False Protection Order Petition for Writ of Certiorari - SEARCHABLE TEXT

5/21/2018 False Protection Order Petition for Writ of Certiorari - SEARCHABLE TEXT - sl...

http:///reader/full/false-protection-order-petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-s

SUPREME COURT

STATE OF COLORADO

2 East 14thAvenue

Denver, Colorado 80203

________________________

On Certiorari to the

Arapahoe County District Court, Colorado

District Court Case No: 13CV940

Judge Kurt A. Horton

Arapahoe County Court Case No. 13C454

Magistrate Christina Apostoli

________________________

ANTHONY MASSEY,

Petitioner,

v.

CHRISTA RENEE PRYOR

Respondent

________________________

Anthony Massey, Pro Se

Post Office Box 21813

Denver, Colorado 80221

720-336-1295 ~ [email protected]

COURT USE ONLY

__________________

Case Number:

ANTHONY MASSEYS PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

1 of 30



CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that this brief complies with all requirements of C.A.R. 28,

32, and 53, including all formatting requirements set forth by those rules.

Specifically, the undersigned certifies that this petition for writ of certiorari

complies with C.A.R. 53(a) because it contains 3799 words, which is less than

3,800 words.

______________________________________

2 of 30



ISSUES FOR REVIEW

1. Whether the government can issue a civil protection order when the statutory

provisions for issuing such order have not been met.

2. Whether the abortion distortion prevalent in the judicial establishment resulted

in significant negative bias during the proceedings against Anthony Massey.

3 of 30



CASE REPORTED

Christa Renee Pryor v. Anthony Massey, Arapahoe County District Court,

13CV940.

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

This Courts certiorari jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to C.R.S. 13-4-102(f),

C.R.S. 13-6-310, and C.A.R. 52(a). Date of Judgment: April 02, 2014 (See App.

1). The deadline for filing this petition: Not later than 42 days after the rendition

of the final judgment in the District Court. The final judgment rendered by the

District Court in this case was its June 07, 2014 decision on the motion to

reconsider. This petition is timely filed.

4 of 30



STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In March 2013, Mrs. Christa Pryor invented a fairy tale that on March 07, 2013,

Mr. Anthony Massey and Mrs. Jo Ann Scott were in a white van that followed

Pryor from Planned Parenthood at 38th and Pontiac in Denver to approximately

Santa Fe and Florida Road (See App. 3 PP2, LL. 9-10) while videotaping the

entire incident. There is no video of the incident, because it occurred only in

Pryors imagination. Massey and Scott have never followed Pryor anywhere. They

only know of Pryor from her visits to Planned Parenthood where her husband, Jim

Pryor was formerly employed as the Director of Security.

At the November 12, 2013 hearing regarding issuing a permanent protection order

against Mrs. Scott, after seeing evidence and hearing from several witnesses

including Massey, Arapahoe County Magistrate Apostoli herself den[ied] the

request for a permanent order noting that there was evidence or testimony [...]

that called into question [whether] that act occurred, referring to the incident on

March 7th, 2013. (See App. 6. PP139, LL9 and PP138, LL9-17).

5 of 30



On January 26, 2014, the Denver County criminal cases involving the same

alleged incident were dismissed against Massey and Scott with prejudice because

of the complaining witnesss inconsistent statements.

The obvious conclusion is that if Scott did not commit the March 07, 2013 actshe

was the alleged driver neither did Massey, who was only the alleged passenger.

The trial and district courts failed to recognize this when it was brought to their

attention.

TIME LINE

In late March 2013, relying on Pryors false allegations, charges for harassment

(not stalking) were filed against Massey and Scott in Denver County Court. The

charges were dismissed with prejudice on January 27, 2014. No subpoena was

ever issued for the alleged video of the incident.

6 of 30



On June 10, 2013, Pryor filed for Temporary Civil Protection Orders against

Massey and Scott in Arapahoe County. The matter came before Magistrate

Apostoli. In a combined ex-parte hearing, the Temporary Civil Protection Orders

were granted against Massey and Scott, and the matters set for a Permanent

Protection Order hearing on June 24, 2013.

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

Because Massey protests at the Planned Parenthood Denver Stapleton Abortion

Clinic, he was subject to the abortion distortion of our judicial establishment.

THE COURT: Do they scream at everybody that enters the clinic?

MS. PRYOR: I mean for the most part, yes, they do.

THE COURT: All right, Ms. Pryor, Im going to grant your request.

