Van Pelt Watch

[David Merrill]

Cool then; you watched the video. Thanks!

[David Merrill]

Lawdog is better than Nikki for admissions. Thanks for that. Anyway it is clear already that I have not been arraigned.

The part I have been enjoying came from Demosthenes:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3607&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Count Date Details
1 06/24/2004 Charges: At-risk Assault 3-Know/Reckless injury
Status: Main Charge
Statute: 18-6.5-103(3)(c);18-3-204
Class: F6 (Class 6 Felony)
BAC: 0
Arrest Date: 06/24/2004
Plea Date: 10/06/2008
Plea: Plea Not Guilty

1 n/a Charges: At-risk Adult/Juv/negligent bodily inj
Status: Arrest Only Charge
Statute: 18-6.5-103(2)(c)
Class: F6 (Class 6 Felony)
BAC: 0
Arrest Date: 06/24/2004

and then after four and a half years:

Vanpelt, Louanne v. Vanpelt, David Merrill
Restraining Order Domestic Abu; C -Civil -County
Summary

Judge: Robin Lynn Chittum
Court: El Paso County Court
Division: N
EFiled: Y
Appealed: N
Case Closed Date: 08/26/2008

Case Status

Closed
Permanent Restraining Order Granted
Protected Adult
Restrained

And a direct quote:

EIther David assaulted his mom or he didn't.

Now we can get to the crux of the matter - judicial immunity. SAMELSON has none when he steps outside of statute. Therefore the lien is good. No judicial immunity. But a violated oath of office there in place; the page behind the $20M bill.

http://michie.lexisnexis.com/colorado/l ... -401%27%5D

16-5-401. Limitation for commencing criminal proceedings and juvenile delinquency proceedings.

(1) (a) Except as otherwise provided by statute applicable to specific offenses, delinquent acts, or circumstances, no adult person or juvenile shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense or delinquent act unless the indictment, information, complaint, or petition in delinquency is filed in a court of competent jurisdiction or a summons and complaint or penalty assessment notice is served upon the defendant or juvenile within the period of time after the commission of the offense or delinquent act as specified below:

Other felonies: Three years
Misdemeanors: Eighteen months
Class 1 and 2 misdemeanor traffic offenses: One year
Petty offenses: Six months


(2) (a) The period within which a prosecution must be commenced does not include any period in which a prosecution is pending against the adult defendant or juvenile for the same conduct, even if the indictment, information, complaint, or petition in delinquency which commences the prosecution is quashed or the proceedings thereon are set aside or are reversed on appeal.

(3) (b) The period within which a prosecution must be commenced does not include any period in which a prosecution is pending against the adult defendant or juvenile for the same conduct, even if filed in a court without jurisdiction, when based on a reasonable belief the court possesses jurisdiction.

Which brings us back to Lawdog's admission. If I had been arraigned, or if maybe the shink had gotten anywhere with his assertion I have been informed about my right to an attorney - that the state district court has any right to hire one for me in other words, then I might be subject to interpretations of statutes that do not have to conform to the constitutions. For example when SAMELSON said he had entered a Not Guilty plea for me and I said, That is practicing law from the bench. - That entry on 10/6/08 above.

Article XII Officers; Section 8. Oath of civil officers. Every civil officer, except members of the general assembly and such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of the state of Colorado, and to faithfully perform the duties of the office upon which he shall be about to enter.

According to non-constitutional statutes, from a general assembly that is not required to uphold the constitutions, SAMELSON was required to enter a Not Guilty plea for me. Instead he badgered me with threats about psychiatric evaluation from jail to get an "arraignment" that will never hold up to any appeal. Cool!


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. I enjoyed Observer's slight on the psychiatry profession too:

The preceding post could very well be exhibit one for any pyschiatrist looking for hard evidence of narcissism.

[Doktor Avalanche]

from a general assembly that is not required to uphold the constitutions

Did you get that off the internets?

