~Discovery~

Working File from Discovery in Case #04CR2541

Colorado State Attorney General Investigator Gary Clyman Testifies before the Secret Grand Jury

Grand Jury Transcript: December 15, 2000  Page 121:

Point 372:  Q. Now, Investigator, after his arrest did Steve Gartin send you any sorts of documents?

A. “Oh, yes.”

Q.  Many documents in the mail?

A.  Many, and by fax and hand-delivery.

Point 373: Q. Do you recall getting a document that was entitled, Petition for Redress of Grievance. . .?”

Point 374: A. “ . .and they had "patriot" language in them. . .”

Point 375: A. “. . .we had wronged him, civilly and/or criminally, by doing an illegal search and illegal arrest.”

Grand Jury Transcript: December 15, 2000  Page 122:

Point 376: Q.  Now, did there come a time when Mr. Gartin hand-delivered a Petition for Redress of Grievance. . .?

A. “Yes, He hand-delivered that to me at the office,. . .”

Point 377:  GRAND JURY EXHIBIT NO. 6

Q. And you had already received one of these in the mail; is that correct?

A. “Not this.  This was a follow-up to either one or two previous documents. . .”

Grand Jury Transcript: December 15, 2000  Page 123:

Point 378: Q.  Were you under any legal obligation to respond to his 100 questions?

“Not to a single one.”

Point 379:  Q.  All right.  And in what county is your office located, sir?

City and County of Denver, Colorado

Grand Jury Transcript: December 15, 2000  Page 124:

Point 380: Ms. Langfield: Okay.  For the record, I have handed Grand Jurors copies to share so they can follow along of Exhibit 6, which is the petition for redress of grievance. . .”

Point 381: “Sure.  Obviously, they were not in custody because they had shown up voluntarily at my office, . . .”

Grand Jury Transcript: December 15, 2000  Page 125:

Point 382: “. . .the property he is referring to is the property that was seized pursuant to the search warrant on September 20.”

Grand Jury Transcript: December 15, 2000  Page 126:

Point 383:  A. “First I asked if he was going to be filing liens on myself or the other two alleged respondents, and he would not answer that.. . .”

Point 384:  “. . .if you do the right thing and return my property, no penalty clause will be invoked.”

Grand Jury Transcript: December 15, 2000  Page 127:

Point 385:  Q. And on what basis were you holding that property?

Point 386: Q. And in your position as a law enforcement agent, are you the one that makes a decision as to whether to hold property as evidence of contraband or return it to its owners?

Grand Jury Transcript: December 15, 2000  Page 128:

Point 387:  Q. Are you still holding the property that Mr. Gartin was demand back?

Point 388: “. . .Agent Holstlaw, who has an ability to communicate on a different level with Mr. Gartin, was our go-between,. ”

Point 399: Q. All right.  So the property that you continue to hold is property that is either in your opinion evidence or contraband; is that correct?

A. “Yes.”

Grand Jury Transcript: December 15, 2000  Page 129:

*Point 400:  “. . .he was basically attempting to influence my decision about what property to keep or to extort us through threat of economic harm. . .”

*Point 401:  “. . .I have dealt with identical situations. . . people that have these kinds of beliefs.”

Point 402: Q. Are you familiar with the criminal statute. . . ?”

*Point 403:  Q.  Now, I believe you indicated that you had given Mr. Gartin a letter. . . that he should not be filing fraudulent or frivolous liens against you; is that correct, sir?”

Grand Jury Transcript: December 15, 2000  Page 130:

Point 404: “. . . It is a method that we have, through experience, decided to talk with people like this to give them every opportunity to warn them that what they are going to do, as far as maybe filing liens, is unlawful, even though we have no such obligation to do that.”

Point 405: Q. No obligation to warn; is that correct?

Point 406: GRAND JURY EXHIBIT 7. 

Point 407: Q. . . .has he continued to attempt to influence you to give back the property which you are holding legally, lawfully, and which you seized pursuant to the search warrant?

A. Yes.  . . . indicated that we had defaulted on the petition and gave us an opportunity to cure.  And then when we didn’t respond to that, we got another one very recently indicating that we had in fact defaulted.  And typically when they do these things, usually the next step, if they follow through with it, is to file liens.  But I’m not aware that he’s actually done that at this time.

Grand Jury Transcript: December 15, 2000  Page 131:

Point 408: Q.  But he would not be required to notify you if he had, would he?  A. “No. I would have to determine that myself.”

Point 409:  Q. . . . question #47 says, “Do respondents admit they then proceeded to attempt to secure a warrant to search said private premises by applying to Jack Berryhill, Esquire, for a warrant WITHOUT an affidavit sworn before a judge or magistrate of competent jurisdiction?”

Point 410:  A. “. . . if we fail to answer, the answer is however he wants it answered. . . we DID fail to obtain an affidavit when Judge Berryhill signed the warrants, which is not true.

Grand Jury Transcript: December 15, 2000  Page 132:

Point 411: Q.  All of the answers on that purported document are just what he kind of hope, fantasized, and wished you would respond?  A. “I believe so.”

[The witness let the witness stand at 2:33PM]

_____________________________________________________

COLORADO STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE Investigator Gary Clyman is a member of the clandestine Multi-Jurisdictional Domestic Terrorism Task Force which appears to be primarily focused on the unlawful persecution of ostensible ‘patriots.’ Testimony before the Statewide Grand Jury by Mr. Gary Clyman indicates that the exercise of the constitutionally secured right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievance is perceived by the Multi-Jurisdictional Domestic Terrorism Task Force to be a ‘crime’ worthy of prosecution.

“Stalking Horse” Marleen M. Langfield, Esquire – Special Prosecutor for the COLORADO STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE has been prevailed upon by Donald L. Estep and Gary Clyman of the Multi-Jurisdictional Domestic Terrorism Task Force to create a ‘crime’ from the whole-cloth, by converting the lawful statutory right to file Mechanic’s Liens into a financial instrument crime for purposes of commencing and conducting an unlawful retaliatory prosecution known in legal fiction as COLORADO FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case #00CR3371.

“Stalking Horse” Dennis Hall, Esquire – Jefferson County Deputy District Attorney, has been prevailed upon by Donald L. Estep and Gary Clyman of the Multi-Jurisdictional Domestic Terrorism Task Force to create a ‘crime’ from the whole-cloth, by converting the lawful statutory right to file Motions into a financial instrument crime for purposes of conducting an unlawful retaliatory prosecution known first in legal fiction as COLORADO FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case #00CR2419–Dismissed 30 April, 2001.  Then again as 00CR3371, 00CR3372 & 00CR3373. and now as #04CR2541.

Thousands of Motions are filed each year in Colorado.

Filing motions is a statutory right.

Defendant is the ONLY “person” ever prosecuted for having lawfully filed a Motion for Forgiveness.

Petitioner has been accused by Clyman & Estep of being a “patriot” and of being “heavily involved in the patriot movement.”

COLORADO STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE serves as “Defense Attorney” for Jefferson County STATE Defendants in Federal Civil Rights Actions and has a vested interest in prosecuting the Plaintiff in those actions, in order to delay, deny, divert and obstruct justice.

Petitioning the Government for Redress of Grievance is a constitutionally protected First Amendment Right.

Colorado State Attorney General instigated police action 8 days after First Secured Party registered the ALL CAPITAL LETTER version of his Christian Appellation.  Persecution escalated after registering a First Amendment Petition for Redress of Grievance with Investigator Gary Clyman and has continued, unabated and unmitigated to this present matter.