.............................................................................................................................
Octobver 28, 2014
Justice in Montana has to improve...Constitutional law is a large part of the picture. The Constitution is the bedrock of our legal system.
................................................
October 15, 2014
If you have family in prison in Montana, and you live out of the state you need to get a Straight Talk cell phone with a Montana number for the least inexpensive calls. The prison system phones are charging more for the distance between their area codes and out of state calls. Investigate these options...Freedom Line is another option. Their web page is here. Google Voice also can do a call forwarding from any area code to your number if you have a regular telephone, but call forwarding is not approved by the prison system and could cost excessivly.
...........................................................................................................................
Oct. 1, 2014
Flathead County Attorney in the news. State asked to investigate that office by 3 lawyers. This is a good idea. Dailey Interlake/ Lawyers want State to investigate. Of course the reply from Ed Corrigan....pretty much standard reply ..." It's nonsense "
.............................................................................................................................
Sept. 1, 2014
The Connection newsletters are provided by Casey Rudd at Connections. You can help Casey by either by donating to her site or subscribe to this extremely informative newsletter, some of which has been submitted by Montana prison inmates. Please contact Casey Rudd if you would like to do either-or both!! Caseyconnections@gmail.com Please let her know we sent you.
Sept 13 July to August 13 Jan 14 Feb 14 Mar 14
The Board Survey is for the immates to see if they are having a fair parole hearing. Connections is having difficulty getting this returned. If you have a family member incarcerated and know the information please fill out and send to the address on the bottom of the first page. Survey
With the exception of the Barry Beach case, all other cases are written 100% by inmates, so far! Any legal help would be greatly appreciated!
...........................................................................................................................
March 1, 2014
March 1, 2014
Now, please pay attention and see how the Montana Supreme Court ignores the TRUE arguments in these cases, as in Barry Beach's.
If you know of any other cases by inmates in the State or Federal Courts of Montana, let us know! We will post them!
Pay particular attention to these cases’ petitions for rehearings which explain, in detail, the state supreme courts unlawful conduct. Cases where the petitions for rehearings are missing, or gone, because either the court ordered it’s clerks to not accept further filings or the rehearing were returned for fictitious errors and the cases promptly closed before they could be resubmitted. This was to prevent having documents in the record explaining the courts corrupt conduct.
As you will learn from this blog almost all felonies in Montana, when charged "by leave of the court" -( 99%) are all in violation of multiple American Bar Association standards for prosecution, in violation of the Federal guidelines/safeguards (used and strictly adhered to by every other state) that protect the rights of the defendant (you)and also Montana is in direct violation of the 5th amendment as applied through the 14th amendment of the U.S.Constitution. See State v Hall (DC-09-125)motion 1, motion 2, motion 3, and the upcoming declaratory judgement/injunction to be filed soon.
Follow and friend us on Facebook
Follow our case on Twitter
Attention all the links provided throughout this blog, to government sites, worked as of today 12/16/2013. Mt Supreme court has blocked access to sites before. See Nichols OP 12-0395 initial
petition. If you go to any of the links in this blog and you get any “site under maintenance”, under construction, page not found, please let us know ASAP. We have back up files, next to all the links labeled PDFs, but we wanted all information to come from publicly available sites as much as possible.
Barry Beach's case is referenced and updated, when ever possible, in this blog. But Barry Beach's case is not the only one in Montana where defendants are proper access to the courts. Also not allowed to present their case or evidence so they can get a fair trial, Habeaus Corpus hearing, appeal hearing or parole hearing.
Some of the issues posted here have been repeatedly brought up since 2008 and at some point Montana's Supreme Court will have to actually rule on these cases which will possibly let out hundreds of prisoners just like what happened back around 2002 when Montana's Supreme Court ruled on Giddings v State.
The following items are not “opinions” or any individual “interpretations”. All information on cases in this blog are easily accessible through multiple Montana and government website and all open to the public along with many other links to various websites to help you learn, gather information, and help friends and family members who desperately need it. Everything here is all factual information, protected by the first amendment of the US constitution, that the Montana Supreme court - through vast experience thus far- felt confident that the lay public would never have direct access to or, if accessed, would not have the legal knowledge to comprehend the absolute corruption of that courts conduct in these(etc.all) cases
Although you can access each of these cases -in their entirety- via the links provided, you can also access these(and others) via the following government websites as well.
1. www.supremecourtus.gov (attention specifically to, and this is huge, case number: 13-7274)
Barry Beach's case is referenced and updated, when ever possible, in this blog. But Barry Beach's case is not the only one in Montana where defendants are proper access to the courts. Also not allowed to present their case or evidence so they can get a fair trial, Habeaus Corpus hearing, appeal hearing or parole hearing.
