Hi America, welcome to my li'l corner of the universe...and that corner gets smaller and darker with each and every passing day, doesn't it seem like?
Thinking the incessant and quite late filings had ceased, I finally had time to work on my court stragety...or, at least, so I thunk.
POP...and what should my waking eyes observe, but a final, last and ditch-effort to the defense's case...a legal brief, filed yesterday, at the last minute. Here is the meat and potato portion (thank GOD for my new and wunnerful HP Officejet, complete with docu-feeder scanner!):
Nice, eh? Well, this is the soup I asked to be boiled in, isn't it?
Here, naturally, is my hastily typed response to this brief insanity. There is, by the way, still no word on whether John P. will be allowed to testify in the case, as I predicted:
"I, the petitioner, Christopher (Bruce) the living man, do hereby place in the record of the court, an answer to the brief filed this date.
The Petitioner would first state that, in classic style for the County Attorney defense, Jesse Ramirez; the brief filed, this day 7/1/17, is last minute, giving the prosecution very little time to research and answer with his own. Therefore, the purpose of this brief, sans proper research and case law, will be to answer it and put on the record of the court this same day, before trial. The petitioner would like to apologize to the court for this late filing (due to the defense's late filing), and also that it is not in the correct format for a brief.
Concerning Section II, Statement of Facts and procedural history:
1. In paragraph 1, Mr. Ramirez states bond is set at $60,000. This is entirely false. Bond was INITIALLY set, at arrest, with a bond of just $2,000, for the ONLY filed charge (At this time) of 1st degree harassment. While en route to Des Moines, Iowa from Carroll, Iowa, the Altoona Police department was encouraged to file 2 more police reports for Stalking and Threats, and, as well, while the defendant was en route, the county attorney would, that same day, file documents approving those charges, and raised the 1st Degree Harassment from $2000 to $10000, and additionally tacked on 2 more unreasonable bonds of $10,000 for the charge of Stalking (an aggravated misdemeanor charge that should have been $2000 more), and a class D felony of Threats (that should have been $5,000, but was raised to $50,000), for a total bond of $70,000, $61,000 more than what it should have been. The purpose for this unreasonably high bond was stated to be because of the Petitioner's "Extensive Criminal History." This "Extensive Criminal History" consisted of 3 simple misdemeanors over a 33 year period between 1982 and 2015 (for possession, prostitution, and 5th degree theft), and also included the two plead to simple misdemeanors of harassment in 2015, and the charges (not yet convictions at the time of arrest) of 2 more simple misdeameanor harassment charges in 2016. The petitioner had just bailed out for those two charges 3 days prior to his re-arrest for this case (it's very important for the court to note that the police report for harassment had been filed for 14 days by this time. If the victim was so much in fear for her life, shouldn't these charges have been filed and prosecuted at the time of the petitioner's first arrest?) This does not, by any stretch of the imagination, constitute any sort of "Extensive criminal history" Furthermore, such high bond would most certainly be warranted, should the Petitioner have been any sort of high risk for flight, but none is listed in his alleged "Extensive history." The Petitioner has never skipped out on bail, has always shown up for every court appearance, and has never committed acts constituting the fear or the remote chance that he might, as a free man, be a danger to the public. No contact orders, issued by these courts of late, have always been honored to the letter, by the petitioner. Even after 2 were dismissed in 2017 (There were two-year NCO's, ordered in 2015), the petitioner has never again contacted the parties previously protected.
Thereby, the Petitioner states that these actions by the defense were nothing short of the crime of Malicious prosecution, conspiracy against his civil rights of freedom, and an attempt to shut him up about what Polk County was and had been doing to him and his family. It is also important to mention here that, just prior to this arrest, the petitioner had just begun assisting a family in Carroll Iowa, who had their child taken, and had made mention of his cases in Polk County, and had taken some action against those responsible.
Also, concerning this paragraph, Mr. Ramirez discusses Mr. Bruce's right to defend himself, pro se, and that an order was issued denying this. Again, this matter is at dispute in this case. Just because there was an order denying him his rights, doesn't mean this denial is or was correct.
