 |
|
Thornton Gun Case Petition to Show Cause Jurisdiction
Thornton Municipal Court
9500 Civic Center Drive
Thornton, Colorado 80229-4326
303-538-7285
Re: Case # CR-2002-0006386-MS (ticket number 6006970)
Thornton, A Municipal Corporation
Plaintiff
vs.
Rick Stanley
Defendant
Rick Stanley
6280 E. 39th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80207
Phone number: 303-329-0481
________________________________________________________________________
Petition to Show Cause Where This Court Has Jurisdiction
Aggrieved Plaintiff, Rick Stanley, without assistance of counsel, submits this
Petition to Show Cause Where This Court has Jurisdiction to the pleading standard
described in
Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S. 519-421 (See Hall v Bellmon 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir.
06/03/1991) and relies on the Court to explain any deficiency concerning Plaintiff’s
pleadings as
outlined in Platsky v C.I.A. 953 F.2d. 25. Additionally, pro se litigants are
to be given reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings.
Reynoldson v Shillinger 907
F.2d 124, 126 (10th Cir. 1990); See also Jaxon v Circle K. Corp. 773F.2d 1138,
1140 (10th Cir. 1985) (1).
This matter having come before this court under the duress of Rick Stanley,
Defendant, Petition’s this court to show cause, where it has jurisdiction
by providing to alleged
Defendant the nature of the controversy whether he is under the Constitution
for the United States or the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Charter –
“the Fund”, “The Bank”, a
jurisdiction foreign and unknown to the organic Constitution for the united
States of 1789. Points in controversy are:
1. Whether the jurisdiction of this municipal court is under admiralty, martial
law, criminal law, a civil law, or a suit to unlawfully collect money and remove
property from
Defendant under fraud upon the court.
2. If there is a fine to be discharged, is it to be paid with United States Currency or Federal Reserve Notes.
3. Whether the City of Thornton, a Municipal Corporation, has subject matter jurisdiction in contradiction to the Colorado Constitution of 1876.
Affidavit of Rick Stanley
1. Rick Stanley, hereinafter referred to, as “Rick Stanley”, is
a Colorado inhabitant of the state of Colorado who is being deprived of his
property, money and his
right to own personal property free from government interference.
2. Officer Joseph Dougherty – arresting officer, an individual, and Charles
Rose, Thornton municipal judge, all in dividuals, have conspired to advance
writings
known to be fraudulent, without Constitutional authority under the Constitution
for the united States or the organic Colorado constitution of 1876 relieving
this court of subject matter
jurisdiction.
3. Whether Officer Joseph Dougherty, an individual, and Judge Charles Rose,
are the people of Colorado in the complaint is not clearly defined and is contradictory
to the expert witness standard Rules of Evidence 702.
4. Officer Joseph Dougherty, an individual, and Judge Charles Rose, continue
to promote and sign knowingly false papers to fraudulently deprive Defendant
of his
property.
5. That Rick Stanley is a sovereign Citizen of Colorado, which is a legal standing
specified in Article IV, Section 2, clause 1 of the federal Constitution, ratified
in
1789.
6. That I am not now nor have I ever knowingly agreed to be, a “United
States citizen subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” as created by the
Fourteenth Amendment
to the federal Constitution. I hereby dissolve, revoke and terminate any implied
contracts between myself and any corporate entities, including and especially
the corporate fiction that
bears my name, which was created without my knowledge or permission.
7. That Article III, Section 2 of the federal Constitution grants the Supreme
Court and other inferior courts the privilege of hearing cases in common law,
equity law,
and admiralty/maritime jurisdictions.
8. That the Fifth Amendment enumerates and prohibits the government from “depriving
me of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” As a sovereign
state Citizen, due process includes the right of trial by jury in common law
jurisdiction prior to any attempt at adjudication in an admiralty or maritime
jurisdiction.
