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 OMNIBUS MOTIONS FOR DISCOVERY; REQUEST OF OATHS AND BONDS; MOTION FOR FULL ACQUITTAL; Comes now the Defendant to request that the Court provide the Certified, Registered, and Lawfully Filed Oaths of Office, and conjoined Surety/ Performance/Fidelity Bonds, along with the Bond Insurer s Letter of Acceptance & Issuance. All documents must be accompanied by a Notarized Affidavit of Truth, attesting to the authenticity of these documents, from Mesa County Court Judge, Craig P. Henderson, and Judge Gretchen Buck Larsen, pursuant to the following State Constitutional Law; Colo. Const. Art. XII, Section 8 (2012) Section 8. Oath of civil officers Every civil officer, except members of the general assembly and such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of 2

3 the state of Colorado, and to faithfully perform the duties of the office upon which he shall be about to enter. Text of Section 9: Oaths Where Filed. Officers of the executive department and judges of the supreme and district courts, and district attorneys, shall file their oaths of office with the secretary of state; every other officer shall file his oath of office with the county clerk of the county wherein he shall have been elected. 1). As Certified & Registered, these Oaths had to be administered, given, and recorded, either by the Colorado Secretary of State, or the Clerk of the Colorado Supreme Court, or the Mesa County Clerk and Recorder. Exact, Notarized, and/ or Certified Copies exhibiting the original Wet Ink Signatures of both the Oath Takers and Oath Givers, must be provided in clear evidence, legible, and unambiguous. 2). These documents are necessary, as it is the contention, belief, and of proper notice by this Affidavit of the Defendant, that Judges Henderson, and Larsen, are not in compliance to the Constitution of the state of Colorado Article XII Sections 8, 9 and Schedule Section 6, and Supreme Court of Colorado Chief Justice directive 85-25, {See Exhibit #A}, and that, these Oaths & Bonds either do not exist, and/or these Oaths and/or their conjoined Bonds, have been falsified by violations, and non-performance, and that, without Oath or Bond, the alleged Arrest Warrant of 12/27/2013, the issuance of the Order to Appear on Bond, the subsequent Order to Appear on 02/14/2014 on Charges of Contempt, and the subsequent Arrest Warrant of 01/27/2014, were not valid, nor authorized pursuant 18 USC Acknowledgment of appearance or oath, which states; Whoever, being an officer authorized to administer oaths or to take and certify acknowledgments, knowingly makes any false acknowledgment, certificate, or statement concerning the appearance before him or the taking of an oath or affirmation by any person with respect to any proposal, contract, bond, undertaking, or other matter submitted to, made with, or taken on behalf of the United States or any department or agency thereof, concerning which an oath or affirmation is required by law or lawful regulation, or with respect to the financial standing of any principal, surety, or other party to any such proposal, contract, bond, undertaking, or other instrument, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. 3

4 3). AND, THAT; These Warrants were issued without the support by oath, or affirmations reduced to writing, as they were not signed in Wet Ink, and neither Warrant was reviewed, or authorized, by the Mesa County District Attorney, pursuant Colo. Const. Art. II, Section 7 (2013) Section 7. SECURITY OF PERSON AND PROPERTY - SEARCHES - SEIZURES - WARRANTS, which states; The people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant to search any place or seize any person or things shall issue without describing the place to be searched, or the person or thing to be seized, as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation reduced to writing. 4). AND, THAT; Both Judges Henderson, and Larsen, also conspired in levying additional charges of Contempt of Court, and threats to reinvoke a suspended sentence, both pertinent to the Arrest Warrants of 12/27/2013, and 01/27/2014, and both are tied directly to the Defendant s illegal, and unlawful trial and sentencing. The levying of these additional charges violate a number of Constitutional rights, along with several facets of C.R.C.P. Rule #97, in failing to honor the Defendant s timely & righteous January 24, 2014 Motions to Vacate Appearance Bond Hearing. C.R.C.P. Rule #97 is clear, and unambigous where it states and is reaffirmed in Case Law; A). Filing of motion to disqualify a trial judge suspends all other proceedings in the case until ruling is made thereon. Dominic Leone Constr. Co. v. District Court, 150 Colo. 47, 370 P.2d 759 (1962); Brouwer v. District Court, 169 Colo. 303, 455 P.2d 207 (1969). B). In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994). 5). The Defendant will argue with fervor, that this ruling on the Defendant s Motion was with the sole authority, jurisdiction, and discretion, of the 21st Judicial Chief Justice, Bottger, and NOT with the Trial Court Judge Henderson. This act, in and of itself, shows deep prejudice, against bias against the Defendant. A). Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 4

