Progress Now Action

Dear Representative Carroll,

In reply to your last email;

You said: "When you think a judge gets a decision wrong the best remedy is to appeal."

Answer: You didn't read my account did you? To say that I think that the judge reached the wrong decision is insulting, offensive and derogatory. As my account exposes, Judge David R. Lass reached the wrong decision deliberately. He deliberately misstated the facts and evidence, he deliberately misapplied the laws, and deliberately abused his authority. He not only reached the wrong decision, he clearly reached a predetermined one.
An appeal regarding the water rights was filed. That case was 04 SA 328. I submitted numerous pleadings and complaints to the Colorado Supreme Court regarding the collusion between the attorneys and judges, the lack of jurisdiction, the violations of law, etc. However, all my pleadings and complaints were struck from the record.

You said: "I/we can help with legislative reforms that create /strengthen the judicial performance commission."

Answer: The judicial performance commission doesn't work and should be abolished. Judges Lass, Ruckriegle, Ossola, and Petre are good examples of why it doesn't work. Instead, all judges and justices, should be term limited to four years or less.

You said: "I don't think impeachment is the proper remedy unless a crime has been committed and if you think a crime has been committed the proper channel would be to report to the police and DA-not the legislature."

Answer: 1. If you bothered to read my account, you would find that several crimes were committed. In all, Judge Lass violated, and allowed others to violate 22 laws. 13 of the 22 are felonies, and 9 of the 22 are State racketeering charges. I am herein adding 18-8-403(1)(a), 18-8-404(a)(b)(c), 18-8-405(a)(b), and 18-8-406 C.R.S. How much crime do you need? Show me where the general public is allowed to violate even one law without being held accountable?

In addition to the violation of laws, Judge Lass violated the Judicial Cannons, Rules of Professional Conduct, the Constitution(s), his oath of office, and more. Article XIII, Section 2 of the Colorado Constitution provides that the governor and other state and judicial officers shall be liable to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors, (it doesn't even have to be a felony), or malfeasance in office. I have evidenced both, high crimes and malfeasance in office. Article XIII also provides that the House shall impeach and all impeachments shall be tried by the Senate. You are clearly provided with the power and the law, so why do you refuse to use it?

While you and the rest of the Legislators are refusing to use your powers to stop Judge Lass, he is continuing with the trial and issuing orders even though he has no authority to do so. I recently submitted two Motions to Dismiss and Vacate for lack of jurisdiction. Judge Lass denied my Motions, and instead of relying on his own Court record to show jurisdiction(there is none), and the right to continue, Judge Lass used the Opinion issued in 04 SA 328 wherein the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of issue preclusion bars Appellants from collaterally attacking the lack of subject matter and in personam jurisdiction of the Summit County Court.

Because all roads, in the abuse of authority, obstruction of justice, violations of law etc., lead to the Colorado Supreme Court, lets take a look at the jurisdictional findings of that Opinion, shall we?

First of all, even though all my pleadings and complaints were stricken, the Justices still had full access to the entire record in Case No. 99 CV 277. The court record itself evidences that Judge Lass violated the laws, allowed others to violate the laws, abused his authority, and deliberately abused, violated, and denied me my civil rights to due process, contract freely, and right to be heard. The law recognizes that the Judgment in 99CV277 was not only void, but void ab initio. (From the beginning.)

Instead of holding Judge Lass accountable, the Supreme Court Justices denied, circumvented and concealed his criminal conduct, and put the blame on me by saying I had the chance to litigate, and/or did litigate the lack of jurisdiction, and am now barred by the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion from challenging it.

I re-read the transcript of 99 CV 277, and jurisdiction was not even mentioned once. The record shows that I hired four attorneys to represent me, my rights, and that of the Association. One was hired prior to the filing of the lawsuit, two were hired during proceedings to trial, and one was hired after the trial. Not one of the four ever mentioned subject matter or in personam jurisdiction, nor the lack thereof, to me or the court in any of the submitted pleadings before, during or after the trial. None. I stumbled upon jurisdiction requirements through law discussion groups and investigated it on my own. So no, I did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the lack of jurisdiction during the lawsuit, or at trial, and the record confirms it. For that matter, due process also mandates that the court confirm that subject matter and in personam jurisdiction exists. Again, the record does not evidence the court confirming its jurisdiction in any way except to deliberately misstate the facts and evidence in order to fraudulently obtain it.

