THE STATE VS. CURRY CASE #12M265 MESA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO SUBMITTED THIS DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014

Transcription

1 THE STATE VS. CURRY CASE #12M265 MESA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO SUBMITTED THIS DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014 X Steven Duane Curry; Defendant/P.A.G. 1

2 County Court, Mesa County, State of Colorado Court Address: 125 N. Spruce Street, Grand Junction, CO THE STATE OF COLORADO V. STEVEN CURRY; DEFENDANT Case Number: #12M265 DIVISION #1: TRIAL COURT JUDGE CRAIG P. HENDERSON DEFENDANT, Steven Duane Curry Dave Wood Road Montrose, CO REFERENCE: CASE #12M265 SUBJECT: DEFENDANT S ORDER FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF; CESSATION OF ALL PENDING HEARING AND PROCEEDINGS, AND A FULL ACQUITTAL ON ALL CHARGES, VERDICTS, CONVICTIONS, RULINGS, AND JUDGMENTS, PURSUANT C.R.C.P. 4; Colo. Crim. P. 9; C.R.Cr.P. Rule #98; C.R.C.P. 60; C.R.P. #35 (a)(c I, II, III, V, VI, VII); U.B.C. 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5; Comes now the Defendant to Order the Postconviction Reliefs sought above, based on the Courtʼs lack of original jurisdiction, and authority, over the Defendant. The Defendant will argue, with great fervor, and by the facts, circumstances, and evidence stated and provided below, that the STATE, the PROSECUTION, and/or the TRIAL COURT, has/have, from the very beginning, or inception, of this case, failed, under all applicable, and pertinent Constitutional Law, and Common Law, to secure proper jurisdiction, or authority, to allege, arrest, arraign, prosecute, hear, or try, the case against Mr. Curry. Furthermore; and as Mr. Curry has argued numerous times before, he is a ʻTrue, Aggrevied, and Injured Crime Victim of his primary accusers, and has been falsely charged, arrested, arraigned, prosecuted, tried, and convicted, by the STATE OF COLORADO, and NOT by The People of the State of Colorado. 2

3 ARGUMENTS OF FACT 1). Mr. Curry was deceived, and under false pretences, served with a Summons, a.k.a. Traffic Citation, a.k.a. Arrest Warrant, issued by Grand Junction Police Investigator, Ryan Petrowski, on January 26, 2012, a full 117 days after the Summons, or Citation, was written, and no Amendment to the Summons is on the record; A). Manner of Proof. Proof of service shall be made as follows: (1) If served personally, by a statement, certified by the sheriff, marshal or similar governmental official, or statement duly acknowledged under oath by any other person completing the service as to date, place, and manner of service; 2). This Summons, was written and constructed on October 1, 2011, presumably by Officer Petrowski, the Signator; {See Prosecutionʼs Exhibit #E}. A). Upon expiration of the Summons, any amendment, along with, All other processes shall be issued by the clerk, The summons shall contain the name, address, and registration number of the plaintiff's attorney, if any, and if none, the address of the plaintiff (???). 1). The Plaintiff cannot be the STATE, because the STATE cannot be injured, and The People, only, can be the Plaintiff, by the same common reasoning. The STATE is a CORPORATION, while The People are NOT a CORPORATION. 3). Discovery records indicate, that the Summons, a.k.a. Warrant, that Officer Petrowski was not assigned the case until October 12, 2011, and thus, another GJPD officer must have been the author of this Summons, or Officer Petrowski fraudulently ʻpre-datedʼ the Summons; A). A summons which does not meet the requirements of the law is a nullity. Fletcher v. District Court, 137 Colo. 143, 322 P.2d 96 (1958). B). If the summons is void, there is no jurisdiction over the parties. Fletcher v. District Court, 137 Colo. 143, 322 P.2d 96 (1958). 4). Under LAW, this Summons, had been conceived, and executed, without lawful, or probable cause, as the alleged Scientific analysis, by which probable cause had been, allegedly, established, had not been conducted by Key Labs until October 5, 2011; {See Exhibit #O, M, N}. A). Mr. Reed, in a GJPD video interview, and transcriptions produced by Officer Petrowski, stated he was personally involved in, what should have been, an independant analysis by Key Labs, and that he (Mr. Reed) used a file to remove and prepare the sample which Key Labs tested. Furthermore, the specimen provided at trial, had been filed by Mr. Reed, to which Mr. Reed had testified under Oath. 3

