Narrative 

PSI, through its legal services contractor Belveal, Eigel, Rumans & Fredrickson, LLC, filed a special entry of appearance and notice of intervention to reopen the divorce case on the date Ms. Brunner secured the perjured Affidavit of Custody and Direct Support. Mr. Johnson was not aware of this event at the time it happened. Moreover, he was not aware of the contractual relationship between PSI and the County (and State), or between PSI and its legal services contractor during his engagement with PSI outside of court. Again, he believed the “El Paso County Child Support Enforcement Unit” was a public agency. He did not know “El Paso County Child Support Enforcement Unit” was one of PSI’s registered trade names.  

On September 21, 2009, Mr. Johnson filed a verified motion to modify child support with his sworn financial statement. As required, he mailed his former common-law wife (“the Customer”) and the El Paso County Child Support Enforcement Unit (“PSI”) copies of the motion and his financial statement. The response was due within 15 days of service. When it was nearing the deadline, he contacted the Customer by letter to encourage a response. (His mailings to her were returned to him unopened as refused mail.) When the deadline passed, he expected the motion to be entered by default.

Instead, on October 15, 2009, PSI’s attorneys through association member Tracy Rumans, filed a response to the motion. She asked the Court to order Mr. Johnson to set a hearing. The Response said, “The CSE Unit has no knowledge regarding the living arrangements of the minor child during the time period in question…and does not know whether Petitioner disputes Respondent’s motion.” On October 22, Division R magistrate Evelyn Sullivan reviewed the case after normal court business hours and vacated it.  (The case was subsequently reassigned to Division N/CS, the child support enforcement division. At the time, Chief Judge Kirk Samelson was responsible for judicial assignments and supervising the magistrates in the Fourth Judicial District.)  

On October 31, the Colorado Department of Human Services Child Support Enforcement (“CSE”) Division released the largest seizure to date for distribution to the Customer through the Customer’s Family Support Registry (“FSR”) account. The levy occurred on or about October 1. The State’s Automated Child Support Enforcement System (“ACSES”) should show the release of the State’s lien and levy notice (by PSI) and all other activities related to the enforcement action and FSR transactions.

On November 19, after the court’s normal business hours, special part-time division N/CS magistrate John Lyle reviewed the case and flagged it as held and continued. On November 24, after the court’s normal business hours, he vacated it and then immediately reopened it to enter the Delay Prevention Order (“DPO”). On the date the DPO was entered, the alleged arrears equaled $24,874.50 (the Response total) – $11,569.50 (amount of the levy on or about October 1) + $438.80 (November’s child support payment), or $13,743.80. Mr. Johnson’s motion requested the elimination of  all unpaid child support for the three-year period, i.e., “438.80 x 30 = $12,864.” (Error: $438.80 x 30 = $13,164). Within the alleged arrears calculated by PSI, PSI and CSE also knew the total included $7,500 of knowingly paid temporary child support authorized by the false statement obtained after the state-level administrative review. (See False Statement on Page I, at June 8, 2009.)  

The DPO required: (1) the setting of a modification hearing within 30 days and (2) the filing of “all disclosures as required by JDF 1125: Mandatory Disclosure Form 35.1…[o]nly the SWORN FINANCIAL STATEMENT and CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET must be filed with the Court 20 days prior to the hearing.” (Emphasis supplied on the order form.) Mr. Johnson’s personal financial statement was already on file and disclosed to the Customer and the El Paso County Child Support Enforcement Unit. To address the DPO order to produce disclosures, PSI contacted the Customer and secured a completed Affidavit with Respect to Child Support. The Affidavit was not a personal financial statement and was incomplete, i.e., it was not submitted with the required three years of federal tax returns and the recent three months of pay statements. Nonetheless, the N/CS ROA entry on December 17, 2009 gave the appearance that the Affidavit was a sworn financial statement complying with the DPO. To anyone reviewing the ROA on the Integrated Colorado Online Network (“ICON”), the state-wide judicial case management system, the document filed with the Court appears to be the “Sworn Financial Statement” of “Petitioner.” (During the hearing, Ms. Eigel called it the “financial affidavit.” Transcript at 25,¶ 23.)

The modification hearing took place on January 13, 2010. Mr. Johnson appeared on his own behalf, and PSI’s attorney, Christina Eigel, appeared on behalf of the third-party intervenor (PSI) and as the State’s prosecutor. Ms. Dolbow was present but not officially represented by counsel.

Mr. Johnson was called to the witness stand first and placed under oath. During the first minutes of Ms. Eigel’s direct examination, he raised discovery issues in answers to questions pertaining to Ms. Eigel’s first line of questioning, i.e., questions directed at establishing  through his testimony that a mutually agreed upon change of custody occurred to support the retroactive modification of child support for the three-year period as only permitted by statute. During this line of questioning, Ms. Eigel established the date the custody change occurred and how long it lasted and learned that Mr. Johnson enrolled his son in summer school and vacationed with him out of state in 2005 and drove him to school during his freshman year of high school through 2006. In answer to Ms. Eigel’s second line of questioning, i.e., questions directed at establishing his monthly retirement income and annual cost of living increases since 2005, Mr. Johnson disclosed job offers since the date of the initial notice of suspension of his driver’s license in January 2009. From his answers, Ms. Eigel opted to use a Colorado contract job offer to impute income to him at $38 an hour for a 40-hour work week based on his ability to earn. This added $6,080 in monthly gross income  to his monthly gross income from retirement of $5,291 beginning October 1, 2009, the month following his September 21 motion to modify child support.  

The Customer then questioned Mr. Johnson. Her first question established Ms. Eigel’s strategy, i.e., to establish shared custody with further reduced parenting time to authorize the use of worksheet B to bring about a reduction but not elimination of the alleged child support debt for the three-year period. The customer asked: “Wayne, is it your belief that from the time you stated Marcus lived with you that you had him 100 per cent of the time all the time? Or did I have him over 50 per cent of the time when you stated he lived with you? He answered, “It’s hard for me to quantify that. Because we’ve had such a flexible – – we’ve been pretty good about sharing time and all that. And when Marcus wanted to be with you, he was allowed to be with you. I don’t know how to quantify it. We’ve had a good custody set up since the beginning. Maybe it hasn’t always been fair to you….”  TR at 14, ¶¶ 5-10.

The Customer concluded her questions to Mr. Johnson (which led her to argue with him) with a comment to the Court: “Well, that was my point in all that, I’m sorry. That – – that in two and a half years there have been no overnights with Mr. Johnson at all.” TR at 15, ¶¶ 24-25 – 16, ¶ 1. (The Customer was referring to the period that began January 2008 after she angrily took custody of their son again and that continued through to the date of the hearing. At one point, she described parenting time after January 2008 as “sporadic.” She also stated that their son dropped out of school when he returned to her custody. The fact is PSI destroyed Mr. Johnson’s ability to parent his son from October 10, 2008 through the date of the hearing.) 

After Mr. Johnson was dismissed, Ms. Eigel called the Customer to the witness stand where she was placed under oath. Her first question confirmed the change of custody and immediately set out to establish 50/50 parenting time in order to calculate child support on worksheet B.  She answered it stating, “Um, I had asked Mr. Johnson if he could help me. Our son was not going to school, he wasn’t you know. And Mr. Johnson was retired. And I asked him if he could possibly start living with him. And why – – as it turned out he had him half time and I had him half time.” TR at 17, ¶¶ 5-9. Ms. Eigel then established through her testimony, and despite his, that she had custody half of each school year and every day during the summer breaks between school years. Ms. Eigel’s second line of questioning established the Customer’s income for the three-year period to the date of the hearing from estimates derived from the Affidavit with Respect to Child Support, which reported she worked a 35-hour week and earned $10.69 an hour in December 2009. Based on the Customer’s testimony that she had multiple surgeries related to a car accident and was unemployed in 2005 as a result, the Customer’s income was imputed at minimum wage for 2005. Her testimony impeached the information provided on the Affidavit with Respect to Child Support that showed she began working for her current employer in September 2005. She also testified she lived off loan proceeds from a second mortgage. (TR. at 22, ¶ 25 – 23, ¶ 1.) (Apparently, the Customer took out a loan using the house as collateral after Mr. Johnson paid off the house in 2001 to complete his settlement agreement. Back In 1997, he paid her $18,000 in cash and agreed to make the remaining house payments in lieu of spousal support.) 

Ms. Eigel then pursued a third line of questioning with the Customer as a result of Mr. Johnson’s surprise job offer testimony, i.e., questions to introduce and quantify inheritance income to be added to the Customer’s estimated income from wages to push their combined monthly income up the statutory child support schedule to substantially increase Mr. Johnson’s monthly child support obligation after the 50/50 shared custody ended and the switch to sole custody (worksheet A) occurred. To the Customer’s monthly income from wages, Ms. Eigel added $5,000 monthly for 2008 and $7,500 monthly for 2009 based on an undisclosed/unverified inheritance from her mother’s estate spread over the 24-month period. The Customer’s testimony about the inheritance payouts impeached her sworn statement on the Affidavit with Respect to Child Support that showed all sources of monthly income other than from wages was “N/A”, or $0. (The customer told a member of Mr. Johnson’s family she inherited $600,000 and would not have to work for the rest of her life.)

When Ms. Eigel completed her direct examination, Magistrate Lyle then asked Mr. Johnson if he had any questions for the Customer. His first question was his last question. He asked, “How many meetings have you had with, uh, Child Support Enforcement since you filed the case in, uh, middle – – uh, let me see, that would be…” Transcript (“TR.”) at 27, ¶¶ 18-20. The Customer interrupted and stated, “Your Honor, I thought we were told that this was not …” TR. at 27, ¶¶ 21-22. Magistrate Lyle interrupted, “Just a minute. Just a minute.” TR. at 27, ¶ 23. The Customer responded, “Okay.” TR. at 27, ¶ 24. Mr. Johnson asked again, “How many meetings have you had with, uh, with Child Support Enforcement?” TR. at 27, ¶ 25 – 28, ¶ 1.  Ms. Eigel stated, “Objection. Relevance.” TR. at 28, ¶ 2. Magistrate Lyle stated, “Objection sustained. You don’t need to answer the question. Other questions?” TR. at 28, ¶¶ 3-4. Mr. Johnson asked Magistrate Lyle, “Uh, I’m – – I guess, your Honor, I need some clarification.” TR. at 28, ¶¶ 5-6. Magistrate Lyle responded, “I’m not gonna ask questions for you, and I’m not allowed to give legal advice. So if you have other questions for this witness while she’s under oath, go ahead and ask them. If you don’t …” TR. at 28, ¶¶ 7-10. Magistrate Lyle and Mr. Johnson then engaged in a short exchange. Eventually, Mr. Johnson stated, “All of my questions, sir, have to do with the – – management of the case that has been enforced against me.” TR. at 28, ¶¶ 17-18. Magistrate Lyle responded, “Which has nothing to do – – which has nothing to do with any decision that I’m going to render today, right?” TR. at 28, ¶¶ 21-22. Mr. Johnson responded, “I hope not.” TR. at 28, ¶ 23. Then Magistrate Lyle abruptly dismissed the Customer from the witness stand. TR at 28, ¶ 24.

Ms. Eigel recalled Mr. Johnson to the witness stand where he was advised he was still under oath. Ms. Eigel then began her attack on Mr. Johnson’s testimony about custody premised on the (non-existent) “parenting schedule” during the three-year period. Her first question was: “So when he was at Skyview and when you drove him back and forth to Coronado for the first, I assume it was his freshman year of high school, did he have overnight parenting time with [the Customer] at that time, where he would go and spend the night at her home?” TR. at 30, ¶¶ 1-4. He answered, “We have always been real flexible. He would request, because a lot of his friends were still on the west side, to spend time with his mom. Maybe not an agreed-upon time, but it was always – – she was forewarned that okay, Marcus wants to come over, this may be my time to have him, you know. And if it was a problem, she would have told me, I think.” TR. at 30, ¶¶ 5-10. Ms. Eigel asked, “Can you tell me on average how many days per week he would be at his mother’s house?” TR. at 30, ¶¶ 11-12. Mr. Johnson answered, “Well, I think [the Customer] said Thursday, Friday, Saturday. Uh, I don’t dispute what she – – I don’t know. I – – you know, I can’t say because it was never written in stone.”  TR. at 30, ¶¶ 13-15. Ms. Eigel asked, “You heard [the Customer’s] testimony about what she believes was his parenting schedule and when he was with her on (inaudible).” TR. at 30, ¶¶ 16-18. Mr. Johnson answered, “She said about 50/50.” TR. at 30, ¶ 19. Ms. Eigel stated and then started to ask, “Um, hum. Does …” TR. at 30, ¶20. Mr. Johnson interrupted, “And I have no problem with that. I mean he’s the son of her and the son of me. So I mean 50/50, that’s pretty fair.” TR. at 30, ¶¶ 21-22. Ms. Eigel said, “Your Honor, I have no other questions.” TR. at 30, ¶ 23. As Mr. Johnson was leaving the witness stand, there was a pause. Then Magistrate Lyle stated not intending to be heard, “(I look) forward to this.” TR. at 31, ¶¶ 1-2. (In Mr. Johnson’s personal affidavit filed April 9, 2010, he said he heard Magistrate Lyle tell Ms. Eigel something like “you’ve got your work cut out for you on this one.” This may or may not be the memory connection to Magistrate Lyle’s statement. There were instances of whispering and other inaudible statements identified by the transcriptionist.)