Some of the issues posted here have been repeatedly brought up since 2008 and at some point Montana's Supreme Court will have to actually rule on these cases which will possibly let out hundreds of prisoners just like what happened back around 2002 when Montana's Supreme Court ruled on Giddings v State.
The following items are not “opinions” or any individual “interpretations”. All information on cases in this blog are easily accessible through multiple Montana and government website and all open to the public along with many other links to various websites to help you learn, gather information, and help friends and family members who desperately need it. Everything here is all factual information, protected by the first amendment of the US constitution, that the Montana Supreme court - through vast experience thus far- felt confident that the lay public would never have direct access to or, if accessed, would not have the legal knowledge to comprehend the absolute corruption of that courts conduct in these(etc.all) cases
Although you can access each of these cases -in their entirety- via the links provided, you can also access these(and others) via the following government websites as well.
1. www.supremecourtus.gov (attention specifically to, and this is huge, case number: 13-7274)
Pay particular attention to these cases’ petitions for rehearings which explain, in detail, the state supreme courts unlawful conduct. Cases where the petitions for rehearings are missing, or gone, because either the court ordered it’s clerks to not accept further filings or the rehearing were returned for fictitious errors and the cases promptly closed before they could be resubmitted. This was to prevent having documents in the record explaining the courts corrupt conduct.
As you will learn from this blog almost all felonies in Montana, when charged "by leave of the court" -( 99%) are all in violation of multiple American Bar Association standards for prosecution, in violation of the Federal guidelines/safeguards (used and strictly adhered to by every other state) that protect the rights of the defendant (you)and also Montana is in direct violation of the 5th amendment as applied through the 14th amendment of the U.S.Constitution. See State v Hall (DC-09-125)motion 1, motion 2, motion 3, and the upcoming declaratory judgement/injunction to be filed soon.
Further there is one case, and it is perhaps the most important because it should be immediately shutting down essentially of Montana’s courts. That is not accessible via state or federal supreme court docket records. It is a case originating out of Powell county District court at
Deer Lodge, Montana, under the case number( DV-13-20 ). Now under appeal (DA-14-0042).
All Montana law, except for most criminal statutes, requires a state district court to confirm that at least one of the involved parties actually “resides” in that court's “jurisdiction”. Montana’s codified laws(Montana M.C.A.) have no viable/usable/enforceable definition for the term “reside”, only for the term “residence” which merely, yet again, believe it or not- only defines a “residence" as, "where are regularly residesL(Montana M.C.A 46-23-502[7][9]) However, there is no definition for what constitutes as "regularly" or "reside". Hundreds of alleged “violent”(etc) offenders are being unlawfully imprisoned for“failure to register” who thought they were properly registered. Montana’s wholly corrupt public/appellate “defender” system refuses to raise this issue as a “defense”. “Failure to register” is an additional felony, that also demands that the defendant considered for “persistent felony offender” status which carries a prison sentence of up to 100 years with a mandatory minimum sentence consecutive to any other prison sentence
.
All Montana law, except for most criminal statutes, requires a state district court to confirm that at least one of the involved parties actually “resides” in that court's “jurisdiction”. Montana’s codified laws(Montana M.C.A.) have no viable/usable/enforceable definition for the term “reside”, only for the term “residence” which merely, yet again, believe it or not- only defines a “residence" as, "where are regularly residesL(Montana M.C.A 46-23-502[7][9]) However, there is no definition for what constitutes as "regularly" or "reside". Hundreds of alleged “violent”(etc) offenders are being unlawfully imprisoned for“failure to register” who thought they were properly registered. Montana’s wholly corrupt public/appellate “defender” system refuses to raise this issue as a “defense”. “Failure to register” is an additional felony, that also demands that the defendant considered for “persistent felony offender” status which carries a prison sentence of up to 100 years with a mandatory minimum sentence consecutive to any other prison sentence
.
To begin see the petition for rehearing order Nichols vs State, OP 12-0395 PDF; then the following cases with initial attention to their petitions for rehearing: OP 13-0660 PDF; OP 13-0279 PDF; OP 12-0623 PDF; OP 12-0653 PDF; OP 13-0061 PDF; OP 13-0118 PDF; OP 09-0248 PDF; OP 08-0508 PDF ; OP 08-0321 PDF
. (All case files, in blue, are are linked to direct website of case. To view/download pdfs, mouse over "document" button then click on pdf file #. Example 58436.PDF, etc)
Now just to warn you on these petitions, Montana's Supreme Court falsely lists ages and times to intentionally make the reader (you) so mad at the person making the argument you will not care what happens to them. Is that the Justice system you want to face?
. (All case files, in blue, are are linked to direct website of case. To view/download pdfs, mouse over "document" button then click on pdf file #. Example 58436.PDF, etc)
Now just to warn you on these petitions, Montana's Supreme Court falsely lists ages and times to intentionally make the reader (you) so mad at the person making the argument you will not care what happens to them. Is that the Justice system you want to face?
