CHAPTER 11 JUDGE CROSS 18TH COUNTY
ARAPAHOE
KANGAROO COURT BY
THERE ARE THREE TRANSCRIPT INCLUDED IN THIS
CHAPTER
Jeffrey Lane Esq. in
his effort to protect the Board of Directors of the Dam East Homeowner
Association (Located northwest of the intersection of
These two lawyers
worked out the details ex parte and decided the claimed violation to prove
against Burneson was the word “molest” which is defined in the dictionary as
also “annoyed.” So they both agreed
Mr. Burneson has annoyed the board, which
The trial was held
in August 8, 2004 and sure enough Judge Cross converted the charge of a
Temporary Protection Order to a Permanente Protection Order. Another Kangaroo Court for
The Directors each
one testified that Mr. Burneson’s constant letters and email were annoying to
them and they felt uncomfortable in his presents. One director Ms. Margie Moore a
schoolteacher claimed he was rude to her and she was fearful of him. (Third grade school teachers have fear
of no one.) One problem with the Order was Mr. Burneson proved he was
knowledgeable about the First Amendment and he explained to the court it didn’t
have the jurisdiction to deny this right as guaranteed by the Bill of
Rights. It really is frustrating
when these God Dam peasants have an education.
All transcripts are
noted with commits about the proceedings by Jim Burneson in red print. This
brings life to a document that is usually boring.
This transcript of
Judge Cross’s Order for a Permanente Protection Order is attached as follows:.
|
County
Court, |
|
|
|
|
1790 |
* COURT USE ONLY |
|
|
|
THE DAM EAST
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff, vs. JAMES W.
BURNESON, Defendant. |
|
||
|
Attorney or
Party Without Attorney (Name and Address)
: Phone
Number:
E-mail: . FAX Number:
Atty. Reg. #: |
|
||
|
Case No.
B2004C4421 Div.: A2 |
|
||
|
TRANSCRIPT
|
|
||
THIS MATTER came on
for Permanent Restraining Order Hearing on August 6, 2004 before the HONORABLE
CHRISTOPHER C. CROSS, County
Court Judge. The following is a partial record of the proceedings
held.
FOR THE
PLAINTIFF:
MR. LANE, ESQ
FOR THE
DEFENDANT:
PRO SE
1
INDEX
2
FINDINGS and ORDERS
3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1.
AUGUST 6,
2004
2(Whereupon, with all parties present, the
following
3 proceedings were had in Arapahoe County
Court Division
4 A Case Number
B04C4421, The Dam East Homeowner's
5 Association, Inc. vs. James W.
Burneson:)
6 THE COURT: The Court, has reviewed
the
7 evidence and the statutes, which are
applicable and
8 comes to the following conclusions. This
whole, -just
9 to put some things in perspective, the
First Amendment
10 issue really does not go to the primary
question in the
11 case, which is whether or not to issue a
restraining
12 order, because the, what the Court has to
find is
13 whether or not under 13-14-102, there are
grounds for
14 the issuance of a protection order or
under Rule 365
15 the same basis. And, the First Amendment
has nothing
16 to do with, the Courts finding of whether
or not to
17 issue a restraining order pursuant to
those statutes.
Wrong the actions of the
defendant is covered by the freedom of speech First Amendment and can’t be used
as evidence of a violation of any rule but slander and that would need to be
proven in a civil lawsuit.
18 As I mentioned before and Courts all the
time are
19 restricting peoples liberties protected by
the First
20 Amendment in various restraining orders, we do it on
a
21 daily basis, if there are grounds for the
issuance of
22 the restraining order. Wrong this law of issuing restraining orders pertains not to
annoying a public figure but marital problems and child custody suits. The
public’s rights to freedom of speech is not being restrained everyday. Maybe in Judge Cross’s court.
So, the issue isn't
what
23 right's Mr. Burneson has to
make comment, it's whether
24 or not he has violated a statute, which
gives rise, not
25 violated a statute, but whether his
actions as proven
Page 4
1 has, give rise to the issuance of a
protection order,
2. either under Rule 365 or 13-14-102. The
issue of First
3 Amendment comes into if I restrain, grant a
restraining
4 order, what restraints can I under the law
restrain Mr.
5 Burneson from doing, and those are First
Amendment
6 issues. But, I want to make it clear to Mr.
Burneson
7 that the First Amendment has nothing to do
with the
8 preliminary finding of whether or not there
are facts
9 to support the issuance of a restraining
order. The
10 Court, concludes that there are facts,
which support
11 the issuance of a civil restraining order,
civil
12 protection order under both Rule 365, as
well as under
13 Rule 13-14-102. The Courts, obligation is
to determine
14 whether or not there are facts, which support an
15 allegation that there, unless restrained a person
might
16 assault or threaten bodily harm, I don't
believe any of
17 the other aspects in 13-14-102 apply or
under Rule 365
18 to prevent attacks, beatings, mo--
molesting or
19 threatening the life of the Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff
20 has urged, the Court to read the term
molest in its
21 most broad application and although I am
always
22 reluctant to do so, because I think the, a
one common
23 sense interpretation of 365 is that every
other term in
24 there requires some, something more than
just annoying.
25 Attacking, beating, threatening the life,
threatening
Page 5
1 to do serious bodily harm, all of those
require much
2 more than a very broad interpretation or
definition of
3 the word molesting, which is as simple as
being
4 annoying. Lane has coached Judge Cross to use the word annoying in the
broadest sense to stop Burneson from writing and attending board meetings
quoting the Covenants and Bylaws to
the incompetent Board of Directors.
And, certainly I know other Judges' and I
5 have urged Judges' when I was in private
practice to
6 take a very narrow view of what molest
means, but since
71
I've been on the bench and
having done quite a bit of
8 reading on, reading, or interpreting of
statutes and
9 things like that, I, I think that I have to
use a
10 common understanding of the word unless
the Legislature
11 tells me to use some other definition.
And, the term
12 molesting does include, as pointed out by
13 also in my dictionary, just, my dictionary
just says
14 annoying.
15 than just saving annoying, but annoying
with some
16 malevolent intent, I guess is, I'm not
sure exactly the
17 words that were used in that, but it
doesn't matter the
18 definition, I, so the point is I'm going
to adopt the
19 broader definition of the molesting for
the purposes of
20 the statute until the Supreme Court or
somebody,
When
21 Legislature defines it as the other half
of the
22 definition of molesting, which in some
respects and
23 arguably could be more in line with the
rest of the
24 words in that sentence, and that would be
some sexual
25 contact. But, until the Legislature or the
Supreme
1 Court tells me, as a Judge, that that's what the
molest
2 means I think I do have to use a common
sense and
3 broader approach to that word
and will follow it.
The,
4 I don't think simply annoying somebody
short of perhaps
5 rising to the level of almost harassment
under 18-9‑
6 III, or as urged under 18-9-108, disrupting
lawful
7 assembly, I don't believe that simply
annoying somebody
8 really would be actionable, otherwise I'd
have
9 restraining orders against my kids, but I
think it me-‑
10 when it rises to the level of arguably
criminal
11 behavior under a, any statute, 18-9-108
disrupting
12 lawful assembly, 18-9-111 harassment,
which is
13 initiating communication with a person
anonymously or
14 otherwise by telephone, computer, computer
network in a
15 manner intended harass or threaten bodily
injury or
16 property damage, again the word harass
therefore isn't
17 defined.. Harassment is defined
as harassing somebody.
18 Makes repeated communications at
inconvenient hours
19 that invade the privacy of another.
Interfere with the
20 use and enjoyment of another's home or
private
21 residence. Repeatedly, insults, taunts,
challenges or
22 makes communications in an offensively
course language 23.to another in a manner likely to provoke a violent
or
v
24 disorderly.- response. I think when the
issue of
25 annoyance and I use the word annoyance to,
as out of
1 the word molesting, rises to the level of,
at least an
2. allegation of criminal behavior. Then I
think it's
3 protected by Rule 365, and the Court
concludes that the
4 evidence in this case clearly shows that an
argument
5 could be made that Mr. Burneson is
harassing the
6 members of the board under 18-9-111 the
statute as I've
7 just read it or possibly even under
18-9-108,
8 disrupting lawful assembly. None of the above actions were proven in against Jim Burneson
in this trial. No witness on the stand proved Jim Burneson caused any of these
violations so how can a PPO be issued against him? Buddy
9 not necessary for me to find that there has
been some
10 criminal violation and I'm certainly not
finding that
11 there has been some criminal violation, I
am saying
12 that arguable the evidence before the
Court would
13 support an argument that those, that
conduct of
14 molesting has risen to a level that the
Court must take
15 some action. Wrong again there is no evidence before this court to support
an argument that conduct of molesting has reached a
level the requires some action. The, some of the evidence, which
supports
16 that and I'm not going to go through all
of it at this
17 hour and I don't, record speaks for
itself, but in
18 going through the, the Exhibit A and B and
now being
19 offered exhibit and Exhibit C was also
al-- I read
20 that, but then there was a new one that
was entered
21 today. The exhibits are replete with
behavior that is
22 not protected and would be, could
be
considered to
be
23 harassment under 18-9-111 as I've read it
to, just read
24 it into the
record. The, again I'm not
going to go
25 through it, I'm looking for Exhibit A,
I've got it here
Page 8
1 somewhere. Exhibit A there are numerous
threats, veil
2 threats of every type imaginable, threat of
litigation,
3threats of losing jobs, threats of losing
law licenses,
4 threats of
violence, threats of belittling, threats
of,
5 using profane language, or
not threats of, but using
6 profane language, or profane
isn't limited to cuss
7 words. None of this is evident in the exhibits and that’s why he is not going to review the exhibits.
