1
COUNTY COURT, COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO
2 CASE NO. B00C4042
3 TRANSCRIPT OF TAPE RECORDED PROCEEDINGS
1
COUNTY COURT, COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO
2 CASE NO. B00C4042
3 TRANSCRIPT OF TAPE RECORDED PROCEEDINGS
DAM
EAST HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff, Vs
CARLA BURNESON,
Defendant.
THIS
MATTER came on for a Hearing that was held on August 21, 2003 before THE
HONORABLE STEVEN RUDDICK. The
following is a complete record of the proceedings from that
date.
15 This is not the complete record of this hearing. Before Judge Ruddick turned on the microphone for the audiotape to begin he dismissed subpoenas that were issued to staff members of Ruddick’s court and the Deputy Clerk of Court. This a dirty trick by dishonest judges who want to hide their actions from being recorded in a transcript.If there is no record of his actions then he never dismissed or quashed subpoenas against his staff for being a part of a collension of hiding audiotapes for 5 and half months. He had to admit to dismissing these subpoenas later in this transcript. Can’t get any lower in the justice industry than being a Ruddick in Aurora Court. Lane told Judge Leopold to promote Ruddick to improve his reputation so Leopold does everything he is told to do so he promoted Ruddick over all county judges in 18th District Court. Now this is a judge that was rated not to be re elected to the bench. THERE ARE LETTERS AND OTHER COMMENTS LISTED AT THE END OF THIS TRANSCRIPT WHICH THE SUPREME COURT AND ALL OTHERS MUST READ.
17
APPEARANCES
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: JEFFREY A. LANE
FOR THE DEFENDANT: PRO S
22 23
1
AUGUST 21, 2003
2 HEARING
3 THE COURT: We'll go on to a civil matter, it's
4 Dam East Homeowners Association versus Carla Burneson. And
5 we're here for certification of the record. Mr. Lane
6 you're here for Plaintiff?
7 MR. LANE: Yes. My name for the record is Jeffrey
8 A. Lane. My registration number is 11356. I'm appearing
9 today on behalf of the Plaintiff, Dam East Homeowners
10 Association.
11 THE COURT: And ma'am would you state your name as
12 Defendant please?
13 MS. BURNESON: Carla Burneson, 12641 East Bates
14 Circle.
15 THE COURT: Thank you. You didn't have to give
16 your address, but that's all right. Well, there have been
17 no objections then to the written transcript that's been
18 provided now as the Court has three transcripts for
19 December 18th 2003, I'm sorry 2002 proceedings, dated volume
20 one, volume two and then a third tape that had not been, or
21 a third transcript, excuse me not tape, transcript made
22 from tape. And then we have December 19th, 2003 transcript,
23 two of them. And a December 20th, 2002 transcript.
24 So Counsel for the Defendant, and ma'am I spent my
25 lunch hour reading through the new transcripts once again,
1
and as in all transcripts I see some typographical errors,
2 I see some questions about maybe they didn't use the right
3 word when the Court Transcriber was trying to figure out
4 what we were saying, but that's no unusual. So since you
5 have no objections to these I'll go ahead and certify the
6 record and we're off the record. Judge is certifying the record without including this hearing since it wasn’t typed in time to be included in the trial record of the appeal. The last thing he wants is any part of this transcript read by any appellant court be it District or Supreme Court of Colorado.
7 Is there anything further from either side? None?
8 Thank you.
This is where Ruddick went off the record to dismiss the Deputy Clerk and dismiss the subpoenas against his staff to appear in his court to be questioned about the missng audiotapes for 5 months.
9 And we're back on record on tape number two for
10 Arapahoe County Court Division B2. Neither of you had any
11 objections to the transcripts going up, is that correct?
12 Mr. Lane?
13 MR. LANE: I have no objection, but I do have
14 something that I would like to address to Ms. Burneson.
15 THE COURT: All right. And Ms. Burneson do you
16 have any objection to the transcripts other than I noted
17 that there were some typographical and phonetic errors, but
18 that's normal and typical in a transcript.
19 MS. BURNESON: I want into the Court record that
20 those...
21 THE COURT: No, I asked you do you have anything
22 about that ma'am, the answer is yes I do or no I don't? Do
23 you have any objection to the transcript ma'am? Don’t let the pro se defendant talk in court keep her on yes and no answers for the protection of the judge and Jeffrey Lane.
24 MS. BURNESON: To the transcripts?
1.
THE
COURT: Yes, to the written transcripts, yes
2. or no?
3. MS. BURNESON: No.
4 THE COURT: All right. Then they will be
5 certified. Counsel for the Defendant do you, or Counsel
6 for Plaintiff I guess gets to go first, do you want to make
7 any other record beyond what I have authority to deal with?
8 Please go ahead. The Judge will let Lane talk about anything he wants to and for as long as he wants to without any consideration of any objection the Defendant might raise. Lane will talk for over 40 pages of this transcript and defendant get a page and a half of half statements while being interrupted by Ruddick.
9 MR. LANE: Yes Judge I would like to.
10 MS. BURNESON: Do I get to talk after him?
11 THE COURT: Yes. Watch how long and when she is allowed to talk and match it to Lane’s speech.
12 MS. BURNESON: Thank you.
13 MR. LANE: Judge with respect to today's
14 proceeding the, the Defendant was given an opportunity to
15 review the record on appeal and file an objection to the
16 file on appeal, the objection to the record on appeal
17 consists of an objection number one, because the tapes of
18 the transcript, or the tapes of the trial were not included
19 in, in the record on appeal. Tapes were lost for 5 and half months in Judge Ruddick desk draw.
20 The second objection was that certain affidavits that
21 were tendered to the Court and struck by the Court at our
22 last hearing were not included in the record on appeal.
23 I filed a response to that objection noting for the
24 Court that in fact the designation of record that the
25 Plaintiff, or the Defendant rather filed with this Court
5
1
did not include those documents, nor did it include a
2 request for the tapes.
3 Now, I know the Court's given Mrs. Burneson a lot of
4 leeway in this case. But I spent a couple of hours this
5 morning going through---I've got probably 1,000 pages of
6 documents in this case. I spent, by the time I get back to
7 my office, an hour, hour and a half coming here today, of
8 their neighbor's money, and it's not fair. This time factor is for billing purpose whether he actually spent the time.
9 And if I can indulge the Court, or if I can have the
10 Court's indulgence just for a few minutes, I want to
11 address the Court and make a record with respect to
12 something.
13 THE COURT: All right.
14 MS. BURNESON: I object Your Honor. I don't think
15 this is relation to the thing, to the...
16 THE COURT: Ma'am if you want to talk to then I
17 guess I'm going to have to spend my time listen to you, so
18 be quiet while he's up and then you'll get your chance. This is the second time Judge Ruddick protect Lane’s speech from being interrupted.
19 MS. BURNESON: I just want, I just on the record
20 that's going to be sent to the appeal.
21 THE COURT: Well then be quiet and let him do his
22 record, and then I'll let you do your record and I'll tell
23 him to be quiet when you're talking. So be quiet.
24 MR. LANE: Judge Ruddick at the end of my comments
25 I'll tie this up, and you'll see where I'm going with this.
1
When I initially entered my appearance in
this case I
2 sent a letter to Mr. Burneson, it's dated June 24th 2002.
3 And that letter says in part the following: "I'm writing
4 this letter to confirm with you to establish some ground
5 rules as to how we're to communicate during the pendency of
6 this action. I prefer that all communication between the
7 two of us be done in writing, either by regular mail or e‑
8 mail. However they may be times when it is necessary to
9 communicate with me by telephone, and you have my telephone
10 number for that purpose."
11 "My client's, both board members as well as
12 architectural control committee members, have asked me to
13 instruct you not to community directly with them. At this
14 time my client's are respectfully requesting that you do
15 not contact them by telephone, do not appear personally at
16 their residences to deliver mail, do not e-mail them, do
17 not address them in any context other than that of a board
18 meeting."
19 I also went on to say in that letter that I expected
20 us to act in a business like manner, and to treat each
21 other with some amount of respect. Attached to the end of this speech is an email Lane sent to me that meets his criteria stated herein
22 I reviewed the, the affidavits that were tendered to
23 the Court with respect to this matter subsequent to the
24 trial, and I've reviewed various motions that the, the
25 Plaintiff, or Defendant rather has filed in this case. I
17
1
also had an opportunity today to review the final argument
2 that Plaintiff made, or Defendant made in the underlying
3 case. And I want to point out just a few things, and I
4 appreciate the Court giving me time for this, and it's not
5 going to take but just a few minutes, and there's a reason for
6 this, and the reason that I want to go through this.
7 I point to first of all a request to set aside default
8 judgment filed by the Defendant September 6th, the year
9 2000, so almost three years ago now. And we have in that
10 pleading the Defendant stating the following: It is the
11 Defendant's belief that a full investigation is ordered by
12 the proper authorities to determine how this case was
13 allowed to reach this situation. The Colorado Supreme
14 Court will be involved to determine how many filing dates
15 can be accelerated, and complaints not filed in a timely
16 manner."
17 So almost three years ago these folks are in writing
18 filing with the Court pleadings and documents that indicate
19 that there's been some wrong doing, somebody's done
20 something wrong, somebody's guilty of something. And at
21 least, if not, expressly saying that, implying that.
22 That's a pattern that's gone on consistently for three
23 years. All of these claims as file are true
24 THE COURT: Well much of this this Court has no
25 knowledge of because it was in the Magistrate's division,
8
1
but I have read through the stacks of things, and the
2 things that were alleged to Magistrate Petrie, which
3 boggled my mind quite frankly. Grossly in error the defendants claims of wrong doing is against Judge Ruddick not Magistrate Petrie. Lane is pulling the trick of watch my right hand while I blame the Burnesons with my left hand. This tort twister can really lie.
4 MR. LANE: I'll get to that in a moment Judge.
5 And this is just a partial listing of what I could fair it
6 out this morning.
7 February 1St, 2001, over two years ago, this is a
8 motion to reschedule court date and motion for discovery.
9 This is when the case was still in Magistrate Petrie's
10 court, and before I had entered my appearance.
11 Paragraph two says in part, "It appears Plaintiff's
12 Counsel wants to hide this information so he can place a
13 prize on the day of trial. This legal..."
14 MS. BURNESON: Your Honor, Your Honor can I still
15 object. This is not...
16 THE COURT: No, I noted your objection ma'am, be
17 quite. (Lane owns this court and he can do anything he wants to since she is pro se and only one other lawyers is in the court and that is the Judge.
18 MS. BURNESON: But this does not have...
19 THE COURT: Be quiet. I noted your objection.
20 MR. LANE: "This legal maneuver is totally
21 uncalled for, and must not be allowed by the Court." So as
22 early as 2001 Mrs. Burneson's telling the Court what it
23 must and must now allow, and saying that the actions of
24 Counsel are totally uncalled for. Now that's Mr. Muller,
25 that's before I was even in this case.
1
Then we go to December 2001, December 26th filed in
2 this Court, or in Magistrate Petrie's Court, after an
3 adverse ruling, adverse to Mrs. Burneson, a motion to
4 recuse Magistrate Petrie.
5 And in that motion to recuse, paragraph four, Mrs.
6 Burneson says the following: "During the past two years Mr.
7 Timothy Muller's been acting as the Attorney for the Dam
8 East Homeowner Association. In this position he is self
9 approved as hiring as legal to the board of directors.
