Motion For Temporary Order Write Your Name And Contact: Fill & Download for Free

Great question! Yes, sort of. Someone has been sued for something that was posted on Quora. You want to guess who?None other than Quora Inc. and CEO and founder, Adam d'Angelo. See Silver vs. Quora, Inc. et al. (D. New Mexico 2016).Before you start thinking:WTF! What did Adam write that caused him to get sued?!"Let's review a few things:First, Adam didn't write anything about anyone, at least not about the subject matter of the lawsuit. That was done by these four Quora users: Has anyone worked with or heard of David Silver at Santa Fe Capital? (note: some negative things are posted there about the plaintiff).Second, before you post negative comments on Quora about anyone, please follow Quora's rules and policy guidelines, particularly Rule #2: Be Nice, Be Respectful. (Keep in mind that my own commentary on this case is limited to Quora users who are probably not using real identities. The plaintiff alleges that he is not a registered user (although Quora disagrees). The only user identified here is D'Angelo, who is a public figure and who happens to own this site.)Third, if someone attacks you on Quora by calling you bad names, posting false stories, and engaging in mudslinging like this were Twitter, use the downvote function copiously, contact the Quora moderators, email your complaint, raise the alarm and enlist your online buddies to publicly shame the poster. But don't file a lawsuit against Quora. That's just plain ignorant (more on why that is later in the post).Case Status and PartiesThe status of the case is still pending as of May 2, 2016. The parties are:Plaintiff: David Silver, a New Mexico VC investorDefendants: Quora, Inc. and Adam d'AngeloBackgroundPlaintiff alleges that he is a long time venture capitalist in New Mexico. He allegedly never registered on Quora, although it must be assumed that he's visited Quora at least to read the negative posts. He filed suit against Quora and D'Angelo over two statements posted on Quora by two allegedly fictitious persons in response to a question about Silver. The question was:Has anyone worked with or heard of David Silver at Santa Fe Capital?One statement comes from Tessa Salton and provides that Silver is "not licensed or accredited any longer. A fraud." (Complaint, at page 2.) The other comes from Neil MacAskill and reads that "[y]ou are better off buying lottery tickets. One of our checks to him supposedly got lost so we sent him another. Then he cashed both and never did a thing for us. Said he built a business development plan but never delivered it. Save your money." (Complaint at 2-3.)Both users have only one posting to their name, and those postings are above. Plaintiff alleges that these statements are false. Plaintiff requested that Quora remove the statements. Plaintiff contends that the ability of two fictitious persons to post on Quora violates Quora's Terms of Service ("TOS"). Accordingly, he alleges that the Defendants "willingly, wantonly and recklessly published libelous statements of their own, by republishing these defamatory statements" and acted with actual malice by not taking down the statements. (Complaint, at 3.)Legal IssuesThere is still a pending case and so most of the matters will not be discussed because there is an active case. However, there was a motion to dismiss that was already decided by a New Mexico District Court magistrate judge on January 26, 2016. There were four issues presented:Is venue proper in New Mexico where the plaintiff has not signed the Quora terms of service but alleged his injuries took place in the NM district?Whether there's personal jurisdiction over D'Angelo?Whether Quora should be sanctioned for allegedly misrepresenting that the plaintiff registered on Quora?Whether the federal judge should issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction that would require Quora to remove the allegedly libelous statements and notify search engines of the same?SummaryThe judge ruled that Adam d'Angelo was dismissed but Quora had to stay in the lawsuit. Here's a summary of that order:Venue was proper in New Mexico because "[t]he tort of libel is generally held to occur wherever the offending material is circulated," Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 777 (1984), and therefore "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred" in New Mexico, where Silver resides and experienced the alleged injury, § 1391(b)(2). Accordingly, Quora was not entitled to dismissal for improper venue and the motion to dismiss was denied as to Quora.New Mexico courts lack personal jurisdiction over D'Angelo in his individual capacity because he has no contacts with New Mexico and has not committed a qualifying act under the jurisdictional long-arm statute. Accordingly, D'Angelo is dismissed from the case.The court denied the plaintiff's request for sanctions because he failed to comply with a 21 day safe-harbor provision that would have allowed Quora to respond.Finally, the court denied the plaintiff's request for a takedown of the content because of Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), which provides that:"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."This is the firewall protection that virtually guarantees Quora will never face defamation liability for third party posters, because Quora qualifies as an "interactive computer service" and the immunity of § 230(c)(1) applies.Here, the plaintiff's allegations rest on "information provided by another information content provider," within the meaning of § 230(c)(1). See also Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 753 F.3d 1354, 1358 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (finding that Facebook is an "interactive computer service" for the same reason). Accordingly, Quora cannot legally be found liable for the actions of its users.So, Quora will ultimately prevail on the substantive merits of the case, but it will come at a cost. The company will have to pay (tens of) thousands of dollars in attorneys' fees just to prove its case. Nonetheless it's an important case to fight because successfully litigating Section 230 immunity of the CDA deters frivolous litigation.Here's a relevant post that may shed some light on whether the third party Quora users themselves are liable for the content of their answers: Can you get into trouble or even sued for calling someone a kid?