There is one point if
I remember correctly
8 where a dot, dot was put in there and that's really
not
9 that profane, but very negative language,
in
10 appropriate language. Especially, and I
think that the
11 fact that this is a volunteer board does
have something
12 to do with what a person really needs to
do and what's
13 in the norms of decency and the boundaries
an human
14 discourse. But, calling Mr. Hummell, an
attorney a
15 village idiot, threatening to greave him,
threatening
16 that he'll lose his law license, When a lawyer is president of the HOA and he can’t enforce
the Covenants and Bylaws as written and instead enforces his own singular
opinion without authority there are worse names he could be called. Disbarment
is a action open to all citizens and this one is not a threat but a promise.
better have the
police
17 there to protect the board, Lane did have the board there to protect himself at the December board
meeting when Mr. Trout was to be installed as a board member until it was found
out he was a registered sex offender and
18 tries to cover himself by saying not from
me but from
19 other owners. At
that board meeting
20 Court that any other owner has written
three hundred,
21 two hundred and fifty, three hundred and
fifty e-mails
22 or letters, Since
1999 there has been at least this number of letters written to the board because
the board never answered any of them.
If the first letter goes unanswered then a second letter will be sent and
after 50 letters go unanswered by the board names will be used to get an answer. calls people the
village idiot, gets people
23 worried about
actions, other than Mr. Burneson and I
24 think that then just to pass off that
other somebody,
25 else might cause some violence is
disingenuous. The,
Page 9
1 again I don't want to go through every one
of these,
2 but as you, anybody can read these e-mails
and see that
3 they are inappropriate in there tenor. If
they had
4 just pointed out by-law violations I don't
think we
5 would be here, you know calling people a
rubber stamp
6 is offensive, when
you are a public official names can not be stopped when it is in the public’s
right of freedom of speech. people take jobs seriously and
using
7 those kinds of words is offensive, and the
Court notes
8 that I had to strike a disparaging and, you know
9 difficult statement
by Mr.
Burneson in the
pleading
10 that he filed just today, or yesterday.
Mr. Burneson,
11 thinks he's cute by using these terms,
they are not
12 appreciated by people. Being called a
dummy, a village
13 idiot, an orphan, a puppet, a rubber
stamp, any of
14 those words, Lane is the scum of the law
business, This really hurt Judge Cross’s
feelings about his friend and immediately show prejudice on his part since
Jeffrey Lane is not covered in this PPO as a Plaintiff.
and
15 all of these things are offensive and they
rise to the
16 level of having no legitimate purpose,
which is where
17 18-9-111 comes into play. Legitimate purpose is not mentioned in this statute.
Mr. Burneson, you may
feel
18 that you have a legitimate purpose, but
you've over
19 stepped your bounds in trying to
effectuate your
20 purpose. Lazy, incompetent, telling that
to a board
21 member, which is
the truth all of them refuse to perform their fiduciary duties. Am I denied my
right of free speech telling the truth about the incompetent Board of
Directors? thee are others
of those tenor, which goes to
22 the level of inappropriate conduct, which
then rise to
23 the next level of, and I thought Ms. Moore
probably
24 said it best, when she testified that she
was worried
25 that he's harassing me, he's derogatory, he's
rude and
Page 10
1 it makes me uncomfortable. She asked
him not to send
2 anymore e-mails did continue to happen, his
behavior is
3 disturbing, I feel threatened by it at
every meeting. Ms. Moore has never read the Covenants
and Bylaws and if she did she would not understand them. She feels threatened by her ignorance of
what she is to do as a board member.
4 Mr. Burneson, when you realize that human
beings are
5 human beings and whether you like what they
do or not
6 isn't the issue, the issue is how you
communicate that
7 and I conclude that you've communicated it
in an
8 entirely inap-- inappropriate and perhaps
even illegal
9 way. The threats of violence, There was never any threats of violence in this entire
hearing and yet Judge Cross wants to interject all wrongs known to mankind to
prove Burneson
Page 11
needs this PPO> the Court concludes are
10 escalating. I do believe that you can read
Exhibit C
11 any, there are certainly two readings of
Exhibit C, but
12 when you read Exhibit C in conjunction
with all of the
13 other e-mails that were sent at best one
can conclude
14 that this is a veiled threat, but there's no
question
15 that the threat was of, that Mr. Burneson
was going to
16 disrupt the board until he was either
arrested or got
17 his seat as a claimed director. The
statement, "none
18 of them can stop me from taking my
rightful position as
19 a director on this broad, it may involve
physical
20 assault", and even if I read that as Mr.
Burneson would
21 like me to read it, that the threatened
assault would
22 therefore, as he's walking to take his
place others are
23 prevents him from doing that, that is
disrupting a
24 lawful assembly, that's 18-9-108, a person
commits
25 disrupting lawful assembly if intending to
prevent or
Page 12
1 disrupt any lawful
meeting, per session or gathering,
2 he significantly
obstructs or interferes with meeting
3 or gathering by
physical action, verbal utterance or
4 any other means,
commits a Class 3 Misdemeanor. And,
5 even if I were to
read that, that Mr. Burneson, himself
6 is not thre--
threatening physical violence against
7 anybody, but is
saying, I'm going to just walk on up
8 there and unless
somebody stops me I'm going to be a
9 director, but if
somebody stops me then that's were the
10 physical violence
is, that maybe so, but that's
dis-‑
11 disrupting a lawful
assembly. Remember now this is a meeting under Robert's
Rules Of Order and not any state statute. And, although the
high
12 probably of
13 Burneson you are a
bully, you are going to get your way
14 or ther-- you're
going to cause a problem and when you
15 don't get your way
you cause a bigger problem, and when
16 you don't get your
way again cause even a bigger
17 problem. And, if
$57,000.00 dollars isn't worth
18 conveniencing you
that your methods are a little bit
19 backward
something's wrong. You know, this is
not
20 fighting with the
government to get care for a sick
21 child whose going
to die unless you get some help for
22 this
child, What the hell does that mean? It is just babble this is a homeowner's
association and to
23 get to this extent
where your threatening physical harm
24 to people and
causing people to not want to be on
board
25 of directors rather
then have to face you, something's 12
1
wrong and I don't know how much money you want to have
2 to pay these guys to
figure out that your behavior is
3
inappropriate, but my guess is it's not going to stop.
ONCE AGAIN THERE WAS NEVER ANY PHYSICAL HARM THREATENED AND NONE HAS EVER OCCURRED SINCE NOR BEFORE THIS PPO.
4 I'm going to
restrain you from something, I haven't
5 quite got to what
that is yet, but, and, you know I
6 would note
parenthetically that you're not the Lone
7 Ranger on this, this
goes both ways.
8 to Mr. Walter,
Exhibit 1 is totally inappropriate and
9 you
should be admonished for writing that letter, that
10 note knowing that,
that would become part of a law
11 suite at, someday
and it's inappropriate, but
12 is
not the person involved in this case. Yes he is you are
doing every thing he wants against Mr. Burneson without any real evidence.
It is you Mr.
13 Burneson and if
14
that's a different issue, That’s OK for a license
lawyer they can overstep their bounds but not a Pro Se Defendant. and, but its no question
that
15
there's great animosity on both sides and the sooner it
16 ends the sooner the
better it is for everybody and
17 certainly would be
a lot better on your wallet. But,
18 there's no question
in my mind that the actions of the
19 Defendant rise to
the level of needing protection, the
20 Plaintiff's needing
protections and I find it even
21 under 13-14-102,
that unless restrained, threatened
22 bodily harm an
assault could occur and when I don't
23
have to just present, prevent assaults by you Mr.
24
Burneson against somebody else I can restrain you from
25 your conduct so
that assaults don't occur and you have
Page 13
1 threatened in
Exhibit C that unless you are restrained
2 an assault will
occur. Now, it doesn't that you are
3 going to be doing
the assault, I've already gone over
4 that, but I can
under 13-14-102, prevent assaults by
5 the issuance of a
restraining order and I believe that
6 Exhibit C is clear
as to why under 13-14-102 I have
7 legal justification
for issuing a restrain-- protection
8 order against you to
prevent an assault, because you
9 have threatened that
unless you are restrained there
10 will be a physical
assault. Never threatened any assault on any one and it
hasn’t happened to date.
Now, I understand your
11 position is that
means somebody will be assaulting you, So why am I
being charged with the PPO and not the Board of Directors
12 but that's still an
assault that I have the right to
13 prevent. Right to prevent??? So, I find that, again without
going through
14 each and every
e-mail, I might want to comment there
15 was one other, let me just look through this
real
16 quick, there was
one other comment, oh one of the, one
17 of the other, now
I'll get to the next thing and that
18 is, unless
restrained this behavior will continue, if I
19 firmly believed you
Mr. Burneson that this behavior
20 stop and all you
would do is cite page and letter of
21 by-law, maybe I
would feel a little differently. I
22 have nothing in
this record that would convince me that
23 you're going to be
anything different unless
24 restrained. Your
comment on, I believe it cros-‑
25 direct, no cross
examination, this is your own
Page 14
1 testimony without
even anybody prompting it by a
2 question, and that
is, "name calling is my right under
3 the First
Amendment", wrong. Name calling is not your
4 right under the
First Amendment.
