COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court Address: 2 East 14th Avenue

Denver, CO 80203

Nature of Proceeding: Appeal

Denver District Court, 2nd Judicial District
Case # D162017CR10085
Michael J Spear, Judge

Plaintiff-Appellee COURT USE ONLY

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

Defendant-Appellant.
STEPHEN JOHN NALTY

___________________________________________________

Petitioner/Appellant
STEVEN JOHN NALTY

Respondent/Appellee
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

:stephen-john:nalty Suis Juris Case No. 2018CA184

178766
CCCF
6564 State Highway 96
Onley Springs, CO 81062

APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

i
 Certificate of Attempted Compliance
I hereby certify that this brief attempts to comply with all requirements of C.A.R. 28 or C.A.R.
28.1, and C.A.R. 32, including all formatting requirements set forth in these rules.

Specifically, the undersigned certifies that:

The brief attempts to comply with the applicable word limits set forth in C.A.R.
28(g) or C.A.R. 28.1(g).

It contains 8,257 words (principal brief does not exceed 9,500 words; reply brief
does not exceed 5,700 words).

I hereby certify that this brief attempts to comply with the standard of review
requirements set forth in C.A.R. 28(a)(7)(A) and/or C.A.R. 28(b).

For each issue raised by the appellant, the appellant, not learned in legalese, or the
precise form such as; the brief contains under a separate heading before the
discussion of the issue, a concise statement: (1) of the applicable standard of
appellate review with citation to authority; and (2) whether the issue was preserved, and,
if preserved, the precise location in the record where the issue was raised and where the
court ruled, not to an entire document; did the best he could with his limited
comprehension as to the rules for briefs.

In response to each issue raised, the appellee must provide under a separate heading
before the discussion of the issue, a statement indicating whether appellee agrees
with appellant’s statements concerning the standard of review and preservation for appeal
and, if not, why not.

I acknowledge that my brief may not comply with all the rules and ask that the Appeals
Court takes into consideration the fact that I am not an attorney accustomed to writing
briefs and following rules for writing one, but desire to be heard through the substance of
the brief.

By:
All Inherent Rights Reserved

CERTIFICATE OF ATTEMPTED COMPLIANCE ii

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Caption page …………………………………………………........................... i

Certificate of Attempted Compliance ………………………………………… ii

Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………. iii

Table of Authorities ……………………………………………………….. iv, v

Introduction …………………………………………………………………… 1

Statement of Issues Presented for Review ……………………………………. 3

Statement Identifying the Nature of the Cause ……………………………… 15

Summary of Arguments …………………………………..........................…. 21

Arguments …………………………………………………………………… 25

Relief Sought ………………………………..……………………………….. 31

TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Almeida v. Baldi, 195 F.2d 815, 33 A.L.R.2d 1407, and ……………………. Page 12

Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910 …………………….…. Page 6

Black-ledge and Menna …………………………………………………………. Page 24

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) …………………………………….… Page 11

CLASS v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 16-424.. Page 23

Constitution of the State of Colorado ……………........… Page 9, 13, 14,15, 28, 29

Constitution for the United States of America ………………………….. Many pages

Court of Appeals. 226 Md. at 427, 174 A.2d at 169.” ……………………... Page 13

Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. …...…. Page 5

Haynes v. United States, 390 U. S. 85, 87, n. 2 (1968) ………………..…… Page 24

Herbertson v. People, 160 Colo. 139, 415 P.2d 53 (1966) ……….………… Page 8

Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215. ………………………………………………………. Page 6

Magna Carta …………………………………………………………... Page 18, 25, 26

Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980) …………………………….……… Page 6

Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, 112 …………………………….…… Page 12, 13

Old Wayne Mut. I. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907) Page 26

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

iv
Post-Conviction Procedure Act. 222 Md. 442, 160 A.2d 912 ……….….… Page 11

Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U. S. 213, 215-216 ………………………….…...… Page 12, 13

SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]…………. Page 5

Rose v. Himely, 4 Cranch 241, 269, 2 L.Ed. 608, 617 (1808) ……… …… Page 27

United States ex rel. Thompson v. Dye, 221 F.2d 763…………..…………. Page 12

Valley v. Northern Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 (1920)
……………………………………………………………………………….……. Page 26

Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495, 540, 12 L. Ed, 1170, 1189, (1850) ….. Page 27

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

v
 INTRODUCTION

FOR COMES NOW :stephen-john:nalty, hereinafter :stephen-john: a living

man, a living man, a living man, a non-resident alien pursuant [city of Minneapolis

v Reum (1893)] (4: star. 69, c. 186, § 1; Rev. St. § 2167,), coming by Special

Appearance and not general appearance, non-surety, non-representative capacity

for the STATE OF COLORADO’s entity STEPHEN JOHN NALTY charged of

several ‘crimes’.

For owing to the fact that :stephen-john: is not an attorney, is not learned in

legalese, is legally disabled as pertains to writing legal papers and not cognizant of

the form of such papers, herein asks the Appeals Judges for grace, that they would

see the substance of all papers written by him and would judge the substance only

and not the lack of form.

For owing to the fact that :stephen-john: is indigent, cannot purchase either

my freedom from incarceration, nor cannot afford the fee to purchase the transcript

of the trial held in November 2016, :stephen-john: is unable to cite the specific

place that each item for review was preserved on the record. For living man does

not have to purchase justice.

