CHAPTER 3
18th District Court OF COLORADO
“JUSTICE DENIED
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO
This chapter deals with the inactions of the Supreme Court of Colorado and how a Writ of Certiorari was slipped under the table to hide the proof of a Kangaroo Court conducted by Judge Ruddick and Jeffrey Lane. The entire transcript is linked to this chapter, which has been edited by Jim Burneson with his comments printed in red.
Since you have finished Chapters 1, to 2 and now beginning Chapter 3 you are up to date with the disclosures of Judge Ruddick’s perjury in court along with Jeffrey Lane’s suborn perjury (leading the witness to lie under oath) Judge Rafferty as Appellant Judge under the control of Jeffrey Lane has tried to deny the Defendant her right to an appeal and has refused to hold Jeffrey Lane for his fraud on the court by his own lies in his motions presented to Judge Rafferty. Chief Judge Leopold has taken this appeal away from Judge Rafferty to control the damage this judge has cause and secretly assigned the appeal to Senior Judge Steinhardt. This assignment is to guarantee an opinion to deny Defendant’s Appeal to the Supreme Court of Colorado will be denied. This will bring to a close all the violation committed by Judges Ruddick and Judge Rafferty involving Jeffrey Lane’s control in running the 18th District Court with the full cooperation of Chief Judge Leopold.
The trial transcript of Judge Ruddick’s court is available on the internet at www.court-house.com. These transcripts will include the famous three hours of missing audiotapes Judge Ruddick and Jeffrey Lane agreed to lose for 5 and half months. These tapes were finely made available after the Defendant filed two Motions of Objections to the Trial Record.
The transcripts of these two hearings are also available for the public review with editing provided in red type by Jim Burneson. The editing tends to bring the transcript alive for a layperson to understand what is going on and what is going wrong.
Judge Steinhardt’s Order to deny Defendant’s Appeal to the 18th District Court of Arapahoe was provide out to the blue with only Chief Judge Leopold and Judge Steinhardt in on the know of her being appointed to replace District Judge Rafferty.
With Chief Judge Leopold efforts to close this appeal down and save his judges and ex-magistrate Jeffrey Lane from the criticism of the Burnesons this appeal had to be denied no matter how bad the defendant’s due process of law and the denial of a fair trial are proven.
For those of you who have very little experience in dealing with our justice system an appeal from a county court decision is first referred to the Chief Judge of the District Court (Leopold) who assigns a local District Judge (Rafferty) within his District to hear the appeal. The purpose of this in house assignment is to keep the control over the appeal within the district in the event there have been major problems with say the actions of the county judge being appealed.
This also means the District Judge assigned the appeal undoubtedly knows the county judge and is a main problem of maintaining neutrally between his friend the County Judge and the litigant/appellant. This is especially true if the litigant is Pro Se. Being a Pro Se litigant is reviewed in detail in Chapter 1. Pro Se is considered to be a profanity in the world of Judicial Industry.
The next document for review is a letter sent to Chief Judge Mullarkey of the Supreme Court of Colorado by Jim Burneson.
January 18, 2005
TO: The Honorable Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey
Two East 14th Ave
Denver, CO 80203
From: James W. Burneson
Re: Case No 04 SC 379 and Case B 00C 4042 B-2
I don’t know if you will ever see this letter and the enclosed documents. It may be diverted to a clerk and that will be the end of it. If this is the fate it will be a miscarriage of justice when the Supreme Court is protected from the public and can only be contacted by an appeal and case law.
The public needs to have a means of communication with the highest court in Colorado when all other avenues of reporting wrongs fail because the justice industry wants to hide their misconduct to protect their supposed image in the public’s eye.
The public does not hold the judicial process very high. This goes for judges and lawyers. Within the enclosed documents is a list of reasons why the public lacks any trust in the system. I apology for my poor writing skills but freedom of speech didn’t come with the requirement of perfect grammar.
The issues documented are all true and can be proven by transcripts and motions files with the different courts within the 18th District Court. I want you to know I will not be stopped in my effort to get correction of the wrongs committed against the Burnesons while trying to find justice in Colorado.