5 MR. BURNESON: Okay.
6 THE COURT: Mr. Eddy Larson, this kind
of
7 goes back to the
other one that he said that he was
8 being accused of
kick-backs. The Court, concludes that
9 the testimony from
Ms. Moore, again was persuasive and
10 that unless
restrained the Defendant could continue to
11 do actions, which
could cause an assault or annoyance
12 under the molesting terminology by her testimony
that
13 you're very
volatile and unstable Wow all of these weakness of
assault or annoyance molesting very volatile and unstable. Where in the testimony or letters and
emails is any of these acts proven??? and Mr.
Hummell's
14 testimony that it,
it'd been escalating. Mr. Silva's
15 testimony that the
e-mails have become very personal,
16 again is showing an
escalation that is of concern. The
17 two other factors
that I wanted to comment on both
18 showing why there
were threats of bodily harm, as well
19 as why unless
restrained this could continue. Mr.
20
21 challenged when he
defended Ms. Moore. This was a lie by Mr. Campbell.
Mr.
Hummell
22 testified that he
was physically touched, tapped on the
23 chest, in a, I'm
telling you what I want type of
24 manner, which is an
aggressive and under the standard
25 of assault there's
not a whole lot of difference
Page 15
1 between tapping
somebody on the chest and a third
2 degree assault,
which is any physical pain, illness or
3 any impairment. You
tap somebody hard enough to cause
4 any pain and it's a
third degree assault, and there's a
5 very fine line between tapping somebody light
enough
6 that it doesn't
cause pain and hard enough that it does
7 cause pain. And, I
have the right under 13-14-102 to
8 try to prevent that
kind of assault from ever occurring
9 again. There's
nothing to indicate that unless
10 restrained. Mr.
Burneson you would do anything but
11 continue to stand
in front of people with hands
12 clinched, red fac--
faced and shouting at people until
13 you got your way.
Where in the hell did this impression come into the
court? So, the Court is
going to issue a
14 Permanent Civil
Protection Order, the only Plaintiff
15 named that I don't
think I have any evidence for in
16 order to restrain
is Quigg somebody.
18 THE COURT: Kelsey
Quigg, I, I don't think I
19 heard any testimony
whatsoever about Kelsey Quigg.
20 Now, there was a
comment in one of the e-mails about a
21 Kelsey being stupid
or something like that, it was kind
22 of a typical
verbiage and I don't remember where it
23 was, but that, I
kept waiting during the trial
for some
24 discussion about
Kelsey Quigg and by name I am not
25 going to restrain
you from contacting her unless she is
Page 16
1 a broad member, `cause I am going t restrain you
from
2 harassing, annoying
or alarming any broad member. So,
3 if she's a broad
member then she would be included in
4 that respect, but
I'm not going to include her
5 individually. I am
going to include The Dam East
6 Homeowner's
Association, Inc. Board and Officer's,
7 Jonathan Hummell,
Finn Eddy Larson, Alan Campbell and
8 Margie Moore, as the
protected parties. The, I've lost
9 my pen, hang on a
second, well hang on a second, no
10 pens out here. Mr.
Burneson, is your address 12641
12 MR. BURNESON:
Yes, sir.
13 THE COURT: And,
what's your date of birth?
14 MR. BURNESON:
February 3, `39.
15 THE COURT: And,
your eye color?
16 MR. BURNESON:
Brown.
17 THE COURT Now, I
run into the difficulty
18 and this is what
I'm struggling with. And, this is
19 where the First
Amendment does come into play. And,
20 that is what can I
restrain you from doing. Well,
21((( first of all I
can restrain you from harassing,
22 stalking, injuring,
threatening or molesting any of
23 these people or
otherwise violating this order. You
24 shall not use,
attempt to use or threaten to you
25 physical force
against the Plaintiff's that would
Page 17
1
reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury. You
2 shall
not engage in any conduct that would place the
3
Plaintiff in a reasonable fear of bodily injury and
4 adding to that
sentence, or violating the restraining
5 order, which would
also be what I've just tried to
6
describe in some detail and that's why I went into that
7 detail, because if
there's an allegation that you have
8 done any of things,
such as disrupting lawful assembly
9 or harassment by
initiating communication in an
10 offensive way that
would be a violation of a
11 restraining order,
of the protection order and that's
12 covered, and that
has nothing to do with the First
13 Amendment. You do
these things in such a way that it
14 would rise to the
level of a criminal charge of
15 harassment or
disrupting lawful assembly, First
16 Amendment is not at
issue and you are not protected
17 from doing those
things and that's why I've given you
18 as much definition
as I can of what those things are
19 and I wanted to make
it very clear from the outset that
20 the First Amendment
does not protect you from criminal
21 statutes and if you
do those things that rise to the
22 level of a criminal
statue whether you're criminally
23 charged or not,))) None of the described violation inside the three brackets,
ever occurred
24
association or any of these Plaintiff's will have the
25
right to come in here on a Contempt of Court Citation
Page 18
1
and if proven to the level it's been proven here today
2 you
will go to jail. Now Judge Cross starts in on his favor
subject Jail. So, understand that that's where
3
the First Amendment doesn't apply. Where it does apply
4
is what I can restrain you from doing and I am of the
5
mind that I am just going basically keep it as it is.
6 And,
that is you're not to harass, stalk, injure,
7
threaten or molest the Plaintiff's or otherwise violate
8 this order. I don't
believe that I can restrain you
9
from going to the homeowner's association meetings, but
10 if you
disrupt the lawful assembly then you would be
11
and perhaps, you don't know and I, I'll just say it and
12
you can say this isn't tactful, you can. say that it's
13 pejorative, you can say
whatever you'd like, perhaps
14 you've never learned
social graces, maybe you don't
15 know what interruption
is, you certainly haven't
16 demonstrated your ability
not to interrupt in this
17 courtroom at first. You then got
under control, but
18
you know I hate to assert the power of the bench like I
19 had to
in this case against you, but if you hadn't
20
obeyed the Court's rules with what I was telling you to
21 do I
do have the power of contempt and do I have the
22 power
to put you in jail if you're going to be
23
disrespectful to what I represent, it's not personally,
24 but
it's what I represent. These kind of comments comes
from a Judge who revels in his power and not the reason to enforce the power.
And, what I represent
is
25
that thing on the wall, which is the Bill of Rights and
Page 19
1 the
Constitution of United States and I'm here to
2
uphold it and the State of
3 that's
what this bench represents and when you show
4
disrespect to the bench you are showing disrespect to
5 the
Constitution and as far as I'm concerned that's
6
contemptuous. In those wall hangings also include the
bill of rights which includes the rights of a defendant to a fair trial which
hasn’t happened. And, your attitude at-- and behavior
at
7
the being bordered on that, but I do believe that you
8 understood some parameters
and I have to take into
9 consideration when people
are not trained attorneys,
10
but interrupting people and doing things like that is
11 not appropriate. So, I
really can't stop you from
12 going to a homeowner's
association meeting. I think
13 the First Amendment does
allow you to go to those
14
meeting, but I can restrain you from disrupting lawful
15
assembly. Further, I don't believe I can stop you from
16 writing e-mails, but
sheer volume of e-mails can be
17 annoying. There is no law of the amount of letters and emails if the
board refuses to answer the complaints from a member. If I received as many e-mails, and I
think
18 again Maggie Moore said
it best, she just threw them
19 away,
she was so annoyed by them. Love this statement for the
next trial she just threw away the complaints of a member. It’s called fiduciary duties.
That is under 18-9‑
20
111, harassment, initiates communication with a person
21 in a manner intended to harass or threaten, makes
22
repeated communications, that's really, doesn't, again
23
that's inconvenient hours and obviously if you get an
24
e-mail you don't have to read it if it's inconvenient.
25.Repeatedly insults,
taunts, challenges or makes
Page 20
1
communications in an offensively coarse language.
2 Well, certainly some of
these e-mails could be read as
3 being
insulting, By whose opinion? The view point of an individual is his
freedom of speech. most of
them could be read as being
4
insulting, some of them are taunting, some of them are
5
challenging. So, if you choose to write any, I don't
6
think I can restrain you from writing an e-mail, but if
7 it
gets-- if any of these protected parties believe
8
that in anyway you are taunting them, challenging them,
9 or insulting them, and I
am finding so that you
10
understand Mr. Burneson what I believe an insult to be,
11
calling somebody a village idiot, calling somebody dumb
12
and lazy, calling somebody a rubber stamp, that kind of
13 name calling It is not and any other court would not call this names
calling insulting if it is the view point of the speaker. is insulting
and if, if I find out an
14 allegation that you have
written an e-mail with that
15
kind of language in it I want you to understand that I
16
will find that to be insulting and I will find that to
17
be a violation of the harassment statute, and therefore
18 I
will find it to be a violation of the Permanent Civil
19
Protection Order. I don't think I can, I would like to
20
follow
21 him,
but the problem with that is I don't have any
22 jurisdiction over
23 a filter to decide what
to send off to the broad and
24 what not to send off to
the broad. This is one of the first true statement made
by Judge Cross. So, I keep coming
25 back to what can I
restrain you from doing and about
Page 21
1 all I can do is
with, and that's why I've kind of
2 chosen to make this
very lengthy record so you will
3 kind of understand
from not only a, my judicial stand
4
point but also from human nature stand
point Now where does this human nature law come
under Judge Cross’s jurisdiction well it doesn’t but this guy gets a roll on and
he is incharge of every aspect of all behavior of life. that
your
5
behavior is unacceptable in a civilized society. And,
6 if
I owed somebody $57,00.00 dollars because of nothing
7 more then my
uncivilized behavior I would change it.This amount of
money will be returned by appellant court and a larger sum from a lawsuit yet to
be filed.