(June 10, 2013 Transcript, PP 7, LL 13-17)

So the protection orders against Massey and Scott were issued because they were

abortion protesters screaming at people. The protesters do not scream, they

talk loud enough to be heard.

7 of 30



This is strong evidence for the bias and partiality. Pryors affirmative response

should have actually been to Massey and Scotts benefit, because if the group of

protesters (which would include Massey and Scott) are addressing everyone, then

no one individual is being singled out.

Even though Magistrate Apostoli may not like Masseys speech - and retaliated

against it, Justice Scalia said it best when he wrote Protecting people from speech

they do not want to hear is not a function that the First Amendment allows the

government to undertake in the public streets and sidewalks See McCullen v.

Coakley, 573 U.S. ______ (2014) (Scalia, J. Concurring in judgment) at PP 9.

TRIAL OF ANTHONY MASSEY

On June 17, 2013, Massey filed a motion to vacate the Temporary Civil Protection

Order. Massey denied all allegations of Pryor and produced 13 exhibits and five

affidavits about the case. Massey specifically denied that the March 07, 2013

incident ever occurred.

8 of 30



On June 24, 2013, Magistrate Apostoli held a trial wherein Massey denied the

allegations of Pryor, and argued that the conduct alleged did not match the

statutory requirements for issuance of the protection orders. The Permanent

Protection Order was granted against Massey.

Massey appealed the Temporary and Permanent Civil Protection Orders to the

District Court.

TRIAL OF JO ANN SCOTT

Mrs. Pryor filed two nearly identical Civil Protection Order cases containing the

same false allegations of following Pryor on March 07, 2013. See Christa Renee

Pryor v. Jo Ann Scott, Arapahoe County Court, 13C453.

On November 12, 2013, Magistrate Apostoli held a trial for Scott, the alleged

driver in the March 07, 2013 incident when Massey was the alleged passenger.

There were six total witnesses at Scotts trial. One of them was Massey.

(See App 6. PP85-88)

9 of 30



Massey was shown a map highlighting the route from the Planned Parenthood

facility, proceeding northwest to his home, located in Northwest Denver. Massey

testified that he rode with Scott and they took the highlighted route to his home on

March 7, 2013. (See App 6. PP87 LL10 - P88 LL10)

At the end of Scotts trial, Apostoli recognized that the evidence calls into

question whether the alleged incident ever happened and denied the Permanent

Civil Protection Order and dismissed the case against Scott. (See App. 6 PP138

LL9-17)

Since Scott was the alleged driver, and Massey the alleged passenger, it would

seem to a sensible judge that the Permanent Civil Protection order against Massey

should also have been dismissed at that time. The trial courts refusal to dismiss

Masseys protection order lends more support to the suspicion that she was

targeting Masseys activities as an abortion protester.

On April 2, 2014, Arapahoe District Court Judge Kurt A. Horton denied Masseys

appeal.

10 of 30



DISTRICT COURT ERRORS

The district court erred by relying heavily upon the false testimony of the alleged

March 7, 2013 following incident to form its conclusions.

EVASIVE TRAFFIC MANEUVERS

The District Court erroneously concluded that the creation of a dangerous

situation by evasive traffic maneuvers meets the imminent danger and imminent

harm standard.

Scott was the alleged driver, not Massey. Pryor said that the white van followed at

a distance of 3-4 lengths behind and made some lane changes along with Pryor. As

described, there was no danger or harm, but the incident never occurred anyway.

Petitioner provided testimony that she was really scared and petrified Her call

to the police corroborates her alleged fear - (See App. 1 PP 8, LL23)

11 of 30



It seems that the District Court never listened to the call showing Pryors

demeanor: Its obvious when you listen to the 911 call [...] theres no evidence

that she appears to be afraid whatsoever. In fact, its at least twice, and possibly

three times, that shes giggling. (See App 6 PP130 LL16-20)

PARKING LOT CONFRONTATIONS

The District Court invented the phrase parking lot confrontations to describe the

interactions between Pryor and Massey. Massey was never on the parking lot.

Massey pointed out to the District Court (and it completely ignored) that the

Planned Parenthood abortion facility is a one city block parcel, surrounded

entirely by a seven-foot tall, black, metal fence. INSIDE THE FENCEis the

landscaping, bushes, parking lot, and building. OUTSIDEthe fence is the public

sidewalk and public street. (See Opening Brief Paragraph 56-58 and App. 9)

12 of 30



Any interaction between Pryor and Massey occurred when Massey was outside

the fence at Planned Parenthood, and Pryor was insidethe fence, visiting her

armed husband, Jim Pryor. Massey is effectively prevented from going inside the

fence, onto the parking lotwhere he would be arrested for trespassing, and/or

depending on the reaction of the ever-present armed security guard and/or Jim,

Massey risks serious physical injury or death. (See Opening Brief Paragraph 54-

62).