Magistrate Lyle and Ms. Eigel then reviewed the findings together before Magistrate Lyle entered the rulings that resulted in no modification of child support in 2005 and modest reductions in the support owed to the Customer for 2006 and 2007. The child support owed to the Customer through the date of the hearing was summarized as $13,128.20 at January 31, 2010. (See paragraph 7 of the stamped Amended Order.) This total was arrived at by (1) disallowing modification for 2005 based on the Customer’s imputation of income at minimum wage; (2) reducing the original order of $438.80 to $346 for 2006 based on a worksheet B calculation and Mr. Johnson’s alleged parenting time of 39.726%; (3) reducing the original order to $355 for 2007 based on a worksheet B calculation and Mr. Johnson’s alleged parenting time of 39.726% and his 3% cost of living increase; (4) reducing the original order to $337 for 2008 based on a worksheet A calculation, the 3% cost of living increase, and the addition of $5,000 per month of inheritance income to the Customer’s income from wages; (5) reducing the original order to $369 for January through September 2009 based on a worksheet A calculation and the addition of $7,500 per month of inheritance income to the Customer’s income from wages and Mr. Johnson’s retirement income; (6) increasing the original order to $958 for October to December 2009 based on a worksheet A calculation and the addition of $7,500 per month of inheritance income to the Customer’s income from wages and imputing $6,080 monthly based on his ability to earn to Mr. Johnson’s retirement income; (7) increasing the original order to $1,357 beginning January 1, 2010 based on a worksheet A calculation and the exhaustion of the inheritance income being added to the Customer’s income from wages and continuing to impute $6,080 to his monthly retirement income; (8) adding $15,000 in alleged unpaid temporary family support; (9) subtracting the State’s credit of $7,500 for allegedly unpaid temporary spousal support; (10) subtracting $43,880 in direct payments to the Customer from October 1997 through June 2005; and (11) subtracting $16,409.80 in seized money distributed through the FSR to the Customer. When PSI’s November 2009 adjusted alleged arrears total is compared ($13,743.80) to the arrears summary based on Magistrate Lyle’s findings ($13,128.20),  Ms. Eigel had accomplished her objective to use up the money seized by the State before and during the adjudication of Mr. Johnson’s motion to modify child support, which had as its objective to eliminate $13,164 in child support not paid during the three-year period from PSI’s arrears calculation. (See the Summary attached to the letter dated February 24, 2010 that was released with the Motion to Approve the Amended Order and the proposed Amended Order.) Thus, the tripled child support obligation to be paid until their son’s 19th birthday in August 2010 was punitive in nature – as was the addition of paid temporary family support in 2009, which would not have been added without PSI’s legal team’s approval.

During the closing of the hearing after Magistrate Lyle entered his rulings, Mr. Johnson asked, “Will they be in contact with either one of us? Because for 16 months almost I’ve been unable to get… (interruption by Magistrate Lyle) …the situation that’s here today, and I’ve been unable to correct it.” TR. at 40, ¶¶ 8-12. Magistrate Lyle responded, “You’re hitting your head against a bureaucratic issue that comes up over and over and over. Here’s all I can tell you. Most people have the most success communicating with the child support unit, not by calling them but by going there physically in person, and I guess just sitting there and waiting until somebody takes care of them.” TR. at 40, ¶¶ 13-18. Mr. Johnson responded, “Well, I got …” TR. at 40, ¶ 19. And Magistrate Lyle interrupted, “And I don’t have any – – I don’t have any control over that, that’s a bureaucracy out of my control.” TR. at 40, ¶¶ 20-22. Mr. Johnson responded, “Well, and that’s the bureaucracy, sir, that I believe needs to be under control. And that’s what I’m here today for. I have no problem with what Ms. Dolbow’s done. And I would just – – I’m taking this further than where we are today. And I know your jurisdiction doesn’t take care of the – – the issue that I’m going to bring forward. It’s just a matter of getting it on the table and putting a notice out to Policy Studies.” TR. at 40, ¶¶ 23-25 – 41, ¶¶ 1-4. Magistrate Lyle responded, “Well, your complaints with the child support unit may be entirely valid. But you do need to go through whatever the proper channels are for lodging complaints with – – you know, with other – – with the appropriate bodies, not the Court.” TR. at 41, ¶¶ 5-8. Mr. Johnson responded, “Well, it’s a federal issue, sir. I’ve already contacted legal – – you know, I’m here today without legal representation, okay, because I thought we could probably understand the situation. But I really don’t think anybody quite understands the, uh, seriousness of the matter concerning me. And I’ve tried and I’ve had face-to-face administrative reviews. I – – I’ve done everything administratively possible to take care of this problem. I’ve had three administrative reviews, I’ve had one in Denver, okay.” TR. at 41, ¶¶ 9-17. Magistrate Lyle eventually told him he was making other people wait. At which time, Mr. Johnson told him he was about finished and asked to approach the bench to give him the letter he wrote in preparation for the hearing. Magistrate Lyle accepted the letter, wished him “good luck and [G]od speed.” TR. at 42, ¶¶ 7-8.  Mr. Johnson replied, “I’ve been warned, sir. It’s not going to be an easy task. They do have a lot of power. Thanks.” TR. at 42, ¶¶ 9-10.

Mr. Johnson left the courtroom to say goodbye to the Customer and her sister and then returned to the courtroom to hand Ms. Eigel a copy of the letter. However, the next hearing had started so he waited. While waiting, he watched Magistrate Lyle reading his letter during the hearing. 

A Minute Order was entered in the ROA the same day as the hearing by “EAC” (Elizabeth “Liz” Cooper). The ROA reflects the rulings made by Magistrate Lyle as well as the order to the El Paso County Child Support Unit to include a total of the arrears in the long order. Of interest, ROA transaction number 53 is missing. Immediately following EAC’s entry, clerk ALB (Bloodworth) recorded “unable to enter SUP 1 – missing chi’s SSN.” Looking to March 26 when the Amended Order was entered, the next step was to enter “SUP1.”  (See ROA transaction numbers 71 and 74.) Whatever was transaction number 53, Mr. Johnson’s surprise testimony and the Customer’s previously determined unplanned testimony about inheritance income made it impossible for Ms. Eigel to submit an order for signing the same date as the hearing even though the rulings were exactly determined. But there was never a good reason for Ms. Eigel to decide to wait nearly a month after the hearing to submit a proposed order while knowing, if knowing, Magistrate Lyle resigned two days before the hearing and his employment ended 18 days from the date of the hearing.   

On January 15, 2010, Mr. Johnson mailed a letter written in anger to CSE and enclosed a copy of the January 13th letter submitted at the hearing. The letter addressed the business practices of PSI, the violations of his civil rights, and asserted the existence of a non-existent law firm proffered to be assisting him. The letter was copied to numerous parties, including The Gazette, County Commissioner Sallie Clark, PSI employees Jonica Brunner and Melissa Balquin, CDHS Executive Director Karen Beye, CSE Director John Bernhart, and Pauline Burton, Director of the Office of Self Sufficiency. On January 27, 2010, Mr. Johnson mailed another letter written in anger to Belveal, Eigel, Rumans & Fredrickson and referenced the non-existent law firm again. At this time, Mr. Johnson was not considering the responsibilities of the Colorado Attorney General as legal counsel to the Colorado Department of Human Services or to the State Judicial Department or to El Paso County as an arm-of-the-state. He was not considering Belveal, Eigel, Rumans & Fredrickson’s responsibilities to PSI as the County-approved legal services subcontractor under the State-approved County contract. He was also not considering the El Paso County Attorney’s responsibilities as legal counsel to the Board of County Commissioners or to the El Paso Department of Human Services or the County’s role as an arm-of-the state. Mr. Johnson now believes that upon receipt of the January 15 letter and attached January 13 letter, CDHS executives would have immediately notified Attorney General Suthers of the lawsuit letters; Belveal, Eigel, Rumans & Fredrickson would have immediately notified PSI’s corporate office and possibly CSE Section Chief Desbien or Director Bernhart; Commissioner Clark would have immediately notified County Attorney William (“Bill”) Louis; and County Attorney Louis would have considered notifying Attorney General Suthers.  

According to the State Judicial Department contract obtained from Fourth Judicial District Administrator Victoria Villalobos, Magistrate Lyle resigned effective January 31, 2010. According to the limited statement about his resignation, the resignation was for “convenience.” Under the terms of the State contract (12(B)), Magistrate Lyle was required to give written notice of his intent to terminate his contract for convenience, which became effective 30 days after its receipt or a later time stated in the notice. The contract had an original term of six months. It became effective January 1, 2010 and expired June 30, 2010. From Ms. Villalobos’ signature and dating, Mr. Johnson presumed Magistrate Lyle’s resignation was rendered January 11, 2010. But he has likened the resignation to the side-of-the-road cell phone call for Shirley Sherrod’s voluntary resignation following the news release of her NAACP speech. Mr. Johnson believes Attorney General Suthers required Magistrate Lyle’s resignation after being notified of the lawsuit letters and conducting a preliminary investigation and, then,  the “limited” search for Lyle’s replacement began, that is, the vacancy was to be filled by a government attorney. (There is no doubt the audio recording of the hearing was sufficient to determine errors of law, abuse of discretion, and civil rights violations.)      

Mr. Lyle’s replacement, Jayne Candea-Ramsey, was selected from the El Paso County District Attorney’s Office where she was a high-profile senior deputy district attorney. Her swearing in took place on February 12, 2010 before Judge Thomas Kane. The day before, Ms. Eigel mailed Mr. Johnson a copy of the proposed order from the hearing of January 13. The order was backdated to the hearing date. According to the ROA, the order was not filed with the court. But according to the certificate of service for the proposed order, the order was filed with the court February 11.

On February 17, 2010, PSI determined the total arrears as of January 31, 2010. (See February 24, 2010.)    

Also on February 17, 2010, Mr. Johnson gave notice to Belveal, Eigel, Rumans & Fredrickson of his intent to sue PSI with his contemporaneous requests for independent investigations of PSI’s business practices by Attorney General Suthers and the Federal Trade Commission disclosed.   

On February 18, 2010, based on her stated review of the proposed order and former Magistrate Lyle’s Minute Order, Magistrate Candea-Ramsey ordered the total of arrears included in the proposed order. On February 24, Belveal, Eigel, Rumans & Fredrickson mailed Mr. Johnson copies of the Motion to Approve Amended Order with the summary of arrears attached and the Amended Order.

On March 1, 2010, Mr. Johnson requested the hearing transcript.

From March 2 to April 9, 2010, Mr. Johnson vigorously fought the entry of the rulings from the hearing via the proposed Amended Order.

(The discussion that follows groups related communications, motions, responses, and court orders together to show outcomes. Some paragraphs are longer than ordinarily desired as a result, and the approach breaches the planned chronological approach somewhat. But the first sentence for each group reflects the continued timeline.)

Beginning March 2, 2010, Mr. Johnson began fighting the entry of the Amended Order. The first motion was for a hearing of his objection to its entry pursuant to § 24-4-105, C.R.S. (which statute was, in fact, not applicable to the matter before the Court). The substance of the objection, however, was based on PSI’s self-interests in the outcome of the action and the perceived conflict of interests caused by the contractual relationships between parties. There were six enumerated causes shown, largely based on discovery issues which prevented him from adequately defending against the retroactive modification of child support to the three-year period. Ms. Eigel responded to the motion on March 11 by moving the Court to grant the proposed Amended Order because the objection did not challenge the amount of the arrears or the form of the order; the issues of discovery were irrelevant and not raised during the hearing; and added interest language reserved the right of the Customer to claim interest allowed by statute. Noticeably, she did not address the setting of a hearing. On March 15, Mr. Johnson filed the Continued Objection to Proposed Amended Order. The Continued Objection tracked Ms. Eigel’s Response, first, by challenging: the use of worksheet B based on his sworn testimony during the hearing that was ignored; the decision to enter an order adding interest language without a hearing where he was present; the legitimacy of the Affidavit of Custody and Direct Support; the refusal by PSI to disclose information needed to adequately defend against retroactive modification; and PSI’s self-interest in adding interest at 12% per annum. Second, the Continued Objection argued for a hearing of the objection on the basis that said hearing was not time barred and was a protected procedural right to be granted in the interest of justice; argued that refusing access to child support enforcement case records prevented him from preparing an adequate defense; asserted that Jonica Brunner and other PSI employees ignored the three-year change of custody reported to them during his direct engagement with PSI; asserted that the face-to-face meeting with Jonica Brunner resulted in her learning of the three-year change of custody; argued that the Customer’s failure to respond to the motion to modify within the statutory time limit and PSI’s late response violated his right to due process; asserted the entry of the summary total was to create a summary judgment to force the sale of real property; argued that borrowed State powers and the abuse of those powers had “suppressed [his] right to know and dispute the claims made against [him] that [had] seized [his] property and taken away [his] ability to move about freely;” and asserted the “El Paso County Child Support Enforcement Unit relied on [his] classification as a Title IV-D and the special provisions in Colorado law for this child support enforcement class of non-custodial parents, primarily middle class working men, to prejudice the outcome of the child support enforcement case in its favor. Federal welfare funding drives judicial discretion in child-custody determinations and domestic-relations matters.” Magistrate Candea-Ramsey denied the motion for a hearing of the objection(s) on March 26, 2010. (This was not known until after June 15, 2010. Mr. Johnson had erroneously claimed until that date that the Court had failed to rule on the motion for two reasons not discussed here. As a result, he did not file a petition for review of the Order. On July 16, 2010, Mr. Johnson notified numerous parties of this “overlooked” order and disclosed copies of the letters to the parties in the addendum to a document submitted to the El Paso Board of County Commissioners and others.) The half-page Order was personally signed and mailed together with the personally signed orders denying change of venue and the new motion to modify child support and the stamped Amended Order. [This Order is not available to upload.]