5 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause."). 6). In the Defendant s Motions of 01/24/2014, the Defendant was able to demonstrate, well beyond reasonable doubt, Judge Henderson s bent of mind, prejudice, and bias, against the Defendant before, during, and after the trial of October 18, 2012, and the Sentencing Hearing of October 26, 2012; where Judge Henderson, upon excusing the jury for deliberation, stated to the Defendant, This Court will find the Defendant guilty on all three charges! This comment greviously impacted the Defendant s Rights to Due Process. And; Judge Henderson, prioritizing judicial expediency over the Defendant s Rights, executed sentencing without the Defendant having any legal counsel present, which also excaserbated a number of judicial errors, and abuses of judicial discretion, during the trial, and sentencing of the Defendant, thus further depriving the Defendant of his Rights to Due Process guaranteed under the IV, V, VI, IX, X, and XIV Amendments. 7). On the morning of January 28, 2014, Judge Henderson stated to the Defendant, who was brought before him in shackles, I denied your motions, because I am not prejudiced! The Defendant, with a desire to trust Mr. Henderson, fears, that, Mr. Henderson s latent prejudice, bias, and favoritism, continue to the present day, and without Justice in Mr. Henderson s court, he is no longer entitled to have authority, jurisdiction, or discretion over this case. 8). During the same event, Mr. Henderson expressed his desires to give the Defendant his day in Court, which the Defendant has never been given. A day in court, with Mr. Henderson presiding, would, by means & measures, be a repeat of the court s offenses against the Defendant, and there would be no fairness, impartiality, or justice for the Defendant. Eleven eyewitnesses to the trial, and the sentencing, have submitted signed and notarized affidavits to the Court agreeing with the Defendant. {See Exhibit #B} Colo. Const. Art. II, Section 6 (2012) Section 6. Equality of justice Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay. (It is common sense, and it may be proffered, then, that Courts of Injustice are without authority, jurisdiction, or discretion). 9). FURTHERMORE; The Defendant can show material and prima facia evidence, that Judges Henderson and Larsen conspired to create the Illusion, that a new judge 5

6 (Larsen) had been assigned to Case #12M265, so that the Defendant would think his Motions of 01/24/2014 had been granted; and, that; Henderson had not issued his rulings on the Defendant s Motion until Monday, January 27, 2014, and after the Appearance Bond Hearing had come and gone. {Please See Exhibit #C}. 10). AND, THAT; The Defendant presented a Certified, and Notarized Affidavit, authorizing his sister to appear in his place, and as his agent, and that the Defendant placed several calls to the Court and Judge Larsen, requesting his appearance be teleconferenced, or Skyped, which is an accepted practice throughout Colorado courts. Judge Larsen refused to review, or accept the Affidavit, or the requests for alternative appearance, even though this Affidavit had been properly filed with Court Clerk before the start of hearing. {See Exhibit #D}. 11). To show Contempt, the Court must prove INTENT, and there was no intent to commit contempt as clearly demonstrated in the prehearing actions of the Defendant, his agent s Affidavit, and in both of the Defendant s motions of 01/24/ ). AND, THAT; The Defendant is well aware, that, Judge Larsen immediately contacted Judge Henderson, and it was Judge Henderson who, in writing, admits to issuing the Bench Warrant, yet, the Warrant did not indicate Judge Henderson as the issuer, but that Judge Larsen had issued the warrant. This tag team effort to conceal the original authorship of the Warrant, has not escaped the attention of the Defendant, and may be addressed in later motions, if necessary. 13). For Judges Henderson, and Larsen, to have annointed themselves with special Rights, Privileges, and Powers, recognized only with, and as, titles of nobility, and to have demanded compliance of innocent persons of the Land, through the pervasive and unlawful use of Statutory Law, and to have violated and abrogated the Constitutions of Colorado, and U.S., without the Consent, or the Authorization of the People, is to have violated and Breached the Trust of the People. A). As clearly evidenced by U.S Constitution Article 1 Section 10.1 No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. 14). The Defendant provides Notice, herein, that any failure, or unwillingness, to produce the aforementioned documents may result in a Constitutional Criminal Complaint, with appropriately attached Liens & Distresses, which will be registered with the Mesa County Combined Courts, the Insuring Agency, the U.S. Attorney General, and the Federal Bureau of Investigations, pursuant 42 USC 2000aa 12-6

