IN RE Outlaw Caveman Lawyer Billy Bob Bramscher, esq.: Judge Johnny C. Barajas is a CROOK who on November 15, 2006 admitted to driving while impaired as reported by The Denver Channel. Barajas practiced in court room 3H and was handling two (2) criminal cases in which I am the defendant. CASE I Rock Bar 10GS213460 - TRIAL 10/08/14 - Trial to Court CASE II River Rock 14GS000200 - TRIAL 11/08/14 - Jury Trial Rock Bar I did plead NOT GUILTY also on 01/31/14 and although I did submit REQ TO WAIVE JURY FEE and DEF SUBMITTED PROOF OF INCOME I lost my right to a JURY TRIAL for this case... After further investigation into River Rock 14GS000200 I have uncovered the following information that proves-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt that I am a VICTIM of a MALICIOUS and VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION via Vincent A. DiCroce, No. 23157 and Megan Jones, No. 40197 Assistant City Attorneys in CONSPIRACY with Dishonorable Judge Johnny C. Barajas!!! 1) The MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CASE DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE submitted by Vinny and Megs on 04/25/14, as documented, fails to grant JURISDICTION to any court whereas this case was DISMISSED on 02/11/14 and the Assistant City Attorneys failed to meet the strict timeliness required under State/Federal Statue and Law. 2) The MOTION begins, Consistent with Colorado Municipal Court Rule 212, the City and County of Denver, by and through the undersigned attorney, moves this honorable Court to reconsider its dismissal without prejudice of the above action, and as grounds for this motion states... Colorado Court Rule 212 is a RULE for Pleadings and Motions Before Trial concerning only Pleadings and Motions, Oral or Written Motions, Defenses and Objections Which May be Raised, Defenses and Objections Which Must Be Raised, Time for Making Motion, Hearing on Motion and Effect of Determination. Colorado Court Rule 212 is NOT APPLICABLE to this case showing how incompetent the Denver, Colorado, City Attorneys Office is as well as the Judge whereas this COURT has NO Jurisdiction!!! *CR 59(a) applies not only to new trials, but to reconsideration of any other decision or order. The rule lists nine specific causes, one of which must be found to justify reconsideration. The cause must materially affect the substantial rights of such parties. 3) JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL and/or EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL Originally I was falsely charged with three (3) offenses including DISTURBANCE VIA PHONE, THREATS TO INJURE PERSON/PROPERTY and TRESPASS. Currently, the charge of TRESPASS has been completely removed YET the City Attorneys are prohibited from DELIBERATELY CHANGING POSITIONS according to the exigencies of the moment. The Citys CURRENT position, therefore, is clearly inconsistent with its earlier position!!! Aloha... ~Gonzo journalist Billy bob Bramscher ~BbB~ The Denver Press Club #Colorado #Justice #CivilRights #HumanRights #Law #Freedom #LOVE #LonesomeLozer #Billyrella
Posted on: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 19:14:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015