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.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

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