7 Binding nature of guidelines; disciplinary actions for violations; legal proceedings for non-compliance prohibited, which states; Guidelines issued by the Attorney General under this subchapter shall have the full force and effect of Department of Justice regulations and any violation of these guidelines shall make the employee or officer involved subject to appropriate administrative disciplinary action. However, an issue relating to the compliance, or the failure to comply, with guidelines issued pursuant to this subchapter may not be litigated, and a court may not entertain such an issue as the basis for the suppression or exclusion of evidence. 15). AND, THAT; Any attempt to falsify or conceal the facts regarding these Oaths & Bonds, may result in an additional offense within the Constitutional Criminal Complaint, again registered with the Mesa County Combined Courts, the Insuring Agency, the U.S. Attorney General, and the Federal Bureau of Investigations, pursuant 42 USC 3795a - Falsification or concealment of facts, which states; Whoever knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by trick, scheme, or device, any material fact in any application for assistance submitted pursuant to this chapter or in any records required to be maintained pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to prosecution under the provisions of section 1001 of title ). It should come as no surprise to anyone, that there is deep connection between the Courts and Mr. Reed s meteorite cartel, and that the timing between the initial instigations by Mr. Reed, and the Arrest Warrants of 12/27/2013, the Protection Hearing of 01/22/2014, and 01/27/2014, and the scheduled hearing of 02/14/2014, are more than just coincidental. These were all acts of Mr. Reed, and others, to restrain and obstruct Mr. Curry of his rights to attend the Tucson Gem & Mineral Show, and to obstruct his research with the University of Arizona, where Mr. Curry has a number of meteoritic specimens set for analysis at the Lunar & Planetary Laboratories, located on the campus of UA. And; if one was to return to the event of 01/26/2012, where the Defendant s judicial assaults began with his first arrest in Grand Junction, and where GJPD Officer, Ryan Petrowski, advised Mr. Curry, This is an advisory to you, Mr. Curry. You are to get out of the meteorite business!, one needs look no further, than the most important event of the year for all those involved in the meteorite trade; the Tucson Gem & Mineral Show, in Tucson, AZ. This is the largest gathering of meteorite aficionados in the world, and it is where Mr. Reed averages $50, in sales, if not more, in just two weeks time! It is, also, where the world s meteorite hunters, Moroccan 7

8 dealers, American & European dealers, and the cartel s gatekeeping scientists, can hobknob with the world s affluent collectors who sustain their illicit trade in Northwest African Contraband Meteorites, a.k.a. NWA s. For two full weeks every year, the biggest names in the business meet to discuss strategies to insure their bank accounts remain high, and to strategize on how to eliminate competition, and silence public exposure of their False Market, like that proven, verified, and offered by Mr. Curry. Mr. Curry has been the NO. #1 topic of conversation at this show for the past three years! To believe, or even think, for a single moment, that there is not a well designed, coordinated, and orchestrated conspiracy against Mr. Curry by members of the International Meteorite Collector s Association, a.k.a. I.M.C.A., a.k.a. A non-profit corporation, owned by CEO Adam Hupe of Laughlin, NV, and managed by Vice-President, Anne Black, and Treasurer, Maria Haas, would be to believe that the world is as flat as a dinner plate! It has, apparently, taken a great deal of ponying-up by these folks to influence Colorado s Courts of Justice, and Colorado s law enforcement! Yet, at $1, to $40, per gram, the cartel only needs to sell a few of their alleged Martian, and Lunar meteorites from Northwest Africa, to a few unsuspecting collectors, or university museums, to pay the bill! The Tucson Gem & Mineral Show is must see experience for anyone desiring to know the ins and the outs, the truths, and the myths regarding the meteorite trade. If the Federal government was seeking to make a roundup of the members of this organized crime syndicate, Tucson, in February, would be a great place to begin the processes of Justice. This, of course, would be contigent upon those agents in the Federal government recognizing and exercising their Constitutional authority, jurisdiction, discretions, their knowledge of State & Federal RICO LAWS, and a reverence for their own Oaths of Office. 17). It is a matter of PUBLIC RECORD, with this Court, the Montrose County Court, the Federal Securities & Exchange Commission, the U.S. Marshalʼs Service, the Justice Department, the U.S. Attorney General, the Office of the President, and the Federal Bureua of Investigations, and it is a matter of undeniable FACT, that Mr. Reed, his wife, his brother, and their attorney, Mr. Mitchel, used the Colorado Justice System to obstruct, derail, and deprive Mr. Curry of his Rights, Liberties, and Freedoms, and all set about to instigate, and to effect, the ʻallegedʼ Arrest Warrants of 01/26/ 2012, 12/27/2013, the Protection Order of 01/09/2014, and the ʻallegedʼ Arrest Warrant of 01/27/2014; A). WHEREIN; these criminal acts against Mr. Curry, which began in January, include, but are not limited to; international trafficking of illicit & contraband commodities, scientific fraud, false information & hoaxes, fraud upon the court, evidence tampering, witness tampering, jury tampering, judicial misconduct, prosecutorial 8