10 This constitutes malpractice along with the many charges to
11 be filed in the Arapahoe District Court."
12 The motion goes on to ask Magistrate Petrie to recuse
13 himself, because he's going to be a material witness in
14 other cases that they intend to file against Mr. Muller,
15 and against Dam East Homeowners Association. So at that
16 time we're getting pleadings filed with the Court that are
17 (inaudible), they're scandalous, they have allegations that
18 have nothing to do with this case. Lane forgets Petrie did recuse himself in much disagreement by Lane so the defense was right in her claims An allegation of
19 malpractice on behalf of opposing Counsel is not
20 appropriate in any pleading in any case.
21 Next, lets go on to the next one that I found this
22 morning in my perusal of documents. May 28th, 2000, motion
23
to recuse Magistrate Leroy Petrie under
CCR 397, and motion
24 to continue trial date.
1
For the second time the Burneson's are asking
2 Magistrate Petrie to recuse himself. Paragraph three of
3 the motion, "Muller and the Law Firm of Windesberg
4 (phonetic), Webb, Purvis and Payne, LLP, because of this
5 involvement as the Magistrate in these past cases he must
6 recuse himself from any involvement with the present case
7 because of a conflict of interest." Tim Moeller embezzled over $60,000 from the Dam east HOA while being the Association attorney. Based upon nothing
8 more than the fact that Windesberg, Webb, Purvis and Payne
9 had appeared in Magistrate Petrie's Court on prior
10 occasion. They're alleging in a document, filed a public
11.document filed that Magistrate Petrie and those Attorneys
12 have engaged on some sort of conflict of interest. This
13 motion's not supported by affidavit, it's supported by
14 nothing. What in hell does this have to do with the motion before this court? Lane is misquoting the affidavit.
15 Go on to paragraph four, same motion. "During the
16 past three years Mr. Timothy Muller has been acting as the
17 Attorney for the Dam East Homeowners Association. In this
18 position he is self disproved as hiring as being legal
19 counsel to the board of directors. This constitutes
20 malpractice along with many other charges to be filed with
21 Arapahoe District Court." Same language from the prior
22 motion.
23 The irony of all of that is Magistrate Petrie did not
24 recuse himself based upon that motion, but recused himself
25 because I've worked with Magistrate Petrie after I entered
11
1 my appearance. This is perjury by Lane Petrie recused himself because he was to be a witness against Tim Moeller and had nothing to do with Lane being a magistrate in Littleton court. Perjury is not prosecuted in civil court and Lane knows how to lie. This is where the public gets screwed by a law license. So what happened was, the Burneson's got
2 what they wanted for a different reason, and they got it
3 because this Court is honest, and because Magistrate
4 Petrie's honest. That's why they got it. Magistrate Petrie is honest and because he recused himself upon being challenged by the defense doesn’t make him bad but honest.
5 But June 17th, 2002, motion to set trial date by phone.
6 This is after the Court, the case has been transferred up
7 here and hasn't been set for trial yet. I did a notice to
8 set this case, and communicate, my office communicated with
9 the Clerks, which is how a notice to set works, it's how
10 cases are set for trial. As the Court knows, Clerks are
11 liaisons between the Court, the judicial officer himself or
12 herself, and the parties and the Attorneys. They're job...
13 THE COURT: That assumes when we have them.
14 MR. LANE: That's correct.
15 THE COURT: Sometimes our Court's we don't have
16 that liaison anymore. Go ahead sir.
17 MR. LANE: Their job is to communicate with
18 Attorneys. What about the public or do they not speak English? They're really, in reality, is no such thing as
19 a prohibition against an ex-parte communication with the
20 Clerk. That's what they're here for, is to talk to people
21 insulate the Court or the Judge from the public.
22 Paragraph two of this motion to set trial date by
23 phone, "How the Court has determined a two day trial can be
24 crammed into two half day trial is a mystery. It is the
25 Defendant's belief that the Court is relying on statements 12
1 and claims of ex-Magistrate Jeffrey Lane who's opinion may
2 be that this trial can be contemplated, completed in..." it
3 says competed that's why I'm having a hard time, "...competed
4 in two half days instead of a two day trial."
5 MS. BURNESON: Your Honor (inaudible) trial,
6 that's not me, that is not Carla Burneson, that is ...
7 THE COURT: Ma'am it's your filing.
8 MS. BURNESON: No it isn't my filing.
9 THE COURT: Well then be quiet.
10 MS. BURNESON: That is_
11 THE COURT: You can respond, but I told you to be
12 quite. I'm not going to tell you again, be quiet. Shut up my friend has the floor and he can talk as long as he wants. He is a lawyer and you are nothing more than a women pro se.
13 MR. LANE: I'm reading from a document captioned,
14 Dam East Homeowners Association versus Carla Burneson pro
15 se, case number OOC4042, received in my office June 17,
16 2002, and filed in this court, signed by Mrs. Burneson.
17 THE COURT: I know, I've read it myself. I knew
18 it well.
19 MR. LANE: Now we're in the position, Judge, where
20 Mrs. Burneson in the first thing that she's filed in this
21 case since Magistrate Petrie recused himself, while not
22 coming right out and saying it, at least by (inaudible),
23 and I can tell the Court that I am very proud of the fact
24 that I've served as a Magistrate for Arapahoe County, I
25 served for 10 years as a Magistrate for Arapahoe County. What in the hell does any of this have to do with this hearing? Lane is a frustrated actor and needs a stage to play on. He claims he should not have to be in court but wants 4 hours of legal fees for an hour in court today. Ruddick wants to give him as much money as he can ring out of the Burnesons in hopes Lane will be supportive of him as one of the few lawyers in the front range.
13
1 But my title is not ex-Magistrate. And throughout this
2 proceeding that's how I'm referred to by the Burnesons.
3 And I'm referred to that way because it's disparaging in
4 the fact that they want people to assume that there's some
5 inappropriate relationship between me and the Court. And
6 quite frankly, Judge, I've about had it with this.
7 Let's go on, let me read the rest of it.
8 THE COURT: I want to stop you there for just--‑
9 I'm the one that tried for months to get this matter
10 settled through my staff. I met staff also works as the
11 Court's liaison, and I'm sitting there saying, "I want this
12 trial going, because it's been sitting for so long. It's
13 on my age case report, and it's sitting there being wasted.
14 And I don't do those civil cases." So I had my staff try
15 to get us set for September, October, every month, and
16 every month I was told no, I can't do it. And then finally
17 the Defendant exceeded to have it in December.
18 I have never set any case for three days, because I
19 don't have time for that, No time for justice in your world court cases can’t exceed 2 half days or nothing will happen. These two lawyers are in effect singing a duet together in court as they show their team work to get the Burnesons. we just don't have the ability in
20 County Court, so we set it for those two half days as my
21 only available half days. And I knew that it needed to be
22 done, I had a Friday afternoon that I could use. And if
23 you recall I guess I wasn't that bad in my predictions,
24 because we did go into Friday. These two old women are crying and ringing their hands of this situation that has nothing to do with this hearing. Here Lane keep talking and you will make another $200.00.
1
I just want to make that record because you had
2 nothing to do with it. I'm sitting there saying that I
3 want a case set, I want it heard, and I want it done. So
4 go ahead please.
5 MR. LANE: Paragraph four of that same document
6 says the following: "If the Court and Plaintiff's Counsel
7 has had any communication outside of the normal channels,
8 i.e. phone or in chamber meeting, this action is grounds
9 for the Court to recuse himself immediately. The Defendant
10 moves for disclosure of Court communication with
11 Plaintiff's Counsel without Defendant's participation."
12 First of all Judge, the only time it's appropriate for
13 any litigant or any Attorney, or any pro se litigant, to
14 question the ethics of the Court, or quite frankly the
15 ethics of the other Attorneys, is a motion to recuse.
16 This isn't a motion to recuse. This is something that
17 should have been struck probably immediately. I didn't
18 file a motion to strike, the rules provide for it. I
19 didn't file one, but it's just further the pattern that the
20 Burneson's have engaged in. And that pattern didn't stop.
21 And perhaps if I filed my motion to strike then, and the
22 Court had done something about it, it would have, but it
23 didn't stop.
24 And then we got on to June 26th, 2002, two days after I
25 enter my appearance in this case. Something filed by the
15
1
Burneson's called a Defendant's response to Plaintiff's
2 response to motion of joinder of person needed for just
3 adjudication CRS Rule 319. I probably could have moved to
4 strike that just for the fact that such a motion doesn't
5 exist, but I didn't. This is all done in a winy sing song voice with the hurt expression on Lane’s face as if his shoes were hurting him.
6 Paragraph six, question of the Court, "Why are the
7 Lawyers so hyper about allowing Mr. Burneson to join his
8 wife in joint owner of the encumbered property, and be
9 allowed to protect his financial interest in the future
10 case? What injustice to the Plaintiff's case could
11 possibly happed by allowing Mr. Burneson to represent
12 himself pro se with the Defendant? Is it the possibility
13 the Plaintiff can only win by the unfair advantage of
14 Lawyer against a third grade school teacher pro se, and by
15 the mere appearance of Mr. Burneson pro se, the Plaintiff's
16 will lose in Court."
17 Now Mrs. Burneson signed this, I'm quite shocked of,
18 that she would allow her husband to have the arrogance to
19 think that he could do a better job than she could, or
20 that, and, and file a pleading that says that she can't do
21 as well as a Lawyer can.
22 But none the less, it goes on to say, "By denying this
23 motion of joinder justice will not be served and the truth
24 will, will not be in evidence in this Court. If an
25 Attorney can't win his case against a husband and wife
Pro
16
1 se, then the Attorney doesn't have a case and this law suit
2 should not have been filed".
3 So what they're telling you in this pleading is, if
4 you don't grant my motion, I don't get justice. If you
5 don't grant my motion, I haven't got a fair trial. So
6 they're telling you even before you've even looked at the
7 motion, this isn't fair if you do this to me. It's, it
8 implies that the Court is not being fair to them.
9 Whether it's expressed or implied, it implies, and I
10 think it's expressly stated in other motions that there's
11 some untied relationship between the Court and Counsel, or
12 that the Court has some bias against pro se litigants,
13 which isn't the case. I watched this trial, it isn't the
14 case. Now I didn't move to strike this pleading, it went
15 on, the motion was denied, I didn't move to strike it, I
16 probably should have. They weren't stopped at that point.
17 They're conduct didn't stop.
18 July 1st, 2002. Defendant's response to Plaintiff's
19 response to motion to set trial date by phone, motion to
20 disqualify Defendant's Counsel by Rule 1.2. Again a motion
21 to probably there's no such motion, none the less it was
22 filed. The Court didn't on it's own say, "There's no such
23
motion, I'm striking this," could have
done. Let her file
1 Paragraph three, "Jeffrey Lane by Rule 1.12 cannot
2 represent the Dam East Homeowners Association or the
3 directors. It is quite apparent Mr. Jeffrey Lane does not
4 come to this Court with clean hands." I don't know of any
5 document that requires an Attorney to come to the Court
6 with clean hands, but none the less, "These issues and
7 other are now pending before the Colorado Supreme Court
8 against Magistrate Burns and ex-Magistrate Lane."