1
 For I, :stephen-john: am held harmless because I have insurance, a bond that

keeps I, :stephen-john: held harmless.

For this matter arises out of breach of Public Trust. For with the living man,

:stephen-john:nalty’s incarceration, under the pretend, fictitious name STEPHEN

JOHN NALTY1, is with the breach of the Public Trust.

For the public servants are Trustees of the Trust called The Constitution for

the United States of America hereinafter “Constitution”. For said trust is an

agreement between the People in assembly and its government, which includes all

public servants.

For immunity to the servants is only valid upon the servants fulfilling the

trust contract. For when the servants step outside the contract, they breach the

trust, and are then personally responsible and liable for the harm done to the

People.

For the servants owe a duty to the People and at any point, should the

servants harm the People and not do their duty they can and ought to be removed.

1
As stated in Gregg’s Manual of English “A name spelled in all capital letters or a
name initialed, is not a proper noun denoting a specific person, but is a fictitious
name, or a name of a dead person, or a nom de guerre.”

2
 For from the very beginning the indictment was presented unlawfully, as it

was not served by hand to :stephen-john:nalty and it lacked essential elements that

would make it a verifiable2 charging document. For it lacked being a True Bill, by

a jury of peers, lacked the signature of the Jury Foreperson and it allowed no

constitutional way to pay the bill. For there were no amounts on the bill allowing

the Appellant a way to pay and stating what specie of payment was required.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

For below is a list of issues Appellant would like reviewed:

1. Supreme Law of the Land –For the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the

land. For the cause that it IS the Supreme Law of the Land, any statute,

2
Verify – To confirm or substantiate by oath. S. B. McMaster, Inc. v. Chevrolete
Motor Co., D.C. S.C., 3 F.2d 469, 471; Francesconi v. Independent School District
of Wall Lake, 204 Iowa 207, 216 N.W. 882, 885; Marshall v. State, 116 Neb. 45,
215 N.W. 564, 566; Particularly used to making formal oath to accounts, petitions,
pleadings, and other papers. The word “verified,” when used in a statute, ordinarily
imports a verity test attested by the sanctity of an oath. Bristol v. Buck, 201 App.
Div. 100, 194 N.Y.S. 53, 55. It is frequently used interchangeably with “sworn”.
Francesconi v. Independent School District of Wall Lake, 204 Iowa 207, 216 N.W.
882, 885; To prove to be true; to establish the truth; to confirm the truth or
truthfulness of; to test or check the accuracy or exactness of; to confirm of
establish the authenticity of; to authenticate; to prove; to maintain; to affirm; to
support; second; as a friend. McNeill v. Maddox, 194 Ga. 802, 22 S.E.2d 653, 654.
The word “verify” sometimes means to confirm and substantiate by oath, and
sometimes means by argument. When used in legal proceedings it is generally
employed in the former sense. De Witt v. Hosmer, 3 How. Prac., N.Y. 284

3
 ruling, order, contempt of court and all administrative actions that fall

outside of it are fraud upon the People and their expectation of true justice.

For the purported judge of the action Michael J. Spears hereinafter “Spears”

and the prosecuting attorney Robert S. Shapiro hereinafter “Shapiro” were

not on a proper oath and bond and Shapiro actually filed his bond when he

commenced this action. For the very minute that Shapiro brought ‘evidence’

that is suspect to the corporate Grand Jury of Colorado, he was acting

outside the Supreme Law of the Land. For that means that from that point

forward he was outside his oath and bond; to defend and uphold the

Constitution. For Shapiro does not/did not have any first-hand knowledge of

the crimes purportedly committed by the STATE OF COLORADO entity

STEPHEN JOHN NALTY. For Shapiro is not/was not an eye-witness to

any crime by the man :stephen-john:nalty. For all the testimony that Shapiro

gave was in fact third-party information not cognizable in a court of law.

For these reasons, Shapiro is outside of the Supreme Law of the Land and is

a fraudster, committing acts of fraud on the People and in particular on this

man :stephen-john:nalty.

2. Res Judicata – the matter of this case was already adjudicated by the

Peoples Petite Jury Colorado on September 6, 2017. For Notice about the

4
 trial was given to the Appellee and various public servant agents, which

willfully failed to appear. For a document titled ’Peoples Petite Jury

Colorado, Jury Trial September 6, 2017 7:15 pm mountain time, 17-CV-

01046, which includes a Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law. For the

court was a court of record and the matter was heard by Trial by Jury.

Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v.

BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]3

“The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as

conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as

conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry

concerning the fact, by deciding it."

3. Mis-taken id-entity – For :stephen-john:nalty is a man and is not the

STATE OF COLORADO entity STEPHEN JOHN NALTY. For a name

spelled in all capital letters refers to a fiction and does not refer to a living

man. As stated in Gregg’s Manual of English “A name spelled in all capital

letters or a name initialed, is not a proper noun denoting a specific person,

3
“The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on
all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this
court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by
deciding it."

5
 but is a fictitious name, or a name of a dead person, or a nom de guerre.”

For :stephen-john:nalty has repeatedly stated that he, the man, is in the court

by special visitation, not as surety for the thing; the nom de guerre.

[Emphasis added] For the Defendant is actually THE STATE OF

COLORADO.