There is a letter to Chief Judge Leopold, County Judge Cross and reference to other Judges whose misconduct needs to be addressed by some form of oversight committee as other states have created.
The Appeal this court denied was unsigned so everyone involved can claim they had nothing to do with it. It is my belief some clerk in this court has the stamp in his drawer and can by his own authority to make the decision to deny certain Writs to relieve the work load of the Supreme Court. It also shows with what speed Writ can be denied when it is prepared by a Senior Judge instead of the District Judge whose prejudice was proven by is actions.
From the trial in Judge Ruddick’s court through the appeal to this court justice never touched this file. It is intended to be hidden by being filed away in the basement of the Supreme Court. Within weeks of this letter most of the transcripts involved in this letter will be made available on the Internet at www.court-house-com. Carla Burneson’s brief to this court was never read by anyone because the political decision was made when a senior judge’s opinion was to deny the Writ.
We are still peasants outside the 16th Century Castle. There is no King or Queen in the castle because Judges and Lawyers evicted them. The justice system exists only to provide money as salary for Judges and income for lawyers. The public is suppose to believe we are a nation of laws when a Pros Se litigate doesn’t stand a chance to get a fair trial and be equal in litigation.
We don’t need more judges or lawyers. This court must order the prosecution of perjury in civil court. You know the dark secret that there has never been one case prosecuted against a witness for lying in a civil court. The District Attorneys refuse to prosecute any perjury no matter how bad or unjust. If perjury were prosecuted half the lawsuits in civil court would be withdrawn. Problem if this happened half the lawyers would be out of business. So the Justice industry needs to protect their associates with law license over the public’s right to a fair trial. Which is more important the income of lawyers or justice in our courts?
Where does a peasant in Aurora Colorado go to get justice when the 18th District Court is broken down? It protects its own judges and lawyers over the public. Why was the Burneson’s right to purchase copies of the Audiotape of Judge Ruddick’s trial denied by Chief Judge Leopold?
A lawyer like Jeffrey Lane of Patterson, Nuss & Seymour, P.C. can manipulate judges in court trials as he wants it and the judges follow his lead to be able to get a pro se litigate who refuses to be intimidated and threatened by a licensed lawyer.
I observed the worse ex parte communication between judges and lawyers when I as a pro se litigate tried to find a level playing field in court. It appears judges need the help of lawyers to run a trial and have to have ex parte advice before court in chamber or on the phone. Isn’t ex parte illegal or is this another example of perjury in civil court not being enforced.
With Respect to the Office of the Supreme Court.
James W. Burneson
12641 E Bates Cir
Aurora, CO 80014
303-750-1500
Fax 303-283-4603
Email burnesonj@msn.com
Website www.court-house.com
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO
STATE
JUDICIAL
BUILDING
2 EAST 14TH AVENUE
DENVER,
COLORADO 80203-2116
MARY J. MULLARKEY (303) 837-3771
CHIEF JUSTICE
February 2, 2005
Mr. James W. Burneson
12641 E. Bates Circle
Aurora, CO 80014
Dear Mr. Burneson:
This responds to your letter to me dated January 18, 2005 regarding case number 04SC379. This case was reviewed by all of the seven justices of the Colorado Supreme Court and the Petition for Writ of Certiorari was denied. Although this Court's orders are issued by a member of the clerk's office and are not signed by the justices, the clerks act at the direction of the Court.
I am unable to comment any further about this, or any, case.
Sincerely,
Mary J. Mullarkey
_________________________________________________________________
This is a strange response since I have been advised seldom will all seven justices review the same case. I don’t believe any Supreme Court Justice reviewed this Writ. Any Judge who could be called impartial would never allow all the violations committed by Judge Ruddick, Jeffrey Lane and the Appellant Judge Rafferty. Lists of these judicial wrongs are listed at the end of this chapter. These violations of the law were overlooked by the seven justices of this court which means a clerk denied the Writ. Or the justices by claiming they did approve the denial of this Writ approved the acts of violations of the law by a judge and lawyer and this is how the Justice Industry protects their brothers of the law who are committing these wrongs in the name of justice.