The Colorado Supreme Court then supported their findings with case laws. Case law is supposed to be used to support arguments in like or similar circumstances and determinations. Let's look at the ones they used:

1. Keystone v. Flynn, 769 P.2d 484, 488-89 n.6 (Colo.1989) This is a case regarding whether the District Court obtained subject matter jurisdiction while the parties had not yet exhausted all administrative remedies, nor had the Public Utilities Commission entered a final decision.

2. Insurance Corp. Of Ireland, Ltd. V. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinea, 456 U.S. 694, 702, 102 S. Ct. 2099, 2104 n.9 (1982). This is a case regarding personal jurisdiction over a foreign party by sanction, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A).

3. O'Neill v. Simpson. 958 P.2d 1121 (Colo.1998). This is a case regarding a lack of jurisdiction based on defective service of process.

4. City of South Pasadena v. Mineta, 284 F.3d 1154,1157 (9th Cir. 2002). This is a case regarding 11th Amendment immunity.

5. In re Marriage of Mallon, 956 P.2d 642, 645 (Colo. App. 1998). This case is a case regarding lack of jurisdiction due to the husband not residing in Colorado for 90 days prior to the petition for dissolution being filed.

6. People in Interest of E.E.A., 854 P2d 1346 (Colo.App.1992). This is a case regarding a jurisdictional flaw because the minor child being the subject of a paternity suit, was not made a party to the suit.

7. In People ex rel. J.A.U. 47 P.3d 327, 331 (Colo. 2002). This is another case regarding paternity, and lack of jurisdiction based on mistake.

While claim and issue preclusion may have applied to the above cases, none of them state that the reasons for lack of subject matter or in personam jurisdiction was based on the unlawful, fraudulent and malicious actions of the judge. Claim and issue preclusion does not apply when unlawful, fraudulent and malicious actions are committed by the judge. None of the above case law applies to my situation, the record, or the appeal brought in 04 SA 328. Citing one case law wrongfully is a mistake, citing seven wrongfully is deliberate and a cover-up.

The Justices then stated that to overcome the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion, there would have to be a showing of "manifest abuse of authority by the trial court." Again, in spite of striking all my pleadings and complaints which did show manifest abuses of authority, they had the Court Record, and the justices cannot escape the fact that the record itself speaks to manifest abuses of authority by the trial court.

They also reference Restatement (Second) of Judgment §12 cmt.a (1982). In the Restatement, a modern rule was added wherein finality rather than the validity of a case is given greater weight. They also say that finality over validity is in the public's interest.

No, it is not in the public's interest to forego truth over closure in any case. Off the top of my head, this principle of law is unconstitutional and violates the Rules of Professional Conduct. It strikes at the very core of our judicial systems stand for due process, fairness, equality, and to get at the truth in every case. The Supreme Court Justices have a duty to strike this principle everywhere it is used, and remove it from everywhere it is written. The concept of finality over validity only ensures a revolving door employment for attorneys, clogs our courtrooms, and denies justice. Again, the quoted Restatement did not apply to my case, or the appeal brought in 04 SA 328.

In their final argument, the Justices validly cite Restatement (Second) of Judgments §12 (1982). But, because they denied, circumvented and concealed Judge Lass's criminal conduct, they say the remedy doesn't apply. Here is what it says:

Section 12, paragraph 1, states that a judgment may be attacked for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when;
(1) The subject matter of the action was so plainly beyond the court's jurisdiction that its entertaining the action was a manifest abuse of authority; or . . . .

The Plaintiff(s), not an Opinion, establishes the court's subject matter jurisdiction. The record evidences that the Plaintiff's in 99 CV 277 had NO standing to bring suit, they could show NO injury, and there was NO justiciable controversy. In short, Judge David R. Lass lacked subject matter jurisdiction, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SUBJECT MATTER!!!!!! Likewise, there was NO judgment on the merits, BECAUSE THERE WERE NO MERITS!!!!!! By deliberately not addressing or even explaining the abuse of authority, or criminal conduct committed by Judge Lass, the Supreme Court Justices Opinion is biased and can only be construed to be a cover-up. Judge Lass's use of the Opinion as a defense for his continuing actions shows not only cover-up, but collusion between himself and the Colorado Supreme Court Justices. Furthermore, because of the amount of officials involved, the amount of money and property involved, this is more than just a good ole boy type system. It is a criminal enterprise, and all roads lead to the Mullarkey Court. (www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/orgcrime/glossary.htm) The Opinion, and Judge Lass's reliance on it rather than his own court record, is yet another on ramp.