4. Original indictment - violates V Amendment of the Constitution for the

United States of America; a True Bill was not presented by hand to the

Appellant and not signed by the Jury Foreperson.

5. Jurisdiction - personal, and subject matter was not placed on the record by

Spear or by Shapiro though it was requested many times. For even now the

appellate court must answer what jurisdiction the lower court held. For the

lower court must answer jurisdiction before proceeding.4

4
Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980). “The law provides that once State and
Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.”

Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910. “Jurisdiction can be
challenged at any time and once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be
decided.”

Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215. "...there is, as well, no discretion to ignore that lack of
jurisdiction."

6
6. Public Servants were not on proper oath and bond - For during the trial

Spear acting in the capacity as ‘judge’ was not on a valid oath and bond. For

without a valid oath and bond at the time of the trial, is without Spear’s

authority to act as ‘judge’. For the people of Colorado, specifically those

being convicted of a crime, and in particular this Appellant, have a

reasonable expectation that the public servant, acting as a judge, is lawfully

seated in the office. For no attorney or judge would want to be operated on

by a doctor that is not properly licensed and bonded by the state where the

surgery occurred.

7. Conflict of Interest – for Spear is one of the people on the Notice of fraud

put out by the People of Colorado through its We the People Colorado in

Assembly group. As one of the ‘judges’ not on a valid oath and bond and

an “alledged victim”, it was improper for Spear to be the ‘judge’ of the

proceeding. For this gave Spear the opportunity to retaliate against the

Appellant and Spear did so by withholding evidence, that was attempted to

be placed on the record by the Appellant, from the jurors, repeatedly

removing the jury from the court for ‘discussions’, overruling I, :stephen-

john:’s objections, and sustaining most of Shapiro’s objections.

7
8. Which court and which rules - Spear, nor First Assistant Attorney General

Shapiro ever answered Appellant regarding which court they were acting in

and which rules were being used i.e. Admiralty, Military, or Court of

Record.

9. Original warrant for search and seizure of the private property - was

broad, vague, and without an oath or affirmation by the judge who signed it.

For it violates the IV Amendment to the Constitution in that the search be

particular as to what was being searched and seized nor was there a warrant

for the body. For the Appellant was not served the warrant before the search

and seizure took place.

10. No bail hearing – for Appellant did not get a bail hearing which is required

to be within 96 hours after arrest per Article II section 19 Colorado

Constitution. For that is a denial of due process of law. The sole purpose

and function of a bail bond is to produce the defendant in court then and

there to answer unto a certain information herein pending against him.

Herbertson v. People, 160 Colo. 139, 415 P.2d 53 (1966).

11. Incarceration – for Appellant was incarcerated for months before being

found guilty by a jury; which was not of his peers. For the Appellant, the

living man, is incarcerated in place of the entity that was charged which is

8
 the STATE OF COLORADO entity STEPHEN JOHN NALTY. For the

true surety in this matter is the STATE OF COLORADO.

12. Excessive bail – though Appellant was not a flight risk, nor a danger to the

public, the bail amount was set so high there was no hope to be released. For

Appellant could not raise the needed funds, while chained and locked away,

to make bail. For excessive bail violates both the Constitution of the State of

Colorado, Bill of Rights Article II, Section 20. 5 and the VIII Amendment to

the Constitution. For the DOJ wrote a letter March 14, 2016 6 which states

“Courts must not employ bail or bond practices that cause indigent

defendants to remain incarcerated solely because they cannot afford to pay

for their release.” For incarceration makes it impossible to get ready for

One’s defense. For without proper access to study materials, computer, law

books, phone calls at any time for help from one’s counsel etc. Appellant

was prejudiced and not able to properly present his defense. For People who

choose to defend themselves in inpropria persona are at a great disadvantage

over a person who has an attorney. For the attorney has staff that does his

5
Constitution of the State of Colorado, Bill of Rights, Article II, Section 20
“Excessive bail, fines or punishment. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor
excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
6
Exhibit A – DOJ Letter regarding indigency and bail.

9
 researching, writing of documents, and making phone calls, all with the

freedom to do so but a living man coming inpropria persona does not have

those resources available to him when he is incarcerated.

13. Discovery – for though some discovery was given to the Appellant, it

woefully incomplete. For what discovery was on the discs, was strewn all

over the place on the discs mixed in with ads, pictures, and irrelevant junk.

For there would be one page to a document then one couldn’t find the other

pages and they would be in a whole separate location; documents were not

complete in one file; for a page would be here and then the rest in a different

place.

For while incarcerated, very little time was allotted to Appellant to go

to the law library to view the discovery which is crucial for forming a

defense. For this is a lack of due process which is a violation of the V and

XIV Amendments of the Constitution. For the trial courts determination to

go ahead with the trial without allowing the Appellant sufficient time to

review the discovery, is prejudicial to the Appellant in that he could not

prepare a proper defense.

14. Exculpatory Discovery from the Petitioner – for the Petitioner must give

the Defendant all exculpatory evidence and can withhold none. United

10
States Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). In that

case, the Supreme Court held the prosecution must turn over any evidence

favorable to the defendant. Thus, Brady material is evidence discovered –

but suppressed – by the prosecution that would have helped the defendant in

some way, by proving his or her innocence, impeaching the credibility of a

witness, or reducing his or her sentence.