9 misconduct, ineffective & compromised legal counsel, conspiracy, confederation, antitrust, anti-competition, money laundering, extortion, bribery, false arrests, criminal trespasses, criminal impersonations, criminal misrepresentations, criminal mischief, criminal intent, criminal simulations, forgery, perjury, intimidation, coercion, harassment, insurance & securities fraud, false & fabricated warrants, the use of excessive & lethal force, kidnapping, wrongful detainment, malicious restraint, abusive incarceration & imprisonment, and treason, which have prevented and obstructed Mr. Curryʼs sovereign rights to practice or exercise his learned skills, trades and crafts. 1). 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. 2). USC ; CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS: If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire for the purpose of depriving, either 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. 18). As Federally-protected witnesses and informants, Mr. Curry, and his wife, in defense of their families, their friends, and their community, take great exception to these egregious and injurious criminal acts of Mr. Reed, his associates, the courts, and law enforcement, and it is Mr. Curryʼs Constitutional, Inalienable, Natural, and Common Law Rights, and DUTY, as a Free Man on the Land, and a Sovereign Individual, to report and expose such criminal activities for greater good and welfare of the People of the Land. A). "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights". [Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.] B). To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment". [Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928] 19). FINALLY; The Defendant offers several exhibits, out of a large cache of evidence compiled over the past four years, attached to this motion, which will, conclusively, demonstrate, that Judge Henderson, with prejudice, bias, and favoritism, towards the prosecution, and against the Defendant, failed to allow or permit the Defendant to produce these exhibits, and any material, or exculpatory evidence, or witnesses, in his defense during his alleged day in court. A). Had these exhibits been permitted at trial, and presented to the jury, in the first place, the Defendant would have been acquitted on all 9

10 charges. These exhibits are being submitted in this motion under C.R.C.P. Rule #35 (a,c)(2)(v), as they meet, and exceed, ALL requirements set by LAW, in answering to the false information, hoaxes, and perjury presented during trial, and the current charges of Contempt, and to the Court s recent threat of reinvoking a suspended sentence, all of which need to be vacated, overturned, reversed, waived, cancelled, and the Defendant granted his entitlement to a full & complete Acquittal on all charges, convictions, sentences, rulings, and orders. B). Failure of the Court to recognize the numerous counts of Fraud Upon the Court by Mr. Reed, Mr. Geller, and others, or the Court s failure to review, adjudicate, or rule impartially on these exhibits, will result, again, with additional charges within a Constitutional Criminal Complaint which will be presented to the Mesa County Combined Courts, the Insuring Agency, the U.S. Attorney General, and the Federal Bureau of Investigations, for prosecution. {Please See List & Descriptions of Exhibits}. SUMMARY & CITATIONS 1). This Court is reminded, again, that the Defendant has committed no crime, and his initial day in court, on October 18, 2012, belonged, not to the Defendant, but to his primary accusers, the prosecution, a disloyal attorney, and a trial court judge, whose bent of mind, prejudice, and bias, against the Defendant, and a misinformed & prejudiced jury; all of whom, individually & collectively, prosecuted and convicted an innocent man, and all of whom, aided & abetted a criminal enterprise, whether they were aware of this, or not. 2). The outright FRAUD that has pervaded over each, and every proceeding of this case, will not withstand public scrutiny, Constitutional Law, Common Law, or the Defendant s demand for a just and honest remedy and maximum recourse under LAW, which he is entitled to. These criminal acts against the Defendant, have been life-threatening, and unforgiveable. The damages and injuries inflicted upon the Defendant, his wife, his family, and others, by their very malicious nature, have been made permanent for all time. A). "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury.... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the 10