9 First of all, Judge, first of all, the grievance
10 proceedings are confidential. These people grieved my
11 twice, I didn't know that until I got a letter from Judge
12 Leopold that they had sent telling Judge Leopold that they
13 grieved me. They grieved me twice, and you know what he
14 grievance committee told them? "Don't call us, we're call
15 you. We don't want to hear from you again." And I'm going
16 to read that into the record in a minute.
17 But certainly in a pleading filed with the Court it's
18 not appropriate for them to insinuate, or in manner tell
19 the Court that they are contemplating or have instituted
20 any, any proceeding in the Supreme Court with respect to an
21 Attorney. That's not appropriate. It's not relevant to the
22 issues of this case. I didn't file a motion to strike, we
23 didn't stop them then. Nothing Lane has said in 17 pages of transcript is relevant to this hearing. But most of the Defendant’s claims are true.
24 In the wherefore clause of the, addendum clause I
25 guess you call it of this motion, Mrs. Burneson says the
18
1 following: "Wherefore the Defendant requests the Court
2 grant this motion to schedule a trial date of two full days
3 on June 24, 2002. The Defendant also moves for full
4 disclosure of Court communications with Plaintiff's Counsel
5 without the Defendant's participation. Defendant never got her request on ex parte communications. Second day of the half day trial Lane came into court after looking around to be sure Jim Burneson would’t abserve him coming from Judge Ruddick’s chamber to his set in court as Plaintiff. The Defendant
6 requests the Court rule on the motion to disqualify Mr.
7 Jeffrey Lane as Counsel for the Dam East Homeowners
8 Association as required by professional conduct Rule 1.12."
9 That's inappropriate, Judge, they're insinuating that
10 we've had some communication. And in fact, in an affidavit
11 that I read that I couldn't find this morning, they in fact
12 at one point said they were going to subpoena telephone
13 records to prove that you and I had telephoned each other.The request to get phone records must have scared the s--- out of both Lane and Ruddick. They have never been theaten by this request before. How dare these peasant to question the highest position in the lane .. a lawyer and an judge. Society has stopped saluting lawyers and judges and they have earned this disrespect.
14 I never saw that subpoena, I never saw that witness. You
15 know what happens? These things get in the public record.
16 It gets in the public record that they're going to subpoena
17 the phone company to prove that you and I colluded somehow.
18 Then the subpoena doesn't appear, the phone company
19 isn't here, and there's no such records. But that's still
20 there. And it sits there, and it sits there, and it sits
21 there, and it sits there. And that's how the Burneson's
22 act, and that's how they conduct litigation, and that's
23 what's got to stop. And I'm going to get, I'm not done
24 yet. Because we didn't stop them then, I didn't file a
25 motion to strike. These two tort twisters talked on the phone to set up the trial and these two hearings. It was evident especially in the trial.
1
And Judge I'm sorry I have to go into this, because
2 this is so repugnant to me. And repugnant to the way the
3 system works. It's, it's awful that I've got to address
4 this issue. I could’t believe Lane would review the report on why Ruddick was recommended to not be relected but he would do anything to get Ruddick mad enough to put Jim Burneson in Jail.
5 Motion to recuse Judge Ruddick, filed October 21St,
6 2002. Paragraph one, "The Eighteen Judicial District
7 Commission on Judicial performance recommends that Judge R.
8 Ruddick not be retained. The Attorney question is rated
9 Judge Ruddick one letter below average on being courteous
10 towards parties, witnesses and pro se parties. In
11 explaining court procedures clearly and thoroughly, and in
12 maintaining a profession demeanor in the courtroom,
13 patience and listening skills, managing his docket, being
14 punctual in staring proceedings, using court time
15 efficiently, and providing quick access to the Court in
16 emergency matters. The Attorneys rated him significantly
17 below average in communicating verbally in a clear thorough
18 and well reasoned manner."
19 Paragraph two, "The Defendant is pro se and does not
20 believe she should have a Judge with this evaluation to
21 preside in the judgment, in the case she's litigating."
22 Defendant has a sting of losses in your Court. Her motions
23 are being denied, and where does that leave us? She can't
24 pound on the law, she can't pound on the facts, so she's
25 pounding on the Court.
20
1. Quite frankly, Judge, and this...
2 THE COURT: Well Counsel maybe I'm just to lenient
3 in all that, but you know, it doesn't really, for me it's
4 sort of, it's like throwing spaghetti up against the wall,
5 you know. For me I just sort of say, "Well at least it's
6 not my house that I dirty," but I guess in some ways she's
7 dirtying everybody else's house. How does the charges against Judge Ruddick dirty a house. Lane is trying to get Ruddick mad for a reason and you will learn shortly.
8 MR. LANE: I know you've done, I know you've done
9 that, and when I get to the end of my presentation I'll tie
10 this up with what I'm asking for, the relief I'm asking
11 for.
12 She goes on to allege, and this isn't supported by
13 affidavit, "While trying to set a trial date efforts were
14 made by this Court, which Defendant consider overbearing
15 and demanding beyond reason. These demands sounded just
16 like Counsel for the Plaintiff, trying to cram the times
17 and dates for trail to his advantage." So once again, if
18 not clearly expressly, at least impliedly indicating, or
19 insinuating that you and I had polluted in some manner with
20 regard to the trial setting.
21 It goes on to say, "It appears opposing Counsel, Mr.
22 Jeffrey Lane, has a familiar relationship with Judge
23 Ruddick that goes beyond the professional level between a
24 Judge and a Lawyer. This familiarity may be due to the
25 fact that Mr. Lane was a Magistrate in Littleton Court of
21
1 Arapahoe County." It's not supported by affidavit, a
2 motion to recuse is required two affidavits in support.
No in county court only one affidavit is needed to recuse a judge.
3 It's not supported by anything but conjecture, speculation,
4 and not even really supported by the real world facts.
5. It goes on to say, "Another Court where the Judge is
6 not being rated is to not be retained must be available.
7 Defendant claims Judge Ruddick cannot be objective due to
8 her being pro se." That motion was denied. I didn't file
9 a motion to strike that motion, it was denied, and they
10 kept going. Judge Ruddick proved defendants claim he is prejudice against women and pro se litigants just as he was charged by the 18th Distict Court Commission on Judicial performance.
11 Next, Judge, something filed on November 19, 2002.
12 And you notice these motions all get filed right before
13 trials. And they all have the purpose of delaying a trial.
14 November 19th, 2002, something called a motion to
15 supplemental pleadings Rule 15D, whatever that means. And
16 in that motion Mrs. Burneson says the following: "Judge
17 Petrie will be a material witness in the law suit brought
18 in the District Court against Timothy Muller of
19 Windsenberg, Webb, Purvis and Payne, LLP. This is an
20 action of fraud on the Court, and intentional
21 misrepresentation by the Law Firm of Windsenberg, Webb,
22 Purvis and Payne."
23 So on the eve of trial she's filing something with the
24 Court indicating that a subpoenaed witness, an Attorney is
25 going to be sued, is going to be sued for fraud, and, and
22
1 alleging some intentional misrepresentation. She's doing
2 that to gain an advantage, or to bully or scare people.
3 It's obvious that's what's going on. That's not
4 appropriate. That's the type of pleading that should be
5 struck. I didn't move to strike it, but it could be
6 struck.
7.Next paragraph, "Mr. Lane..." and I'm just reading a
8 portion of the paragraph, "Mr. Lane's claim the books have
9 been provided us as a fraud of the Court." She accuses me
10 of fraud. "Mr. Lane kidnapped the association books and
11 papers and hid them in his office. Discovery is allowed
12 only on files chosen by Mr. Lane. This restriction is
13 without any statute or rule of law that counters the rights
14 of statute 7-1-36," whatever that is. So not only am I
15 fraudulent, but a kidnapper at this point. Those are not
16 the type of allegations that should be filed in a pleading.
17 If that's what they think there's venues for that. But
18 this Court's not it. I didn't file a motion to strike, we
19 didn't do anything about it then.
20 Next, January 24th, 2003, motion for contempt of court
21 hearing. At this point Mrs. Burneson has lost her trial.
22 You've entered judgment against her for over $10,000.00.
23 So what does she do? She goes back on the attack. She
24 files with the Court a motion for contempt of court, and I
23
1 don't know what that means, there should be a motion for an
2 issuance of a contempt citation.
3 But nonetheless, paragraph two, "Defendant Carla
4 Burneson believes these witnesses were told by Mr. Jeffrey
5 Lane, Counsel for the board of directors, they didn't have
6 to appear since he knows the Judge." That's I guess a
7 compound allegation. Number one, and if the Court will
8 review the transcript of the trial, and I did that this
9 morning, the Court quashed all the subpoenas right at the
10 very beginning of the trial, so they didn't have to appear.
11 Secondly, I may or may not have told certain
12 witnesses they had to appear or didn't have to appear based
13 upon whether I had an opinion whether service was
14 appropriate. Two witnesses in the trial were subpoenaed who didn’t appear. Judge Ruddick didn’t quash any subpoeanas until the end of the trial and he did so without permission of the defense whose witnesses were effected. Lane is lying again but that’s OK because perjury is not enforced in civil court.
15 Thirdly, my recollection is I didn't tell anybody
16 that, and we had witnesses sit out in the hallway for three
17 days.
18 And fourthly, all of that had nothing to do with the
19 fact that I knew the Judge. Of course I know the Judge.
20 Every Lawyer knows practically every Judge. I mean it's
21 hard to practice in Arapahoe County for 25 years and not
22 have some acquaintance with the bench. But that doesn't
23 mean that we have some relationship that's inappropriate. Lane finely got something right. His relationship with Ruddick in this trial was far more than just an acquaintance.
24 Paragraph five, "If this Court refuses to grant this
25 motion the refusal will be added to Defendant's appeal."
24
Defendant/Appellant didn’t know here appeal was already refused by Rafferty and would be setup to be refused by Judge Steinhart who wasn’t even appointed yet.
1 Once again, Burneson tactic. What's Burneson tactic? They
2 tell you before hand, if you don't do what I'm going to say
3 what I want you to do, I'm going to report you to the
4 Supreme Court, I'm going to appeal you, I'm going to have
5 the Chief Judge review this, I'm going to complain to the
6 District Administrator, I'm going to put the transcript on
7 the internet. These are threats that are not appropriate
8 in pleadings. But we let them go. These are not threats but promises and on the internet the entire kangaroo trial will be made public.
9 We're not done yet. We have to look at where we are l0 now. Where we are now is, due partially I think to the
11 Court's congested docket on the days that these matters
12 were set for trial, and the fact that a simple collection
13 case took three afternoons to try, and quite frankly I'll,
14 and certain probably shouldn't, but there really wasn't
15 much of a defense offered, and the Court makes that finding
16 in the transcript.
17 There was a change in the tapes back and forth. And I
18 know how these tape recorders work. Occasionally something
19 will get started, it will get stopped, and then there will
20 be a proceeding in the middle of the tape. And quite
21 frankly it's not a tremendous surprise to me that when the
22 transcriber went to transcribe the tapes, all of the tapes
23
of the proceedings were not transcribed. Those things
24 happen. Especially when the judge hid the tapes in his draw.
1 And not only do they happen, but the rule provides for
2 remedy for it. If indeed there's not a total transcript
3 then you can reconstruct the transcript, or attempt to
4 reconstruct the proceedings and send it on to the Appeals
5 Court. The reconstruction would be by Judge and Lane as they wanted it.
6 However in this case they were all there. They just
7 were mislabeled, or not labeled, and not found initially.