By March 4, 2010, Mr. Johnson knew Magistrate Lyle resigned but, on that date, his resignation was believed effective January 1, 2010. Therefore on March 4, he filed the Extraordinary Motion for Change of Venue for the “hearing of the OBJECTION TO PROPOSED AMENDED ORDER…to a neighboring county” and claimed Magistrate Lyle presided over the hearing on January 13 without legal authority and that Belveal, Eigel, Rumans & Fredrickson knowingly participated in the fraudulent hearing. The motion then raised: conspiracy allegations regarding the backdating of the proposed Amended Order; discovery issues related to the Affidavit of Custody and Direct Support; and a conspiracy to manipulate the child support worksheets. The motion was filed with six exhibits and closed with five demands for relief. On March 9, Mr. Johnson filed the Amendment to Extraordinary Motion for Change of Venue “due to a better understanding of the facts that led to the allegations made in the Extraordinary Motion for Change of Venue.” He immediately corrected the error regarding Magistrate Lyle’s resignation date but continued to assert a conspiracy between Magistrate Lyle and Belveal, Eigel, Rumans & Fredrickson, as represented by Ms. Eigel, and Policy Studies Inc. doing business as the El Paso County Child Support Enforcement Unit. On March 11, Ms. Eigel issued a combined response to the original and amended motions. Noticeably absent from her response was any commentary about Magistrate Lyle’s resignation. She began “…Respondent seeks to change venue in this matter due to an alleged conspiracy between the Law Offices of Belveal, Eigel, Rumans & Fredrickson, LLC, Counsel for the El Paso County CSE Unit, the El Paso County CSE Unit, and El Paso County.” She then referred back to the 1996-97 divorce proceedings and argued that change of venue was not requested then and the current request was therefore time barred. She made a similar argument pertaining to the modification hearing, concluding “Respondent’s disagreements with the Court’s ruling as to the modification of child support is not grounds to change venue.” The remaining arguments claimed the conspiracy allegation had no basis in law or fact and was irrelevant; the demands for relief were irrelevant; the backdating of the proposed Amended Order did not affect the time limit for appeal; the arrears total was added as ordered; the allegations against her were without basis in fact and should be stricken. On March 11, Mr. Johnson filed the Second Extraordinary Motion for Change of Venue  following Chief Judge Samelson’s letter in response to the indirect delivery of the Extraordinary Motion for Change of Venue and moved to have the Objection filed on March 2 and the New Verified Motion to Modify Child Support filed on March 8 and the Amendment filed on March 10 heard outside the Fourth Judicial District, alleging that the “perceived conflict of interest between El Paso County and Respondent is real and present” and “[p]ursuant to Rules 98(c)(1) and 98(e), Respondent is allowed to have the proceeding heard by an independent judiciary.” On March 26, 2010, Magistrate Candea-Ramsey denied the motion(s) for change of venue because (1) Mr. Johnson and the Customer lived in El Paso County and (2) the Court did not find good cause shown to change venue. The Magistrate signed the half-page Order and mailed it together with the orders denying a hearing of the objections and the new motion to modify child support and the stamped Amended Order. On April 8, Mr. Johnson filed the Petition for Review with Memorandum Brief, two attachments, and the missing motion for a hearing “for the purpose of seeking an independent review” of Magistrate Candea-Ramsey’s order denying change of venue. By this time, Mr. Johnson knew of the Magistrate’s status during her employment with the El Paso County District Attorney’s Office. Based on this status, the motion continued: “The Order asserted that good cause was not shown to support a venue change despite at least two case file reviews which, as of March 11, included [his] original motion to modify child support, three change of venue filings, one motion for a hearing, and two new filings to modify child support that together demonstrated [his] inability to get fair treatment.” The relief demanded requested “that the reviewing judge or judges selected pursuant to C.R.M. Rule 7(a)(2) determine if the Magistrate’s decision to deny a change of venue was improperly influenced by outside interest and, if so, to initiate disciplinary proceedings as required by the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct and applicable statutes.” (Mr. Johnson knew Chief Judge Samelson supervised magistrates and made judicial assignments. He also knew the reviewing judge’s conduct was also subject to the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct.) The Memorandum Brief had four sections – Facts (I), Issues (II), Summary (III), and Recommendation (IV). The Fact section reviewed the motions, responses, and orders to the date of the Petition. The Issue section raised three questions: did the two known reviews of the case file support the ruling to deny a change of venue for failure to show good cause; did the 22 days between the filing of the first motion and the final ruling provide an adequate amount of time to investigate the allegations and set a hearing in the interest of justice; and did the Magistrate deny the motion to change venue and ignore the requests for a hearing as a willing participant in the conspiracy to prevent a just resolution of the ongoing dispute with CSEU. The Summary section stated, “[Mr. Johnson] was provided an opportunity under the law to request a change of venue on the basis [he] did not believe [he] would be treated fairly in El Paso County. [He] relied on the integrity of the legal professionals involved in [his]case to uphold the rule-of-law and to conduct themselves according to the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct and the Colorado Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct. Without their adherence to the same, it was not only impossible to find justice in the El Paso County District Court but also impossible for the self-policing provisions of the Code and Rules to protect [him] and others like [him] from future abuses.” And the Recommendation section stated, “Diligently review the case file and determine if denying the motions to change venue was reasonable and if a hearing of either the Objection or motion to change venue would have been more prudent and, then, initiate disciplinary proceedings according to ethics guidelines and applicable statutes.” On April 22, Ms. Eigel filed a two-page response to the Petition and attached her original response to the motion(s) for change of venue. There was no attempt to track or respond in any way to the Memorandum Brief. On April 26, Mr. Johnson filed an objection to the acceptance of the Response pursuant to C.R.M. Rule 7(a)(7) (2010), which set a 10-day limitation on time to file an opposing brief. On June 15, Judge Deborah J. Grohs entered the ruling of the El Paso County District Court. The “Order Re: Respondent’s Petition for Review (Change of Venue)” did not attempt to track or respond to the Memorandum Brief. In its entirety it stated, “THIS MATTER is before the Court on Respondent’s Petition for Review regarding a magistrate’s denial of his motion for change of venue. The hearing at issue with the Respondent occurred on 1-13-10. Respondent did not file his motion for change of venue until 3-4-10, after the hearing was conducted. The issues raised by Respondent in his Petition for Review and his motion for a change of venue complain about the findings made by the magistrate at the 1-13-10 hearing. Those issues were considered by this Court and ruled on in a separate order on today’s date. [This statement points to the ruling on the stamped Amended Order. The Court’s “Order Re” upholding the stamped Amended Order uses a different date format and says nothing about the stamping of the order. On the other hand, the other “Order Re” that upheld the order denying the new motion to modify child support uses the same date format as this Order Re upholding the Magistrate’s change of venue decision, but it points to the Amended Order stating it was reduced to writing and signed.] The magistrate’s ruling on the motion for change of venue is not erroneous. The Respondent did not allege any facts to support that venue was proper in any other jurisdiction than El Paso County. This Court adopts the magistrate’s Order as the Order of the Court.” [The hearing at issue was the requested hearing of his objection(s) to the proposed Amended Order.] Below the signature line, a notice read: “This Order has been served electronically in accordance with C.R.C.P. 121, section 1-26. A copy of this Order containing an original signature is on file in the Clerk’s Office. Counsel are ordered to serve a copy of this Order on any unrepresented parties.” Subsequently, Mr. Johnson appeared at the Clerk’s Office and asked to see the copy of the order bearing Judge Grohs’ original signature and was denied. Instead, he was offered the option of purchasing a copy of her electronic signature for $20. (The Petition for Review of the Amended Order and Judge Grohs’ order upholding it are discussed in chronological order at April 5, 2010.)

On March 4, 2010, Mr. Johnson delivered a courtesy copy of the Extraordinary Motion for Change of Venue to Chief Judge Samelson’s clerk. He responded by letter dated March 5. The letter was postmarked March 8 and delivered March 9. On March 9, the Amendment was filed and a courtesy copy was again indirectly delivered to him. The Chief Judge’s response to the March 5 delivery ignored Magistrate Lyle’s resignation and identified the relief requested as “reversal of actions taken either by the magistrate or the Child Support Enforcement Unit.” He continued stating, “As Chief Judge, I do not have the authority to reverse a decision made by another judicial officer or to change venue. You must file a request for change of venue with the presiding magistrate, and go through the normal appeal process if you wish to have a decision reversed.” The Chief Judge did not respond to the March 9 delivery. (On March 26, Mr. Johnson indirectly delivered the Notice of Appeal to the Chief Judge with copies of letters. The Chief Judge responded by letter to the delivery on March 29. This letter is discussed below in its chronological order.)

On March 8, 2010, Mr. Johnson filed the new Verified Motion to Modify Child Support with exhibits using JDF 1403. This time in paragraph 7 the reason “Other: Extraordinary continuation of original modification request” was given and then the request was described. Excerpts follow. “The purpose of filing this…[was] to obtain an answer to [the] original request for modification on September 21, 2009, and to encourage the thorough investigation of the extraordinary events that ha[d] occurred to date and [were] perceived by [him] to be ongoing.” “[He] maintain[ed] that Policy Studies Inc., doing business as El Paso County Child Support Enforcement Unit, ha[d] caused undue and unnecessary financial hardship on [him] but, more importantly, may have compromised the good character of [the Customer], the beloved mother of [his] only son. [He] maintain[ed] that its divisive tactics may [have] cause[d] irreparable damage to [their] parenting relationship and [his] relationship as a father to [his] son. [He] pray[ed] that [his] son ha[d] not and [would] not perceive [his] defenses to Policy Studies Inc. in any way as [his] intent to hurt and punish his mother. [He] maintain[ed] that [his] son [was] entitled to enjoy the love he h[e]ld for her and – for [him] – and to enjoy the love [they] both share[d] for him together without state-sponsored interference with the same.” “[He] ask[ed] that [the Customer] exercise her right to protect her own interests… [and] extend[ed] [his] hand in cordiality to her and pray[ed] that [the Customer] [would] not be subjected to alleged continued outside pressure by Policy Studies Inc. through its El Paso County office or through any law firm hired to protect the financial interests of Policy Studies, Inc. in its capacity as a private human services outsourcing service provider, i.e., ‘collection agency,’ to local and state governmental units across the United States.” Within the Motion, the unauthorized sale of the ATVs was mentioned for the first time for credit purposes. Service of the Motion was made by hand delivery to the Customer and copied by mail to Belveal, Eigel, Rumans & Fredrickson and Policy Studies’ registered agent Jon Bourne. On March 10, Mr. Johnson filed the Amendment to the Verified Motion to Modify Child Support to establish the factual basis for the modification being sought, which included a $2,500 credit for the ATVs. He reported “the total amount withheld in protest equal[ed] $10,892.64. This compare[d] to $16,409.80 credited to the Family Support Registry in its report of February 17, 2010.” (Mr. Johnson left the modifications for October 2009 forward alone.) He asked the Court “to order El Paso County Child Support Enforcement Unit to issue a letter of compliance to the Department of Motor Vehicles to reinstate [his] driver’s license; to return the difference of $5,517.16; to remove any liens against real and personal property; to remove [his] name from the Family Support Registry and any and all similar databases; and to correct any and all negative information reported to consumer credit reporting agencies. For all corrected information, El Paso County Child Support Enforcement Unit shall issue an explanation of responsibility for the events leading up to said reports of derogatory information and provide proof thereof.” On March 11, Ms. Eigel responded. The response did not address the substance of the original motion or the Amendment filed on March 10. (After March 11, Ms. Eigel stopped responding.) She argued Mr. Johnson was asking to relitigate the motion decided at the hearing and held his recourse was to seek review of the magistrate’s order. Then she moved the Court to deny the motion filed March 8. (At the time, Mr. Johnson attributed failures to respond to mishandling in the Clerk’s Office or to documents crossing in the mail. At that time, he was not familiar with the handling of court documents or comfortable with his understanding of ICON , the ROA, or Nexis Lexis.) On March 26, Magistrate Candea-Ramsey denied the motion. [Unable to locate to upload.] On April 9, Mr. Johnson filed the Petition for Review with Memorandum Brief with attachments (the March 29, 2010 letter to the Chief Judge and the Affidavit of Custody and Direct Support), his personal 32-page Affidavit, and the hearing transcript “for the purpose of seeking an independent review” of Magistrate Candea-Ramsey’s order denying the new motion to modify child support. “The Order asserted that [Respondent] had not shown “changed circumstances that are substantial and continuing.” He requested that the selected reviewing judge “determine if the Magistrate’s decision to deny [the] new motion to modify child support was appropriate and then, if circumstances [were] found to be substantial and continuing as shown by [him], that the Court reject the final ruling to deny [the] motion to modify and resolve [the] case according to the attached letter dated March 29, 2010 to Chief Judge Kirk Samelson.” The Memorandum Brief had four sections. The Facts section reviewed the procedural history of the orders denying Mr. Johnson’s motions, including the new motion to modify child support, beginning with the facts that “the Magistrate did not acknowledge reviewing attorney Eigel’s response to [the] motion for a hearing…and the Magistrate signed her name to the two Orders also issued on March 26, 2010 but stamped her name to the Amended Order and mailed them together by U.S. mail.” (She also signed her name to the order denying the request for a hearing of the objections to the proposed Amended Order.) Beginning with the subsection “Change of Custody,” the transcript became the source of facts for Ms. Eigel’s selected arguments. At the conclusion of the “Custody” subsection, the Petition stated, “Therefore, the record shows that discovery issues were raised. Yet, because the Magistrate did not acknowledge reviewing attorney Eigel’s response to [Mr. Johnson’s] motion for a hearing of [the] Objection…the Magistrate also did not acknowledge discovery issues existed.” The “Income” subsection began with a review of the Affidavit with Respect to Child Support used to estimate the Customer’s income and continued with a detailed look at Mr. Johnson’s surprise job offer testimony. The Issues section raised eight questions: did the Magistrate’s two known reviews of [the] case file, including the Verified Motion, the Amendment, exhibits and attachments, support her final ruling to deny the new motion to modify child support for failing to show a substantial and extraordinary continuing change in circumstances; did the increase in the monthly child support obligation from $438.80 to $1,357 (with credit for his monthly $385 expense for health insurance) appear to be unusual, considering [his] first motion was to modify child support to reduce arrears by $12,864 ($13,164); was it fair treatment by the Court to expect him to provide complete disclosure with sworn financial statements and to allow the Court to consider the Customer’s unverified and undocumented financial information and, then, estimate her financial contribution to their son’s physical support; was it fair treatment by the Court to not impute income to the Customer in 2005 for jobs that might be available to her if she wanted to work, or to not expect her to increase her future earning ability to make a greater contribution to their son’s physical support; did attorney Eigel need a month to submit the proposed Order from the proceedings of January 13, 2010, considering the speed and accuracy of the calculations performed at well under an hour that were exactly the same as the worksheets for partial year 2009 and commencing January 1, 2010 and dated January 26, 2010; did attorney Eigel impute his income to create the substantial change needed to modify the original order; was it reasonable for attorney Eigel to assume that he could take employment after hearing his testimony that he  could not accept jobs because his driver’s license was suspended; and was it reasonable to believe the Customer waited more than three years to claim unpaid child support during periods of unemployment and low pay. The Summary section stated, “The handling of [the] child support enforcement case and child support modification case has been corrupt from sometime in September 2008 until the present.” And the Recommendation section stated, “Reject the Order denying [the] two motions to modify child support and, then, resolve and close [the] child support modification case as indicated in the attached letter of resolution.” On April 22, Ms. Eigel filed a two-page response to the Petition. There was no attempt to track or respond in any way to the Memorandum Brief. On April 26, Mr. Johnson filed an objection to the acceptance of the Response pursuant to C.R.M. Rule 7(a)(7) (2010), which set a 10-day limitation on time to file an opposing brief. On June 15, Judge Grohs’ e-filed the “Order Re: Respondent’s Petition for Review (Motion to Modify Child Support).” The Judge did not attempt to track or respond to the Memorandum Brief. In its entirety it stated, “THIS MATTER is before the Court on Respondent’s Petition for Review of a Magistrate’s Order dated March 26, 2010 denying his motion to modify child support. A hearing was held on January 13, 2010, wherein the magistrate modified child support in this matter. The magistrate’s Order of January 13, 2010 was reduced to writing and signed by a magistrate on March 26, 2010. [First, it was not true to state that the Amended Order was reduced to writing and signed, nor was it necessary. Second, the date format of this order differs from the other two e-filed orders.] After the January 13, 2010 hearing, but before the written Order was entered, Respondent filed a motion to modify child support dated March 10, 2010. In his motion, Respondent complains about the magistrate’s findings on January 13, 2010. The Respondent does not allege any ‘changed circumstances that are substantial and continuing’ since the magistrate’s Order of January 13, 2010. The magistrate was not in error in denying the Respondent’s motion. The magistrate’s Order denying the motion to modify child support is adopted as the Order of the Court.”   

