1

County Court, County of Weld, Colorado

P.O. Box 2038
915 10th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631

PEOPLE

v.

BUCKLEY, CRAIG D.

Defendant
















COURT USE ONLY
Defendant:
Craig D. Buckley
2345 Gay St.
Longmont, CO 80501
Telephone: 303-684-6583
Case No.: 11M578

Div.: B

Courtroom: J udge Unfug
FORTHWITH MOTION TO RESCHEDULE PROBATION REVOCATION HEARING

Defendant, Craig D. Buckley, in assertion of his rights pursuant to U.S. Const., Amend. VI, XIV;
Colo. Const., Art. II, Sec. 16, 25, respectfully requests that this Court reschedule the Probation
Revocation hearing, originally scheduled for 1 hour on September 25, 2014, to a 4 hour hearing on a
date to be determined by this Court. It is the Defendants assertion that, in light of new evidence
obtained as a result of his conviction in Boulder County District Court case #13CR114, that 1 hour is
insufficient time to defend against the new charges of violation of probation. In support thereof, the
Defendant asserts as follows:

1. This matter comes before the Court regarding Probation Revocation in the matter of Weld
County Court case #11M578, People v. Buckley.

2. On September 20, 2012, the Defendant was convicted of one count of (M3) Harassment of
his former employers, for having demanded by email that they remove a lien from his home. At
issue, in addition to all matters plead in the Defendants Rule 35(c) Motion filed with this Court on
December 3, 2012, are three facts: (a) that on April 17, 2011 Colorado Attorney General J ohn
Suthers filed a Motion with this Court to quash the subpoena of Defendants witness J ames F.
Hartmann. The Motion was plead, on April 19, 2012 by assistant Attorney General Matthew D.
Grove. The record of this Court shows that the Defendant was not allowed by this Court to speak,
nor in any way respond to the Attorney Generals pleading of this Motion. The record of this Court
indicates that J udge Michele Meyer quashed the subpoena, stating that any relevant testimony by
J ames Hartmann was available to the Defendant as part of the record of the Court in the underlying
civil case, Weld #09CV991, Buckley v. Dream Stone, Inc. et. al. This is now proven false. (b) That,
2
in violation of the Defendants rights under C.R.S. 16-11-102, that the Pre-sentencing report was
both falsified, and concealed from the Defendant until mere minutes before the sentencing hearing.
Attached to the pre-sentence report was an affidavit in support of arrest warrant sworn by the
arresting officer, signed by no judge, and concealed from the Defendant for 607 days; until the
morning of sentencing. (c) That the Defendant had attempted to sue the victims for wages due
upon termination of employment, and the prosecution had concealed the fact that the victims had
committed (F4) Perjury in the First Degree, and (F4) Attempt to Influence a Public Servant, having
falsely sworn to both the Weld County District Court, and the Colorado Division of Labor that
neither had jurisdiction over the Defendants accrued wage claim, because the matter was before the
other, and falsely swearing to government agencies that the Defendant was not entitled to an award
of accrued wages, because he had not worked for the victims for a full year.

3. On J une 17, 2010 J udge J ames Hartmann had stripped the Defendant (civil Plaintiff) of all
evidence relevant to the Defendants (civil Plaintiffs) claim for accrued wages, in violation of
C.R.S. 8-4-110(2) of the Colorado Wage Act. Previously, as will be proven before this Court, J ames
Hartmann had issued an order forcing the Defendant (civil Plaintiff) to pay the victims (civil
Defendants) fees for their defense of a Motion for consolidation for which no fees were awarded.
The Defendant had refused to submit to the jurisdiction of a Court which would not comply with the
law, and the Defendants (civil Plaintiffs) case was dismissed, an award of attorneys fees was
granted the victims civil Defendants, and a lien was filed against the Defendants home.

4. Three years later, the victims had sought to attack the Defendants (civil Plaintiffs) wages
and property through interrogatories. The Defendant had refused to comply with the alleged void
Orders of the Weld County District Court. On J uly 21, 2013, the Weld County District Court initiated
a raid on the Defendants home, in support of an alleged void civil judgment in the Weld County
District Court case #09CV991.

5. Ten days later, on J uly 31, 2013, the Defendants home was again raided by police, this time
charging him with one count of (F4) retaliation Against a J udge.

