The Protocol of death calculated for a woman

Priority Case Management Statement of facts

2. This is primarily an application declaratory relief on the feasibility of applying codes. This Statement of case management claims that libel and slander are inherently invalid mainly because they were obtained through fraud at state court through an unfair behavior caused by the police of the city of Napa, California. His actions have influenced the judges and lawyers, local authorities, communities in general, the police and their informers and criminals in Susanville, California, and Klamath Falls, Oregon, to accomplish the overcoming of injustice transvestites.

3. There was a constant terror state standards manifested in physical abuse and psychological harassment, discrimination and a series of massive human rights violations carried out by excessive housing issue before various courts since 1995.

A brief description of the issues of jurisdiction

4. In 1995, the Respondent was convicted of harassment and crimes of sexual offense by an illegal bargain. The misdemeanor offenses supported by the coercion, influence, coercion, and especially the results arbitrary inadequate representation that lacked even the most rudimentary knowledge, resources and capabilities necessary for its defense. Respondent maintains that the lawyer representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and prejudice that affected the result set as a reasonable probability of error counsel. Was as not having any representation.

5. This occurred in the courts of Napa County, Napa, California. Instead of correcting this imbalance, the Courts have intentionally promoted by appointing inexperienced and incapable lawyers to defend its mistaken view of the law, resulting in a long abandoned and unwanted burden. Respondent has no legitimate right to appeal this case.

6. As result of Napa County Courts failed to reverse this illegal conviction on their own, Several new reports were presented at the Klamath County Circuit Court in Klamath Falls, Oregon. This damage has been sent to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, because they are damage that should have been provided by Napa County and its inability to uphold the rule of law and respect for human rights.

7. As discrimination number multiplied, Respondent could be academically educated and trained to be self-employed for business office, horseshoeing, horse training, welding and automotive. However, none of these careers have been an option to provide a livelihood because of the expanded hate and hostile work environments described in all pleadings and suspension states illegal driver's license.

8. Respondent suffered many difficulties that have not prohibited gender discrimination in lesions ALL. The loss prolonged their children and the consequent punishments summary, substantial loss of property by an undetermined value, larceny theft of property inherited from a trust legitimately $ 100, loss of real and personal property and illegal extend the suspension of his California driver's license from the government deliberately and maliciously "oversights" related with this event source.

9. Due to the seriousness of the offenses, Respondent is unable to become employed in any field of labor that she was trained for. The harassment has been more than intolerable and beyond any form of legal solution.

10. No lawyer was interviewed Available to help, so she had to file state and federal difficult cases in all levels of courts in the states of California and Oregon on their own. All cases have been continuously ignored and / or fired.

11. After the filing federal summary judgments in a timely manner (the State of California delinquent and never had to pay damages), the Respondent has consolidated the cases and sent them to the Federal Claims Court in Washington, DC, in a category entitled "Failure to pay." These cases were again dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Respondent had to continue taking it internationally to count several punishment cruel and unusual that comes along with sex offender status.

12. Moreover, Respondent has submitted numerous reports about his confidence real estate $ 100 missing from the family. The source property in the courts of Napa in California and consolidated in the Circuit Court of Appeals in September. As to date, it does not had any cooperation that is returned to its rightful owner.

Mitigating Circumstances

was likely that respondent could have committed this crime, but the fact that she was under duress, coercion or strong provocation?

13. Respondent, contests This quote from "illegal camping" with specifications that could have been made to flee to the seizure, which sentence to a life of mankind by the horrors of torture, neglect, and recklessly approved for the harmful effect of invalidating life Respondent were affirmed by the sex offender stalker-status and stigma.

14. Making several challenges to the validity of his conviction, Respondent attacked the constitutionality of the stalking crime enhanced by the Status of sex offender because of the massive illegality, which gives this sentencing judge a full opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances in this case as required by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

15. Moreover, the Respondent, now a woman of 52 years, one with health problems, was expelled more once (in Klamath County alone) in rent disputes with your landlord with the aide of hooligans during the freezing elements of the winter months.

