Monday, April 17, 2017

The Post Conviction Relief Case, Part IV - The Recast




Well America, the plaintiff, or petitioner in this case (Christopher the living man), has graciously allowed the idiot in charge, Jesse Ramirez, to get his recast of the original complaint against the state.  I have also allowed him an additional 30 days to respond/answer, even though they had 4 big months to answer the first time.  Had the respondent been me, I woulda had my nuts cut off.  But, because the crooks all support each other, I'm sure they'll be allowed to continue.  Here then, is my RECASTED complaint:



I, petitioner, christopher (bruce) the living man, do hereby grant a recast for the purposes of the State to properly “answer” my claim, with these facts stated:

The original petition was established and amended by December 29th, 2016.  According to Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure, and Chapter 822 of the Iowa Code, the state then has 30 days to respond or motion with affidavits (Iowa Code Chapter 822.6, 2015).  No answer or such motion with affidavits were made within the allotted time given by the courts.  When this was not done, and no pre-trial motions were filed, the Plaintiff then asked for summary judgement in the case, as is allowed according to I.R.C.P. and Chapter 822.  This motion was denied the plaintiff by Judge Jeanie Vaudt.  Now, 2 weeks before trial, the court is allowing the State a chance to continue, and have the plaintiff recast his application, even though the application has been on the docket, finally amended, for over 4 months.  Had the answer been the responsibility of the plaintiff, the courts would have denied any such motion even be heard, due to time constraints.  The District Court hereby has erred in its judgement, and such judgement is now public record.

With this said, the Plaintiff hereby recasts the application, according to the wishes of the crooks at the Polk County Attorney’s offices.  Let it be known that, pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 822, the State of Iowa, respondent, FROM THIS DATE FORWARD, has 30 days with which to answer, or file motion with affidavits.  The Plaintiff thereby grants the court to allow for the continuance of this matter for the 30 days stated, in addition to any additional time needed by the prosecutor to better understand the trouble his office is in, and the mess he just inherited.


I.

Conviction or sentence concerning which Postconviction relief is demanded:

A.      Crime and Statute applicant was convicted of violating:   Iowa Code 708.11 (Stalking) and Iowa Code 708.7 (Harassment, 1st Degree).
B.      Criminal Case #FECR292312
C.      District Court and Judge that entered judgment of conviction or sentence:  Judge Robert Blink.
D.      Date of entry of judgment of conviction or sentence:  April 16th, 2016 (Conviction) and May 4th, 2016 (Sentence)
E.       Sentence:  1 year suspended after 60 days served, 2 years of probation.
F.       Place of Confinement:  Polk County (Iowa) jail.
G.     Plea:  Not Guilty
H.      Trial:  Jury
II.

Prior Proceedings:
A.      Conviction of sentence WAS NOT appealed, due to ineffective counsel.
B.      Other petitions, applications or motions relating to this conviction or sentence in any court, state or federal:
1.       Name of Court:  8th District Federal Court, Des Moines, Iowa
2.       Nature of Proceedings:  Habeas Corpus
3.       Grounds Raised:  The Constitutionality of both the conviction and the sentence, judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, unconstitutionally high bails, dismissal of key evidence and witnesses, ineffective council, and denial of the plaintiff’s right to defend himself in his own person.
4.       Result:  Case dismissed during pre-screening, due to “not all state remedies have been exhausted.”
5.       Date of Result:  May 5th, 2016.

III.

Grounds upon which application is based:

A.      The conviction or sentence was in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of this state; and
D.      There exists evidence of material facts, not previously presented and heard, that requires vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice.
F.       The conviction or sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack upon ground(s) of alleged error formerly available under any common law, statutory, or other writ, motion, proceeding, or remedy.

