Attorney Caroline R. Kert Acts In Criminal Conspiracy With Daniel T. Goodwin To Conceal Multiple Felony Acts.

Caroline R. Kert Acts in criminal conspiracy with known felon Daniel T. Goodwin

Attorney Caroline R. Kert – In criminal conspiracy with known felon, Daniel T. Goodwin Founding Member/Manager, of The Law Offices of Daniel T. Goodwin, associate attorney  issues DMCA Takedown Notification to hartmannconspiracy.com host: NearlyFreeSpeech.net.

In a signed but undated letter stated to be accurate, “under the penalty of perjury” and believed to have been emailed to NearlyFreeSpeech.net on the week of February 12th, Caroline R. Kert demanded takedown of images of Broomfield, CO attorney, Daniel T. Goodwin from a total of seven pages on this website. Caroline R. Kert, although often speaking in the first person regarding ownership of the copyrighted material, at the conclusion switches to a third party stating, ” I am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of exclusive right to the photographic image that is allegedly infringed”.

The “owner” of the copyrighted material remains unidentified.

Daniel T. Goodwin: Derivative work permissible under 17 U.S. Code § 107 – Fair use

The letter complained of seven posts in which hartmannconspiracy.com is alleged to have used Daniel T. Goodwin’s image without consent of the copyright holder. The letter further states, “a good faith belief” that the images, and derivative works are not subject to “fair use”, as hartmannconspiracy’s content is, “defamatory in nature”. To be, “defamatory” it must be false.

Caroline R. Kert, a Boston University School of Law graduate, devotes a significant amount of her practice to copyright and intellectual properties matters, according to Avvo.com and Linkedin.  Kert also presumably understands her responsibilities and duty to report under the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct.

A previous post on hartmannconspiracy.com, dated February 12, 2018, touched on the perils of associate Caroline Kert, as well as two other known Goodwin associates; Sherin Chahal and Paige Orgel implicating themselves in Daniel T. Goodwin’s known criminal acts.

Defamation vs. First Amendment Rights: The Four Prong Test.

In order for a statement or publication to be, “defamatory”, it must meet the criteria of a four prong test. Although the law of defamation varies from state to state, there are some generally accepted rules. To prove defamation you usually have to show there’s been a statement that is all of the following:

    • published
    • false
    • injurious
    • unprivileged

Let’s look at each of these defamation claim elements in detail.

“Published” – means that a third party heard or saw the statement. The purpose of publication of hartmannconspiracy.com is to effect disbarment and incarceration of the offending individual.

“False” – A defamatory statement must be false — otherwise it’s not considered damaging. Daniel T. Goodwin, known felon, is proven on the record of the Court, to have committed the following five (if not more) criminal acts:

Count #1

  • With intent to defraud, Daniel T. Goodwin Goodwin is known to have allowed the destruction of Craig Buckley’s timecard evidence by Dream Stone, Inc. Secretary/Treasurer Ida E. Murphy.
  • Daniel T. Goodwin concealed time card evidence from the Colorado Division of Labor, and the Weld County Court proving Craig Buckley’s uninterrupted 26 month term of employment with Dream stone, Inc., after he had falsely sworn as follows:Attorney Caroline R. Kert Acts In Criminal Conspiracy With Daniel T. Goodwin, Of The Law Offices of Daniel T. Goodwin, To Conceal Multiple Felony Acts

Title 18 – Criminal Code
Article 8 – Offenses – Governmental Operations
Part 1 – Obstruction of Public Justice
§ 18-8-105. Accessory to crime

(1) A person is an accessory to crime if, with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of another for the commission of a crime, he renders assistance to such person.

(2) “Render assistance” means to:

(d) By force, intimidation, or deception, obstruct anyone in the performance of any act which might aid in the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of such person; or

(e) Conceal, destroy, or alter any physical or testimonial evidence that might aid in the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of such person.

(5) Being an accessory to crime is a class 5 felony if the offender knows that the person being assisted has committed, or has been convicted of, or is charged by pending information, indictment, or complaint with a crime, or is suspected of or wanted for a crime, and if that crime is designated by this code as a felony other than a class 1 or class 2 felony; except that being an accessory to a class 6 felony is a class 6 felony.