8 But, now you have
another reason to change it. You
9
have a Civil Protection Order issued against you and if
10 you don't change
your behavior vis a vis Dam East
11 Homeowner's Association
Broad of Director's or
12
Officer's or any of these named people you will then be
13
looking through bars wearing a pretty
little blue
14 outfit for as long
as I want to keep you there, until I
15 decide that maybe
I've got your attention and
16 understand if this
lecture, and I'd call it whatever
17 you want, I'll call
it lecture hasn't gotten your
18 attention my only
recourse will be jail and if that
19 doesn't get your
attention we'll try a little bit more
20 jail. So, for the
purp-- for the time being, the Court
21 is going to issue
the Permanent Civil Protection Order
22 as is, that the
only restraint is going to be that he
23 not harass, stalk,
injure, threaten or molest the This
entire statement was uncalled for by any judge. When a Judge knows he is issuing a
judgment that doesn’t have the evidence to support it he tends to babble and run
on about the charges thinking
the repeating will make it right to cover the fact there was no evidence to
convict Jim Burneson. He is being
set up for a complaint by any board member or
24 Plaintiff or
otherwise violate this order. I will
25 write in there
that, including, I've written in, it is
Page
22
1 further ordered the
defendant is not to disrupt any
2
communica-- any lawful assembly and is not to send any
3
communication that is in violation of 18-9-111, as I've
4
tried to define it. But, I do believe that any further
5
restraint might be in violation of the First Amendment,
6
because if Mr. Burneson decides to conduct himself as a
7
mature adult there shouldn't be any problems, should he
8
continue to, I believe it was probably, fairly, as long
9 I'm lecturing a
somewhat in appropriate, I believe it
10 was Mr. Hummell
that wrote the e-mail it may have been
11 Mr. Silva, but I believe
it was Mr. Hummell, but, asked
12 him whether he was six
years old or seven years or
13 something like
that, Now if any of the emails were entered that Silva
or Lane wrote Burneson would still not get justice in this court. We have been on 8 pages of repeating the
charges that have never been proven against Burneson and Judge Cross can’t stop.
I don't think that's
appropriate,
14 `cause that's a form of
name calling too, but there is
15 a lack of maturity being
shown, which does concern
16 people, including the
Court, but it concerned Maggie
17
18 that these are bully
tactics, that if you don't get
19 your way then there will
be trouble and that's
20 inappropriate. So, the
Court is going to serve that
21 order upon you, I'm going
to have, Mr. Hummell do you
22 wish to sign this on
behalf of the homeowner's
23 association and yourself
and I believe that by
24 provisions of law I can
also include everybody else in
25 here whether they have
sig-- signed them or not, but
Page 23
1 Mr. Hummell do you wish to
sign this on behalf of the
2 Plaintiff or
3 your roll?
5 THE COURT: Mr. Hummell, you just
sign
6 plaintiff and put your name
as representative of all
7 plaintiff's and the broad
officer's. Both of you can
8 have your cases back, I've
reviewed them to the extent
9 that I'm now familiar with
them and I don't believe I
11 First Amendment, I think
that I've taken care of that
12 by issuing the restraining
order. Mr. Burneson, I need
13 you to sign this
restraining order, sign right there
15 MR. BURNESON:
Okay.
16.THE COURT: If you'll both wait for a
moment
17 I'll, make copies of this.
19 this entertain any
additional suggestions you might
20
have?
22.THE COURT: Mr. Burneson,
is there anything
23 you would like me to, as a
final record, not a argument
25 on any comment I made or
any comment that you believe
Page 24
1 that I'm in error in any of
these provisions of the
2 restraining
order?
3 MR. BURNESON: I found the comments
that
4 there was threats of
physical violence that I do
5 disagree with. I object
that there was none. It could
6 be in the mind of the
listener or whatever, but there
7 was no physical written on
my part. That's all, your
8
Honor.
9 THE COURT:
Okay.
11 clarification, that, that
the, Mr. Silva is a protected
12 person under the
rules?
13 THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Silva is, but
Mr...
15
THE COURT: Quigg is not.
17 of the Broad of
Director's.
18
THE COURT: I don't know, you know I didn't
19 write Greg Silva's name
down here, apprec-- I have, let
20 me make sure I've
got them all.
22 THE COURT:
I've got Hummell, Eddy Larson,
23 Alan Campbell, Margie
Moore and Greg Silva.
25 Plaintiff that is
not a current director or officer.
Page 25
1 THE COURT: Right,
2 to you to make
copies of the one I'm going to give to
3 you to hand out to
all of these named parties that
4 aren't
here.
6 order a transcript for my client as
well.
7 THE COURT: Okay.
8
9 ordeal
10 MR.
LANE: Of the order not of the whole
THE COURT: And,
understand Mr., I guess one
11 other thing, just as a comment for future reference, I
12 hope I
never see you again in a courtroom for this kind
13 of a
reason, but should I see you in court for an
14
allegation of a violation of a, this restraining
order
15 and
should I find that there is such a violation I do
16 at
that time reserve the absolute right to further
17 modify
the restraining order and I then will begin to
18
restrain your First Amendment rights,
This Judge has
no authority to restrain my First Amendment Rights and he doesn’t know
it!
because I
will
19 find
that you will be unable to restrain them yourself.
20 So, if
you don't abide by this restraining order in
21 it's
spirit and intent and letter of the law then I
22 will,
I will impose greater restrictions including not
23 going
to broad meetings, not writing any e-mails and I
24 will
restrict your First Amendment rights. So, if
25 you'll
both hang on for a second I'll make some copies 1
of
this for
you
. Judge Cross had to recuse himself
from his ruling on motions he never read. He was doing what his friend
2
(END OF FINDINGS AND ORDERS)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
CERTIFICATE
2 I certify that I transcribed this record from that
3
tape recording of the above-entitled matter, which was
4 heard on August 6,
2004.
5 I
further certify that the aforementioned
6 transcript is a
complete and accurate transcript of the
7 proceedings based
upon the audio facilities of these
8 tapes and my ability
to understand them.
9
10
11
12
13 Dated this 23rd day
of August, 2004.
14
15
16
19
Shelly Westman
20
Westman Transcription, Inc.
21
22 23 24
This transcript is of April 29th 2005 about Chief
Judge Leopold and
COUNTY
COURT, COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE , STATE OF COLORADO
CASE NO. B04C4421
TRANSCRIPT OF TAPE RECORDED
PROCEEDINGS
DAM EAST HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION INC.,
Plaintiff,
Vs
JAMES W. BURNESON,
Defendant.
THIS MATTER came on for
a Hearing that was held on April 29, 2005 before THE HONORABLE LEOPOLD. The following is a complete record of
the proceedings from that date.
The
correct title of this judge is the Chief Judge of 18th District of
Arapahoe County. In this hearing he
is moonlighting as a County Judge as set up by
No time of day is stated but this hearing was scheduled for 1:30 pm.
APPEARANCES
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
FOR THE
DEFENDANT:
NOT PRESENT
APRIL 29, 2005
HEARING
THE COURT: Good afternoon everyone. The Court calls 2004C204421, The Dam
East Homeowners Association, Plaintiff, versus James W. Burneson,
Defendant.
Counsel?
”We have, it’s been kind of a blessing, but we have a new Judge down in Douglas County who is fairly new to the area, and she has been willing to take some of these cases, and we’ve had her appointed as a County Court Judge in Arapahoe County, and Judge Marker might be a person who might be able to take this. But she’s been able to take a number of cases where there’s been pretty much a blanket recusal by the County Court Judges. Because she’s fairly new to the community and new to the bench she’s been able to assist on these. So if I feel that there’s a need, I may just ship the case to Judge Marker and ask Chief Judge Leopold to issue an order making her a, for the purposes of this case, an Arapahoe County District Court, or County Court Judge.”
THE COURT: All right.
So…
Wrong. The last line states “The Court request that Chief Judge Leopold appoint a judge to hear the pending matter, which is currently set for April 29, 2005 in Division A-2.
Until a
new judge is appointed publicly the hearing set for April 29th is
just a setting and not an official court date without the appointment of a new
judge. Lane intentionally misrepresents the facts about the hearing being
ordered.
THE COURT: Well the purpose today from my perspective is that because the
County Court is recused I am here simply to get a transition to a senior Judge
who will be assigned. I have spoken
with the folks at State Court Administrators, and they will assign someone. They’ve ask for about 45 days to get an
assignment in place so that she or he can be here.
Had the Chief Judge of
THE COURT: All right. We’ll
address with that in just a second.
Let me first say here, and I need a little bit of help from A-2 staff, 45
days from now would put us roughly in the middle of June. And is there a day that would be
convenient for this division to set a pretrial conference?
MR. LANE: If I might suggest, Judge, since we don’t know that Mr.