Let’s review Judge Steinhardt’s Order that denied the Defendant/Appellant’s Appeal to the District Court.
JUNE_1__2004
|
DISTRICT COURT, ARAPAHOE COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 7325 South Potomac Street Case Centennial, Colorado 80112 Number. 03CV183
Plaintiff(s): DAM EAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
Defendant(s): Div 408 CARLA M. BURNESON |
|
ORDER |
This is an appeal from a judgment of the County Court. Trial was held on December 18, 19, and 20th of 2002. The court entered its Order on December 20, 2002. The trial court conducted a hearing on objections to the transcript on May 29, 2003 and another hearing concerning the record on appeal was held on August 21, 2003. They were both held before the trial judge, the Honorable Steven Ruddick, County Court Judge. The Defendant-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) was present pro se and the Plaintiff-Appellee (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) was represented by Jeffery Lane, Attorney at Law.
I. Procedural and Factual Background
The Plaintiff is a Homeowners Association governed by Colorado Statutes, as well as the Declaration of Covenants and By-laws. The Defendant is a homeowner who resides in the area controlled by the Homeowners Association and is therefore a member of the association. The Defendant's husband was not a homeowner at the commencement of this action.
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for delinquent fees and the attorney fees associated with the collection effort. The Defendant alleged that she did not owe the fees and that the attorney fees were not authorized because the Board of Directors had not legally retained the attorneys pursuant to the By-laws.
This claim that Jeffrey Lane has never been hired has been ignored by all lawyers and judges because they know he hasn’t been hired and the entire litigation will have to be dismissed. Judge Steinhardt never touched this claim and thus it was slipped under the table and the Pro Se Defendant was denied a fair and impartial appeal.
Judgment entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendant for attorney fees of $10,763.15, plus costs. The Defendant appeals the decision.
WRONG SEE THE FOLLOWING:
.
Wrong there was no judgment entered in favor of the Plaintiff since the claimed $300.00 in delinquent assessments was never proven and the court never awarded the payment of $300.00 to the Plaintiff. The only award was made of legal fees and the defendant was not found to have owed any delinquent $300.00 assessments, which was the cause of this lawsuit. Judge Steinhardt intentionally missed this important point that a law student would have recognized as being wrong
II. ISSUES Pending Motions:
1. Defendant's Motion to Recuse Judge Rafferty
This court is sitting as a Senior Judge pursuant to statute. The case was assigned under an agreement with the Judicial Department and the various District Courts. The issue of the Motion to Recuse is therefore moot and held for naught. Judge Steinhardt was appointed in secrecy by Chief Judge Leopold to cover-up the blunders committed by Judge Rafferty. He was rightfully recused for his actions of approving a motion by Mr. Lane to deny Defendant her right to file an appeal which was based on lies by Jeffrey Lane. Judge Ruddick was also wrong for agreeing to deny Defendant/Appellant right to file motions with Judge Ruddick’s court. An appellant District Judge during an appeal stops everything and recognize a motion approved by the lower judge who is the judge being appealed. This is called prejudice on the part of Judge Rafferty and just plan dumb.
2. Defendants Verified Motion to Reverse and Strike Minute Order to Adopt Judge Ruddicks Order dated November 18, 2003.
A District Court Judge cannot change another District Court's ruling. That matter must be raised in the Colorado Court of Appeals.
County Court Issues:
Issue No. 3. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the Motion to Recuse Judge Ruddick for the reason that two affidavits are required to support a motion to recuse a judge.
Issue No. 4. Whether the trial court erred in granting legal fees to Plaintiff when the pro se Defendant was denied a hearing to dispute the fees, and whether it was ever proven to the court that the pro se Defendant knew her defense was frivolous.
Issue No. 5. Whether the Trial Court erred by denying Defendant the right to call defense witness James W. Burneson, whose testimony would have allowed all Defense exhibits to be entered by the defense. This issue also involves the related issue as to whether Judge Ruddick dismissed a major defense witness due to hearsay claims by an unnamed staff member of his court that the witness was listening to the trial through the outer office of the Judge's
. Chamber.