On March 9, 2010, Mr. Johnson began trying to gather information through the Colorado Open Records Act (“CORA”). His most immediate need was related to the sudden resignation of Mr. Lyle. Without knowing anything about how governments contract for judicial professional services (or really knowing they did), he contacted County Attorney Bill Louis by letter to request a copy of Mr. Lyle’s contract. On the same date, he contacted El Paso Department of Human Services (“DHS”) Director Richard Bengtsson by letter for child support enforcement office data. Again, at that time, Mr. Johnson had only a limited understanding of the County Attorney’s role in County government. Now, he has no reason not to believe the County Attorney investigated the facts underlying the January 15 lawsuit letter to Commissioner Sallie Clark and was being kept apprised of case developments because of PSI’s contract with the County and understood why Mr. Johnson was interested in the contract and child support enforcement data. Around April 8, he received a phone call from the County apologizing for the delay in meeting the CORA request for Mr. Lyle’s contract. Because the contract was with the State Judicial Department, not the County, the caller indicated the court would be responding to the CORA request. On April 8, Fourth Judicial District Administrator Victoria Villalobos released the contract with her letter. On April 19, Mr. Johnson mailed a follow-up letter to Director Bengtsson. On April 21, Chief Deputy County Attorney John Thirkell responded to the letter to Director Bengtsson, asserting that the month-old CORA letter was just placed in his inbox. He suggested that part of the delay was caused by mailing the request to Director Bengtsson at the Lorraine DHS office. For the most part, the DHS CORA response was unresponsive. In that, the child support enforcement data requested was not stored in a manner that allowed for its immediate retrieval and the man-hours necessary to provide it would be burdensome to the County. Instead of consuming County employee time, Mr. Johnson made a number of additional CORA requests, including requests responded to by First Assistant County Attorney Andrew Gorgey). For the most part, Mr. Thirkell’s and County Attorney Andrew Gorgey’s responses were reasonably in-step with CORA requirements. Notably, Mr. Thirkell provided more transparency than expected concerning his receipt of the certified mail piece to Director Bengtsson by including a copy of the envelope and copies of emails between him and other County employees that immediately began working on meeting the CORA request placed late in his inbox. Through Mr. Thirkell, Mr. Johnson obtained PSI’s base contract (06-004), including requested appendices, and annual renewals. Of greater importance, he obtained a copy of PSI’s submittal known as RFP No. 06-004. The RFP contained responses to the contract’s general specifications and provided useful information about the operation of the child support enforcement office as well as how PSI’s performance was measured, reported, monitored, and penalized or rewarded. (The contract, renewals, and appendices, are not uploaded but are available through the County.)

On March 9, 2010, Mr. Johnson contacted CDHS Executive Director Karen Beye by fax to gather information through CORA. At the time, he knew nothing about the contract with PSI and requested a copy. The second and third documents requested were related. He was concerned about the monies being seized from him getting to the Customer for his son’s benefit and about the security of his personal information obtained by PSI after reading a newspaper article about the theft of a PSI computer in Denver. So he requested copies of the audited financial records of the Family Support Registry for the previous three years and copies of the written policies and procedures pertaining to the security and reliability of information shared with the FSR. The fourth request was for copies of any written complaint against PSI using any of its registered trade names in the last three years. The last two requests concerned the development of the official CDHS CSE website where applications for child support services were available online. The requests were based primarily on transparency issues, i.e., there seemed to be no good reason not to disclose that the El Paso County Child Support Enforcement Unit was not a public agency. Because “CSE” and “delegate” seemed to be used to hide the public-private partnership, he requested documents related to the development of the official CDHS CSE website, believing that PSI participated in the development of the site. On April 19, he mailed a follow-up letter to Executive Director Beye. (He received a phone call from Liz McDonough after the CORA request was faxed. The date is not known, but he did not follow up with her to schedule a time to examine available documents.) On May 7, 2010, he received an item-by-item response from CSE Evaluation Supervisor Leslie McGrew copied to Executive Director Beye. The State referred Mr. Johnson to El Paso County for a copy of the contract (the State was a signatory to the contract); the State claimed it did not have audited financial records for the FSR; the State claimed the FSR security-related documents were confidential and not public records pursuant to CORA; the State claimed written complaints against PSI contained confidential case information and were excluded from CORA requirements pursuant to § 26-13-102.7, C.R.S.; and claimed responses to the related CDHS CSE website requests were being researched. On May 12, Mr. Johnson requested two documents from John Bernhart, Director of Child Support Enforcement, following receipt of a copy of PSI’s response to the Colorado Collection Agency Board. See at April 27, 2010. On May 17, CSE Evaluation Supervisor Leslie McGrew released the Scope of Work Form for Projects with her letter to complete the CORA request and copied the Executive Director. Ms. McGrew is the employee that also released the State administrative review results letter giving credit for the allegedly unpaid temporary spousal support. On May 26, CSE Evaluation Specialist Mardi Houston met the May 12 CORA request to CSE Director Bernhart by releasing a copy of a redirect notice template and the ACSES chronology showing the redirect notice, and a copy of the Administrative Review results letter dated June 29, 2009. She provided a courtesy copy of her letter to PSI Administrator Laura Davidson.

On March 10, 2010, in a two-sentence letter, Mr. Johnson continued to attempt to enlist Attorney General Suther’s assistance by respectfully requesting an independent investigation of the handling of the child support modification case (96-DR-1112) and attached the Amendment to Extraordinary Motion for Change of Venue to support it. On March 18, CSE Evaluation Specialist Houston responded stating, “The Attorney General’s office forwarded your Amendment…to our office for response. Unfortunately, our office will be unable to respond to the Amendment….” “Our office is the supervisory agency for the State’s Child Support Enforcement program; we are not directly involved with the enforcement of child support orders. In regard to your request for an independent investigation of the handling of your case, our office has reviewed the information available and finds the county to be in compliance with enforcing the court order for child support.” On March 10, Mr. Johnson also contacted the Colorado Collection Agency Board , which is an entity positioned within the Department of Law. At the time, Mr. Johnson was just beginning to understand the relationship of the Attorney General to other State departments, agencies, and entities. As time progressed, it became clear that State government was not going to provide assistance or protect his constitutional rights. Mr. Johnson provided the Collection Agency Board with a copy of the new Verified Motion to Modify Child Support without exhibits and asked for “an independent investigation of Policy Studies Inc. doing business as the El Paso County Child Support Enforcement Unit.” On April 27,  CAB Compliance Investigator Dara Rockett Benoit, released a letter and enclosed a copy of PSI’s April 1 response received April 5 by the Office of the Attorney General with a consumer checklist. Ms. Benoit stated, “We have determined not to take any action at this time…[i]t appears there is a court order regarding this matter. We have no authority to review, reverse or modify a final order or judgment rendered by the courts. Attached is a copy of the collection agency’s response. Your copy does not include any confidential investigative materials. Our decision is not an endorsement of the collection agency’s position or any actions it took. However, our jurisdiction is limited to actions that are prohibited by the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Our decision does not limit your legal rights. You may wish to consult with an attorney….” On May 12, Mr. Johnson mailed a 10-page response to the Collection Agency Board’s Investigator’s April 27 letter and a separate CORA letter. The response said in part: “Please know CDHS Executive Director Beye, Attorney General Suthers, and Governor Ritter are well aware of the dispute that exists between [him] and PSI, the independent contractor hired by the El Paso County Board of Commissioners to administer Colorado’s Child Support Enforcement Program on behalf of the El Paso County Department of Human Services. PSI provides similar child support collection services to other human services agencies across the United States. PSI’s legal staff, or private attorneys under contract with PSI, also work[] closely with the court system as State prosecutors in actions such as [his]. Therefore, the Director’s, Attorney General’s, and Governor’s decision to be silent on the issues known to them is politically motivated, each of them believing they are serving state and national interests by giving cover to the wrongful and malicious prosecution of both the child support enforcement case and the child support modification case….” “So of course, [Mr. Johnson] [was] not satisfied with the results of your investigation but must accept your decision to close the State Board’s investigation. However at the same time, [he] need[ed] to challenge certain information provided by PSI that you [ ] disclosed to [him]. [He] too [was] well aware of PSI’s disclosure practices, as [they] [have] prevented [him] from defending against the illegal seizure of [his] property since October 6, 2008.” “Please also know the relationship that PSI has with the State of Colorado supersedes any responsibility it has as a licensed collection agency. The carefully blended relationship that is evidenced through the CDHS website and all disclosures and other written correspondence is to hide the ‘commercial’ nature of the activity it conducts on behalf of the CDHS. And as mentioned in the court document referenced by the Collection Manager, poverty and education go hand-in-hand. The ‘consumers’ of its services are led to believe they are interacting with a government agency. The constant switching back and forth between “CSE” and “PSI” helps maintain that [deception]. There is no ‘good’ reason to hide the relationship that exists between the State and PSI. Therefore, a simple disclosure should be added to the CDHS website, the application for service, and to all written communications between PSI and the recipients of those communications indicating it is not a human services agency but a privately-owned and independent contractor paid to render collection services for El Paso and Teller counties under a contract approved by the CDHS. Full disclosure, in pamphlet form, should direct the consumers of its services – and those impacted by it – to PSI’s official ‘marketing’ website for those desiring more information about the company.” On May 21, Collection Agency Board Program Assistant I, Denise Chelius, responded to the CORA letter by numbered item enclosing a copy of the current members of the Board; citing that items 2-3 were available for inspection in the office, although certain information was not available to the public; the current bond was $20,000; the approved collection manager was Claudia Smith-Swain and her application, except for certain personal information, was available for inspection in the office; there was one complaint against PSI as a collection agency – his; and there were no records of Board meetings this year pertaining to PSI. On August 17, Collection Agency Board Investigator Benoit responded to another CORA request stating, “Please note your complaint was not presented to the Collection Agency Board as we only present complaints that require disciplinary action. Therefore, we have no documents responsive to your request.” (In her first response, she said the Board was an advisory board only; decision-making authority rested with the Administrator. The Administrator’s name was not disclosed and is not disclosed on the Department of Law’s website.) On March 10, Mr. Johnson also contacted Secretary of State Bernie Buescher by letter to request an independent investigation of PSI’s business practices, including the operation of the FSR, and enclosed the Verified Motion to Modify Child Support filed March 9 without exhibits. There was no response. (In all likelihood, the Secretary of State contacted the Attorney General upon receipt of the letter.)