8 THE COURT: Or actually they were labeled, but
9 there were not found.
10 MR. LANE: Right.
11 THE COURT: That's how we found them.
12 MR. LANE: Okay.
13 THE COURT: I don't know how the Court staff knew.
14 MR. LANE: In the world according to the Burnesons
15 that means that you and I colluded somehow in either the
16 destruction, the erasing, or the hiding of these tapes.
17 And they filed pleadings in this Court alleging that. And
18 they're inappropriate. For instance, objection to record
19 on appeal filed July---that's not the one I want, I want
20 the first one. I may not have the first one, so we'll go
21 immediately to July 14th, 2003.
22 Paragraph one, Objection to record on appeal, "The
23 Counsel for Plaintiff was informed the tapes being found on
24 May 8th, 2003, which is an ex-parte violation." So now that
25 the tapes are found, I had contact your clerk, the clerk
26
1 says, "How we found the tapes," I said, "Great, we found
2 the tapes," but that not only now, apparently we didn't
3 collude because the tapes exist, but I engage in some
4 inappropriate conversation with your clerk to find out that
5 they did exist. Nice try Lane it wasn’t your conversation with the clerk but between you and the judge as to when you plan to find the tapes in the judge’s desk draw.
6 And she says the transcription of the missing tapes
7 were started May 8th, and delayed by the Court in being
8 transcribed by the Deputy Clerk of the Court until June 27,
9 2003.Wrong again the tapes were found May 8th and the defendant was not told about them being found until May 29th hearing So she's alleging there in essence that the Judge or
10 the Court in somehow delayed the transcription of those
11 tapes. Sure they did from May 8th to May 29th
12 Defendant requests the Court to explain why it took 49
13 days to transcript 106 pages of transcript, transcribe 106
14 pages. Well, Judge, the clear inference there is that the
15 Court did something wrong, the Court was inappropriate.
16 The Court communicated with me ex-parte, the Court found
17 these tapes that they supposedly destroyed, and then did
18 something to delay the transcription of the tapes.
19 Paragraph three, and this is with brief reference to
20 the affidavits that were filed. "The affidavits are to be
21 completed and..." no, Mrs. Burneson requested that members of
22 the Clerk's office execute affidavits with respect to the
23 tapes, and she says in her motion, "The affidavits are to
24 be completed..." and she ordered them essentially to complete
25 the affidavits, "The affidavits are to be completed and
27
1 sworn to and be made part of this court file. The
2 Eighteenth Judicial District Court must allow a search for
3 the truth as to who lost or hid these tapes for their own
4 purposes."
5 Well that sentence obviously concludes that someone
6 did lose or hide the tapes for their own purposes, it's
7 scandalous, it's not appropriate, it's slanderous, it's not
8 appropriate in a pleading. And on top of it, Judge, we're
9 talking about tapes that they didn't designate in the
10 record. How do you designate including missing tapes until they are found and then get transcribed to become a part of the record?
11 So now the tapes are fine, we've got a transcript, and
12 they're having me come for this hearing today because they
13 want to know, and they subpoenaed your staff, Judge, to
14 know where the tapes were, as if that were relevant
15 somehow.
16 Paragraph four, "The entire trial needs to be reviewed
17 by judicial authority for misconduct by all involved in the
18 trial and records of the trial. It is doubtful Judge
19 Ruddick wants to open the trial for any review to anyone,
20 much less an Appellate Court. Any Judge with any ethics
21 and an understanding of his (inaudible) duty to the public
22 would have been outraged over the loss of the Defendant's
23 tapes of the trial in his Court." The three apparently
24 insinuating you're a Judge without any ethics, and without
25 any outrage. "The three hours included all of the Defense
28
1 witness's testimony, not Judge Ruddick, not Judge Ruddick.
2 Anything lost in his court gets hidden and refusal to
3 investigate how his court could lose any tapes."
4 Well Judge let me, let me digress for a moment. If I
5 had...
6 THE COURT: Oh I understand. The tapes weren't
7 lost, you know, I'll let you go on, but let me---Ms.
8 Burneson is one of those kind of people that's a sore
9 loser, (prejudice) and I'm sad for her. But she could have every
10 theory in the world, but we're never going to change her
11 mindset, she's going to believe all these false things, and
12 these weird things, but it all, I knew there were tapes
13 there, I knew they were missing, and I simply asked a very
14 simple thing to the staff person, "Go down and check and
15 see where they are," and lord and behold there they were.
5 and a half months later he asked his staff to go down and check and see where they are. He must have been running down the stairs to the basement in front of his staff member Mr. Houston with the missing tape in his hand so it could be found in the basement as a miracle.
16 But some people can't accept that, and we're never
17 going to have her change her mindset. She can never accept
18 that, or anything else that's going on. And I went through
19 the same things with Magistrate Petrie before, as you say,
20 the final recusal. I, I've never taken any offense, I
21 just think I've dealt with people that have that mindset.
22 And you can't do anything with them. Go ahead please.
23 MR. LANE: Okay. As I have written that
24 statement, I have the, I have the right and the privilege.
1 THE COURT: Oh I'm
sorry, I can do something to
2 you, because you're an Attorney of Law, and I would have
3 long ago.
4 MR. LANE: I have the right and the privilege to
5 practice law in the Court of the State of Colorado and
6 represent other people. Mrs. Burneson has the right and
7 the privilege to represent herself. If I abuse that
8 privilege my right goes away. I can be disbarred. If I
9 would have written that statement I would have been
10 disbarred, I wouldn't be allowed to practice in this Court
11 anymore.
12 THE COURT: That's true. And the truth is you should be disbarred long time ago along with Lane. That day is coming.
13 MR. LANE: The same thing goes for Mrs. Burneson.
14 Her privilege is not an absolute privilege, it's a
15 qualified privilege. She has a qualified privilege to
16 appear pro se, and I'm going to get and tie that up in just
17 a moment.
18 And so now we're here today essentially because Mrs.
19 Burneson subpoenaed your staff, she required me to be here,
20 she thinks that there's, and as you said Judge she's a sore
21 loser, and she thinks that there was some collusion between
22 myself and the Court, and she's made that clear. She made
23 that clear in her pleadings.
24 She made that clear not only in her pleadings, Judge,
25 but in her closing argument. And I'm not going to go
30
1 through it, I've marked probably one, two, three, four,
2 five, six, seven, seven places in her closing argument,
3 eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve places in her closing
4 argument where she made disparaging remarks with respect to
5 either myself or the Court. I objected to them at the
6 time, the Court let her go on. An objection was not made during defendant’s closing statement. The judge and Lane just continued to interrupt her in an effort to confuse her closing statement. She was interrupted 26 times while Lane and Ruddick sang a duet of trying to confuse the defendant. READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE TRIAL THAT JUDGE STEINHARDT CLAIMS SHE READ AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND HOW LOW THE COLORADO JUSTICE SYSTEM HAS REACHED.
7 You recall the first thing that I read was my letter
8 I'd written to the Burnesons, or Mr. Burneson when I
9 entered my appearance in this case, asking for some
10 civility.
11 Let's look, we've taken a little look at what they've
12 written in Court. Judge, let me tell you of some of the
13 letter's they've written my client. Now, as an Attorney if
14 I wrote a letter to another Attorney's client I'd be
15 disbarred.
16 MS. BURNESON: Objection sir. 31 pages of Lane ACTING ON STAGE and nothing for the defense.
17 THE COURT: Noted. You may proceed.
18 MS. BURNESON: Objection.
19 THE COURT: Objection is noted. Go ahead.
20 MR. LANE: I would be disbarred. I asked the
21 Burneson's not to communicate with my clients. First
22 letter, e-mail dated January 21st, 2003, letter to Suzanne
23 Williams, who is a State Representative, or Senator, I'm
24 not sure which.
1 It begins, "Hi
Suzanne," second paragraph, "How will
2 Burneson's trial before Judge Ruddick and ex-Magistrate
3 Jeffrey Lane's ex-parte collusion in Court has a 100
4 percent chance of success at being overruled and ordered a
5 new trial. Judge Ruddick violated every rule of cannon one
6 and parts of three for his good buddy Lane. It was the
7 most degrading display of two Lawyers working to keep the
8 truth out as they decided before the trial. The board
9 members who testified perjured themselves, which can be
10 used in my trial on February 18. The more the board
11 listens to Lane and Silver the deeper the sham gets."
12 Going on next paragraph. "Would you believe Judge
13 Ruddick claimed he did not understand the word commingled?
14 Third grade teacher had to tell him what it meant."
15 Three or four paragraphs down later, "The Lawyer
16 Jeffrey Lane is another liability to this association
17 doesn't need."
18 E-mail, it's dated January 18th, 2003.
19 MS. BURNESON: Are those from me sir?
20 MR. LANE: This is directed to the board of
21 directors from Mr. Burneson. It says the following: "How
22 will Burneson's appeal to trial by Judge Ruddick and ex‑
23 Magistrate Jeffrey Lane's ex-parte collusion in Court has a
24 100 percent chance of success? The board of directors has
25 spent over $15,000.00 in legal fees to screw the Burneson's
Since Lane was never hired by the Association his legal bills were never approved by the Board of Directors. They were approved by a property manager who has no authority to approve anything. The board president Jake Hummel is also an attorney and he can’t interpret the HOA Covenants and Bylaws correctly. They don’t have pictures.
32
1 when they did not owe any delinquent assessments. That
2 right, that's right did now owe any assessments. It's a
3 form of harassment when you are the critic of the board of
4 directors. The use the association's money to sue the
5 member. Out of $6,500.00 it was all legal fees on top of
6 legal fees. Two directors, two directors subpoenaed did
7 not show up for trial. Contempt of court hearings are
8 being requested for them to tell us why they are above the
9 law, or did Lane tell them he would dismiss them (without
10 authority) because he's a friend of the Judge?" You
11 remember there was a specific allegation of that in the
12 motion. It's just a question in this letter.
13 "They sure were friends in this trial. Judge Ruddick
14 violated every rule of cannon one and three. I have the
15 tapes of the trial if anyone wants to hear a kangaroo
16 trial. It was a disgrace to every call it a trial. That's
17 $15,000.00_. (End of tape)
18 (Start of new tape) "...nothing for the association
19 except revenge for Greg Silva and Larson and other board
20 members who allowed it to happen."
21 Next paragraph. "Judge Ruddick was so dumb he didn't
22 know what the word..." and it's ironic here, "...Judge Ruddick
23 was so dumb he didn't know..." and it's spelled want, w-a-n‑
24 t, "...want the word commingle means. It took a third grade
25 teacher to tell him the meaning. I intend to bring perjury
1
charges against anyone who lies under oath in either trial
2 to the District Attorney of Arapahoe County. This includes
3 Jeffrey Lane who suborn perjury in Court, which means he
4 leads the lie. Once I have the transcripts of this trial I
5 will put it on the internet and have 300 e-mail addresses
6 of law firms announcing they should read what a judicial
7 twosome is like when the Judge and the Lawyer pre-decide
8 the case before the trial is held." Pro Se defendant didn’t know that perjury is not enforced in our civil courts. Lane and Ruddick has to be laughing at the suggestion of suing for perjury in Arapahoe County. Jim Burneson did sue the District Attorney of Arapahoe County for not prosecuting Mr.& Mrs. Ray Stewart for perjury in three separate trials where they lied on there separate transcript under oath and the DA claimed they didn’t have enough evidence to prove they were guilty. There is no record of any DA prosecuting a case of perjury in a civil court in the State of Colorado. It’s the dirty little secret of lawyers and judges over the peasants of Colorado.