When a prosecutor withholds favorable evidence from the defense,

Brady material is implicated, and a defendant’s rights to due process under

the U.S. Constitution are violated. The prosecution’s job is not merely to

“win” by getting a conviction, but to seek justice. Defendants are entitled to

all evidence that would help their case.

Brady issues typically arise when a prosecutor gets tunnel vision

because he or she is so convinced the defendant is guilty of the crime. This

tunnel vision leads the prosecutor to ignore or hide evidence that could

potentially prove the defendant’s innocence because the prosecutor does not

want the evidence to get in the way of a conviction.

Post-Conviction Procedure Act. 222 Md. 442, 160 A.2d 912

“… the Court of Appeals held that suppression of the evidence by the
prosecution denied petitioner due process of law, and remanded the case for
a retrial of the question of punishment, not the question of guilt.”

11
 “We agree with the Court of Appeals that suppression of this
confession was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. The Court of Appeals relied, in the main, on two decisions
from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals United States ex rel. Almeida v.
Baldi, 195 F.2d 815, 33 A.L.R.2d 1407, and United States ex rel. Thompson
v. Dye, 221 F.2d 763 which, we agree, state the correct constitutional rule.”

This ruling is an extension of Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, 112,

where the Court ruled that nondisclosure by a prosecutor violates due

process:

"It is a requirement that cannot be deemed to be satisfied by mere

notice and hearing if a state has contrived a conviction through the pretense
of a trial which, in truth, is but used as a means of depriving a defendant of
liberty through a deliberate deception of court and jury by the presentation
of testimony known to be perjured. Such a contrivance by a state to procure
the conviction and imprisonment of a defendant is as inconsistent with the
rudimentary demands of justice as is the obtaining of a like result by
intimidation."

In Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U. S. 213, 215-216, we phrased the rule in

broader terms:

"Petitioner's papers are inexpertly drawn, but they do set forth

allegations that his imprisonment resulted from perjured testimony,
knowingly used by the State authorities to obtain his conviction, and from
the deliberate suppression by those same authorities of evidence favorable to
him. These allegations sufficiently charge a deprivation of rights guaranteed
by the Federal Constitution, and, if proven, would entitle petitioner to
release from his present custody. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103. "

“We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence

favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the

12
 evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good
faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”

“The principle of Mooney v. Holohan is not punishment of society for

misdeeds of a prosecutor, but avoidance of an unfair trial to the accused.
Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted, but when criminal trials
are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused
is treated unfairly. An inscription on the walls of the Department of Justice
states the proposition candidly for the federal domain: "The United States
wins its point whenever justice is done its citizens in the courts." A
prosecution that withholds evidence on deliving mand of an accused which,
if made avail- able, would tend to exculpate him or reduce the penalty helps
shape a trial that bears heavily on the defendant. That casts the prosecutor in
the role of an architect of a proceeding that does not comport with standards
of justice, even though, as in the present case, his action is not "the result of
guile," to use the words of the Court of Appeals. 226 Md. at 427, 174 A.2d at
169.”

“The Third Circuit, in the Baldi case, construed that statement in Pyle
v. Kansas to mean that the "suppression of evidence favorable" to the
accused was itself sufficient to amount to a denial of due process.”

15. Innocent until proven guilty – For incarceration, before People are found

to be guilty, is a violation of Section 25 of the Constitution of the State of

Colorado. For Due Process of law7 is protected in the Constitution of the

State of Colorado and the Constitution

7
Section 25. Due process of law. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or
property, without due process of law.

13
 16. Jury Instruction - Spear instructed the jury, told them what they needed to

include or not include in their deliberation. For this is tampering with the

jury. For it leads the jury towards a certain outcome. For the jury was not

made aware of Jury Nullification and their ability to invoke it.

17. Freedom of Speech - regarding the Constitution and its amendments by

Appellant was not allowed by Spear. For if the Constitution of the State of

Colorado and The Constitution for The United States of America have no

merit, there is no law. For Spear’s repeated objection to both Constitutions

is a clear violation of freedom of speech and freedom to defend oneself with

the Supreme Law of the Land.

18. Exculpatory evidence – various exculpatory evidence was denied for

placement into the record by Spear. For this is prejudicial to the Appellant

and prevented him from defending himself proving his innocence.

19. Appellant’s due process rights - were trampled on through the sham of a

‘trial’. For the Due process Clause of the XIV Amendment and the V

Section 26. Slavery prohibited. There shall never be in this state either slavery or
involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall
have been duly convicted.

14
 Amendment is important or it wouldn’t have been mentioned in 2 different

places.

STATEMENT IDENTIFYING THE NATURE OF THE CAUSE

For this is a direct appeal by the purported defendant in a criminal case from

a conviction and sentence following a jury trial pursuant to CRoCP Rule 23. The

case presents questions of:

Can People hold their public servants accountable to the oath and bond they

took upon entering their office? For if the public servants are not on an oath and

bond or they did not properly file it according to the Constitution of the State of

Colorado, can the People hold them accountable by placing a commercial lien on

the public servant after proper notice of fraud is sent requesting them to fix the

error; upon the public servant’s failure to fix the error, impose a fine with time

allowed to pay, request for payment of fine, and finally place a common law lien

on them personally for failure to do their fiduciary duty to the People and the

Public Trust?; and

Can a corporation, THE STATE OF COLORADO, entrap People going

about their everyday life; place an undercover agent among them to gain the

People’s trust for the sole purpose of entrapping them in a purported crime?; and

15
 Can THE STATE OF COLORADO, or any of its agents disregard the

Constitution of the State of Colorado and the Constitution?; and

Can an indictment be done for any crime other than a capital or infamous

crime, as outline in the Constitution? For what is included is included but that

which is excluded is excluded.