On March 11, 2010, CSE released the Notice of Lien and Levy to American National Bank (“ANB”) in Denver. This was the same date that Ms. Eigel stopped responding to Mr. Johnson’s motions. The notice reported past-due child support of $14,485.20 as of March 11 based on the order entered January 13 and commencing January 1. The funds in the account, if any, were to be held 30 calendar days from the date of the notice. On March 12, ANB notified Mr. Johnson by letter of the lien and notified him that its $50 processing fee was deducted from his account balance and $0 would be remitted to CSE. On April 6, Mr. Johnson contacted ANB, the Colorado Department of Banking and Finance, and the Western District Office of the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (“OCC”) in Denver by letter. ANB responded on April 16 by closing Mr. Johnson’s account in overdraft because of the manner in which he was handling the account and threatened to turn the overdraft over for collection (eventually, ANB opted to close the account without referring it to a collection agency); the Department of Banking and Finance never responded; and the OCC referred the matter (“the complaint”) to its centralized Texas customer service center, the Customer Assistance Group. Since the OCC was ANB’s primary regulator, Mr. Johnson remained engaged with the Western District Office and the Customer Assistance Group for more than a year. This is part of the April 28, 2010 letter to the Western District Office: “Sixty days seems an extraordinary length of time to investigate fraud committed against a federally insured and regulated financial institution, especially in today’s failed banking system and amidst strong public resentment toward bank regulators, the Securit[ies] and Exchange Commission, and Wall Street.” “Yesterday, [he] learned that information entered into either the El Paso County District Court’s Eclipse system on Colorado'[s] Online Integrated Network or the Colorado Department of Human Services ACSES system was used to generate the Colorado Division of Child Support Enforcement’s Notice of Lien and Levy showing the ‘enforcing county’ as El Paso. To [him], this new information means that the fraudulent court order date could have been entered from either end of the integrated system. [He] attached a simplified flowchart obtained from an online Power Point presentation that illustrates how data is exchanged using Data Information Sharing (DISH). [He thought] it [would] be of interest to [the OCC] as Colorado expand[ed] the DISH program [that] year.” At the time, Mr. Johnson perceived the ANB lien as another tactical maneuver by Attorney General Suther’s to frustrate him and make him go away. 

On March 26, 2010, Mr. Johnson attempted to file the Notice of Appeal and Designation of Record with his personal affidavit, believing two things: (1) the hearing of his objection was ignored and (2) the ANB lien meant the order was entered March 11 without his knowledge. The attempted filing was confusing to court clerks, since, according to N/CS clerk Bloodworth, Magistrate Candea-Ramsey had only entered orders that day. Ms. Bloodworth then informed Mr. Johnson the orders were in the mail and the correct procedure for a notice of appeal was to first file the appeal with the Court of Appeals in Denver, and then file a notice of appeal and designation of record with the El Paso County District Court Clerk’s Office. The clerks kept a copy of the Notice of Appeal but refused to accept the affidavit. The Notice of Appeal said in part, “…Despite the appearance of propriety and being empowered to enter the Amended Order without having heard sworn testimony, District Magistrate Candea-Ramsey had an obligation to review the case file, including [his] motion to modify. But, had she done so, she too would have knowingly entered orders that ignored the testimony of January 13.” “Notwithstanding this lack of good judgment, District Magistrate Candea-Ramsey, a former Senior Deputy District Attorney, also breached her duty by ignoring the filing of six documents, including three related to change of venue, during the 9-day period preceding the actual signing of the Amended Order on March 11. These documents exhibited a growing knowledge of professional misconduct and demonstrated how CSEU, a privately-owned and managed child support collection business, used its carefully managed relationship with the Colorado Department of Human Services to ignore [his] constitutional right to defend against the actions taken to seize [his] assets and restrict [his] freedom. Through these filings alone, there was good cause to review [his] allegations if only in the interest of justice.” “Other irregularities within the N/CS Division continued to surface when [he] learned a seventh document filed by [him] on March 15 was not listed as an event in the regist[er] of actions….” “[He] gave notice of the earlier irregularities as a courtesy to Fourth District Chief Judge Kirk Samelson and then contacted Attorney General Suthers, Secretary of State Buescher, and the Collection Agency Board seeking an independent investigation of [his] case and Policy Studies Inc., the parent company of CSEU and attorney Eigel’s employer. [He] contacted CDHS Executive Director Beye, El Paso County DHS Director Bengtsson, and El Paso County Attorney Louis under the Colorado Open Records Act to encourage their involvement. These officials individually and together failed to take action to prevent the embarrassment brought upon the State of Colorado and the County of El Paso. Part of this failure is related to the ease in which the label of “deadbeat dad” is assigned.” “Wherefore, [he] pray[ed] in the interest of justice that [his] appeal be granted and the Court’s order be nullified with instructions to provide immediate relief. [He] further request[ed] that any appeal processing fees or deposits be waived on the basis that over $5,000 [was] being illegally held by CSEU, and [he] [was] willing to offer the transcript ordered by [him] on March [1] to the Court of Appeals.” On Saturday, March 27, Mr. Johnson received the stamped Amended Order and three other personally signed orders denying his motions for a hearing of his objection, change of venue, and the new motion to modify child support. At the time, the most striking observation was the fact that Magistrate Candea-Ramsey opted to personally sign the three other orders but chose to stamp her name to the Amended Order. His first impression was that she was unable, in good conscience, to enter the rulings from the hearing after her repeated review of the case file. At the time, he was not aware the Colorado Rules for Magistrates held that a magistrate’s order was not final until signed and dated pursuant to C.R.M. 7(a)(4)(2010). After finding a signed order in the case file with a yellow post-it note attached after the petition was ruled on, he now believes that once the review time elapsed, stamped orders were replaced with signed orders in pro se cases handled like his. He believes the practice had to be limited to non-custodial parents without legal representation because any attorney would immediately know a stamped order was invalid. (This happened when State Representative Bob Gardner, an attorney by profession, received a copy of the stamped order and contacted the State Judicial Department.) This “racketeering scheme” surfaced on October 22, 2010 when PSI Fiscal Specialist Melissa Balquin told Mr. Johnson stamped orders were used all the time. Prior to her statement, CSE Evaluation Specialist Mardi Houston responded August 17 to a mailing from Mr. Johnson by giving a legal analysis of the signing of court orders. There is no doubt the release of her response would have required the Attorney General’s approval.

On March 29, 2010, Mr. Johnson did two things: (1) he hand-delivered a letter to The Gazette and (2) hand-delivered a letter to the Chief Judge’s clerk. At The Gazette’s operations building, he was told the managing editor of the paper would receive the letter and attachments. The letter advised that “[Mr. Johnson] elected to release the enclosed letters to Fourth District Chief Judge Kirk Samelson and Attorney Christina Eigel and the attached Notice of Appeal and Affidavit to The Gazette before making [the] information available to any other news outlet. As it happens, the Affidavit refers to your newspaper two times.” “You should note the Notice of Appeal was accepted ‘out-of-order’ by the El Paso District Court. An appeal will not be filed with the Court of Appeals in Denver because of the gross judicial and professional misconduct that [ ] occurred in the handling of the fraudulent child support case pursued by Policy Studies Inc.” “Additionally, [Mr. Johnson] [has] made numerous filings since March 2 that led to a progressively better understanding of [the] case and the extraordinary events in the N/CS Division. [He] made two mistakes that were subsequently corrected by [him]. [There] [was] never [any] intention to wrongfully accuse anyone of anything. [The] mistakes were part of the fact-finding mission [he] [was] on. The development of the facts in [the] case can be seen by reviewing court filings chronologically from March 2 though March 26. The Affidavit summarizes all of them.” “In full disclosure, [family relationship], [name], works for The Gazette as an administrative assistant.” “[Mr. Johnson] believe[d] [this] long and frustrating ordeal [would] raise questions about government policy in many areas. [He hoped] from this very bad experience much good [would] come from it.” On March 29, he delivered two letters to the Division 14 clerk, who forwarded the letters to the Chief Judge. The “ethics letter” said, “The attached Notice of Appeal contains a summary of the misconduct that is ongoing in the handling of [this] case in the N/CS Division. Despite [the] procedural misstep, the clerk accepted the NOA [for the case file] and instructed [him] to file the personal records [Affidavit] with the Court of Appeals. The appeal is not necessary due to the gross judicial and professional misconduct that [ ] occurred in [this] case.” “[The] [letter] drafted prior to receiving District Magistrate Candea-Ramsey’s orders in the mail [is attached]. Specific comments about falsifying court records can be found beginning at Affidavit Number 133 and were added in response to the orders received in the mail on Saturday, March 27. The Affidavit was one of the personal records [he] presented with the NOA. Numbers 134-139 were added. The other document not accepted by the clerk was the Continued Objection to Proposed Amended Order. It is discussed in Numbers 119-121 and 138. Please find it attached as well.” “[Mr. Johnson] [was] hoping once again to see someone take action. [He had] made it a point to communicate with everyone that ha[d] heard this before. You have a criminal “team” running a courtroom. And you had a criminal sitting in it before. [He] want[ed] what belong[ed] to [him] back, and [he] want[ed] [his] driver’s license reinstated without any cost to [him] immediately. [He had] struggled with [the] whole situation alone for far too long. [He] can be reached at [phone number].” The child support case resolution letter said in part: “… At this time, [Mr. Johnson] believes the problems [he] experienced in the N/CS Division were caused by the failure of three people to understand the significant impact they [had] on the lives of others. [He could not] reclaim the 19 months of [his] life that [was] lost fighting a fraudulent child support enforcement case or describe the fear that consumed [him] during the malicious prosecution of [his] case or explain how completely demoralized [the] experience [left him]. But [he] [did] not hold El Paso County responsible for the misdeeds of failed human beings.” ” [He did] not know how to legally correct [the] situation nor [did he] care to learn. But [he did] not think it [was] too much to ask that legal professionals within the El Paso County District Court resolve and close [the] child support enforcement case for [him] without cost. The following facts [were] offered for consideration….” The delivery of the letters to Chief Judge Samelson was entered in the ROA the same date by “KAL.” The same date, the Chief Judge responded by letter stating, “I received your letter dated March 29, 2010 regarding case number 96DR1112, along with copies of letters addressed to [the Customer] and Attorney Eigel (March 27, 2010), Mr. Ryckman (March 29, 2010), and Ms. Houston (March 29, 2010). I also received your 32-page affidavit and Continued Objection to Proposed Amended Order (filed on March 15, 2010).” “As I mentioned in my March 5, 2010 letter to you, I do not have the authority as chief judge to reverse a decision made by another judicial officer. You must go through the normal appeal process if you wish to have a decision reversed.” (At this time, the quick turn around of responses to letters to State officials became the order of the day. This was perceived to be another tactic in the Attorney General’s arsenal to frustrate Mr. Johnson and get him to go away.) 

On April 5, 2010, Mr. Johnson filed the Petition for Review with Memorandum Brief to appeal the Amended Order, “which improperly reflects the undisputed orders of the Court through the use of the wrong worksheets for years 2005, 2006, and 2007.” At the time, the hearing transcript was not in his possession and his account of the hearing was from memory only. The “undisputed orders” were the courts orders to modify child support for the three-year period that began in January 2005 and ended when the Customer took custody of their son again around January 2008 upon the Court’s finding that the private change of custody occurred in the best interest of their son. The Memorandum Brief had four sections – Facts (I), Issues (II), Summary (III), and Recommendation (IV). The Fact section identified the period of time Mr. Johnson was engaged with PSI outside of court; identified the date of the modification hearing and the backdating of the Amended Order after Magistrate Lyle’s resignation; identified the date Magistrate Candea-Ramsey took his place and issued the Minute Order to add a summary total of arrears to the proposed order; identified the time frame in which seven motions were filed and the fact that the Continued Objection to Proposed Order went missing; identified the efforts to obtain the court transcript; and identified the second known review of the case file by Magistrate Candea-Ramsey, stating: “…She issued two Orders and entered the final Amended Order. The two Orders are answers to all three of the change of venue requests and the two motions to modify child support. An order was not issued for the two hearing requests. The Orders bear her personal signature, while the Amended Order bears her stamped name….” The Issue section raised one question: did the worksheets used to recalculate arrears and produce the summary of arrears and the first draft of the proposed order and then the final order comply with the Court’s orders on January 13, 2010. (He could not argue for or against the facts that supported the worksheets because he did not have the transcript. And as previously mentioned, the Magistrate entered an order pertaining to the objections.) The Summary section identified the central issue as the El Paso County Child Support Enforcement Units claim to 30 of 39 months of unpaid support during the three-year period and stated: “On January 13, 2010, the Court recognized this voluntary and private change of custody and instructed attorney Eigel to recalculate the alleged arrears and retroactively modify child support to reflect this change in custody. Ms. Eigel, an expert in child support enforcement and modification, used the wrong worksheets for the three-year period.” This statement was incorrect; the worksheets were based on the findings of fact accepted as true by Magistrate Lyle and Ms. Eigel. And the Recommendation section stated, “Review the worksheets submitted by attorney Eigel and verify parenting information for 2005-2007 is incorrect and the Amended Order should be rejected.” On April 22, Ms. Eigel filed two, two-page responses to the Petition for Review of the orders denying change of venue and the new motion to modify child support, but she did not file a response to this Petition; she knew the stamped order was not final under the Rules for Magistrates. On June 4, the first e-filed court document processed in the modification case was filed in response to this Petition using the electronic signature of Tracy Rumans. There was no attempt to track the Memorandum Brief. At ¶ 1, the Response said, “The CSE Unit has been granted leave from the court to file its response at this time.” At ¶ 4, PSI said, “The court adopted the proposed written order submitted by the CSE Unit on March 26, 2010. The court also entered an order on March 26, 2010, which addressed the Respondent’s objection to the proposed written order. Paragraph 5 of the March 26, 2010 order states ‘the Order [submitted by the CSE Unit] accurately reflects the Court’s rulings on January 13, 2010.'” Paragraph 6 of the order goes on to state that Respondent’s objection to the order was based on his disagreement with the substantive findings of the court, rather than the form of the order submitted. The child support worksheets were correct; Respondent disputes the findings of the court which resulted in those worksheets.” And ¶ 7 stated, “Pursuant to C.R.M. 7(a)(9), “Findings of fact made by the magistrate may not be altered unless clearly erroneous… Respondent fails to meet the burden imposed by the rule as he has not demonstrated that the magistrate’s order was clearly erroneous.”  On June 15, Judge Grohs’ e-filed “Order Re: Respondent’s Petition for Review” did not attempt to track or respond to the Memorandum Brief. In its entirety it stated, “THIS MATTER is before the Court on Respondent’s Petition for Review of a magistrate’s order from a hearing held on 1-13-10. The Court has reviewed the pleadings and has reviewed a transcript of the hearing. The Court finds that the findings of fact made by the magistrate were not erroneous. The Order entered by the magistrate nunc pro tunc to 1-13-10 is consistent with the magistrate’s findings at the hearing. This Court adopts the magistrate’s Order as the Order of the Court.”