Specific explanation of grounds, and allegation of facts:

A:            Bail was set at $2000 on the date of arrest, then raised to $70,000 the same date, when bail SHOULD HAVE BEEN $9,000.  This was based on the fact that the defendant had “An extensive criminal history” of just two plead to simple misdemeanors and charges of two more, and three more simple misdemeanor convictions, all in a 42 year time span.  This bond was set high on the date of the plaintiff’s arrest, and not lowered until his conviction, neither did “Stand-by” council ever suggest or motion for its lowering.  This high bail, imposed against the plaintiff, was in violation of both the Constitution of the United States (Amendment 8), and the Constitution of the State of Iowa (Article I, Section 17); which states “Excessive Bail shall not be imposed…”  Also in violation of the Constitution, was Judge Kelly’s denial of the plaintiff’s right to defend himself in his own person (without an attorney), pro se.  This is in direct violation of rights for a pro se litigant, provided by the Constitution of the United States of America (Amendment 6); REGARDLESS OF INCARCERATION.
D:            Evidence of a relevant nature was dismissed from the case, and witnesses for the
defendant (the 11 that were not quashed) were asked to leave for two days, and did not return a 3rd.  29 other witnesses (all elected officials and civil servants) were allowed to be quashed from testifying for the defense, the Friday before the Monday of trial, giving the plaintiff no time to recover or re-prepare his defense, and leaving him with essentially no evidence and no witnesses to defend himself with.  Thereby, there exists a PLETHORA of evidence and testimony, not previously presented or heard that requires vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice.
F:            The District Court Judge (Judge Robert Blink) erred, in that he did not issue a promised no contact order between Mark Worthington and Christopher Bruce; when the plaintiff proved, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Mark had been harassing the plaintiff for months.   He erred in threatening the plaintiff with charges of harassment of the opposing attorney in the case.  He erred in not granting a mistrial, after the Des Moines Register libeled the petitioner 1 day before the jury went into deliberations.   Judge Blink also erred against the petitioner by issuing a warrant for his arrest for probation violation, causing him to be arrested AGAIN, even though the plaintiff had repeatedly motioned that he wanted to be revoked and serve the remainder of his sentence.  Finally, Judge Blink is accused of conspiring against the civil rights of the plaintiff at all times.

IV.

Facts supporting application within personal knowledge of applicant:

Already Stated.

V.

The following documents, exhibits, affidavits, records, or other evidence supporting this application are attached to the application:

1.       Order denying pro se rights (Judge Kelly)
2.       County Attorney’s approvals of all charges
3.       Initial appearance for charges
4.       Motion demanding pro se rights
5.       Motion in limine
6.       Order to quash subpoenas and dismiss all evidence (Judge Blink)
7.       Letter to Judge (Blink) asking for reconsideration of sentence.
8.       Order setting reconsideration hearing
9.       Warrant issued by Judge (Blink) to arrest petitioner for probation violation.
10.   Des Moines Register Article
11.   Minutes of Testimony (in this case)

VI.

The following documents, exhibits, affidavits, records, or other evidence supporting this application are NOT attached to the application:

1.       All evidence filed by the plaintiff in criminal case #292312, dismissed by the judge (Blink) the Friday before the Monday of trial, listed in his order to dismiss evidence, filed in this case as an exhibit.

These items are not attached for the following reason(s):

There are over 200 pieces of filed evidence, by the plaintiff, and these are readily available for FOYA, since the case is (supposedly) on the public record, and the evidence was maintained (supposedly) for appeal.

VII.

Relief Desired:

The plaintiff asks that his record be expunged of all convictions and charges brought against the plaintiff in this case.  The plaintiff asks that the decision reached in this petitioner’s case be vacated.  The plaintiff asks for punitive damages, both for each day he was wrongfully incarcerated, and for pain and suffering, due to mental anguish, false imprisonment and vindictive actions taken by the Polk County attorney’s offices and the judges responsible in this case.  Finally, the plaintiff asks the court to relieve the plaintiff of the need to pay the Polk County Jail for room and board fees, or grant him judgment in the form of relief to cover those costs.

VIII.

I, the undersigned applicant, am NOT able to pay court costs and expenses of representation (due to found and ruled indigent status) and do NOT desire to have counsel appointed to represent me concerning this application.  A financial affidavit has been filed in this matter, and the desire to represent himself pro se has been submitted.

VERIFICATION

I, Christopher (Bruce) the living man, being first duly sworn, declare to the undersigned authority that the information in this application, including the facts within my personal knowledge set out in division IV and the items listed in division V, is true and correct.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you very much for your comments! Thank you again!! I value your opinions!