Count #2:

  • having falsely sworn before the Division of Labor to influence their decision regarding Buckley’s
    accrued wage claim, shall be charged as follows:

2016 Colorado Revised Statutes
Title 18 – Criminal Code
Article 8 – Offenses – Governmental Operations
Part 3 – Bribery and Corrupt Influences
§ 18-8-306. Attempt to influence a public servant

Any person who attempts to influence any public servant by means of deceit or by threat of violence or economic reprisal against any person or property, with the intent thereby to alter or affect the public servant’s decision, vote, opinion, or action concerning any matter which is to be considered or performed by him or the agency or body of which he is a member, commits a class 4 felony.

Count #3:

  • With intent to defraud, Daniel T. Goodwin swears forged affidavit and support document of Attorneys’ Fees before the Weld County District Court to obtain fees for a Response to Motion for which no fees were awarded.
  • With intent to defraud, Daniel T. Goodwin forged Defendant’s Response to Motion for Settlement Conference, fraudulently stating that former Dream Stone, Inc. employee Craig Buckley’s wage claim was before the Division of Labor, while simultaneously swearing to the DOL that the wage claim was before the Weld County District Court.

2016 Colorado Revised Statutes
Title 18 – Criminal Code
Article 5 – Offenses Involving Fraud
Part 1 – Forgery, Simulation, Impersonation, and Related Offenses
§ 18-5-102. Forgery

(1) A person commits forgery, if, with intent to defraud, such person falsely makes, completes, alters, or utters a written instrument which is or purports to be, or which is calculated to become or to represent if completed:

(d) A public record or an instrument filed or required by law to be filed or legally fileable in or with a public office or public servant; or

(2) Forgery is a class 5 felony.

Count #4:

  • For the specific purpose of quashing Craig Buckley’s Due Process Rights under C.R.S. 8-4-110(2) of the Colorado Wage Act, Daniel T. Goodwin swore simultaneously before both the Weld County District Court, and the Colorado Division of Labor, that neither had jurisdiction over Buckley’s wage claim, because the matter was before the other: corroborated by Dream Stone, Inc. VP Ronald Murphy’s sworn testimony before Weld County Court Judge John Briggs on April 7, 2011:

2016 Colorado Revised Statutes
Title 18 – Criminal Code
Article 8 – Offenses – Governmental Operations
Part 3 – Bribery and Corrupt Influences
§ 18-8-306. Attempt to influence a public servant

Any person who attempts to influence any public servant by means of deceit or by threat of violence or economic reprisal against any person or property, with the intent thereby to alter or affect the public servant’s decision, vote, opinion, or action concerning any matter which is to be considered or performed by him or the agency or body of which he is a member, commits a class 4 felony.

Count #5:

  • Daniel T. Goodwin conspired with Ron Murphy, Scott Murphy, and Ida Murphy of Dream Stone, Inc. to commit the above enumerated crimes, and harass, defraud, and commit felony theft of an amount exceeding $2000.00 in violation of the Colorado Wage Act.

2016 Colorado Revised Statutes
Title 18 – Criminal Code
Article 2 – Inchoate Offenses
Part 2 – Criminal Conspiracy
§ 18-2-201. Conspiracy

(1) A person commits conspiracy to commit a crime if, with the intent to promote or facilitate its commission, he agrees with another person or persons that they, or one or more of them, will engage in conduct which constitutes a crime or an attempt to commit a crime, or he agrees to aid the other person or persons in the planning or commission of a crime or of an attempt to commit such crime.

(2) No person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime, unless an overt act in pursuance of that conspiracy is proved to have been done by him or by a person with whom he conspired.

(3) If a person knows that one with whom he conspires to commit a crime has conspired with another person or persons to commit the same crime, he is guilty of conspiring to commit a crime with the other person or persons, whether or not he knows their identity.

(4) If a person conspires to commit a number of crimes, he is guilty of only one conspiracy so long as such multiple crimes are part of a single criminal episode.

(4.5) Conspiracy to commit any crime for which a court is required to sentence a defendant for a crime of violence in accordance with section 18-1.3-406 is itself a crime of violence for the purposes of that section.

(5) If a person conspires to commit a felony which is defined by any statute other than one contained in this title and for which conspiracy no penalty is specifically provided, he is guilty of a class 6 felony.

“Injurious” – those suing for defamation must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statement.