[Judge Roy Bean]

from a general assembly that is not required to uphold the constitutions

Did you get that off the internets?

No, some of those kinds of things come from one of the voices in Van Pelt's head.

[David Merrill]

Yet I quoted it from the state constitution right there for JRB to read. And JRB is calling me by the same fatal error of misnomer. Good thing it is not the Internet that prosecutes!


Enjoy yourselves.

[Nikki]

David:

Let's posit a situation:

First, the court decides that you are wrong, that you have been arraigned.

Second, the court decides that you are wrong, that the original warrant hadn't expired, that the statute of limitations hasn't run, and that the timely trial rule hasn't passed.

Third, the court holds a trial and finds you guilty of violating the restraining order and abusing your mother.

Should all that happen, what do you plan to do? Are you going to stand there and demand your twenty million dollars, or are you going to allow the court officers to escort you off to prison?

What's your contingency plan in case the court ignores all your meta-legal posturings?

[fortinbras]

from the Constitution of the State of Colorado, Article V, section 2:

Section 2. Election of members - oath - vacancies.
. . . .
(2) Each member of the general assembly, before he enters upon his official duties, shall take an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of the state of Colorado and to faithfully perform the duties of his office according to the best of his ability. This oath or affirmation shall be administered in the chamber of the house to which the member has been elected.
. . . . . .
Source: Entire article added, effective August 1, 1876, see L. 1877, p. 37. L. 50: Entire section amended, see L. 51, p. 553. L. 74: Entire section amended, p. 447, effective January 1, 1975.

This is typical of DVP's slipshod research.

[Dezcad]

Arrest Date: 06/24/2004
Plea Date: 10/06/2008
Plea: Plea Not Guilty

16-5-401. Limitation for commencing criminal proceedings and juvenile delinquency proceedings.

(1) (a) Except as otherwise provided by statute applicable to specific offenses, delinquent acts, or circumstances, no adult person or juvenile shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense or delinquent act unless the indictment, information, complaint, or petition in delinquency is filed in a court of competent jurisdiction or a summons and complaint or penalty assessment notice is served upon the defendant or juvenile within the period of time after the commission of the offense or delinquent act as specified below:

Other felonies: Three years
Misdemeanors: Eighteen months
Class 1 and 2 misdemeanor traffic offenses: One year
Petty offenses: Six months

Please note, David, that the statute of limitations runs from the "commission of the offense" to the "filing of the indictment, information or complaint". So, the time between the issuance of the warrant and your recent arrest has nothing to do with the statute of limitations.

Also, should you research the speedy trial rule in Colorado, the time for a speedy trial doesn't begin to run until the defendant enters a plea of not guilty. Since you continue to profess that you have yet to enter a plea, or have been arraigned, you cannot legally claim a violation of the speedy trial rule.

Speedy trial commences on the date of filing the not guilty plea. Harrison v. District Court, 192 Colo. 351, 559 P.2d 225 (1977), Rodman v. Adams County Court, 694 P.2d 871 (Colo. App. 1984).

[Doktor Avalanche]

Also, should you research the speedy trial rule in Colorado, the time for a speedy trial doesn't begin to run until the defendant enters a plea of not guilty. Since you continue to profess that you have yet to enter a plea, or have been arraigned, you cannot legally claim a violation of the speedy trial rule.

That's a good point, Dez.

How about it, Davey? Why all the fuss about a speedy trial when you claim to not have ever entered a plea?

[David Merrill]

Thanks guys;


That took me all of about 30 seconds to process.

Nikki simply has misread things and that is a great relief. I will let her think the way she does. She is too obsessed about things about me in ways I do not want to understand to bother correcting her about facts.

