Motion for Default Judgement for Denver Gun Appeal-StanleyDenver County District Court
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
6280 E. 39th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80207
Tr: 01GS 606306
Motion for Default Judgment
Aggrieved Defendant, Rick Stanley, without assistance of counsel, submits this Motion for 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).
Aggrieved Petitioner (hereinafter known as Stanley) files this Verified Motion for Default Judgment for reasons as follows:
1. This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and has authority to hear appeals from the
City/County Municipal court forum.
2. Standing is a constitutional requirement with the exercise of the judicial power of
government set forth in the two-step test announced in Wimbery v Ettenberg, 570 P.2d, 535, 539 (Colo. 1977).
3. Stanley has been "injured in fact" and that injury was to a legal right protected by the
Second Amendment in organic Bill of Rights of 1791 and supported in Colorado's constitution
Found at Article 2 §13. The controversy stems from the alleged violation of City Ordinance 17-117(b) which contravenes the guaranteed Rights set forth in the Organic Bill of Rights of 1791 and Colorado's constitution at Article 2, § 13, when Stanley was arrested by the Denver Police Department on December 16, 2001. The two-step procedure of Wimberly, supra has been satisfied with firstly (1), the controversy and, secondly, (2) the "injury in fact", and thirdly, (3) failure of the court and/or the court's officers (Respondents) failure to respond to the Petition to Show Cause Whythe Judgment Is Not Void.
4. Stanley meets the standing issue and does invoke the jurisdiction of this Court
Because standing is subject matter jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged anytime even on appeal. Colorado Dept. of Public Health & Environment v Caulk, 969 P. 2d 804 citing Ajay Sports, Inc. v Casazza, 1 P.3rd 267 (Colo. App. 2000).
5. "Injury in fact requirement, "is derived from the state constitutional limitation on judicial power requiring the presence of an actual controversy, which demonstrates the real injury". Douglas County Board of Comm'rs v Public Utility Commn'n, 829 P.2d 1303, 1309 (Colo. 1992) (citing Colo. Const. Art. VI § 1; Mauer, 779 P.2d at 1323).
6. The ROA states that the Petition to Show Cause Why Judgment Is Not Void was
filed with the court on October 11, 2002, with service to the Respondents to 303 West Colfax Avenue, Denver, Colorado.
7. Post Office did not return the Petition To Show Cause Why Judgment Is Not Void
to the Stanley.
8. The Petition To Show Cause Why Judgment Is Not Void was forwarded to
Respondents Puckett and/or Thomas upon acceptance of service identified as trial curt case number 01GS606306, district court number 02CV6187 by the D.A's Receptionist.
9. Respondent Puckett and/or Thomas, failed to provide an answer or otherwise plead
plead or an affirmative defense to the Petition to Show Cause Why Judgment is not Void as required by C.R.C.P. Rule 7.
10. The Court failed to provide an answer or otherwise to plead or an affirmative defense to the Petition to Show Cause Why Judgment is not Void as required by C.R.C.P. Rule 7.
10. Respondent Puckett and/or Thomas Motion To Strike Notice of Appeals and To
Dismiss Case For Failure To Prosecute is not a substitute for an answer or to otherwise plead pursuant to C.R.C.P. Rule 7 and 11.
11. 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.
12. Rule 8 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."
13. Respondent's failed to deny or avoid to the averments in the Verified Petition to
Show Cause Why Judgment is not Void under C.R.C.P. Rule 8(d).
14. Respondents Puckett and/or Thomas's filed a 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. .
WHEREFORE, Aggrieved Petitioner requests that the court enter the Motion for a
Default Judgment based upon the foregoing facts.
Dated this 15h day of January, 2003.
State of Colorado )
County of Denver )
Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State on this 15h day of January, 2003 personally appeared Rick Stanley known to me 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 __________________
I hereby certify that on this 15h day of January, 2003, that a true and correct copy of the Verified Motion for Entry of Default Judgment with Affidavit in Support was addressed and mailed by first class postage from Denver, Colorado, to the following entity:
James C. Thomas
Paul W. Puckett
Assistant City Attorneys
201 West Colfax Avenue, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80204
Rick Stanley Date
Email Rick Stanley at