Affidavit in Support of Default Judgement for Denver AppealDenver County District Court
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
6280 E. 39th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80207
Tr: 01GS 606306
Affidavit in Support of Default Judgment
Aggrieved Defendant, Rick Stanley, without assistance of counsel, submits this Affidavit in Support of Default Judgment 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. 773 F.2d 1138, 1140 (10th Cir. 1985)(1).
State of Colorado )
Denver County )
I, Rick Stanley, has personal knowledge of the actual facts and being competent to testify, being of lawful age, state under oath the following facts:
1. I mailed a copy of the Petition To Show Cause Why Judgment Is Not Void that was filed with the court on October 11, 2002, with service to the Respondents to 303 West Colfax Avenue, Denver, Colorado.
2. I did not get a return of the Petition To Show Cause Why Judgment Is Not Void to the Stanley from the Post Office.
3. The D.A.'s Receptionist, accepted service of the Petition To Show Cause
Why Judgment Is Not Void with said pleading identified as trial court case number
01GS606306, district court number 02CV6187.
4. I have not received a "verified" answer to or other affirmative "verified" response to the Petition To Show Cause Why Judgment Is Not Void as required by C.R.C.P. Rule 7 from Respondents Puckett and/or Thomas or the Court.
5. I do not consent to the acceptance of the Motion To Strike Notice of Appeals and To
Dismiss Case For Failure To Prosecute as a substitute for an answer or to otherwise plead response pursuant to R.C.P. Rule 7 respectfully with regard to the Petition To Show Cause Why Judgment Is Not Void.
6. According to the Law Dictionary 4th Edition by Steven H, Gifis, p. 370 "a formal
written request or prayer for a certain thing to be done". 104 S.W. 1009, 1010. As
related to equity procedure, the petition is the functional equivalent of a complaint at
law. It "connotes an application in writing addressed to a court or judge, stating facts
and circumstances relied upon as a cause for judicial action, and containing a prayer
[formal request] for relief". 110 S.E. 2d 909, 911.
7. Rule 8 of C. R.C.P. states "Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of damage, are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading. Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted but not required shall be taken as denied or avoided if no responsive pleading is filed," a denial of procedural due process and equal protection of the law.
8. Respondent's failed to deny or avoid to the averments in the Petition To Show Cause Why Judgment Is Not Void under C.R.C.P. Rule 8(d), a denial of due process and equal protection of the law.
9. I do have in my possession an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE response from the Court
ordering me to Show Cause why case number 01CV6187 should not be dismissed for
failure to prosecute.
10. I filed my response to the ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE with the Court on January 6, 2003.
11. I do not consent to acceptance of the ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as a response
from the Court with regards to the Petition To Show Cause Why Judgment Is Not Void
12. I have been "injured in fact" which stems from a controversy in conflict and with the Second Amendment in the organic Bill of Rights of 1791 and Colorado's Bill of Rights, Article 2, § 13 and the of City Ordinance 38-117(b) when arrested by the Denver Police Department on December 16, 2001 and the taking on my gun without a Fourth Amendment Warrant and Affidavit in support defining probable cause, (Colorado Constitution, Article 2, § 7), a denial of due process and equal protection of the law.
13. I have been "injured in fact" and meet the two-step standing test announced in Wimberly v Ettenberg, 570 P.2d. 535, 539 (Colo. 1977). I have invoked the constitutional requirement of "standing".
14. I have in my possession Respondents Puckett and/or Thomas's filed false official document that this Court and others are to rely upon signed knowingly and willfully to be false and presented to the Court under C.R.C.P. 11.
And further I saith not.
Dated this 15h day of January, 2003.
Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State on this 15th day of January, 2003, personally appeared Rick Stanley 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.
________________________ My commission expires __________________
Email Rick Stanley at