What the Constitution authorizes is valid, but what the Constitution

does not expressly authorize, the Constitution prohibits.

Defendant entity STEPHEN JOHN NALTY, was charged by an unlawful

indictment with several counts: Count# 1 Charge: COCCA-PATTERN OF

RACKETEERING C.R.S # 18-17-104(3), Count# 2 Charge: COCCA-

CONSPIRACY C.R.S # 18-17-104(4), Count# 3 Charge: PUBLIC SERVANT-

ATTEMPT C.R.S # 18-8-306, Count# 4 Charge: PUBLIC SERVANT-ATTEMPT

C.R.S # 18-8-306 Count# 5 Charge: PUBLIC SERVANT-ATTEMPT C.R.S # 18-

8-306 Count# 6 Charge: PUBLIC SERVANT-ATTEMPT C.R.S # 18-8-306,

Count# 7 Charge: EXTORTION-UNLAWFUL ACT C.R.S # 18-3-

207(1)(a),(b)(I), Count# 8 Charge: EXTORTION-UNLAWFUL ACT-CSP C.R.S

# 18-3-207(1)(a),(b)(I), Count# 9 Charge: OFFERING FALSE

INSTRUMENT/RECORDING 1 C.R.S # 18-5-114(1), Count# 10 Charge:

Retaliation Against a Judge C.R.S # 18-8 -615 Count# 11 Charge: RETALIATION

16
AGAINST A PROSECUTOR C.R.S # 18-8-616, Count# 12 Charge: PUBLIC

SERVANT-ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE C.R.S # 18-8-306, Count#13 Charge:

PUBLIC SERVANT-ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE C.R.S # 18-8-306, Count# 14

Charge: PUBLIC SERVANT-ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE C.R.S # 18-8-306,

Count#15 Charge: CRIMINAL EXTORTION C.R.S # 18-3-207(1.5), Count#16

Charge: CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT CRIMINAL EXTORTION C.R.S # 18-3-

207(1.5), Count#17 Charge: Retaliation Against a Judge C.R.S # 18-8-615, Count#

18 Charge: Retaliation Against a Judge C.R.S # 18-8-615, Count #19 Charge:

PUBLIC SERVANT-ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE C.R.S # 18-8-306 Count#20

Charge: PUBLIC SERVANT-ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE C.R.S # 18-8-306,

Count# 21 Charge: PUBLIC SERVANT-ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE C.R.S #

18-8-306, Count# 23 Charge: EXTORTION-UNLAWFUL ACT C.R.S # 18-3-

207(1)(a) ,(b)(I) Count#24 Charge: EXTORTION-UNLAWFUL ACT-CSP C.R.S

# 18-3-207(1)(a),(b)(I), Count#25 Charge: PUBLIC SERVANT-ATTEMPT TO

INFLUENCE C.R.S # 18-8-306, Count #26 Charge:. PUBLIC SERVANT-

ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE C.R.S # 18-8-306, Count# 27 Charge: PUBLIC

SERVANT-ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE C.R.S # 18-8-306, Count#28 Charge:

PUBLIC SERVANT-ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE C.R.S # 18 -8 -306, Count#

29 Charge: PUBLIC SERVANT-ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE C.R.S # 18-8-306,

17
Count# 31 Charge: EXTORTION-UNLAWFUL ACT C.R.S # 18-3-

207(1)(a),(b)(I), Count#32 Charge: EXTORTION-UNLAWFUL ACT-CSP C.R.S

# 18-3-207(1)(a),(b)(I), Count# 33 Charge: Retaliation Against a Judge C.R.S #

18-8-615, Count# 35 Charge: TAXATION-TAX EVASION C.R.S # 39-21-118

(1), Count# 36 Charge: TAXATION-FAIL TO FILE RETURN/PAY TAX C.R.S #

39-21-118(3), Count# 37 Charge: PUBLIC SERVANT-ATTEMPT TO

INFLUENCE C.R.S # 18-8-306, Count#38 Charge: EXTORTION-UNLAWFUL

ACT C.R.S # 18-3-07(1){a),(b){I), and Count#39 Charge: EXTORTION-

UNLAWFUL ACT-CSP C.R.S # 18-3-207(1) (a),(b)(I), on 9/29/2017.

For an indictment is reserved for a capitol or infamous crime per the V

Amendment of the Constitution and these charges are merely statutory, reserved

for government employees, corporations and fictions.