9 Next e-mail, Monday January 27th 2003. "There will
10 have to be a retraction of Judge Ruddick's ruling. There
11 were so many legal mistakes made in this trial by Lane and
12 Ruddick it will be overruled immediately."
13 Letter to me, faxed to me dated January 27th, 2003.
14 "There was an announcement in the Dam East Win about Judge
15 Ruddick's trial that Carla lost, and there's a $10,000.00
16 lien on our property. There will be damages sought if
17 there is an unauthorized lien since the Court decision is
18 under appeal." Which by the way Judge you can record the
19 recording of a transcript or judgments, not execution, so
20 you can do that.
21 "And the Judge has a motion to set a hearing to
22 dispute the fees. The motion to dispute the legal fees was never scheduled by Ruddick and the defense was denied her right to this hearing. Lane told Rudddick to skip the hearing and the defendant can’t do anything about it. Judge Steinhardt thought it was OK to skip the hearing on legel fees and the Supreme Court of Colorado thought it would be OK also. In addition, if any report has been made
23 to credit reporting agencies this too will be grounds for
24 damages and must be reversed immediately. Lane your hatred
25 of me is blinding, and your actions against me will be
34
1 costly. So far your appearance in the Dam East Homeowners
2 Association litigation has doubled my claims and second law
3 suit. There are some more surprises in store for you and
4 Silva. I suggest you advise the Law Firm you're employed
5 by some, of some very public announcements with their name
6 involved."
7 "Silva and you lied in Ruddick's Court. Suborn
8 perjury will not go unanswered. We will have the
9 transcripts of the trial within two weeks. Copies of the
l0 audiotapes have already been delivered to the right parties
11 for review. The Judge selected to review the appeal cannot
12 do so since I have recused him in the past. Your talent
13 for ex-parte communication will not help you steer this
14 appeal.I was wrong Jeffrey Lane proved he runs the 18th District Court system and he tells the judges what to do and they do it. I also believe he now runs the Supreme Court of Colorado I can't believe you would risk your license and
15 Patterson's..." that's the firm that I work for, Patterson,
16 (inaudible) and Seymour's. "...error in admission insurance
17 for a few thousand dollars. Signed Jim Burneson, copies to
18 many" it says on the bottom. One to Silva, Jake Humble and
19 Mr. Patterson. So to my client's, essentially my boss, and
20 to many, and posted on the internet.
21 Next, February 14, 2003, a letter to the board of
22 directors, my client's and the membership, regarding Judge
23 Ruddick's trial is a mistrial and will be reverse.
24 Paragraph one, "I've just received copies of the transcript
25 of the trial Greg Silva claimed in the Dam East Win Carla
35
1 Burneson had lost, and now owes $10,000.00. Once again
2 Silva is wrong. This Judge erased about two hours of
3 testimony from the audiotape of the trial. This makes the
4 entire trial a mistrial without an appeal. It will be
5 thrown out in 15 minutes of review by the Eighteen District
6 Court, Arapahoe County. Even if the mistrial were not
7 declared, the actions of Jeffrey Lane and Judge Ruddick
8 would cause the trial to be thrown out as a violation of
9 the rules that govern Judges and Court. Not when Judge Leopold retains Judge Steinhardt to write an opinion in secret and Orders Carla Burneson’s appeal to be denied. The Supreme Court of Colorado also passed on this Writ and failed to perform their duties as an impartial body of jurists when they didn’t even read the defendants appeal. But I now have a
10 transcript of the testimony of the witnesses under oath
11 when they committed perjury by lying at this trial. I can
12 use this testimony in the trial on February 18th 2002." So
13 he's threatening to use something from this trial at
14 another trial. A typical Burneson tactic.
15 "Now Greg Silva, who lied in Judge Ruddick's Court,
16 will have to repeat these lies in the next trial, or if he
17 tells the truth next week will prove that he perjured
18 himself in the first trial." This again is on the eve of
19 trial in District Court that was set.
20 "I will put the transcript of Judge Ruddick's trial on
21 the internet for all to read, one of the biggest kangaroo
22 trials in Colorado. Just imagine what would happen if it
23 wasn't the Burnesons who knew what they were doing, and you
24 were on trial for $15,000.00 in legal fees when you didn't
25 know any delinquent assessments."
1
"Charles Conway and Jennifer McClain failed to appear
2 while under subpoena in Judge Ruddick's trial. The great
3 ex-Magistrate..." so I've been elevated from ex-Magistrate to
4 great ex-Magistrate, "...Jeffrey Lane told them they did not
5 have to attend the trial. This is a Plaintiff's Attorney
6 telling a defense witness that it's okay you don't have to
7 make the trial. Carla has a motion before the Court to
8 hold both of them in contempt of court for not showing up
9 "Since Ruddick screwed up the past trial he'll not
10 be hearing this complaint. It will be heard before a real
11 Judge. This is a police officer and past board member who
12 are above the law. Connelly even cashed the witness check
13 of $5.00 and then skipped the trial," which is kind of
14 funny, "what a guy! In 15 minutes Carla's trial will be
15 over turned."
16 E-mail dated February 25th, 2003. "Yet the association
17 is still without legal representation because Lane's legal
18 advise about holding secret board meetings to hire him as
19 his Law Firm is malpractice at best. When you had the
20 secret meeting on January 27t why didn't you invite Lori to
21 the meeting instead of just picking up the key? God you
22 guys are dumb. That was a non public meeting..." that's
23 ironic once again, calling them dumb, and then misspelled
24 non. "...public meeting in violation of Kiowa, and Lane is
37
1 telling you it's okay. Lane is not going to be practicing
2 law much longer." One more threat.
3 Next page. "The Attorney Lane sounded like..." oh, this
4 is, this is incredibly unusual. Mr. Burneson posted the
5 transcript of our trial on the internet. He posted that
6 with some remarks that were incredibly derogatory to both
7 yourself and myself. He also...
8 THE COURT: I'm glad I don't read, I don't get the
9 internet much in my life.
10 MR. LANE: Well it was, and was kind of funny
11 about it is...
12 THE COURT: It's clear to be technically
13 inefficient sometimes. I see a gentleman...
14 MR. LANE: Not only posted his comments on the
15 internet, but he wrote my clients a letter. He wrote my
16 clients a letter, and he purported to be quoting a Judge,
17 and unknown Judge from Ohio named Don, Judge Don. Judge
18 Don apparently wrote Jim and Carla this letter, and I'm
19 going to re-share it with you. It's dated February 25th,
20 year 2003, and this was sent to my clients.
21 "Dear Jim and Carla, I read the closing arguments all
22 the way through and have the following reaction. Carla did
23 an excellent job. She was concise, stayed on point when
24 she was actually allowed to speak, and made sense. The
25 Attorney Lane sounded like something from a low budget..."
38
1 this is kind of funny. "...a low budget movie where the
2 writers and director had obviously never been in a
3 courtroom. I have never read anything like it. The Judge
4 and the Attorney both giving the closing argument."
5 It goes on to say, "I cannot believe some of the
6 comments that were made on the record. Don't these cases
7 ever get reviewed in Colorado? An Appellate Court should
8 really see this transcript. Did Attorney Lane actually
9 pass the Colorado Bar exam?" I was yelling this out loud
10 while I was reading. "The State Disciplinary Counsel
11 should be sent a copy of this farce to review. $14,000.00
12 to collect a $600.00 assessment in the USA, that is insane.
13 I do think to totalitarian governments even allow..." it says
14 I do think, but I think he means, "...I don't think
15 totalitarian governments even allow this type of larceny.
16 The worst part is that a Judge in a Court of Law said that
17 it was reasonable."
18 "These are the kinds of cases that cause many
19 Americans to believe that justice may be something that you
20 buy. I'm ashamed to say that I'm in the same profession.
21 Signed Judge Don." It doesn't say Judge Don, it says Don.
22 So what he's doing is trying to get the, provide the, the
23 authority of some other Judge, of course unnamed Judge from
24 Ohio, to review what our case was like, and then send it to All of the above will be broken down and proven true on the version that goes on the Internet.
39
1 my clients, and posting on the internet supposedly with 300
2 e-mails to 300 different law firms to read this.
3 And where I'm going with this, Judge, is as I said my
4 closing argument, and maybe this is why he thinks I sound
5 like a Hollywood Lawyer, but I quoted Teddy Roosevelt in my
6 closing argument. We'll see if you remember that.
7 THE COURT: I think I remember. I don't remember
8 the quote, but I remember TR.
9 MR. LANE: And the quote is, the quote is, the
10 quote is I'm going to have to look up, I don't know the
11 exact word he used. But I've got it right here, I've
12 marked it in my transcript. "Order without liberty, and
13 liberty without order are equally destructive." We've
14 given the Burneson's a lot of liberty without much order,
15 and it's proved to be destructive. Liberty is not given in a kangaroo trial. It's cost my clients
16 $15,000.00 to collect a $600.00 bill. All of this money went into Lane’s pocket and he’s thrilled. It goes to his college fund. Isn’t the law business great?
17 So what's the upshell, what am I asking the Court to
18 do after spending a half hour of your time? This is what
19 I'm asking you to do. As I said earlier, Mrs. Burneson has
20 a privilege, she has a right and a privilege to appear
21 here, but it's not an unqualified privilege, it's not a
22 privilege that can be abused. The, requiring me to come
23 out here today was an abused step privilege.
24 And I'm asking with just respect to today's hearing, I
25 think this Court still has jurisdiction with regard to the
40
1 matter today, I'm asking for an award of Attorney's Fees
2 for four hours of my time. I'm also asking this Court to
3 enter an order, and this is unusual, but there's precedence
4 for this in the State of Colorado. I'm asking the Court to
5 enter an order that says one of the two, or both of the
6 following.
7. That Mrs. Burneson not file any pleadings in this case
8 unless they're reviewed under Rule 311.5 by at a minimum a
9 reviewing Attorney. Or in the alternative, that each and
10 every pleading filed by Mrs. Burneson be reviewed by the
11 Court. And if the Court finds that there is information in
12 there that should not be in that pleading, that's
13 (inaudible), scandalous, defamatory as defined by the
14 rules, that that pleading be struck, and that she be given
15 a notice that it's been struck. The rule quoted 311.5 has nothing to do with denying motions submitted to a court. It has to do with a lawyer ghost writing legal documents for a pro se litigator which is allowed but he must sign the documents to indicate he wrote them as a licensed lawyer.
16 Option A is much easier for the Court to do than
17 option B. The Court may say, "Well how can I do that?"
18 Well there is precedence for that. And the case is a case
19 out of Greeley where a guy kept filing pleadings in the
20 Trial Court and then in the Supreme Court.
21 Finally the Supreme Court said, "If you keep filing
22 things that are, that are..."---and I can provide the name of
23 the case, off the top of my head I can't think of it now.
24 It was a strange name, he was a rancher out by Greeley.
25 The Court said, "You do have a right to proceed in Court,
41
1. and you have privilege to proceed in Court, but
we get to (
Lane forgets he is not a magistrate any more but in court he runs the law
and if the judge is weak like Ruddick he is the judge and Ruddick is there
for decoration.