11 impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted." Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985). B). Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in fraud upon the court." In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985). C). C.R.S (2013) Fraudulent insurance acts - immunity for furnishing information relating to suspected insurance fraud - legislative declaration, which states; D). (1) For purposes of this title, articles 40 to 47 of title 8, C.R.S., and articles 6, 7, 29.5, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 41.5, and 43 of title 12, C.R.S., a fraudulent insurance act is committed if a person knowingly and with intent to defraud presents, causes to be presented, or prepares with knowledge or belief that it will be presented to or by an insurer, a purported insurer, or any producer thereof any written statement as part or in support of an application for the issuance or the rating of an insurance policy or a claim for payment or other benefit pursuant to an insurance policy that he or she knows to contain false information concerning any fact material thereto or if he or she knowingly and with intent to defraud or mislead conceals information concerning any fact material thereto. E). 18 USC Continuing financial crimes enterprise (a) Whoever (b) (1) organizes, manages, or supervises a continuing financial crimes enterprise; and (2) receives $5,000,000 or more in gross receipts from such enterprise during any 24-month period, shall be fined not more than $10,000,000 if an individual, or $20,000,000 if an organization, and imprisoned for a term of not less than 10 years and which may be life. (b) For purposes of subsection (a), the term continuing financial crimes enterprise means a series of violations under section 215, 656, 657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1032, or 1344 of this title, or section 1341 or 1343 affecting a financial institution, committed by at least 4 persons acting in concert. 11

12 F). C.R.S (2013) Oath required of insurance commissioner and actuary The commissioner and the actuary, before entering upon their duties, shall take and subscribe to the oath required by the constitution of Colorado, which oath shall be filed in the office of the secretary of state. G). TITLE 10. INSURANCE GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 1.GENERAL PROVISIONS PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS C.R.S (2013) Fraudulent insurance acts - enforcement The attorney general shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the district attorneys of this state to investigate and prosecute allegations of criminal conduct related to insurance fraud pursuant to this title and titles 8 and 18, C.R.S. The cost to the attorney general of such investigations and prosecutions shall be paid from fees collected from entities regulated by the division pursuant to section , C.R.S. 3). Failure to honor, or grant this motion for Trials by Jury, 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 will be filed with the U.S. Justice Department, the U.S. Attorney General, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 4). 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. 5). 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 12

13 written and they are not at liberty to search for meanings beyond the instrument." [16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 117:] LIST OF EXHIBITS & DESCRIPTIONS A). Colorado Article XII Sections 8, 9 and Schedule Section 6 BRIEF: The attached C.O.R.A. Exhibit #A, dated October 29, 2013, indicates that County Court Judges are not required to file an Oath of Office with the Office of the Secretary of State, while the Supreme Court of Colorado Directives {Attached}, Section #3, states, County judges must file their oaths with the county clerk and recorder of their respective counties, who, in turn, must send copies of the oaths to the Secretary of State. According to this exhibit, there are no recordings of these specifically requested Oaths, or copies thereof, filed with the Secretary of State. B). Judge Henderson Ruling of 01/28/2014; BRIEF: This exhibit demonstrates Judge Henderson s capacity, or desire, to impose cruel and unusual punishments, as in issuing a no bond arrest warrant, which, of course, he found he needed to retract, as this would have been a severe violation of Defendant s IV Amendment. This exhibit, also, demonstrates Judge Henderson s apparent desire to allow the Defendant his day in court, which, again, the Defendant has never experienced with the Mesa County Combined Courts. This can, also, be taken as an admission to the facts, related to the Defendant s unlawful, and unconstitutional trial, sentencing, and related to the numerous motions that have been denied over the past eighteen months. To grant the Defendant his day in court, but then to receive notice from the Mesa County District Attorney, 02/05/2014, that they are, now, endorsing the Defendant s former attorney as a witness for the State, does not give the Defendant any level of comfort, whatsoever, or any type of assurance of having his day in court, particularly when the District Attorney is offering Discovery for a Price of $ The Defendant has spent this amount on just two of the many round trips to Grand Junction to submit his motions, with evidence, on the matter of Ineffective Counsel. The District Attorney has, obviously, not reviewed these motions, or examined the evidence against Mr. Stritecky. In all fairness, perhaps the Defendant needs to charge the District Attorney for twice this amount, as there are, perhaps, 300+ pages of evidence against Mr. Stritecky. 1). Colo. Const. Art. II, Section 6 (2013) Section 6. EQUALITY OF JUSTICE 13