Burneson is going to be there, since he’s failed to appear today, to issue a
bench warrant, and then at the return, if he’s arrested on the bench warrant
then set a date for the hearing of the return of the bench warrant like you
would on a criminal case.
THE COURT: But the problem,
Lane’s hatred of Burneson is exposed here and he wants jail time for Burneson and because he has a law license he intends to get this punishment against the defendant.
THE COURT: I understand that.
Let’s at least clear a date.
That’s entirely possible that Mr. Burneson suffered some kind of an
inability to show up here, and would have cause. So let’s first get a date for pretrial
conference.
COURT CLERK: June 17th.
THE COURT: At what time?
COURT CLERK: 8:30.
THE COURT: June 17 at 8:30 for pretrial. Now, the Court would note that the
contempt citation, and I need to see this a moment. What is the date of that Counsel? I think I see it here. Is this the citation and order to show
cause where he was asked to, or directed to appear on March 9th at
1:30?
THE COURT: Okay. And he was
advised on that matter?
THE COURT: All right. He has
failed to appear, is that correct?
It is now 1:48. And I would
ask staff who is familiar with Mr. Burneson to take one more look and see if he
is approaching the building.
While that’s going on
THE COURT: Punitive
contempt.
Language of court imposing jail
term for punitive contempt complies with rule. Language of trial court imposing
jail term for punitive contempt that: "The reason for the punitive
finding or punitive order of the court was to vindicate the dignity of this
court and I think that vindication is long overdue in this case" was sufficient
to comply with the requirements of this rule. In re Joseph, 44
THE COURT: All right.
THE COURT: Well that’s what I was thinking about, but I’ll wait until
staff comes back. Any
sign?
COURT CLERK: No sign Judge.
The charade goes on when by ex parte communication between
Lane and Leopold they knew Burneson would not attend until he received a
response who will be the judge and where will the hearing be held? So Chief
Judge Leopold refused to advise Defendant he Chief Judge of
THE COURT: No sign, all right. Bench warrant will issue for the arrest
of the restrained party Defendant/Respondent James W. Burneson.
Isn’t that cute Mr. Burneson when advised of a court hearing with a judge appointed hasn’t missed any trials or hearings.
But he does have a history of flouting
the authority of the Court, and that’s why one of the reasons we’re here, and
one of the reasons Judge Cross isn’t here.
Where is there any evidence that Jim Burneson has FLOUTED THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT? Name when that has happened. Recusing an incompetent judge is not flouting the authority of the court it’s his right to do so under the law. Both Chief Judge Leopold and Lane are extremely upset and prejudice against Burneson because he got Judge Cross to recuse himself and cause this delay in getting him in Jail.
I’m suggesting to the Court that the bond be
substantial. We would ask that the
bond be $10,000.00. I think it
would assure his appearance, not punish him, but assure that he appears to take
care of this matter.
Lane is really pissed and wants a pound of flesh and usually gets his punishment if this would have been Judge Ruddick, Rafferty, Hansen or Cross.
THE COURT:
This case is about the claim that Jim Burneson has
violated a Permanente Protection Order against the Board of Directors of the Dam
East Homeowner Association. It can’t be proven unless the Judge is in on it like
Judge Cross was. The charged violations claimed will have to be denied by the
court because the First Amendment Freedom of Speech permits all of Mr.
Burneson’s emails and letters. But had Judge Cross not rescued himself he would
have found Jim Burneson guilty and sentenced to a jail term for his good friend
Lane. Now Cross is gone and Lane has picked another judge to hear the charges
against Burneson. Maybe this judge can be manipulated like Ruddick, Hansen,
Rafferty and Cross. That’s why it
took Lane till May 16, to advise Burneson he has a bench warrant issued for his
arrest and he notified him of the hearing date of June 17, 2005. In these notices Lane never mentioned
whom the Judge was that presided at the April 29th hearing. It was a little secret between the Chief
Judge of
The Court will set bond at $5,000.00 cash, property or surety, as is the
custom I believe if the Arapahoe County Court to allow property bonds, is that
correct?
COURT CLERK: (Inaudible).
THE COURT: Cash, surety then.
So be it, I just wanted to be sure.
$5,000.00 cash, surety. The
Court will stay that until 2:00 this afternoon. It’s ten minutes of. If he shows I will wait, I’m prepared to
be here.
The
reason this bench warrant has not be served is Lane wants it served at the next
Board of Directors meeting of the HOA to prove how much power he has against Jim
Burneson. Police comes in arrest Burneson handcuffs him and takes him to
jail. Now the Board of Directors
feel safe and Lane is in charge of the HOA with more legal fees coming. Chief
Judge Leopold has been had by Lane to satisfy Lane’s need to show power to the
directors who are all ready to quit the board and run. The next board meeting
will be held June 14, 2005 at the clubhouse and Lane will have the police there
to arrest Jim Burneson. Lane is
running the 18th
THE COURT: All right. Judge
Cross will be back shortly to handle the docket for the remaining issues for
this afternoon. I will remain as
I’ve said until 2:00. And if he
appears and has a decent and respectable and appropriate explanation, of course
I will quash the warrant. In the
meantime we have the pretrial on all remaining issues on June the
17th, is that what you said?
COURT CLERK: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. At
8:30 am. If he posts bond I suppose
it would be returnable on that date.
THE COURT: All right. So I
would ask that the minutes reflect that any bond posted be returnable in this
division before a senior Judge at 8:30 am on that date.
THE COURT: And on the other hand if he’s picked up on an arrest
situation, we’ll try to get a hold of you, but if not I’ll take any argument,
and then I will make sure that any bond that is posted is returnable at that
date and time.
THE COURT: All right.
Anything else?
THE COURT: Thank you. We’ll
stand in recess.
There
was no evidence presented at this kangaroo court that Mr. Burneson would not
appear if notified of the time and date of the hearing. Lane got Judge Ruddick
to throw Burneson in jail for a night because Lane wanted it and Ruddick like
Judge Leopold does what he is told to do by Lane.
I am
filing a new motion for Change of Venue with this sham hearing as evidence Jim
Burneson cannot get a fair trial in the 18th District Court so long
as Lane is running the system and Chief Judge Leopold is in power.
I have requested a copy of this audio record on CD Rom and
it has been refused by Ms. McKeger Administrator of
I have just been notified that my motions filed May 16th 2005 have been found and are being forwarded to the senior judge for his decision. May 16th to June 2, 2005 my motions were not filed with the court. I asked Ms. McKeger Administrator of Arapahoe County Court what happened to my motions and she said it is none of my business. Just received copies of my missing motions from Clerk of County Court back dated May 17th 2005. Funny thing my motion was not include in the copies sent me by JoAnn Thomas as being in the file from May 16th to 5/27/05. He who owns the stamp can backdate anything. If my motions were in the file between May 16th and 5/27/05 they would have been included with the other files sent me by Deputy Clerk Joann Thomas. Thank you for the blunder but this is a lie my motion were not in the file on May 17th other wise a copy would have been returned to me in the stamp self addressed envelope. The fax date when these missing motions were sent to me is 5/31/05 and today when I received them it is June 2, 2005.
CERTIFICATE
I, Dawn Heaton hereby
certify that I transcribed this record from the tape recording of the
above-entitled matter, which was heard on April 29, 2005, before JUDGE LEOPOLD
in Division A-2 of the Arapahoe County Court in
I further certify that
the aforementioned transcript is a complete and accurate transcript of the
proceedings based on the audio facilities of these tapes and my ability to
understand them. Inaudibles are due
to microphones not working properly, excessive noises or muffled voices.
Signed this 31st day of May 2005 in Douglas County,
Colorado.
Dawn Heaton
________________________________________________________________________
|
County Court Arapahoe
Court address: |
COURT USE ONLY |
|
Plaintiff (s). Petitioner (s): The Dam East Homeowner Association Non-Profit Corporation and Jonathan Hummel Esq., President, Finn Eddy Larsen, Treasurer, Margie Moore, Director, Kelsey Quigg Director Chad Hamel New Director and Greg Silva past director not involved in the Association. v. Defendant/Respondent: James W. Burneson | |
|
Attorney or Party Without Attorney (Name and Address) Patterson, Nuss & Seymour, P.C. Phone Number 303-741-4539 FAX Number 303-741-5043 Atty. Reg. #11356 James W. Burneson 12641 E. Bates Cir. 303-750-1500 FAX: 303283-4603 |
Case Number B 04 C 4421 Division A-2 |
|
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER HEARING HELD
MARCH 9, 2005. SUPPORTIVE
EVIDENCE OF A KANGAROO TRIAL ACQUIRED FROM AUDIOCD-ROM OF THE MARCH 9,
2005 HEARING | |
COMES NOW Defendant/Respondent James W. Burneson Pro Se with this request for the court to reconsider the orders issued at the March 9, 2005 hearing after review of the transcript being prepared and the review provided by Defendant Jim Burneson for the following reasons: A copy of the 29 minute hearing was released (from a standing order not to allow the public to purchase copies of audio recording of any trial in Arapahoe County or Douglas County) by Chief Justice Leopold of the 18th District Court of Arapahoe County. With in weeks of this filing a transcript will be completed of this hearing and a copy will be posted on the Internet at www.court-house.com for all to review.
1.