9. That this court is merely and administrative tribunal authorized by Article
I, Section 8, clause 10 of the federal Constitution, with no legal authority
over anyone
except those who have volunteered to be Fourteenth Amendment federal citizens.
10. That all of the pronouncements of this court are mutable by my will, and
I hereby declare this and all subsequent demands for my appearance to be a violation
of
my Constitutionally protected rights, granted to me by my Creator.
11. That all elected officers of this court have taken an oath of office to
protect and defend the Constitution, and by implication, have sworn to protect
my inherent
rights. That by allowing the fraud perpetrated by the 1933 House Joint Resolution
192 to persist to this day, and by not having the courtesy to inform me of this
gross violation of my
rights, this court has committed an act of perjury.
12. That these proceedings are immediately under formal appeal, and will be contested on the grounds of fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
Point 1
Whether this is admiralty, martial law, a criminal suit, a civil suit or a
suit to unlawfully collect money and remove property from Defendant under fraud
upon the court
outside the provisions of Colorado’s Bill of Rights.
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, PARAGRAPH 1:
“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no
new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State;
nor any State be formed by
the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States without the consent of
the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as the Congress.”
Thornton, A Municipal Corporation, denotes an entity that can neither sue or
be sued. The structure of the charter violates the above article of the united
States Constitution when a
corporation superimposes its corporate charter over the rights guaranteed to
the people promotes a state within a state outside of the both constitutions.
The court held in Howard v
Commissioners, 344 U.S. 624 (1953) “…a state may conform its municipal
structures to its own plan, so long as the state does interfere with the exercise
of jurisdiction within the
federal area by the United States {Corporate State of Colorado}.” ***
“the fiction of a state within a state can have no validity to prevent
the state from exercising its power over the
federal area within its boundaries so long as there is no interference with
the jurisdiction asserted by the Federal government {State of Colorado, Inc.}.
The sovereign rights in this dual
relationship are not antagonistic. Accommodation and cooperation are their aim
. It is friction, not fiction to which we must give heed.”
The united States Constitution Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 1 “does
not exempt a portion of the state from the provisions of the constitution and
general laws of the state, and
is not obnoxious to this section which requires the constitution to be republican
in form and not repugnant to the constitution of the United States. People ex
rel. Elder v. Sours, 31 Colo. 369, 74 P. 167 (1903); People ex rel. Miller v.
Johnson, 34 Colo. 143, 86 P. 233 (1905).”
The organic Colorado Constitution of 1876 supports Article IV, Sec. 3, Cl.1
of the Constitution for the united States herein as stated in Colorado's Enabling
Act at § 4 insuring a
republican form of government. City and County of Denver v Sweet, 138 Colo.
41,329 P.2d 441 (1958).
§ 4. Constitutional convention - requirements of constitution, that the
members of the convention thus elected shall declare, on behalf of the people
of said territory that they adopt
the constitution of the United States; whereupon the said convention shall be
and is hereby authorized to form a constitution and state government for said
territory; provided, that the
constitution shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or
political rights on account of race or color, except Indians not taxed, and
not be repugnant to the constitution
of the United States and the principles of the declaration of independence;
and, provided further, that said convention shall provide by an ordinance irrevocable
without the consent of
the United States and the people of said state.”
The city needs to explain what jurisdiction "We the people" are
under. Whether this municipal court is operating under martial law, admiralty,
criminal law, civil law, or a suit to
unlawfully collect money and remove property from Defendant under fraud upon
the court outside the provisions of Colorado's Bill of Rights. See Article XX,
Sec. 6 (h) " any act in
violation of the provisions of such charter or of any ordinance there under
shall be criminal and punishable as such when so provided by any statute now
or hereafter in force. "
The city complaint starts with contradiction reading officer Joseph Dougherty
as the complainant “that “He” has reasonable grounds”
reads like a criminal warrant “against the peace and dignity of the people
of Colorado”. The people of Colorado must be unsure of their gender identity.
"Jurisdiction, once challenged cannot be 'assumed' it must be proved to
exist".