The public will also be deceived by this Opinion as it will undoubtedly set precedence for someone else. They, not being privy to all the facts, and that crimes and abuses were intentionally denied, circumvented and concealed from the Opinion, will not be able to defend against it. How many more Opinions are there like this? Obviously, this case shows that a judge and/or justice can make a case, finding, or judgment have any outcome they want it to be, and the unsuspecting public has no clue. As long as the judge or justice signs it, the unsuspecting public will think that it must have been adjudicated fairly and by the rules and law, right? Again, how much crime do you need? How many more victims will there be who may or may not figure out what happened to them?

If you want to look up this Opinion yourself, the Case No. is 04SA328. A google search will bring it up easily, and while I am only herein focusing on the jurisdictional findings, the entire Opinion can be shown to be geared towards protecting Judge Lass, the attorneys, and other public officials criminal conduct.

The only remedy is impeachment, and I have herein made a partial but effective case against the Colorado Supreme Court Justices. If they are not stopped and held accountable, I as well as all other victims of this current corrupt judiciary, will hold you, and all the legislators, etc., liable for our losses of rights and property. And yes there are other victims. In fact, when I met with you in 2006 regarding this same case, Representative Wes McKinley told me that there had been another couple in to see him regarding Judge David R. Lass just two weeks earlier. Had something been done in 2006, I, as well as others would not have to be unduly enduring the continuing injustices today.

I did everything right. I filed complaints with every agency, entity and officials who are in position and power to stop the corruption, and bring accountability to our judiciary. I didn't fail, you did, and they did. (In 2007, yet another person has contacted me regarding Judge David Lass.)

2. Regarding the second part of your statement, I did take it to Sheriff Minor and D.A. Hurlbert. They both told me they would not investigate or bring charges. In fact, Sheriff Minor even yelled his statement that he would do nothing about the corruption. Here are their phone numbers. Feel free to call and ask them why they won't perform the duties, obligations and responsibilities of their offices of public trust. Sheriff John Minor - 970- 453-2232, D. A. Mark Hurlbert - 970-453-2327.

While your at it, here is the number to Summit County Commissioners Thomas Davidson, Bob French and Tom Long. Their number is 970 - 453-2561. I sent them a copy of the same account I gave you, and mailed it via Certified Mail No. 7007 3020 0002 4929 7947. Anyone can go to USPS.com, put in those numbers and verify that they did receive it. Ask them why I haven't heard from them, and ask them why they refuse to perform the duties, obligations, and responsibilities of their office of public trust.

The number for Chief Judge Terry Ruckriegle is 970-453-2241.
The number for Judges Ossola and Petre is 970- 945-5075
The number for County Attorney's Frank Celico and Jeff Huntley is 970 453-2561
The number for Summit County Planning Dept. is 970-668-4200
The number for Summit County Environmental Health is 970-668-4070
The number for Dept. Of Natural Resources is 303-866-3581
The number for Attorney General Suthers is 303- 866-4500
The number for Governor Bill Ritter is 303-866-2471
The number for Attorney Regulation is 303-866-6400
The number for the Judicial Discipline is 303-894-2110.

The above is a shortened list, but call and ask these public officials why they refuse to perform the duties, obligations and responsibilities of their offices of public trust, and/or participated in the racketeering. Article XIII also provides that those who are not liable to impeachment are liable to removal. Will I hold them liable? You bet. Again, I didn't fail, they did.

You said: "If you think the law itself is not properly written (which maybe lead to the wrong result in your case), we may be able to help."

Answer: It is not the law itself. As I have shown, and which you continue to skirt the real issue, it is the people elected and appointed who do not follow, uphold, and/or apply the laws fairly and for the benefit of all. As I have shown, our laws are being prostituted for money and job security, and not for truth and justice.

I will not respond to the rest of your e-mail because it is just more of the same skirting the real issues. I will however state that if this Governor and Legislature fails to use the power and rights we the people granted in Article XIII, I will in the future run a campaign to remove it from the Governor and Legislature, and put it in the hands of the people. Use it or lose it.

I will be sharing this email with the public. Part of the reason is to show the people what it is really like to seek redress of grievances, the other part is to warn them of corrupt public officials. If I alienate you-the one legislator out of a hundred who has responded to me-so be it. When our judiciary is being allowed to render a Judgment/Opinion that fits any scenario but the truth, we have bigger problems than whether I made you mad. Ours is a government of, by and for the people, (a Republic), not the other way around. Halena Lewis Halen@axint.net


Read my account at www.coloradoopencourt.blogspot.com

Join my group to support judicial accountability at www.progressnowaction.org/page/group/OPENCOURT