Issue No. 6. The trial court abused its discretion by:
A. Becoming the prosecutor and allowing Plaintiff's counsel to be the Judge.
B. Intimidating the Plaintiff raising his voice and belittling the Defendant.
C. Showing prejudice by always agreeing with Plaintiff's attorney and allowing him to interrupt the Defendant.
D. Denying Defendant the right to speak in court at the May 29th and August 21, 2003 hearings on the Defendant's objection to the record on appeal. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A District Court, in reviewing a decision by the County Court, sits as any appellate court. See Colo. Rule County Court Proc. 411, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-6-410 (West 1999), People v. Anderson, 492 P.2d 844 (Colo. 1972).
It is the function of an appellate
court to review for error the trial court's ruling on issues of law and/or
fact. See Mowry v. Jackson,
343
P.2d 833 (Colo. 1959). Where a question is one solely of law, the appellate
court is not bound by the trial court's conclusions and is just as capable
of determining the question, as was the trial court.
See Radke
v.
Union Pac. Railroad Co.,
334 P.2d 1077 (Colo. 1959),
Tripp v. Cotter Corp., 701 P.2d 124 (Colo. App. 1985). If the
question is one of fact, an appellate court will not disturb the trial
court's findings of fact so long as they are supported by substantial
evidence. See Mowry, 343
P.2d 833; Am. Nat '1 Bank of
Denver v. Christensen,
476 P.2d 281 (Colo. App. 1970).
To determine if the evidence supports the judgment, the reviewing court must search the record for evidence favorable to the prevailing party. See Colo. Mun. League v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 759 P.2d 40 (Colo. 1988), Engel v. Engel, 902 P.2d 442 (Colo. App. 1995). However, "the credibility of witnesses, the sufficiency, probative effect and weight of the evidence, and the inferences and conclusions to be drawn there from are all within the province of the trial court." People in the Interest of A. G. G., 899 P.2d 319 (Colo. App. 1995).
Finally, the judgment of the trial court is presumed to be correct, and the burden of showing reversible error is on the party asserting error. See Anderson v. Colo. State Dept. of Personnel, 756 P.2d 969 (Colo. 1988).
IV. DISCUSSION
This court has reviewed the entire record including all transcripts, exhibits, and the briefs submitted, and is now prepared to rule on the legal issues in the sequence they are listed above:
Wrong there are two transcripts that were not provided in the court record which were the May and August hearing on Defendant/Appellant’s Motion to Object to the Court Record. Copies of these transcripts are provided and are edited by Mr. Burneson in red.
Issue No. 3. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the Motion to Recuse Judge Ruddick for the reason that two affidavits are required to support a motion to recuse a judge.
Rule 397 of the County Court Rules provides, in part: "...The disqualification may be made on the judge's own initiative, or any party may move for such disqualification and any motion by a party for disqualification shall be supported by affidavit."
It is clear that on this issue the trial court erred when it stated on the record that the motion required two affidavits. However, that error is not dispositive of the issue. This was the only issue Judge Ruddick stated was his reason to dismiss the Motion of being rescued. Judge Ruddick gave no other reason to dismiss this motion thus he erred in the dismissal and with no reason other reason offered for the dismissal this appeal should have been granted.
A Judge is required to recuse himself
if he has a personal interest or bias in the issue or is in someway biased
or prejudiced against a party. In
People ex rel. S.G., No.
01CA2036, 2004 WL 351300 (Colo.App. 2004),
p.2 the appellate court stated:
The trial judge denied the motion because, inter alia, it failed to assert `facts from which one could conclude that this court has some interest or prejudice in this case.' The motion failed to state facts from which it could be inferred that the trial judge was biased or prejudiced. It merely asserted that the trial judge had presided over father's criminal trial and made rulings in that case. It did not assert other facts from which bias or prejudice could be inferred.
In this case, the affidavit alleged the recommendation of the Judicial Performance Commission and some vague suggestions of possible friendships. Neither allegation is sufficient to require the recusal of the Trial Judge.
The affidavit was insufficient as a matter of law. The trial court did not err in denying the Motion to Recuse.
Issue No. 4. Whether the trial court erred in granting legal fees to Plaintiff when the pro se Defendant was denied a hearing to dispute the fees, and whether it was ever proven to the court that the pro se Defendant knew her defense was frivolous.
