Greetings to the American people:
We are the National Committee Against Judicial Corruption (NCAJC), and are asking you to join us in this fight to overturn and stop the State of Colorado's Illegal Mandatory Parole Laws. We encourage you to stage protest at the Colorado State Capitol Building, as well as to write your representative in Washington and voice your concern with these illegal laws that place all of us at risk of having a future destroyed U.S. Constitution.
This is a Petition to the Federal government of the United States as well as the Colorado State Governor and Legislature to issue an order to declare that the Colorado Mandatory Parole Act, Title 18-1.3-401, violates the "Separation of Powers" provision of ArtIcle III of the Colorado Constitution and the United States Constitution and therefore, the sentencing of Mandatory Parole imposed upon the American people is an illegal and/or Unconstitutional Sentence. In support of such Relief, we submit the following Claims and Arguments:
CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
We, the (NCAJC), in defense of the American people, claim and argue that Title 18-1.3-401, The Colorado Mandatory Parole Act Violates the "Separation of Powers" provision of Article III of the Colorado Constitution and the United States Constitution.
Title 18-1.3-401, the Colorado Mandatory Parole Act, makes it absolutely mandatory that the Sentencing Judge impose a term of Mandatory Parole to run Consecutively to any imposed term of imprisonment, and the respective sentencing judges do not have the authority and discretion as to whether to suspend or to actually impose a sentence of Mandatory Parole, or to order said term of Mandatory Parole to run Concurrently with the term of imprisonment. The (NCAJC) claims and argues that this Mandatory Sentencing Violates the "Separation of Powers" provision of the Colorado Constitution and also the United States Constitution.
In United States vs. Klein, 80 US (13 Wall) 128, 147, 20 L. Ed. 519 (1871), the United States Supreme Court proclaimed: "It is the intention of the Constitution that each of the great co-ordinate departments of government --- the LEGISLATURE, the EXECUTIVE, and the JUDICIARY --- shall be, in its sphere, independent of the others."
Now in Hadix vs. Johnson, 144 F. 3d 925, 943 (6th Cir., 1998) the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit declared: "The Judiciary's fulfillment of its Article III responsibilities requires at its core, meaningful judicial decision making." See United States vs. Rojas, 53 F. 3d 1212, 219 (9th Cir., ((S)eparation of powers would be implicated when the actions of another branch threatens an Article III Courts independent and impartiality on the execution of its decision making functions." ), Cert. denied, 516 US 986, 16 S. CT. 478, 133 L. Ed. 2d 407 (1995).
In Rodriguez vs. Cook, 169 F. 3d 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1999), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit proclaimed: "Separation of powers is intended to structurally protect the independence of each of the three branches of government." United States vs. Klein, 80 US (13 Wall), 128, 147, 20 L. Ed. 519 (1871).
In Inmates of Suffolk County Jail vs. Rouse, 129 F. 3d 649, 655-56 (1st Cir., 1997), the United States Court of Appeals of the First Circuit declared: "Few Tenants are more central to the genius of our Constitutional System than the Separation of Powers Principal." See Donoghue vs. United States, 289 US 516, 530, 53 S. CT 740, 743, 77 L. Ed. 2D 1356 (1993) (describing separation of powers as basic and vital to our scheme of government). This principal has many configurations. In one such configuration, it insulates the judiciary from unwarranted legislative intrusion.
See also Benjamin vs. Jacobson, 122 F. 3d 1081 (8th Cir., 1977). Dougan vs. Singletary, 129 F. 3d 1424 (11th Cir., 1998). Rivera vs. Allen, 169 F. 3d 1176, 1179-82 (9th Cir., 1999).
The Florida Supreme Court in Allen vs. Butterworth, 756 50. 2d 52 (fla., 2000), declared that the State Death Penalty Reform Act (which mandatorily restricted post-conviction relief for death penalty prisoners), violates the separation of powers doctrine of the Constitution and was therefore Unconstitutional.
In US vs. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the Supreme Court declared that the Federal Sentencing Act violated the separation of powers of the United States Constitution due to the mandatory requirements involved in the sentencing of Federal defendants by US District Court Judges.
Once the United States Supreme Court decides that a type of statutory provision is Unconstitutional, then its ruling means that the Unconstitutional statute --- or its portion thereof --- has been Unconstitutional since it very first became law. See Rivera vs. Roadway Express, 114 S. Ct. 1510 (1994).
The United States Supreme Court decision in US vs. Booker, Supra, does not merely establish a new procedural rule --- which would render it only prospective in its application --- but rather passes on the very constitutionality of certain statutory provisions. See Schriro vs. Summerlin, 112 S. Ct. 2519 (2004).
In Miller vs. French, 120 S. Ct. 2246, 2246, 2247 (2000), the United States Supreme Court emphasized:
"While the boundaries between the three branches of government are not hermetically sealed, the Constitution prohibits one branch from encroaching upon the central prerogative of another."
We the (NCAJC) submit and argue that while the Colorado Legislature can establish the minimum amount of sentence and a maximum amount of sentence for each respective felony crime and misdemeanor criminal conviction, the Legislature of the State of Colorado cannot require the sentencing judge to mandatorily sentence a defendant to a mandatory sentence; the sentencing judge must have the authority and independent judicial discretion as to what particular sentence would be proper and appropriate for the separation of powers of Article III, "Distribution of Powers" of the Colorado Constitution, the sentencing judge must have the independent authority and judicial discretion to determine what sentence is appropriate in each case.
Since the sentence of Mandatory Parole that has been imposed upon the American people and the Citizens of the State of Colorado violates the 'Separation of Powers" provision of ArtIcle III of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, the Federal government of the United States, and the Colorado Legislature, must declare that the said statute violates the Colorado Constitution and vacate and set aside the sentencing of American Citizens to Mandatory Parole that Colorado Courts have imposed on the American public.
Wherefore, we the American people, do hereby pray for the following relief:
1). That the Federal government of the United States issue an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE to the Attorney General of the State of Colorado to show cause within the next twenty (20) days as to why the Colorado Legislature should not declare the Colorado Mandatory Parole Act, Title 18-1.3-401 to be in violation of Article III of the Colorado Constitution and show cause why the Legislature should not vacate and set aside the Mandatory Parole that has been imposed upon the American people.
2). That the Federal government will issue an Order to declare the Colorado Mandatory Parole Act violates Article III of the Colorado Constitution and the United States Constitution.
3). That the Federal government will issue an Order to Vacate and Set Aside the Sentences of Mandatory Parole that the Colorado State Legislature has imposed upon the American people, and the Citizens of the State of Colorado.
4). That the Federal government may grant any other relief deemed fair, just, proper, and appropriate.
We of the National Committee Against Judicial Corruption (NCAJC), do hereby sign electronically this document this very day, April 12th, 2013, and do encourage the American people to forward this Protest to as many people as possible.
DATED: April 12th, 2013
Founder and Director,
National Committee Against Judicial Corruption (NCAJC)