Boulder DA Stan Garnett, in possession of felony evidence against Weld County Chief Judge James Hartmann since 2011, falsely convicts Longmont, CO Man of ‘Retaliation Against a Judge’ in 2014.
On April 21-22, 2014, Boulder County Chief Deputy DA Catrina Weigel, under the direction of District Attorney Stan Garnett, would prosecute Longmont, CO homeowner Craig Buckley on a single count of F4, “Retaliation Against a Judge”. Buckley was accused of making a “credible threat” against Weld County District Court Chief Judge James Hartmann in July, 2013. The Weld County District Court had initiated a raid on Buckley’s home on a civil contempt warrant for refusing to give the deed to his home, and years of tax returns to his former employers.
Evidence would prove Catrina Weigel, under the direction of Boulder Stan Garnett, would suborn First Degree Perjury in support of Forged evidence to obtain Buckley’s conviction on the single Class 4 Felony count. Boulder DA Stan Garnett is known, since 2011, to have been in possession of evidence proving Judge James Hartmann’s involvement in a fraud and Wage Theft scheme perpetrated by Buckley’s former employers.
Buckley’s civil action had been dismissed, and $20,000.00 in legal fees awarded to the employers because Buckley challenged, and refused to submit to the jurisdiction of James Hartmann’s Court, which had entered fraudulent rulings in support of fraud/theft, and in violation of the Colorado Wage Act. It is well documented on the record of the Court that Craig Buckley refused to submit to the jurisdiction of Judge James Hartmann’s ‘sham’ court for two ‘reasons.
- Buckley refused to submit to the jurisdiction of a Court which illegally forced him to pay fees associated with the defendants’ response to his motion for consolidation of cases.
- Buckley refused to submit to the jurisdiction of a Court which refused to comply with Statutory Authority: the provisions set forth in the Colorado Wage Act, and specifically, C.R.S. 8-4-110(2). See Laurence v. State of Colo., 910 P .2d 73, 74 (Colo. App. 1995).
Hartmann had illegally stripped Buckley of all evidence, and the right to prosecute his wage claim, mere hours before Buckley had been subpoenaed to deposition, based on a fraudulent and conclusory pleading by the employers’ known-criminally complicit attorney, Daniel T. Goodwin in which defense counsel, citing inapplicable Workers’ Compensation law, had pled the Court did not have jurisdiction, because Buckley’s claim for accrued wages was before the Colorado Division of Labor. Buckley had refused to submit to deposition by an officer of the Court, whom had worked a fraud upon the Court.
As the employers attorney was swearing as shown above before the Weld County District Court, the employers, through Dream Stone, Inc. secretary/treasurer Ida Murphy would swear before the DOL as shown, beginning May 6, 2010, in the emails contained in this evidence package: sent to James Hartmann, Stan Garnett, Ken Buck, and John Suthers April 1, 2011.
While Hartmann would admit in an investigation by Boulder DA Investigator Maggie Green that Buckley’s sole cause of action was the claim for accrued wages, he would fail to explain, when that cause of action was stripped from him, what the purpose of the deposition was. We would never know, as Hartmann had also, without good cause, stripped Buckley of the right and mandatory requirement to, “meet and confer regarding the claims and defenses to be presented at trial”. Daniel T. Goodwin preferred, “trial by ambush” claiming the meeting with the pro-se plaintiff would be, “pointless” and Hartmann refused to order Goodwin to comply with the statutorily mandated requirement.
Let’s examine each point individually:
1. Hartmann’s criminal complicity in fraud/theft by forged affidavit.
On April 21, 2013, under the authority of Boulder DA Stan Garnett, prosecutor Catrina Weigel would elicit known perjured testimony from James Hartmann regarding an illegal forced payment of fees for a defendants’ response, for which no fees were awarded.
“I granted the request for attorney’s fees when I denied Mr. Buckley’s motion to consolidate this case with another case that was pending in Weld County, another civil case that was pending in Weld County.” – Judge James Hartmann
What James Hartmann DID do, however, was allow the defendants to remove, by fraud, the $600.00 affidavit from the response to motion for consolidation, and slap it onto another wholly unrelated motion, and get paid for it. Hartmann would spend YEARS concealing, aiding, and abetting this crime.