4 B). Mr. Reed testified, as well, that Key Labs soils analysis clearly indicated the presence of Nickel (Ni) and Chromium (Cr), yet, it was his presumption, and determination, and his alone, that these elements came from the file, and not the specimen, itself. Key Labs, however, never confirmed Mr. Reedʼs opinion, and Mr. Curryʼs attorney, Joshua Stritecky, Esq., despite Mr. Curryʼs insistence, never challenged Mr. Reedʼs hearsay opinion, or Key Labs lack of confirmation on the true origins of these elements. C). Amendment IV; The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 5). Before October 5, 2011, Mr. Curryʼs primary accuser, Mr. Blaine Reed, conducted his own, non-independent, analysis using his XRF analyzer, which he later revealed, and admitted, had been rigged within its internal man-made mineral alloyʼs library, to detect and display only man-made mineral alloys, and NOT meteoritic elements, such as Nickel (Ni), Chromium (Cr), Platinum (Pt), Gold (Au), etc. A). Mr. Reed later testified, under Oath, and in separate interviews, written statements, admissions, omissions, redactions, retractions, responses, and blogs, that he was not an expert in meteorites, yet, the GJPD, the District Attorney, and the Trial Court, all accepted Mr. Reedʼs analysis, his hearsay opinions, and endorsed Mr. Reed as an expert witness, despite their negligence, or knowledge that he was NOT an expert in meteoritics, and the fact that NO Independent Analysis was ever performed, or presented to establish probable cause, either to the GJPD, the DA, the Court, or the jury. This includes Mr. Bruce Gellerʼs, and the Colorado School of Mineʼs, submission of fabricated evidence, which was rendered using the exact, same XRF analyzer, with the exact, same internal man-made mineral alloyʼs library. B). Medical and Scientific Reports; (1) Subject to constitutional limitations, the trial court may require that the prosecuting attorney be informed of and permitted to inspect and copy or photograph any reports or statements of experts, made in connection with the particular case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons. 6). The Summons, a.k.a. Arrest Warrant, was NEVER signed by a Clerk of the Court, or a Judge of the 21st Judicial District, and it was never seen, or affirmed by Oath, by the Mesa County District Attorney. This lack of review, oath, or affirmation, by the Court, or the District Attorney, nullified the Summons on, or before, the day of its execution; A). A summons not issued and signed either by the clerk or plaintiff's attorney is no summons. Russell v. Craig, 10 Colo. App. 428, 51 P (1897). 4

5 B). The service of an unsigned summons does not effectively bring defendants within the jurisdiction of the court. Brown v. Amen, 147 Colo. 468, 364 P.2d 735 (1961). 7). Furthermore, the Summons, a.k.a. Warrant, pursuant C.R.C.P. Rule #9, EXPIRED 63 Days after its original construction, yet, it was served, again without review, oath, or affirmation by the District Attorney, or the Court, upon Mr. Curry on January 26, 2012, by GJPD Investigator, Ryan Petrowski, and under false pretences; A). Time Limit for Service. If a defendant is not served within 63 days (nine weeks) after the complaint is filed, the court -- on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff -- shall dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate period. This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a foreign country under rule 4(d). B). (j) Amendment. At any time in its discretion and upon such terms as it deems just, the court may allow any process or proof of service thereof to be amended, unless it clearly appears that material prejudice would result to the substantial rights of the party against whom the process is issued. 8). Discovery records clearly indicate, that the Mesa County District Attorney, had no knowledge of this case until on, or just before, April 2, 2012, when the GJPD finally released their alleged evidence. Mr. Curry had made several attempts to recover discovery materials from the District Attorney in February, and March, but the DA had not received anything on the case from the GJPD until this time. A). Affidavits or Sworn Testimony. If a warrant is requested upon an information, the information must contain or be accompanied by a sworn written statement of facts establishing probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been committed and that the offense was committed by the person for whom the warrant is sought. In lieu of such sworn statement, the information may be supplemented by sworn testimony of such facts. Such testimony must be transcribed and then signed under oath or affirmation by the witness giving the testimony. 9). Upon making a mandatory appearance with his attorney, on April 2, 2012, Mr. Curry was presented with a copy of the District Attorneyʼs NOTICE TO DEFENDANT OF DISCOVERY AVAILABILITY AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FUTURE COURT APPEARANCE, which stated This case has been continued to April 27, 2012, at 8:00 AM, for the purpose of DDA to start for dismissal. {See Exhibit #C}. 10). Based on the multiple criminal acts of fraud admitted to, and attested by Mr. Curryʼs primary accuser, the video evidence, transcriptions, admissions, retractions, redactions, blogs, discovery records, etc., and the facts regarding the expiration of the 5