Hmm… noYou can’t file a police report because you are not a policeman and the question would really be could you convince a policeman to file a police report because you claim that someone has been verbally harassing you at some time over some issue and that answer is almost a certain yes:You could probably find some cop somewhere who would file a police report concerning your claim that you not only say Bigfoot but you think it was a girl Bigfoot and she might be pregnant now but… why would you waste your time because a police report is of no use to you in any way.It sounds as if what you want to know is can you cause criminal charges to be filed against someone for saying something that you didn’t want to hear and the initial answer to that would be no and that is a good thing and maybe but only if well… first let’s talk about the bizarre modern idea that as an American you have a right to not be bothered or upset in any way for any reason at any time.This has never been true and in fact the very first of the amendments one hears so much about includes freedom of speech and speech can be sort of abusive at times but um… that would be a good thing right?As with just about everything there are exceptions of course: a spouse who constantly cuts down the other person doesn’t need to be charged with verbally abusing a spouse but needs to be an x-spouse or at least shown that this will soon occur if the behavior isn’t corrected as soon as possible.And then credit should be given when the attempt is made with the understanding that changing behavior that is often not conscious but formed by bad habits will be a work in progress for at least as long as it took for the habit to form.It is also a possibility that what is really being asked is can you do anything to stop someone from harassing you and the answer to that is SURE… why not?609.748 HARASSMENT; RESTRAINING ORDER.Subdivision 1.Definition.For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given them in this subdivision.(a) "Harassment" includes:(1) a single incident of physical or sexual assault, a single incident of harassment under section 609.749, subdivision 2, clause (8), a single incident of nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images under section 617.261, or repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that have a substantial adverse effect or are intended to have a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another, regardless of the relationship between the actor and the intended target;(3) a pattern of attending public events after being notified that the actor's presence at the event is harassing to another.(This bullshit of course is troubling because had I known it could be done I would have filed a restraining order against Hillary Clinton attending any of the Democratic ralley(s) on the basis that every time she did she was harrassing me! Sound stupid well yes it does doesn’t it?)(b) "Respondent" includes any adults or juveniles alleged to have engaged in harassment or organizations alleged to have sponsored or promoted harassment.(And again Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on the door come on people!)(c) "Targeted residential picketing" includes the following acts when committed on more than one occasion:(1) marching, standing, or patrolling by one or more persons directed solely at a particular residential building in a manner that adversely affects the safety, security, or privacy of an occupant of the building; or(2) marching, standing, or patrolling by one or more persons which prevents an occupant of a residential building from gaining access to or exiting from the property on which the residential building is located.Subd. 2.Restraining order; court jurisdiction.A person who is a victim of harassment may seek a restraining order from the district court in the manner provided in this section. The parent, guardian, or stepparent of a minor who is a victim of harassment may seek a restraining order from the district court on behalf of the minor. An application for relief under this section may be filed in the county of residence of either party or in the county in which the alleged harassment occurred. There are no residency requirements that apply to a petition for a harassment restraining order.Subd. 3.Contents of petition; hearing; notice.(a) A petition for relief must allege facts sufficient to show the following:(1) the name of the alleged harassment victim;(2) the name of the respondent; and(3) that the respondent has engaged in harassment.A petition for relief must state whether the petitioner has had a previous restraining order in effect against the respondent. The petition shall be accompanied by an affidavit made under oath stating the specific facts and circumstances from which relief is sought. The court shall provide simplified forms and clerical assistance to help with the writing and filing of a petition under this section and shall advise the petitioner of the right to sue in forma pauperis under section 563.01. The court shall advise the petitioner of the right to request a hearing. If the petitioner does not request a hearing, the court shall advise the petitioner that the respondent may request a hearing and that notice of the hearing date and time will be provided to the petitioner by mail at least five days before the hearing. Upon receipt of the petition and a request for a hearing by the petitioner, the court shall order a hearing. Personal service must be made upon the respondent not less than five days before the hearing. If personal service cannot be completed in time to give the respondent the minimum notice required under this paragraph, the court may set a new hearing date. Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring a hearing on a matter that has no merit.