14 Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay. C). Judge Henderson s 01/27/2014 Ruling on the Motions of 01/24/2014; BRIEF: Judge Henderson s rulings on the Defendant s 01/24/2014 Motions to Vacate the Hearing of 01/27/2014, even though these rulings were cast in violation of C.R.C.P. Rule #97, they were not, according to this exhibit, executed until Monday, 01/27/2014, and after the Defendant s scheduled hearing before Judge Larsen. There is a presumption, here, based on evidence, which may indicate an attempt to trick, entice, or entrap the Defendant. The Defendant will leave this issue for later review. 1). "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final." D). Affidavit of Authorized Agent; BRIEF: This exhibit clearly, and conclusively, demonstrates the Defendant s rights to have legal representation present for this appearance. There are no Constitutional laws, in Colorado, or in the US depriving, or barring the Defendant from assigning bona fide legal representation, under a Certified Affidavit, to meet the requirements of having made a lawful appearance. This Affidavit was lawfully filed and registered with the Clerk of Court before the hearing. The authorized agent for the Defendant is not required to be an attorney, a member of the Colorado Bar, or a practitioner of the Law. There are no Colorado Constitutional Laws requiring a license to be an authorized agent for any litigant. E). Mr. Reed s falsified testimony under Oath. BRIEF: This exhibit is self-revealing, and self-evident, with the possible exception of Mr. Reed s comment, Furthermore, the high content of manganese (Mn) in all of these (generally in the 3% to 6% range) CLEARLY show that these are ALL man-made alloys. What Mr. Reed fails to understand, as an suma cum laude graduate in geology, with minors in math, and physics from Fort Lewis College, is that, Manganese (Mn), like Gold (Au), Platinum (Pt), and other heavy elements, by all modern means, methods, standards, and criteria, is an element heavier than iron (Fe), and could have, only, been created in the processes of a supernova. Mr. Reed needs to understand, as well, that a supernova is NOT a terrestrial event, and a supernova is not a man-made event!!! 14

15 This exhibit reveals, as well, Mr. Reed s capacity to contradict himself, where he states he had nothing to do with Mr. Curry being terminated by ebay, yet, he admits to submitting data to Team Ebay! Mr. Reed appears unable to recognize his lies, and simply creates a new lie, to cover up the previous one. If anyone was deserving of the title of delusional, this title would have to go to Mr. Reed! F). Mr. Geller s false credentials as an expert witness BRIEF: At the very end of the trial, and after all time had expired for the presentation of evidence, and testimony, Judge Henderson, with egregious prejudice against the Defendant, allowed Mr. Bruce Geller, of the Colorado School of Mines, to influence the sentencing, by presenting an , which had purported threats against Mr. Geller. This document was dated October 12, 2011, yet, Judge Henderson thought it was a recent , where he stated, Oh, Dear! What Mr. Henderson did not allow, was the full content of this string, where Mr. Geller states, in writing, I am not a meteorite expert!, and, that; Ni is a key component to all things meteoritic! Had the full content of this conversation between Mr. Curry and Mr. Geller, been presented to the jury, and not intentionally suppressed, the jury would have asked that all of Mr. Geller s testimony under Oath be stricken, or that, Mr. Geller be held to answer for his perjurious testimony. Either way, the jury would have had only one choice, and that would have been to acquit Mr. Curry on all charges. G). XRF Spectrace Analysis provided by Colorado Mesa University Chemistry Professor, Tim Andrea; BRIEF: Before Mr. Curry was banned by the President of the University, Dr. Tim Foster, the State Attorney General, and by the GJPD, from accessing lab equipment, and analytic assistance, in the Chemistry, and Biology Departments of his Alma Mater, Colorado Mesa University, Mr. Curry was able to have Professor Tim Andrea, complete several independent XRF Spectrace Analysis of the iron meteorite in question. This exhibit is just one of many scientific documents, demonstrating that Mr. Curry s Plessitic Octahedrite Iron Meteorite contains the required extraterrestrial elements and percentages to qualify as meteoritic, by all scientific means, standards, methods, protocols, and criteria. I). George Chesney s XRF Spectrometer Analysis of identically paired specimens to that of the 6.5 gram specimen presented as evidence at trial. BRIEF: All three convictions of Theft, Criminal Simulation, and Fraud Effecting Sales, levied by the jury, and the Court, involved a single, 6.5 gram iron meteorite, which Mr. Reed, Mr. Geller, and others, contested, and testified could not possibly be meteoritic, due to the fact, that (they) had found no nickel, or that, (they) found too little nickel. Mr. Reed also testified that he had chosen the specimen out of Mr. Curry s collection at his Grand Junction dealer, Main Street Minerals & Beads, so that, (he) would have a specimen large enough to analyze. Mr. Reed could have purchased a 1.5 gram 15

