Notice of a Null Order
- I found this authority by searching for the word "nullity" in Colorado case law at versuslaw.com.
I, Barry Smith, appearing specially, notify this Court of an apparent null order showing:
1. After I received a call from Bridgette in collections telling me that I needed to contact her respecting my appeal I returned her call and was told that I would need to come in and fill out a form. I asked her if any of the information I provided on the form could be used against me. She told me that it could not, that the information would be kept confidential, and would be shredded after use.
2. I arrived at her office the following day and she was not in. I told the man who was manning her office why I was there and he told me that she wasn't there. I asked him if there was some sort of form that I could pick up to fill out. He told me that there wasn't.
3. I returned to her office on the following day (?)(I think it was the next day.) and Bridgette was there. She gave me a form, but told me that she had given the file back to the Court. The top of the form that she gave me to fill out was captioned, "Application for Payment Plan[,] Larimer County Court." Upon further review of the form I discovered this statement at the bottom, "I understand that I may be subject to penalties, including but not limited to imprisonment, if I fail to pay as ordered. I consent to an investigation into all information provided on this application. I understand that I may be held in Contempt of Court for providing false and/or incomplete information on this application. I swear under penalty of perjury * * *"
4. When I saw Bridgette, while picking up the form, I asked her where she got the authority for any action taken by her. She gave me 16-11-101.5 C.R.S., 16-11-101 C.R.S., and HB 96-1198. I reviewed the two references from C.R.S. and found no authority there for her to play a role in the investigation of myself with respect to the motion I filed requesting leave to proceed without payment of costs. I note that she did not provide me with a rule made by this Court sitting en banc.
5. On December 16, 1999 I filed my FOURTH MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGE anticipating that the new judge in the case would not have an interest in preserving the rulings on the motions that I have filed in this instant case by blocking my appeal on the pauperis issue.
6. In paragraph 4 of this Court's order issuing on January 6th, 2000 this Court states, "The Defendant filed a written statement..." What I filed was a solemn declaration, permitted by 24-12-102 C.R.S., declared before a notary and based upon my Chr-stian beliefs that I should, "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." Matthew 5:37 King James H-ly B-ble. In that order the Court states, "The Court denied the Defendant's request until the Defendant filed a complete financial affidavit, which is standard procedure with any Defendant seeking to be allowed to proceed on an indigent status." What this Court does not accurately portray with respect to this Court's order dated November 10, 1999 was that this Court ordered, "Motion is currently denied pending the Defendant/Appellant filing a complete financial affidavit. If the Defendant wishes to provide the information requested by Bridgette in collections, the Court will reconsider this matter."
7. This Court had no authority to require me participate in any interaction with Bridgette in collections either by way of written order or by way of Bridgette's telephone request. Here's why:
8. In Huff v. Police Court of City of Colorado Springs, 1971.CO.40697 <http://www.versuslaw.com> 480 P.2d 561, (Colo. 1971) at issue was whether the police court had jurisdiction over a complaint signed by an employee of the Regional Building Department for the defendant's violations of zoning laws. To determine whether this employee could sign this complaint the Court referred to Article 20 of the Colorado Constitution giving cities the right to home rule and to create ordinances to effect this. Then the Court turned to Colorado Springs Ordinances respecting the police court and found, ASection 2â`184. Processâ`Issuance; attestation. All process issued from or out of the police court shall run in the name of the people of the state and shall be signed or attested by the police magistrate." The Court held that, "The "Non Traffic Notice and Complaint," having been issued by one other than the police magistrate, is a nullity, since absent a Code provision, there is no authority for such issuance by anyone other than the police magistrate."
9. In like manner, an examination of the statutes creating and establishing county courts makes no provision for the actions ordered by this judge. The statutes referenced by Bridgette in the collections office pertain to sentencing and the forms she wants filled out pertain to collection of fines.
10. I contend that under the above principles, this Court's orders that I participate with Bridgette in collections for any purpose related to my pauperis standing is a nullity.
Wherefore, this Court should vacate any orders related to requiring my participation with Bridgette as being nullities, and determine my standing as a pauper on the basis of the solemn declaration filed in this case, as well as the supplemental solemn declaration that will be filed on this day.
Best times to call: 8:30 am-9:00 pm MST