosecution of every one who associates with me, they have yet to find a real crime with which to charge me. To date, they have had to resort to the “restraining order” catch-all; but even that was predicated upon Rule 365 because NO VIOLENCE was alleged or proven – only a vague and nebulous “fear of legal fa s” that formed the basis for the issuance of Rule 365 restraining orders. Then, Antonio T. Ciccarelli, Esquire had to lay in wait until I had a business trip to Florida in order to schedule a hearing before a substitute judge in order to fabricate a failure to appear, which began the chain of events leading to void ab initio case #97M811, which Estep filed to cover-up the unlawful S.W.A.T. assault of 26 February, 1997. The fact that Clyman & Estep have grossly overstepped their authority and any credible foundation for the charges they have instigated is negated by the grossly exaggerated $100,000.00 bond, which even when reduced to $50,000.00 is still beyond the purposely government destroyed financial capability of the Plaintiff and serves the purpose of keeping Plaintiff unlawfully incarcerated in draconian, overcrowded prison conditions from which a deliberately ham-strung and shacked Defense must be mounted against those frivolous charges. It appears to be a very clever method to extract a plea bargain. From the vantage point of jail, the Plaintiff observes the ultimate effectiveness of the program everyday – most people plea bargain so they can “get on with their lives.” Unfortunately my “life” has been completely demolished by the “Federal Defendants” and there is nothing left for me to do except to pursue legal action against them for the wanton and deliberate anti-constitutional actions they have conspired to engage in against this Plaintiff.
ARGUMENT II: Plaintiff was unlawfully[7] arrested in ColoradoOn September 19, 2000, Attorney General Investigator Gary Clyman was acting without express authority from the governor as required by statute, and had no valid arrest warrant[8] for plaintiff or either of two other innocent bystanders arrested by Lakewood S.W.A.T. Team under the direction of investigator Gary Clyman . Any presumption of regularity of the “Felony Traffic Stop” by Lakewood S.W.A.T. Team in full battle array and by force of arms cannot be justified[9] by misdemeanor warrants even if they are valid and proper. In this instance the warrants in question were purportedly issued in 1998 and remained unsigned, and therefore invalid pursuant to Rule 4 (b)(V), to date. [See Attachment: Exhibit #1 – UN signed Warrant – Case #97M811 – void ab initio] ___________________________________________ Discussion: Unlawful Arrest – a pattern of criminal conduct (18 U.S.C. § 241 & 242)3 Unlawful Arrests: by quasi-military S.W.A.T. Agents:In the above captioned case, 00CR3371, nor in any other case in which an armed assault constituted an arrest, to-wit: 97M811, 96CO7388, did the S.W.A.T. Agents or Law Enforcement agents possess a lawful warrant for either the arrest[10] or the search of the Plaintiff. 26 February 1997: No valid warrant existedThis matter, now before the Honorable Court began when Jefferson County Sheriff’s Intelligence Agent Donald L. Estep and S.W.A.T. Commander Terry Manwaring deployed the heavily armed militarized Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department Multi-Jurisdictional S.W.A.T. Team upon Accused’s home in Golden to purportedly serve a misdemeanor warrant that did not exist. The military assault upon the home of the sovereign and the subsequent unlawful canine search of the domicile by Greenwood Village Police agent Mark Stadterman revealed no drugs, no guns and no evidence of any crime. Having no warrant for either the arrest of the Accused, nor the search of the premises, Donald L. Estep conspired with Terry Manwaring to construct a false document entitled AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WARRANTLESS ARREST to fraudulently support their unlawful conduct in color of STATE authority. The Accused was unlawfully incarcerated for Four Days in the Jefferson County Detention Facility while three groundless and frivolous actions, to-wit 97M811, 97M812 & 97M472, were commenced in order to maintain the Accused in prison by the imposition of Excessive bond, a standard ploy commonly used by police and prosecutors to punish a purported accused prior to judicial determination of probable cause or a jury conviction. The Accused was imprisoned for 96 hours[11] without charges[12] in a cement cell without food or water, bed or blanket in an attempt to extort a “waiver” of Rights from the Accused in the form of a “signature” and fingerprints and photographs and a “consent to cavity searches.” The only justification that was ever offered for the unlawful breaking and entering, assault, battery, mayhem, property damage and unlawful arrest is a purported violation of some unknown and un-served restraining order somehow related to a telephone call to the Children of the Accused on 25 February, 1997, at their GrandMother’s home, for which no restraining order existed – and no permanent restraining order, of any description, had ever been served upon the Accused. The unlawful search[13] by Mark Stadterman was never documented in an official report. The Accused made an audio tape recording of the incident and Mark Stadterman was