This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
of Law 1OUPLO58 Petitioner: The People of the State of Colorado, v. Respondent: Douglas Bruce
) ) )
) ) ) ) )
Supreme Court Case No. 2011SA154 1OUPLO58
) ) ) )
ANSWER TO 1) ORDER AND RULE TO SHOW CAUSE, AND 2) PETITION FOR INJUNCTION AND INJUNCTION HEARING
Respondent answers that this proceeding is illegal and is being conducted without legal jurisdiction. That predicate trumps every other allegation and defense. Respondent inquires whether this tribunal finds that respondent cannot defend himself because doing so would be the “unauthorized practice of law,” and has therefore entrapped respondent into the very activity of which plaintiff 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 and this legal format the practice of law? Without waiving his jurisdictional, due process of law, and all other substantive and procedural challenges, respondent files additional answers under duress.
Though this answer risks being defined as the unauthorized practice of law, failure to answer might also be so construed. Respondent denies each and every allegation, and demands petitioner prove first that it has jurisdiction in this case, and only then prove each and every allegation, and afford respondent due process of law according to state and federal constitutional and other legal requirements. Respondent waives no rights and \specifically requests a jury trial on this quasi-criminal accusation. Respondent contends this proceeding was improperly commenced, and not in a timely manner. Prosecution here serves no stated purposes of any such law, nor ia valid governmental interest in enforcement under these circumstances. Charging citizens in order to generate fees and fines from them to pay for their prosecution is a conflict of interest and denial of due process of law. Respondent further demands the right to confront and cross-examine all witnesses and reserves the right to object to all exhibits and testimony. Respondent requests plaintiff be ordered to provide complete discovery, a complete witness 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 of Civil Procedure. Discovery includes all Colorado cases plaintiff filed against non-lawyers! non-paralegals in the past five years without giving prior notice or warning by plaintiff, with a full record of each outcome and the name, address, and phone of each respondent. No statement in this answer waives respondent’s ongoing challenges to the obvious lack of jurisdiction and the obvious due process of law violations. Any hearing must first resolve those issues. All hearings must accord respondent due process of law and fully
comply with all rules of evidence. Having a hearing officer or other person chosen and paid for the state that is instituting these proceedings is an obvious bias and conflict of interest. Respondent is entitled to a judge appointed by the governor under Article VI of the state constitution, and a jury trial to determine the law and the facts. Respondent has a First Amendment right to comment to any person on legal issues and procedures, to relate his personal experiences, standard legal procedures, the site of a courthouse, filing fees, bad judicial decisions, the state of the law, and other matters. Respondent generally denies all claims and charges and specifically denies the factually-false charge in the petition that he is an inactive California attorney.
Douglas Bruce Box 26018 Cob. Spgs. CO 80936 (719) 550-0010 Certificate of Service I certify that I personally served this ANSWER by mailing it, first-class and postage pre paid, on July 6, 2011, addressed to: Supreme Court Clerk 101 W. Colfax Ave. #800 Denver CO 80202 Kim E. Ikeler Office of ATTORNEY Regulation 1560 Broadway #1800 Denver CO 80202