2. Per paragraph 2, the applicant filed Application for council, because it was clear, per Judge Kelly's order denying him any right to defend himself while incarcerated, that the Petitioner had little choice left but to do so, if he were to be able to defend himself properly at all. It's also mentioned that the Petitioner limited the reach of Mr. Taylor, the accepted standby council, and that, because he stated that Mr. Taylor was not to file or speak for the applicant unless he's specifically instructed to, does not mean that Mr. Taylor could not, nor should not suggest to the Petitioner the need for events that should take place, such as appearances for bond reduction, or depositions. The appeal in this case, as well as a request for mistrial, were most CERTAINLY duties of Mr. Taylor near and after trial, since, at this time, Mr. Taylor was chosen by the petitioner to represent the Petitioner in a FULL capacity during the course of the trial. Mr. Ramirez is, of course, covering for the non-action of Mr. Taylor in this case, by stating this.
3. According to paragraph 3, Mr. Ramirez makes mention that the petitioner agrees to the quashing of some subpoenaed witnesses. This is correct, but what Mr. Ramirez fails to note is that, not only did Judge Blink go out of his way to go over the list of witnesses several times, to insure that no one that might incriminate themselves who was of any importance should also be quashed, even though none of those witnesses, nor their attorneys were present, but also that there were only 2 or 3 stipulations to quash on the part of the petitioner, and only because it was 2 business days before trial, and it would seem that no one would be allowed to testify anyway, because they were elected officials, or important to the petitioner's defense. The petitioner reasoned with himself that these matters would, at a later date, be brought forth in appeal, something he would be cheated out of by Mr. Taylor, during the course of his further incarceration for EXACTLY 60 days, the precise time allotted for appeal in the State of Iowa.
4. In paragraph 4, Mr. Ramirez talks about an appeal for 'Unlawful Arrest". This appeal was for the simple misdemeanor case the petitioner had been arrested for 3 days prior to this case, and did not concern this case at all. In addition, the Iowa Supreme Court did not deny this appeal, this appeal was denied by none other than Judge William A. Price, a major co-conspirator against this petitioner, who just happened to be in charge of this case for appeal. Judge Price was also the Supervising judge over Magistrate Hurn, the judge ruling on misdemeanor case SMAC359086; who, along with Carol S. Egly and the Clerk of Court, conspired to deny the Petitioner his right to a jury trial in this parallel case. They altered his request, and changed the record of the court to reflect that he had specifically asked for a NON-Jury trial by substituting a document that the Petitioner did not design or submit. Judge Price was, of course, the judge responsible for the Petitioner losing his parental rights, wrongfully and unlawfully in cases JVJV237203 and JVJV238150. Prior to the start of the trial for SMAC359086, Judge Price entered the room, lingered his gaze on the petitioner, smirked, then walked into the chambers, and was heard to state “Get him...he's a piece of cake." to Magistrate Hurn, prior to the petitioner being found guilty of harassment charges in that case.
4. In paragraph 4, Mr. Ramirez again references decisions made by the district court, like he does in paragraph 2, stating the courts found sufficient cause to try, and charge the petitioner; like those decisions, because they were made, are, of course, correct. The petitioner states again that, just because these decisions were decided and backed by the courts, doesn't automatically make them correct. The petitioner would also like to state here that no grand jury indicted this defendant, or it is made clear that they did, if they did. The Petitioner has a right, per the Constitution to have his case heard and decided by the Grand Jury. Also, jurisdiction, because it is decided that it is correct, doesn't mean that it is, automatically. The Petitioner, once again, makes it clear that jurisdiction was challenged on the very first day after his arrest, and has yet to be clearly stated or proven, even to this day. The Petitioner has only been told there is jurisdiction. This is, nor will it ever be, proof of the court's jurisdiction over this non-U.S. Citizen. The petitioner, so named Christopher the Living Man, does not, did not, nor does he ever recognize the jurisdiction of anyone in the system of the Polk County Courts. These courts are pirate ships on the land, and, as such (admiralty courts, for the purpose of upholding only the law of the sea) have no jurisdiction, especially over those of the United States Republic. I have not been ex-patriated, nor do I recognize a "STATE" or "Subject-Matter" Juris. Neither of these have rules of court that are explained to anyone in the United States Constitution. The initial challenge of juris was made from day one, and wasn't ruled on until nearly 3 weeks after the Petitioner's initial appearance...and, was answered incorrectly, and never proven.
Also concerning the matter of Jurisdiction, Judge Blink would, later, trick the defendant into accepting his jurisdiction, by stating that, if I did not, he could not enforce the court-issued subpoenas for the petitioner's witnesses to testify...and then quashed or invalidated almost every one of them at a later date...anyway.