identified by one of the S.W.A.T. Agents in a radio communication with Terry Manwaring at headquarters. The common law drew a distinction between an arrest for purported misdemeanors, such as that which the Defendants enumerated in Federal Cases 97-N-1501, 97-D-1036, 97-S-1523 & 01-ES-1145 (Hereinafter “Federal Defendants”) arrested the Plaintiff upon, and arrests for felonies. When a felony was committed an arrest could be made without a warrant, but no arrest could be made for a misdemeanor without a warrant unless it constituted a '`breach of the peace." In this matter, the Accused had committed No Misdemeanor, No Breach of the Peace and No felony, thus Donald L. Estep and the conspiratorial Federal Defendants needed a valid Warrant to make an Arrest[14] and a valid search warrant to conduct a lawful search. The misdemeanor statute involved in this case is such that it does not allow the Defendants to arrest the Plaintiff without the formality of a Warrant.[15] Therefore, the Defendant Police Agents are guilty of False Arrest & false imprisonment for arresting the Plaintiff without authority of law. 19 September 2000: No valid warrant existedThere was NO SIGNED WARRANT in existence on 19 September, 2000 – when the heavily armed quasi-military unit, in disguise upon the highways, as the Lakewood S.W.A.T. Team was unlawfully deployed without authority of the Governor by Colorado State Attorney General Investigator Gary Clyman and who unlawfully menaced, threatened, assaulted and arrested three private Citizens in a private conveyance traveling[16] privately, in peace, without the commercial complex of the United States, Colorado, and its political subdivisions.
No misdemeanor, or felony, was committed in the presence of arresting police agents. & It must be remembered that, '`Not every misdemeanor involves a breach of the peace." Commonwealth v. Gorman, 192 N.E. 618, 620 . Under the common law, acts that were malum per se, that is wrong or unlawful by their nature, were often felonies or breaches of the peace, and subject to arrest without warrant. But that is not the law for an act that was only malum prohibitum, being made unlawful only by statute, and without such enactment were otherwise innocent acts. The law asserts that for such statutory misdemeanors, not amounting to a breach of the peace, there is no authority in an officer to arrest without a warrant. No breach of the peace was alleged. & As a general principle, no person can be arrested or taken into custody without warrant. But if a felony, or a breach of the peace, has, in fact, been committed by the person arrested, the arrest may be justified. Burns v. Erben, 40 N.Y. 463, 466 (1869); see also Cunningham v. Baker, 104 Ala. 160, 16 So. 68, 70 (1894). No search warrant existed for the search of the private conveyance in which Accused was traveling. & While the "search and seizure" provision of the constitution regulates the manner in which warrants can be issued, it is the "due process" clause which protects citizens from unlawful arrests without warrant: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." And, under like restrictions in the constitution, it has been held in some states that arrests shall not be made without warrant, except for felonies, and for breaches of the peace committed in the presence of the officer arresting. North v. People, 139 Ill. 81, 28 N.E.966, 972 (1891).
COLORADO STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL Investigator Gary Clyman , without authorization from the Governor, deployed the Lakewood S.W.A.T. Team to make a “FELONY TRAFFIC STOP” upon the Accused and two other innocent bystanders, AT GUN-POINT, purportedly to serve a misdemeanor warrant that Investigator Clyman has refused to present to this date. 13 March 2001: No valid warrant existedFederal Magistrate Patricia Coan, who had acted in the capacity of legal advisor in the related Spyderco E mployee suit for damages for unlawful conversion of the Employee’s Stock Club and Insurance and various thefts by Louis Sal Glesser and Robert W. Simon, in a prima facie conflict of interest, issued a defective Federal Warrant for Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution based upon false information and perjury, pursuant to an affidavit-less application knowingly and intentionally constructed and engineered to defraud by Donald L. Estep, unlawfully acting in the capacity of a U.S. Marshal and presenting false and misleading information to a Federal Official for the purpose of again threatening, menacing with deadly weapons and intimidation by S.W.A.T. upon the Accused in this matter. Any such warrant issued upon fraudulent and false information, as proven prima facie by the warrant application itself, is patently void for fraud and therefore invalid. [See Attachment: Exhibit #11 - NOTICE OF IRREGULARITIES on file in case #00CR3371]. ___________________________________________
ARGUMENT III: Plaintiff was unlawfully arrested in CaliforniaThe Federal Bureau of Investigation special agent Donald L. Estep was acting without authority, and had no valid arrest warrant for plaintiff when he fraudulently applied to federal magistrate Patricia Coan for a federal warrant for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution upon which petitioner was arrested by F.B.I. S.W.A.T. agents in Fairfax, California.