Buckley would battle corrupt James Hartmann for over four months, motion after motion to remedy this fraud. In malicious defiance of the law and the evidence, Hartmann ruled, “the Court rejects the Plaintiff’s claims”. It became evident to Buckley that “Judge” James Hartmann was working in criminal conspiracy with the defendants to victimize the pro-se plaintiff.
Interestingly, in the course of government investigations, and at trial, Hartmann would vigorously complain about the number of motions filed by Buckley. James Hartmann’s complicity in the defendants’ fraud would cause most of them.
Catrina Weigel would elicit the following testimony from Hartmann, reading Buckley’s pleading, for no purpose other than to inflame and prejudice the jury against Buckley, yet there would be no admission of the fact that Hartmann had been criminally complicit in allowing the civil defendants to work a fraud upon the Court.
Paragraph 23, “Once again, the Plaintiff must challenge the judge of this court to explain how $606.50 for work product preparation of an affidavit attached to the Defendant’s response to the Plaintiff’s motion for consolidation can be billed to Defendant’s response to the Plaintiff’s motion for joinder.”
“The accusatory statements against the Plaintiff contained in the order are unsupported by law or the evidence. This Court seems intent on dragging the Plaintiff through hell for absolutely no lawful reason,” and lawful is all capital letters.” – Judge James Hartmann
James Hartmann has a problem with, “LAWFUL” being in all capital letters, and yet still no admission of the theft and fraud upon the Court, to which Hartmann was now an Accessory.
2. Hartmann’s criminal complicity in fraud/Wage Theft by denial of Due Process Rights.
On June 17, 2010, Judge James Hartmann, in contravention of Statutory authority, violated the provisions set forth in the Colorado Wage Act, and specifically, C.R.S. 8-4-110(2) in violation of Buckley’s Due process rights. See Laurence v. State of Colo., 910 P .2d 73, 74 (Colo. App. 1995).
Hartmann had unlawfully stripped Buckley of all evidence, and the Due Process right to seek an award of accrued wages and penalties due upon termination of employment from Dream Stone, Inc., a now defunct countertop fabrication facility where he had worked as a CNC programmer. Buckley’s employers had sworn that his claim for accrued wages was before the Colorado Division of Labor, and citing inapplicable Workers’ Compensation law, Stacks v. The Industrial Commission et. al., claimed the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case. This statutorily compliant ruling by uncorrupted Denver City & County District Court Judge Norman Haglund, shows the proper answer to an identical jurisdictional question.
Notwithstanding James Hartmann’s malicious scheme to dispense of the annoying pro-se plaintiff, his noncompliance with statutory authority, and deprivation of Due Process rights under the Colorado Wage Act, on April 4, 2011, Hartmann received, in his personal capacity, a multi-page evidence package, attached to which was a 3 inch Post-It Note stating, “You need to fix this now”.
Hartmann on cross examination by Attorney Michael Root:
Q So it wasn’t as if he forced his way into your
office and said, Here, Judge? I mean, this came to you
maybe through not the normal proceeding but at least through
A That’s correct, with one exception, that he sent
it to me personally rather than filing it as a pleading in the case.
The multi-page document, obtained from former Colorado Division of Labor & Employment Director Ellen Golombek, contained evidence proving all allegations made in Buckley’s motions before the Weld County District Court. The employers had sworn 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. Further, there was a confession of the Class 4 Felony Attempt to Influence a Public Servant before Judge John Briggs on April 7, 2011: three days after Hartmann received the CDLE/Golombek evidence package.
This same evidence pack was simultaneously sent to Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett, Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, and Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, April 1, 2011. All concealed the crime.
Buckley met with Boulder District Attorney’s Office Investigator Maggie Green in May, 2011, at which time she fraudulently stated, “That’s a civil matter”. Buckley was left to wonder, how could simultaneously working a fraud upon the Weld County District Court, and the Colorado Division of Labor possibly be a CIVIL matter. Buckley clearly had no authority to represent either government agency, nor did her answer in any way comply with the law. This policy, at least as it pertained to Buckley, who was considered by the Boulder DA to be an enemy of the Court, was not to be followed.