6. On April 22, 2014, the Defendant was convicted on one count of (F4) retaliation Against a
J udge in Boulder County District Court; J udge Andrew Hartmann presiding.

7. On April 21, 2014 Weld County District Court Chief J udge J ames F. Hartmann, under direct
examination by Boulder County DDA Catrina Weigel, testified against the Defendant. J udge J ames
Hartmann is alleged to have committed (F4) Perjury in the First Degree to effect the conviction of
the Defendant in this second criminal matter. Germane to this matter, an to be proven by defendants
witness Catrina Weigel, is Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnetts continued obstruction of
justice in concealment of said perjured testimony.

8. The record of the Boulder Court indicates that Boulder County District Court Case
#13CR114, People v. Buckley prosecutor Catrina Weigel did knowingly and with malice conceal
evidence from the trier of fact, and suborn felony perjury from Peoples witness J ames F. Hartmann.
The testimony elicited from Peoples witness J ames Hartmann does not appear on the record of any
Court, and but for Colorado Attorney General J ohn Suthers obstruction of J ustice before this Court
on September 17, 2012, Assistant Attorney General Matthew D. Groves false swearing before this
Court on September 19, 2012, and J udge Michele Meyers refusal to allow the Defendant
opportunity to argue in opposition to J ames Hartmanns Motion, it is the Defendants assertion that
he would have elicited J ames F. Hartmanns perjured testimony two years ago, and there would be
3
no lien on the Defendants home, no garnishment of wages, and no compounding of criminal charges
against the Defendant.


9. Boulder County DDA Catrina Weigel has been subpoenaed to appear before this Court to
testify as follows: (a) the charging instrument in this case was falsified, (b) the pre-sentence report
was falsified, (c) the Prosecution in this case, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),
concealed evidence, and (d) Colorado Attorney General J ohn Suthers has Obstructed J ustice through
fraudulent concealment of a material witness.

10. Further, the Defendant will prove, based on the record of this Court (a) that the sentence is
illegal, (b) the underlying conviction in this case was obtained by fraud, (c) but for deprivation of the
Defendants rights by Colorado Attorney General J ohn Suthers, and Weld County District Attorney
Ken Buck, no such second crime of (F4) Retaliation would ever have occurred.

11. In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Due Process requires that a prosecutor disclose
material, exculpatory evidence that would either prove the defendants innocence, mitigate the level
of culpability, or otherwise favorably impact the defendants case. The Defendant has demanded that
the Prosecution produce specific exculpatory evidence prior to the scheduled September 25, 2014
hearing, and Weld County Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wrenn has flatly denied those
requests.

12. It is the Defendants continued assertion that this Court has no jurisdiction, pursuant to
C.R.Crim.P. Rule 35(a), to enforce a sentence (nor revoke probation) obtained through a falsified
and concealed pre-sentence report, nor to uphold a conviction, pursuant to C.R.Crim.P. Rule 35(c),
obtained through a falsified and concealed charging instrument, obstruction of mitigating witness
testimony, concealment of mitigating evidence, and prosecutorial and third party attorney
misconduct. The Defendant will require more than 1 hour to defend his rights.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully prays this Court, reschedule this matter for a 4 hour
hearing. It is the Defendants assertion that due to the complexity of this matter and the new
evidence obtained in Boulder County, #13CR114, coupled with the advisement of rights, plea,
Prosecutions case, Defendants pleadings and exhibits, testimony to be elicited from the Defendants
witness, and ruling, that a 1 hour hearing is vastly insufficient to protect the Defendants rights, and
does not serve justice.

FURTHER, the Defendant respectfully requests that said hearing be rescheduled until such a time
as the Prosecution decides to comply with Brady v. Maryland.


Respectfully submitted this 19
th
day of September, 2014.



__s/ Craig D. Buckley___
Craig D. Buckley
Defendant Pro Se


4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
By signature below, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
FORTHWITH MOTION TO RESCHEDULE PROBATION REVOCATION HEARING was
filed with the Court by U.S.P.S. First Class Mail Postage Prepaid on the 19
th
day of
__September__, 2014, and upon the Weld County District Attorney's Office:


by U.S.P.S. First Class Mail Postage Prepaid on the 19
th
day of __September__, 2014.


So Certified: _____s/ Craig D. Buckley_______
2345 Gay Street
Longmont, Co 80501