The Defendant alleges that because her defense was not found to be frivolous, the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees.
Attorney fees are generally not available in contract actions. However, the contract itself may require the court to award attorney fees. Colorado follows the "American rule under which a party cannot recover his or her legal fees, whether as `costs' or `damages,' unless there is some exception to the general rule." Ferrell v. Glenwood Brokers, Ltd., 848 P.2d 936 (Colo. 1993).
In the absence of a statute or contractual agreement, attorney fees are not ordinarily recoverable is an element of damages in a tort or contract action. E.F. Hutton & Co. v. Anderson, 42 Colo. App. 497, 596 P.2d 413 (1979).
The bulk of the trial in this
matter was over the award of attorney fees. The Defendant's allegation that
she was denied a hearing to dispute the attorney fees is incorrect. The
facts are that the Defendant owed monthly fees to the Plaintiff. As such,
the delinquent fees were sent to an attorney for collection. Eventually, the
Defendant paid most of the association fees, but refused to pay the attorney
fees that were levied as provided for by contract. 
The provisions of the Declaration of
Covenants and the By-Laws bind the Defendant as a homeowner in the
community. In addition, C.R.S. §§
38-33.3-316, 38-33.3-123, 38-33.3-117, provide for attorney fees
in an action to collect association assessments.
The covenants, Article VI, § 9, provide as follows: "If the assessments are not paid on the date when due...then such assessment shall become delinquent. . ." Further, § 9 provides that "the association may bring an action at law against the owner personally obligated to pay the same ....and there shall be added to the amount of such assessment the costs of preparing and filing the complaint in such action and in the event a judgment is obtained, such judgment shall include interest on the assessment as above provided and reasonable attorney fees to be fixed by the court."
The By-Laws provide: "Each such assessment, together with such interest, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees shall also be the personal obligation of the person who was the owner of such property at the time when the assessment fell due and shall not pass to his successors in title unless expressly assumed by them." The Supreme Court Clerk who reviewed this appeal missed the fact the judge never found the Defendant was guilty of not paying her assessments as claimed by the Plaintiff. Had the judge found the assessments were delinquent he would have awarded the payment of $300.00 as the missing assessments and he didn’t. So this entire rambling of legal cases has no foundation or material value to this appeal.
Although it is clear that the Defendant filed numerous repetitive and oppressive documents which clearly increased the attorney fees, the trial court did not find that the Defendant brought a frivolous defense. Predjuctial statement without foundation. What motions filed by the Defendant that was noted to be oppressive, repetitive. Numerous motions has to be determined as in other case law to be 250 motions not the few motions of record made against this court.
The attorney fees in this matter were granted to the Plaintiff based on contract.
C.R.S. § 13-17-101 is an exception to the American rule and provides that "attorney fees may be recovered at the discretion of the trial court if it is determined that the bringing or defense of an action has been `substantially frivolous, substantially groundless, or substantially vexatious."' Bunnett v. Smallwood, 793 P.2d 157 (1990).
A claim or defense is frivolous if the proponent can present no rational argument based on the evidence or law in support of that claim or defense. See Western United Realty, Inc. v. Isaacs, 679 P.2d 1063 (Colo. 1984).
An award of attorney fees must be reasonable. See Newport Pacific Capital Co. v. Waste, 878 P.2d 136 (Colo.App.1994). "The determination of reasonableness is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed unless it is patently erroneous and unsupported by the evidence." Id. In the instant case, the attorney submitted an affidavit attesting to his fees. In addition, Plaintiff's original attorney testified in court as to the reasonableness and necessity of his own and present counsel's attorney fees. This is great $30,000 in legal fees to a buddy of the court for a $300.00 delinquent assessment that was never proven to be owed. What the hell was the legal fee for a loan to a friend with no interest?
