Complaint Review: COLORADO JUDICIARY

it protects the corrupt people who provide the legal system with the majority of their money.

It's that simple!

The USA is a country whose foundation is solidly built on lies, deception, fraud, manipulation, greed, trickery, deep corruption, & the constant pursuit to financially injure the innocent people living here and all over the world.

The legal system in the USA is mainly comprised of CORRUPT people. Many of these corrupt people are lawyers. Many are judges. Many are politicians.  

The reason that our country is collapsing is because of the CORRUPTION that exists everywhere. Even the current president of the USA, as well as past presidents, protect the corrupt people who run many of the Wall Street banks and other Wall Street firms which have 'destroyed' the lives of MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people in the USA and all over the world.

Our entire system in the USA is one BIG lie!

***Here's the proof- Simply 'Google' this- THERE IS NO GAS SHORTAGE, and go to the April 1, 2008, BusinessWeek article and read the comment that was posted on May 31, 2008 at 9:13 PM.

FACT: That comment was posted 4 months BEFORE the collapse of the U.S. economy and the meltdown of the banking system, which occurred in September of 2008.

Thank You

WELCOME TO THE USA- ONE BIG LIE

EXAMPLE
1. MANIPULATION OF COURT TIMES, REMOVAL OF COUNTER, CROSS-COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
AND THEFT OF $192 JURY FEE BY TAMMY HERIVEL AND EDWARD M. BURNS.

It must be reiterated here that the facts and illustrations stated here were brought to the attention of Judge Pratt on numerous occasions through Affidavits and Motions and each time they were ignored.

Exhibit 4-1 shows the official court registry for case #2008CV202587 from its inception on December 10, 2008 through April 6, 2009.  The first most blatant lie is the demand for jury trial where it indicates N for no. This is in complete contrast to the cash receipt  that shows a jury trial was demanded and paid for on December 19, 2008 at 8:07am. It is also imperative to note that there is no court proceeding where any judge makes a decision that Peter Coulter is not entitled to a jury trial. In fact, if you looked at the official court registry (Ex. 4-1) one would believe that there was no jury trial demanded or paid for and that there was no counter or cross-claim. That then begs the question of how it got to the District Court if the original complaint was for less than $9,000 and the jurisdictional limit of the County Court is $15,000. It should have therefore stayed in the County Court. What is missing is that there was a counter and cross-claim filed in excess of $15,000 along with a jury demand and payment in line with District Court Fees. Here is how it was done.

As was stated earlier, Raymond Goodwin and Brent Evans as managers of Union Stanford Properties, filed an FED for $8,600 on December 10, 2008 against Peter Coulter and Audionly.com. They then served summons on Peter Coulter but not Audionly.com. Peter Coulter immediately started formally requesting copies of the lease by E-mail, fax, and certified mail with no response from any parties, Raymond Goodwin, John Brent Evans, and Bradley Coldiron. I filed a statutory
response, counter complaint and cross-complaint against Brent Evans on December 19, 2008. I also demanded a jury trial and since the counter and cross-complaint was in excess of the $15,000 limit for the jurisdiction of the county court, I requested it be removed to the District Court. I arrived at the Court at 8am, the clerk accepted the counter and cross claim and gave me a setting slip for a jury trial in front of District Court Judge Sheryl Post on January 8, 2009. I was out of the court by 8:30 and on my way to a funeral of a friend in Georgetown, Colorado being held that morning. While Lexis Nexis transaction numbers verify this fact; the Eclipse system used by the Colorado Courts shows something different. Eclipse shows that I didnt file a counter and cross-claim against Brent Evans and didnt ask and pay for a jury trial in the District Court. The court clerk can manipulate the time and placements of events, but cannot manipulate the Lexis Nexis transaction order or the Lexis Nexis time it was filed. This is not to be confused with the Lexis Nexis file time which can be changed by the clerk. According to Lexis Nexis, the transaction time and number cannot be changed by any party.  Sometime between December 19, 2008 and March 31, 2009, Edward Burns with the assistance of the clerk of the court; changed the events on Eclipse, the official court registry to indicate that a counter and cross-claim against Brent Evans and a jury trial had not been demanded or paid for. Edward Burns acted without jurisdiction or authority.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggests that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce. It should be noted here that because the Court was violating statutes mandating that court records be made available for Peter Coulter to review (CRS 13-1-119) by Public Access Terminals and the actions of Judge Charles M. Pratt and Judge Christopher Charles Cross to cover their actions; Peter Coulter did not know for over a year the crimes of Tammy L. Herivel and Edward M. Burns who is related to a Megan A. Pratt. Chapter 5 contains a second example.