(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), the order for a hearing and a temporary order issued under subdivision 4 may be served on the respondent by means of a one-week published notice under section 645.11, if:(1) the petitioner files an affidavit with the court stating that an attempt at personal service made by a peace officer was unsuccessful because the respondent is avoiding service by concealment or otherwise; and(2) a copy of the petition and order for hearing and any temporary restraining order has been mailed to the respondent at the respondent's residence or place of business, if the respondent is an organization, or the respondent's residence or place of business is not known to the petitioner.(c) Regardless of the method of service, if the respondent is a juvenile, whenever possible, the court also shall have notice of the pendency of the case and of the time and place of the hearing served by mail at the last known address upon any parent or guardian of the juvenile respondent who is not the petitioner.(d) A request for a hearing under this subdivision must be made within 20 days of service of the petition.Subd. 3a.Filing fee; cost of service.The filing fees for a restraining order under this section are waived for the petitioner and the respondent if the petition alleges acts that would constitute a violation of section 609.749, subdivision 2, 3, 4, or 5, or sections 609.342 to 609.3451. The court administrator and any peace officer in this state shall perform their duties relating to service of process without charge to the petitioner. The court shall direct payment of the reasonable costs of service of process if served by a private process server when a peace officer is unavailable or if service is made by publication.Subd. 4.Temporary restraining order; relief by court.(a) The court may issue a temporary restraining order that provides any or all of the following:(1) orders the respondent to cease or avoid the harassment of another person; or(2) orders the respondent to have no contact with another person.(b) The court may issue an order under paragraph (a) if the petitioner files a petition in compliance with subdivision 3 and if the court finds reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent has engaged in harassment. When a petition alleges harassment as defined by subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clause (1), the petition must further allege an immediate and present danger of harassment before the court may issue a temporary restraining order under this section. When signed by a referee, the temporary order becomes effective upon the referee's signature.(c) Notice need not be given to the respondent before the court issues a temporary restraining order under this subdivision. A copy of the restraining order must be served on the respondent along with the order for hearing and petition, as provided in subdivision 3. If the respondent is a juvenile, whenever possible, a copy of the restraining order, along with notice of the pendency of the case and the time and place of the hearing, shall also be served by mail at the last known address upon any parent or guardian of the juvenile respondent who is not the petitioner. A temporary restraining order may be entered only against the respondent named in the petition.(d) The temporary restraining order is in effect until a hearing is held on the issuance of a restraining order under subdivision 5. The court shall hold the hearing on the issuance of a restraining order if the petitioner requests a hearing. The hearing may be continued by the court upon a showing that the respondent has not been served with a copy of the temporary restraining order despite the exercise of due diligence or if service is made by published notice under subdivision 3 and the petitioner files the affidavit required under that subdivision.(e) If the temporary restraining order has been issued and the respondent requests a hearing, the hearing shall be scheduled by the court upon receipt of the respondent's request. Service of the notice of hearing must be made upon the petitioner not less than five days prior to the hearing. The court shall serve the notice of the hearing upon the petitioner by mail in the manner provided in the Rules of Civil Procedure for pleadings subsequent to a complaint and motions and shall also mail notice of the date and time of the hearing to the respondent. In the event that service cannot be completed in time to give the respondent or petitioner the minimum notice required under this subdivision, the court may set a new hearing date.(f) A request for a hearing under this subdivision must be made within 20 days of the date of completed service of the petition.Subd. 5.Restraining order.(a) The court may issue a restraining order that provides any or all of the following:(1) orders the respondent to cease or avoid the harassment of another person; or(2) orders the respondent to have no contact with another person.(b) The court may issue an order under paragraph (a) if all of the following occur:(1) the petitioner has filed a petition under subdivision 3;(2) a peace officer has served respondent with a copy of the temporary restraining order obtained under subdivision 4, and with notice of the right to request a hearing, or service has been made by publication under subdivision 3, paragraph (b); and(3) the court finds at the hearing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent has engaged in harassment.A restraining order may be issued only against the respondent named in the petition; except that if the respondent is an organization, the order may be issued against and apply to all of the members of the organization. If the court finds that the petitioner has had two or more previous restraining orders in effect against the same respondent or the respondent has violated a prior or existing restraining order on two or more occasions, relief granted by the restraining order may be for a period of up to 50 years. In all other cases, relief granted by the restraining order must be for a fixed period of not more than two years. When a referee presides at the hearing on the petition, the restraining order becomes effective upon the referee's signature.