Massey has never been on the parking lot. Pryor has never come out onto the

sidewalk where the picketers are. Therefore any so called confrontation between

Massey and Pryor has been at some distance and on either side of a tall fence.

Since Pryors husband facilitated the secure operation of an abortuary, it is

somewhat inevitable that various anti-abortion protesters will say things to her

about abortion that she doesnt want to hear, when she is visiting her husband.

13 of 30



SHOVE A CAMERA IN MY FACE

The District Court adopts Pryors obviously exaggerated allegations of shove a

camera in my face. (See App. 1 PP2 LL3). Pryor is always on the parking lot with

her pistol-packing husband while Massey is on the sidewalk outside a seven foot

fence. Jim also packs a cell phone and can get deluxe service from the Denver

Police Department. The District Court shows its bias by accepting this rhetorical

exaggeration as evidence of a close encounter that never happened.

Picketers gather video for the Internet and for legal protection, as this case

illustrates the need. All video is captured while standing on the public sidewalk

and street, outside the fence.

DEATH THREATS

Pryor testified about hearing the terms meet my maker, face God soon, etc.

Terms like this and others like repent, facing Gods courtroom, going to

hell, spoken by various protesters are theological, not physical threats. The

District Court erroneously declares these statements to be physical death threats

directed specifically at Pryor.

14 of 30



Planned Parenthood monitors and records the speech and conversations of

picketers. Anything resembling a physical death threat would lead to arrest and

prosecution. Mr. Massey has never made any death threats to Pryor.

Pryor simply rewords theological statements into physical threats, and when

presented to the trial and district courts, these false statements were erroneously

accepted as complete truth.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Masseys motion to reconsider brought to the attention of the District Court that

the trial court had dismissed Scotts civil protection order, and the criminal cases

regarding the white van following incident were also dismissed. The District Court

erroneously refused to reconsider its order even though the foundation for its order

had crumbled away.

15 of 30



WHY THE COURT SHOULD GRANT THE WRIT

Even if the white van chase had occurred, it did not meet the statutory

requirements for civil protection orders. Other allegations are exaggerated

accounts of the picket line at Planned Parenthood. Picketing is protected by the

First Amendment.

THE PROTECTION ORDERS DID NOT

MEET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

TEMPORARY CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER

The statutory requirement of for issuance of Temporary Civil Protection Order

requires the existence of imminent danger to the life or health of the proposed

protected party or immediate, irreparable injury, loss, or damage. See C.R.S.

13-14-102 (4)(a) and C.R.C.P. 65(b).

16 of 30



Pryor alleges as imminent danger that on March 7, 2013 vehicle A followed

vehicle B one single time, changing lanes with her, following from a distance of

3-4 car lengths behind (See App. 8, PP2, LL10,14), never communicating, never

taking aggressive action etc.

Pryor did not provide evidence for an upcoming immediate, irreparable injury,

loss, or damage. She didnt provide evidence for any injury, loss, or damage on

March 7, or at any time between March 7 and the June 10th Temporary Protection

Order hearing, or between March 7 and April 24, when no protection orders

existed at all, or between March 7 and March 23, when Massey was arrested for

the alleged white van chase, or anytime before March 7, 2013.

The Temporary Civil Protection Order issued against Massey resulted from

misapplication of C.R.S. 13-14-102 (4) (a) and significant deviation from

guidance provided in C.R.C.P. 65(b) and failed to meet the statutory standards

provided therein.

17 of 30



PERMANENT CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER

The statutory requirements provided by C.R.S. 13-14-102 (1.5) (a-d) for a

permanent civil protection order are To prevent assaults and threatened bodily

harm; To prevent domestic abuse; To prevent emotional abuse of the elderly or of

an at-risk adult; To prevent stalking.

Regarding C.R.S. 13-14-102 (1.5) (a-c): There are no allegations or threats of

bodily harm. There has never been and is no domestic arrangement involving

Pryor and Massey. Pryor is not elderly or at-risk.

Pryor alleges one singleincident to support her stalking allegation a white van

followed her car at a distance. No credible threats or communications were

alleged. According to Pryors written statement to the police, the vehicle was

staying 3-4 cars behind me, stayed 3-4 cars behind me (See App 8, PP2,

LL10,14) [Massey was stopped from providing Pryors written statement to the

trial court, See June 24 Transcript PP32 LL5-25].

