This article is posted by the webmaster by request. No effort was made to change any punctuation or spelling.
From David Gietzen:
Hello!
Yesterday, I sent a short email telling you guys about Brent Douglas Cole. As short as the email is, it does not do a full job of explaining the “why” I found this guy interesting. Once more, the short version is that he was filing a bunch of court motions in California to challenge the constitutionality of a particular gun law in that state. After a number of these proceedings, he was shot 5 times by 2 police officers at his campsite, and the conspiracy theory is that these officers were actually sent there for the express purpose of executing him. This is politically relevant, because the attorney general of the State of California at the time was Kamala Harris, and his court motions (before that altercation) actually involved her.
As said before, I have very little ability to verify his story myself, but he is very specific in the court motions that he discusses, so at least those portions should be easy to verify.
Anyway, what I have for you is a physical letter that he has written with the intent of sending to Trump. I read it, found it interesting, and have received permission from him to disseminate it publicly. If you find the contents herein interesting, you are free spread it as you see fit.
From : Brent Douglas Cole, No. 71911097-H3
P.O. BOX 1002 (Thomson U.S.P)
Thomson, IL 61285
To: Donald J. Trump and Alina Habbah
Re: Persecution of U.S. District Court Eastern District of Calif. No.:2:14-CR-0269
Dear Mr. Trump and Counsel Habba,
We apparently have shared adversaries, goals, and experiences. We have been subjected wily-nilly to weaponized penal-systems, which are corrupt, but are deceitfully portrayed to bring justice, even though grossly abused. They were misused against us, and we have both been shot by assassins, who failed to kill us. We were both, in fact, shot for doing what is needed for our Nation’s welfare by the proper legal means. Alina has made a career of protecting and enforcing that means. What we are fighting is Machiavellianism.
Two “law enforcement officers”, who were engaged in committing felony crimes against me, instigated an altercation without my having made any threats or provocations, wherein they shot me five (5) times, and shot at me seventeen times from within 25 feet of me, within twelve seconds and without any warning or attempting to arrest me. I defended myself by shooting each of them once and gave each a relatively minor flesh wound. I had the right to defend myself under the law of the land. I am sentenced to death by incarceration. Kamala Harris was the ‘top cop’, Attorney General of the State of California. She had just ducked Service of Process by me.
I was standing trial in the Superior Court of California in Nevada City, case no. M14-00388, filed Jan. 28, 2014, under California Penal Codes (C.P.C) sections 25400 (a) (1) and 25850 (a) : Two Bills of Attainder which declare the lawful exercise of the Second Amendment to be a crime in violation of Article I, Sec. 10, U.S. Const.
On June 5, 2014, I filed my “ANSWER WITH BILL OF EXCEPTIONS”, a copy of which was sent to A.G. Kamala Harris, in open court. She managed to avoid that service, but I am sure she received it. Nine days after mailing it, two assassins appeared in my camp in committing grand larceny by asporting my backpack and loading it. I was watching them steal my property and confronted them, asking them politely to leave my property alone. They had no warrant. The BLM Ranger had been there in the camp for over two hours, and had not made any attempt to obtain a warrant. I was standing face to face a few feet from him, politely answering his questions. He suddenly drew his gun and shot me, then rapidly backed away from me. I then drew my gun and defended myself. I shot the ranger above the clavical bone in the left shoulder, and the CHP in his lower leg. I would have been legally justified to kill both of them. I should not have received a death sentence for self-defense.
A short time after I was shot and transported, Russell (AKA Rusty) Greene, my accuser in M14-00388, appeared at the scene as the Lead-Investigator over the shooting, asserting that his employer (NCSO) “had no involvement” and it was appropriate he be the head of the investigation. I believe the ranger’s brother is employed by NCSO in the Property Section. Greene called his friend, FBI Agent Andrew Forristel, to help him falsify the investigation.
NCSO Russell Greene, prosecutor / lead-Investigator, and FBI Special-Agent Prosecutor
/ Lead-Federal-Investigator / sole-uninvolved-“witness” ‘White-washed’ the “investigation”. Their only interest was to scape-goat me and “exonerate” both ‘shooting- involved-officers.’ See CHP’s Officer-Hardin-Report, p. 47, “DISTRICT ATTORNEYS FINDINGS”, attached. See also the “Docket Sheet” of Superior Court of California, No. F14-000267, and the attached explanation, etc. They concealed the entire CHP investigation, numerous police reports, and material witnesses and facts. They made sure that no forensic analysis, balistic analysis, or gunpowder residue test was performed, especially on my clothing, because that would have proved every claim of the prosecution against me was perjury. This was Brady material concealed until long after “trial”. The state trial was a sham/ruse by Feds.
TOP-COP Kamala-Harris was able to duck service of my ANSWER in No. M14- 000388 made in open court on June 5, 2014. Nine (9) days after that, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) assassin instituted the altercation with me by fraudulently claiming that the road and area were closed. That was his probable-cause-pretext, which is not supported by any evidence at trial, only his claim, “I was told that that road was closed.”