16 specimen for $150.00, and this would have been large enough for any analysis, as this exhibit, and Exhibit #H shows. Mr. Reed needed to make a purchase for over $500.00, so he chose the 6.5 gram specimen, with the criminal intent of setting up Mr. Curry for a misdemeanor, and he, in conspiracy with his wife, his brother, and others, used his wife s credit card to further cloak his purchase, and conceal his personal involvement, and his criminal intent to defraud Mr. Curry. Mr. Reed has admitted to this criminal conspiracy, trespass, mischief, and intrigue, in his own writings, and responses, to the Montrose County District Court in early Mr. Reed testified, in writing, that, (he) used an XRF analyzer that would detect man-made mineral s alloys, only, and that, (his) machine does not analyze meteorites in the same way. In Mr. Reed s Curlyqp string of 12/2010, Mr. Reed states, This machine can easily tell the difference between a Lunar meteorite and other meteorites. This exhibit demonstrates well beyond any reasonable doubt the presence of Nickel (Ni), an extraterrestrial element, not found in terrestrial rock, and found in much smaller, identically paired specimens, which were found in the very same impact crater. Where Judge Henderson commented on 01/28/2014, that, All of this has been over a rock! the Defendant would argue, that the 6.5 gram rock, used in evidence at trial, represents 82lbs of a plessitic octahedrite iron meteorite, estimated to be worth, noless-than, $3.8 Million in an open and free market! As to the criminal simulation charge, and the identical charge of fraud effecting sales, trumped up by Officer Petrowski, the term Plessitic is defined by many experts, including expert meteoriticist, Fred Hoyle, as Fill-Iron! Had the jury been permitted to review this exhibit, the jury would have returned with a full acquittal of the charges against Mr. Curry, and they may have recommended to the Court, that Mr. Reed be held for all charges, including several counts of perjury, which Mr. Curry has filed against him. J). Elemental Chemistries of Lunar meteorites provided by Lunar & Planetary Sciences; BRIEF: Both Mr. Reed, and Mr. Geller, repeatedly, and without exception, testified under Oath, that Mr. Curry s specimens are terrestrial, and that, without Nickel (Ni), a specimen cannot be meteoritic. This exhibit, when reviewed with Exhibit s #I, and #H, will conclusively demonstrate the presence of Nickel (Ni) and other key elements, along with their relative percentages, that Mr. Curry s specimens and findings are a dead-on match to previous analyzed, and previously classified Lunar meteorites. Had the Court allowed this evidence to be admitted, and shown to the jury, the jury would have had no choice but acquit Mr. Curry of all charges. H). Mr. Curry s Elemental Chemistries of his Lunar meteorites provided by George Chesney. 16

