David E. Wilkenson vs. Colorado: A Saga of Criminal Judicial Behavior In Family Courts — Part 2

by John R. Wilkenson

For Part 1 of "David E. Wilkenson vs. Colorado: A Saga of Criminal Judicial Behavior In Family Courts", CLICK HERE.

(NOTE: Article 2, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution says in pertinent part: “Freedom of speech and press…every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, ... and in all suits and prosecutions of libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.” The following is political speech aimed at exposing judicial criminals and correcting a serious systemic problem. While the material is the author’s 1st-Amendment-protected opinion, it is also the truth, so help me God.)

BRIEF SUMMARY OF SAGA:

It is your humble webmaster's constitutionally protected opinion that in Colorado child custody case No. 96-DR-372/96-JV-180, an unethical lawyer brokered a bribery deal between the wealthy parents of her client and presiding Judge Nicholas Massaro. The plain facts are that at least three Colorado judicial officers (presiding judge Massaro and two family court magistrates, Jane Westbrook and Cynthia Cyphers) deliberately falsified public records in prima facie violation of C.R.S. §18-8-114. Various unknown/unnamed employees of the Colorado judiciary deliberately destroyed the entire record of No. 96-DR-372/96-JV-180, ostensibly to cover up the judicial crimes perpetrated against David Wilkenson (hereinafter "Father") in the trial court and preempt a major class action lawsuit against Colorado and Mesa County for the criminality rampant in Colorado's family court system. It is also believed that probable cause exists to believe various known/named and unknown/unnamed employees of Colorado's judiciary deliberately violated C.R.S. §18-8-105, 18 U.S.C. §3, 18 U.S.C. §4, 18 U.S.C. §241, 18 U.S.C. §242, and 18 U.S.C. §1519. At vitually no time were rule of law or procedural due process followed. This Part 2 of this saga is an overview of the federal case. The details of cases 96-DR-372 and 96-JV-180 — the register of actions contains over 600 documents — are set forth in Part 1 of this saga, which can be read by CLICKING HERE. The "gory behavioral details" of a hideously acrimonious divorce involving the manipulations of two profoundly dysfunctional families are set forth in the January 28, 2002 edition of Common Sense and in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 to that pamphlet.

FACTS:

Perhaps the first important thing to understand is what kind of woman (hereinafter "Mother") Ben and Toby Wilkenson's (David's two sons with Mother) mother is. Mother is a seriously mentally ill (borderline personality disorder) domestically violent alcoholic with multiple DUI charges and convictions, one of which was an injury accident involving a police car and injuries to policemen. In that particular incident, Mother — who is a citizen of England with wealthy parents — simply fled from the United States back to England, to avoid prosecution. That manipulation worked, and she was never prosecuted.

The reason why that fact is so crucially important is to show the complete illogic and injustice behind Judge Massaro letting Mother relocate to England with Ben and Toby Wilkenson under the fraudulent rubrics that 1) it was somehow in compliance with Colorado's "best interests of the child" standard, and 2) that there was any shred of a reasonable likelihood that Mother was the type of responsible person who would obey a final custody and parenting time order made by a Colorado court.

Seriously mentally ill, domestically violent alcoholic Mother endangers Father and children. When Father goes to the “system” seeking intervention, gender feminists within the system try to destroy husband. Father was on record as being the victim of Mother's domestic violence, but gender feminists spun the facts to say that Father "has a history of domestic violence". That was an outright lie. I am David's older brother, have known him all his life, and have never seen him every be violent, or threaten violence even one time in his entire life. I have never seen him even raise his voice in anger. All in all, I can bear first hand testimony to the fact that David is a nonviolent man with a history of nonviolence.

The Mesa County District Court (MCDC) somehow made a "finding" that David had a history of domestic violence. At no time was that finding anything other than a deliberate strategy-based lie.

Under construction . . .

Because the Title 14 case (96 DR 372) was already active and involved the same children, in addition to which the children were at the time in the temporary custody of the Mesa County Department of Human Services (MCDHS) per Court order, under the circumstances, the creation of a Title 19 case (96 JV 180) was expressly prohibited by, C.R.S. 19-1-104(6)1, C.R.S. 19-3-308, C.R.S. 19-3-501, C.R.S. 19-3-505 and C.R.Juv.P. Rule 4.4(a), as well as being completely in violation of the on-point holding in Everett v. Barry2, 127 Colo. 34, 252 P 2d 826 (1953). The Title 19 case was created by Mesa County District Court (MCDC) Judge Nicholas R. Massaro, Jr. — manipulatively acting as his own "referral source" no less — in prima facie violation of an express legislative prohibition of jurisdiction. It was a prima facie jurisdictionless legal-nullity ab initio (aka "from the beginning"), which means any fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree orders made in that case are themselves jurisdictionless legal nullities for the purposes of Ex Parte Fisk, 113 US 713 (1885), and Thrap v People, 192 Colo. 341, 558 P2d 576 (1977) which holds that "one cannot be convicted of contempt for respectfully declining to comply with an order which is beyond the court's authority." David was never under any obligation to obey the illegal nullity orders. See also Ex Parte Rowland, 104 U.S. 604 (1881), Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wallace) 163 163 (1873), Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339 (1879), Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371 (1879), Ex parte Parks, 93 U. S. 18 (1876), Ex Parte Wells, 59 U.S. (18 Howard) 307 (1855), Ex Parte Kearney, 20 U.S. (7 Wheaton) 38 (1822), Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75 (1807).