6 Summons, a.k.a. Warrant, the DDA was well within her lawful jurisdiction, and authority, to dismiss the case without prejudice, yet, this Notice was never acted upon by the Deputy District Attorney, or Mr. Curryʼs legal counsel; A). An acceptance of service of a purported summons which was signed by neither the clerk nor plaintiff's attorney would be no acceptance of service of summons. Russell v. Craig, 10 Colo. App. 428, 51 P (1897). B). Provision of law is mandatory. Where the law expressly directs that process shall be in a specified form and issued in a particular manner, such a provision is mandatory, and a failure on the part of the proper official to comply with the law in that respect will render such process void. Smith v. Aurich, 6 Colo. 388 (1883). C). A summons must contain all that is required by this rule whether deemed needful or not. Fletcher v. District Court, 137 Colo. 143, 322 P.2d 96 (1958). 11). With the same knowledge of these facts, circumstances, and evidence, it was the responsibility of Mr. Curryʼs attorney, Joshua Stritecky, Esq., to seek a nullification of the charges, accusations, false arrest, and April 27, 2012 arraignment, of his client, whom he had contracted to represent and defend. Under Mr. Curryʼs Constitional Rights, he was to be assured of fair, honest, and effective legal counsel. Mr. Stritecky, in violation of his contract with Mr. Curry, and the People, failed to render, or provide these retained services, as he had promised Mr. Curry, and thus allowed his client to become an open target for the unlawful prosecution, and exploitation by his primary accusers, the State Attorney General, the District Attorney, and the Courts. A). As an Officer of the Court, Mr. Striteckyʼs obligations and duties were to the Court, and NOT to the People, or his client. Having previously taken an Oath of Office as a Deputy District Attorney for the Mesa County District Attorneyʼs Office, Mr. Stritecky, Esq., was not permitted to ignore, retract, or rescind, this previous Oath of Office during his lifetime, no matter his relations as a DDA, or as a private attorney; B). The summons must be prejudicial to be void. It is manifest without argument that a defect in the summons which will be sufficient to constitute it void or erroneous must be of such a character as to mislead the defendant to his prejudice, and to prejudicially affect, or tend to so affect, some substantial right. Rich v. Collins, 12 Colo. App. 511, 56 P. 207 (1898). 12). As an Officer of the Court, and as an Executive Officer for the STATE of Colorado, District Attorney, Pete Hautzingerʼs obligations and duties were, are, and continue to be, to the STATE, and to the Court, and NOT to the People, and thus, he was, and is, precluded from representing the People, as the STATE is a CORPORATION, and the People are, by all Constitutional means, methods, and standards, the Independent & Sovereign Authorities over the STATE, and are NOT a CORPORATION; 6