17 BRIEF: Although Mr. Curry is capable of producing his own scientific evidence to support his findings, he recognizes the importance of scientific procedure, peer review, and the value of independant analyses. For this reason, Mr. Curry requested the help of Mr. George Chesney, a well respected veteran of 40+ years in the mining industry. Mr. Chesney possesses a hand-held XRF Spectrometer, a marvelous tool to assist him to field and lab chemical analysis. Mr. Chesney s XRF, unlike that of Mr. Reed s, and the Colorado School of Mines, does not contain a Man-made Mineral Alloys Library, and Mr. Chesney analyzer is open to calibration to detect and display all chemical elements within a specimen, without discrimination. Mr. Chesney s analyzer does have the digital & electronic ability to detect and display NON-made-made mineral alloys, a.k.a. extraterrestrial elements, as in Nickel (Ni), Chromium (Cr), Gold (Au), Platinum (Pt), and other extraterrestial elements, while the analyzers used by Mr. Reed, and the Colorado School of Mines, cannot! To further clarify, Mr. Reed s, and Mr. Geller s analyzers, CANNOT detect, nor will they display, any elements, unless they are recognized by their internal libraries, as terrestrial man-made mineral alloys, and every specimen, even if is a genuine meteorite, or tree bark, analyzed by either of these two instruments of forgery, will display them as man-made mineral alloys! I). Mr. Curry s Meteorite Brochure used in his seminars; BRIEF: Had this exhibit been presented to the jury, the jury would have come to two conclusions. 1). Mr. Curry should have been endorsed as his own expert witness, and that; 2). Mr. Curry is certainly knowledgeable of his craft & trade, and well equipped to offer scientific evidence, and conclusions, in his seminars, and to any jury, as well. This exhibit, when reviewed with Exhibit #J, demonstrates Mr. Reed s continuing pattern of disception, and his capacity for falsifying information, and concealing his true intentions of obstructing Mr. Curry s trade and craft. J). Mr. Blake Reed s s of Mr. Blaine Reed s confirmations of Mr. Curry s findings of Montrose s first meteorite; BRIEF: Mr. Reed, and his brother, have, through many channels and venues, including testimonies under Oath, testified that, all of Mr. Curry s specimens are terrestrial, yet, in these exhibits, both Blaine and Blake are confirming Mr. Curry s findings. Given this declaration was proffered before Mr. Curry s first alleged arrest on January 26, 2012, and that since this date, both Blaine Reed, and Blake Reed, have redacted, retracted, or ignored these written statements. With these exhibits in evidence, and their written assessments and confirmations having been declared, all testimony after this/these facts, whether in the video record, discovery items, and/or court testimony, should be considered criminally perjurious. Pursuant to C.R.C.P. Rule 35 (a)(2)(v), this court is obligated to arrest the verdict from the jury, and to grant Mr. Curry a full, and complete acquittal on all charges. K). Mr. Reed s GJPD Interview of 12/07/2011; (DVD); 17

18 BRIEF: Many copies of this Tell-All Interview, are currently in Discovery and Evidence with this Court, the Mesa County District Attorney, the Montrose County District Attorney, the Montrose County Combined Courts, and others. The evidence contained, herein, is self-revealing, and self-evident, as to Mr. Reed s perjury, conspiracy & confederacy with others, trafficking, antitrust, racketeering, criminal mischief, criminal trespass, fraud, extortion, bribery, and a host of other criminal acts against Mr. Curry. Furthermore, this exhibit shows, conclusively, Officer Petrowski proposing to Mr. Reed, that, had he spent another $400.00, he could have gotten Mr. Curry on a felony. Mr. Reed giggled, and replied, Had I thought about it, I would have happily ponied up another $400.00! At the very end of this interview, which had to have been the last of several previous, and unrecorded interviews of Mr. Reed, this video record clearly shows Mr. Reed soliciting a bribe to Officer Petrowski. Petrowski, of course, declines the offer, yet, the solicitation of a bribe was made! There can be no question, whatsoever, why this evidence was termed inadmissable, and subsequently suppressed from Mr. Curry until one day before the trial, by his own attorney, and kept from the jury. The jury, had they reviewed this video record, would have, without question, acquitted Mr. Curry of all charges filed by Reed, the Grand Junction Police Department, and the Mesa County District Attorney, in their representation of the People. Having reviewed this video record, and coupled with the facts and evidence, that the Summons, a.k.a. Traffic Citation, authored on October 1, 2014, and executed upon Mr. Curry on January 26, 2012, had expired 30 days earlier, Deputy District Attorney, Danielle Lewis, issued a Declaration, and Notice, that she was proceeding towards a dismissal of the charges against Mr. Curry. This Notice was never acted upon by Mr. Curry s defense counsel, and it has been filed numerous times as an exhibit over the past year, during Mr. Curry s Appeals process. No action has EVER been taken on the expired summons, or this Declaration, and these omissions are considered especially egregious infractions, and violations, of Mr. Curry s Rights to Due Process. CONCLUSIONS OF EXHIBITS 1). Mr. Curry has NEVER committed a crime, nor has he EVER been allowed his day in court, and the promises by the court to award him his day in court, even in writing, cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be taken seriously, or as a Good Faith gesture; particularly, when there are serious questions regarding the validity, standing, and authenticity, of Oaths & Bonds of the court s officers. 2). Again, each of these exhibits, and the material, exculpatory, and impeaching evidence, held herein, and pursuant C.R.C.P. Rule #35 (a)(2)(v), Mr. Curry urges the court to arrest the verdict from the jury, and to grant him a full, and complete acquittal of all charges, including those currently on the docket of this court, as they are directly linked to Mr. Reed s criminal activity against Mr. Curry, before the trial, during the trial, 18

19 the sentencing hearing, the appeals process, and all other documented criminal acts against Mr. Curry to the present time. 3). 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). 4). 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). 19

20 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 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: / / 20