Fortinbras brings up research I did through a NY ADA on a Yahoo group a couple years ago. The key word is subscribe. It has to do with the tranformation of an electorate body when a home rule city or town grows to the borders of the county - it becomes a municipal electorate. Like when Rick Stanley wore an unloaded pistol to an assembly in Denver and was prosecuted under municipal home rule, trying to argue the constitutions. The point being SAMELSON is required by the constitutions to take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support... Then for these officials required to subscribe (publish) their oaths the state constitution goes on to specify when and where - as it does not require of the general assembly;

Section 8. Oath of civil officers. Every civil officer, except members
of the general assembly and such inferior officers as may be by law exempted,
shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe an oath or
affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of the state of
Colorado, and to faithfully perform the duties of the office upon which he shall
be about to enter.


Section 9. Oaths - where filed. Officers of the executive department
and judges of the supreme and district courts, and district attorneys, shall file
their oaths of office with the secretary of state; every other officer shall file his
oath of office with the county clerk of the county wherein he shall have been
elected.


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.

Whereas the oaths of the general assembly are privately witnessed among the general assembly and not publicly available in writing from a competent clerk. Thanks for bringing that up though - it got me pondering if Colorado might be unique or if attorneys in all states have made the same arrangement for the privatization of statutes and that the revised statutes in other states will only be deemed constitutional or not by the Bar Associations.

Now Dezcad brought up the only point that required some thought. And it would really require more the essence of the conversations that have transpired. The statute of limitations is essentially to protect the right to a speedy trial and SAMELSON honored the abatement for misnomer conditionally - by putting the case under Review for five years and three days. This is a deviation on the innocent until proven guilty principle by twisting the concept of deferred sentencing into deferred arrest/trial. There is no constitutional or statutory foundation to presume I am guilty of anything but SAMELSON was apparently presuming I would plead guilty at any time in the future five years and three days.

http://www.box.net/shared/static/dx6n6meiql.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/static/ji0di35mj5.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/static/uapu3roz3l.pdf - this one.
http://www.box.net/shared/static/4jzdhqeytq.pdf

This pressure for me to plea bargain was so great that the youngster prosecutor actually wrote email to his two witnesses pressuring them, on the precept of my innocence and their letters attesting that the prosecution against me is falsely upheld by the state, that if they really cared about me going to prison - they will simply convince me to plead guilty and accept misdemeanor community service. - Yep! That's right folks - I put that email into the case and should this get to trial I will not only expose the police officer lying on the first paragraph of the Affidavit of Probable Cause like in the video - but felony witness tampering too. I have already indicted SAMELSON for falsifying the record and that just goes to show something you Quatlosers wont address - if you had a point, then why would SAMELSON be deleting his entry into the Register of Action?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1028120951

But it really comes down to the members of the jury panel being able to read a calendar and know that the alleged crime happened in 2004 and this is 2009. It is already public that I corrected the clerk and offered my cellphone # and a promise to save any fuss about arrest - that I would be reporting to the jail within four hours of notice about any arrest warrant. It's all right there in the video. It is the people on the panel who will be deciding whether there is reasonable certainty, and reasonable doubt about a cloudy issue of being reckless - as one of the only two witnesses has had the time to die...

And the good Doktor still misreads posts. I will let him ride along with Nikki on that one. Minute Marks 10:30 and specifically 22:10. And one should ponder the right SAMELSON swore to uphold about a defendant understanding the nature and cause of the accusation and of course the forum.

Which brings us to why I pigeonhole Doktor and Nikki together - they simply point out the perils of defending oneself as opposed to playing it safe. I would like to see somebody plead guilty to a broken headlight charge instead of running a left turn arrow - swearing up and down before God and all that is Holy, in open court that is actually true... Yeah. Your Honor, I actually had a broken headlight and am here to confess...



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. And as for Judge Roy Bean and you all calling me Van Pelt; you should know that SAMELSON has been calling me Mr. Merrill at all times in open court, occasionally stipulating "or whatever you like to be called." - Like it doesn't really matter - he is convinced the man accused is the same one in the courtroom there at the podium. Except at the Trial Readiness hearing that is. He must have gotten in touch with JRB while changing that to a Motions Hearing about the psychiatric evaluation because he was sure to notify Mr. VAN PELT of the order and made sure that acknowledged the notice on the record. - For "Mr. VAN PELT".

