Writ of Mandamus


James Bauhaus (


 v (                                                      Cs. #

Tulsa Cnty. Dist. Ct.        (


 12:1451 et seq.


     On 11-2_9-06 I properly sent Post Conviction Application F-73-24, Bauhaus v OK, to Tulsa’s County Ct. House. The Prosecutors and Judges have not responded though over twice the normally allotted time has passed. (30 v 70 days)

     Statute 22.:1080 et seq. gives me the clear legal right to apply for relief due to new evidence. (See statute 22:1080 et seq.)

     Prosecutors and Judges have a clear legal duty to respond to and rule on my PCR application in a timely fashion.   (St. Ex Rel Clifton v District Court, Pottawatorne Cnty. OKL cr 491 p2d 366 (1971) “…Mandamus will …compel…Court to… function when it fails to act…” and St. Ex Rel Boatman v Payne, 97 OKL 48, 257 p2d 842_ (1953) “Mandamus to trial Court lies …to…compel it to act when it refuses to do so.”

      Adequacy is proven by Equalization Board, OK Cnty. v Ford Motor Company, 177 OKL -583, 61 p2d 251 (1936) “Mandamus is the only adequate mode of relief where an inferior tribunal refuses to act on a subject brought properly before it.”

      The inadequacy of any other relief is proven by the fact that, (a) the law provides no other remedy, and; (b) OCCA has previously ruled in my favor in this same case (F-73-24, Bauhaus v OK) with other new evidence when it compelled McAlester Judge Bartheld to issue a ruling in C-1999-207 via OCCA cases MA-2000-507 and MA-2000-717, Bauhaus v Bartheld, Where Judge Bartheld contrived to make me wait forever for a response from his prosecutor which was never to come.

     As to discretion, see Mapco Inc. v Means, OKL 538 p2d 593 (1975) “Sup. Ct. may… grant…mandamus requiring trial Ct. to exercize its discretion.” And, St Ex Rel Reirdon v Marshall Cnty. Ct. 183 OKL 247, 81 p2d 488 (1938) “Mandamus may issue when there has been an arbitrary abuse of discretion, notwithstanding (i.e. in spite of) that the Court is called on to review the exercize of a discretionary power.” And, St. v Cole, 4 OKL cr 45, 109 p. 744 (1910) “Where a criminal trial has been postponed… because of prejudice or…hostility, the Court has refused to take action… the accused is entitled to a mandamus…”

      Further, there is no need for any excess delay because: (1) Defendants are very familiar with this case, which they have seen many times since 2000, and (2) The sole question to be answered is simply, “Did I get a fair trial when Tulsa Police and the FBI conspired; (a) to deliberately waste the killer’s blood with un-neceasary tests and un-asked-for tests, and; (b) to prevent the killer’s blood from ever being examined by outside experts?”

Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5

(See exhibits 1 through 5)

      Also, Tulsa County has many, many Prosecutors, ADA’s, Paralegals, Judges, Assistants, etc, plus lightspeed phones, faxes, e-mails, computers, databases, etc, so it is no problem at all for them to quickly check facts, call up the proper law in mere seconds and compose the proper response and order in this simple case.

     Please order them to do so expeditiously.

So Prayed,

James Bauhaus

Cert. of Svc.

On 2-8-07 I sent via first class mail 4 true/correct copies of this to Court Clerk, OCCA, State Capitol Bldg. 2300 North Lincoln, OKC, OK 73105

James Bauhaus