(c) An order issued under this subdivision must be personally served upon the respondent.(d) If the court orders relief for a period of up to 50 years under paragraph (a), the respondent named in the restraining order may request to have the restraining order vacated or modified if the order has been in effect for at least five years and the respondent has not violated the order. Application for relief under this paragraph must be made in the county in which the restraining order was issued. Upon receipt of the request, the court shall set a hearing date. Personal service must be made upon the petitioner named in the restraining order not less than 30 days before the date of the hearing. At the hearing, the respondent named in the restraining order has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been a material change in circumstances and that the reasons upon which the court relied in granting the restraining order no longer apply and are unlikely to occur. If the court finds that the respondent named in the restraining order has met the burden of proof, the court may vacate or modify the order. If the court finds that the respondent named in the restraining order has not met the burden of proof, the court shall deny the request and no request may be made to vacate or modify the restraining order until five years have elapsed from the date of denial. An order vacated or modified under this paragraph must be personally served on the petitioner named in the restraining order.Subd. 5a.Short-form notification.(a) In lieu of personal service of a harassment restraining order, a peace officer may serve a person with a short-form notification. The short-form notification must include the following clauses: the respondent's name; the respondent's date of birth, if known; the petitioner's name; the names of other protected parties; the date and county in which the temporary restraining order or restraining order was filed; the court file number; the hearing date and time, if known; the conditions that apply to the respondent, either in checklist form or handwritten; and the name of the judge who signed the order.The short-form notification must be in bold print in the following form:"The restraining order is now enforceable. You must report to your nearest sheriff's office or county court to obtain a copy of the restraining order. You are subject to arrest and may be charged with a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony if you violate any of the terms of the restraining order or this short-form notification."(b) Upon verification of the identity of the respondent and the existence of an unserved harassment restraining order against the respondent, a law enforcement officer may detain the respondent for a reasonable time necessary to complete and serve the short-form notification.(c) When service is made by short-form notification, it may be proved by the affidavit of the law enforcement officer making the service.(d) For service under this section only, service upon an individual may occur at any time, including Sundays and legal holidays.(e) The superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension shall provide the short form to law enforcement agencies.[See Note.]Subd. 5b.Service by others.In addition to peace officers, corrections officers, including but not limited to probation officers, court services officers, parole officers, and employees of jails or correctional facilities, may serve a temporary restraining order or restraining order.Subd. 6.Violation of restraining order.(a) A person who violates a restraining order issued under this section is subject to the penalties provided in paragraphs (b) to (d).(b) Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (c) and (d), when a temporary restraining order or a restraining order is granted under this section and the respondent knows of the order, violation of the order is a misdemeanor.(c) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who violates the order within ten years of a previous qualified domestic violence-related offense conviction or adjudication of delinquency.(d) A person is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both, if the person violates the order:(1) within ten years of the first of two or more previous qualified domestic violence-related offense convictions or adjudications of delinquency;(2) because of the victim's or another's actual or perceived race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability as defined in section 363A.03, age, or national origin;(3) by falsely impersonating another;(4) while possessing a dangerous weapon;(5) with an intent to influence or otherwise tamper with a juror or a judicial proceeding or with intent to retaliate against a judicial officer, as defined in section 609.415, or a prosecutor, defense attorney, or officer of the court, because of that person's performance of official duties in connection with a judicial proceeding; or(6) against a victim under the age of 18, if the respondent is more than 36 months older than the victim.(e) A person who commits violations in two or more counties may be prosecuted in any county in which one of the acts was committed for all acts in violation of this section.(f) A person may be prosecuted at the place where any call is made or received or, in the case of wireless or electronic communication or any communication made through any available technologies, where the actor or victim resides, or in the jurisdiction of the victim's designated address if the victim participates in the address confidentiality program established under chapter 5B.(g) A peace officer shall arrest without a warrant and take into custody a person whom the peace officer has probable cause to believe has violated an order issued under subdivision 4 or 5 if the existence of the order can be verified by the officer.(h) A violation of a temporary restraining order or restraining order shall also constitute contempt of court.