Thursday, May 10, 2007
KING & GREISEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1670 YORK STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80206
Diane S. King
Paula Greisen
Laura E. Schwartz
Alison Butler Daniels
Jason Cobb
Jennifer Riddle
VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED USPS
Re: Brief in Opposition – Recent Phone Calls – e-mails
Ms. King and Mr. Cobb,
In response to the Brief in Opposition of Certiorari, it remains plausible that American Furniture Warehouse Attorneys are definitely accusing my self, and your firm in their legal proceedings, of actions not proven – and it would most certainly be your responsibility in protecting my rights and the arguments pertaining to the course of events, presently unfolding, since they are currently being used as yet another attempt and strategy by the opposition to discredit and divide the client and the attorney.
As they (Jake’s Attorneys) have effectively achieved there initial goals, in driving a wedge into the fabric of a relationship, creating even more dissention in our own camp, I do not believe you have really read the document of March 17, 2006 sent to the Supreme Court Attorney Regulations, that was been previously sent to you.
As you have been leading me to believe over the course of our meetings and conversations, is that; you have been eagerly awaiting a dissention of opportunity, in an effort to relieve yourself of your obligations to me as a client; That very same client, who raised ethical issues regarding the loss of, not only the first wage case, but the termination case where you play an important role, and where those issues pertain to violation of the Colorado Rules and Statues, that I so clearly laid out in the original complaint, filed with the 17th Judicial Court Systems at the onset of this case.
If I received the information, as a fully vested and accredited attorney, that you have received in the past, I would definitely be inclined to be more disappointed, not to mention resentful, frustrated, disillusioned and very angry at the turn of events.
There is a Latin term called Stare Decisis; attached for you information, which means:
“This idea, as expressed by Bagehot, is picked up in the law, as it exists today. When a court decides a case it does so on the merits of the case before it. The court's decision is meant to only affect the rights of the parties, the litigants, before it. The court, however, is obliged to apply settled principles of law. The decision of any respected court amounts to a recap of the law needed to resolve the case before it. The law as it is used in the particular case has a universal applicability to all future cases embracing similar facts, and involving the same or analogous principles. These decisions, many being years and years old, thus became statements of law, to be applied by all courts when measuring the private and public rights of citizens. It is this stream of cases, within the arc of the great pendulum of time, which changes the banks of the law: the common law, thus, as it turns out, is a living, creeping, creature.”
“Do not, however, be mistaken - there, is, a conscious effort by those involved (lawyers and judges) to keep the law pure: not to change it, but to apply it. This principle is called stare decisis, Latin, which literally translated means, "stand by things decided." Stare decisis has come to us as a most sacred rule of law. A judge is to apply the law as it is presented to him through the previous decisions of the court; it is not the judge's function to make or remake the law that is the function of the legislature. However, judges do make law even though they try not to; indeed it is their function, under a system of common law, to do so; but not consciously and only over the course of time, many years, as numerous similar cases are heard and decided. The common law has been and is built up like pearls in an oyster, slowly and always in response to some small personal aggravation, infinitesimal layer after infinitesimal layer. It is built up upon the adjudications of courts”:
KING & GREISEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1670 YORK STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80206
Diane S. King
Paula Greisen
Laura E. Schwartz
Alison Butler Daniels
Jason Cobb
Jennifer Riddle
VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED USPS
Re: Brief in Opposition – Recent Phone Calls – e-mails
Ms. King and Mr. Cobb,
In response to the Brief in Opposition of Certiorari, it remains plausible that American Furniture Warehouse Attorneys are definitely accusing my self, and your firm in their legal proceedings, of actions not proven – and it would most certainly be your responsibility in protecting my rights and the arguments pertaining to the course of events, presently unfolding, since they are currently being used as yet another attempt and strategy by the opposition to discredit and divide the client and the attorney.
As they (Jake’s Attorneys) have effectively achieved there initial goals, in driving a wedge into the fabric of a relationship, creating even more dissention in our own camp, I do not believe you have really read the document of March 17, 2006 sent to the Supreme Court Attorney Regulations, that was been previously sent to you.
As you have been leading me to believe over the course of our meetings and conversations, is that; you have been eagerly awaiting a dissention of opportunity, in an effort to relieve yourself of your obligations to me as a client; That very same client, who raised ethical issues regarding the loss of, not only the first wage case, but the termination case where you play an important role, and where those issues pertain to violation of the Colorado Rules and Statues, that I so clearly laid out in the original complaint, filed with the 17th Judicial Court Systems at the onset of this case.
If I received the information, as a fully vested and accredited attorney, that you have received in the past, I would definitely be inclined to be more disappointed, not to mention resentful, frustrated, disillusioned and very angry at the turn of events.
There is a Latin term called Stare Decisis; attached for you information, which means:
“This idea, as expressed by Bagehot, is picked up in the law, as it exists today. When a court decides a case it does so on the merits of the case before it. The court's decision is meant to only affect the rights of the parties, the litigants, before it. The court, however, is obliged to apply settled principles of law. The decision of any respected court amounts to a recap of the law needed to resolve the case before it. The law as it is used in the particular case has a universal applicability to all future cases embracing similar facts, and involving the same or analogous principles. These decisions, many being years and years old, thus became statements of law, to be applied by all courts when measuring the private and public rights of citizens. It is this stream of cases, within the arc of the great pendulum of time, which changes the banks of the law: the common law, thus, as it turns out, is a living, creeping, creature.”