Although not expressly an issue in this case, the Defendant believes that a pro se litigant should be treated in a different way than a litigant represented by counsel. "A litigant is permitted to present his own case, but, in so doing, should be restricted to the same rules of evidence and procedure as is required of those qualified to practice law before our courts; otherwise, ignorance is unjustly rewarded." Knapp v. Fleming, 127 Colo. 414, 258 P.2d 489 (1953). All civil trials that have a litigator who is pro se must be advised of the dirty little secret that perjury is not enforced in our civil courts. The Judge knows it and that’s why he lied about his staff seeing the witness listening to the court proceedings through the court office door. (Not the door to the court from a hallway but inside the judge’s court office filled with staff members.) So a pro se is not treated equal with a lawyer because he knows he can lie and nothing will happen to him. But the peasants are put through a charade of “Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth which is unenforceable. No lawyer is allowed to tell this dirty secret to his client especially in a divorced case. This is one of the biggest shams run on the public by tort twister with or without a robe. This issue will be addressed by the Federal Court system and if refused the public will be very much aware of the sham. We are still peasants outside of the castle and lawyers are screwing the public with their law license.
Furthermore, "[i]f a litigant, for whatever reason, sees fit to rely upon his own understanding of legal principles and the procedures involved in the courts, he must be prepared to accept the consequences of his mistakes and errors." Viles v. Scofield, 128 Colo. 185, 261 P.2d 148 (1953). Citing a case law without being on point as to the exact errors committed by the Defendant doesn’t make the defendant guilty of committing errors. This is an old trick of lawyers and judges cite a case law and then move on without tying action claimed to be committed by the Defendant.
The trial court did not err in finding that the fees were reasonable and necessary in granting Plaintiff's request for attorney fees. Thirty thousand dollars for legal fees awarded against a homeowner for not being guilty of owing a $300.00 delinquent assessment.
Issue No. 5. Whether the Trial Court erred by denying Defendant her right to call defense witness James W. Burneson, whose testimony would allow all Defense exhibits to be entered by the defense. Part of this issue involves whether Judge Ruddick dismissed a major defense witness due to hearsay claims by an unnamed staff member of his court who had asserted that the witness was listening to the trial through the outer office of the Judge's chamber.
"The purposes of a sequestration order
are to prevent a witness from conforming
his testimony to that of other witnesses and to discourage
fabrication and collusion."
People v. Wood, 743 P.2d
422 (Colo. 1987). Determinations relating to alleged violations of
sequestration orders are well within the trial court's discretion, and
reversal is not required absent a finding of abuse of that discretion.
See People v. Gomez, 632
P.2d 586 (1981). To demonstrate an abuse of discretion, the defendant just
show prejudice resulting from the trial court's ruling.
See People v. Scarlett, 985 P.2d 36 (Colo. App. 1998).
In People v. P.R.G., 729 P.2d 380 (Colo. App.1986), the court held that, "[i]n determining whether to impose sanctions for violation of a sequestration order, a trial court needs to consider" several factors. They are:
First, it must consider the involvement, or lack thereof, of a party or his counsel in the violation of the order by the witness. Second, it should consider the witness' actions and state of mind in his or her violation of the sequestration order, and whether the violation was inadvertent or deliberate.
In this case, it was clear from the witness's testimony that the sequestration order was violated. The information received from the Judge's staff was that the witness was listening to the trial from somewhere near the courtroom. The next logical conclusion is that the witness discussed the proceedings with the Defendant (who is his wife) This is great what could Jim Burneson a sequestered witness tell his wife about the trail which she is active as the Pro Se Defendant and in the court running her own defense. This is one of the dumbest efforts of Senior Judge Steinhardt to pull off in this Order. Carla Burneson was in the court all the time and didn’t need any update on what went on from a Jim Burneson outside of the court while claimed to be listening through a door. Judge Steinhardt is trying to put a new face on a lie by a county judge on this issue of perjury by the judge. And the Supreme Court clerk didn’t catch this twist by Judge Steinhardt.
These statements are assumptions with no proof the witness James W. Burneson ever was listening to the court proceedings through the office court door from the judge’s chamber to the court. How the hell could the witness accomplish listening to the court proceedings without being caught within 3 minutes of the act by the staff in the same office? The judge to make this hearsay real had to call the staff member to the stand and have him testify what he saw and Judge Ruddick didn’t do that because he knew it was a lie.
