Rocky-Lee:Hutson, another victim of illegal corporate government

[KickahaOta]

You know a case with a caption like this has a good chance of sovcit buffoonery, or at least some other form of legal lulz:

ROCKY-LEE: HUTSON, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF COLORADO; JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Governor; CYNTHIA H. COFFMAN, Colorado State Attorney General; WAYNE W. WILLIAMS, Colorado Secretary of State; COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, all of the officers and assistants; AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, all licensed bar attorneys and assistants; COLORADO BAR ASSOCIATION, all licensed bar attorneys and assistants; MESA COUNTY COURT, all of the judges and their assistants; MESA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, all of the officers and assistants; MESA COUNTY; MATT LEWIS, Mesa County Sheriff; MESA COUNTY JAIL, all deputies in the Sheriff's Department; CITY OF GRAND JUNCTION; GRAND JUNCTION POLICE DEPARTMENT, The Chief of Police and everyone under him down to the meter maid; EAGLE COUNTY; JAMES VAN BEEK, Eagle County Sheriff; EAGLE COUNTY JAIL, all deputies in the Sheriff's Department; CITY OF EAGLE; EAGLE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, all of the officers and assistants; EAGLE COUNTY COURTS, all of the judges and their assistants; CITY OF GOLDEN; JEFFERSON COUNTY; JEFF SHRADER, Jefferson County Sheriff; JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL, all deputies in the Sheriff's Department; PUEBLO COUNTY; KIRK M. TAYLOR, Pueblo County Sheriff; PUEBLO COUNTY JAIL, all deputies in the Sheriff's Department; PUEBLO COUNTY COURT, all of the judges and their assistants; CITY OF PUEBLO; PUEBLO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, all of the officers and assistants, Defendants - Appellees.

Yes, the ever-popular "continued on page 2" case caption.

The Colorado District Court complaint, all 55 pages of it, is here. Note that this is the second amended complaint, which means that the judge presumably tried to explain twice what the concept of a clear and concise complaint was, and this was as close to one as Mr. :Hutson was going to get.

This is fairly typical:

FORTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AND SUPPORTING FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE: He is to oversee ALL Businesses and Corporations with an OATH of office and a BOND. He has failed to uphold my Civil Rights from those under his command.
The "STATE OF COLORADO" is a CORPORATION and not a government by the People, the proof is in the Dunn & Bradstreet numbers for "STATE OF COLORADO-071549000" and also in "CITY OF DENVER-066985480". These numbers are not given to GOVERNMENTS but only to CORPORATIONS to show what their credit rating is and can they acquire more credit or get a higher rating.

(and several paragraphs from the second edition of American Jurisprudence and a quick definition of "CORPORATION" from Black's Law Dictionary, proving how much sovcits love their dictionaries)

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AND SUPPORTING FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

COLORADO BAR ASSOCIATION: They are licensed through themselves and not through the State or any agency and are to defend the rights of the citizens and the people of the State with an OATH of office and a BOND. They are guilty of violating their own oath along with my Civil Rights.
From the inception and being a sub corporation of The American Bar Association, they have convinced the state legislators to allow their organization to complete the transformation of turning The State of Colorado from a Republic to a full fledge democracy. A democracy is Communism and that is Treason on the country and its people.
Because of The Colorado Bar Association I have been arrested, detained, held for ransom by way of outrageous and unreasonable bails on what's known as infractions.

Streamlining quotes a bit more, from the eighth claim against Mesa County Court: "According to the law, State Courts are to be common law courts and Federal Courts are to be Courts of Record. In the State of Colorado these State courts are acting and operating under statutory law which is corporate law and not common law." And lots more from American Jurisprudence, therefore victory. "The judges in Mesa County are acting under Assumption and Presumption in thinking that I am a corporation and not a living breathing creation of God."

A particular letdown is claim fourteen, which (as mentioned in the caption) is against "GRAND JUNCTION POLICE DEPARTMENT (THE CHIEF OF POLICE AND EVERYONE UNDER HIM DOWN TO THE METER MAID)", yes gives not a whit of explanation of what constitutional travesty the meter maid has committed.

The Tenth Circuit sums all this up more succinctly: (Footnotes and citations omitted.)