For the indictment presented by the Grand Jury was not by defendant’s

peers, and it lacks the signature of the Jury Foreperson. For the whole concept of a

Grand Jury comes from one of our founding documents; the Magna Carta JUNE

15, A.D. 1215 Anno Domini Iesu Christi:

§52. DUTY OF THE GRAND JURY; “If anyone’s unalienable rights

have been violated, or removed, without a legal sentence of their {“We the
People” Supreme Rulers), named Peers, from their lands, home, liberties or
lawful right “We the People” Supreme Rulers [the twenty-five] shall
straightway restore them. And if a dispute shall arise concerning this matter

18
 it shall be settled according to the judgment of “We the People” Supreme
Rulers, [the twenty-five] Grand Jurors, the sureties of the peace.”
06/15/1215

§61. CONSTITUTION OF A COMMON LAW GRAND JURY

“We The People Supreme Rulers” having discord, which has arisen between
(One People” Supreme Ruler) Us, and our civil servants ,(judges, justices,
attorneys, clerks, elected civil and military officers, Sheriff, US Marshal
Services, congressman, congressman, state representatives) wishing to
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of
liberty to enjoy forever in its entirety. “We The People Supreme Rulers”
may select at Our pleasure [twenty-five] ”People” Supreme Rulers from the
Sovereignty, (not elected public officials civil servants) who ought, with all
their strength, to observe, maintain; and cause to be observed, the peace and
unalienable rights. If any of our civil servants shall have transgressed
against any of the “One People” Supreme Ruler in any respect and they
shall ask (“We The People Supreme Rulers”) Us, to cause that error to be
amended without delay or shall have broken some one of the articles of
peace or security, and their transgression shall have been shown to [four
Jurors] of the aforesaid twenty-five “People” Supreme Rulers from the
Sovereignty, and if those [four Jurors] are unable to settle the transgression
they shall come to the [twenty-five], “People” Supreme Rulers from the
Sovereignty showing to the Grand Jury the error which shall be enforced by
the law of the land. 06/15/1215

For the prosecutor in this case presented ’evidence’ much of which was

taken from the purported defendant’s home. For that ‘evidence’ collected is a

violation of the V Amendment to the Constitution in that the purported

Defendant’s own creations was used to incriminate him. For the ‘evidence’

collected is also a violation of the IV Amendment to the Constitution; was taken by

an unlawful warrant, which lacked an oath or affirmation, and was general in

19
nature, not particularly describing what was being searched for and what

particularly to take.

For the investigation leading to the indictment, was handled by Federal

Bureau of Investigations “FBI” agents and it is now well known that the FBI is

corrupt from its top positions down. For the evidence of this fact is the recent

Bundy case that many are familiar with. For the FBI agents are known to withhold

evidence, conceal documents that should have been made known to the purported

defendant and because of false FBI reports regarding what they call “sovereign

citizen ideology” they carry vendettas out on innocent people, in this case

particularly the Appellant. For if One tries to force the public servant to do his/her

duty, believes in the Constitution’s Amendments, believes in traveling freely

without hindrance by State Patrol, county deputies, or local police, or the

Constitution makes no amendment binding the People to an individual income tax

etc. they are deemed to be a ‘sovereign-citizen’. For that is an oxymoron as one

can be either sovereign defined as one who rules himself or a citizen which owes

an obligation to some society but One cannot be both.

For I, :stephen-john:a living man, explained that I am not equal with the

entity STEPHEN JOHN NALTY, nor am I Defendant. I explained that I am a

living man, a living soul.

20
 For I also am a non-military subject, not receiving pay as a U.S. Citizen

within the military and am not subject to the lower administrative court from which

the ‘verdict’ arose.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

For if any public court officer, whether a ‘judge’, prosecuting attorney, or

any other public officer does not believe in the Constitution, that it is the Supreme

Law of the Land, they have no place in the courtroom. For the Constitution is

what GIVES congress authority, it is what GIVES judicial authority and that

authority is limited; and the rest of the powers are reserved for the People as stated

in the X Amendment. For We the People created the Constitution and without it,

there would be no law, ‘judges’ or prosecutors. For the making of laws is reserved

for the People.

For if the public servants ignore the Constitution, created by We the People

for their state or the United States of America, they are in breach of their contract,

their signed oath, which is a contract between them and the People. For if the

public servants are in breach of the contract, the Public Trust, they are then

personally liable for the harm they inflict on the People.

For while the prosecutor would have this case appear to be about retaliation

on public officers by I, :stephen-john: and others, it is actually about retaliation on

21
I, :stephen-john: and others by the government public servants; for we are holding

their feet to the fire regarding their duty and obligation to the People. For The

Constitution for the United States of America clearly states that the People are

entitled to redress grievances8.

For while the prosecutor would have you believe that a commercial lien is

not a proper redress of grievance what law and authority prohibits it? For once that

public officer steps out from under their office, they are then personally liable for

harming the People. Any officer who is not under proper oath and bond is

committing criminal impersonation of a public officer.

For the State of Colorado, is not injured and no evidence was placed on the

record of its injury. For there is no injured living man or woman, the witnesses

that the lien was placed upon, themselves stated on the record there was no

financial injury to them and they did not rebut the Notice of Fraud given to them,

nor the filed lien itself.

For this appeal is about I, :stephen-john:’s lack of due process as a civilian

which I am entitled to. For Spears abused his judicial discretion many times

8
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.

22
throughout the trial; he sustained most of Shapiro’s objections, yet overruled the

majority of I :stephen-john:’s. For this glaringly is evidence of partiality.

For the trial was not a trial by jury. For if it were, Spears would not have

been able to say anything during the proceeding; he would be a mere spectator.