16. Independently allegations that the respondents State (s) submitted it's torture by using it as a tool in beating human trafficking human beings, it became clear why male gender discrimination that any relationship with Respondent intellectual position is unattainable due to the alleged horrible atrocity that status as the City of Napa County, California, and claim that Respondent has a history of "persecution of women." Then later, the judge sanctioned your using an eviction process to continue to force her to stay in the house of men who get the gist that Respondent is available and vulnerable to worsening of sex without consequence.

17. In the latest case of the Respondent, the Klamath County Circuit Court, Susan E. SNELLING, PR, property of ROSS vs Cosma AKA "Amy Atkins and all occupants", Case No. 0804232CV Case: 0803782CV being evicted because as a group interest, interfering in personal area caused by damage to the Respondent, when she complained of hooligans threatening her while residents and still resides at 5332 Harlan Drive in Klamath Falls in an illegal structure at the property line in the vicinity of their guest house and office, US-imprecise Oregon Health Plan Policy, when Defendant et al resulted in the former "intentionally interfere [d] with its property, without any legal justification to dismiss this master of his personal property. And after having destroyed everything he owned into a curb public, the amount involved was very more than the monetary value of goods Respondent life, which was approximately the amount of $ 15,000.

18. Respondent health prevented her from obtaining more than clothes on her back, she has no power to move your possessions yourself, nor could she afford to hire someone to take her possessions. Everything from your furniture for photos of your family and clothes were taken, she was literally nothing.

19. To put it in the street when the slum landlord does not, the tenant slum, the real culprit is deprived of this fundamental right tenant (s) without any real opportunity to defend. Then she loses the essence the controversy, being given only empty promises that somehow, somewhere, someone may allow her to plead the fundamental issue in this case.

20. The trauma of expulsion that was even more pronounced when the Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles confirmed that the license was fully reinstated Respondent, Klamath Falls Police but angered at losing their vehicle pile dumping and all his possessions had remained on the street, in the Klamath County Fairgrounds for passersby to see. This has involved a lot of emotion and humiliation that results from being forced out of a house.

21. The lack of respect for life this Respondent, their personal property, real estate and misappropriation of his $ 100 property trust legitimately inherited during dump (s) has largely escaped scrutiny of the judiciary, state legislatures, and legal commentators as well. Respondent contends the loss of personal property is more than an irrelevant aspect the eviction process. All losses had a devastating impact on Respondent already traumatized by a conviction of unlawful stalking enhanced with a sexual offense.

22. In Lindsey v. Normet, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Oregon landlord-tenant statute, allowing removal of the tenant within six days of proceedings, was not, on its face, a breach of section 14 to amend the due process. But where the law is as fundamental as the tenant's claim to his home, the requirements of due process should be broader. In the setting of modern urban life, home, even if it is in the slums, is where the roots of man. Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (1972).

23. Essentially, the Respondent argues that the eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require that the sentence be given full opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances in this case, but goes beyond them.

24. Lockett v. Ohio, U.S. 438 586 (1978) determined that state law could not limit the mitigating factors the jury should be allowed to consider anything that might move them to show mercy.

25. The Court held that the Eighth and Fourteenth amendments necessary in all cases more rare, but capital that sentencers not be prevented from considering a number of mitigating factors before imposing the death penalty. These include all aspects of a defendant's character or record and any circumstances of the crime offered as a reason for a period of less than death.

26. The Court reiterated Mr. Justice Black, arguing that "[n] the performance of their duty to impose an appropriate sentence, the sentencing judge is authorized to consider all mitigating and aggravating circumstances involved in crime. "Page 438 U.S. 604 reviewing the historical repudiation of mandatory sentencing in capital cases, 428 -298 in the U.S., concluded that" in capital cases, the key issue for humanity underlying the Eighth Amendment. . . requires consideration of the character and record of the defendant and the circumstances of the offense, constitutionally as an indispensable part of the process of implementing the death penalty. "

27. Respondent acknowledges that in noncapital cases Page 438 U.S. 605, practice individual pen does not rest on constitutional commands but on public policy enacted into statutes.