For the first 5 minutes or more of this hearing Judge Cross opened
the court record for the first time since Defendant Burneson and
2. Judge Cross states in the hearing that “He has not had time to read these documents.” since the motions were filed on March 7, 2005 and he was in a two day trial and this hearing was held on March 9, 2005. This is the first evidence that 4 motions of Mr. Burneson had not been read by this court nor had the counter motions of Mr. Lane’s been read the time of this hearing.
3.
In the transcript
4.
Within the transcript Defendant Burneson states “ If you have not
had time to read these documents I would appreciate your continuing this case
and review these motions and issue an order by mail later. I have strong strong reasons for asking
for these 4 motions before you.”
Judge Cross claims he read Defendant’s motions filed February 22, and he
has read the first response request for a Jury trial by
5. In the Transcript Mr. Lane proceeds to quote case law and points of law on why Defendant’s motions for a Jury Trial, Motion for Change of Venue, and Motion for Change of Judge should be denied. Judge Cross dismissed all of these Motions as having no bases again without reading Defendant’s motions. In effect Defendant has submitted two sets of 4 Motions once on February 18th and March 9th 2005 an additional 4 motions of the same subject with other issues. The only motions admitted by Judge Cross to have been read are the February 18th motions. Judge Cross does not identify which Motions he is dismissing those dated February 18th or those filed March 7, 2005.
6.
In the transcript
Rule 397” 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. Upon the filing by a party of such a motion, all other proceedings in the case shall be suspended until a ruling is made thereon.”
7.
Since
8. “Judge Cross states,” I think even if I were to recuse myself or to grant another Judge should hear this Contempt of Court matter I can rule on the preliminary matters.” What this means is Judge Cross will get rid of Burneson’s motions and then if he recuses himself the new judge will not have the opportunity to rule on and maybe reverse Judge Cross’s dismissal of all motions at today’s hearing. This is really slick get rid of the smoking gun as stated in the motions and then sent this case to an inexperienced Judge in another county with no motions to review.
9.
Judge Cross then ramble on about how he can’t be held to be
prejudice because he is a friend of
10. Judge Cross believes he must continue this case because of his involvement with the beginning of the hearings, which is not true. A new impartial judge can review transcripts of the past hearing and that review may very well cause the new court to dismiss the entire trial as being prejudice against the Defendant. Judge Cross will sacrifice himself to remain as presiding judge in this case to prevent an impartial judge from getting into a review of what he and Lane has completed to date.
11.
By the fact none of
Defendant’s motions were read it allowed
12.
Judge Cross then admonishes Defendant for not changing his
attitude and put his animosity against the Board of Directors of his HOA to
rest. Where does Judge Cross have
the jurisdiction to demand that Defendant is wrong in his actions against his
HOA when the Board under
13.
The real reason for this Permanente
Protection Order against Defendant is to stop Burneson from forcing the
incompetent Board of Directors to admitting their willful and wanton actions of
violations against the Burnesons and the membership of the Dam East Homeowner
Association.
14.
In the transcript Judge Cross tries to intimidate the Defendant
with his going to jail if he doesn’t get an attorney. Defendant can’t afford a $20,000
attorney so he has no choice but to defend himself. Judge Cross does mention he
still might recuse himself over the issue of whether he should have initiated
the Order to Show Cause for Contempt of Court. Judge Cross mentioned the many judges
Defendant stated could not hear a trial against Mr. Burneson but found no reason
to change venue. Mentioned a new
Judge in
Judge Cross proceeds to set a trial date for April 29th, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. He states if he does decide to recuse himself he will give notice in plenty of time before the trial date.
15.
Then
16.
17.
Defendant claims his rights to due process of law, has been denied
by the prejudicial actions of Judge Cross that are fragrantly displayed in the
transcript of this hearing. This hearing in a matter 20 minutes has contaminated
this case to the point a fair trial in the future with Judge Cross presiding is
impossible. The reason Judge Cross
claimed there were no bases to grant any of defendant’s motions was because the
Judge didn’t have time to read them between March 7 and the hearing on March
9th. Because Mr. Lanes
leading this courts to abuse his judicial discretion Mr. Burneson was denied a
fair hearing in this court. The stated reasons in all four motions are valid
reason to grant a different judge and change of venue due to the history or Mr.
Burneson’s trials with the listed District Judges and
18. This trial cannot proceed since a mistrial by an appellant court is guaranteed due to the actions of Judge Cross. The DA does not prosecute perjury in our civil courts and judges and lawyers know this to be a fact so they can lie in court and nothing will happen.
19.
The transcript will prove the claims made in this Motion to
Reconsider the Hearing of March 9, 2005.
The Supreme Court of Colorado should rule disbarment for Judge Cross and
WHEREFORE Defendant/Respondent
James W. Burneson Pro Se requests this court to remove himself from this case
immediately. A Ruling on motions
the court has proven he has never read is definitely grounds to recuse
himself. Since no judge can prove
he has read Defendant’s last four motions filed March 7, 2005 a new impartial
judge needs to be appointed to receive this case and make a clean new ruling on
these motions after reading them in detail. The new court must be of a District
Judge standing to handle the proven methods of ex parte used by
Within the four combined motions
not read by Judge Cross Defendant believes he has proven in the future he can’t
ever get a fair trial in the 18th
Submitted on this day ___ April 2005
By ___________________________
James W. Burneson Defendant/Respondent Pro Se
12641 E Bates Cir
303-750-1500
CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I hereby certify that on the ______ day of April 2005 I mailed by USPS a true and correct copy of this DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER HEARING HELD MARCH 9, 2005. SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE OF A KANGAROO TRIAL ACQUIRED FROM AUDIOCD-ROM OF THE MARCH 9, 2005 HEARING to the addresses as follows:
Patterson, Nuss & Seymour, P.C.
Phone 303-741-4539
Since the Judicial Industry of Colorado has no department or committee to file a grievance (the appellant process doesn’t address wrongful acts of judges) as the Burnesons have experienced copies of all filing will be forward to the following:
Chief Judge Leopold,
18th
The Honorable Chief Justice Mary
Mullarkey
The Supreme Court of
State Legislature
Blind copy to others
_________________________
By Jim Burneson
COUNTY COURT, COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE , STATE OF COLORADO
CASE NO. B04C4421
TRANSCRIPT OF DIGITALLY RECORDED
PROCEEDINGS
THE DAM EAST
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATTION INC.,
Plaintiff,
Vs
JAMES W. BURNESON,
Defendant.
THIS MATTER came on for
a Hearing on Citation that was held on March 9, 2005 before THE HONORABLE
CHRISTOPHER CROSS. The following is
a complete record of the proceedings from that date.
APPEARANCES
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
FOR THE
DEFENDANT:
PRO SE
This copy has
been edited with comments from Defendant James W. Burneson, Pro Se.
His comments are printed in RED.
MARCH 9, 2005
HEARING ON CITATION
THE COURT: All right, let me just get a status, I know I want to, I’ve
got two groups of Attorneys that I need to get out of here. But Mr. Burneson,
THE COURT: So it’s just an advisement from what you can tell? Because there’s quite a bit of paper
that’s been filed, and I think I really probably need to address some of it.
THE COURT: Okay.
one of them is a request for a jury trial. And before we
set it for hearing I guess that has to be ruled on. But
I’ll rest on what’s written in our responses.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me kind of go through it then, because I’m thinking the Paulson matter could take a little longer. (No talking, paper shuffling from 2:49:40 – 2:51:09). The file has gotten a little bit mixed up, and I want to make sure I’ve got it right. (Hasn’t see this file before)
Mr. Burneson you filed
a letter, you wrote it January 7th, filed it January 19th,
a fairly lengthy letter, seven pages, and then some attachments to that. Then I’ve got very lengthy exhibits A,
B, and C. Were these the trial
exhibits?
THE COURT: They were not the exhibits that were attached to that letter?
THE COURT: These were, my memory was these were trial exhibits, but I
just want to make sure.
THE COURT: Okay. So I’m
going to mark those differently.
Exhibit
C is a file that has to do with this hearing and not the first
hearing
Keep those
separate. All right. Then the January
19th
letter, which was written, appeared to be written to me
not as the Trial
Judge, but as the Presiding Judge of
on that date letting
him know I was no longer the Presiding
Judge in
Judge of record on
his case I could take no action on the
contents of the
letter until they were properly before me.
And I asked that no
other correspondence be sent to me in
my role as Presiding
Judge.
February 22th was the last
time Judge Cross looked at this court file.
Mr. Burneson are the
issues raised in that letter something that is pertinent for
today?
MR. BURNESON: Your Honor I believe that that’s an answer of yes, but
they’re also covered in the motions that are before you
also.
THE COURT: Okay. Okay. There was a citation order to show cause
issued January 26th by myself.
Mr. Burneson did you receive a copy of that
citation…
MR. BURNESON: Yes.
THE COURT: …order to show cause?
MR. BURNESON: Yes sir.
THE COURT: Did you have a chance to read it?
MR. BURNESON: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you need me to go over that advisement with
you?
MR. BURNESON: No sir.
THE COURT: The most important part of that, I believe, at least at this
stage, is that you have the right to have this contempt citation heard by
another Judge. Do you wish for the,
any contempt matter to be heard by a separate Judge?
MR. BURNESON: Yes.
Here is where Lane takes over the court
from Judge Cross and proceeded to advise how the Judge must rule against
Defendant. Mr. Burneson was never asked to contribute to this hearing on most of
the matters
THE COURT: Sure.