On April 5, 2010, Mr. Johnson hand-delivered an ethics complaint package to Judge Thomas Kane. (Judge Kane swore in Magistrate Candea-Ramsey on February 12.) The letter with documents enclosed, including the NOA and Petition for Review of the stamped Amended Order, stated in part: “…[He would] not be communicating with the Chief Judge again. As [he] was sure [Judge Kane] [was] aware, C.R.M. Rule 1 states: a “‘ magistrate at all times is subject to the direction and supervision of the chief judge or presiding judge.’ C.R.M. 7(a)(2) states: ‘The chief judge shall designate one or more district judges to review orders or judgments of district court magistrates entered when consent is not necessary.’ Additionally, C.R.M. Rule 4(c) states: ‘All magistrates shall be appointed, evaluated, retained, discharged, and disciplined, if necessary, by the chief judge of the district, with concurrence of the chief justice.'” “With all due respect, [Mr. Johnson] expect[ed] [Judge Kane] to uphold [his] commitment to the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct and the Colorado Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct and investigate [his]complaint that [had] now been extended to Chief Judge Samelson based on his letters of response.”  Also on April 5, Mr. Johnson faxed Attorney General Suthers and Governor Ritter. The message said, “This fax transmission contains 10 pages, including the fax cover sheet, the five page Petition [for] Review, and four letters: the one page letter to Judge Kane on April 5, the one page ethics letter from Johnson to Chief Judge Samelson dated March 29, and two one-page letters from Chief Judge Samelson. You are aware of this problem. Please correct the injustices immediately.”

Also on April 5, 2010, Mr. Johnson faxed the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline (“CCJD”). The fax said in its entirety: “The urgency of this communication cannot be overstated.” “[Mr. Johnson] [had] every reason to believe Fourth District Chief Judge Kirk S. Samelson ha[d] conspired together with magistrates in the El Paso County N/CS Division and the legal representatives of the El Paso County Child Support Enforcement Unit (CSEU) to affect the outcome of [his] case. Please be advised CSEU is one of the trade names registered by Policy Studies Inc., a privately-owned, for-profit commercial business that collects court-ordered child support and certain State child-related debt under contract with the El Paso County Department of Human Services.” “When [he] realized [he] could not get fair treatment in the N/CS Division, [he] filed the first of three motions for change of venue and provided the Chief Judge with the first of two courtesy copies to alert him to irregularities being uncovered in the N/CS Division. On March 5, 2010, he prepared the attached letter and mailed it to [him]. Without knowledge of the letter in the mail, [he] filed an amended motion for change of venue to correct a misstatement and add new information. The Chief Judge did not respond.” On March [11], 2010, [he] filed the third motion for change of venue. But this time for a venue change outside the Fourth Judicial District and alleged the Chief Judge was a willing participant in the conspiracy. Because of his suspected involvement [he] did not provide him with a courtesy copy.” “On March 23, 2010, [he] learned the March 15, 2010 Continued Objection (motion for a hearing of the objections) was not listed in the regist[er] of actions and prepared the attached letter of complaint to the Chief Judge on March 29, 2010 and provided him with the 32-page affidavit and copies of other letters as well as a copy of the missing motion. At the time of delivery, [he] believed the current magistrate was preventing investigation of [his] allegations [against] the Chief Judge and other contacted government officials by portraying [him] as a ‘disgruntled deadbeat dad unhappy with the outcome of the new child support order.'” [He] therefore believed the Chief Judge had simply dismissed [discounted] [his] first motion because of what the current magistrate told him.” “However upon receipt of the attached letter from the Chief Judge also dated March 29, 2010, [he] once again took issue with his failure to respond to [his] allegations that judicial and professional misconduct were ongoing in the handling of [his] case. This time, [he] based [his] concerns upon the willful neglect of his oversight responsibilities to magistrates pursuant to the Colorado Rules [for] Magistrates. Clearly, the C.R.M. assigns the authorities over district magistrates to him as the District’s chief judge.” “Because [Mr. Johnson] [was] likely being portrayed in the most negative manner possible and expect[ed] any inquiry by the Commission into [the] allegations to be ‘handled’ the same way, [he asked] that ANYONE with entry-level knowledge of the use of child support worksheets inspect the worksheets used by the legal representatives of CSEU that formed the foundation of the final order and decide if the Chief Judge could have missed the fact the wrong child support worksheets were used due to incompetency or did he willfully ignore what [ ] was  [being] reported to him for corrupt purposes? The answer is clear to anyone with a basic understanding of child support worksheets.” [Based on the facts accepted as true by Magistrate Lyle and Ms. Eigel, the correct worksheets were used.] The Interim Executive Director of the CCJD, William J. Campbell, responded by confidential letter on April 6 and provided the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel’s address in reference to the complaints against the four attorneys – Lyle, Candea-Ramsey, Eigel, and Rumans. On April 19, Mr. Johnson responded by letter to the Interim Executive Director’s response. The response said: “[Mr. Johnson] re-read the fax transmitted to your attention on April 5, 2010 and your letter of April 6, 2010 several times. There was a gross misinterpretation of [the] message to the Commission. But for clarification purposes, the issue was not whether Chief Judge Samelson should intervene in the Magistrate’s decision but whether or not he should investigate the misconduct of the magistrate under his supervision and the happenings in a courtroom in the same building where he holds the highest position in the District.” “Chief Judge Samelson’s reliance on the appeals process to dismiss [Mr. Johnson’s] allegations of unethical and illegal conduct on two different occasions was unconscionable and left [him] with no alternative but to believe his independence [was] compromised as well. To think that no consideration was given to the evidence presented to him, speaks poorly of his commitment to maintaining the public’s trust. [Mr. Johnson] says to him and to you, must you see a crime completed before reporting it?” “[He] filed three timely petitions for review pursuant to the Rules for Magistrates as both of you have suggested and spent the entire last week trying to ensure the petitions were recorded in the Register of Actions. [The] enclosed copies of [the] letters of complaint [ ] disclose the continued illegal handling of [the] case in the El Paso County District Court.” “As you are aware, the justice system is unique. It polices itself. The codes and rules that are in place to guide the conduct of members of the legal profession place upon each member a responsibility for his or her own actions as well as a sense of responsibility for the justice system as a whole. The reason your commission exists is to maintain the integrity of the system. If you will not perform that function, who will? Who can?” “Pages 2-27 of this compliant immediately follow. These pages should help keep you from dismissing [the] continued complaint against Chief Judge Samelson as quickly as you did before. Your note of confidentiality did not impress [him]. [He] ha[d]no doubt you picked up the phone and heard the same rhetoric that [was] used to keep authorities at bay. For your information, he paid child support without fail from the date of the original order beginning October 1, 1997 through June 2005, six months after [his] wife asked [him] to take custody of [their] only son. He lived with [him] until he returned to her custody in January 2008. [He] did not pay child support after his return for the nine months prior to her application for child support collection services because he was waiting for her response to an insurance offer and because of her silence on the matter of child support. [He] [is] not, as has been alleged, a deadbeat dad.” “For the purposes of providing more direction in your investigation, [the] continued complaint against Chief Judge Samelson begins with allegations against him out of chronological order. And since it has been impossible for any one person named in this complaint to individually accomplish what has occurred, the other parties involved are discussed. The entire document should take no more than 30 minutes to read. Most of this information was provided to Chief Judge Samelson on March 29, 2010 in the ethics packet documented on the Court’s online system the same date.” The Interim Executive Director responded by confidential letter dated April 26 to dismiss the complaint again and reminded him the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel handled complaints against attorneys.

On April 6, 2010, Mr. Johnson called the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel according to its protocol to file complaints against Lyle, Candea-Ramsey, Eigel, and Rumans. “Carla” took the complaints, assigned case numbers, and said the complaints would be assigned to attorney Cynthia Mares. She said it would take two weeks to review them. Mr. Johnson mailed the 25-page written complaint on April 15,  explaining, “The above case numbers were assigned to [the] complaint filed with the Office of Attorney Regulation’s central intake division by phone as required on April 6, 2010. Please know it was impossible to provide sufficient information to Carla, the non-lawyer support staff member that took [the] complaint in 20 minutes or to expect her to accurately interpret the distress in which the complaint was made. [He] understood [Ms. Mares] [might not] have had adequate time to review and rule on [the] complaint. Please know the complaint [was] not, and should not be seen as, an effort on [his] part to have the final orders reviewed by the OAR; the petitions for review were filed in accordance with the Colorado Rules [for] Magistrates, although presently being kept from entry into the Register of Actions.” The individual responses were issued by Amy DeVan in her letters dated April 28. The headers after page 1 were dated April 23. An explanation for the reassignment to Ms. DeVan was not provided. The burden of proof required for disciplinary action was a showing of clear and convincing evidence of violation of the Colorado Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct. Ms. DeVan dismissed all complaints for lack of evidence. On May 3, Mr. Johnson mailed four 20-page individual responses citing testimony from the transcript. On May 5, Ms. DeVan responded to each response in template fashion, stating: “We are in receipt of the additional materials, dated May 3, 2010. I have carefully reviewed and read all the information you provided, and have discussed your original request and this additional information with Chief Deputy Regulation Counsel, Nancy L. Cohen. This information does not change our original determination that the conduct you raise on the part of [INSERT NAME] is not misconduct pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Therefore, our office will be taking no further action in this matter.” “Pursuant to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure section 251.9, a decision of Regulation Counsel with regard to complaints is final.” (Mr. Johnson continued to engage with the OARC.) 

On April 12, 2010, Mr. Johnson began filing written complaints with the Clerk’s Office due to the Continued Objection to Proposed Amended Order that went missing and other recordkeeping irregularities. At the time, he believed Magistrate Candea-Ramsey had not responded to the pleadings for a hearing of his objections to the proposed Amended Order. He feared that the original transcript and his affidavit would go missing as well and he would be time-barred from requesting a review of the orders. The April 12 complaint stated in part, “Today, [Mr. Johnson] presented the stamped copy of the Petition for Review filed April 8, 2010 to determine when it would be entered in the Register of Actions. [He] also inquired about the Petition for Review filed April 9, 2010 and presented a stamped copy. [He] asked to have them entered without delay and for a printout of the Register of Actions following input. [He] emphasized that dating errors or loss of the Petitions would jeopardize [his] right to appeal. [He] also voiced concerns about the preservation of the original transcript.” On April 14, he filed a notice concerning two hearings shown in the ROA. In part it stated, “On April 12th, [Mr. Johnson] inquired as to two hearings listed as events on the Court’s online system and recorded as having took place on March 1, 2010 and March 26, 2010.” “According to the event listing for March 1, a one hour hearing was held, noting ‘Amended ORDR?'” “According to one event listing for March 26, 2010, a one hour hearing was held, noting ‘M/COV.'” “[He] was told by a clerk that help[ed] [him] often that no hearing was held in response to the Objection to Proposed Amended Order or the missing/reappearing Continued Objection to Proposed Amended Order….” On April 14, he also filed a complaint highlighting the irregularities identified by the record room clerk involving N/CS clerk Bloodworth. On April 15, he appeared at the Clerk’s Office to file a complaint directly with Clerk of Court Mary Perry but was told she was in a closed-door meeting and could not be disturbed. He commented on “the phone conversation between Sheila and Sicily, the ROA supervisor, that the information online indicated several documents entered on the system had not been received for entry into the ROA. Their conversation focused on online input by Ms. Bloodworth in the N/CS Division.” On April 16, he obtain verification from the Clerk’s Office that all petitions and the transcript and affidavit were received by records. On April 16, he also filed another letter memorializing his attempt to speak with Ms. Perry the day before.

On April 19, 2010, Mr. Johnson mailed a letter to Attorney General Suthers using the April 15 complaint to the OARC with the case numbers assigned by the OARC inadvertently shown. Mr. Johnson believes the OARC would have immediately contacted the Attorney General upon receipt of the complaints anyway. But if for some reason that did not happen, the case numbers would have alerted him to the complaints. At the time, Mr. Johnson did not know of the OARC’s obligation to the State as a prosecutorial body. He did not understand the OARC attorneys had absolute immunity related to their duties. He later learned the extent of the protections afforded to the magistrates as judicial officers and Eigel and Rumans as prosecutors. In the end, each OARC complaint could have been dismissed more honestly by identifying the immunities that protected the magistrates and attorneys no matter what they did at the hearing, or as a result of the hearing (except for violating the 14th Amendment). Also on April 19, Mr. Johnson contacted Governor Ritter by letter but did not use the OARC complaint text. The letter began: “…The purpose of contacting you was not to seek your intervention. [Mr. Johnson] believed the criminal mishandling of [his] case in the El Paso County District Court should concern you as governor.” [He] also under[stood] Attorney General Suthers [was] the chief legal counsel and advisor to your branch, all of the departments of state government, and to many state agencies, boards, and commissions. Because of his role, [Mr. Johnson] believe[ed] [the Attorney General] advised you not to respond to [his] communications as well as CDHS Executive Director Beye, Secretary of State Beuscher, and the Collection Agency Board. As a result, the CDHS and the El Paso County CDHS failed to respond in writing to [the] request made pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act on March 9, 2010. Similarly, Secretary of State Beuscher and the Collection Agency Board failed to acknowledge [the] letters of March 10, 2010 requesting an independent investigation of Policy Studies, the private owner and operator of the El Paso County Child Support Enforcement Unit.” (The Collection Agency Board subsequently released a letter after this letter on April 27.)

