Response To Objection To Defendants Motion To Vacate

______________________________________________________

RICHARD (RICK) STANLEY,
Defendant.

v.

THE CITY OF DENVER, COLORADO,

Plaintiffs.

Party without Attorney
Richard (Rick) Stanley
6280 E. 39th Ave.
Denver, Colorado 80207
Phone number: (303) 329-0481
Fax number: (303) 329-0498

Case No. 01GS606306

Division: General Sessions

Courtroom: 151P

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT?S MOTION TO VACATE

Aggrieved Defendant, Richard Stanley, hereinafter known as Rick Stanley, without assistance of counsel, submits this RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT?S MOTION TO VACATE 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 Petitioner?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 907F .2d 124, 126 (10th Cir. 1990); See also Jaxon v Circle K. Corp. 773 F.2d 1138, 1140 (10th Cir. 1985) (1)

In Section 15 of the City?s objection to Defendant?s Motion to Vacate, it said: ?the Colorado Court of Appeals is without jurisdiction to review decisions of the Colorado Supreme Court.? The Colorado Supreme Court did not ?hear? Stanley?s case, this case has always been a lawful appeal, and still is a lawful appeal, now to the Colorado Court of Appeals. This attempt by the City and its? court to ramrod a decision on whether or not the Colorado Court of Appeals has jurisdiction, through their own minor court, is indefensible judicial arrogance. The Writ of Certiorari has been denied, with that the Colorado Supreme Court has failed to hear the case and the proper venue is the Colorado Court of Appeals. All appeal procedures have been followed. All appeal fees have been paid. The case is rightfully where it belongs at the Colorado Court of Appeals, because it has been filed according to the Colorado Rules of Procedure, and Stanley has the right for the case to be heard. If the Colorado Court of Appeals fails to do it?s constitutional duty and vacate the lower courts decisions, the case will be lawfully filed in the Federal District Court of Appeals.

Regarding Section 18 of the City?s objection, it says: ?the Court of Appeals has not issued a Stay of proceedings in this matter. The Stay issued by the Colorado Supreme Court expired upon the issuance of the Order denying the Petition for Writ of Certiorari.? Stanley had 45 days per the Colorado Rules of Procedure to file in another appellate court of appeals. Stanley did so. The original Stay of Execution upon Stanley?s filing an appeal from the original Denver City and County court decision is still in effect and bonded by a $2,500.00 bond. The Colorado Court of Appeals is not required to stay the execution while on appeal because the appeal has been bonded since the payment of said $2,500.00 bond, and the Stay is in effect. While Stanley was threatened with a Stay of Execution being pulled by the lower court by Judge Patterson, the Stay of Execution remains in effect to this day and the appeal bond protects that Stay of Execution. Judge Patterson effectively ?tricked? Defendant, into asking for and receiving a 2nd stay of execution from the Colorado Supreme Court, when it was not needed. Once again, the Stay of Execution has been in effect since the sentencing date of the original court, secured by the $2,500.00 bond paid by Stanley. This remains in effect until Stanley ends the appeal process, not the court. When one court refuses to hear a case on appeal, the appeal process is still open to defendant. The appeal has been bonded from the sentence, the appeal has moved from court to court, with all appeal fees being paid in a timely and lawful manner, and yet the City and the lower court continue to harass Stanley.

The Denver County Court does not have jurisdiction while this case is on appeal. This court has been furnished all of the documentation of same.

The Colorado Court of Appeals has the case at this time. Stanley awaits their decision and all matters from the lower court are vacated due to lack of jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, Rick Stanley submits the City has no jurisdiction while the case continues to be appealed to higher courts, and Stanley?s appellate remedies are not exhausted, and sentence cannot be imposed while an appeal has been paid for and filed with decision yet to be rendered.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________
Rick Stanley

CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT?S MOTION TO VACATE was delivered on this ______day of June, 2003, by placing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to:

__________________________________
Rick Stanley

City and County of Denver Court
Clerk of the County Court
1437 Bannock Street
Denver, Colorado 80202

Office of the City Attorney
James C. Thomas No. 13583
Paul W. Puckett No. 5885
Assistant City Attorneys
201 W. Colfax Ave. Dept. 1207
Denver, Colorado 80202

Judge Robert S. Hyatt
Denver County District Court
1437 Bannock Street
Denver, Colorado 80202

Colorado State Supreme Court
Mac V. Danford, Clerk
2 East Fourteenth Street Suite 401
Denver, Colorado 80203

Colorado Court of Appeals
2 East Fourteenth Street 3rd Floor
Denver, Colorado 80203