In Colorado, whether you are involved in a civil case or a criminal case, "all [C.R.Civ.P. Rule 12 — JRW] defenses and objections not entered are deemed waived," see Mora v. People, 172 Colo. 261, 472 P.2d 142 (1970) and County Comm'rs v. District Court, 172 Colo. 311, 472 P.2d 128 (1970). Additionally, in the case of Simmons v. United States - 390 U.S. 377 (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court held, "It is intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another." Accordingly, David has refused, and will continue to refuse, to waive his legal right to require the court employees obey the Colorado law relevant to his case.

It is the opinion of your humble webmaster that the U.S. District Court for Colorado has acted as de facto accessory after the fact to the judicial crimes outlined in the paperwork of this case. That would not be at all unusual. See Fox News' story (by Hollie McKay about filmmaker Joseph Sorge's documentary, "Divorce Corp."

In her story about "Divorce Corp", Hollie McKay wrote, "And legal expert and alternative sentencing expert Wendy Feldman agreed that while there are problems, they aren’t as bad as Sorge says – yet." Ms. Feldman is quite incorrect. If anything, the problems are more serious and pervasive than the establishment divorce industry would spin it to be. In David Wilkenson's case, Wilkenson claims that the Colorado judicial apparatuses actually committed violations of Colorado criminal statutes and then destroyed the record on appeal under the pretense that official court records "got lost in the mail." When legal-professional "big shots" criminally falsify records to achieve a desired outcome in a divorce case and then destroy the records of the case to cover up their crimes and make "normal" appeal impossible, in the opinion of this writer, that has the very real de facto effect of turning judicial crimes into official-but-unspoken Colorado policy. Any lower level judges and/or lawyers who might want to do something to correct the problem are afraid because they don't want to lose their livelihoods to high-level establishment retribution. So, yes, Ms. Feldman, the situation really is that bad.

David Wilkenson says he is preparing to appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Following are most, if not all, of the documents filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in Civil Action No. 13-cv-01469-CMA-KLM displayed for the reader's convenience in a chronological order of oldest to newest.

If you read the documents below, please notice that the strategy of the establishment players, including the U.S. District Court for Colorado, is to avoid all mention of the judicial crimes which were perpetrated against David Wilkenson and determined the grotesquely unjust outcome of his divorce case.

DOCUMENTS:

2013-04-26 Complaint

2013-06-07 Proof of service on Colorado

2013-06-10 Proof of service on Mesa County

2013-06-12 Motion To Dismiss

2013-06-13 Notice of electronic filing

2013-06-13 Notice of electronic filing a.pdf

2013-06-13 Attorney Haines letter to Wilkenson

2013-06-20 Wilkenson letter to Attorney Haines

2013-06-24 Order Regarding Complaint

2013-06-25 Response To Motion To Dismiss - This response crossed in the mails with the Court's 2013-06-24 order. It was mailed prior to receipt of the 2013-06-24 order.

2013-07-10 First Amended Complaint

2013-07-23 Colorado's Motion to Dismiss

2013-07-23 Exhibit A - Colorado's Motion to Dismiss

2013-07-23 Exhibit B - Colorado's Motion to Dismiss

2013-07-24 Affidavit of Maurice Lyle Dechant

2013-07-25 Notice of Entry of Appearance

2013-07-25 Mesa County's Motions to Dismiss

2013-08-05 Verified Response to Defendant State of Colorado's Motion To Dismiss All Claims

2013-08-05 Verified Response to Defendant Mesa County's Motion To Dismiss

2013-07-31 Affidavit of Jeffery O. Green

2013-08-07 State of Colorado's Reply in Support of its Motion To Dismiss

2013-08-12 Reply In Support of Mesa County's Motions To Dismiss ...

2013-08-12 Appendix A To Reply In Support of Mesa County's Motions To Dismiss...

2013-08-15 Verified Response To Defendant State Of Colorado's 8/7/13 Reply In Support Of Its Motion To Dismiss

2013-12-16 Notice of Monthly Support Obligation - (NOTE: This document is proof that Colorado has doubled down on the 18-USC-§241-violative (federal-felony) behavior of two of its judicial officers and is still trying to illegally collect child support for Ben Wilkenson, who turned 20 on December 10, 2013.)