2 regulate that privilege. And the way that we're going to
3 regulate that privilege to test is, if you in the exercise
4 of your right and the abuse of your privilege impede the
5 administrative, administration of justice for other
6 litigants, then we're going to restrict you." And in that
7 case the Court said, "You can't file any more pleadings,"
8 and required him to have an Attorney to review everything.
9 And Judge this has, the reason I went through an
10 hours worth, or half hours worth of pleadings is to show
11 the Court there's a pattern of this, not only in this case,
12 in at least 10 other cases in Arapahoe County. Can’t cite them cause then Burneson would look them up and see if they are true. There's a
13 pattern of this, and it does impede the ability of the
14 Court to administer justice in other cases. Abuse of filing motions is reached by case law at over 250 motions which Mr. Lane failed to mention. He always has a case he can’t remember the case number or name just something about the case but not enough information for his opponent to look up the case to dispute his claims. To make this point stronger Lane told Judge Raffery the appellant district judge to issue a minute order agreeing with the denial of motions file by the defendant and that’s what got Rafferty fired and the secret appointment of Judge Steinhardt.
15 When you have to have an hour long hearing this
16 afternoon when quite frankly Judge you wanted to shut us
17 all up and send us out in two minutes, but you had to have
18 the hearing.
19 THE COURT: Well look at how many people I have
20 back here that have a right to be served as well.
21 MR. LANE: They've never seen a class B Hollywood
22 movie with an Attorney that's never been to law school.
23 THE COURT: The problem is these people get
24 restricted in their time because I had to put up with all
25 of this. And that's not fair to them.
1
MR. LANE: That's the point I'm making Judge.
2 Look at what we've been through in this case. We've been
3 through two Judges. We've been through poor Mr. Muller
4 from Windesberg to testify, he couldn't stay on this case
5 because of the stress from all the treats from, from the
6 Burnesons. Their actions have, have hindered the
7 administration of justice. This is pure bullshit. Tim Moeller walked out of this Association with $65,000 that was never approved by the Board of Directors. He felt it was time to run with what he got so he quit.
8 When every time on the eve of a trial you get
9 pleadings filed that threaten new law suits, threaten
10 disciplinary action with the Supreme Court, threaten
11 appeals, threaten Prosecution for perjury. Justice can't
12 be administered. And if it's affecting other litigants,
13 these folks in the courtroom, and it's affecting the people
14 in your---I mean we had your clerks subpoenaed today. That
15 affects their ability to administer justice to the other
16 people that are here at this courthouse wanting to get
17 something done today.
18 And Judge I think it's appropriate in this case, and I
19 think I laid a good enough foundation today for you to
20 enter an order that they can't file anything unless a
21 Lawyer at least looks at it. There should be a gate
22 keeper. And the reason that's important too is because
23 then that gate keeper has some responsibility under the
24 code of ethics, and the code of professional conduct.
1
And that's what I'm asking. I'm not really asking
2 that the Burneson's be bound by the same code I'm bound by,
3 at least the Lawyer that represents them be bound by that.
4 That's all I'm asking Judge. The last person to not have ethic is Jeffrey Lane. At the end of this transcript is an email he sent me with the threat he was going to put me under a bridge living out of a cardboard box. That’s enough to get him disbarred.
5 You see Mr. Burneson is doing it again. You threw him
6 out of the courtroom once before and he's doing it again.
7 THE COURT: Please leave now. You've been making
8 derogatory comments and laughing, you can't act as a
9 gentleman, get out of the Court. I leaned over to talk tell my wife she should call for a recess so we could talk about all these charges against us.
10 MR. BURNESON: Is there going to be a recess to
11 answer these charges?
12 MR. LANE: Judge can we have...
13 THE COURT: No.
14 MR. BURNESON: We'll answer them in writing.
15 THE COURT: Call the Sheriff. If Mr. Burneson
16 does not stay out call the Sheriff and tell them I want him
17 to be brought back in Court on direct contempt of court.
18 MR. LANE: Judge I'm not going to say anything. Lane has set the Judge up to put me in jail for talking to my wife and now is going to hide while the punishment is dished out. Lane has also set it up for August 18, and 19 2005 for another Kangaroo trial for violating a PPO and off to jail Burneson will go. Lane in the world of the 18th District court system is very powerful due to the incompetent judges on the bench. All of this will be on the internet on a national level for the other peasants to realize all of us are peasants under our legal system.
19 further about this, I think you get the point. Thank you
20 very much for the time today to make my record.
21 THE COURT: Ma'am you wish to speak?
22 MS. BURNESON: I do sir. I'm going to begin by
23 saying that I would like strucken from, struck from the
24 record all the letters and the e-mails that Mr. Lane just
25 read, because they did not, they were not signed by me, 44.
1
they were not written by me, and they had nothing to do
2 with what we were here for today. So I would like all
3 those e-mail letters, and all that he read into the record
4 to be struck.
5 THE COURT: Denied.
6 MS. BURNESON: Even when they were not...
7 THE COURT: It has relevancy to the issue that
8 I've been asked to decide. You may proceed.
9 MS. BURNESON: But they were not written by me.
10 THE COURT: You may proceed.
11 MS. BURNESON: Okay.
12 THE COURT: I denied that. Do you have other
13 matters?
14 MS. BURNESON: Yes. This hearing, okay, this
15 hearing was by no means frivolous attempt to delay any
16 appeal as claimed by Mr. Lane. I had the right to file
17 this motion to object to the record in it is a mandatory
18 hearing.
19 I object to any award of legal fees to Mr. Lane. He
20 stood here for however long whining about how he is
21 treated. But if I had all the e-mails and all the letters
22 that he has sent and he has written I guess that there can
23 be a counter to everything that he has to say.
24 One thing that he did not have correct was at the
25 beginning of the, when we had filed the contempt of court
45
1 charges, when I filed the contempt of court charges the
2 sbpoenas at the beginning were not quashed, they were not‑
3 --so the two people that did not show up, their subpoenas
4 had been quashed.
5 The, I am here to review the following issues that
6 involve the trial record. These issues must be resolved
7 before the trial record is forwarded to the Appeal Judge at
8 the Eighteenth District Court. I feel that you have been
9 prejudiced against me throughout the trial and hearings,
10 and if my requests are denied it will hinder my appeal.
11 One, issues that I would like resolved. All
12 audiotapes of the trial and hearings are to be included
13 with the record.
14 THE COURT: Well ma'am you didn't ask for that,
15 that has to be denied. You didn't make a request for that,
16 and they're not official records. The only official record
17 is the transcript. You didn't put it in the request for
18 transcript and the request under Rule 411. So that's
19 denied.
20 MS. BURNESON: When would that have been made sir?
21 THE COURT: It's denied. I'm not arguing with
22 you, I'm just telling you what I'm doing. Do you have
23 anything else? Lane and Judge Ruddick has to try and hide the transcripts and this is the way they decided to try it ex parte before the court was held.
24
MS. BURNESON: Yes.
1THE
COURT: We need to stop here. Mr.---why don't
2 you sit down. Mr. Burneson needs to come up into the jury
3 box. Now Mr. Burneson I have warned you so many times
4 throughout the proceedings about how you should behave.
5 really felt pity on your wife that she would have to deal
6 with you all the time, I thought I only had to deal with
7 you a little bit while you were in trial. And I've tried
8 to ignore everything you did to try to make sure that she
9 had a fair trial. And I probably bent over backwards. Judge Ruddick hasn’t bent over anything in this trial. He is under the control of Lane who for the last 40 minutes has been trying to feed some anger in Ruddick’s mind so He will put me in jail. I
10 did many things to make sure that whatever you did to not
11 affect her right to be heard.
12 But I warned you before about making those funny
13 little comments and laughing in court. So this time I am
14 finding you in contempt of court, and I am sentencing you
15 to serve a day in jail. Mr. Sheriff he is to be remanded
16 now to serve his day in jail.
17 MR. BURNESON: (Inaudible).
18 THE COURT: Thank you sir.
19 MR. BURNESON: Do I get to say anything?
20 THE COURT: No, you've done it.
21 MR. BURNESON: Call the folks.
22 THE COURT: We'll wait ma'am until he's done, and
23 then I'll allow you to continue on.
24 MR. LANE: Judge Mrs. Burneson just told me that I
25 was so mean, I think..
47
1. MS. BURNESON: I said bad.
2. MR. LANE: Bad.
3 MS. BURNESON: I said so bad.
4. MR. LANE: I had nothing to do with this. Quite
5 frankly Judge I would ask that Mrs. Burneson be asked in
6 Court not to address me directly, but to address the
7. Court. THE COURT: Yes ma'am, that is terribly
8. inappropriate.
9 MR. LANE: Judge you know Mr. Burneson goes down
10 fighting. He's standing here right here mouthing to Mrs.
11 Burneson to call the Denver Post. When's it going to stop?
12 THE COURT: I know it is.
13 MR. LANE: When's it going to stop?
14 THE COURT: Well you can see everybody here in the
15 Court not feel sorry for him. Well he'll spend a day in
16 jail. If I know I can place him in jail for up to six
17 months for his behavior, but hopefully I always believed
18 that a little bit of time in a room away from other people
19 can calm people down, and I hope it does. But at least we
20 can get on with Ms. Burneson, and she is not going to be
21 disturbed by what he does anymore in Court. And I'm tired
22 of watching her being pulled around by him by his mouthing
23 to her during all of these proceedings. And it's just sad
24 to her, as well as to the system of justice. Lane is laughing and Ruddick is trying to pretend Jim Burneson is wrong for talking to his wife in court. I’m on my way to jail and this is the biggest mistake Lane and Ruddick has ever made. What I learned about Ruddick from the Arapahoe County Sheriff and some residence of the jail was corresponded with the Supreme Court of Colorado.
1
MS. BURNESON: Your Honor can I go ahead and
2 continue?
3 THE COURT: Hold on just a moment. I don't want
4 you to be distracted ma'am. And what do you want to do?
5 You want to proceed?
6 MS. BURNESON: I would just like to proceed, yes.
7 THE COURT: All right. If you feel comfortable
8 please go ahead.
9 MS. BURNESON: Okay. The, the, you denied the
10 audiotapes because at some time I was supposed to have
11 included those in the records. I have no idea when.
12 THE COURT: Well for two reasons ma'am. Number
13 one they're not the record. Under the rules they are not
14 sent up to appeal, we can't expect some poor District Court
15 Judge to on top of review a transcript, which is the
16 official and only record he can consider, that also to have
17 to listen to hours of tapes. Ma'am, they don't have the
18 time. And they're not required to, and I am not required
19 to, and I will not allow that abuse. Abuse of a judge or a defendant being abused by a judge and lawyer.
20 MS. BURNESON: I had the advise...
21 THE COURT: So there are a number of reasons, but
22 among them is the one that you didn't even ask for it to
23 begin with. So I made my ruling, what else to you have? How a defendant ask for something in the beginning when she didn’t know the judge and lawyer were going to lose the tapes for 5 months. This is all a sham by Lane and Ruddick.
24 MS. BURNESON: Okay. Because I had advise from an
25 Attorney, which Mr. Lane..Judge Ruddick has interrupted the defendant in an effort to shut her up. The minute she said a Lawyer had advised her he really shut her up. He has to get her off this issue and he will do it with a threat.
1
THE COURT: Ma'am I don't care, what else do you
2 have? Move on to something else, I made my ruling.
