Felony Evidence Tampering – Boulder DA Stan Garnett & Chief Prosecutor Catrina Weigel Criminally Conspire To Obtain ‘Retaliation’ Conviction.
Tampering with evidence can be any action that destroys, alters, conceals, or falsifies any sort of evidence.
On April 21, (2014 (then) Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett and Chief Trial Deputy District Attorney Catrina Weigel conspired to conceal Weld County District Court Chief Judge James F. Hartmann’s criminal complicity in multiple felonies committed by the Defendants in the ill-fated wage claim lawsuit: Buckley v. Dream Stone, Inc. et. al.
Evidence obtained from (former) CDLE Director Ellen Golombek had long proven that Longmont, Colorado homeowner Craig Buckley’s former employers, Dream Stone, Inc. had, through multiple documents submitted to the Division of labor and Court pleadings, sworn simultaneously that neither had jurisdiction over Buckley’s claim for accrued wages due on termination of employment, because the matter was before the other: a Class 4 Felony.
Buckley stated, “This is what happens when a corrupt Judge refuses to make a party comply with the mandatory Rule 16 requirement to, “meet and confer” regarding the nature of claims and defenses to be presented: trial by ambush.”
On June 17, 2010, mere hours before a scheduled deposition, Judge James Hartmann illegally stripped Buckley, in violation of his Due Process rights, of all evidence, and the right to prosecute his wage claim. Hartmann had previously been implicated in a Fraud Upon the Court scandal in which Buckley had been illegally forced to pay the Defendants’ fees for a response to Motion for which no fees were awarded. Buckley believed, pursuant to the following:
Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4),28 U.S.C.A., U.S.C.A. Const.
Hartmann refused to answer Buckley’s Motions before the Court, challenging Hartmann’s (and the Court’s) continuing subject matter jurisdiction, and the right to enter rulings in contravention of Statutory authority, Armstrong v. Obucino, 300 Ill 140, 143 (1921). Buckley further refused, as Hartmann’s orders were VOID, to submit to deposition by an Officer of the Court (the defendant’s attorney) whom had worked a fraud upon the Court, In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill, App. 3d 393(1962.)
The law is well-settled that a void order or judgement is void even before reversal“, VALLEY v. NORTHERN FIRE & MARINE INS. CO., 254 U.S. 348,41 S. Ct. 116 (1920) “Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgements and orders are regarded as nullities; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.” WILLIAMSON v. BERRY, 8 HOW. 945, 540 12 L. Ed. 1170, 1189 (1850).
On July 22, 2010, Judge James Hartmann perceived he had dismissed Buckley’s case, and awarded in excess of $20,000.00 in attorney’s fees to the Defendants.
April 4, 2011 Congressman (then Weld County DA) Ken Buck, (former) Boulder County DA Stan Garnett, and the Chief Judge of the Weld County District Court, James Hartmann were sent an evidence pack irrefutably proving fraud upon the Court by Dream Stone, Inc., and their criminally complicit attorney, Daniel T. Goodwin. This concealed evidence would later prove James Hartmann’s involvement in crime.
Buckley simply chose to ignore James Hartmann’s void orders, and move on with his life. Or so he thought.
Two years after receiving proof of fraud upon the Court, in March of 2013, Judge James Hartmann assigned (ret.) Judge Daniel Maus to Buckley’s civil case, and ordered him to attack. Hartmann, Ken Buck, Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, and Boulder DA Stan Garnett were also known to be in possession of this sworn testimony by Dream Stone, Inc. VP Ron Murphy, elicited in Weld County Court, Judge John Briggs presiding. There was fraud upon the Court, and James Hartmann was criminally complicit.
Buckley’s house was raided by Longmont, Colorado police for refusing to give the deed to his home, and three years of tax returns to the former employers. Ten days later, and also three years after having received evidence of fraud upon the Court by the civil defendants in the Weld County case, Boulder DA Stan Garnett had Buckley’s home raided again, and he was arrested for ‘retaliation Against a Judge’.
“We couldn’t let the Jury know this piece of ‘evidence’ was nothing more than a three inch Post-It Note. That’s why I referred to it as a ‘letter’. There would have been questions what it was attached to, and that would have fatally damaged our case.” – Prosecutor Catrina Weigel
So, how was Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett going to obtain a conviction, and conceal the fact that Judge James Hartmann was now, in fact, a Felon?
Simple. Evidence tampering.
Catrina Weigel would later reveal to an undisclosed source, “We couldn’t let the Jury find out this piece of ‘evidence’ was nothing more than a three inch Post-It Note. There would have been questions what it was attached to, and that would have fatally damaged our case.” Weigel continued, “This wouldn’t have been possible without the full cooperation of Buckley’s defense attorney, Michael Root.” In a 2013 meeting with Ken Buck, and Weld County DA Chief Investigator Keith Olson, Michael Root had already been warned, “If you do anything to embarrass the Judge (Hartmann) you’ll never practice law in Colorado again.” Michael Root took this to heart, and told his client, ten minutes before trial was to commence, “I will not attack the Judge!”
