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 PEOPLE OF 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 MOTION TO STRIKE AND DISMISS CHARGE OF CONTEMPT OF COURT, PURUANT C.R.C.P. 60, AND C.R.C.P. 97; Comes now the Defendant with a valid motion to the court to Strike & Dismiss the charges, and allegations, of Contempt of Court, based on the following reasons; 1). The charge of Contempt of Court is directly connected to events of 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 events, where the Defendant was falsely charged, arraigned, prosecuted, tried, and convicted, based on a well designed, orchestrated, and conspiracy of many individuals committing, and providing false information and hoaxes, perjury, evidence tampering, witness tampering, jury tampering, armed assault, excessive use of lethal force, threats, wrongful restraint, wrongful detainment, kidnapping, and a host of other fraudulent acts by the Defendant s primary accusers, the Grand Junction Police Department, the Mesa County District Attorney, the Mesa County Combined Courts, and involved the false, 2

3 misrepresentation, gross misconduct, and ineffective counsel of the Defendant s former legal counsel; A). USC Misprision of treason Whoever having knowledge of treason, conceals and does not make known the same to some judge is guilty of treason for contempt against the sovereign and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both. B). USC ; CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both C). USC ; DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State the deprivation of any rights shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; D). USC : Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, documents filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court, shall be fined or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. 2). The Arrest Warrant, which was unsigned, not reviewed by the District Attorney, unlawfully issued, and improperly served upon the Defendant on 12/27/2013, by armed individuals criminally impersonating Montrose County Sheriff Deputies, wherein, these individuals had never taken their Oaths of Office. This armed assault led to the Appearance Bond Hearing of 01/27/2014, which led to the charge of Contempt, which has led to the Hearing scheduled for 02/14/2014, was, by the written confession of 01/21/2014, instigated and prompted by the Defendant s primary accuser, Mr. Blaine Reed, as a form of reprisal, and retaliation, against Mr. Curry for excercising his Constitutional Rights; A). USC ; CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State subjects, or causes to be subjected, any person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law. B). USC ; CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS: If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire for the purpose of depriving, either 3

4 directly or indirectly any persons rights the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages against any one or more of the conspirators. C). USC ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PREVENT: Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done or are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured. 3). Mr. Reed, his wife, his brother, and others, have conspired over the past four years to abuse, and use the Colorado Justice System, to harass, intimidate, coerce, threaten, and falsely prosecute Mr. Curry, and to eliminate Mr. Curry as a competitor in the meteorite trade. 4). Segments of this saga, and of these events, and the criminal acts committed against Mr. Curry, his wife, his family, and his friends, may be found in the conjoined Motion for Discovery; Request for Discovery, Oaths & Bonds, submitted along with this motion. The Defendant need not be redundant in reiterating this events in this motion; 5). However, this Motion is supported by this cojoined Motion, and it should be understood, that criminal fraud has been the major component behind these events, and that, Criminal Fraud has no statute of limitations, and the Defendant s charges of these multiple criminal frauds, are supported by the Defendant s Motion(s) to Strike & Dismiss under C.R.C.P. 60; A). "The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions." Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) 6). The long history leading up to the charges, and the scheduled hearing on Contempt, are, again, described & defined in the conjoined motion, yet, it must be clarified, that, at no time, was the Defendant ever given his day in court, and on the basis of multiple violations of Defendant s Constitutional, Unalienable, Natural, and Common Law Rights, the Defendant was clearly denied a fair and impartial trial by jury on October 18,

5 A). RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY COMPREHENDS FAIR VERDICT, free from the influence or poison of evidence which should never have been admitted, and the admission of which arouses passions and prejudices which tend to destroy the fairness and impartiality of the jury. Oaks v. People, 150 Colo. 64, 371 P.2d 443 (1962). B). PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT THAT MISLEADS A JURY CAN WARRANT REVERSAL OF A CONVICTION because the right to trial includes the right to trial by an impartial jury empaneled to determine the issues solely on the basis of the evidence introduced at trial rather than on the basis of bias or prejudice for or against a party. Harris v. People, 888 P. 2d 259 (Colo. 1995). 7). The Defendant, also, has clear & conclusive evidence to show that the Trial Court Judge violated C.R.C.P. Rule #97, when he ruled on the Defendant s Motions of 01/24/2014, and failed to disqualify himself due to his prejudice, bias, and favoritism, towards the prosecution, and the Defendant s former legal counsel. On these recent violations, alone, the Defendant is entitled to have this/these motions granted, and his original case overturned, based upon the Trial Court Judge s Fraud upon the Court. A). 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.] B). 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]. C). "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]. D). 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)] 8). Failure to honor, or grant this Motion to Strike & Dismiss, on Constitutional grounds, will result in the loss of this Courtʼs authority, jurisdiction, and discretion, over the Defendant, and may result in the filing of a Constitutional Criminal Complaint, which would be filed with the U.S. Justice Department, the U.S. Attorney General, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 5

6 A). "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).] B). "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).] 9). 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. 10). This motion has been authored, and constructed under genuine Constitutional Law, and Common Law, which were never meant for interpretation, and it is meant with respect, simplicity, directness, and without rancor, ambiguity, provocation, threat, or contempt. Any attempt, whatsoever, in any response, plea, or motion, or in any ruling, to intentionally, or negligently, alter, misconstrue, misinterpret, or misrepresent, the Defendant s honest intent, will result in the loss of the courtʼs jurisdiction, authority, and discretion, over the Defendant, and will be noted, and 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:] B). "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.]. C). 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 6

7 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:, emphasis added] D). CONSTITUTIONS MUST BE CONSTRUED TO REFERENCE THE COMMON LAW SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS ARE NULL & VOID "As to the construction, with reference to Common Law, an important cannon of construction is that constitutions must be construed to reference to the Common Law."" The Common Law, so permitted destruction of the abatement of nuisances by summary proceedings and was never supposed that a constitutional provision was intended to interfere with this established principle and although there is no common law of the United States in a sense of a national customary law as distinguished from the common law of England, adopted in the several states. In interpreting the Federal Constitution, recourse may still be had to the aid of the Common Law of England. It has been said that without reference to the common law, the language of the Federal Constitution could not be understood." [16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 114:] 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 MOTION(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 7

8 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: / / 8