3. MS. BURNESON: The affidavits presented at the May
4 29th hearing must be a part of the record. They include
5 statements from witnesses that show further evidence of the
6 bias and improper conduct
7 THE COURT: That would be after the proceedings,
8 it isn't necessary, they are denied. Do you have anything
9 else ma'am?
10 MS. BURNESON: Well just a minute. My reason is...
11 THE COURT: No ma'am, I don't need to have the
12 reason. I told you already it's not admissible and I
13 cannot put it on.
14 MS. BURNESON: But the last time in the Court...
15 THE COURT: Is there anything else?
16 MS. BURNESON: ..in the transcript you said that
17 the jurisdiction, that you did not have any jurisdiction
18 over that, but that in your chambers later you ruled that
19 they could not be a part. So you did not rule that in an
20 open hearing. So I'm wondering why it wasn't ruled in the
21 open hearing, and I had that in the transcript, you said
22 that, "I don't have any jurisdiction over any of that."
23 THE COURT: Ma'am I've made my ruling, please go
24 on.
25 MS. BURNESON: Okay.
1
THE COURT: I'm only trying here to certify a
2 record so it goes up on appeal. Without the record of these two hearings that prove how prejudice the judge is and how unfair the trial was held to deny the defendant her rights as a Pro Se litigate as required by our Constitution.
3 MS. BURNESON: Well then my question is...
4 THE COURT: And those other things are not
5 certifiable. They are all certifiable but not in this court because it shows poorly for the judge.
6 MS. BURNESON: Then my question is what Mr. Lane...
7 THE COURT: You cannot supplement what went on in
8 trial. Judge has to shut her up by any means being dishonest and under the table rulings. Lane is laughing as it continues. Through the entire trial she was not allow to speak by the interruption of Ruddick and Lane.
9 MS. BURNESON: Okay.
10 THE COURT: With post-trial...
11 MS. BURNESON: How did Mr. Lane's last 30 minutes
12 speech talk to the record?
13 THE COURT: He asked a different issue ma'am. Do
14 you wish to proceed in any other thing?
15 MS. BURNESON: So he was able to introduce that in
16 the hearing of the record?
17 THE COURT: Ma'am what did he ask for? He asked
18 for this, one, that he be awarded Attorney's Fees for
19 sitting here for four hours. Two, he---because there's no
20 reason for him to be here, you know reality is, he's right.
21 Except for to make the record of the second thing, which
22 was that you be prohibited from making any more filings
23 without review by a Colorado Attorney, or just be barred
24 entirely unless, and after the Judge reviews them, I don't
25 like that kind of restraint, the second, but I am
51
1 considering the first. And what you've been talking about
2 so far is probably leading me down that road. But that's
3 what he discussed, it had nothing to do with the
4 transcript, you're right, it has something to do with the
5 continuation of these pleadings that keep getting filed to
6 the point that I, County Court proceeding which should have
7 about 10 to 50 pages, is thousands of pages. Justice has a limit of the number of pages in a transcript????
8 MS. BURNESON: But I do not..
9 THE COURT: And most of them are these complaints
10 about things that have no basis for even being brought.
11 MS. BURNESON: But I do not believe that
12 Attorney's Fees are in order. I do not feel that this is
13 frivolous because what I'm asking for was the audiotapes,
14 which I did not know...
15 THE COURT: Well that's denied, so go on to other
16 areas ma'am.
17 MS. BURNESON: Okay. But okay, that was important
18 to have it denied today.
19 THE COURT: All right, so go on.
20 MS. BURNESON: It wasn't denied before. And I had
21 subpoenaed...
22 THE COURT: Well ma'am you never even asked for
23 it. You know, I don't...
24
MS. BURNESON: I did ask.
1.
THE COURT: I heard no, I heard Mr. Lane talk
2 about his motion. But I never received in this file
3 anything from you saying anything about an audiotape at any
4 time. Mr. Lane says that he has one, but I've got to tell
5 you, I can't find it from you. When was it sent sir?
6 MR. LANE: The designation of record was filed
7 December 27th 2002, and it's signed by Mrs. Burneson, and
8 there's no mention of audiotape on..Lane and Judge Ruddick didn’t tell us they had hid the tapes at this time. It took the defendant a month to findout the tapes were missing. Lane and Judge are playing the lawyer game if mistrial. .
9 THE COURT: That's right, and I don't have
10 anything. I don't have any request of anytime. I have
11 something from Mr. Lane, which I assume Mr. Lane filed an
12 objection to record on appeal in his response to that. But
13 I don't see.
14 MS. BURNESON: I was under the understanding that
15 that could be included later.
16 THE COURT: No ma'am, but I don't see in your
17 objection to the record on...
18 MS. BURNESON: That did not have to be...
19 THE COURT: In your objection to the record on
20 March 12th of 2003, which finally got to the Court in July,
21 it's interesting you filed something or you say you filed
22 something in March, but it doesn't get to the Court until
23 July. And in that pleading there was nothing requesting
24 that. This is the first form of notice I have of your
25 request for anything other than what you originally asked
53
1 for when the designation of record was made. So go on to
2 other matters.
3 MS. BURNESON: Okay.
4 THE COURT: I've made my ruling, please go---if
5 you have anything else do it.
6 MS. BURNESON: I have, today I subpoenaed your
7 staff, and I think there needs to be an understanding of
8 why. The staff and Deputy Clerk of the court were subpoenaed to testify on what happened to the tapes and Ruddick before the court was brought in to session he dismissed the subpoenas denying the defense her right to question why she was denied the three hours for five months. Ruddick did this before he opened the court for the hearing so his dismissal of the subpoenas would not be of record. Here is how crooked this judge is. Issue orders and dismiss subpoenas outside of court to hide his actions from being a part of the record This was suggested by Lane ex parte by phone. Both of these lawyers need to be disbarred. This is why the public has to have the right to recall judges from the bench when they violate the law for their own purpose and income like Lane. Depending on the appeals Lane may have made $60,000 over a $300.00 claimed delinquent assessment that was never awarded.
9 THE COURT: Well I struck that as an abuse of
10 process to the staff, and to the Court Clerks who assist
11 them downstairs.
12 MS. BURNESON: Okay. The, I wanted to know where,
13 where the tapes had been, and...
14 THE COURT: Ma'am we went through that in the last
15 hearing.
16 MS. BURNESON: No.
17 THE COURT: You had (inaudible) by asking the
18 questions, he said he found them, that's the answer, and
19 nothing else is relevant, go on.
20 MS. BURNESON: Other people had called, and I was
21 wondering why, all the people that had called why they had
22 never been found the tapes. They were told that there
23 were.
24 THE COURT: Ma'am they found them for god's sake,
25 at my request. Now stop this.
1
MS. BURNESON: Five months later...
2 THE COURT: Stop it. Now I'm going to say one
3 more time, I'll explain it, but I'm not going to continue
4 on this afternoon. It's now 3:00, the other people have a
5 right to be heard today.
6 MS. BURNESON: I have...
7 THE COURT: No stop. I'm not done yet.
8 MS. BURNESON: Is this it?
9 THE COURT: Now listen. I told you before, when I
10 couldn't, when I got the transcripts I knew they were
11 missing the tapes. That is not something that is unusual
12 when you have thousands of tapes sitting down in a
13 warehouse, a room somewhere for the Court Clerk to keep.
14 Under Rule 411 they are required to be in charge. But as a
15 Judge I can tell when the tape, they didn't find it, I
16 simply asked my staff, and you had this the last time you
17 were here, go check. He simply went and checked. Whether
18 you accept that answer or not, I don't care. He went and
19 checked and said, "There they are." And we found them.
20 And it would be a different issue if they never found them, Yes it would have been a mistrial which neither Lane or Ruddick wanted.
21 but you never claimed that they found the wrong tapes, or
22 they messed them up, you were upset because they didn't
23 find them. Well ma'am, they found them. Go on to other
24
things. Now go on to another issue if you have it. But
55
1 don't go back to these issues or I will find you in
2 contempt of court. Now there will be two Burnesons in jail to hide an incompetent judge and a total mistrial covered up by Judge Rafferty and Chief Judge Leopold Senior Judge Steinhardt and now the Supreme Court of Colorado.
3 MS. BURNESON: So you do not want to hear anymore
4 about the tapes?
5 THE COURT: No ma'am.
6 MS. BURNESON: Nothing?
7 THE COURT: It's irrelevant. Defendant as in the regular trial was cut off and denied her right to speak while Ruddick and Lane both prosecuted her for being a pro se defendant and being a women.
8 MS. BURNESON: Nothing? Not how they were
9 numbered or anything? Okay.
10 THE COURT: Anything else so the rest of the
11 people have their time to be heard?
12 MS. BURNESON: I do not believe that, I am
13 surprised that Mr. Lane had the amount of time to speak so
14 badly of us, and that we have no time to speak, and that
15 all that can be entered into the record, and nothing other
16 than, you have no time for what I have to say. An Incompetent judge as bad as Ruddick speaks volumes why the State of Colorado has to have a method to remove idiots in black robes.
17 THE COURT: Well not on issues that I've already
18 ruled on ma'am. Well the Court is inclined to order that
19 the Plaintiff file only with and after review a Colorado
20 Attorney of record any other pleadings in this Court. It
21 is at this time that there be some civility brought back
22 into these proceedings, and that the Plaintiff doesn't have
23 to spend their client's money, Plaintiff's Attorney doesn't
24 have to spend his client's money in anticipating and
56
1 responding to matters that haven't been reviewed by another
2 Attorney at Law.
3 MS. BURNESON: All right.
4 THE COURT: So the Court will make that ruling.
5 I'll also grant the award for Attorney's Fees in this
6 hearing for four hours is hereby granted.
7 MR. LANE: Would you like me to prepare a written
8 order Judge, that would parameters of your order with
9 respect to the filing issue?
10 THE COURT: As long as it's within that, yes. And
11 the record of transcript is hereby certified. Thank you
12 folks.
13 MS. BURNESON: Can I ask one question?
14 THE COURT: Yes ma'am, why not. Isn’t that cute?
15 MS. BURNESON: When you said no more pleadings to
16 this Court, that does not mean the Appellate Court, is that
17 correct? You're talking about...
18 THE COURT: I don't know if I have the authority
19 to do that in the District Court. I think they'll have to
20 suffer what I have.
21 MS. BURNESON: Okay. So it's only in this Court?
22 THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.
23
24 
CERTIFICATE
2
3 I, Dawn Heaton hereby certify that I transcribed this
4 record from the tape recording of the above-entitled
5 matter, which was heard on August 21, 2003, before JUDGE
6 STEVEN RUDDICK in Division B-2 of the Arapahoe County Court
7 in Aurora, Colorado.
8
9 I further certify that the aforementioned transcript
10 is a complete and accurate transcript of the proceedings
11 based on the audio facilities of these tapes and my ability
12 to understand them. Inaudibles are due to microphones not
13 working properly, excessive noises or muffled voices. 14
15 Signed this 31St day of May 2005 in Douglas County, Colorado.
17 18 19
20 Dawn Heaton
21
22 This transcript is one of the worst examples of a mistrial and a miscarriage of justice approved by the Supreme Court of Colorado.
The following email was sent to a friend of Jim Burneson’s because Lanes emails had been blocked.
Email sent to Mr. Alex Walter from Jeffrey Lane to be delivered to Jim Burneson.
