On Dec 10, 2014, at 2:40 AM, Terry Trussell wrote:
Dave, thanks for all you’re doing. I share your frustration. Since my arrest, I am hearing from people all over the country with similar stories. Here’s mine: (Not that you don’t have enough of your own, it just helps me to vent. Thanks.)
My charges are FS 843.0855 violations (impersonating a public officer, simulating legal process, intimidating a public officer under color of law). I was the Statutory Grand Jury foreman for my county, duly seated and sworn. The State Attorney corrupted the jury. (I can provide details). When I reported it, the presiding judge, the chief judge, the Clerk of Court, and the Sheriff, ignored my plea for help. I presented the case to the county’s common law grand jury, they returned a true bill presentment, I signed it and submitted it to the sheriff. I have 24, third-degree felony charges, am threatened with 120 years in prison, a lawyer offered to plea bargain me down to 10-12 years (in return for $100,000), and there is yet to be a criminal complaint filed or a valid warrant issued, and I am being denied my right to defend myself.
I have nothing but truth and God on my side.
From: Dave at Comcast [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:57 AM
To: Jim Porter
Cc: Steve Curry; firstname.lastname@example.org; Roland Hinkson; email@example.com; Carl@yln.tv; =?utf-8?Q? Maupome_L=C3=B3pez_Aguado; _Javier_Antonio ?=; John Darash; Steve Langford; Anna Vonreitz; Pat; Rico Giron for San Miguel County Sheriff; Joe Hoagland; firstname.lastname@example.org; Charlene Schlesien &quot;Charlie; Steve Price; John Porter; Mairi Knopp; Andrew Napolitano; Terry Trussell; Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III; Ron Branson; Terry Rapp AZ alipac Coordinator
Subject: MORE RAMPANT JUDICIAL AND EXECUTIVE CORRUPTION EXPOSED
Does anyone care?
If any real news agencies what a live story to report to the nation what is going on in Colorado then stop on by.
We’ll leave the light on for ya!
David Lynn Coffelt
FREEDOM in this Country? LAND OF THE FREE – WHERE?
Fraud, Forgery, Cover-up, Corruption & Obstruction committed all under COLOR OF LAW by ACTORS of Judicial & Executive State Officials. SOS purposely forged the back of a County Count Judge’s County Oath of Office 3.5 years later as a District Court Judge in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 505 § 506; FORGING A JUDGES OATH OF OFFICE – GOV’T EMPLOYEES FORGING A JUDGES OATH OF OFFICE.
This has all been reported to and filed with SOS, COLORADO AG, JUDICIAL COMMISSION, 1ST JUDICIAL CHIEF JUSTICE R. BROOKE JACKSON – A FEDERAL JUDGE IN DISTRICT 10, 1ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT DA SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR DAVID DECHANT, DENVER DA SR INVESTIGATION EVAN KWIATKOWSI WITH INVESTIGATOR DEBRA SHAMPANIER, GILPIN COUNTY SHERIFF BRUCE HARTMAN, DENVER FBI AGENT KIMBERLY MILKA WITH U.S. MARSHALL PAUL OTTO
FEBRUARY 8, 2014 – FILED A WHISTLE BLOWER COMPLAINT WITH THE DOJ – OIG – & LEE HAMBAUGH – FBI, WASHINGTON, DC – ON FILE AND IGNORED BY ALL. THIS IS OUR CRIMINAL IN-JUSTICE SYSTEM.
FOR NEWS INTERVIEWS OR INVESTIGATIONS FEEL FREE TO CONTACT
Mr. Coffelt directly.
“Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable…
Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.”
— Martin Luther King, Jr.
This private email message, including any attachment(s) is limited to the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain Privileged and/or Confidential Information. Any and All Political, Private or Public Entities, Federal, State, or Local Corporate Government(s), Municipality(ies), International Organizations, Corporation(s), agent(s), investigator(s), or informant(s), et. al., and/or Third Party(ies) working in collusion by collecting and/or monitoring My email(s),and any other means of spying and collecting these Communications Without my Exclusive Permission are Barred from Any and All Unauthorized Review, Use, Disclosure or Distribution. With Explicit Reservation of All My Rights, Without Prejudice and Without Recourse to Me. Any omission does not constitute a waiver of any and/or ALL Intellectual Property Rights or Reserved Rights U.C.C.1-308. NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS. OTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS.
On Dec 5, 2014, at 3:19 PM, Jim Porter <email@example.com> wrote:
Second send for documents.
From: Jim Porter <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Steve Curry <email@example.com>; “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>; Roland Hinkson <firstname.lastname@example.org>; “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>; “Carl@yln.tv” <Carl@yln.tv>; “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>; “Maupome López Aguado, Javier Antonio” <email@example.com>; John Darash <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Steve Langford <email@example.com>; Anna Vonreitz <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Pat <email@example.com>; Rico Giron for San Miguel County Sheriff <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Joe Hoagland <email@example.com>; “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>; “Charlene Schlesien "Charlie” <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Steve Price <email@example.com>; John Porter <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Mairi Knopp <email@example.com>; Andrew Napolitano <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Terry Trussell <email@example.com>; “Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III” <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Ron Branson <VictoryUSA@JAIL4Judges.org>; Terry Rapp AZ alipac Coordinator <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 3:15 PM
Subject: Document Dump for Security in Numbers….