(i) Upon the filing of an affidavit by the petitioner, any peace officer, or an interested party designated by the court, alleging that the respondent has violated an order issued under subdivision 4 or 5, the court may issue an order to the respondent requiring the respondent to appear within 14 days and show cause why the respondent should not be held in contempt of court. The court also shall refer the violation of the order to the appropriate prosecuting authority for possible prosecution under paragraph (b), (c), or (d).Subd. 7.Copy to law enforcement agency.An order granted under this section shall be forwarded by the court administrator within 24 hours to the local law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the residence of the applicant. Each appropriate law enforcement agency shall make available to other law enforcement officers through a system for verification, information as to the existence and status of any order issued under this section.Subd. 8.Notice.(a) An order granted under this section must contain a conspicuous notice to the respondent:(1) of the specific conduct that will constitute a violation of the order;(2) that violation of an order is either (i) a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to 90 days or a fine of up to $1,000, or both, (ii) a gross misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of up to $3,000, or both, or (iii) a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to five years or a fine of up to $10,000, or both; and(3) that a peace officer must arrest without warrant and take into custody a person if the peace officer has probable cause to believe the person has violated a restraining order.(b) If the court grants relief for a period of up to 50 years under subdivision 5, the order must also contain a conspicuous notice to the respondent that the respondent must wait five years to seek a modification of the order.Subd. 9.Effect on local ordinances.Nothing in this section shall supersede or preclude the continuation or adoption of any local ordinance which applies to a broader scope of targeted residential picketing conduct than that described in subdivision 1.§Subd. 10.Prohibition against employer retaliation.(a) An employer shall not discharge, discipline, threaten, otherwise discriminate against, or penalize an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment, because the employee took reasonable time off from work to obtain or attempt to obtain relief under this section. Except in cases of imminent danger to the health or safety of the employee or the employee's child, or unless impracticable, an employee who is absent from the workplace shall give 48 hours' advance notice to the employer. Upon request of the employer, the employee shall provide verification that supports the employee's reason for being absent from the workplace. All information related to the employee's leave pursuant to this section shall be kept confidential by the employer.(b) An employer who violates paragraph (a) is guilty of a misdemeanor and may be punished for contempt of court. In addition, the court shall order the employer to pay back wages and offer job reinstatement to any employee discharged from employment in violation of paragraph (a).(c) In addition to any remedies otherwise provided by law, an employee injured by a violation of paragraph (a) may bring a civil action for recovery of damages, together with costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys fees, and may receive such injunctive and other equitable relief, including reinstatement, as determined by the court.Yea there you go: or maybe just telling the person to step off or having someone else do it but then no… that means that the verbal abuser would just file a harassment order against the person who told him/her to stop harassing and that would require the second harassment order recipient to then be forced to file a harassment order against the filer of that order and eventually someone in my family will come along and simply choose to spend some time in jail or prison just to stop the madness and teach a few lessons about tolerance and the rights and duties concerning civil discourse and my head is aching just thinking of the drama that quite frankly doesn’t really have to exist.

When I was going through corruption in divorce a good friend approached me and told me how absolutely dysfunctional the justice system is. She said her attorney did something very bad, but refused to say what it is.Her attorney filed for a guardian ad litem. In Colorado GALs make $270 per hour and there is a cut in it for the judge. It is also nice to use GALs illegally to double up as your attorney without your knowledge. GALs are triple paid - once for themselves, once for the judge and once for the chief judge and justices.My attorney did the same and worse - she denied the deniable domestic assault of 10/11/13 despite a police report complete with my husband’s admission to the assault….She contacts Quora if I mention her name and threatens them.5. Follow the SpiritsGuardian ad LitemA Native American Chief was to choose land for his People. The Spirits directed him to an unattractive piece of badland. He made up his mind to obey the Spirits. Perhaps White Man would attack them if he dared chose a more desirable piece of land? Could this desolate piece of land be their best chance for a peaceful life and survival? Mysterious are the ways of the Spirits.As it turned out, the Chief and his people ended up settling on a piece of land rich with oil. The tribe did well with their wells, and shared their profits from equally. They made hundreds of millions of dollars each. At this point that the courts got interested in the Tribe and its forture. The courts "determined" that the Tribe People were incapable of spending their money properly. They obviously knew how to make it and how to share it, but perhaps they didn't know how to spend it well without their help.I discuss court "determinations" later in this book. The Courts appointed Guardian ad Litem to the individuals of the Tribe. The GALs embezzled scores of millions. The newly formed FBI became interested in the case, but not due to the courts. Non-court entities have taken to serial murders in an attempt to inherit the Tribe's wealth. Tribes People were dying right and left.Since then the FBI, being part of the Judicial