Michael Morris – In Focus

I think the only thing more embarrassing than living in the middle of a wholly inept and corrupt legal system is living in the middle of a wholly inept and corrupt legal system too lacking in cerebral resources so as to cover their tracks. In the recent case of Alberto Lueras the corrupt exploited the inept in order to distort our system of laws to a degree that renders laws as we typically understand them, meaningless. Instead of a rope and a tree the clowns and the psychopaths came together in a kangaroo court so transparent subversion of everything we depend on to survive as a free society could be its only goal. You may choose to see Mr. Lueras as a monster, but the law sees him as a citizen, a fourteenth amendment citizen if you will, the same as you. What you visit upon him is the standard to which you are subject.

Every kangaroo court needs a judge. In the case we get two empty pouches for the price of justice. In the civil world of domestic violence law there is a sensible, though obviously abused, provision allowing the chief judge of a district to appoint a lawyer, nearly any lawyer for that matter, to serve as a Domestic Violence Special Commissioner. In many jurisdictions the DV Commissioner is a lawyer who is competent and is otherwise “judgely”. As fate would have it the 12th District opposite world I landed in employs the services of arguably the least competent and “judgely” in the district who, if forced to live by his knowledge, skill and integrity, would have starved to death decades ago. In real life this emotional wreck goes by the name Darrell Brantley, but in kangaroo court we will refer to him often as Dilly-roo. You might think this harsh, but after you hear the audio (Listen to Audio) of the hearing I will be discussing you may find my restraint uncharacteristic. Supervising and rubber stamping the idiot Dilly-roo is District Judge Frank Wilson as NonComposMentis-roo.

Where to start is the hard part. Albert Leuras, our defendant, was convicted in 1991 of the 1989 slayings of his mother and nephew. The manner of the killings is what makes the monster here. In this case the device used was an axe rather than a gun or a motor vehicle. Scot Key is our nominal lame duck DA who has time and again gone not only to the press, but also to lengths the law prohibits in whipping up a public frenzy using the power of the office he holds. Sometimes we will refer to him as Lyncha-roo. At Lyncha’s side stands Roxanne Esquibel, affectionately known as Twister-roo owing to her inability to either know right from wrong or, like her boss, lacks the capacity to be concerned by it. Together these two have orchestrated what amounts to nothing less than a hijack of the basic tenets of our free society for a goal no nobler than to make themselves look as though they have value.

First we need some foundation. The Family Violence Protection Act is a civil law. As a result it is subject to the laws and rules applicable to civil cases generally unless the terms of the Act specify something different. For instance the Act exempts those filing a petition under the Act from the general requirement of paying the docketing fee.

Enumerated in the Family Violence Protection Act are 12 specific actions that fall within the definition of “domestic abuse”. The Finding of at least the allegation of at least one incident of domestic abuse is required to invoke the jurisdiction of the court under the Act. At the same time there is another issue of jurisdiction in this case that is apparently of no consequence to either Dilly-roo 12th Judicial District Domestic Violence Special Commissioner [Darrell Brantley] or NonComposMentis-roo. That matter would be the Statute of Limitations on the basis for the Petition for Temporary Order of Protection (PDF). In the context of the temporary order this consisted of an allegation that the Respondent has murdered household members in the past. Of course how far in the past was no matter for Dilly-roo in the original ex parte petition. The other allegation was that at some unspecified time Respondent said to un-named persons that he “came to finish the job” easily understood to mean a threat to Petitioner’s life. As you heard on the tape this one disappeared entirely from the hearing probably the result of no one named to testify to the spurious allegation of a threat. Since Dilly-roo was the original intake officer on the ex parte order he had some advice on the hearing, but from who? Stay tuned. This is like a puzzle. You will figure it out for yourself in a minute.

Focusing on the remaining allegation that Alberto Lueras has murdered a household member which clearly falls under definitions (a) & (c) dealing with physical harm and injury. There can be significant argument regarding how fresh an act of DV must be in order to serve as the basis of one of these orders. Fortunately the allegation in this case is sufficiently aged to obviate the need for that discussion today. Civil causes in New Mexico expire in 4 years unless otherwise specified. There is no other specification regarding limitations, so, the general law of limitations controls. The particular section dealing with all other actions dates to 1880 unchanged and for good reason. How long do we allow a person to be in jeopardy?

37-1-4. [Accounts and unwritten contracts; injuries to property; conversion; fraud; unspecified actions.]
Those founded upon accounts and unwritten contracts; those brought for injuries to property or for the conversion of personal property or for relief upon the ground of fraud, and all other actions not herein otherwise provided for and specified within four years.

While one’s fear may be in the present tense fear is not a cause of action, it is the act by the Petitioner Respondent that invokes the jurisdiction of the court. Without a present tense act there is no jurisdiction. Obviously this was not present tense in that the Respondent just did the act since the actual verbiage of the petition calls the Respondent an “ex-murderer” which, by its own terms, places it in the past. But we are talking about a staged railroad job, so why bother ascertaining if the guy really was convicted of killing someone as part of a probable cause determination? Of course if you did that you would also know it was 19 years past and barred by limitations as serving as the basis for any civil action not otherwise specified like this one.

