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