Branch, has protected Americans from all kinds of horrendous crimes and fates, giving us a good, peaceful life. However, the courts have never stopped their habit of illegally appointing GALs as a way to access private and public funds."My Attorney Did Something Bad"Once Attorney Bonnie Shields got a hold of the $10k she transformed. My first order of business was that she call Attorney Uslan in order to reach an agreement on my behalf.Shields began to act independently of any imagined consumer power I thought I had. It was as if this was her private divorce. She was now in charge. Galighting became her standard communication style.She was simply disinterested. She wanted an eight hour or sixteen hour mediation. I had already come to the conclusion that mediators are useless, they play no role and are entirely unnecessary and expensive. I also believed that all we need to do is to discuss a few numbers and reach an agreement. Shouldn't my attorney be able to do so on my behalf?Bonnie Shields now complained about me. She became demanding and abusive. She suddenly wasn't free to meet me for my Civil Protection Hearing either. She previously explained that a hearing is conducted exactly two weeks after the Motion is filed. When she finally made time to see me, she hadn't looked at the police report. She spent her time telling me about my husband's version, namely that I attacked him with a mug to the head and drew blood. I knew my husband has no proof, but she seemed disinterested.Two attorneys suggested that Bonnie Shields could not ask for a new protection, Permanent Civil Protection Order while the first, Temporary, Order was in effect. I'm not sure if that is true, but I got the feeling that I could only get this Permanent Civil Protection Order in a pro-se capacity. Bonnie Shields seemed to purposely lead me on. She was purposely wasting time waiting for my Temporary Protection Order to expire.I next got a misguided and mischievous email from her. In her email she claimed that she was "concerned" that I can't understand legal proceedings. I didn't know that this was my "consultation." I immediately sent her an email terminating her services.I went to theSelf-HelpCenterto speak to the Sherlocks. I went a couple of times. For some reason it was hard to get information on how to fire an attorney. Meanwhile Bonnie Shields filed a Motion for GAL. She claimed that she was concerned that I suffer schizophrenia and that a GAL should immediately be appointed to me. At the same time, my husband's attorney David Japha, filed a Motion to Strike against my Civil Protection Order.These were two curve balls Right from the start I hired Bonnie Shields in a limited capacity because I felt that I should always be able to go pro-se if she didn't perform. Now I strongly felt that I could only obtain a Permanent Civil Protection Order in a pro-se capacity. But I didn't know what a GAL was or how to respond to this Motion. I also didn't know what a Strike was or how to address it.Now that I told the Sherlocks that Bonnie Shields filed a Motion for a GAL they said that it was impossible to fire an attorney. One can only replace one attorney with another. I felt I should get Bonnie Shields off the case urgently. I could always find a way to fire the next attorney and get a grip on my case later - when the Motion for GAL has been "cancelled."I was physically exhausted but had no choice. I drove around to interview attorneys. Bonnie Shields, I felt, was incapable of coping with an aggressive attorney such as David Japha. I found one who I felt was as aggressive and was capable of taking on David Japha. His name was Robert Wolf. He was highly informative and supportive. He assured me that the civil protection order is no problem. He also assured me that he was going to "cancel" the GAL immediately. He printed out a contract for me. I would normally not sign a contract without reading it, but I was exhausted due to the concussion. It was essential that Robert Wolf replace Bonnie Shields as fast as possible before this confusing Motion for GAL creates more complications. Robert Wolf said I could write a letter to the court asking them to accept Bonnie Shields' Motion for Dismissal from the case.I went back to the court and filed such a letter. I attached a copy of my email terminating Bonnie Shield's services. Thankfully, my letter was filed based on the date of that email, the date I terminated her services. This made my pleading prior to Bonnie Shields' Motion for GAL. It meant that at the time Bonnie Shields expressed her "dutiful concern" for me, I had no trust in her, nor attorney-client relationships. Later on that turned out to be extremely important.While filing my letter I discovered the existence of the Register of Record. Now I could see for the first time the Bonnie Shields had entered general powers of representation on the case against my will and without my knowledge. I saw that I was erroneously listed as represented by Attorney Stephan Uslan and that my husband appeared pro-se. I still was to learn that this mistake was not innocent, and that corruption prevails in Registers of Action too. I was great to be able to read Magistrate Moss's Minute Order concluding my Temporary Orders Hearing. I noticed that she omitted the requirement that my husband pay taxes jointly and that he share the tax refund.Much like Bonnie Shields, Robert Wolf changed as soon as I signed his contract. He was no longer helpful or available anymore. Instead of urgently replacing Bonnie Shields and "cancelling" the GAL Robert Wolf asked Magistrate Moss to schedule a Telephone Conference with Bonnie Shields. Magistrate Moss would not accept him at that Telephone Conference. She wanted to let me be heard.Robert Wolf didn't prepare me for the Telephone Conference at all. His communications became manipulative and evasive. I didn't gain any insight into what a GAL might be or what a Motion for a GAL was. I was pretty sure I didn't want one, though. aAfter putting it on record, and in recording, who was present at the meeting, Bonnie Shields voiced her "concern" that I'm schizophrenic and in need of a GAL. Based on the Rules of Evidence, Bonnie