The Rule 1, or 407 rather, is specifically
respect to that, or goes with what the contemnor has to be advised of. And it says that, and this is in my
response, it says essentially if the contempt citation is initiated by the
Judge, then in fact the contemnor has a right to another Judge. But if it’s initiated by a party, they
do not. And that’s in Rule
407. And there’s also case law to
that fact, which I’ve cited in my response.
THE COURT: I did not see that response, all I saw was the response for
request for jury trial. And now I
see that there were things paper clipped together.
More evidence
that Judge Cross never read my motions and had not read Lane’s motions before
this court hearing.
THE COURT: Right.
And Rule 407 says the following, and I’m
quoting, “If the Judge initiates the contempt proceedings the person shall be
advised of their right to have the action heard by another Judge.”
Obviously this contempt proceeding wasn’t
initiated by this Court, it was initiated by another party. So it’s our position that Mr. Burneson
doesn’t have that right.
THE COURT: Mr. Burneson?
MR. BURNESON: I believe, Your Honor, the magnitude of my four motions
should be considered by the Court, and the request to have, to have it on
another Judge, and it’s in detail.
Plus there’s a change of venue.
If the change of venue were to occur there would be another Judge
also. And that is in (inaudible)
most detail, and it is something that I think the Court could reasonably
understand why I’m requesting this in the motion.
The law cited by
This is a Plea for the Judge to
read the motions before he makes a decision. This is a reasonable request since a
judge can’t grant or approve a motion he hasn’t read.
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. LANE: I think in fact if Mr. Burneson feels there should be a change
of Judge, he needs to meet a burden that he would have to present under Rule,
the refusal rule, maybe 397, I’m not sure of that (inaudible). But he hasn’t met
that burden in any of his motions, and he’s addressed that issue with this Court
before, and the Court has denied it, always refused. He doesn’t have an absolute right to be
changing Judges (inaudible).
Here is an
example of Lane running the judge up the flagpole. He is claiming defendant has
not met the burden that must be presented to meet the rule “maybe 397” How the
hell does a judge know anything if defendant has met the burden when he hasn’t
read the defendant’s motions. Lane is now the judge and he has ruled as stated
and all Judge Cross is there for is to make it a ruling for Lane as
For instance, Judge, in domestic relations
case, contempt citations are for failure to provide parenting time, or pay child
support, they’re routinely heard by the same Judge that issued the initial
order. In fact there’s probably
some authority out there (inaudible) proposition, but that’s the Court
(inaudible), because they issued the original order.
What does domestic relations have
to do with this case?
As for the motion to change venue, I’ve addressed that in my response also. I (inaudible) Court (inaudible) with respect to that. The law with regard to a change of venue over some prejudice has to do with a jury trial not a bench trial, because it presumes that the burden of the person asking for the change of venue to show the potential (inaudible) for the jury wouldn’t be, would be prejudiced before the courthouse. (Inaudible) publicity, or a high profile murder case.
In my Defendant’s motion there is
plenty of proof the burden was met but the Judge hasn’t read my motions so
Lane’s case law will rule.
That’s not the case in this case for two
reasons. Number one, is this was
not a high profile case, nobody really knows much about it other than legal
(inaudible). And number two is a
bench trial. And because a bench
trial is a matter of law and we’re not asking for a sanction (inaudible), but I
think this Court would be opposed to sanctions (inaudible), although we are
asking for the sanction of jail.
So he isn’t entitled as a matter of his right
to a jury trial. He’s not entitled
(inaudible) trial, it doesn’t make any difference if the public (inaudible) Mr.
Burneson one way or the other, because they are not (inaudible).
He hasn’t established (inaudible), he hasn’t
established grounds for (inaudible), and he certainly hasn’t established any
constitutional or statutory right to a jury trial.
All of the
proceeding statements are not true and can’t be substantiated if the motion were
read.
MR. BURNESON: Your
Honor?
THE COURT: Yes Mr. Burneson.
MR. BURNESON: I have not used the refusal, not because I took that form,
it just being my right to ask for another Judge. Otherwise had I known that would be
interpreted, I could certainly file a motion in that light. But it appears, Your Honor, and I like
to say, I am doing everything possible to maintain my attitude.
I would like to say that if you have not had time to really read these documents, I would appreciate your continuing this, and maybe answer the motions by an order mailed, or whatever. Because I believe I’ve got strong, strong reasons to be asking for the four motions you have before you.
THE COURT: The Court has read the February 18th filed,
actually February 22nd it was filed in the Court, 18th
filed in the division, the 22nd Defendant’s motion to dismiss. I read that, and I read at least the
first response, request to the jury trial by
He admits he hasn’t read my motion filed
March 7, and this hearing is on March 9th, 2005.
And I have read the, to a large degree, I
have read them, the motions that were filed on March 7th in the
Division, the responses to the motions.
I will admit that I haven’t had as much time to read them as I’ve been in
trial the last two days, and I haven’t had much time to do much
else.
This is a lie
by a judge but since perjury is not enforced in our civil court system judges
and lawyers can lie in court and nothing will happen.
But, the, I think that even if I were to, to
recuse myself, or to grant that a different Judge should hear the contempt
matter, I think I can rule on a couple of the preliminary matters, and then get
to the, that issue.
But as far as a change of venue is concerned,
that
will be denied, there’s no basis for a
change of venue in
this case. The motion for a jury trial is
denied,
Three motions denied without
being read by the Judge. Once a motion for recusal is denied according to Judge
Cross and Lane any following motion for recusal must be denied out of hand
without reading the motion filed against the judge.
there is no basis for a jury trial in this
type of
matter.
To the extent that this is a motion to
recuse, that is denied.
I’ve already dealt with motions for
recusal, I don’t think that the fact that I have heard lengthy testimony in this
matter, and have made comments including trying to get your attention to end all
of this as opposed to keep going.
I have made, I will admit that I’ve used
strong
language, because Mr. Burneson quite frankly
after
finding that you, or fining in favor of a
permanent
civil protection order against you, I thought
that
perhaps some strong language might get your
attention,
and perhaps the animosity between
you and the Dam
East Home
Owners Association could rest.
Obviously I
was
wrong.
His rulings are made to drive
defendant to stop his arguing and be friendly with the Board of Directors. Is a
ruling like this supposed to be based law or to punish a defendant and make him
love his Board of Directors This is nothing less that proof of prejudice on
Judge Cross’s position of power as a county judge working to satisfy his friend
Mr. Lane. Defendant has no idea what strong language means to this case.
From this point on the Judge is
just babbling.
So the fact
that I used strong language to try to get your attention, I think that that’s
part of my job as a juror. You
heard me with a minor in possession charge, I used strong language with that
young man, I do it on purpose. I
want to get people’s attention.
This Court would love to have nothing but rookies. Having people come back is not what the
jurist justice system is all about.
So if I use strong language in an attempt sometimes to cajole people to
act human and act appropriately in our complex society, then I think that that’s
what people have hired me to do.
I’m not mamby pamby up here, I do my job, and I take it seriously. But I don’t think that the fact that I
have used strong language, or that I heard all the evidence concerning the
protection order, or that I have issued a protection order against you, in any
way makes me biased or prejudiced, or any appearance of impropriety.
You know I will admit, Mr. Burneson, I do
get tired of all the allegations about what, how bad I am, and how that Mr. Lane
has me in his back pocket, and that the 18th Judicial District is in
Mr. Lane’s back pocket, I get a little tired of that. I get a little tired of the accusations
that I don’t listen carefully, that I’m not paying attention, I just get tired
of those allegations.
My allegations are proven by this
transcript. Lane is running this court as the Judge.
And I certainly get tired of the allegations that, written in your one
motion, that half the Judges in the 18th Judicial District can’t hear
this case, and I’ll just quote from your motion.
This statement
was in the motions filed February 22nd,2005 This is a true statement
is certainly must be considered by an impartial judge which doesn’t exist in
this hearing. It is a fact none of the judges named can have anything to do with
litigation against or involving the Defendant. That should count toward Change
of Venue
“The following list of District Judges cannot
preside over any trial where Mr. Burneson is a Defendant. McCrum, Levy, Rafferty, Fasing,
Sylvester, Hannan, Hoff. County
Court Judges have recused themselves in a roar because as they’ve discussed
before, Judge Ruddick believes that he could no longer be fair and impartial on
a case. Judge Bencze indicated that
because of some prior personal dealings that he had had with
He has just proved Defendant’s
point he can’t get a fair trial in the 18th District. There is no judge who can hear this case
in the county court system.
I made an
extensive record the first time we were here that although Judge, Magistrate
Jeff Lane, when he was the Magistrate Lane, and I were in the same building for
about three months, and that, and we had obviously some
This statement
is grounds by itself for Judge Cross him to recuse himself and he doesn’t
realize the position he is in by saying it.
profession discourse, and that I believed I
disclosed that there were a couple of times when our sons were on opposite
basketball teams with, against each other, and we actually were in the same
gymnasium together, and we actually sat next to each other, and said hello, and
chit chatted, and watched our sons play basketball.
None of this has been disclosed
in any hearing defendant was present.
If that recused me from every case I wouldn’t
be able to sit as a Judge, because I have a lot of friends who are Lawyers and
find myself in Bar Association meetings, I hope to be one in about two and a
half hours with a bunch of Lawyer, some of whom are probably in this courtroom
that I’m supposed to be at at 5:30.