7 A). Amendment IX; The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. B). Amendment X; The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 13). Ms. Danielle Lewis, and Ms. Carmen Rickard, as Officers of the Court, and Executive Officers of the STATE, are obligated to serve the Courts, and the STATE, yet, they have placed themselves in a Conflict of Interest when attempting to represent THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, wherein The People are Independent & Sovereign Authorities over the STATE, and are NOT considered, by any Constitutional, or Common Law, means, measures, or standards, or even by the STATE, itself, to be any type of CORPORATION; 14). The FACTS, that the GJPD, the Mesa County District Attorney, and his entire staff, have treasonously violated their Oaths of Office by unlawfully portending to represent the People, a.k.a. attorneys for the plaintiff, and for them to have criminally misrepresented themselves in their prosecutions of Mr. Curry; who happens to be a Sovereign individual, and who, by his Inherent, Unalienable & Natural Rights, is a Living, flesh & blood, BEʼing of the People Living on the Land, CANNOT, and WILL NOT, abandon his Authority, or give his Consent to the STATE to be falsely charged, accused, arrested, arraigned, prosecuted, tried, convicted, or sentenced, by Citizens of a Foreign State, or manipulated by means outside the constructs of his Unalienable & Natural Rights, or his Constitutional Bill of Rights. A). AMENDMENT XI; The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. B). It is an irrefutable, indisputable, and historical, FACT, that all members, ie; judges, district attorneys, or attorneys, past or present, of the Colorado B.A.R. Association, or the American B.A.R. Association, are considered members of the British Accreditation Registry, and are, thus, Citizens or Subjects of a Foreign State by all means, methods, and standards, of the US and Colorado Constitutions; 1). Anything short of the full disclosure of all known pertinent facts is a fraud upon the court and renders void any decree thereafter entered. Coppinger v. Coppinger, 130 Colo. 175, 274 P.2d 328 (1954); Weber v. Williams, 137 Colo. 269, 324 P.2d 365 (1958). 2). To simply go through the form of legalism without a fair disclosure of existing known facts is of no avail. Coppinger v. Coppinger, 130 Colo. 175, 274 P.2d 328 (1954); Weber v. Williams, 137 Colo. 269, 324 P.2d 365 (1958). 7

8 3). Constructive service is in derogation of the common law, making it imperative that there must be a strict compliance with every requirement of this rule; failure in this respect is fatal. Coppinger v. Coppinger, 130 Colo. 175, 274 P.2d 328 (1954); Weber v. Williams, 137 Colo. 269, 324 P.2d 365 (1958). 4). Compliance with every condition of this rule must affirmatively appear from the record. Coppinger v. Coppinger, 130 Colo. 175, 274 P.2d 328 (1954); Weber v. Williams, 137 Colo. 269, 324 P.2d 365 (1958). 5). Nothing excuses omissions or insufficient statements. Beckett v. Cuenin, 15 Colo. 281, 25 P. 167 (1890); Sylph Mining & Milling Co. v. Williams, 4 Colo. App. 345, 36 P. 80 (1894); Trowbridge v. Allen, 48 Colo. 419, 110 P. 193 (1910); Empire Ranch & Cattle Co. v. Coldren, 51 Colo. 115, 117 P (1911); Robinson v. Clauson, 142 Colo. 434, 351 P.2d 257 (1960). 15). As the Crime Victim of Mr. Reed, his family, his colleagues & associates, the GJPD, the District Attorney, his staff, the State Attorney General, his staff, the STATE, and his former attorney, Mr. Curry Orders the STATE, itʼs Officers, and this Court, to Cease & Desist with all pending hearings, judgments, rulings, mandates, or orders, from this point forward, and, to return to Mr. Curry his Liberties, Freedoms, Rights, Pursuits, Possessions, and Properties, which have been taken from him against his Consent, and against his Will. These possessions of Right include his mugshots, fingerprints, character, reputation, honor, his integrity, and an unrestrained Right to enter the free market place. A). Fraud upon the Court committed by any Officer of the Court, nullifies all proceedings, rulings, convictions, sentences, and judgments. 16). As a Crime Victim of the STATE, and others so mentioned, Mr. Curry will no longer be known as the Defendant, and will reserve his Rights to claim all reliefs for damages and injuries sustained, and all Rights granted him under LAW, which may include individual, or collective, Constitutional Criminal Complaints against all perpetrators of these Criminal Acts, which have brought incalculable injuries to Mr. Curryʼs family, person, properties, and possessions. These forms of relief will, also, include those alloted him under USC Titles #18, and #42. ADDITIONAL RELEVANT CITATIONS OF LAW 1). The United States Supreme Court confirmed that;...every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent." [Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 May Term 1796.] 8

