April 21, 2014 Motion to Reconsider Filed at Arapahoe District Court SEARCHABLE TEXT

DISTRICT COURTARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADOArapahoe County Justice Center7325 South Potomac StreetEnglewood, Colorado 80112________________________

CHRISTA RENEE PRYORPlaintiff

v.

ANTHONY MASSEYRespondent

________________________

Anthony Massey, Pro SePO Box 21813Denver, Colorado [email protected]

COURT USE ONLY

Case No: 13CV940

Division: 204

Judge: Horton

Courtroom:

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

COMES NOW, Anthony Massey moving this court to reconsider.

Since the filing of the brief on September 3, 2013, a much better record of thiscase has developed which warrants review. Several events and other informationhas developed that was not known by the court on September 3, 2013.

Motion to Reconsider of 5

1. The trial court has heard evidence “calls into question” the alleged incident ofMarch 7, 2013 - which formed the basis for issuing the Permanent Civil ProtectionOrder against Mr. Massey.

2. Mr. Massey has had the opportunity to testify before the trial court regardingalleged incident of March 07, 2013.

3. The criminal charges against Mr. Massey and Ms. Scott were dismissed withprejudice.

I.

In her allegations before the trial court, which were filed in two identical cases,13C454 Pryor v. Massey, and 13C453, Pryor v. Scott, The Plaintiff stated onMarch 7, 2013 that she was followed in a vehicle occupied by two individuals, Mr.Massey, and Ms. Scott. This alleged incident formed the basis upon which theTemporary and Permanent Civil Protection orders issued against Mr. Massey.

The trial court found:

“at this juncture today, the Court cannot make a finding, by a preponderanceof the evidence, that Ms. Scott, the respondent in this matter, committed theacts constituting the grounds for the issuance of the initial temporaryprotection order, that incident that we were referring to on March 7th, of2013. There’s been, um, additional evidence or testimony provided to theCourt today that calls into question, that cannot meet or sustain the burdenof a preponderance of the evidence in order for the Court to find that that actoccurred.” Pryor v. Scott, 13C453 Scott Trial Transcript PP 138, LL9-17.

This finding is very important, because Mr. Massey is alleged to have beentraveling in the same vehicle committing the same acts against the Plaintiff as Ms.Scott. Because the trial court has found that the burden of proof cannot be metregarding whether the alleged act even occurred in Pryor v. Scott, it should be easyto make the same finding in Pryor v. Massey.


II.

The alleged events of March 07, 2013 did not occur.

In his representations to the trial court, Since the earliest days of this case,beginning with his first motion to the trial court on June 17, 2013 and continuingthrough today, Mr. Massey has steadfastly maintained that the events of March 07,2013 did not occur. Mr. Massey’s story has never changed.

“The alleged incident of March 07, 2013 did not occur.” - June 17, 2013

“I wasn’t there.” - Trial Testimony - June 24, 2013, P31, LL24.

“The alleged incident of March 07, 2013 did not occur.” - Sept 4, 2013in opening appeal brief filed with the trial Court and this court.

Q: “Did you all go south on I-25 at any point that day?”A: “No.”

Q: Did you all go down on Santa Fe at any point south of I-25?”A: “No.”

- November 12, 2013 - Trial Testimony, Pryor v. ScottDirect examination of Mr. Massey by counsel for Ms. ScottScott Trial Transcript Page 88.

Mr. Massey was also shown a map with a drawing of a highlighted route from thePlanned Parenthood facility, proceeding in a generally northwest direction to hisown home, located in Northwest Denver. Mr. Massey testified that he rode withMs. Scott and took that route which led from the Planned Parenthood facilitydirectly to his own home on March 7, 2013. - Scott Trial Transcript Page 86-87.


III.

The criminal cases against Mr. Massey and Ms. Scott have been dismissed withprejudice.

At all of the hearings and other events before the trial court, as well as theArapahoe district court, the courts were aware of a pending trial, but unaware ofthe outcome. The case was dismissed with prejudice on January 27, 2014.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, and having been advised of importantnew information regarding the case, Mr. Massey prays in the name of the LORDJESUS CHRIST for this court to reconsider, and to dismiss the Permanent CivilProtection Order.

Done this ___________ day of April, 2014.

_________________________________Anthony Massey, Pro SeP.O. Box 21813Denver, Colorado [email protected]


RETURN OF SERVICE

State of Colorado, County of ____________________________

I declare under oath that I served this MOTION TO RECONSIDER

in The City of ______________________ County of __________________, State of Colorado,

on (date) __________________________, At (time) _________________,

At the following location: ______________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

To the following person, _______________________________________________________

By (State Manner of Service) _______________________________________________

_______ I am over the age of 18 years of age and am not interested in nor a party to this case.

Signed under oath before me on

____________________, __________________________________Date Signature of Person Serving Document

_____ Private Process Server Fee __________________

_______________________________________,Signature of Notary Public

My Commission expires: ____________________


April 21, 2014 Motion to Reconsider Filed at Arapahoe District Court SEARCHABLE TEXT

Documents

Transcript of April 21, 2014 Motion to Reconsider Filed at Arapahoe District Court SEARCHABLE TEXT