Please accept these documents.
People in other areas can use them for assistance in discovery for documents in their local area.
In the event I an prevented from continued communication with the People, use these in good faith and with respect. These evidence my attempt to expose corruption and expose corrupt.
The required bond is the most important fraud, or actually the lack of a bond.
Poor drivers can not purchase insurance, and it seems corrupt government employees can’t either.
Here is part of my thought on that. I have taken the liberty to edit the thoughts of and unknown author for economic reason to expose fraud. I will finish the editing and send the rest of the document in time.
Fact) the advent of powerful computers, has provided the ability to analyze data much more quickly and thoroughly, and in terms of the general economic principles.
Fact) This, I learned from reading reports on www.hastingsfirm.com, in the modern system of wagering, as applied to insurance and malpractice bonding, several political-legal-economic factors including Legislation, Judication, Execution (enforcement) and the behavior of the general public are treated mathematically as separate industries within the legal system. The result is these industries can be interrelated by a system of feedback equations and computations. The individual workings and behavior of each industry can be much more closely monitored, and the behavior of the government and public can be predicted and manipulated.
This leads to feed-back computing on the economic success or outcome of any given statute or legal process. It results in a scientific bonding system, resulting in the transfer of the power and authority of corporate government to the bonding companies, where it belongs, if governments do not want to behave themselves.
The Bonding Problem
As any American, or take the human, population increases and mutual human tolerance decreases, municipal corporations tend to become less sensitive to individual human needs and tend to become more antisocial toward the public.
It has been put crudely that municipal corporations become slaughterhouse operations with law enforcement officers running the sledgehammer department. Judges ignore the rights of the people and legislators create laws, without perfecting the ones already existing to make them fit for bonding.
Defective statutes and defective legal processes become an invitation for every sort of official malpractice and malfeasance including economic oppression, causing the public, in retaliation, to begin suing for every injury, putting the heat on the bonding companies.
In order to survive in the commercial marketplace, the smaller bonding companies have had to become more selective and scientific in their bonding practice.
In the past, bonding was based on marketing a bond which covered a broad aggregate of “bondable” objects, acts and persons.
When a large claim was made against a small bonding company, the claim could bankrupt the small company, especially if the company could not collect its corresponding funds from the parent bonding underwriter.
By partitioning the coverage better, and by excluding persons of an antisocial disposition, the claims could be minimized, thus favoring solvency of the bonding company. This also exposed corrupt individuals due to their antisocial exclusion, while simultaneously establishing a perfected claim for relief to the bond company by all injured persons represented by the antisocial government employee.
In the old aggregate system, an antisocial enforcement officer operating on an unbounded statute using an unbonded enforcement process could create a monstrous civil rights or constitutional claim against the bonding company which was underwriting the general bond on the municipal corporation for which the elected or appointed officer worked. In order to maintain credibility in the bonding marketplace, the bonding company would have to pay off the claim against the bond even though the official act was criminal instead of civil. When the bonding company demanded a criminal prosecution of the state Law Department, to recapture shareholder loss for criminal activity, other unknown yet related criminal actions could be exposed causing additional loss and not the intended return of payment.
If in addition, the municipal corporation was operated by an antisocial office staff, it would tend to support, and retain in employment, the antisocial enforcement officer rather than the more civilized officers on the staff, if for no other reason than because an antisocial officer was more likely to bully the public into dropping malpractice suits and paying revenue into the corporate coffers, and thereby keep the corporate paychecks coming.
When such an antisocial corporation would get sued, as inevitably would happen, the bonding company working under the old system of aggregate bonding, would get ripped to shreds, perhaps requiring bankruptcy. Of course, the injured bonding company would tell the municipal corporation to take its business elsewhere, and the next bonding company, being somewhat more cautious, might refuse to bond the corporation, or ask a larger premium to cover the gambling risk. Ultimately the municipal corporation would not be able to buy a bond due to its “track record”, with the result that the municipal corporation would resort to what is called “self-bonding.”
In the past, the state incorporation laws have required all corporations engaged in business potentially hazardous to the public safety, health and welfare, to be bonded against public accident and the malpractice of their officers, but more recently “self-bonding” has become a state-condoned option extended to municipal corporations to insulate them against prosecution for violation of the general state incorporation laws which demand public hazard licensing and bonding for all corporations. A corporation that is “self-bonded” is a limited corporation (ltd.) with a low ceiling of limited liability.
The term, “self-bonded,” is a fraudulent misrepresentation of the corporate liability status. It says in effect that the payment of the commercial debts of the corporation will take second place to the payment of the malpractice obligations of the corporations. Furthermore, “self-bonding” cannot possibly be expected to cover the anti-civil rights and anti-constitutional malpractice potential of today’s modern antisocial municipal corporations.
Simply put, “self-bonding” is “no-bonding;” it is corporate limited liability misrepresentation and fraud.
(Bonding is valid only when it is provided by an independent third party money wagering pool with no conflict of interest and no possibility of the bonded party dipping into the till.)
In order to pull out of the municipal corporate bonding rat race, the smaller bonding companies have had to adopt a set of bonding policies aimed at segregation, partitioning, while making more certain, their liabilities in the bonding marketplace.