Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Answer

Answer

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,675 |Likes:
Published by Circuit Media

More info:

Published by: Circuit Media on Jul 07, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Colorado
SupremeCourt
)
101
West
Colfax
Avenue,
Suite
800
)
RECEIVED
Denver
CO
80202
)
)
JULO7ZO1j
Original
Proceeding
in
UnauthorizedPractice
of
Law
)
1OUPLO58ATTORNEy
I
REGULATION
Petitioner:
))
The
People
of
the
State
of
Colorado,
)
Supreme
Court
Case
No.
)
2011SA154
v.
)
)
1OUPLO58
Respondent:
))
Douglas
Bruce
))
ANSWER
TO
1)
ORDER
AND
RULE
TO
SHOW
CAUSE,
AND
2)
PETITION
FOR
INJUNCTION
AND
INJUNCTIONHEARINGRespondent
answers
that
this
proceeding
is
illegal
and
is
beingconductedwithout
legal
jurisdiction.
That
predicate
trumpsevery
otherallegation
and
defense.
Respondent
inquires
whether
this
tribunal
finds
thatrespondent
cannotdefend
himselfbecause
doing
so
would
bethe
“unauthorizedpractice
oflaw,andhas
thereforeentrappedrespondent
intothe
very
activity
of
whichplaintiff
complains.
Where
in
C.
.R.C.P.
228
through
240.2,
or
elsewhere,
is
respondent
explicitly“authorized”
to
defend
himself?
Is
not
self
defense
the
practice
of
law?
Is
complying
with
these
procedures
andthis
legalformat
the
practice
of
law?
Withoutwaiving
his
jurisdictional,
due
process
of
law,
and
all
othersubstantive
and
procedural
challenges,
respondent
files
additionalanswers
under
duress.
 
Though
this
answer
risksbeingdefined
as
the
unauthorizedpractice
of
law,
failure
to
answermight
also
be
so
construed.
Respondent
denies
each
and
every
allegation,
and
demands
petitioner
prove
first
that
it
has
jurisdiction
in
thiscase,and
onlythenpro ve
eachand
everyallegation,
and
afford
respondent
due
process
of
law
according
to
state
and
federal
constitutional
and
otherleg al
requirements.
Respondent
waives
no
rights
and
\specificallyrequests
a
jury
trial
on
this
quasi-criminal
accusation.
Respondent
contends
this
proceedingwas
improperly
commenced,
andnot
in
a
timely
manner.
Prosecution
here
serves
no
statedpurposes
of
any
such
law,
nor
ia
valid
governmental
interest
in
enforcementunderthesecircumstances.Chargingci tizens
in
order
to
generate
fees
and
finesfrom
them
to
payfortheir
prosecution
is
a
conflict
of
interest
and
denial
ofdue
process
oflaw.
Respondent
furtherdem andstheright
to
confront
and
cross-examine
all
witnesses
and
reservestheright
to
object
toall
exhibits
and
testimony.Respondent
requestspla intiff
beordered
to
provide
completedisc overy,
a
completewitness
list,
and
document
whether
there
is
any
authority
for
this
proceeding
against
this
private
citizen
other
than
the
above-cited
inapplicable
sections
of
the
Code
ofCivilProcedure.
Discovery
includes
all
Colorado
cases
plaintiff
filedagainst
non-lawyers!
non-paralegals
inthe
past
five
years
without
giving
prior
notice
or
warning
byplaintiff,with
a
full
record
of
eachoutcome
and
the
name,
address,
and
phone
of
eachrespondent.
No
statement
in
this
answer
waives
respondent’s
ongoingchallenges
to
theobviouslack
of
jurisdiction
and
the
obvious
due
process
of
lawviolations.
Anyhearing
must
first
resolvethose
issues.
Allhearingsmustaccord
respondent
due
process
of
lawand
fully

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->