Shield's testament is meaningless. She is a lay person and not a psychiatrist. Even a psychiatrist can't diagnose anyone as schizophrenic without a test that takes six weeks with two more weeks for results.Bonnie Shields was relying on the now outdated Rules of Professional Conduct. The language of these Rules keeps assigning "duties" to attorneys that are nothing more than license to abuse and exploit. One of the Rules states that if an attorney is concerned that a client is mentally incapacitated or mentally ill it is their duty to ask for the appointment of a GAL.Magistrate Moss did a good job of hearing me. She also said she'd want to hear me in the future. She asked me if I trusted attorney Robert Wolf. He told me that the only way to "cancel" the GAL was to hire him. I also believed what the Shcrlocks told me, namely that it is impossible to fire an attorney and that only replacing them is an option.I didn't trust Robert Wolf but I said I did so that he would "cancel" the GAL. I regret this mistake and wish I was more honest with Magistrate Moss. It has always been a struggle. I always elected not to take her time with lay conversations, but each time I missed an opportunity to give her important information about the case.I later discovered that at the time of the Telephone Conference with Magistrate Moss I was indeed, without my knowledge, as Robert Wolf was out ot mislead me, a pro-se party. All I needed to do was tell Magistrate Moss that I want to proceed as a pro-se party and that I want to schedule a Permanent Civil Protection Hearing. Robert Wolf successfully mislead me and now Magistrate Moss accepted his entry on the case as my Attorney of Record.Civil ProtectionThe Colorado Constitution and Statutes are enough to entirely deter nearly all domestic assaults. If even one domestic abuser was ordered to pay restitution to the woman he assaulted no one in their right mind would assault women or anyone else. This means nearly zero of these litigation or incarceration opportunities surrounding domestic and other assaults. As in all other crime cases, the courts must encourage assailants to offend repeatedly to maintain court profits. They must, therefore, vehemently ignore any and all law in every single case. Additionally, the courts must also work around those pesky advocates. That's what the Supreme Court is for.Victims advocates and wonderful legislators do their best to solve the problem of domestic assaults. Each such assault is an opportunity for appointments from public and private funds. Judges and attorneys respond.David Japha asked Magistrate Moss to authorize two attorneys to be present at the Civil Protection Hearing, representing my husband. Civil Protection Hearings are win-lose hearings and the losing party can be ordered to pay all attorney fees regardless of how poor they are. I believe that David Japha was planning a monstrously extravagant hearing that I was going to lose and have to pay for. Magistrate Moss refused. gRobert Wolf informed me that "we" weren't going to pursue a civil protection order. A funny thing happened: now Judge Angela Arkin in division 4 started responding to Motions filed in division 7 with Magistrate Moss. Judge Arkin later explained that when a GAL is involved the Magistrate is not qualified to handle the case. Whether this was truth or false, I later heard that attorneys recommend to their clients to avoid Magistrate Moss and start the case with Judge Arkin directly. There may have been a change in local laws.David Japha, my husband's attorney, filed a Motion arguing that my husband should return into the house because I'm causing damage to the house. His pleadings were purposely long in an attempt to encourage "________________". He strewed his pleadings with misplaced and misleading words indicating the need for a GAL. I hear that if a pro-se party tries to respond to such voluminous pleadings the judge refuses to accept any more pleadings from them due to over-litigation.Robert Wolf insinuated in his Response that there is a progressive damage to the house - perhaps water damage - and that my husband's pleading should be accepted. He encouraged David Japha to file an Reply, which he did, playing off of Rober Wolf's invitations and further spinning the same false allegations. A policeman suggested that I have my neighbors come into the house, be photographed inspecting the house and sign an affidavit stating that there is no damage to the house. My wonderful neighbors helped but I had no access to the Register of Record and couldn't file anything while an Attorney of Record was on file. I filed a letter with the court asking that Robert Wolf be dismissed from the case before I lose my Temporary Civil Protection Order. David Japha objected that I can't keep firing attorneys. Judge Arkin kept Robert Wolf on the case.Robert Wolf asked for the appointment of a GAL. He wanted me to take mental evaluations and pay for them myself. The GAL, Rose Zapor let me know that she intends to confiscate my weapon and enter my bank accounts. She made $60k worth of requests for services I didn't need out of our marital estate. That was her "consultation." Victim's advocates residing inside courthouses were unwilling to help. I finally found a group of advocates that had their own building. They spent time with me. They explained that it is common practice for the attorneys to get the assailant back into the marital home.I spent entire days calling anyone and any organization I could think of. Finally someone mentioned the Appeals process. It took me two more weeks to file my first Motion for Appeals. It was a rushed and panicked appeal. I didn't have time to study more than just a few of the Colorado Appeals Rules. I simply explained my situation and requested that the GAL and Robert Wolf be dismissed from my case.TheAppeals Courtresponded with an Order to Show Cause. The Response to such order explains to the Court why the orders from the lower court are final and appealable. Final refers to the lower court's own corrective measures - they have to be exhausted. Appealable refers to procedural constitutional rights that have not been repealed