A claim of “injury” by alleged offending content is negated by the fact that all claims on this website are factual. Whether charged and tried or not, Daniel T. Goodwin is a felon whom, because of his stature in the community, has been allowed to commit crime. Daniel T. Goodwin’s “injuries” are caused by his own criminal acts.

“Unprivileged.”

All evidence of Daniel T. Goodwin’s multiple criminal acts posted on hartmannconspiracy.com is Public Record.

Attorney Caroline R. Kert’s Perjured Claims of, “Defamatory Content” on this Website FAIL for ALL Above Stated Reasons. All information posted on this website is proven to be TRUE.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. plainly states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to The Hartmann Conspiracy seeks to, “Petition the Government for a redress of grievances” through public outcry. that RIGHT shall not be abridged.

So Where Does This Leave Attorney Caroline R. Kert?

Caroline R. Kert criminally complicit

Caroline R. Kert  Image Courtesy of Avvo.com

Caroline Kert’s DMCA Takedown Notice stipulated it was being presented, “under penalty of perjury”. As an Officer of the Court, sworn to uphold the law, and considered under Oath in official matters at all times, we believe Second Degree Perjury is the least of her problems. Provably, Ms. Kert has combed this website and viewed all the evidence in search of actionable (libelous) material. What that means, is that she has confirmed that she now has, “personal knowledge” of criminal acts committed by Daniel T. Goodwin. Her present criminal involvement, in the form of a DMCA notice, in light of her full knowledge of evidence on this website subjects her to disciplinary action under the Colorado Rules of professional Conduct, specifically:

Rule 8.3. Reporting Professional Misconduct

(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

Rule 8.4. Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, except that a lawyer may advise, direct, or supervise others, including clients, law enforcement officers, or investigators, who participate in lawful investigative activities

2016 Colorado Revised Statutes
Title 18 – Criminal Code
Article 8 – Offenses – Governmental Operations
Part 1 – Obstruction of Public Justice
§ 18-8-105. Accessory to crime
Universal Citation: CO Rev Stat § 18-8-105 (2016)

(1) A person is an accessory to crime if, with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the discovery, detection,
apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of another for the commission of a crime, he renders
assistance to such person.

(2) “Render assistance” means to:

(d) By force, intimidation, or deception, obstruct anyone in the performance of any act which might aid in the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of such person; or

(e) Conceal, destroy, or alter any physical or testimonial evidence that might aid in the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of such person.

(5) Being an accessory to crime is a class 5 felony if the offender knows that the person being assisted has committed, or has been convicted of, or is charged by pending information, indictment, or complaint with a
crime, or is suspected of or wanted for a crime, and if that crime is designated by this code as a felony
other than a class 1 or class 2 felony; except that being an accessory to a class 6 felony is a class 6 felony.

To establish that an accused is guilty of being an accessory under subsection (5), the following statutory elements must be proven: (1) A crime has been committed; (2) the accused rendered assistance to the actor; (3) the accused intended to hinder, delay, or prevent the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of the principal; (4) the accused knew that the person being assisted has committed, or has been convicted of, or is charged by pending information, indictment, or complaint with such crime, or is suspected of or wanted in  with such crime; and, (5) the underlying crime is designated as a felony other than a class 1 or 2 felony. Barreras v. People, 636 P.2d 686 (Colo. 1981).

The relevant standard for knowledge in regard to the accessory statute is whether defendant knew the principal had committed a crime. People v. Young, 192 Colo. 65, 555 P.2d 1160 (1976).

Elements of offense. The offense may be committed by either concealing the commission of the crime from the magistrate, or by harboring or protecting the felon. Howard v. People, 97 Colo. 550, 51 P.2d 594 (1935).

Since the early days of the English common law, it has been generally held that any assistance whatever given to one ALLEGED to be a felon in order to hinder his being apprehended, or tried, or suffering punishment makes the assistor an accessory after the fact. Self v. People, 167 Colo. 292, 448 P.2d 619 (1968). The accessory statute is held to create a substantive statutory crime and, as construed, the conviction of the principal is not a condition precedent to the conviction of an accessory. Roberts v. People, 103 Colo. 250, 87 P.2d 251 (1938).

Daniel T. Goodwin - Known felon.

Daniel T. Goodwin – Known felon.

For further information, please see the Fair Use Disclaimer on our Terms of Service page.

Subscribe
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Contact The Hartmann Conspiracy

    X
    CONTACT US