So you can imagine my relief when he withdrew that false assertion I am David Merrill VAN PELT.

http://www.box.net/shared/static/4jzdhqeytq.pdf

[fortinbras]

DVP gets himself into more knots trying to justify his errors.

He began by denying that legislators swear to uphold the Constitution. He was proven wrong. Now he makes a big deal from the fact that the State Constitution says that regular civil servants have to "subscribe" an oath to defend the Constitution, but that members of the General Assembly are merely required "to take" a similar oath. Of course, regular civil servants get hired, individually, every week whereas Legislators pretty much start all on the same day and continue until the same day. Their presence in the Assembly is sufficient evidence, without having to look for a document, that they took the oath. The ceremony where they all took that oath is in the legislative journals and it probably was open to the public.

The statute of limitations on prosecutions is not related to a right to a speedy trial. The statute of limitations is actually an allowance of time to the prosecution in the opposite direction, roughly proportional to the severity of the crime itself. That's why there's no statute of limitations for murder and other capital crimes.

[Doktor Avalanche]

That took me all of about 30 seconds to process.

This coming from the same guy who told a judge to his face that you didn't understand that you had a right to attorney.

That right there was probably the lamest attempt at gaming the system it's ever been my sad duty to witness.

This coming from the same guy who confused a neurologist with a lawyer. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that doctor wrote the court back saying you didn't obey the judge's order and it shouldn't come as any shock when that revelation gets dropped on you at your next hearing.

I watched that video and listened to your tripe. Wow...just so many ways I can tell you how full of it you are - the mind reels.

You know, if you spent half as much time and energy trying to make things right for yourself instead of engaging in the act of trying to prove to us why the state of Colorado suddenly owes you twenty million dollars you might just come out on top.

Hope you like prison food, bubba.

[David Merrill]

DVP gets himself into more knots trying to justify his errors.

He began by denying that legislators swear to uphold the Constitution. He was proven wrong. Now he makes a big deal from the fact that the State Constitution says that regular civil servants have to "subscribe" an oath to defend the Constitution, but that members of the General Assembly are merely required "to take" a similar oath. Of course, regular civil servants get hired, individually, every week whereas Legislators pretty much start all on the same day and continue until the same day. Their presence in the Assembly is sufficient evidence, without having to look for a document, that they took the oath. The ceremony where they all took that oath is in the legislative journals and it probably was open to the public.

The statute of limitations on prosecutions is not related to a right to a speedy trial. The statute of limitations is actually an allowance of time to the prosecution in the opposite direction, roughly proportional to the severity of the crime itself. That's why there's no statute of limitations for murder and other capital crimes.

That's a good point there. And like the same point made by the librarian at the Federal Register when I wanted the President's subscribed oath. But it is not true. District court judges and the district attorneys are on elected and appointed terms too. My point was that there are certain officials with fungible bonds properly published with reliable and unbiased clerks. Like with the NY ADA, he directed me to ask any one of his some-seventy colleagues who were there at the swearing in ceremony. - Yeah!! Like that would work.

The $20M lien is based on the fungible bond and the reason I was able to acquire it where the State of Colorado Capital Finance Corporation is also registered.

http://www.box.net/shared/static/dx6n6meiql.pdf

Do you see it right there? There is the bill followed by the documented bond.

That took me all of about 30 seconds to process.

This coming from the same guy who told a judge to his face that you didn't understand that you had a right to attorney.

That right there was probably the lamest attempt at gaming the system it's ever been my sad duty to witness.

This coming from the same guy who confused a neurologist with a lawyer. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that doctor wrote the court back saying you didn't obey the judge's order and it shouldn't come as any shock when that revelation gets dropped on you at your next hearing.

I watched that video and listened to your tripe. Wow...just so many ways I can tell you how full of it you are - the mind reels.