28. There is no perfect procedure to decide cases in which the government authority should be used to impose death. But faced with what appears to be reasonably questioned the constitutionality of allowing weighing discretionary mitigating circumstances, considering "the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history, character and condition of the offender," Respondent requests that the sentencing judge liberally interpreted in favor of the accused to determine that at least one of the following mitigating circumstances is established by a preponderance of the evidence:

29. It is unlikely that the crime could have been committed, but the fact that the alleged offender was under duress, coercion or strong provocation. "

30. With this requirement in mind, we turn to strike Respondent Klamath County Code Enforcement, the Klamath County Sheriff's Department and the Klamath County Circuit Court.

31. To resolve their dispute in its proper perspective, it is useful to review developments in our recent cases in which we have applied the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the "capital" death penalty statutes.

32. Literally, we can say, Respondent was sentenced to death by a statutory scheme that precluded any effective consideration of their degree of involvement in any crime or any prospects for recovery. Clearly, the recent history that the imposition of the death, in circumstances where there is no purpose to take life has been totally out of proportion with the severity of the crime.

33. It is now established that the penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment if it is excessive in relation to the crime for which it is applied. The punishment is disproportionate "if (1) does not contribute to the measurable objectives of acceptable punishment and hence is nothing more than the institution useless and unnecessary pain and suffering, or (2) is totally out of proportion to the seriousness of the crime.

34. Important occasions to define some limits for the method by which the States assess punishment for actions linked to the deliberate taking of human life has been rendered.

35. After analyzing Respondent reports and other evidence, the degree of respect for the uniqueness of this individual and arguments presented by this court Complainant, Respondent states that penalty statute is deficient in relation to this difficulty.

36. It violates the Eighth Amendment because she is pregnant with discrimination, because it allows the penalty death to be "arbitrary" and "frighteningly" imposed, and because it imposed the death penalty with "great rarity" and allowed "no meaningful basis for distinguishing the few cases in which [was] imposed from the many cases where there [was], "So what was approved under the Due Process Clause of the Tenth Fourth Amendment became permissible under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under the sentences.

37. Applying a requirement of actual intent killing Respondent engaged in the act of causing physical death, moreover, stranded on intricate definitional problems attending a murder crime.

38. In this case is "unmistakably clear" that the petitioners can not be trusted to "enforce existing laws" and to follow the instructions conscience "of judges of the trial. To exercise free power to impose or not to apply for this claim of" illegal camping ", the sanction to be imposed discriminatorily, arbitrarily and capriciously, and so many times that any given sentence is cruel and unusual.

Conclusion

39. The Eighth Amendment requires that consideration be given for the sentence to aspects of the character of the offender and the circumstances of a specific crime to decide to impose a another difficulty. petitioner institution would be useless and unnecessary extinction of life with only marginal contributions for social discernible or public.

40. Achieving the appropriate balance between the clear guidelines that ensure equal treatment with respect and discretion to consider individual factors whose weight can not always be preassigned, is no easy task in any system of penalties. When life itself is what hangs in the balance, a very good precision in the process must be insisted.

41. You must be a form capable of providing an efficient process to protect this economic loss of Respondent unjust, willful violations and protect this undeserved Respondent harassment and expropriation by Petitioners in this case the dump summary

42. Certainly, the Honorable Judge may accept that this citation must be dismissed to provide a solution consisting of extrajudicial judicial intervention to effects of human habitation temporary difficulties convincing housing permitted by ORS Chapter 215 and to complete their job to guard Marie T. Nicholson.

I, Kini Cosma, declares, under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Dated this 27th of April 2009:

Signed: ___________________________

Kini Cosma, Respondent

About the Author

www.kinispolarbear.bravehost.com

“Isn’t that Sweeeet!”