“Do not, however, be mistaken - there, is, a conscious effort by those involved (lawyers and judges) to keep the law pure: not to change it, but to apply it. This principle is called stare decisis, Latin, which literally translated means, "stand by things decided." Stare decisis has come to us as a most sacred rule of law. A judge is to apply the law as it is presented to him through the previous decisions of the court; it is not the judge's function to make or remake the law that is the function of the legislature. However, judges do make law even though they try not to; indeed it is their function, under a system of common law, to do so; but not consciously and only over the course of time, many years, as numerous similar cases are heard and decided. The common law has been and is built up like pearls in an oyster, slowly and always in response to some small personal aggravation, infinitesimal layer after infinitesimal layer. It is built up upon the adjudications of courts”:
"... built up as it has been by the long continued and arduous labors, grown venerable with years, and interwoven as it has become with the interests, the habits, and the opinions of the people. [Without the common law a court would] in each recurring case, have to enter upon its examination and decision as if all were new, without any aid from the experience of the past, or the benefit of any established principle or settled law. Each case with its decision being thus limited as law to itself alone, would in turn pass away and be forgotten, leaving behind it no record of principle established, or light to guide, or rule to govern the future." (Hanford v. Archer, 4 Hill, 321.)
Tyrants can only get a hold of a central system where the rules issue from a single authority (Government) cannot get a hold of a system which depends on a spontaneous participation in the law-making process on the part of each and all of the inhabitants of a country, viz., a system of common law.
I believe it is important that you fully understand the nature of this case, when it comes to the slant being given to it, by the opposition, and the consistent turn of trickery used by immoral men of Law.
You and your firm have continually stated that you were un-aware of all the events from one case to the next, when Julie Tolleson and Michael O’Malley had met prior to you accepting the case – and it was your decisions to split the cases, and thus your awareness of all material things dealing with the case, including the settling of the first case, as mentioned by the opposition – (remember, they said that in this latest brief – as much as noting, that I called someone a “Stupid Bitch” that has never been tried in the termination case, since it was settled under Res Judicata) negotiated through an unclear and undermining manner, and without my approval … or your firm’s.
The wage case started out with them (AFC) owing me the money rightfully earned under his employ, to which prompted my filing a complaint, complete with the statues governing the Law, in which American Furniture violated my rights as an employee, when I was terminated.
The termination case resulted from the issues pertaining to the other issues regarding the returns, tickets being housed, being sent home, having commissions ‘housed’ by the company, the convoluted methods of accounting, selling used merchandise as new – being made to do things outside of the normal course of my duties as a salesperson and other issues, and my constant dedication to those circumstances.
These issues are why I was terminated, not because I settled on how much I was owed, which remains as connected but disjointed from one-another. However, those same issues are governing the real issues that are lying beneath the façade of the “wages” in what was owed to the Plaintiff’s as a whole, or ultimately down to one individual, wherein the others were negotiated away to pay the injunctive court costs and fines levied against each Plaintiff, aside from the one … Mason Ramsey, who refused to settle, because he received a negotiated settlement offer on June 29th, 2006 and later accepted on July 26th where Michael O’Malley took no monies, as an inducement to settle, because I kept telling King & Greisen, “please speak with O’Malley & Podboy to make sure there is not going to be any problem”, since I was being represented by both firms, giving both firms “My express permission to speak with each other at any time, and worked on delivering files from one office to another, while both Michael O’Malley and Julie Tolleson did speak – and while both knew that both cases existed, as did Jake’s Attorneys.”
Remember, I am not an attorney, and moved to make sure that all, were given the same information that I was given, told, relayed and expressed in numerous phone calls to everyone involved at every turn, during those times, while delivering personally documents to and from both firms.
Find a way to connect them legally, and make Mr. Jabs a responsible party, or make the Judges live up to their oaths and give everyone connected to this case the inference, that there is something wrong here, and we do not need to lose, merely because they were more devious in their methods in gaining an upper hand, and your firm losing control over a very important cause, while O’Malley and Podboy are Guilty of judicial wrongdoing from a certain standpoint.
I want your firm to care about winning against the tyranny that Jake Jabs is creating, and the atmosphere in which he believes he can do whatever he wants.
Make me believe that you are on my side, without always giving me the feeling that you are waiting on me to make a mistake, so that you can withdraw from this case, and let them continue violating a law, that you know the Attorney General would have to find in having a cause: in investigating the manner in which (AFC) is conducting his business, through the violation of those statues.
You have plenty of intelligence in knowing how to bring this to a peaceful resolution, knowing some of the things you now know.
Not everyone has to be against me, as the original Plaintiff, while knowing that I went through great measures ensuring that I followed through and continually protested the injustice; not only from the time I began working for American Furniture Warehouse, but now becoming aware of the back door trickery, in the use of language, and to play by an organized set of rules, to which they continually bend to their benefit.
It is and has always been my position in winning, and will not give up – and, you must realize that I will write to my Senators, Congressman, Representatives and anybody else who will read, listen or watch the movie regarding the nasty decline of American or Colorado Justice through the disconcerted efforts of those who will not stand up for their rights, when someone so blatantly disregards those principals.
Do what you have to do, as you know that I too will follow my own heart. Perhaps, some one will listen to my passionate concerns, and decide to do something about them, aside from me … pushing those around me to do the right thing.
As much as you do not like to feel as if you are being threatened, neither do I – and right now: Jake Jabs and his deceitful attorneys are separating the herd – as they have from day one – who can we trust? Each other? I have tried, and look what has happened to a winnable case? Clearly, you are the professionals, but then whom are you going to stand up for, besides yourself and your firm? Is it easier to withdraw from a fight that Jakes Attorney’s are accusing you of knowing about?
If you want to send me the bus schedule, I will understand and try not to stand in the way – because, there is no way that I wish to be under it … at all.
Most respectfully,
Mason Ramsey
“The information transmitted by Mason Ramsey is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and / or privileged material. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that your access is unauthorized, and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message including any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.”
No comments:
Post a Comment