9 2). The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are not the law, [Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261]. 3). "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them" [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491]. 4). Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. [Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct (1958)] 5). Failure of this Court, and others, to honor, or grant this/these Orders, on Constitutional grounds, has resulted in the complete & total loss of this Courtʼs authority, jurisdiction, and discretion, over the Defendant, and may result in Mr. Curryʼs filings of Constitutional Criminal Complaints, which may be filed with the U.S. Justice Department, the U.S. Attorney General, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 6). "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/ Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process" [Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).] 7). "All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void" [Marbury -v-madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176,(1803).] 8). JUDGES SWORN TO OBEY CONSTITUTION IRRESPECTIVE OF OPINION AND CONSEQUENCES CONSTITUTION RULES OVER STATUTES "Since the constitution is intended for the observance of the judiciary as well as other departments of government and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or counteract evasions thereof, it is their duty in authorized proceedings to give full effect to the existing constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences, thus it is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the United States Constitution and guard against their infringement by legislative fiat or otherwise in accordance with these basic principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the delivered judgment of the tribunal before which the validity of the enactment it is directly drawn into question. If the Constitution prescribes one rule and the statute the another in a different rule, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment. [16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 155:] 9). Colo. Const. Art. XXIX, Section 1 (2013) Section 1. PURPOSES AND FINDINGS 9

10 (1) The people of the state of Colorado hereby find and declare that: (a) The conduct of public officers, members of the general assembly, local government officials, and government employees must hold the respect and confidence of the people; (b) They shall carry out their duties for the benefit of the people of the state; (c) They shall, therefore, avoid conduct that is in violation of their public trust or that creates a justifiable impression among members of the public that such trust is being violated; (d) Any effort to realize personal financial gain through public office other than compensation provided by law is a violation of that trust; and (e) To ensure propriety and to preserve public confidence, they must have the benefit of specific standards to guide their conduct, and of a penalty mechanism to enforce those standards. (2) The people of the state of Colorado also find and declare that there are certain costs associated with holding public office and that to ensure the integrity of the office, such costs of a reasonable and necessary nature should be born by the state or local government. 10). Colo. Const. Art. XXIX, Section 6 (2013) Section 6. PENALTY; Any public officer, member of the general assembly, local government official or government employee who breaches the public trust for private gain and any person or entity inducing such breach shall be liable to the state or local jurisdiction for double the amount of the financial equivalent of any benefits obtained by such actions. The manner of recovery and additional penalties may be provided by law. 11). Colo. Const. Art. XXIX, Section 9 (2013) Section 9. LEGISLATION TO FACILITATE ARTICLE Legislation may be enacted to facilitate the operation of this article, but in no way shall such legislation limit or restrict the provisions of this article or the powers herein granted. 2.--"People of the United States" Constitution was ordained and established by "the people of the United States," who were competent to invest general government with all powers which they might deem proper and necessary, to extend or restrain these powers according to their pleasure, and to give them paramount and supreme authority. Martin v Hunter's Lessee (1816) 14 US 304, 1 Wheat 304, 4 L Ed 97. Government of United States is government of people from whom it emanates. McCulloch v Maryland (1819) 17 US 316, 4 Wheat 316, 4 L Ed 579, 42 CCF P 77296, 4 AFTR 4491 (criticized in Nevada ex rel. Wehrmeister v Loral Aerospace Corp. (1997, DC Nev) 1997 US Dist LEXIS 2736) and (criticized in United States v Nye County (1997, DC Nev) 957 F Supp 1172). People of United States and citizens are synonymous terms. Scott v Sandford (1857) 60 US 393, 19 How 393, 15 L Ed 691 (superseded by statute on other 10