Delivered-To: alexw@mail-dnvr.uswest.net
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:08:44 -0600
From: "Jeff Lane" <jlane@pns-pc.com>
To: "Alex Walter" <alexw@alexwalter.com>
Subject:
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-DCC-Qwest.net-Metrics: mpls-cmx-10.inet.qwest.net 1211; Body=1 Fuz1=1
Fuz2=1
Tell your buddy Burneson he will not and can not
win this battle. He will be living in a cardboard box under a bridge when I get
through with him.
Jeffrey A. Lane, Esq.
Patterson, Nuss & Seymour P.C.
304 Inverness Way South, Suite 305
Englewood, Colorado 80112
Telephone : 303-741-4539
Fax: 303-741-5043
REMEMBER LANE’S COMMENTS IN THIS TRANSCRIPT ABOUT BEING ETHICAL AND PROFESSIONAL BETWEEN LANE AND BURNESON? HOW ABOUT THOSE COOKIES? THERE WILL BE MUCH MORE IN THE BOOK ON OTHER JUDGES LIKE CROSS, RAFFERTY, LEOPOLD, MACRUM, LEVI, HANNEN, AND ED BURNS MAGISTRATE ALL IN THE 18TH DISTRICT COURT SYSTEM.
ALJ COUGHLIN OF THE AJL COURTS AND LAWYER RICHARD FORMAN ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE ALONG WITH TOM ROAN. REAL ESTATE COMMISSION DIRECTOR CAMPAGNOLA AND CHIEF JUSTICE MULLARKEY AND A FEW OTHERS. THE SUBJECTS OF PROPERTY MANAGERS OF HOAS, TORT TWISTERS HIRED TO BE ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS LIKE TIM MOELLER AND RICH JOHNSTON. A COMPLETE REVIEW OF THE ILLEGAL ACTIONS OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE DAM EAST HOA FROM 1999 TO THE PRESENT.
The following letter was sent to Judge Leopold August 26, 2003. How could Judge Leopold first of the year promote Judge Ruddick to Presiding Judge of the 18th District Court with the information in this letter. Judge Ruddick’s past sentencing record will prove my claims he is a racial sentencer But the record is hidden by the fact court records are not index by judge’s name but the case number and the names of he plaintiffs and defendants. You can’t say the Judicial Industry hasn’t covered their tracts.
Jim Burneson
August 26, 2003
Chief Judge Leopold,
18th District Court Arapahoe County
7325 South Potomac Street Centennial, CO 80112.
And
Richard A. Wehmhoefer
Executive Director and General Counsel for Commission
Colorado Commission n Judicial Discipline
899 Logan Street Suite 307
Denver, CO 80203
Re: Violation of due process of law by Judge Ruddick and ex magistrate Jeffrey Lane
Case 00 C 4042 B2 Arapahoe County Court
Gentlemen,
Judge Ruddick’s actions in court have reached a level that needs to be reviewed immediately by those responsible for justice being severed in the 18th District of Arapahoe County.
Judge Ruddick and Jeffery Lane of Patterson, Nuss & Seymour, P.C. counsel for Plaintiff were at a hearing on Thursday at 1:30 pm with the defendant Carla M. Burneson Pro Se.
There were three subpoenas issued by defendant pro se, two to Judge Ruddick’s staff members and one to the Deputy County Clerk of Arapahoe Court. Judge Ruddick dismissed these subpoenas with no reason given other than no one was going to testify at today’s hearing. His statement was we were wasting their time.
He then agreed to hear from Mr. Jeffrey Lane attorney for the Plaintiff. For 45 minutes Mr. Lane proceeded to read excerpts of claims motions, email, and letters to board members written by Jim Burneson and Carla Burneson against Judge Ruddick and Mr. Lane. Defendant Carla Burneson objected to these many times but as before Judge Ruddick told her “Be quiet You will be given your turn. Don’t interrupt Mr. Lane”.
During this rambling reading of Mr. Lane, I Jim Burneson, whispered to my wife to request a recess to get some understanding to what was going on. This Motion to Object to the Trial Record hearing was to review missing audiotapes of the trial, and the inclusion affidavits and of audiotapes for the Appellant Court to hear in addition to the transcripts. Nothing of what Mr. Lane had been reading into the record for 45 minutes has anything to do with this hearing.
At this point, Judge Ruddick ordered me to leave the courtroom and Mr. Lane is demands I be sent to jail. After I got to the hallway outside of the courtroom Sheriff Deputies showed up and took me back into the courtroom where I was charged by Judge Ruddick for Contempt of Court and ordered to serve one day in jail. As I left the courtroom, the Defendant asked Judge Ruddick if she could now have her turn and Judge Ruddick agreed to let her speak. The minute she said “Audiotapes” Ruddick blew up and told the Defendant she could not ask any questions about the missing tapes and if she said one more word about these tapes, she will be found in Contempt of Court. She tried to read a statement into the record and Judge Ruddick denied her the right to speak.
How can a Defendant participate in a hearing if the Judge is too scared to let her speak? She was not allowed to talk about the missing tapes or question the staff about why they were missing for 5 months. The Defendant never got a chance to discuss the other issues as listed in the Motion to object to the Trial Record. Before Judge Ruddick closed the hearing Mr. Lane requested his legal fees be paid for the 4 hours he spent preparing for this hearing. Four hours to prepare a list of quotes, which had nothing to do with this hearing, was granted Judge Ruddick and the defense was never offered a rebuttal to the fees. It pays to have friend in high places and Lane and Ruddick are friends. Judge Ruddick and Jeffery Lane for the second time have denied the Defendant her right to speak in court. It’s the only way these two lawyers can hide how they lost the audiotape of three hours of testimony in our trial and then found them 5 months later. They refused to be questioned on the subject.
Defendant was not allowed to discuss admitting affidavits in her appeal. There was no discussion of admitting the audiotapes to the Appellant Court because it had the word “audiotapes” in it. This is the same treatment received from Lane and Ruddick in the first hearing of a Motion to Object to the Trial Record. This court hearing was conducted as if Lane and Ruddick were in a coffee shop talking to each other. Court procedure was nonexistent. When Lane makes a statement Ruddick nodded his head in total agreement through the entire time Lane was speaking.
As this hearing was coming to close, I’m being prepared by the Sheriffs Deputies to be transported to the Arapahoe County Jail. While at the jail I started interviewing staff and prisoners about Ruddick. The following are quotes from staff and inmates. Staff “ You haven’t seen anything. If you were around as long as we have been, nothing will surprise you. They couldn’t believe Ruddick was sending me to jail for one day. One staff member said, “When is someone going to find out about this Judge. He has been out of control for years and feels immune to any review of his actions. He sentences people all on how he feels at that minute. One black guy called to get his scheduled appointment for drug and alcohol class changed to another date and got permission from the instructor. He had a court date with Ruddick and when the Judge found he had switched his class date, he sentenced the defendant to one year in the Prison. In interviews I conducted in the jail I was told if three defendants were charged with the same violations Ruddick would sentence the Black to 90 days the Mexican will get 60 days and the white will get 30 days. Depending on the day Ruddick will alternate the punishment between blacks and Mexicans. Proof of this race sentencing is to order an audit of Ruddick’s last 5 years of cases he has sentenced defendants in his court. The danger to the Judicial System is what if the prisoners are right? Of course, the Judicial System is too broke to investigate these charges.
Ruddick has an unbelievable record of over sentencing defendants because of the way a defendant looked at him. The manor a defendant answers questions by Judge Ruddick sets the possible sentence Ruddick will give him. It is very easy for Ruddick to accuse the defendant of being disrespectful to the court. The entire Justice System knows Judge Ruddick is out of control and can’t say anything against him and will not stop his abuse of the public in his court.
The Sheriff’s Department hates Ruddick but can’t be involved in any reports against him. One incident occurred when a prisoner had just been sentenced by Judge Ruddick and was being escorted to the transportation van and coincidently encountered Judge Ruddick outside getting into his car. As the prisoner was put, in the back seat of the van, the staff person he looked around and Ruddick was nowhere to be seen. So, he walked around to his car and Ruddick had dove to the floorboard to hide so the prisoner wouldn’t know what kind of car he drives.
Another staff person told me if Ruddick is attacked, it could take two hours to save him. There are many more stories, which I will save for the newspapers. Someone has to audit the last 5 years of records of cases Ruddick has sentenced prisoners in his court. Isn’t there some kind of review on all judges as to their actions in court in the 18th District? If not then Ruddick and Lane own the franchise for justice and can do anything they want to the public, which has been going on for years. Other attorneys must know how to play Ruddick like a violin and get anything they want. He is starved for compliments
This complaint is not filed to side step the pending appeal. We believe we can win it if the entire evidence is allowed to be submitted, as it should be. I’m tired of being abused by Lane and Ruddick with ex parte communication prior to a trial. The staff will testify to these meetings and phone calls if the staff is given protection from Ruddick. There are people who are being abused by this system and you in charge of the system are not in a position to hear about it.
Ruddick has been allowed to rule over the poor minorities and sentence them harshly with no review by anyone in the Justice System from the 18th District Court of Arapahoe to the Supreme Court. And this problem has been going on for years and especially when a Pro Se defendant or plaintiff is involved.
I have another pending trial with Mr. Lane in Judge Mark Hannen’s Court September 8th and 9th I have filed motions in Judge Hannen’s Court to continue the trial after there was an off the record hearing February 18th and decisions were made without a transcript being recorded. Mr. Lane intentionally rescheduled a two-day trial from an original 4-day trial knowing Plaintiff Burneson cannot conclude this trial under four days. Cases 90 CV 247 combined with 02 CV 1748. This case has been well orchestrated by Mr. Lane through Ex Parte communications. If Judge Hannen rules in favor of Mr. Lane, it will be further proof the new Judge is being controlled by Jeffrey Lane.
Mr. Wehmhoefer has been responsive to a point. He says he can’t do anything until the appeal is over. This means Judge Ruddick and Jeffrey Lane can abuse, deny, and refuse the defendant records and affidavits from being included in her appeal. Carla Burneson can be denied her right to call any witnesses she deems necessary to the hearing on objecting to the trial record.
By the time, the appeal is submitted there will be more documents omitted at the sole discretion of Judge Ruddick who doesn’t want the defendant to win this appeal. Comments by Ruddick, “Mrs. Burneson seems like a nice person and I don’t understand how she can live with the likes of Mr. Burneson”. Where in the hell does that comment belong in a court of law? Talk about a Judge being prejudice, Ruddick is everything and more that the 18th District Performance Commission stated to not reelect Ruddick in the last election.
If you are Pro Se it seem like it’s OK for the opposing lawyer and Judge to get together and discuss how to handle a pro se without involving him. A justice system is judge by the worse judge in that system not the best. Judge Ruddick and ex magistrate Jeffrey Lane working as a team reflects on the 18th District of Arapahoe County system.
We have only money at stake but think about people that after in jail just because Ruddick didn’t like them. If these prisoners realize they have been sentenced because of their race the damages sought will break the bank at the 18th District Court of Arapahoe County.
Carla M. Burneson Pro Se Jim Burneson
12641 E. Bates Cir 12641 E. Bates Cir
Aurora, CO 80014 Aurora, CO 80014
303-750-1500
Fax 303-283-4603
Cc
Tom Morgan 18th District Performance Commission
P.O. Box 3411 Englewood, CO 80165.
Colorado Supreme Court
Chief Justice Mary J. Mullarkey
2 E. 14th Ave.
Denver, CO 80203
Committee on Legal Services
State Legislature