CHAPTER 3 DESECRATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

            MANIPULATION, THEFT AND DESTRUCTION  OF OFFICIAL COURT RECORDS

The State of Colorado uses electronic filing in some of their Courts. It is ripe for manipulation as has been shown in this case by Edward Burns, Tammy Herivel, Judge Charles Pratt and Judge Christopher Cross. This electronic system is used exclusively in the Civil Division of Arapahoe County. It is comprised of two systems. The State portion is called Eclipse and the private contracted portion is called Lexis Nexus File and Serve. Attorneys are required to use Lexis Nexus to file all documentation from their offices. Pro-se litigants are not allowed to use Lexis Nexus and therefore all filings must go through the clerk of the Court where it immediately gets a Court filing
and time stamp and then is supposed to be scanned and uploaded onto Eclipse and Lexis Nexus so that it can be viewed by Attorneys at their office, the Judge from the bench, and pro-se litigants from view only terminals that are required in every court using electronic filing and called Public Access Terminals. (PAT).  The Colorado Supreme Court Administrative Division is very secretive about this system and refuses to answer questions even when subjected to a Colorado Open Records Act request. An example is that the Colorado Supreme Court states that there is no training or operating manuals for the clerks to study, use, and refer to when using the
Eclipse / Lexis Nexus File and Serve system.  As a result, there is no set rule as to when documents submitted to the court clerk are uploaded onto Eclipse and Lexis Nexus.  The court clerk, Tammy Herivel can change the file stamp times on both Eclipse and Lexis Nexis but she cannot change the
document no. and corresponding time that it was uploaded to Lexis Nexis. Three examples from this case exemplify the ability of court personnel, magistrates and judges to manipulate the system with the support and assistance of the Colorado Supreme Court. It needs to be noted here that Arapahoe County Head Clerk Tammy Herivel, is a member of the public access committee of the Supreme Court chaired by Supreme Court Justice Alex Martinez. As such Tammy Herivel is, or should be very familiar with the workings of the Eclipse and Lexis Nexis system and its provisions. Also on the committee with Tammy Herivel are Justice Roger Klein of the 19th District, Judge Leland Anderson of the 1st District, Miles Flesch of the 2nd District, Mike Reid of the 1st District Probation, Chris Yuhas of the 5th District, Bob Roper of the Judicial Business Integrated Technology Division of
the Colorado Supreme Court and Linda Bowers of the JBITS Division of the Colorado Supreme Court. Their Judicial Directive as provided on the Colorado Supreme Court Web page is as follows:

Public Access.Chief Justice Directive 05-01:

The court system's public records are open for inspection by any person at reasonable times except as provided by the Colorado Open Records Act or otherwise provided by federal or state
law, Colorado Supreme Court Rule, court order or local policy. The official custodian of any public records may make local policies regarding the inspection of records that are reasonably necessary for the protection of records and prevention of unnecessary interference with the regular discharge of the duties of the custodian or the custodians office.
The Criminal Justice Records Act ( 24-72-301
et.seq., C.R.S.) addresses court records in criminal proceedings. Two sections of note in the CJRA are:

- 24-72-304 C.R.S - the custodians authority to make rules and regulations for inspection of records. 

- 24-72-305 C.R.S. - the custodians authority to deny inspection if prohibited by law, Colorado Supreme Court rule, existing court order, or if disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. Public Access to Court Records.
Inspection of civil case records is determined by the Colorado Open Records Act unless otherwise provided by law. Included in the Act are the following provisions:

- 24-72-203(1) C.R.S. - the custodians authority to make rules and regulations regarding inspection of records.

