IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OP UTAH oooOooo Robert L. Ele * MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION Plaint iff/Respondent: ,. TQ W R I T Q p C E R T I Q R A RI VS * State of Utah, Utah Board of * Case No. 9932 Pardons, et al * Defendants/Petitioners: * Judge —oooOooo qaosc^ The posibiiities for abuse inherant in a Statute of Limitations placed on a system where the object or subject of a Writ is your captor and thus responsible for your access to pencils, paper, legal materials, the U.S. Mail and every other aspect of ones existance has been recognized by this Court. Utah Code 77-27-5(3) Barred any Judicial Review from Parole decisions by the Utah Board of Pardons. Prior to the Poote decision in this Court (No. 900132) All actions against the Board of Pardons were summarily dismissed under this Code. Trying to apply a Stutute of Limitations to something that did not exist— Prior to Poote— is a total absurdity, Plaintiff's Writ was filed in District Court in a timely manner following the Poote decision which makes the State's Contention a Moot Point. As per Utah Senate and House minuets of debate on Bill No. 245 submitted by State, it is quite obvious that the Legislation was directed at Capital Cases. Unfortunatly, a scatter-gun approach was used that encompassed an entire group— 99% of which are not among the target population. Senate Bill 245 should be declared unconstitutional and voided. Based on the foregoing the State's Petition for Writ of Certiorari should be denied. /A Dated and Signed this / pay of yZZd,/ ,199 £L . 5-1
Public record document (some rights may be reserved).
Legal Brief, Ele v. Utah Board of Pardons, No. 920203.00 (Utah Supreme Court, 1992).