You know, if you spent half as much time and energy trying to make things right for yourself instead of engaging in the act of trying to prove to us why the state of Colorado suddenly owes you twenty million dollars you might just come out on top.

Hope you like prison food, bubba.

I told the judge I did not understand the state he claims affiliation with granting me a right to an attorney. If you ever bothered to look up definitions of arraignment you might understand. For the psychiatrist to lie, and your support of him to do so really demonstrates the unbalanced nature of your emotional posts Doktor.

And I pigeonholed you with Nikki because of your hatred-driven remarks.

All the while you care not to address SAMELSON falsifying the record. Especially Lawdog who defended SAMELSON's court to be a court of record elsewhere. Well then, the record cannot be tampered with so.

The thing about living a lie; like you and Nikki have chosen for yourselves, is that you have to repent or live with that for the remainder of your days. You have to seek out blood sacrifice like with Jesus or other broadswipe atonements. Good luck with that.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Doktor Avalanche]

I told the judge I did not understand the state he claims affiliation with granting me a right to an attorney. If you ever bothered to look up definitions of arraignment you might understand. For the psychiatrist to lie, and your support of him to do so really demonstrates the unbalanced nature of your emotional posts Doktor.

Bullsh*t - your words to the judge were, when asked if you understood that you had a right to attorney, were that you didn't understand.

You reiterated that point three times.

At no point did you ever tell the judge that you didn't understand the state he claims affiliation with granting you a right to an attorney.

These are your words, Davey, on that screed you call a video.

And the neurologist didn't lie. He told you flat out he wasn't an attorney but you insisted he was because it sounded like (in your words) he was giving you legal advice (but he certainly got annoyed with you and correctly deduced you were trying to game him).

Tape doesn't lie, Davey.

[David Merrill]

I told the judge I did not understand the state he claims affiliation with granting me a right to an attorney. If you ever bothered to look up definitions of arraignment you might understand. For the psychiatrist to lie, and your support of him to do so really demonstrates the unbalanced nature of your emotional posts Doktor.

Bullsh*t - your words to the judge were, when asked if you understood that you had a right to attorney, were that you didn't understand.

You reiterated that point three times.

At no point did you ever tell the judge that you didn't understand the state he claims affiliation with granting you a right to an attorney.

These are your words, Davey, on that screed you call a video.

And the neurologist didn't lie. He told you flat out he wasn't an attorney but you insisted he was because it sounded like (in your words) he was giving you legal advice (but he certainly got annoyed with you and correctly deduced you were trying to game him).

Tape doesn't lie, Davey.

Exactly but as you might imagine, the Great Seal of Authority for the State of Colorado was hanging on the wall behind him. So it went without saying he was offering me the right to understand my right to an attorney. But since the tape does not lie, rather than offer hearsay from me about proof to make a point let's look at your pseudonomania - that you condone the psychiatrist say that I did not fill the court's Order?

Listen to Minute Mark 39 of the video. You are trying to scare me with the possibility that Dr. BERMUDEZ told me I had satisfied the Order "as far as I am concerned" but will tell SAMELSON that I did not? Thanks for that warning - I suppose I better get a copy of the video on DVD into my federal evidence repository too?*

But to be honest with you, BERMUDEZ struck me as more professional than that. The purpose of annoying him really was more along the lines with Demosthenes:

David wrote:

That is almost as funny as Nikki and Demosthenes casting aspersions on my sanity

Sorry, David. I don't think you're insane.

See that? Now I am cured of mental illness? Demosthenes has long upheld I am mentally ill. I know that is just her opinion of me and you can see how much credit I give amatuer psychiatrists who diagnose people over cyberspace. But just the same, to prevent being appointed an attorney who will throw an easy acquittal, it was necessary to drive the psychiatrist into condemning me to my own devices - to report that I am perfectly competent to stand trial and to understand the nature and cause of the accusations, my right to an attorney etc...



Regards,

David Merrill.


* Wesley (Wserra); Please keep an eye out for that will you?