18 of 30



Pryor can throw around the word stalking, but Stalking is defined by C.R.S.

18-3-602 (1), and requires a credible threat and in connection with the threat takes

repeated actions such as following, contact, etc. or as provided in (1) (c) ,

requiring the repeated actions of following, contact, etc. that would cause a

reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress. (See App. 7 PP3-4)

- there is no credible threat.

- one single incident is alleged.

-Stalking requires repeated actions.

The allegations fail to meet the definition of Stalking as defined by statute, and

accordingly, fail to meet the C.R.S. 13-14-102 (1.5) (d) requirement for issuance

of the Permanent Civil Protection Order. (See App. 5)

The issuance of the Permanent Civil Protection Order by the trial court resulted in

the improper application of C.R.S. 13-14-102 (1.5) (a-d) against Massey.

19 of 30



There was significant deviation from legislative declaration of C.R.S. 13-14-102

(1) in issuance of Permanent Civil Protection Order against Mr. Massey.

When conducting statutory interpretation, a court's task is to give effect to the

intent of the General Assembly and the purpose of the statute's legislative scheme.

People v. Esparza-Treto, 08CA2101, 29 (Colo.App. 7-21-2011).

We consider whether the resulting interpretation is inconsistent with the purposes

of the legislation.

See, e.g.,AviComm, Inc. v. Colo. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 955 P.2d 1023, 1031

(Colo.1998)

C.R.S. 13-14-102 (1) (a) provides protection orders promote safety, reduce

violence, and prevent serious harm and death.

The legislative intent is very clear: A Civil Protection Order is to protect someone

from physical harm or death. Credible threats of physical harm or death are not

alleged by Pryor.

20 of 30



The role of the District Court is to limit any use of the statute beyond the

expressed legislative intent. Here that would involve reversal of the Permanent

Civil Protection Order, as it does not promote safety, reduce violence, or prevent

serious harm or death.

The district court failed to do so, even after being informed of the dismissal of the

criminal cases and Scotts temporary civil protection order.

Section (1) (b) (I) (II) (III) describes domestic violence - not applicable here.

Notwithstanding the legislative intent of C.R.S. 13-14-102 (1), the Temporary

and Permanent Civil Protection Orders were issued against Mr. Massey. The

district court failed to reverse them.

C.R.S. 13-14-102 (9) requires the trial court to be of the opinion that the

defendant has committed acts constituting grounds for issuance of a civil

protection order and that unless restrained will continue to commit such acts.

21 of 30



The trial court simply stated that Massey has committed such acts as alleged in

the issuance of the temporary protection order (June 24 Transcript PP54,

LL14-16), and issued the Permanent Civil Protection Order, even though the

alleged acts do not constitute grounds for issuance of a Permanent Civil Protection

Order, as shown in C.R.S. 13-14-102 (1.5) (a-d). The district court failed to

correct this faulty conclusion.

THE ABORTION DISTORTION

RESULTED IN BIASED PROCEEDINGS AGAINST

MR. MASSEY

Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry have long received deluxe, Cadillac

service from the Denver Police and the Denver / Arapahoe County courts, because

of the influence which PP, NARAL, NOW, etc. have throughout our government.

22 of 30



Sophisticated people understand that it isn't the stork that brings babies and that

judicial appointments are not made in heaven. Those that desire to be judges, and

judges desiring to move up the judicial ladder, are well aware that these

appointments are greatly facilitated by recommendations from those in the party

whose officials make the appointments.

Judges are made by political favoritism, and in Colorado right now the abortion

industry is as powerful as the segregationists were in the south when the Civil

Rights movement was challenging the status quo.

Locally, this kind of influence means that a Democrat Mayor who appoints the

Denver County judges and a Democrat governor who appoints the county and

district judges of Colorado are bound to be influenced by the abortion industry.

Consequently, judges are well aware that their careers as judges are liable to be

blighted if they refuse to facilitate the abortion industry agenda of dealing harshly

with pro-life activists.

23 of 30



Nationally, the law doesnt matter that much in an abortion case either. For

example, Justices Scalia and Kennedy complain that the rest of the Supreme Court

justices are simply disregarding the blatant attack on the First Amendment rights

of pro-life sidewalk counselors which is mandated by C.R.S. 18-9-122 (3). In

short, six of the nine justices at the pinnacle of the legal profession set aside basic

First Amendment lawand went along with the attack on anti-abortion Sidewalk

Counselors. See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) (Kennedy, J., dissenting)

Not much has changed in the 14 years since Hill.