- 24-72-204 C.R.S. - the custodians authority to deny inspection if inspection is contrary to law, Supreme Court rule, existing courto rder, or if disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.
The availability of juvenile records is primarily determined by the Childrens Code ( 19-1-301, et. seq., C.R.S.).
Directives issued by the Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice and the judicial districts Chief Judge impact what public access is allowed with respect to information made, maintained, or kept by the courts. This document is designed specifically as a reference tool only. Refer to the Colorado Revised Statute citations included for more specific details.
Colorado Revised Statutes reiterates this directive in 13-1-119, Judgment record and register of actions open forinspection:

The judgment record and register of actions shall be open at all times during office hours for the inspection of the public without charge, and it is the duty of the clerk to arrange the several
records kept by him in such manner as to facilitate their inspection. In addition to paper records, such information may also be presented on microfilm or computer terminal. It would seem simple with these rules in place that is should/would be easy for one to see and review ones file. That was
not the case in dealing with Tammy Herivel, Head Clerk of Arapahoe County, Colorado. My case was removed to Arapahoe County District Court on December 18, 2008 at 8:31am. From that time forward, Arapahoe County District Court did not have an operable Public Access Terminal to view
my file. After numerous attempts by Tammy Herivel and Judge Charles Pratt to keep the matter under wraps and in-house; I finally filed an open records request with the Colorado Supreme Court. They referred me back to Tammy Herivel. She had conveniently forgotten to tell me that there was a PAT terminal in the Aurora division of Arapahoe County Court where I could review the records of the district court. Tammy Herivel, Edward Burns and Judge Charles Pratt were intentionally
keeping me from reviewing my file for over a year while they were manipulating it, not uploading files, destroying others, removing jury demands and taking actions against Peter Coulter while he was under the stay and protection of a Federal Court Order. It was at this time that I discovered the first two manipulations of Eclipse and Lexis/Nexus file and serve. See chapter 4 for 3 examples of manipulation of official court records in this case. 

JUDGE POEM

There once was a JUDGE
Who liked power and sex
He thought he was invincible
Just like T-REX
He liked strippers and booze
And one day got caught
It was that little piece of plastic
That created the knot
His wife 'blew the whistle'
Then she blew a fuse
You can read all about it
By simply going to 9NEWS.

End.

Anyone can stay at this site and type in 502469 and go to 'Consumer Comment #15' and read- "JUDGE POEM", and find out about who this judge was.

Thank You

WELCOME TO THE U.S. LEGAL SYSTEM- ONE BIG LIE

CHAPTER 2 M. EDWARD BURNS DOCUMENTED ACTS OF TREASON ON THE
CONSTITUTION

THE SETUP; HIDDEN AGENDAS BY BRENT EVANS, RAYMOND GOODWIN, UNION STANFORD PROPERTIES AND ASSOCIATES.

A succinct background is needed to preface the acts of Edward Burns and Tammy Herivel

In July of 1992, John Brent Evans walked into 2060 W. Radcliff Ave and stated that he was the new owner of the property, the current tenants did not want to pay the increased rent of $2,500 and was I interested. Yes, I stated, whereupon Brent Evans produced a 5 pg. lease that he had put together for a single 5 year term. I told him that because of the nature of the business and the size and bulk of the inventory that I wanted a smaller initial term with options. In a few days, he came back with a second 12 pg lease that he said had been authored by G. Raymond Goodwin. Raymond Goodwin had helped Brent Evans solve an issue with a property that they had purchased and he and his partner(s) had decided to give him a 10% stake in their property in exchange for legal services. The second draft of the lease didnt work for me either as
I wanted multiple one year options. Brent Evans came back shortly with a lease that met my requirements; a three year initial lease with 7 one year options.