On April 21, 2010, feeling totally overwhelmed by state power, Mr. Johnson contacted the Denver chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”). The 22-page letter assimilated information from various writings in an attempt to persuade the ACLU Intake Department to take up his grievance as an exception to the ACLU’s policy not to accept family law cases. On May 10, he contacted the Intake Department again by letter to add facts from the transcript to support his claim the State was violating the Fourteenth Amendment. On May 25, the ACLU released its letter declining legal assistance with a two-page listing of other entities that offered general public assistance. (Mr. Johnson continued to keep the ACLU informed as his grievances against the State mounted.)   

On May 12, 2010, Mr. Johnson attempted to engage local state and federal legislators. He mailed letters to State Senators Mark Scheffel and David Schultheis and State Representatives Dennis Apuan, Bob Gardner, and Larry Liston and to U.S. Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet and U.S. Representative Doug Lamborn. He enclosed a copy of the letter to the Collection Agency Board indicating that Governor Ritter, Attorney General Suthers, CDHS Executive Director Beye and other State and County officials were aware of the information provided therein. On May 26, Representative Lamborn responded by letter stating in part, “Unfortunately, because I hold a federal office, I am able to assist you only with issues involving federal government agencies; I cannot intervene on matters regarding judicial, legal, or private party issues.” Of importance to Mr. Johnson, PSI’s State-approved contract required PSI to notify the CSE within two days of a contact from a legislator, and any requested information pertaining to a PSI customer’s name and address was required to be protected under confidentiality provisions. The clear purpose of these policies was to keep legislators from becoming involved with constituent claims involving the State’s child support enforcement program. In truth, the State does not guarantee a separation of powers. In fact, the executive branch through the attorney general, is actively involved with the judicial branch and, in Mr. Johnson’s case, clearly interfered with its authority and independence. (Thereafter, Mr. Johnson continued to maintain contact with the selected legislators.)

Also on May 12, 2010, Mr. Johnson contacted select PSI customers by letter, i.e., the CSE Division of the Maryland Department of Human Services, the CSE Division of the Tennessee Department of Human Services, and the CSE Division of the Georgia Department of Human Services, stating, “PSI provides child support collection services across the United States and gives special recognition [to] its relationship with [Insert Name] on its website. As a concerned citizen, engaged in a legal dispute with PSI, [Mr. Johnson] fe[lt] obligated to share [his] experience with your division as a government agency, so you [had] an understanding of why private contracting [might] not be in the best interest of your state or its citizens.” (Mr. Johnson advised that a reply was not necessary, and there were no replies.) 

On May 13, 2010, Mr. Johnson attempted to engage selected Congressional committees and subcommittees because he believed the abuses he experienced at the state-level were national in scope. Letters were mailed to Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse and Ranking Member Jeff Sessions of the Senate Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts; Chairman Russ Feingold and Ranking Member Tom Coburn of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution; Chairman Edolphus Towns of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; and Chairman Johnson of the House Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy. Thereafter, Mr. Johnson remained in contact with selected committees and subcommittees. There was never any reply.

Also on May 13, 2010, Mr. Johnson contacted the Federal Trade Commission a second time by letter and enclosed a copy of the letter to the Colorado Collection Agency Board. There was no reply.

On May 27, 2010, Mr. Johnson released the “application change letters” to Attorney General Suthers, CDHS Executive Director Beye, CSE Director Bernhart, and the Collection Agency Board after learning the State’s child support enforcement application had been revised to “not require” an affidavit to support a mother’s claims to unpaid court-ordered child support. The letters said: “Colorado Department of Human Services Child Support Enforcement form CSE-6 page 2 has been revised this month to empower CDHS CSE county units and delegates (PSI) to open a child support enforcement case without obtaining an affidavit of arrears to support an applicant’s claim. This page was used as an exhibit filed with the pleading of March 8, 2010.” “The statement read: ‘You are required to complete and sign an affidavit agreeing to the amount of child support arrears owed (if there is a current child support order).'” “This statement now reads: ‘You may be required to complete and sign an affidavit agreeing to the amount of child support arrears owed (if there is a current child support order).'” “As [he] indicated in [the] case before the El Paso County District Court, the affidavit signed by [his] former wife [was] dated 11 days after her Family Support Registry account was opened and was marked indicating [their] son had lived with her since birth. While the actual date of [his] former wife’s original application has yet to be disclosed to [him], [the Customer’s] sworn statement on the affidavit was impeached by her own testimony in court.” “This fraudulent affidavit [was] used to intercept monies due [him], levy bank accounts, control [his] real and personal property, and restrict [his] freedom. Therefore, the State’s child support enforcement actions should have at ‘minimal’ an attestation as to the truth of the claim being made. Like the affidavits [he] signed and the oath [he] took before giving testimony in court, the signing of the affidavit is intended to raise the consciousness of the signer and deter misrepresentations by the threat of sanctions for untruthfulness. The affidavit poses no burden on the CSE units and protects the rights of the party being affected by the child support enforcement actions likely to follow. In [his] case, the first intercept took place without any prior notification that a child support enforcement case had been opened against [him].” “Form CSE-6 should be revised to fully disclose the meaning of the following excerpted statement also found on page 2: ‘Please read and initial each of the following statements. By initialing each statement, you understand and agree: INITIAL ___ CSE represents the People of the State of Colorado. No attorney-client relationship or privilege exists between either party or the CSE staff.’ The written statement should be so transparent that the applicant understands that by signing the application and initialing this space that she has assigned her rights to the State of Colorado.” “Additionally, the applications accessible to El Paso and Teller county CSE applicants should be revised to fully disclose that PSI is a private company under contract with the county DHS agencies to collect court-ordered child support and state public assistance debt as a delegate unit and licensed collection agency. As was stated to the Collection Agency Board, there is no good reason not to make a full and honest disclosure about this relationship.”

Also on May 27, 2010, Mr. Johnson gave written notice of his intent to file suit to Attorney General Suthers and CDHS Executive Director Beye. The notice to the Attorney General said in part: “On February 17, 2010, you received notice of [Mr. Johnson’s] intent to take personal action against Policy Studies, Inc., the delegate child support enforcement unit for the El Paso County Department of Human Services. The notice stated [he] would take action by March 5, 2010 and requested that you initiate an investigation of the unlawful conduct of PSI in the handling of [his] case. As court records reflect, [he] [has] filed numerous pleadings since March 2, 2010.” “The February notice to you was followed by [his] March 10th fax that made a second request for an independent investigation and included a copy of the pleading filed on March 9th to assist you.” “On April 5th, April 19th, and May 3rd, you received other communications from [him] regarding the State’s alleged interference in the resolution of [his] child support modification case. The April 19th twenty-seven page document was provided to you to assist you in the understanding of the misconduct that occurred on January 13, 2010 and that is known to be ongoing.” “Today, [he] [is giving] notice of [his] intent to file suit against the State of Colorado as required by § 24-10-109, C.R.S. on the basis that Colorado, through judicial proceedings, [ ] violated [his] Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and the equal protection of the laws. Said suit is afforded no protection by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act.” The notice to the Executive Director said in part: “On February 11, 2010, [Mr. Johnson] mailed the letter notifying you of [his] intent to file a lawsuit against Policy Studies, Inc., the state-approved delegate child support enforcement unit for the El Paso County Department of Human Services.” “This letter was followed by a Colorado Open Records Act request dated March 9th that went unfulfilled until recently and, then, by [his] April 6th letter to you complaining of your lack of interest in the information brought to your attention. Said letter having copies of the March 27th misstep letter to PSI’s attorney, the ANB lien, Mardi Houston’s letter, and the final court orders attached. [He] then contacted you a second time on April 19th to obtain the reason for denying access to the records requested on March 9th , which resulted in the well organized and thoughtfully prepared response from Leslie McGrew on May 12th she copied to you.” “Today, [He] [is giving] notice of [his] intent to file suit against the Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Child Support Enforcement, as required by § 24-10-109, C.R.S. on the basis that CDHS, through state-approved administrative processes and actions, [ ] violated [his] Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and the equal protection of the laws. The suit being afforded no protection by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act.”

Register of Actions

(Narrative fact reference.)

 

Verified Motion to Modify Child Support – September 21, 2009

 

 

(February 17, 2010) Family Support Registry Payment Record

(Narrative fact reference.)

PSI’s Response to Motion to Modify Child Support – October 15, 2009

 

Delay Prevention Order – November 24, 2009

Perjured Affidavit with Respect to Child Support – December 17, 2009

 

Transcript of Hearing held January 13, 2010 – B&M Transcription, L.L.P.

B&M Transcription, LLP, P.O. Box 873, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80901

                                       TRANSCRIPT INDEX

                                                             Page

Court Calls Case………………3

Robert Johnson

Direct Exam by Eigel…………..4-13

Direct Exam by Dolbow………13-16

Vanessa Dolbow

Direct Exam by Eigel………….16-27

Direct Exam by Johnson……..27-28

Robert Johnson

Re-Direct by Eigel……………..29-30

Findings and Rulings…………35-42

Transcriptionist’s Cert………..42

 

Johnson’s Letter to the Court Giving Notice of Intent to Sue PSI – January 13, 2010

Magistrate Lyle’s Minute Order as per ROA – January 13, 2010 

On January 13, 2010, all of the modifications determined in the hearing are shown in this Minute Order. Magistrate Lyle’s resignation, purportedly accepted on January 11, was not effective until January 31.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Johnson’s Letter to CSE – January 15, 2010

PSI Completes Worksheets to Support Proposed Order Not Yet Filed – January 26, 2010

(The worksheets are disclosed at February 26, 2010. But they were prepared on Tuesday, January 26; Magistrate Lyle’s last work day was Friday, January 30.)

Johnson’s Letter to Belveal, Eigel, Rumans & Fredrickson, LLC – January 27, 2010

 

John Lyle’s Letter of Resignation (Not Disclosed by Custodian) – Effective January 31, 2010

(Mr. Johnson did not know Magistrate Lyle was employed by the State Judicial Department as a part-time magistrate until interacting with the clerks at the courthouse around February 25, 2010. He subsequently learned more about the nature of his employment through records obtained through the Colorado Open Records Act. The contract and additional information about his resignation are disclosed in their chronological order based on CORA responses. (See April 8 and May 25, 2010.)   From dates on the contract, Mr. Johnson presumed Mr. Lyle’s resignation was accepted  January 11, 2010, two days prior to the hearing on January 13, 2010. Mr. Johnson believes Mr. Lyle was terminated at the direction of Attorney General Suthers and that he selected the date for appearance only. Even if this cannot be proven, there was no reason Magistrate Lyle could not have signed an order entering his rulings before the effective date of his resignation 18 days later.)

PSI’s Proposed Order – February 11, 2010

(The child support worksheets that supported the proposed Order and the proposed Amended Order are shown with the Amended Order filed with the court on February 24, 2010. The worksheets were prepared on January 26, 2010. The summary total of arrears ordered by Magistrate Lyle by Minute Order on January 13, 2010 and ordered added to this proposed order by incoming Magistrate Jayne Candea-Ramsey on February 18, 2010 was prepared February 17, 2010.)  

Johnson’s Letter to PSI – February 11, 2010

Jayne Candea-Ramsey Sworn In – February 12, 2010 

http://thesidebar.freedomblogging.com/tag/jayne-candea-ramsey/

Johnson’s Notice of Action – February 17, 2010

Johnson’s Undated Letter to Belveal, Eigel, Rumans & Fredrickson, LLC

Magistrate Candea-Ramsey’s Order – February 18, 2010

PSI’s Letter Served with Motion to Approve Amended Order with Attached Summary of Arrears – February 24, 2010

PSI’s Motion to Approve Amended Order and Proposed Amended Order and Worksheets – February 25, 2010

 

 

 

 

 

Johnson’s Objection to Proposed Amended Order – March 2, 2010

Objection to Proposed Amended Order

Johnson’s Extraordinary Motion for Change of Venue – March 4, 2010

Extraordinary Motion for Change of Venue

EXHIBITS A-F 

CBA Home-John Paul Lyle

Chief Judge Kirk Samelson’s Letter of Response to Indirect Delivery of Extraordinary Motion for Change of Venue – March 5, 2010

Johnson’s New Verified Motion to Modify Child Support – March 8, 2010  

Verified Motion to Modify Child Support

VERIFIED MOTION TO MODIFY EXHIBITS

Worksheet A – Oct 2009-Dec 31, 2009

Worksheet A – Jan 2010 – Aug 31, 2010

Page 2 of OBJECTION

HOW WE WORK TOGETHER- Exhibit I Verified Motion

PAYMENT RECORD

Johnson’s Amendment to Extraordinary Motion for Change of Venue – March 9, 2010

AMENDMENT TO EXTRAORDINARY MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

Johnson’s Colorado Open Record Act (“CORA”) Request to County Attorney Bill Louis for Magistrate Lyle’s Contract – March 9, 2010

County Attorney March 9, 2010 – JPL’s Contract

Johnson’s CORA Request to DHS Director Richard Bengtsson for Child Support Enforcement Unit Data – March 9, 2010

El Paso DHS March 9, 2010

Johnson’s CORA Request to CDHS Executive Director Karen Beye and ACS News Release – March 9, 2010

CDHS CORA – March 9, 2010

 

Johnson’s Amendment to Verified Motion to Modify Child Support – March 10, 2010

Amendment to Verified Motion to Modify Child Support

Johnson’s Letter to Attorney General Suthers – March 10, 2010

CO Attorney General March 10, 2010

Johnson’s Letter to Secretary of State Bernie Beucher – March 10, 2010

CO Secretary of State March 10, 2010

Johnson’s Letter to the Collection Agency Board (CAB) – March 10, 2010

CO Collection Agency Board March 10, 2010

PSI’S Response to Extraordinary Motion for Change of Venue & Amend. to EXTRA. MTN – March 11, 2010

PSI’s Response to NEW Verified Motion to Modify Child Support – March 11, 2010

PSI’s Response to Objection to Proposed Amended Order – March 11, 2010

 

Second Extraordinary Motion for Change of Venue – March 11, 2010

Second Extraordinary Motion for Change of Venue

Johnson’s Letter to Chief Judge Samelson – March 11, 2010

Chief Judge Samelson’s Letter

CSE Notice of Lien and Levy to American National Bank – March 11, 2010

 

CSE Notice of Lien and Levy Exception Policy – March 11, 2010

Johnson’s Continued Objection to Proposed Amended Order – March 15, 2010

(Unable to upload pages 4-5.)