I am the President Elect of the Arapahoe County Bar Association, if I
don’t have relationships with Lawyers I shouldn’t be in the job that I have.
This is an
important man and because he is President Elect of the Arapahoe County Bar
Association he can rule on any thing and he is immuned from being compromise by
So I get a little tired of the fact of always
being accused of being prejudice when I’m just trying to do my job. You may not like my rulings, that’s what
appeals are for, but the fact that you don’t like my rulings, or every other
Judge in the 18th Judicial District, does not mean that we’re
prejudice, or that we are biased against you. The facts are the facts and that’s what
they are. So the motion to recuse
is denied. He
never read the motion is the fact.
At some point and time some Judge has got to
take the case no matter how thick it is and deal with it. And that’s what I’ve chosen to do.
We
have a hero here. The issue of whether or not I
should be on the citation is a different issue. And I, the, I think I am not certainly
not uniquely qualified, but certainly more qualified than most of the Judges who
might hear this overbeat that I have heard the extensive motions hearing in this
case, or the extensive case, the Restraining Order. What
does this paragraph mean?
We started that case on July 30th,
went through most of the day, my afternoon if I remember, and then we started up
again on August 6th and went until late in the afternoon, or early
evening. So the Court has already
heard probably a full day of testimony.
And I would reluctantly pass this matter on to another Judge. If I believe that the citation is such
that I really do need to pass this matter on to another Judge for a
determination of contempt, I will do so.
When will he use this excuse to remove
himself from this case?
The, I was concerned, and why I gave you the advisement when I first did, not knowing there was going to be an objection to it, or the case law that was just cited, I think there were enough allegations that were, perhaps some of the letters written to me might even have been contemptuous, the, I thought if there was no objection we would send this to another Judge. But since there’s an objection to that, and I apologize I didn’t read that, I’m probably going to have to stop and think about that.
So what I am going to do is go ahead and
finish the advisement at this time, and set the matter over in my Division for a
hearing. If I believe that I do
need to send this matter to another Judge I will transfer it. I know Judge Feldman is coming back, but
I’m not sure whether Judge Feldman would feel comfortable because his working
relationship with
We have, it’s been kind of a blessing, but we
have a new Judge down in Douglas County who is fairly new to the area, and she
has been willing to take some of these cases, and we’ve had her appointed as a
County Court Judge in Arapahoe County, and Judge Marker might be a person who
might be able to take this. But
she’s been able to take a number of cases where there’s been pretty much a
blanket recusal by the County Court Judges. Because she’s fairly new to the
community and new to the bench she’s been able to assist on these.
So if I feel that there’s a need, I may just
ship the case to Judge Marker and ask Chief Judge Leopold to issue an order
making her a, for the purposes of this case, an Arapahoe County District Court,
or County Court Judge. I don’t
think that will be necessary now that I know there’s an objection to it,
because I’m familiar with the case law cited by Mr. Lane, and I will
take a look at that.
Judge Cross doesn’t know the case
law on this point its because
But I’m going to set it in this
courtroom. But Mr. Burneson do you
need me to go through the rest of the advisement?
MR. BURNESON: I’m not aware of what I would need to---is it the written
document?
THE COURT: Yes. The one that
I asked you if you had already read, and you told me you didn’t need
legal…
MR. BURNESON: I’m fine.
THE COURT: Okay. You do have
the right to an Attorney, and you have the right to get that Attorney here
for---are you planning on getting an Attorney?
MR. BURNESON: No sir.
THE COURT: Okay. You have
consistently represented yourself, and but now that the possible penalty does
include some jail time I want you to understand that I do believe that you have
the right to Court appointed Counsel, but I don’t know how the Public Defender’s
Office looks at that.
But…
This
statement about sometime in jail indicates Judge Cross has already decided
Defendant is going to jail before the trial is held. His warning is made to see if Mr.
Burneson will hire an attorney with this threat of jail. Lane can talk with an
attorney and convince him to talk defendant into giving up his efforts to prove
the wrongful acts of Lane and the Board of Directors of the Dam East Homeowner
Association. Mr. Burneson has
stated he intends to get
MR. BURNESON: May I?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. BURNESON: I tried, and I’m not qualified.
THE COURT: Okay. You make
too much money for the Public Defender?
MR. BURNESON: As a family.
THE COURT: Okay. So you have
applied for the Public Defender and have been denied?
MR. BURNESON: I didn’t go through the paperwork. I called and I mentioned the situation
and how much money, and he said, “You would not qualify.”
THE COURT: Okay. Do you
understand that you do have the right to have some time to hire your own
Attorney? By representing yourself
on this matter you do run the risk of not properly presenting your case, you run
the risk of not adequately representing yourself.
I can’t treat you any differently than I’ve
treated you so far during the process, I think I’ve tried---I don’t think, I
have tried to treat you with dignity and respect, and treat you no different
than I treat Mr. Lane despite your allegations that I do treat Mr. Lane
differently. But I don’t believe I
have done that, I certainly have not tried to do that. But I will continue to conduct these
matters much the same way I’ve conducted the first preliminary, or the permanent
civil protection order hearing.
And you will be excepted to similarly comport
yourself. And I have had no problem
with the way you’ve comported yourself during the hearing.
With that let’s set the matter for a hearing.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: When is our first available afternoon where we have nothing else set, or just
one advisement or arraignment or something? How’s April 15th Mr. Burneson
and
MR. BURNESON: One of my witnesses is involved in the tax preparation, and
she requested if at all possible if it could be after that date, because she
could not be inconvenienced, especially on that day Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Although if they’re not done by that date it’s too late, but
that’s all right. How’s the
29th?
MR. BURNESON: I didn’t hear you Your Honor.
THE COURT: I’m checking with my clerk. April 29 at 1:30?
THE COURT: Mr. Burneson?
MR. BURNESON: That’s fine.
THE COURT: The Court will take under advisement the issue of whether or
not I need to send this to another Judge, and we’ll inform the parties as soon
as possible about that. But other
than that the matter is set for a contempt hearing in this division April 29 at
1:30. And, I don’t have my personal
calendar here, but that could be one day we’ll just plan on going till we
finish.
Here is where
THE COURT: Is that the motion to dismiss the motion for issuance of show
cause?
MR. BURNESON: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: That motion is denied.
I did read that motion, I thought I dealt with it, I guess I didn’t deal
with it. Motion to dismiss is
denied.
Another lie by Judge Cross he
didn’t read the motion and Lane doesn’t want the motion to be reviewed OPENLY by
the court because it has too many points Defendant can prove the wrongful acts
of the Board of Directors and Mr. Lane had never been hired to represent the
Plaintiffs in either cases before this court INCLUDING Judge Ruddick’s trial of
Carla Burneson. Please note none of Mr. Burneson motion have been reviewed
verbally to protect
THE COURT: Okay. You may
approach. Citation continues until
April 29th. Court
receives return of service.
THE COURT: Mr. Burneson anything further?
MR. BURNESON: No Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. We’ll see
you back here April 29th.
If I change on that other issue I’ll let both parties
know.
This was a kangaroo trial by a
18th
There is no way Judge Cross can
continue in this case. The entire case is contaminated with perjury by a judge
and failure to read motions by the defendant and plaintiff before making a
ruling. No judge can claim he has
an understanding of Defendant’s motions by osmosis. Judge Cross just did so in
this hearing.
To think these two lawyers would
even try to pull this sham off show their own disrespect of the judicial
industry they are a member of. Lawyers are supposed to uphold the law instead
Judge Cross under Lanes supervision makes ruling outside of due process of the
law.
Judge Cross is running for a
Presidential Office of the Arapahoe County Bar Association to add legitimacy to
his existence as a Judge and he comes to court a pulls this crap. He must be removed from the bench and
denied any pension for his actions as a judge. His actions in this case have to be
introduced to a review committee to rule on a dismissal of an incompetent Judge
who can be controlled by an attorney in a trial and as this hearing. The abuse of this judge’s judicial
discretion in this case is proven he had no discretion which is “Individual
Choice or Judgement Power of free decision latitude of choice with in certain
legal bounds” quoted from Webster’s Dictonary. Black’s Law Distonary defines
Judicial Discretion as follows:
“The equitable decision of what is just and proper under the
circumstances”. For a Judge to agree in favor of one side without reading the
motions properly filed of the others side is an act of being
prejudice
There is a hearing scheduled in
Judge Cross’s court for April 29, 2005 which can’t continue due to the proven
acts of both attorneys in this hearing. Immediate action is required by Chief
Judge Leopold to stop a future mistrial under the control of
CERTIFICATE
I, Dawn Heaton hereby
certify that I transcribed this record from the digital recording of the
above-entitled matter, which was heard on March 9, 2005, before JUDGE
CHRISTOPHER CROSS in Division A-2 of the Arapahoe County Court in
I further certify that
the aforementioned transcript is a complete and accurate transcript of the
proceedings based on the audio facilities of these tapes and my ability to
understand them. Inaudibles are due
to microphones not working properly, excessive noises or muffled voices.
Signed this 14th day of April 2005 in Douglas County,
Colorado.
Dawn Heaton
On May
16th a new hearing with a new retired Judge named Judge Ettenberg
from
This hearing has
been held and the transcript is being prepared. The Judge noted he considers there are
constitutional issues which he has believes should be submitted for an
appeal. This being done when I
receive a copy of the transcript it will be added to this chapter.
Jim Burneson for contact go to email burnesonj@msn.com