Note also that, in all of these cases, the alleged victims had completely recanted their statements prior to these convictions. They further indicated that they had been essentially forced to fabricate their allegations by various adults including, if not especially, the prosecutors.
The defendant’s public defender and the prosecutor had all, pointedly, withheld this information until after the unlawful pleas were entered and/or, as in Nichols case, this information was unlawfully withheld from the jury. The age in Nichols case is also not correct, not to mention the judge in this case made a point of excluding evidence from the jury which shows the victim fabricated her story so she would not have to live at home by herself.
.
.
The Montana state supreme court has held that even if a citizen is convicted under a completely fictitious/fabricated statute, and does not learn of that fact within sixty days of being sentenced, he has no recourse under law” but to serve the sentence under that non-existent statute. This includes no remedy such as habeas corpus! That court also held that the statutory restrictions on habeas corpus are “unconstitutional” Lott vs. State. However,Montana Supreme Court seems to rule that they are only occasionally unconstitutional apparently depending upon the type of alleged offense under attack? You must see the petition for rehearing under this case: OP-13-0279.
Montana is discriminating against citizens charged with particular offenses by pointedly denying them the “equal protection” of various “due process” guarantees. Again, see rehearing under OP-13-0279.
The state of Montana (with consent of it’s supreme court) is pointedly refusing to provide viable(or any) "definitions" of" key elements" of it’s criminal statutes contrary to it’s own laws which requires that all mandatory elements must be defined. Hundreds of citizens are, and have been, unlawfully imprisoned in Montana under statutes that are not even valid/enforceable(not lawfully existing) by reason of no codified definitions of what actually constitutes their various alleged offenses. Must see pro-se petitions for rehearing: OP-13-0660 and DV-13-20.
The state of Montana (with consent of it’s supreme court) is pointedly refusing to provide viable(or any) "definitions" of" key elements" of it’s criminal statutes contrary to it’s own laws which requires that all mandatory elements must be defined. Hundreds of citizens are, and have been, unlawfully imprisoned in Montana under statutes that are not even valid/enforceable(not lawfully existing) by reason of no codified definitions of what actually constitutes their various alleged offenses. Must see pro-se petitions for rehearing: OP-13-0660 and DV-13-20.
The Montana Supreme court is hiding/blocking(and/or not publishing) case files that pointedly indicate/prove that courts are overtly corruption. Go to http://supremecourtdocket.mt.gov/search/case?case=15438 and try to access pro-se Nichols’ actual original petition under OP-12-0395. as of 12/16/13 it was still “unavailable”
.
.
Montana’s supreme court routinely slanders/defends pro-se(acting as their own attorney, because they are in prison and can't get an attorney) citizens seeking justice in that court. It also overtly misrepresents the issues raised and refuses to consider and address the actual “merits”
of pre-se cases that present unpopular/caustic/controversial issues(which are based on corrupt statutes and their enforcement) Must see pro-se Nichols and Dunsmore’s petitions for rehearing under OP-12-0395 and OP-12-0623
.
The Montana supreme court overtly misconstrued a pro-se petition raising a claim that state statutes pertaining to “step” relatives were not enforceable due to no state codified definition for the term “step” as in what constitutes a “step” relative/relationship. The Montana supreme court refused to acknowledge and address this issue and -again, believe it or not- ordered Stubbert to never file any further actions in that court. See pro-se Stubbert's initial petition and the courts ludicrous order under OP-10-0120.
The Montana supreme court overtly misconstrued a pro-se petition raising a claim that state statutes pertaining to “step” relatives were not enforceable due to no state codified definition for the term “step” as in what constitutes a “step” relative/relationship. The Montana supreme court refused to acknowledge and address this issue and -again, believe it or not- ordered Stubbert to never file any further actions in that court. See pro-se Stubbert's initial petition and the courts ludicrous order under OP-10-0120.
Noting, without a viable/lawful definition for the terms “regularly” and “reside” (ie residence), no Montana court has jurisdiction to preside over any matter of law other than some various criminal cases. All civil actions/claims(eg weddings,divorces, custody, contract claims, lawsuits) are void- or at least not available, NOW, for a courts review-until the state legislature codifies an actual lawfully
viable/usable definition for these terms. See the rehearing/objection: DV-13-20.
And lastly, the state prosecutor(county attorney) in Kalispell, Montana-Flathead County- maintains that Montana's government officials have “no duty to be honest” see appendix “a” attached to the rehearing, OP-13-0249. This was reported in Daily Interlink, Kalispell, Montana newspaper on Friday-01-08-2010. Article was titled "Questions about County Attorney.Follow and friend us on Facebook
Follow our case on Twitter