Now we have to look at the conduct of the hearing to get a real Roo’s-eye view of the kind of conduct you can expect from Dilly-roo. Of course the threat disappeared since there was never a witness alleged who could testify to it. Instead it seemed as if Dilly-roo, acting on some specious advice, thought he had found a way to cure the jurisdictional failures by referring to the conviction for the murders and taking judicial notice of the convictions. It almost seemed as if Dilly-roo thought that if there was a Certificate of Conviction, which is a judgment of a court, that it was good forever when in fact actions founded on a judgment only survive 14 years.

37-1-2. Judgments.
Actions founded upon any judgment of any court of the state may be brought within fourteen years from the date of the judgment, and not afterward. Actions founded upon any judgment of any court of record of any other state or territory of the United States, or of the federal courts, may be brought within the applicable period of limitation within that jurisdiction, not to exceed fourteen years from the date of the judgment, and not afterward.

While this is commonly known to end collectability of a judgment the law makes no distinction. The instant action is founded solely on actions[murders] by the Respondent that occurred 19 years ago. Dilly-roo knew this before he ever sent the ex parte order to NonComposMentis-roo to rubber stamp in the first place. Dilly-roo’s incompetence or compromise does not manufacture jurisdiction for the court. On the contrary, the court becomes a puppet or stooge of Lyncha-roo and Twister-roo who orchestrated this abortion of justice. Key told us in the Alamogordo Daily News on September 2 that he had helped get the temporary order which is dated August 28. Now you know what he did the only question is did Key and Brantley conspire to shove this load of crap through to NonComposMentis-roo for the stamp. While there is an alternative theory, supported by a cornucopia of evidence in the tape of the hearing, that suggests that Key merely manipulated an incompetent Dilly-roo I’m not buying it after listening to the tape.

There is ample evidence that some New Mexico judges are lazy and just rubber stamp these orders. One rather obvious example was the 2005 case in which District Judge Daniel Sanchez signed an order against TV host David Letterman after Colleen Nestler claimed to the court that Letterman had sent coded messages through his show to her and had tormented her this way for some time. Enough said.

The conduct of the hearing is beyond the bounds western jurisprudence has ever stretched to define a fair hearing. Not that we need more examples of the due process violations in this process that would not pass muster at Guantanamo Bay, but we have to look at this hearing so lacking in fundamental due process as to become a textbook case. Here is the timeline.

At the onset and throughout the first 8 minutes of the hearing we hear repeatedly that the reason Petitioner sought the order is because Respondent had been released from prison and later a mental hospital, not because of the previously claimed threats. Testimony is given and Dilly-roo repeatedly makes reference to the 19 year old conviction.

All the times are the counter on the audio.

A 8:23 Dilly-roo asks Respondent if he wishes to cross examine the witness. No response.

At 8:38 Dilly-roo asks if Respondent wishes to offer testimony? No response.

At 8:50 Dilly-roo declares that the audio link is not working.

Bear in mind that Respondent was unable to answer the question regarding his right to cross examine the witness. Brantley had moved on merely assuming that this right had been waived by silence discovered half a minute later to have been more likely the result of a bad link.

At 11:35 into the hearing feedback indicates the Respondent’s microphone is now on.

11:37 Respondent’s first word heard in the hearing is “yes” to “Can you hear me?”

At 11:45 Dilly-roo begins explaining the possible perils of testimony such as self incrimination.

Did you notice the right to cross examine was not offered after the Respondent’s microphone was made operational?

At 12:05 Dilly-roo manifests a significant prejudice into the record when he notes into the record that the Respondent’s decision not to testify was based on a claim under the 5th and 14th Amendments regarding self incrimination when all Respondent said was “no” when asked if he wanted to give testimony. The obvious upshot of that statement is that the Respondent only had self incriminating testimony otherwise.

Respondent is not offered the chance to argue the case, only to give testimony thus denying, though it is doubtful it would be exercised, any right to challenge any jurisdictional or evidentiary issues.

Finally at 13:40 Dilly-roo states for the record that he is taking judicial notice of the 19 year old case file and if the Certificate of Conviction, J&S and/or plea agreement, the only documents in the file (yes, we bought that file too), show to be the same as the testimony Dilly-roo will recommend to NonComposMentis-roo that he sign a final order granting the petition.

All of the outrageous drama brought to us by Scot Key on the pages of the Alamogordo Daily News about this whipping up a fear and frenzy for no good reason only to find out that the only allegation against Alberto Lueras was that he got out of jail after 19 years. This kind of unethical conduct is the reason Key will not be DA next term. Judge Counts, as Chief Judge, has a responsibility to supervise Dilly-roo as this cancerous growth serves at the pleasure of Judge Counts. The conduct of this hearing shows clearly that Darrell Brantley regards the law and his responsibilities with contempt. An arbitrary and capricious wannabe judge is not what any community needs. Brantley needs to go or we need to start up the chain.