Today's opinion carries forward this Court's practice of giving

abortion-rights advocates a pass when it comes to suppressing the

free-speech rights of their opponents. There is an entirely separate, abridged

edition of the First Amendment applicable to speech against abortion. See,

e.g., Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000); Madsen v. Women's Health

Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994).

See McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S.________(2014)

(Scalia, J. Concurring in judgment) at 1.

In its zeal to treat abortion-related speech as a special category, the

majority distorts not only the First Amendment but also the ordinary logic

of probative inferences idat 7-8.

24 of 30



56,000,000+ preborn boys and girls have been condemned to death before they

even escape the womb, as a direct result of the decision rendered in Roe.

See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

It is a judges duty to protect unborn children from being slaughtered at abortion

clinics across our wicked country, but the wicked judges do not.

How long will it be until we start putting unproductive grandmas and grandpas

to sleep while wicked judges issue the orders to do so and/or look the other

way?

Can wicked rulers be allied with you, those who frame injustice by statute? They

band together against the life of the righteous and condemn the innocent to death.

(See Psalm 94:20-21)

25 of 30



The outrageous partiality and extreme bias from Magistrate Apostoli started on

June 10, 2013 at the temporary protection order hearing when she learned that Mr.

Massey is a peaceful pro-life protester of abortion at the Planned Parenthood

abortion Facility. (June 10 Transcript, PP4, LL22-23)

Open your mouth for the speechless, In the cause of all who are appointed

to die. Open your mouth, judge righteously, And plead the cause of the poor

and needy. - Proverbs 31:8-9

Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are

stumbling to the slaughter. - See Proverbs 24:1

At the June 10 hearing, When Pryor described the alleged white van chase

incident, Magistrate Apostoli asked no questions about this, showing little to no

interest in it - even though it was a pretty vague and convoluted version of the

story that Pryor had been telling for months. Apostoli made no attempts to square

it with the allegations of stalking and harassment made by Pryor. However, when

26 of 30



Magistrate heard that Massey and Scott scream at everyone at the abortion

clinic, she immediately granted the temporary civil protection orders against

Massey and Scott.

The District Court erroneously declared There is nothing in the record to support

a finding of partiality and bias (See App 1 PP11, LL11) The record is full of

examples of partiality and bias, and the refusal of Judge Horton to recognize it

shows that he too shares that same bias against anti abortion protestors.

The district court furthers the bias by relying heavily upon the foundation of the

false March 07, 2013 incident and other false testimony of Pryor, to build,

formulate, and support its order. Predictably, the foundation upon which the

district courts order rested has now rotted away and collapsed.

27 of 30



CONCLUSION

The proper use of a Civil Protection Order is clearly defined within the statute. A

civil protection order is to restrain against imminent dangers, assaults, threatened

bodily harm, emotional abuse, and stalking. The trial court clearly stepped

outside of the statute when it issued the protection orders. The District Court failed

to correct this and made many other clear errors.

Further, the abortion distortion clearly resulted in significant negative bias against

Massey in this case.

For the reasons shown in this petition, the civil protection orders should be

dismissed. At a bare minimum, Massey deserves a new trial.

Mr. Massey therefore requests the court grant his Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

__________________________ _________________________________

Anthony Massey, Pro Se

Ambassador for the Lord Jesus Christ on behalf of the unborn children.

28 of 30



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the __________________________, 2014 I

______ placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid, properly sealed and

addressed,

______ sent by facsimile, with original mailed,

______ hand delivered

a true and complete copy of the foregoing PETITION FOR WRIT OF

CERTIORARI to:

Christa Renee Pryor

By: _____________________________________________________

29 of 30



APPENDIX

1. Arapahoe District Court Ruling Case No: 13CV940 - April 02, 2014

2. Motion to Reconsider - Denied June 07, 2014

3. Verified Complaint for Civil Protection Order

4. Hearing Transcript - June 10, 2013

5. 2012 version of C.R.S. 13-14-102

6. Hearing Transcript - November 12, 2013

7. 2012 version of C.R.S. 18-3-601

8. Pryor written statement

9. Map of Planned Parenthood facility

10. Word Count

30 of 30

False Protection Order Petition for Writ of Certiorari - SEARCHABLE TEXT

Documents

Transcript of False Protection Order Petition for Writ of Certiorari - SEARCHABLE TEXT