On October 2, 2013, Boulder County DA Investigator Maggie Green reported the following:
“After the lien was placed on Buckley’s house, Judge Hartmann received a handwritten note from Buckley. The note was written in Sharpie on a piece of paper and stated, “Hartmann you need to fix this now.” This was turned over to the Weld County Sheriffs Department. They turned it over to the District Attorney’s Office, but the District Attorney’s Office did not file charges. Judge Hartmann stated this was in 2009 or 2010, and he stated that it would be contained in the case file for the civil case.”
There is no mention of the true and complete document which was sent to James Hartmann, April 4, 2011. Hartmann, an officer of the Court, and presumed to be under oath in all matters pertaining to law, had just admitted he feloniously altered Buckley’s document during the course of an official government investigation.
Catrina Weigel, and coerced defense attorney Michael Root, in criminal conspiracy with James Hartmann, were extremely careful NEVER to refer to the forged evidence as a Post-It Note before the jury: it would have been absurd to a jury of reasonable intelligence that a single three inch Post-It Note, with its monopolymer adhesive strip would have been affixed to the inside of a #10 business envelope, and mailed to the Judge. Weigel would evade any chance of the jury considering anything of evidentiary relevance was sent to Hartmann on April 4, 2011. Michael Root had been warned that if he did anything at trial to embarrass Judge James Hartmann, he would never practice law in Colorado again.
On April 21, 2013, under the authority of Boulder DA Stan Garnett, prosecutor Catrina Weigel would elicit known perjured testimony from James Hartmann, “supported” by evidence known to have been forged by Hartmann, and concealed, since 2011, by Boulder County DA Stan Garnett. All that remained of the multi-page evidentiary document sent to Hartmann on April 4, 2011 was the Post-It Note.
Voir Dire by Catrina Weigel:
Q Okay, so let’s kind of — generally, are all of
the items that I handed you, are those documents contained
in the court file for the civil lawsuit we have been talking
about, case number 2009CV991?
A Yes, they are.
Q Is what I handed you true and accurate copies of
those documents in that file?
A They appear to be.
Direct Examination by 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.
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 —
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.
At voire dire, and cross examination defense attorney Michael Root, in fear of retaliation by James Hartmann, would also evade the matter of evidence sent to Hartmann on April 4, 2011.
Voir Dire by Michael 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?
Buckley was getting angry at this point, and DEMANDED defense attorney Michael Root question Hartmann about the “letter”. This is as far as Root would take the cross examination, rather than impeaching Hartmann’s known perjured testimony. You could see the fear in Michael Root’s eyes.
Cross examination by Michael Root:
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
Stan Garnett, in possession of the identical, yet now missing evidence knew since 2011, that the “LETTER” was not “true and accurate” having been stripped of all evidence of crime by Buckley’s employers. Hartmann had perjured himself in support of forged evidence. Having concealed the crime of Class 4 Felony Attempt to Influence a Public Servant for over two years, now sought to conceal himself, before the jury, as an Accessory. Recommended reading: P.57-58 of the Court transcript.
While this may have “merely” constituted evidence tampering, as the document was sent to Hartmann in his personal capacity, and the statute of limitations has long since expired, it became Class 5 Felony Forgery when Hartmann altered the document, THEN filed it with the Weld County District Court.
Hartmann Answer to Jury Question:
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
Hartmann admits he took a document sent to him personally, altered it, and added it to the record of the Court.
Hartmann’s illegal conduct is statutorily defined as:
Forgery – CO Rev Stat § 18-5-102 (2016)
(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
(e) A written instrument officially issued or created by a public office, public servant, or government agency;
There is no statute of limitations on FORGERY.
Prosecutor Catrina Weigel, under the authority of Boulder DA Stan Garnett, would enter evidence proving Buckley challenged the jurisdiction of the Weld County District Court. Hartmann had surrendered jurisdiction on June 17, 2010 for malicious orders in contravention of Statutory authority, and Buckley would repeatedly demand proof of subject matter jurisdiction, on the record of the Court.
“The judge of this court has caused the court to waive jurisdiction over the above captioned matter. The Plaintiff will no longer subject himself to the jurisdiction of the court which has proven itself to be complicit in the criminal acts of fraud upon the court perpetrated by Defendant’s attorney, Daniel T. Goodwin.”