Finally, concerning this matter, in a hearing in front of Judge Kelly, the Petitioner stated that he was not a U.S. Citizen (and remains a non-citizen, even to this day.) Prosecutor Linda Lane would belittle that fact on the record by stating that there is nothing on the record to show this, and yet, because he was incarcerated, and could not bail out at the unreasonable bail imposed, the Petitioner was not given opportunity to prove this to the court. This fact, if nothing else, deprives these courts ENTIRELY of any and all jurisdiction claimed.
5. Restitution, as claimed to be determined at a later date was never determined or ordered. Also mentioned is that the defendant was told that he would have to report for probation in Room B40. This fact was never related to the petitioner, either by the court, or through his standby council. The Petitioner had to assess this by asking other inmates what to do, prior to his release.
It is also stated that a warrant was issued because the petitioner did not keep in contact with his probation officer. This is also incorrect, and the correct events are clearly stated on the record of the court, not only in this case, but on the record for case SMAC343417, a case where the petitioner was arrested for probation violation, even though the Petitioner had stated and asked Judge Blink to be taken off of probation, to serve the remainder of his sentence. At no time has the Petitioner ever met or taken on a probation officer of this or any other court, as a matter of fact, the petitioner never completely signed up for probation. Judge Blink erred in issuing a warrant for the petitioner's arrest in this case; he had set a hearing to have the petitioner revoked by that time already.
6. NO APPEAL WAS FILED, because Mr. Taylor did not honor his client's wishes, and did not file one. By the time of his client's release, it was too late for the petitioner to file one, and Mr. Taylor had neither filed one for him at his request, nor had he polled the jury to find out if a new trial was needed, as he guaranteed that he would, due to the obvious probable taint of the jury by the libelous article printed by the Register one day before deliberations were to take place.
Also worth noting here, just because a jury is admonished or instructed to not view media broadcasts and articles, does not guarantee that they will not observe the media, nor read any articles that may taint their decisions. That the judge told them to ignore the media does not mean they will. It is utter foolishness to believe that they will, absolutely.
As to Section III, concerning applicable law, it should be obvious, on the record of this case, that usual events, such as depositions, hearing for a bond reduction, an appeal, and a jury poll should be standard, in the defense of any case such as this. As the petitioner in this case, I feel it's most important, however, to mention that I do not hold Mr. Taylor at fault, absolutely, for not doing what should have been done. I blame those in continuous conspiracy against the civil rights of this petitioner. It is because of these conspirators, I'm sure, for instance, that Mr. Taylor did not appear at what was probably the most important hearing for the petitioner in the history of this case; concerning the quashing of 29 subpoenas of elected officials and the dismissal of 200 pieces of evidence as irrelevant. I'm also assured that the jury poll and the appeal did not happen either, at the behest of these conspirators. I cannot prove this, of course, but due to past events, as well as past cases, and the fact that these charges and convictions should have never taken place the way they did, and in the order that they did, proves it to me plenty. The alteration of the court record, the charges filed en route to Des Moines and the way they were filed, the dismissal of all relevant evidence and witnesses, the extent to which the Juvenile cases and all that happened in them were adamantly dismissed from being heard or seen is more than enough proof of unlawful behavior for this petitioner.
Finally, the Petitioner, just prior to sentencing, attempted once again to reason with this court. He once again challenged the court's jurisdiction by filing Coram non-judice, and, when that didn't get notice, the petitioner and a volunteer agent then POLITELY and LAWFULLY attempted to settle his debt to NO injured party that would come forward in the County Attorney's offices, via payment of his debt outright, in lieu of unneeded incarceration. This was met by Judge Blink with threats of harassment charges against the petitioner and his agent, though no threat was made, either by the petitioner, or his agent; to the County Attorney or her offices, or to Judge Blink.
Lastly, there was a promise of a no-contact order between a witness for the prosecution, and the Petitioner. The petitioner then presented the court with massive amounts of proof of malicious harassment and stalking of the petitioner by this witness over a period of months...the same being a PRIMARY witness for the prosecution, and was criminal with a history of stalking and harassment of others. After this, Judge Blink would then not order the no-contact order, nor arrest the witness for the same exact thing that they claim I did to the victim in this case.
It is, of course, the job of the State to defend their criminal actions, as well as cover them up. If they did not, they would not be in their respective positions for long, nor would they get away with the crimes they commit against Iowa's less fortunate citizens as well as they do. I applaud the defense for their case-law ridden attempt to get away with murder....but it is a last ditch desperate attempt to justify their actions against the petitioner, and should be duly disregarded by this court in every way.
Respectfully submitted,
/S/Christopher (Bruce) The Living Man"