The Defendant alleges prejudice because her witness was not allowed to testify. However, she did not give the trial judge an offer of proof. Further, the Defendant's theory of the case is that the Plaintiff did not legally retain the Plaintiff's lawyer. In this matter, the Defendant does not have standing to question the hiring of the Plaintiff's attorney or the audit requirements as part of the assessment of fees. A member of an HOA does have standing to question the hiring of an attorney by his/her association. A member of the association is not a strange third party removed from the HOA. He/she is part owner of the HOA.
-
The Defendant was given an
opportunity to defend the late payment of the fees and the reasonableness
and necessity of collection costs. The By-laws clearly require that the 
residents of the community who are
delinquent in paying fees and assessments pay for the collection thereof.
There was adequate testimony that the monthly fees and assessments were paid
after collection efforts commenced. Any fees that
were delinquent were paid but did not include the $300.00 claimed to be
still delinquent in this trial. The court agreed with the defendant that
the $300.00 was never owed so he didn’t award payment of this amount. Judge
Steinhardt is trying to hide the facts to cover up the blunders of three
judges including her own order to save the judicial industry the
embarrassment of admitting a miscarriage of justice occurred in the 18th
District Court system.
The unrebutted testimony was that the efforts of the Defendant to avoid paying the initial minimal fees increased the necessary attorney time and thereby increased the fees. Indeed, the 31/2 day hearings and the motions filed, each substantially increased the attorney fees.
The witness's testimony does not appear to be crucial to the defense. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the sanction against the Defendant. The witness who could have rebutted the testimony with the combined conspiracy of Judge Ruddick and Jeffrey Lane was denied his right and the Defendant’s right to testify. Lane had to keep Burneson off the stand because he could have gotten all Defense exhibits entered as evidence.
Issue No. 6. The trial court abused its discretion by:
A. Becoming the prosecutor and allowing Plaintiff's counsel to be the Judge.
B. Intimidating the Plaintiff by raising his voice and belittling the Defendant.
C. Showing prejudice by always agreeing with Plaintiff's attorney and allowing him to interrupt the Defendant.
D. Denying the Defendant the right to speak in court at the two hearings on the Defendant's objection to the record hearing on May 29th and August 21, 2003.
A trial court has substantial discretion in deciding questions concerning the
Admissibility of evidence. See People v. Ibarra, 849 P.2d 33 (Colo.1993). Absent an abuse of this discretion, the evidentiary rulings of a trial court will be affirmed. See People v. Quintana, 882 P.2d 1366 (Colo.1994).
"Sufficiency of evidence and inferences and conclusions drawn there from must be viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party in the trial proceedings." Winston Financial Group, Inc. v. Fults Management, 872 P.2d 1356 (Colo.App.1994). The findings of the trial court will not be disturbed on review if they are supported by evidence in the record. See id.
Judges may question witnesses in either a trial to the court or a jury trial. The trial court did not allow counsel to act as the presiding judge.
Furthermore, the procedural aspects of the trial are also within the discretion of the trial court. The transcripts do not reveal an abuse of that discretion.
This court finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion legally or procedurally.
There is support in the record for all of the
trial court's findings. The trial court did not abuse its discretion, nor
did it err in its factual findings or legal conclusions.
Accordingly, the decision of the trial
court is AFFIRMED.
The matter is remanded to the trial court for execution of the Judgment and the determination of appellate attorney fees.
SO ORDERED.
Entered this___________ day of May, 2004.
BY THE COURT:
Joyce S. Steinhardt Senior Judge* *sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice
A second year law student could and will review all transcripts of this case and footnote what violation of the law were committed by Judge Ruddick, Judge Rafferty, Judge Leopold, Judge Steinhardt and the seven judges on the Supreme Court of Colorado who approved the actions of this Kangaroo Court.
VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW BY THE COURT AND JUDGES OF THE 18TH DISTRICT COURT OF ARAPAHOE COUNTY
- Judge Ruddick committed perjury by claiming a staff person caught witness listening to the court proceedings. Staff person has to be called as a witness to testify and be cross examined by the Defendant/Appellant.