It is well founded law that jurisdiction may be challenged at any time, and once challenged, must be proven on the record of the Court, to exist before continuing any further action. Hartmann refused to enter proof of continuing jurisdiction on the record of the Court. Hartmann’s subject matter jurisdiction ENDED on June 17, 2010 when he violated Buckley’s Due Process rights under the Colorado Wage Act, yet the Weld County District Court illegally raided Buckley’s home in July 2013.
“Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” and “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.
No proof of continuing jurisdiction ever appeared on the record of the Court following Judge James Hartmann’s violation of Buckley’s Due Process rights under the Colorado Wage Act and complicity in theft by forged affidavit of attorneys’ fees. Each and every step the Court took after June 17, 2010 was ILLEGAL.
Evidence proves civil defendants, Buckley’s employers, and their criminally complicit attorney, Daniel T. Goodwin, should have been incarcerated in April, 2011, for Class 4 Felony Attempt to Influence a Public Servant. Judge James Hartmann chose, however, to become Accessory to Crime.
On July 15, 2014, prior to the sentencing hearing, Buckley demanded known criminally complicit Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett produce Brady evidence supporting alleged “retaliation victim” James Hartmann’s known perjured testimony in support of his known Forged evidence. Buckley demanded production of he following:
- Proof of continuing jurisdiction, following the July 2011deprivation of rights and demand as it appeared on the record of the Weld County District Court.
- Proof that Judge James Hartmann had awarded the civil defendants in the Weld County case fees for their response to motion for consolidation.
- The evidentiary document sent to Hartmann on April 4, 2011, IN ITS ENTIRETY, to which the offending, Post-It Note, or, “letter”, or Note, “or “smaller piece of paper” was attached.
It’s evident to anyone who isn’t absolutely corrupt, “Judge” James Hartmann wasn’t in “fear” of a “credible threat”: he wanted REVENGE. The law has long inferred that a witness who will lie about one fact will lie about others. See Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1956).
This was known felon, and criminal conspirator Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett’s response to Buckley’s rightful demands:
Colorado makes conduct criminal if anyone, including a lawyer, “renders assistance” by helping a person “conceal, destroy or alter any physical evidence that might aid in the . . . prosecution . . . of such person.” C.R.S. § 18-8-105(2)(e).
Of Garnett’s illegal response, Buckley stated, “Stan Garnett’s and Catrina Weigel’s concealment of evidence and criminal complicity in James Hartmann’s felonious acts go well beyond mere, “prosecutorial misconduct.” They are accessories to crime, and must be held accountable, and be disbarred immediately.” When a conviction is obtained by the presentation of testimony known to the prosecuting authorities to have been perjured, due process is violated.
Judge James Hartmann’s orders, in violation of Statutory authority, were VOID, and neither Hartmann, his subordinates, or his agents had any right to be on Buckley’s property, for any reason, in July, 2013. Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett had known this since 2011, yet concealed Hartmann’s complicity in crime.
It is well founded law that 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 Amend. 5. Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985).
So you see, James Hartmann HAD to forge the evidence, and represent it as a, “true and accurate” copy of what Buckley had sent him April 4, 2011. In 2012, Under the authority of Congressman (former Weld County DA) Ken Buck, Buckley had been falsely convicted of misdemeanor harassment of his former employers by Chief Deputy DA Steve Wrenn, and Deputy DA Sarah Bousman, for having sent several angrily worded emails, demanding that the fraudulently obtained liens be removed from his home. Hartmann, whom had received, in his personal capacity, the evidence of Buckley’s employers’ Felony Attempt to Influence a Public Servant, Fraud, and Wage Theft, was subpoenaed to appear as a witness. He would spend days in his chambers evading the subpoena, then have it quashed by Colorado Court of Appeals Judge (Then Chief Deputy Attorney General) Matthew D. Grove. Hartmann KNEW he had been criminally complicit since 2011.
In concealment of crime, Judge Andrew Hartmann, whom had presided over Buckley’s criminal prosecution would fraudulently rule that Judge James Hartmann’s First Degree perjury, and Forgery of Court documents was, “not material”.
Will Justice ever be served in this matter? Probably not. As reform of Colorado’s unconstitutional Retaliation Against a Judge law would require a Legislative act, and Stan Garnett’s son, Alec Garnett is Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives, it is highly unlikely that Alec would “roll” on his daddy, as reform of the statute would expose proof of Stan Garnett’s criminal acts.