11 grounds as stated in Scott v Comptroller of the Treasury (1995) 105 Md App 215, 659 A2d 341) and (criticized in Arakaki v Hawaii (2000, DC Hawaii) 2000 US Dist LEXIS 22394) and (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Hi- Voltage Wire Works, Inc. v City of San Jose (2000) 24 Cal 4th 537, 101 Cal Rptr 2d 653, 12 P3d 1068, 2000 CDOS 9442, 2000 Daily Journal DAR 12705, 79 CCH EPD P 40347) and (ovrld on other grounds as stated in State v Dearmas (2004, RI) 841 A2d 659) and (criticized in Martinez-Aguero v Gonzalez (2005, WD Tex) 2005 US Dist LEXIS 2412) and (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re African-American Slave Descendants Litig. (2005, ND Ill) 375 F Supp 2d 721) and (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United States v Summers (2007, ED Mich) 99 AFTR 2d 2359). 3.--"To form a more perfect union" People, through Constitution, established a more perfect union by substituting national government acting with ample power directly upon citizens, instead of confederate government, which acted with powers greatly restricted, only upon states. Lane County v Oregon (1869) 74 US 71, 7 Wall 71, 19 L Ed 101 (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Leitch v Department of Revenue (1982) 9 OTR 256) and (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Leitch v Dep't of Revenue (1982) 9 OTR 256). SUMMARY 1). This court is advised, again, that Mr. Curry, and his wife, are both Federallyprotected witnesses, and informants. Any actions of retaliation, or reprisal, taken against Mr. Curry, or his wife, may result in a full investigation, indictments, and prosecutions by the U.S. Justice Department, and/or U.S. Attorney General against the perpetrators. 2). This motion has been written, and constructed with common sense, moral reasoning, and supported by genuine Constitutional Law, and Common Law, the authority and constraints of which, were never meant for interpretation, or usurpation. This Order is meant with respect, simplicity, directness, and without rancor, ambiguity, provocation, threat, or contempt. All attempts, in all previous responses, pleas, or motions, and rulings, to intentionally, or negligently, alter, misconstrue, misinterpret, or misrepresent, the Defendant s honest, and declaretory intent, have, in fact, resulted in the total and complete loss of the courtʼs jurisdiction, authority, and discretion, over Mr. Curry, and these acts are being noted, and they will become a part of the permanent public record, and may be recorded within a Constitutional Criminal Complaint; A). "Various facts of circumstances extrinsic to the constitution are often resorted to, by the courts, to aid them and determining its meaning, as previously noted however, such extrinsic aids may not be resorted to where the provision in the question is clear and unambiguous in such a case the courts must apply the terms of the constitution as written and they are not at liberty to search for meanings beyond the instrument." [16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 117:] 11

12 3). "The assertion of federal rights, [Bill of Rights] when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice". [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24.]. AFFIDAVIT The Alleged Defendant, a.k.a. Crime Victim, and Injured Party, being a NATURAL, LIVING, BREATHING, BE ing, and a PERSON residing in, and domiciled in the County of Montrose, the State of Colorado, AND of these united States, does, HEREIN, swear UNDER OATH, that, this Document is true, correct, and accurate in every regard to the best of his knowledge, under the PENALTY OF LAW; AND, THAT; It is, NOW, the duty and obligation of this Court, UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, and COMMON LAW, to hear, to review, to adjudicate and to rule upon the facts, and attached evidence, without Bias, or Prejudice, and to act upon, this/these ORDER(s), HEREIN; SO SIGNED, AND NOTARIZED THIS DAY, THE OF FEBRUARY, 2014; X Steven D. Curry/Crime Victim/Injured Party/Affiant X Notary Public SEAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The Affiant attests that a copy of this document has been served upon the Mesa County District Attorney, the Montrose County District Attorney, via hand-delivery, the Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney General, and the Federal Bureau of Investigations, via USPS. X Affiant Date: / / 12