Donald L. Estep , clothed in disguise as a U.S. Marshall, conspired with Federal Magistrate Patricia Coan to issue a purported “warrant” for Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution on March 8, 2001 knowing that those charges were false and unsupported. Mr. Estep did then contact the F.B.I. Office in San Rafael, California and falsely inform those agents that the accused was “wanted” for weapons violations and that the Accused was “armed and dangerous” in an effort to commit armed assault and menacing by S.W.A.T. Team. The F.B.I. S.W.A.T. Team was subsequently deployed in service of Donald L. Estep, acting in his official capacity as a F.B.I. Agent. In this matter at issue, the Accused was unlawfully brought before the Honorable Court after having been deprived of the unalienable right to Due Process of Law by the unlawful arrest, to-wit: by defective warrant, at the Accused’s business location of West Marin Martial Arts Academy during the Children’s Class where dozens of innocent Children, parents and bystanders were endangered by the heavily armed quasi-military F.B.I. S.W.A.T. Team who were fully trained to “shoot to kill” and could easily have caused the death of the Plaintiff and innocent bystanders by way of massive and overwhelming fire power with only the slightest mistake or provocation. Police shootings are commonplace events. [See Attachment: Exhibit #12 - California Court Documents]
ARGUMENT IV: Plaintiff was unlawfully extradited from California£ No valid arrest warrant existed for Plaintiff’s arrest in California[17] £ No governor’s warrant issued for the extradition of Plaintiff from California £ Federal charges for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution upon which petitioner was arrested by F.B.I. S.W.A.T. agents in Fairfax, California on 13 March, 2001 were dismissed on 20 March. £ Plaintiff never waived extradition proceedings.
On March 13th Plaintiff was transported to the Oakland City Jail, then transferred to the North County Jail and then transported to Santa Rita Jail and held without charges. The Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution charges were dropped by the U.S. Attorney on 20 March 2001. During this period, this sovereign California Inhabitant was domiciled in the Family Home of Fairfax, California and protected by the Constitution for the California Republic. That unlawful arrest and subsequent unlawful imprisonment, without bail, violated sections 1, 5, 7, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 24 & 28 of the California Constitution’s Declaration of Rights as well as the Colorado and Federal Constitution’s protections. The Accused was kidnapped, without lawful authority, by F.B.I. Agents and held in maximum security, incommunicado in 24hour lock-down from 13 March, 2001 until 4 April, 2001 in California[18] without charges and without the issuance of a Governor’s Warrant from Colorado. On 4 April, 2001 the Accused was unlawfully kidnapped[19] from California by Jefferson County Sheriff’s Deputies Lonnie Lock and Pete Derrick and was unwillingly[20] brought to Colorado in interstate commerce and unlawfully imprisoned in the Jefferson County Detention Facility without presentation before a judge or magistrate until 12 April, 2001 – Eight days later.13 Plaintiff was not informed of the nature and cause of the unlawful arrest, illegal incarceration and kidnapping until the 22nd of April, 2001 – forty days after the unlawful arrest at Plaintiff’s business location – which is now defunct as a direct result of the terror instilled upon the peaceful community of Fairfax, California by the unprecedented force of arms displayed by the F.B.I. S.W.A.T. Team during the AfterSchool Children’s Program. Plaintiff’s Family is still suffering from the slander and libel and stain upon the Family Name caused by that lawless government act! [See Attachment #12 – California Court Documents] To exacerbate an already grievous wrong, the F.B.I. has placed erroneous and misleading “arrest” information on the world wide web and placed it number one in the search engines, particularly Yahoo, where typing in “steve gartin” will bring up the F.B.I. Arr |