CSE’s Response to March 10 Letter to Attorney General Suthers – March 18, 2010

 

Johnson’s Notice of Appeal and Designation of Record – March 26, 2010

Notice of Appeal – March 26

Amended Order Entered by Magistrate Candea-Ramsey – March 26, 2010

(The proposed Amended Order was unchanged – the stamped last page is the only page shown here.)

 

ORDER – Magistrate Candea-Ramsey Denies MTN for Change of Venue – March 26, 2010

 

ORDER – Magistrate Candea-Ramsey Denies MTN for Hearing of Objection – March 26, 2010

(The first page apparently did not scan when it was sent in 2010, so only the second page was available to upload.)

ORDER – Magistrate Candea-Ramsey Denies NEW MTN to Modify Child Support – March 26, 2010

 (Unable to locate to upload.)

Johnson’s Letter to Chief Judge Kirk Samelson – March 29, 2010

March 29- To Chief Judge Samelson

Johnson’s Letter of Resolution for Child Support Modification Action – March 29, 2010

Resolution of Child Support Case Letter

Chief Judge Kirk Samelson’s Letter of Response to Letters of March 29, 2010 – March 29, 2010

Johnson’s Petition for Review (Amended Order) – April 5, 2010

Petition for Review

Johnson’s Letter to Judge Thomas Kane – April 5, 2010

Letter to Judge Kane April 5

Johnson’s April 5 Fax Cover Sheets to Governor Bill Ritter and Attorney General Suthers – April 5, 2010

FAX COVER SHEET Governor Ritter – 04-05-2010

FAX COVER SHEET AG Suthers – 04-05-2010

Johnson’s Fax/Complaint to Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline – April 5, 2010

Commission Complaint Fax April 5, 2010

Johnson’s Letter to The Gazette in re March 29 Letter Package – April 5, 2010

Gazette – April 5 – Editor Thomas

Johnson’s April 6 Letters to Beye, Houston, Davidson, Brunner, and Balquin – April 6, 2010

April 6 letter to CDHS Beye

April 6 letter to Mardi Houston

April 6 letter to CSEU Laura Davidson

April 6 letter to Jonica Brunner

April 6 letter to Melissa Balquin

Johnson Filed Complaints with the Colorado Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel by Phone Against Magistrates John Lyle and Jayne Candea-Ramsey and PSI attorneys Christina Eigel and Tracy Rumans – April 6, 2010

(See April 15, 2010 Letter to the OARC.)

Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline’s Response – April 6, 2010

Johnson’s Letter to Colorado Department of Banking and Finance In Re American National Bank (“ANB”) Fraudulent Notice of Lien and Levy – April 6, 2010

April 6 letter to CO Dept of Banking and Finance

Johnson’s Letter to Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) In Re ANB Fraudulent Notice of Lien and Levy – April 6, 2010

April 6 letter to OCC

Johnson’s Letter to ANB – April 6, 2010

April 6 letter to American National Bank

Johnson’s Petition for Review (Change of Venue) – April 8, 2010

Petition for Review – Change of Venue

Fourth District Administrator’s Letter with John Lyle’s State Judicial Department Contract – April 8, 2010

(Johnson received a phone call from a female County employee apologizing for the missed CORA deadline. She explained that the contract with John Lyle was not through the County but through the State Judicial Department. After the phone call, Johnson received the following letter and contract from the Fourth Judicial District Administrator.)

John Lyle’s State Judicial Department Contract

Johnson’s Petition for Review (NEW Motion to Modify Child Support) – April 9, 2010

Petition for Review – Motion to Modify Child Support

(Personal Affidavit*****(Need filed copy for upload))

Johnson’s Letter to the Fourth Judicial District Administrator Concerning the March 9 CORA Request for Former Magistrate Lyle’s Contract, and Request for Additional Information – April 12, 2010

April 12th letter to Office ADMN – JPL’s Contract

Johnson’s Complaint to Clerk of Court – April 12, 2010

Johnson’s Complaint to Clerk of Court – April 14, 2010

Johnson’s Complaint to Clerk of Court – April 14, 2010

Johnson’s Complaint to Mary Perry – April 15, 2010

 

 

Johnson’s Letter to the Colorado Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel – April 15, 2010

Cynthia Mares- April 15, 2010

Johnson’s Complaint to Clerk of Court – April 16, 2010

ANB’s Letter Closing Account – April 16, 2010

April 16 – American National Bank

Johnson’s Letters to Governor Bill Ritter and Attorney General Suther’s for Failure to Respond to the April 5 Faxes – April 19, 2010 

April 19 – Governor Ritter’s Letter

April 19 AG Letter with Complaint

Johnson’s Response to CCJD’s April 6 Letter – April 19, 2010

April 19 Response to Judicial Commission

Johnson’s Follow-Up of March 9 CORA Request to County Attorney Bill Louis – April 19, 2010

(Unable to locate to upload)

Johnson’s Follow-Up of March 9 CORA Request to DHS Director Richard Bengtsson – April 19, 2010

April 19 Follow-Up of Mar. 9 CORA Req. – BENGTSSON

Johnson’s Follow-Up to March 9 CORA Request to CDHS Director Karen Beye – April 19, 2010

April 19 – CDHS Open Records Act Letter

Johnson’s Response to ANB’s Letter In Re Closing Account – April 19, 2010

April 19 – American National Bank

Office of the County Attorney’s (THIRKELL’s) Response to April 19 Follow-Up Letter to BENGTSSON – April 21, 2010

Office of the County Attorney’s (THIRKELL’s) Continued CORA Response – April 21, 2010

Johnson’s Letter to the ACLU Intake Department – April 21, 2010

CO ACLU April 21, 2010

OCC’s Letter In Re ANB – April 22, 2010

PSI’s Response to Petition for Review Filed April 8, 2010 (EXTRA. Change of Venue) – April 22, 2010

PSI’s Response to Petition for Review Filed April 9, 2010 (NEW Motion to Modify Child Support – April 22, 2010

Johnson’s Objection to Acceptance of Response to Petition for Review Filed  April 8, 2010 – April 26, 2010

Objection to Acceptance of Response to Petition for Review

Johnson’s Objection to Acceptance of Response to Petition for Review Filed April 9, 2010 – April 26, 2010

Objection to Acceptance of Response to APR. 9

CCJD’s Response to April 19 Letter – April 26, 2010

Johnson’s Response to the Office of the County Attorney’s (THIRKELL’S) April 19 and April 21 CORA-Related Letters – April 27, 2010

April 27 Letter to Thirkell

(Thirkell’s CORA-released documents included copies of emails. The email dated April 14, 2010 from Rebecca Klundt to John Thirkell, Laura Rago, and Andrew Gorgey (a County attorney) and copied to DHS Director Bengtsson and Toni Herman (the DHS Contract Manager) stated: “Attached please find a child support open records request from R. Wayne Johnson. Please note that the envelope was stamped by the Post Office on March 10 and Rick just received it today. Please let Rick or I know if you have any questions.” John Thirkell responded by email to Klundt on April 15 stating, “Please make Laura Davidson or Christina Eigel aware of this records request as I assume that they would have the information and DHS wouldn’t. Please correct me if my assumption is wrong. DHS should respond to inform the requestor that this program is privatized and give him the contact information to PSI or Belveal & Eigel.” Rebecca Klundt responded to Thirkell on April 16 stating, “I have forwarded your e-mail to Toni Herman. Toni said that Laura is aware of the situation.” On April 16, Toni Herman sent an email to Thirkell and copied to Public Communication’s employees Jennifer Brown and Dave Rose and to attorney Andrew Gorgey, Bengtsson, and Davidson. Herman forwarded Andrew Gorgey’s proposed responses to Johnson’s CORA requests. A yellow post it note with Davidson’s phone number is over Gorgey’s statement about the deadline. It reads: “Our deadline would be Monday (three working days)…need more time, let me know. By the way, this obviously isn’t burn…ed March 9, five weeks ago.” Also included in the CORA-released documents was a copy of the March 9 letter to Bengtsson marked by him. In the upper-right corner, Bengtsson wrote, “Rec’d 4-14-10” and initialed it “R. Bengtsson.”

Colorado Collection Agency Board’s (CAB) Investigator’s Letter – April 27, 2010

 

Colorado Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (“OARC”) Response to Complaints – April 28, 2010

 

Johnson’s Letter to OCC – April 28, 2010

April 28 letter to OCC

Johnson’s Responses to OARC’s April 28 Responses – May 3, 2010

Jayne Candea-Ramsey – May 3 , 2010

Christina Eigel – May 3 , 2010

Tracy Rumans – May 3 , 2010

John Paul Lyle – May 3 , 2010

Cynthia Mares – May 3 , 2010

Cynthia Mares – May 3 , 2010 – Special

Amy DeVan – May 3 , 2010

OARC’s Responses to Johnson’s Letters of May 3 – May 5, 2010

CDHS CSE’s (MCGREW’s) Response to April 19 CORA Request – May 7, 2010

Office of the County Attorney’s (THIRKELL’s) Response to Johnson’s April 27 Letter – May 10, 2010

Johnson’s Letter to the ACLU Intake Department – May 10, 2010

CO ACLU May 10, 2010

Johnson’s CORA Request to CDHS (BERNHART) – May 12, 2010

CDHS May 12, 2010

Johnson’s Letters to Colorado Federal and State Legislators – May 12, 2010

5-12-2010 U.S. Senator Udall

5-12-2010 Senator Bennet

5-12-2010 U.S. Rep Lamborn

5-12-2010 State Senator Mark Scheffel

5-12-2010 State Senator DavidSchultheis

5-12-2010 State Rep Bob Gardner

5-12-2010 State Rep. Liston

5-12-2010 State Rep Dennis Apuan

Johnson’s U.S. Mailings (MD, TN, GA) – May 12, 2010

U.S. Mailings to MD May 12, 2010

U.S. Mailings to TN May 12, 2010

U.S. Mailings to GA May 12, 2010

Johnson’s Response to CAB’s April 27 Letter – May 12, 2010

Johnson’s Response to CAB Response May 12, 2010

Johnson’s CORA Request to CAB – May 12, 2010

CAB CORA Request May 12, 2010

Johnson’s Mailings to U.S. Congress – May 13, 2010

U.S. Senate Mailings – Subcommittee on ADM Oversight and (1)

U.S. Senate Mailings – Subcommittee on ADM Oversight and the

U.S. Senate Mailings – Subcommittee on the Constitution (1)

U.S. Senate Mailings – Subcommittee on the Constitution

U.S. House of Rep Mailings – Oversight and Reform Com. May 13

U.S. House of Rep Mailings – Subcommittee on Courts and Competition

Johnson’s Letter to the Federal Trade Commission – May 13, 2010

U.S. Government Mailings (FTC) May 13, 2010

Johnson’s Response to County’s (Thirkell) May 10 CORA-Related Response – May 14, 2010

May 14th Letter to Thirkell

CDHS CSE’s (MCGREW’s) Response to CORA Request – May 17, 2010

Collection Agency Board’s Letter of Response to May 12 CORA Request – May 21, 2010

Office of the County Attorney’s (Thirkell) CORA-Related Response – May 24, 2010

(Unable to upload.)

Office of the County Attorney’s (THIRKELL’s) CORA Billing – May 24, 2010

(Unable to upload.)

Johnson’s Follow-Up Letter to April 12 CORA Request to Fourth Judicial District Administrator – May 24, 2010

May 24, 2010 – Follow Up Letter for JPL Termination Record

Fourth Judicial District Administrator’s Response to CORA Request for Disclosure of Termination Record – May 25, 2010

ACLU’s Letter of Response to Requests for Assistance – May 25, 2010

U.S. Representative Doug Lamborn’s Response to May 12 Letter – May 26, 2010

CDHS CSE’s (HOUSTON’s) Response to May 12 CORA Request to Bernhart- May 26, 2010

Child Support Enforcement Application Change Complaint Letters – May 27, 2010

CSE Application Change-AG Suthers- May 27, 2010

CSE Application Change – CDHS May 27, 2010

CSE Application Change Letter to CSE Director Bernhart – May 27, 2010

CSE Application Change – Collection Agency Board – May 27, 2010

Johnson’s Notices of Intent to File Suit – May 27, 2010

May 27, 2010 Notice of Intent to File Suit-STATE

May 27, 2010 Notice of Intent to File Suit – CDHS

Johnson’s CORA Request to County Procurement & Contracts Department (“CPCD”) – May 28, 2010

CORA Request El Paso Procurement & Contracts Dept. May 28, 2010

PSI’s Response to Petition for Review Filed April 5, 2010 – June 4, 2010

(Unable to locate Page 1***)

 

Judge Deborah Grohs’ ORDER RE: Respondent’s Petition for Review (Amended Order – April 5) – June 15, 2010

 

 

Judge Deborah Grohs’ ORDER RE: Respondent’s Petition for Review (Change of Venue – April 8) – June 15, 2010

 

Judge Deborah Grohs’ ORDER RE: Respondent’s Petition for Review (New MTN to Modify CS – April 9) – June 15, 2010

El Paso County Public Communication’s Office Response to May 28 CORA Request – June 15, 2010