For Spears is liable for jury tampering the minute he gave ‘instructions’. For what

are instructions? For they give those who receive them a road map as it were on

how to think, react, and what to do. For how then is the jury trying the woman or

man if they are under instructions?

For along with all the judicial misconduct stated in the section

‘STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW’ one of the most

important aspects of a crime is that of intent. For there was no tangible evidence of

intent. For one can do something and not intend for the outcome of the action.

For recently in CLASS v. UNITED STATES, CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CIRCUIT No. 16-424 it was held thus “A guilty plea, by itself, does not bar a

federal criminal defendant from challenging the constitutionality of his statute of

conviction on direct appeal. Pp. 3–11.” “Fifty years ago this Court directly

addressed a similar claim (a claim that the statute of conviction was

unconstitutional). And the Court stated that a defendant’s “plea of guilty did not . .

23
. waive his previous [constitutional] claim.” Haynes v. United States, 390 U. S. 85,

87, n. 2 (1968).” “Citing Black-ledge and Menna, this Court repeated that a guilty

plea does not bar a claim on appeal “where on the face of the record the court had

no power to enter the conviction or impose the sentence.” “For these reasons, we

hold that Rodney Class may pursue his constitutional claims on direct appeal. The

contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is

reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion.” For if one, who is considered a federal criminal defendant, puts in a

guilty plea is not barred from challenging the constitutionality of his statute of

conviction on direct appeal, certainly one who did not place a plea into the record

or even one who does place a not guilty plea into the court, can challenge the

constitutionality of his statute(s) of conviction.

For throughout filed documents and throughout the mockery of a trial,

:stephen-john: challenged the court on the constitutionality of its jurisdiction and of

the constitutionality of the statutes that Shapiro was trying to convict me on.

For the real question at hand and the one that the Appeals Judges need to

decide is what Constitutional Amendment or Amendments was this case brought

under, are the statutes I, :stephen-john: was convicted on, constitutional, and how

24
does the Constitution rule over I, :stephen-john: an heir of the Constitution by

virtue of the fact I am One of We the People?

ARGUMENTS

For the main argument is thus; what is law? For is it the statutes created by

a thing called Congress? For the question is isn’t the Constitution the Supreme

Law of the Land? For what is the meaning of law? Who creates law and from

where did it come? For it is well known that only living man can create law. For

all law originates from YHWH and the words He spoke as recorded in the oldest

living manuscripts written by living man.

For Congress is a mere thing. For without People grouped together called

the Congress, who get together to discuss law, there would be no law.

For even if one does not believe in YHWH then they agree that living man

created law and only living man can. For law existed before the United States and

all the government agencies, including this Appeals Court. For the Magna Carta,

created in 1215, one of the major founding documents leading to the formation of

the Grand Jury, came well before the United States of America which was declared

a new independent nation in 1776, and the United States described in Article 1,

Section 8 of the 1787 Constitution for the United States of America, as District,

was created in 1787 and is only ten miles square.

25
 For the Grand Jury was formed by the Peers to bring peace and tranquility to

the People. For it gives directions on how the People are to deal with civil servants

who transgress against the People. For the Magna Carta describes how 25 People

come together to decide how to handle the transgression of a civil servant and how

4 People from that group investigate the wrong done by the civil servant.

For unlike the State of Colorado or the STATE OF COLORADO grand

jury, which is created from people who hold a drivers license, or who vote in

elections in the United States, a body politic; the Peer, known also as the Peerage

are People who choose to remain a national of the state of their nativity and they

follow the law common to living man, which is not statutes created by congress.

For all People who live on American are not all United States citizens, for many

People are nationals of one of the union states on which their nativity occurred.

For only a vessel is birthed, a living man arrives on the day of his nativity.

For therefore the Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution; so called in

the original writing and created by the People for the civil servants. For this means

any public servant; civil servant; one who serves the People is following a statute

that is outside the Constitution, they are outside their scope of office and are

therefore unprotected by it and their orders are VOID. Valley v. Northern Fire and

Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 (1920). See also Old Wayne Mut. I.

26
Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907); Williamson v. Berry, 8

How. 495, 540, 12 L. Ed, 1170, 1189, (1850); Rose v. Himely, 4 Cranch 241, 269,

2 L.Ed. 608, 617 (1808)9

Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power

delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention

of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable,

but simply VOID, AND THIS IS EVEN PRIOR TO REVERSAL.”

For ALL of the charges brought against STEPHEN JOHN NALTY are not

brought against :stephen-john: the living man who presents this brief. For the

STATE OF COLORADO Grand Jury indicted a thing, a nom de guerre, see page 4

of this brief for explanation of proper English grammar in regards to names.

For ALL the charges STEPHEN JOHN NALTY was convicted of are not

imposed on I the living man :stephen-john: and therefore incarceration of :stephen-

john: is improper and unlawful. For while the charges exist in code, created by a

thing called Congress, each charge does not exist in the Supreme Law of the Land,

9
“Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power
delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention
of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable,
but simply VOID, AND THIS IS EVEN PRIOR TO REVERSAL.” [emphasis
added]

27
the Constitution. For therefore, the charges are repugnant to the Constitution. For

what the Constitution authorizes is valid, but what the Constitution does not

expressly authorize, the Constitution prohibits.