[The Observer]

That's a good point there. And like the same point made by the librarian at the Federal Register when I wanted the President's subscribed oath. But it is not true.

Guys, this is a perfect example of why it is a waste of time to enter into a discussion with David. In two sentences he tells us that Fortinbras has made a good point, but that it is not true. How can a false conclusion be good? How could it have value? This is the type of contradictory wordplay that goes on in David's thought process and resembles like nothing else the doublespeak of "1984". It has become second nature to him, a defense mechanism that he employs so that he can create wiggle room when you go to pin him to the mat.

Trying to advise him how he should correctly defend himself in the courtroom is another waste of time and certainly goes against one of Napoleon's maxims: "I never interrupt an enemy when I see him making a mistake."

[Nikki]

David's inability or unwillingness to address the hypotheticals I posted eralier is strong evidence of his detachment from reality.

Either he doesn't comprehend that there are potential outcomes other than him receiving twenty million dollars or he is convinced that there is no possibility of those outcomes happening.

Irespective, he has put on blinders which carefully block him from seeing anything other than things which correlate with his warped world view. The biggest problem with blinders is that they completely block you from seeing anything coming at you from the side.

David is in for a major surprise when the blinders come off and he has to ask himself "How did I end up here?"

[David Merrill]

That's a good point there. And like the same point made by the librarian at the Federal Register when I wanted the President's subscribed oath. But it is not true.

Guys, this is a perfect example of why it is a waste of time to enter into a discussion with David. In two sentences he tells us that Fortinbras has made a good point, but that it is not true. How can a false conclusion be good? How could it have value? This is the type of contradictory wordplay that goes on in David's thought process and resembles like nothing else the doublespeak of "1984". It has become second nature to him, a defense mechanism that he employs so that he can create wiggle room when you go to pin him to the mat.

Trying to advise him how he should correctly defend himself in the courtroom is another waste of time and certainly goes against one of Napoleon's maxims: "I never interrupt an enemy when I see him making a mistake."

Why address hypotheticals, as Nikki puts it, when you wont address the facts?

I keep putting it before you in Wserra's file bucket from federal court. If there were anything to your assertions about arraignment etc. then SAMELSON would not falsify the record. And if there were any teeth to statutes commanding SAMELSON to enter a Not Guilty plea for me, he would have done that too.

As far as something being a Quatloser lie but still having value? You guys really underestimate yourselves!



Regards,

David Merrill.

[fortinbras]

Trying to advise him how he should correctly defend himself in the courtroom is another waste of time....

DVP persists in his denial of the seriousness of his situation. He has, it appears, burned his bridges with his family, lost the roof over his head, and is facing a felony charge brought against him by his mother, who successfully got a restraining order against him. The offense itself is bad enough, and carries enough punishment for most normal people - being cut off from his remaining family. But the felony prosecution raises the risk of a very serious penalty: At least a year in the state prison. Previously he did two months in the county jail and a shorter period inside a psych ward, but at least 12 months in the Big House, locked up with serious offenders -- some of whom have their own issues with being at the other end of domestic violence -- is a serious matter.

His response is non-responsive. He tries to make the entire criminal justice system play by his own twisted interpretation of the rules. He files an absurd lien against the judge and prosecutor -- one sure way to avoid leniency -- and he twice turns away defense lawyers.

Advising him is a waste of time and bandwidth. By this time next year everyone will see whether his "strategy" worked or not.

[David Merrill]

The very name you guys give me is indicative of your dissassociation from reality. You call me by my family name and imply a legal name that requires my authorization to form correctly in law. Wserra stated it quite eloquently:

http://www.box.net/shared/static/4jzdhqeytq.pdf

You see that? KIRK S. SAMELSON says my name is David Merrill. I suppose that's gotta count for more than all you folks put together? So keep your eyes open for a DVD in that Denver repository titled Psychiatric Evaluation as an Arraignment Tool.

It's been fun; the way you all get so twisted over such a little matter as me...



Regards,

David Merrill.