Leading Questions & Perjured Testimony:
Perjured testimony elicited by prosecutor Catrina Weigel:
Q Just to kind of summarize, on April 4, 2011,
did you get a handwritten letter
from Mr. Buckley on that day?
A I did. It was on a smaller piece of
paper and written with what appeared
to be a Sharpie marker and written to me
and signed by Mr. Buckley.
Q Is what I handed you true and
accurate copies of those documents in that file?
A They appear to be.
False: the article of evidence presented by Catrina Weigel was neither true nor accurate, as all evidence of fraud by the civil defendants, and James Hartmann’s criminal complicity had been stripped from it.
On May 6, 2010 attorney Daniel t. Goodwin plead this before the Weld County District Court.
While simultaneously, on May 6, 2010 the employers plead this before the Colorado Division of Labor.
And this is, in fact, the “true and accurate” documentation, or “letter” sent to Judge James Hartmann on April 4, 2011, concealed by Boulder DA Stan Garnett and prosecutor Catrina Weigel in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MR. ROOT:
Q Judge, what’s been marked as People’s Exhibit 7,
that’s sort of the note that you received?
Q You were kind enough to meet with my investigator
and myself up in your office in Greeley?
A That’s correct.
Q You showed us a copy of a note that was similar to
A The note that I have in the file?
Q And if I recall correctly, the note that you
showed us didn’t have that bottom part on it about the lien
on the house. Maybe my memory is just faulty.
A No. This is accurate. Would you like to see the
Q No, if you say that’s what it is. So that was
accurately what was put in there?
MR. ROOT: For purposes of admission, Judge, I
don’t have any objection to the admission of those
ROOT CROSS EXAMINATION:
Q Oh, on this Exhibit 7, was there anything else
attached to this when you got it?
Q There was, like, a big pile of pleadings and
documentation saying why you should fix this based on the
A Yes. He filed miscellaneous paperwork with that
Q Now, you had also mentioned, though, when Mr. Root
was asking you questions about the exhibits that you didn’t
necessarily find his language in there to be offensive.
What did you mean by that?
A The motions, that’s correct, but the handwritten
note, I did take that as — I was alarmed by that, but the
motions themselves, I didn’t find those to be offensive
Q So it wasn’t until the letter, then, that kind of
your opinions about that changed?
A That’s when my — when I became more alarmed.
That’s when I became alarmed, I should say.
Q When he brought you the letter in April of 2011
about the lien, legally, was there anything you could do
about the lien?
A No, not at that time.
MS. WEIGEL: May I approach?
THE COURT: Yes.
A Exhibit 7 reads: “Hartmann, you need to fix
this” — words “fix this” are underlined — “and get the
lien off my house right now! Buckley, 09CV991.” And then
it has the date stamps that were put on there when it was
And in March of 2013, did you do anything with
respect to this case?
A I did.
Q What was that?
A I issued an order reassigning the case to another
judge in our court, to Judge Maus, M-a-u-s.
Q Why did you do that?
A I felt that because of the letter from April and
some of the statements that were contained in the pleadings
leading up to filed in late summer —
A three inch Post_It note affixed to the body of a letter is not in and of itself, a letter. The jury would never see what was actually sent to Judge James Hartmann on April 4, 2011. James Hartmann was now accessory to a Crime, and Stan Garnett and Catrina Weigel were going to conceal the below shown evidence by ANY NECESSARY MEANS. Download HERE.
The transcript clearly shows that prosecutor Catrina Weigel and witness James Hartmann used every possible element of chicanery to hide the fact that this was, in fact, a Post It note, and Must have been adhered to something. But what? The jury would never know.
Actions that can trigger an evidence tampering charge include:
- Alter, destroy, conceal, or remove a thing or item with the purpose of hiding the truth or making an item unavailable for a proceeding or investigation; or
- Make, present, or use an item in a manner to deceive any other party who is or may be engaged in the proceeding or investigation.
As stated on Findlaw, the basic elements of tampering with evidence include:
- Intent: The most important element of this crime is the accused’s state of mind. The prosecution must show that evidence was willfully and purposefully interfered with. Accidental destruction or simple abandonment (throwing away) is not enough to prove intent.
- Knowledge: A person acts knowingly when they are aware that their conduct will probably cause a certain result. With a tampering charge, the accused must believe that there is a high chance that their actions will result in the
- Evidence: This covers every kind of physical object that might be produced in any kind of legal trial, proceeding, or investigation. It also includes digital images and video recordings.
- Awareness of a Potential or Pending Investigation: You may think that a person committing a crime must know that the potential exists for an investigation. However, even when the accused participates in an “obvious crime,” the prosecution must prove the evidence was tampered with in contemplation of a current or future proceeding.
A person charged with suborning perjury in a criminal trial may be charged as an accessory to the underlying crime.