Brent Evans insisted that both Audionly and Peter Coulter sign the lease and he wanted to do it immediately in front of a notary at Union Stanford Propertys bank, Keybank.  I followed him to his bank and Linda Green notarized 3 times the 3 separate signatures; Brent Evans for Union Stanford Properties, Peter Coulter for Peter Coulter, and Peter Coulter for Audionly.  I gave Brent Evans the first months lease payment and damage deposit. Brent Evans indicated that he didnt have two copies of the lease and that he would take it home and make a copy and send me the original. I had no reason to doubt what he said and thus agreed. To this day, that is the last time I saw that lease. On March 31, 2009, Brent Evans and Raymond Goodwin submitted two leases to the Court and Peter Coulter but as shown in other documents here; they were fraudulent and forged. Over the years, we developed a friendship with Brent Evans, going to lunch with him on numerous occasions and doing favors and work for each other. He and his wife Patti Evans asked us to make a car display for their daughter, Paiges  benefit which we gladly did. The point being that we put our trust in him and even though I asked on occasions for the lease documents without success; I wasnt concerned about it. In 2008 Brent Evans true colors evolved into what I can only describe as Greed. In early December of 2008, Brent Evans came to the yard to pick up the rent. I indicated to him that over 6 years had passed and that I needed/wanted the lease documents before we paid any further rent payments. He indicated that he was going out of town to play golf, but that if I gave him the check now he would give it to his secretary with instructions not to deposit it until I called telling her that I had received the lease which Brent Evans said he would put in the mail that day. I said sure and handed him the check. A day later I get a phone call from my bank saying that Union Stanford is trying to cash the check.  As I hadnt received the lease per Brent Evans promise; I stopped payment on the funds. Within a day, Brent Evans was again at the yard demanding that I make the payment good. I asked him if he brought the lease contract and he said no. I said I would gladly pay the lease payment per our agreement that he would provide me a copy of the lease signed 6 years earlier. He went outside and called Raymond Goodwin and came back in with a prewritten demand for payment and FED. A few days later a process server arrived for service on Peter Coulter but no service for Audionly.com. Between December 1, 2008 and the trial on March 31, 2009, I formally requested 9 times, a copy of the lease from Brent Evans, Union Stanford Properties, their first lawyer Bradley Colderon,  and their second attorney and manager/member of Union Stanford, G. Raymond Goodwin with no response. I really thought at that time that they would forward the lease, I would pay the lease payment and life would continue. I didnt know at the time there was a hidden agenda and that  Brent Evans, Raymond Goodwin and their associates Patty Evans, Jesse Aragon, Pennie Aragon, Aiden McGuire and Darryl Patton were planning a fraud.

In 2003-2004 Audionly needed more space to store cars and leased another property, Lot F,  from Union Stanford and Brent Evans for $600 per month. Union Stanford was asking $700 but because there was a large stack of truck tires and also a dirt pile in the yard, Brent Evans reduced the lease payment and indicated that he would pay us to remove the truck tires. It took over 2 years to remove all the tires. Brent Evans also asked us to remove some cars from another property of his and as we were doing that we found a meth lab which Brent Evans asked us to clean up.  We performed all this work for Brent Evans and Union Stanford and were never paid. The amount totaled $17,000.

Complaints, Courterclaims, Cross-claims, Jurisdiction and the forms they are printed on are provided by Statute for County Courts in Colorado.

Union Stanfords original complaint filed in Arapahoe County Court was for $8,879 including $299 in legal fees. As Union Stanford and Brent Evans owed Peter Coulter $17,000 for services rendered; Peter Coulter prepared an off-setting counter and cross-claim against Union Stanford and Brent Evans for $17,000 in addition to a claim of Fraud for not providing a copy of the lease. Since the counter and cross-claim exceeded the jurisdiction of the County Court ($15,000) I requested the case be transferred to the District Court and also checked off on the form that I requested a jury trial. I then went to the Arapahoe County Court on December 18, 2008 at 8am sharp. The clerk filed my counter and cross-complaint and told me the costs, $428 which I paid in cash including $190 for payment of the jury trial in District Court. The clerk transferred the case to Arapahoe County District Court and was set for trial on January 8, 2009. I was out of the Court House by 8:35a.m. and on my way to a funeral in Georgetown, Colorado which started at 11:00a.m.......