Trial Transcript (TT), ECF 177, p.15 (225) L.16. To close public BLM lands, the District Engineer must make a written recommendation to the Regional Supervisor for closure, who may then take public comment and post notice in accord with 43 CFR sec. 8364.1. It must be published in the Federal Register and signs be posted in and near the area stating reasons for the closure. This was not done. The area and road were never closed. A.G. Harris was either complicit or wantonly abetting keeping Bills of Attander CPC secs. 25400 (a) (1) and 25850 (a) in effect, which declare the lawful exercise of the Second Amendment to be a crime. Said ANSWER challenged the constitutionality of both penal codes, and was removed from the court file and destroyed, see ECF 155, p. 36 of 203, MEMORANDUM of Counsel Schutz, August 14, 2014, violating 18 USC sec. 1512 (c). The U.S. Dist. court refused to notify the Grand Jury that I wished to present evidence of the commission of federal felonies. The State’s A.Gs. are required to work with the federal A.G. or a designee deciding which state cases will be removed to federal.
There have been no communications acknowledged between the state and federal A.Gs: Only between the assistant U.S. attorney and D.A. The venue was improper in the Federal District Court and the requisit procedures were circumvented or irregular. Top-Cop-Harris was either violating her oath and the Constitution to deprive the people of the U.S. of their civil rights, especially their Second Amendment rights, and ther God given rights to defend their families and self, or she was so incompetent that she was ignoring her office’s mail. The TOP-COP was either incompetent, derelict in her duty, or wantonly making herself criminally culpable to Constitutional treason. It is important to note there is either no fiscal control over the liability incurred by the United States, or communications from the A.Gs. are being concealed. Either way there is a problem that needs fixing. It is clear that my pleading was removed from the court’s file and destroyed, and my right to trial under Art.3, sec.2, cl.3, U.S. Const. was abrogated by an illegal removal to hide said fact, and the courts were weaponized and covnerted into instruments of oppression and “the fit and fitting instrument for subjecting them under absolute despotism.” Declaration of Independence, 1776.
Bill of Attainder and Ex Post Facto Law Definitions
Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Ed. (BL11th), p.203 defines:
“bill of attainder. (17c) Constitutional law. 1. Archaic. A special legislative act that imposes a death sentence on a person without a trial. 2. A special legislative act prescribing a punishment, without a trial, for a specific person or group. Bills of attainder are prohibited by the U.S Constitution (art.I, sec.9,cl.3; and sec.10, c1.1). Also termed act of attainder. See ATTAINDER: BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES.”
The prohibition against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder is poorly defined and has not been well developed in American law, but was intended to be a bill of rights within the body of the Constitution of the United States. It prohibits inequitable laws.
“attainder n. (15c) 1. At common law, the act of extinguishing a person’s civil rights when that person is sentenced to death or declared to be an outlaw for committing a felony or treason. 2. Hist. A grand-jury proceeding to try whether a jury has given a false verdict. 3. The conviction of a jury so tried. attaint vb.”
“The word attainder is derived from the Latin term attinctus, signifying stained or polluted, and includes in its meaning, all those disabilities which flow from a capital sentence. On the attainder, the defendant is disqualified to be a witness in any court; he can bring no action, nor perform any of the legal functions which he was before admitted to discharge; he is, in short, regarded as dead in the law.” 1 Joseph Chitty, A Practical Treatise on the Criminal Law. 725 (2d ed 1826)”
The verb “attaint” means: “(14c) 1.: to affect by attainder.” Meriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Ed. (MW11th).
“Ex post facto law. (18c) Constitutional law. A statue that criminalizes an action and simultaneously provides for punishment of those who took the action before it became a crime; BL11th, p. 726”
MALICIOUS ABUSE OF PROCESS
The issuance of an arrest warrant to remove a prisoner who is standing trial in a foreign jurisdiction is a malicious abuse of process that evinces bad faith because it is employed to deprive that prisoner “accused of crime” to their “right to a full and fair trial according to the law of the government whose sovereignty he is alleged to have offended,” Ponzi v Fessenden, 258 US 254, 260, 56 LED 607 (1922); which trial must be “with full opportunity for defense.” Frank v Mangum, 237 US 309, 341. Where such removal is to Federal court, as in this instance, 18 USC sec. 3231 forbids it. The principle is stated in Covell v. Heyman, 111 US 176, 28 LED 390:
“[Between state courts and those of the United States, it is something more. It is a principle of right and law, and, therefore, of necessity. It leaves nothing to discretion or mere convenience….”
“They exercise jurisdiction, it is true, within the same territory, but not in the same plane [“2. level of existence, consciousness, or development,” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dict.], and when one takes into its jurisdiction a specific thing, that res is as much withdrawn from the judicial power of the other, as if it had been carried physically into a different territorial sovereignty.” Id., Ponzi at 260-261:”[T]he same principle applies to jurisdiction over persons, as is shown… in Abelman v Booth, 21 How. 506, 16 L. ed 169, quoted from and relied upon in Covell v. Heyman.”