- Staff witness does not testify then Judge Ruddick’s claims are hearsay and can’t be entered in this case as fact.
- Using the excuse the witness Mr. Burneson violated his order of being sequestered was intentionally claimed to prevent his testifying for the defense.
- In the review of the transcripts (all of them) the Defense witness was continually cut off from speaking and Mr. Lane could take all the time he wanted and wander around any subject he wanted to discussed.
- Lane’s witnesses were suborn perjury in their testimony. The contract claimed by Mr. Lane was not signed by the Board of Directors nor did Mr. Silva have any authority to sign it and it was never signed by the law firm of Patterson, Nuss & Seymour, P.C. Judge Ruddick approved an invalid document which was later never entered as an exhibit to hide a illegal document. Steinhardt missed most of these errors in her effort to find against the witness.
- Defendant during her closing statement was interrupted 26 times by Judge Ruddick and Jeffrey Lane. They had a lot of fun during this portion of the Kangaroo trial.
This entire case from trial to Supreme Court will be submitted to law schools for their student to review as a test to find the 48 violations from trial thru Judge Steinhardt’s Order.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENT WAS SUBMITTED BY AN OUT OF STATE JUDGE OF HIGH ACCLAIM.
It appears that none of the judges took this pro se case seriously from the beginning and the case got worse as it went along because of judicial laziness. A pro se litigant is entitled to the same concern, diligence, judicial demeanor, respect for the litigants as those represented by counsel. "granted your honor ,you would rather have all litigants represented by counsel because your job would will be easier. That is not always possible nor necessary. Judges have the responsibility to be fair, diligent ,prepared and attentive to the case immediately before them. This thick file you make reference to would not be so thick if the judges involved in this case so would have so conducted themselves. Instead we have the unfortunate attitude" well here is one of those pro se guys ,they do not know what they are doing so I really do not have to give this matter any attention and the other attorney will probably chase them away for me." Attorneys are officers of the court and they must conduct themselves accordingly.
One more opinion from another Judge
, I read the closing arguments all the way through and have the following reaction. Carla did an excellent job, she was concise, stayed on point----when she was actually allowed to speak, and made sense. The attorney Lane sounded like something from a low budget movie where the writers and director had obviously never been in a courtroom. I have never read anything like it ….. the judge and the attorney both giving the closing argument. The interruptions by opposing counsel and the judge when Carla was speaking or trying to speak were outrageous and beyond understanding in a court of law. I could not believe some of the comments that were made on the record……….don't these cases ever get reviewed in Colorado? An appellate court should really see this transcript…..did attorney Lane actually pass the Colorado bar exam? I WAS TALKING OUT LOUD WHILE I WAS READING this thing and yelling at the judge and attorney. The state disciplinary counsel should be sent a copy of this farce to review. 14,000 dollars to collect a 600 dollar assessment in the USA? That is insane…I don’t think totalitarian governments even allow this type of larceny…the worst part is that a judge in a court of law said that was reasonable. These are the kind of cases that cause many Americans to believe that justice may be something that you buy. I’m ashamed to say I’m in the same profession.
The following letter sent to Carla Burneson from Shaun M. Zallaps Clerk of the Court is another violation of the law that Judge Leopold and Chief Judge Mullarkey have unclean hands in their involvement. Judge Leopold’s Order denying the public their right to purchase audiotapes or CDs of trials deny the public their check and balance to keep the Judges from editing transcripts since the public has no copy to compare a transcript once transcribed.
The missing three hours of audiotapes hidden by Judge Ruddick and Jeffrey Lane would never have been found if the defendant were denied a copy of the audio tapes. This is not the first time Jim Burneson has experienced a judge changing a court transcript.
This order by Judge Leopold must be reversed immediately or the State Legislature must pass a new law ordering all audiotapes or CDs to be public records as other states have ordered for the protection of the Public.
Its time the peasants of Colorado get the system of justice the founder intended instead of the Mullarkey rule of justice that I more concerned with protecting the judges and lawyers over the citizens of Colorado.
Jim Burneson
12641 E Bates Cir
Aurora, CO 80014
Email burnesonj@msn.com
