Petitioner's Reply To Objection To Writ Of Certiorari

Case No. 03SC114

PETITIONER'S REPLY TO OBJECTION TO WRIT OF CERTIORARI


Aggrieved Petitioner, Richard Stanley, hereinafter known
as Rick Stanley, without assistance of counsel, submits this
Petitioner's Reply to Objection to Writ of Certiorari 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)
1. The City Attorney for the City and County of Denver would have
the court believe that Stanley has no grounds for Writ of Certiorari,
and cited C.A.R. 53 as the reasons.
2. Petitioner submitted the Writ of Certiorari to the pleading
standard described in Haines v. Kerner, 404U.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 Defendant's pleadings as outlined in
Platsty 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). Although the COURT has not notified Petitioner of any deficiencies
as outlined by the City Attorney, Petitioner will correct the alleged
jurisdiction issue here.
This court has jurisdiction to review the opinion by the District Court
of Denver, Colorado on appeal from the Municipal/County Court of the
City and County of Denver, Colorado pursuant to CRS 13-6-310 and C.A.R.
49 (A) (1) and (4). The District Court of Appeal's opinion issued on
January 13, 2003. The Writ of Certiorari was due on February 12, 2003,
and was so presented.
3. The City Attorney points out that the District Court did not
reach the merits of Petitioner's claim and that the order dismissed the
Petitioner's appeal from the Denver County Court for failure to
prosecute the appeal.
4. The City Attorney and the Denver District Court IGNORED
Stanley's pleadings in the case and NEVER addressed any issue Stanley
brought to the court. These issues are listed as below:
A. Petition to Show Cause Why Judgment is Not Void time stamped
Denver District Court 2 October 11th 10:52AM.
B. Defendant's Response to Order to Show Cause time stamped Denver
District Court 03 January 6th 3:10PM.
C. Response to Motion to Strike NOA and to Dismiss Case for Failure
to Prosecute time stamped Denver District Court 04 January 15th 1:42PM.
D. Motion for Default Judgment time stamped Denver District Court 04
January 15th 1:44PM.
E. Affidavit in Support of Default Judgment time stamped Denver
District Court 04 January 15th 1:47PM.
Rule 49 (A) (4) of Colorado Appellate Rules clearly applies in this
case. It appears that the District Court and the City Attorney did not
want to respond to Defendant's pleadings, so they ignored them, and are
now saying that "the only issued ruled upon by the Denver District Court
was whether the petitioner had properly prosecuted his Denver Court
appeal. None of these issues presented for review dispute the
correctness Denver District Court's order." This entire argument is
judicial fraud of the highest order and is reason enough to grant
Petitioner's Writ of Certiorari. The pleading standard in paragraph 2
also would point to a court, that did not allow Defendant's pleadings
in any matter of deficiency, to be explained to Defendant by the court,
which is another appeal reason.
Petitioner pointed out in the Writ of Certiorari just a few
reasons to grant the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, because of court
imposed twelve page maximum brief restrictions. Petitioner has dozens
of related reasons to grant the Writ of Certiorari, but wanted the
Colorado State Supreme Court to see the major compelling reason to grant
this Writ of Certiorari. The Denver District Court refused to even
start the process, thereby denying Defendant due process of law. To use
that argument now against Petitioner would be a terrible distortion of
legal principles to prevent due process of law. Since the beginning of
this case, the Petitioner has been denied access to the only defense
against an unconstitutional ordinance: the Constitution itself. When
the Defendant can not use the supreme law of the state, or the land, to
defend himself against fraudulent unconstitutional ordinances, justice
and due process of law are ignored, and are a breach of judiciary
contract with the people, to defend the constitutional rights of those
citizens brought to the court, at the point of twenty government guns.
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the Petitioner respectfully
requests that the OBJECTION TO WRIT OF CERTIORARI be denied and the Writ
of Certiorari be granted.



Respectfully submitted,



___________________________________

Rick Stanley




CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the following Petitioner's Reply to Objection to
Writ of Certiorari was delivered this ______ day of March, 2003, by
placing the same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, addressed to:



__________________________________

Rick Stanley






J. Wallace Wortham, Jr. No. 5969
City Attorney
James C. Thomas, No. 13583
Paul W. Pockett, No. 5885
Assistant City Attorneys
City and County of Denver
201 W. Colfax Ave. Dept. 1207
Denver, Colorado 80202

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

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