“Crimes against private individuals or their property, like assaults, murder, burglary, larceny, robbery, arson, embezzlement, and frauds of all kinds which affect the peace and good order of the community, must of course, be committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the government where it may properly exercise it. If the punishment of them is to be extended to include those committed outside the strict territorial jurisdiction, it is natural for Congress to say so in the Statute, and failure to do so will negative the purpose of Congress in this regard.” United States v. Bowman, 260 US 94, 97-98, 67 LED 149 (1922).
The Grand Jury did not initiate prosecution in No. 2:14-CR-0269. The Grand Jury was overborne by the prosecutor, stifled, and not permitted to perform a judicial inquiry. I requested in writing to be allowed to present evidence and testimony about federal felony crimes that were committed by others relative to the accusations against me. That request was concealed from the grand jury and returned to me. I filed it in ECF 155, about 09/08/15, pp. 40-45. The venue was improper and not alleged in the indictment of the prosecutor. The Grand Jury was deceived as to what the law of assault is. Only the prosecutor who instituted the prosecution by a complaint was brought before the grand jury to testify about the alleged crime, despite that all three actual witnesses were readily available to testify, violating the 5th Amendment, 28 USC sec. 547, and:
“The Constitution itself makes the grand jury a part of the judicial process. It must initiate prosecution for the most important federal crimes. It does so under general instructions from the court to which it is attached and to which, from time to time it reports its findings. The proceeding before a grand jury constitutes “a judicial inquiry”, [cite omitted], of the most ancient lineage.” Cobbledick v. United States, 309 US 323, 327-29, 84 LED 783 (1940). [“judicial inquiry (17c) An official in court investigation of events, facts, and actions to address a question of law and render an opinion.” Black’s Law Dictionary 11th Ed., p.1012.]
“The People of the United States…are subject to two governments: one state and the other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses the other does not. They are established for different purposes and have separate jurisdictions.” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 550, 23 LED 588 (1876)
The venue was improper in federal court because extraterritorial jurisdiction was not specified in 18 USC sec. 111 in 2014.
In conclusion, I wanted to inform you that as Attorney General of California, “Top Cop” Kamala Harris ducked service of process when my case was a misdemeanor that had not even been scheduled for trial. I had filed paperwork in court challenging the Constitutionality of C.P.C. sections 25400 (a) (1) and 25850 (a), each of which legislates the lawful exercise of Second Amendment right to be a crime. See District of Columbia v. Heller, and McDonald v. Chicago, (S. Ct.).
Had my claim that said penal codes were unconstitutional been without merit, Top Cop Kamala would not have felt it necessary to duck service of process in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California to protect unconstitutional Bills of Attainder. Kamala’s agenda was sedition, in her official “capacity”, when she received the Certified U.S. Mail Service of Process that was filed in open court on June 5, 2014, and ordered to be made part of the Court’s record. She wantonly kept said Bills of Attainder in place in violation of Article I, Sec. 10, C1.1. of the Constitution of the United States. My “ANSWER WITH BILL OF EXCEPTIONS”, which was intended for use in Federal Court, was subsequently removed from the State Court’s file and destroyed, which constitutes a felony crime under 18 U.S.C sec. 1512(c). See ECF 155, p.36 of 203, filed 9/8/15.
Nine (9) days after filing said “ANSWER”, on June 14, 2014, CHP Officer Brant HARDIN and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Agent Tad PULTORAK, APPEARED in my camp in a designated wilderness area fraudulently claiming that the “area is closed to the public”, provoked an altercation while they were engaged in committing felony crimes against me, and immediately resorted to the use of deadly force, purportedly to arrest me for custodial detention because they wished to investigate an unrecovered motorcycle that had been stolen from a CHP employee in March 2013 fifteen months prior. In fact, I confronted them while they were engaged in committing the crime of Grand Larceny after watching them caption and asport my backpack, then begin loading it with things they wished to take. When I confronted them and asked them politely to leave my property alone after telling them the backpack belonged to me, and amicably answering their questions, they very suddenly, without telling me of any intention to arrest me or giving me any reason or authority for wanting to arrest me, assaulted me with handcuffs and firearms, which constituted armed robbery and an attempted illegal arrest, both of which constitute an assault as a matter of law. They fired seventeen bullets at me within 12 seconds of my answering, “Yes, I am.” I was shot and in a crossfire instantly.
My accuser in the misdemeanor case, no. M14-000388 in CA Superior Court, Nevada County Sheriffs Office (NCSO) Deputy Russell Greene, appeared immediately after the shooting as the Lead-Investigator, asserting that NCSO had nothing to do with the shooting, so it was proper for him to be the investigator. Greene immediately called in his friend and associate, FBI Special Agent Andrew FORRISTEL, as lead-investigator for the FBI to help him white-wash the investigation and prevent determination of probable cause for the arrest and use of deadly force by a judicial officer in a judicial hearing as required.
I thought you should be informed of the seditious conspiracy that Top Cop Kamala has been abusing her Office to implement for a decade.
Sincerely yours, Brent D. Cole