Rocky-Lee: Hutson [sic], pro se, appeals the dismissal of his claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
Hutson alleges that various state and federal officials, as well as the American and Colorado Bar Associations, conspired to deprive him of his federal rights. The district court concluded his complaint was insufficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. It also noted that most of the defendants were immune from suit or were not acting under color of law. The district court granted Hutson leave to file an amended complaint, but because he did not cure the aforementioned defects, the court dismissed his claims. Hutson timely appealed.
We review a Rule 8(a) dismissal for abuse of discretion. Construing his pro se filings liberally, we agree with the district court that Hutson has not complied with Rule 8. A complaint “must explain what each defendant did to him or her; when the defendant did it; how the defendant’s action harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated.” Hutson raises numerous claims for relief, but does not explain what actions particular defendants took or how their actions violated his rights. Similarly, on appeal Hutson does not address Rule 8 in a meaningful manner, but instead advances vague assertions that he has been harassed by a special agent (who was not named as a defendant), that an unnamed attorney offered to settle this case for $25,000,000, and that various entities are improperly acting under “corporate law.”
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Because Hutson has not made a “reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal,” we
DENY his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. All other pending motions are DENIED.

[NYGman]

I believe he means Parking enforcement officer. Meter Maid is a bit antiquated and sexist, if you ask me. There are many Men and Women who perform this task now days, and the meter maid connotation refers to another time, when Women historically took this role, as they were not permitted to be "real police" but could be a Lowly Meter maid.

There is one exception to this, where Meter Maid's are still Meter Maids...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfers_P ... eter_Maids

Although they don't give tickets...

[Judge Roy Bean]

Hutson is a full-blown recidivist kook - you'll find him on the list of "lien claimants" in this steaming pile of absurdity:

https://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com/2 ... ment-of-j/

I guess this part didn't happen the way they planned:

4. On the NINETY-FIRST (91st) DAY after receipt of this Lien, the US Marshals & Interpol, are to commence, at once, with the freezing, forfeiture, and seizing, of all corporate, personal, public, private, and individual properties, accounts, and assets, known to be in the possession of, or under control of, the A.B.A., I.B.A., D.O.J., and/or any & all of their corporate contractors, however related.

[notorial dissent]

I think there is definitely something in the water in that area, or else there is a crazy magnet buried there somewhere.

[Gregg]

I think there is definitely something in the water in that area, or else there is a crazy magnet buried there somewhere.

General proximity to He Who Shall Not Be Named (DMVP)

I'm 1600 miles away and he makes me crazy.

[Arthur Rubin]

General proximity to He Who Shall Not Be Named (DMVP)

I thought "He Who Must Not be Named" is Boisjoli. I suppose "He Who Shall Not Be Named" is different.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... I thought "He Who Must Not be Named" is Boisjoli. I suppose "He Who Shall Not Be Named" is different.

I think you might be confusing Boisjoli with Beetlejuice.

[Dr. Caligari]

Boisjoli.
Boisjoli.
Boisjoli.

[KickahaOta]

After three long years, a Rocky Hutson update!

It seems that Mr. :Hutson attempted to pursue his dubious theories of the nature of American government structure in a more direct way:

Hutson’s FCA convictions stem from his having submitted bills to the Director of the Finance Office at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), requesting that the agency pay for purchases he wanted to make. Each request for payment was accompanied by an invoice or contract he had with a private individual or entity, a note saying, “Thank you for paying this debt,” and a modified check drawn on his closed personal account made payable to the “United States of America without recourse” for the amount to be paid.

Unsurprisingly, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) was unreceptive to these creative financial maneuvers. Perhaps a bit surprisingly, the relevant district attorneys were rather peeved about the whole thing too, and filed charges under the False Claims act.

Mr. :Hutson sought shelter in the comforting folds of the Bill of Rights:

Before trial, Hutson filed a motion to dismiss the FCA charges, claiming his conduct was political expression protected by the First Amendment and that it did not satisfy the elements of § 287. More specifically, he maintained that his requests for payment involved an expression of his “genuine belief” that the federal government is liable for its citizens’ private debts, and that his act of “petition[ing] the government to pay his bills” was thus speech protected by the First Amendment.
[...] In the alternative, he maintained that his submissions were not “claims” within the meaning of the FCA and that even if they were, the government’s evidence was insufficient to prove that he knew they were false when he submitted them because he “whole heartedly believed” the government was responsible for his debts[...]

Spoiler: It didn't work. A 70-month prison sentence's worth of "didn't work."

For more details of exactly why it didn't work, you can read the Tenth Circuit's thoughts on the matter.

[notorial dissent]

That is a whole boatload of cray cray. I had forgotten just how far in the outer loonysphere he was.