For regarding the purported ‘retaliation’, one must decide which came first

the egg or the chicken so to speak. For in this case, Shapiro, would have you to

believe that STEPHEN JOHN NALTY, a thing, retaliated against various public

servants, specifically judges. For Shapiro is not the plaintiff, is not harmed, is not

a victim, but is a public servant and in that role he is responsible to tell the truth,

for how can that happen when he was not a eye witness to the events? For also, is

it not true that the judges and others that had the lien placed on them first received

a Notice of Fraud, which gave them opportunity to correct the issue or make a

public announcement that they step down? For at what point was the lien placed;

was it without warning; did it come out of nowhere? For :stephen-john: desires to

know why holding public servants to their oath and bond is a punishable event?

For does this line up with the Constitution or the Constitution of the State of

Colorado? For as judges of the Appeals Court, you all know the truthful answer.

For if the public servants had been on an oath and bond, then there would

have been no Notice of Fraud originated. For it was created as a result of the

public servants that were occupying a vacant office. For without a person in that

28
office on a valid oath and bond is with the office vacant. For from the attorney

general’s office of the State of Ohio it states thus: “COUNTY COURTS; JUDGE-

FAILURE AND REFUSAL TO TAKE OATH OF OFFICE - §1907.09 R.C. -

SUCH OFFICE VACANT; §3.30 R.C. AND APPOINTMENT IS PROVIDED,

SEC. 13, ART. IV, OHIO CONSTITUTION.10 For Article XII, Section 10 of the

Constitution of the State of Colorado has similar wording.11

For if there had been no Notice of Fraud originated, there would have been

no fine imposed, timeline to comply, and specifically no lien placed. For this court

is reminded the liens were placed only AFTER the public servants did not correct

the record; at that point, they were no longer public servants, but People harming

the Public Trust, pretending to fulfill an office that is lawfully considered vacant.

For the People, not the office, not the government had a lien placed on them as

individuals who knew or should know the office that they were trying to occupy.

For they made their own decision to go against the law, hence against the People.

10
SYLLABUS: “Where a person elected to the office of county judge fails and
refuses to take the oath of office as required by Section 1907.09, Revised Code, the
office is, under the provisions of Section 3.30, Revised Code, to be considered as
vacant and such vacancy shall be filled by the governor as provided in Section 13,
Article IV, Ohio Constitution. Columbus, Ohio, January 15, 1958”
11
Section 10. Refusal to qualify; vacancy. If any person elected or appointed to
any office shall refuse or neglect to qualify therein within the time prescribed by
law, such office shall be deemed vacant.

29
For either this esteemed court believes that the People employ the public servants

and are the bosses or they are not; but if they are, then they owe the duty and

obligation to the People to be properly seated with an oath and bond.

For the People who assembled together were a group of People; not an

Enterprise. For what is the definition of an enterprise, and why can Shapiro

determine that the right of the People to peaceable assemble creates an entity

known only to Shapiro and his ilk as the Enterprise? For again, the Constitution

protects the right of the People to peaceable assemble; Amendment I of the

Constitution. For the People personally assembled to redress the grievance of the

public servants who were unlawfully trying to fulfill a vacant office. For all those

public servants had to do was to comply with the law and they chose not to.

For STEPHEN JOHN NALTY is not paid by the government, is not in the

service of the United States, and is civilly dead. For however, I, :stephen-john: the

living man, alive, and incarcerated unlawfully, is owed civilian due process, I am

owed subrogation 12 because if I am to be unlawfully held as surety, I am to be

12
Black’s First Edition 1891 “SUBROGATION. The substitution of one thing for
another, or of one person into the place of another with respect to rights,
claims, or securities. Subrogation denotes the putting a third person who has paid
a debt in the place of the creditor to whom he has paid it, so as that lie may
exercise against the debtor all the rights Which the creditor, if unpaid, might have
done. It is of two kinds,- either conventional or legal; the former being where the

30
compensated. For during the trial Spear called I, :stephen-john: the subrogee

thereby acknowledging that indeed I am subrogated which means that I no longer

am in the position as ‘debtor’ to any of the charges.

For this matter is Res Judicata 13 For the ’Peoples Petite Jury Colorado

decided the matter, tried to lodge the decision as a foreign judgment but was

prevented by the public servants who made the courier file it as a regular document

into the case. For again, this is evidence of public servants lack of due process

towards :stephen-john:.

For as to the matter of jurisdiction I, :stephen-john: have throughout the

lower inferior court proceedings did not consent, did not accept either personal, nor

subject-matter jurisdiction. For this is on the record many times.

RELIEF SOUGHT

For the reasons stated above, the Appeals Court Judges are morally

obligated to reverse the ruling and dismiss the case with prejudice. For only in this

way, can the Appellate judges truly serve the People and true justice by dismissing

subrogation is express, by the acts o[ the creditor and the third person; the latter
being (as in the case of sureties) where the subrogation
is implied by the law. Brown.”
13
Black’s First Edition 1894=1 – “A matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon
on or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment. A phrase of the civil law,
constantly quoted in the books. 2 Kent, Comm. 120.”

31
this case that at every turn violated I, :stephen-john:’s civilian due process rights

guaranteed by the Constitution.

For under penalty of per-jury I, :stephen-nalty: declare I am a living man, an

adult before God, and that what is stated herein is the truth to the best of my

knowledge and belief.

Honorably submitted,

By:
All Inherent Rights Reserved

32