Stuck v Medical Examiners, 94 Ca2d. 751, 211 P2d 389.
Summary
Felony crimes are ones that shock the consciousness of humanity owning property
is not a felony under the Constitution for the united States of America. No
corporate charter
can make owning property a felony.
Point 2
If there is a fine is to be paid with United States Currency or Federal Reserve Notes.
If this court is under the united States Constitution then a demand of money
under the united States Constitution is authorized. A demand for Federal Reserve
notes in payment
of fine is not under correct jurisdiction or authority for collection stripping
this court of jurisdiction and authority over the subject or the person. (See
C.R.S. 11-60-1101) "No sanction
can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction" Stanard v Olesen, 74 S.Ct.
7681.
This court cannot impose collection of Federal Reserve Notes in contradiction
of the united States Constitution. Corporate Charter, Corporate money or corporate
law has no
jurisdiction to impose legal authority upon an individual under the Constitution
for the united States of America.
Point 3
Whether the City of Thornton, a Municipal Corporation has subject matter jurisdiction In contradiction to the Colorado Constitution.
There is a clear pattern of uniformity in all laws passed. On the state level,
all fifty legislatures appear to become simultaneously concerned about solving
a particular problem in an
identical fashion. On the local level, the same thing happens in thousands of
City Halls and County Seats. The press never publicizes this strange coincidence,
thereby it is rarely
questioned by the public. Unknown to most of the public, all our laws are written
by the Uniform Commission on State Law, also known as the Advisory Commission
on
Intergovernmental Relations. (ACIR). Petitioner questions the exact jurisdiction
and authority of this court to demand compliance of petitioner in this action.
SUMMARY
Where the exact jurisdiction is uncertain all proceedings must come to a halt
in order for the court to show where and under what law the proceedings are
being held. To date
all the proceedings within the corporate charter violates the judicial oath
of office under the united States Constitution and the professional code of
responsibility. Citizens are allowed to
own property without government interference.
CONCLUSION
The law itself speaks for the Defendant. There being no expert witness under
rule 702 in a criminal action, violating a corporate charter establishes no
subject matter jurisdiction under
the Constitution of the State of Colorado or for the united States. Further
loss of jurisdiction becomes established while attempting to collect money foreign
to either constitution. Not
at anytime has there been a constitutional provision for Federal Reserve Notes.
The proper authority and jurisdiction would be to dismiss this action with
damages awarded to Rick Stanley has no correct jurisdiction was at any time
established. This Court held in
Arvada 1st Industrial Bank v Hutchinson, No. 99CA0876 (Colo. App. 9/28/2000),
“A judgment is void if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction
over the subject matter or the
parties or the procedure followed in entering it violated the party's due process
rights." See Mason-Jares, Ltd. v Peterson, 939 P.2d. 522 (Colo. App. 1997);
King v Everett,
775 P.2d. 65 (Colo. App. 1989).
III. At all times, dealing with all those I have named, it is clear to me that
all of them were part of an enterprise which had no sense of morality, decency,
fair play, or ethics
whatsoever. All openly and arrogantly proclaim they to be false actors operating
outside the law.
The damages to my property and business interests is at least five-hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00).
____________________________
Rick Stanley
Individual Acknowledgment
State of Colorado )
)ssCounty of Thornton )
Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State
on this ____ day of ________, 2002, personally appeared _________________ to
me known
to be the identical person who executed the within and foregoing instrument
and acknowledged to me that he executed the same as his free and voluntary act.
Given under my hand and seal the day and year last above written.
________________________
Notary Public
My commission expires ______________
SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 3rd Day of December, 2002, that a true and correct
copy of the Petition to Show Cause Where This Court has Jurisdiction was hand
carried
and delivered to the following:
Melissa Barnett
City Attorney for the City of Thornton
Thornton Municipal Court
9500 Civic Center Drive
Thornton, CO 80229-4326
_______________________
Server Date
|
Email Rick Stanley at rick@stanley2002.org |