2013-12-16 Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge

2013-12-17 Notice of electronic filing

2014-01-03 Verified Objection, and Response to the Magistrates 12/16/13 Recommendation; Motion for Review of Magistrate's Recommendation by the Presiding Judge - (NOTE: there were some typographical errors on pages 12-13 of this pleading which were corrected by the following "Notice of Harmless Error".

2014-01-10 Notice of Harmless Error

2014-01-10 Notice of Electronic filing

2014-01-10 Order Adopting and Affirming Recommendation of Magistrate

2014-01-10 Final Judgment

2014-01-22 Verified Motion For Clarification of Final Judgment

2014-02-13 Colorado's Response to Verified Motion For Clarification of Final Judgment

2014-02-11 Mesa County's Response to Verified Motion For Clarification of Final Judgment

Mesa County District Court cases 96 DR 372 and 96 JV 180

VIDEOS:

Divorce Corp Film Trailer (Documentary) - YouTube Video

Divorce Corp Film: All Powerful Judges (Documentary) - YouTube Video

Divorce Corp Film - False Child Abuse Claims (Documentary) - YouTube Video

Family Court - the Source of the Corruption - YouTube Video

Family Court - The Horrors of Divorce for Men - YouTube Video

Family - Fathers' Rights - 1/3 - YouTube Video

Family - Fathers' Rights - 2/3 - YouTube Video

Family - Fathers' Rights - 3/3 - YouTube Video

Dr Helen Smith Explains Why Men Need To Boycott Marriage Until Laws Change! White Chick Gets It! - YouTube Video - Interview with psychologist Dr. Helen Smith, author of "Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters"

The Cost Of Courage Movie Trailer on www.fulldisclosure.net

Cost of Courage: the Story of Richard I. Fine Segment 1 of 12

How To Disqualify Your Judge www.fulldisclosure.net - YouTube Video

Attorney Jailed Denied Rights for Exposing Judicial Corruption, Richard Fine California - YouTube Video

Richard Fine: His Darkest Moment in the LA County Jail - YouTube Video

Why Won't the ACLU Help Jailed Attorney Richard Fine? - YouTube Video

Richard I Fine Torture Complaint Filed With United Nations - YouTube Video

Cost Of Courage, The Story Of Richard I Fine #585-587 - YouTube Video

FOOTNOTES:

1. "(6) When the juvenile court maintains jurisdiction in a case involving a child who is dependent or neglected and no child custody action or action for the allocation of parental responsibilities concerning the same child is pending in a district court in this state (emphasis added), upon the petition of a party to the dependency or neglect case, the juvenile court may enter an order allocating parental responsibilities and addressing parenting time and child support matters. The parent or person other than a parent with whom the child resides the majority of the time pursuant to the juvenile court's order shall file a certified copy of the order in the district court in the county where the child is permanently resident. Such order shall be treated in the district court as any other decree issued in a proceeding concerning the allocation of parental responsibilities."

2. Petition essential for jurisdiction. Without a petition in writing setting forth all the facts concerning what constitutes the child a dependent and verified by the affidavit of the petitioner, a juvenile court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter. Kearney v. Blue, 134 Colo. 217, 301 P.2d 515 (1956).

Petitioner should not file a petition without knowledge of facts justifying belief of dependency and, when the petition is filed, should see that evidence is presented supporting it. Peterson v. Schwartzmann, 116 Colo. 235, 179 P.2d 662 (1947).

Issue to be resolved in dependency proceeding. In a dependency proceeding the question to be resolved is not the comparative rights of different claimants of custody, but solely that of whether or not the existing custody and surroundings of the child are such that it is the duty of the state, as parens patriae, to take over its custody and make it a ward of the state. Everett v. Barry, 127 Colo. 34, 252 P.2d 826 (1953); Foxgruber v. Hansen, 128 Colo. 511, 265 P.2d 233 (1953); Johnson v. Black, 137 Colo. 119, 322 P.2d 99 (1958); Wellbrink v. Walden, 142 Colo. 102, 349 P.2d 697 (1960).

If child found not dependent, action should be dismissed. If the child is found not dependent, then there is nothing further to be considered and the action should be dismissed. Peterson v. Schwartzmann, 116 Colo. 235, 179 P.2d 662 (1947); In re People in Interest of Murley, 124 Colo. 581, 239 P.2d 706 (1951).

Lacking transcript, evidence, order reversed. Where an order was entered declaring a child neglected and dependent, severing parental rights, and holding the child's grandfather in contempt of court for failure to deliver the child, but the court reporter certified that there had been no transcript made of any of the hearings prior to the one on the contempt violation, and since there was no evidence or showing that the home environment which the grandfather might provide for the child would be unsatisfactory, the judgment and orders of the trial court were reversed. C.B. v. People in Interest of J.T.B., 30 Colo. App. 269, 493 P.2d 691 (1971).

Under construction . . .

Under construction . . .

ShareThis