through the measure of "errors in the law." I filed my Response. The Court then issued its final order: the appointment of a GAL is not appealable inColorado.The Appeal was my chance to leave my mark on the Register of Action. A copy of each appeal is filed with the lower court. Robert Wolf was dismissed from the case. I now had my first Telephone Conference with Judge Arkin[1]. Rose Zapor asked to be dismissed. Judge Arkin created a pleading on behalf of my husband to appoint a GAL and then granted that appeal on the spot. Judge Arkin scheduled a Sorenson Hearing[2], in which she would "consider" making this temporary appointment permanent. I was going to have to pay for mental evaluations.I discovered that within six months of extreme stress - such as losing one's residence, safety, weapons and bank accounts - there is no testing that can either confirm or deny the presence of schizophrenia. Bonnie Shields had the perfect scheme. My guess was the Judge Arkin was going to appoint a GAL out of "concern" because "schizophrenia can't be denied." I shared my discovery with Judge Arkin. She now ordered a two hour mental evaluation for the four mental incapacities described in the Sorenson ruling. Dr. Kutz was appointed. He was extremely manipulative on the telephone. He said he is going on vacation until one day before the Sorenson Hearing and that he can meet me between 4pm and 5pm - when all of the offices are closed. I later understood that he was setting the stage for a Rule 59 Review scam.Dr. Kutz/Virignia Fraser Able/HealthI never showed up to Dr. Kutz's mental evaluation meeting. Here's how it happened. It just so happened that my husband's employer had issue a new HSA card right around this time. My husband took a couple of months to send me a copy of his new card. In the process I had no funds to pay my osteopath. I had to go without osteopathic care.I soon began to experience chest crowdedness. I felt like my heart didn't have enough room in my chest. My heart moved. I began to experience frequent chest pains. Chest pains are worrying. And yet, I could not see my osteopath. My doctor was not my first choice. But visits were covered by the insurance company directly and I wasn't going to require my HSA card. So I went.Doctors are self-regulating. Most people don't realize that much like attorneys, doctors, as a profession, have relieved themselves of any fiduciary duties towards their patients. They enjoy kickbacks and profits when they prescribe drugs or perform surgeries. They are free to act in the interest of profit - even when the patient would do better without the drugs or the surgery. That's why my doctor was not my first choice.In fact, when I expressed my reluctance to take medications to my doctor I ended up being referred to a newer practitioner in his clinic. She gave me a gadget to wear for 24 hours and a notebook to take notes. The gadget monitored heart functions. The notebook was to document when chest pains occurred. Within hours of wearing the gadget I realized that my chest pains correlated to eating. I thought that maybe my stomach doesn't have room now too. But the doctor explained that this was my esophagus, hosted in my chest, that was failing to close. The acids cause the sensations of pain in my chest, not heart failure. From my perspective this was a simple matter - all I needed to do was eat smaller quantities of food to make sure acid doesn't go up my esophagus.The doctor, however, was adamant that I must take medications. At the time Virginia Fraser Able contacted all of my medical providers as listed with our health insurance. I read an article about a girl who had to take her chemotherapy or go to jail. I knew drug companies were seeking the power to force medication consuption on the public. I wasn't sure what kinds of atrocities Virginia Fraser Able was capable of or interested in. I feared the doctor so much that I bought the medications and threw them away.I didn't get an appointment with a cardiologist until after the Sorenson Hearing. He was great. He explained to me that due to my skeletal injuries my ribs got dislocated and were now pressing against my heart and esophagus. He performed all tests and my heart passed with flying colors. Once I got to see my osteopath I told him that I needed him to move my ribs. A 30 minute session was all it to for all of my symptoms to disappear.Most people approach an orthopedic when their tail bone breaks. The orthopedics surgically fuse the vertebrae around the ruptured disk. This prevents pressure against the disk. However, over time the patient requires further surgical intervention. Each time pain becomes intolerable the patient gets surgeries: the hips, the knees and, finally, the feet. And when all surgical options are exhausted the patient remains dependant on pain medications.Friends of mine inMinnesotaintroduced me to the osteopathic profession. I enjoyed osteopathic adjustments before my injury. So it was natural for me to seek osteopathic care afterwards.Most osteopaths are practicing M.D.s. A practicing M.D. gets paid as soon as the patient walks into their office. I've had a bad experience with those osteopaths. They don't get paid by the hour and want the patient gone as fast as they can. They are also interested in prescribing pain medications for kickbacks. One of the M.D. gave me a questionnaire which I thought was designed to predict how much mistreatment I would be willing to tolerate before the M.D. had to provide any real relief through skeletal manipulation. I decided to only see osteopaths who are not practicing M.D.s. They get paid by the hour and usually combine skeletal manipulations with healing modalities such as reiki.On my first osteopathic appointment after the assault I was still unaware that my tailbone was broken. I suffered extreme and debilitating nervousness and a general weakness. The osteopathic appointment calmed down the nervous disorder - as the central nervous system is closely related to the spine. At night I became aware of a new pain. A friend advised me that my tailbone is broken and that I must keep my legs at a 90 degree angle.I asked my osteopath if I can come see him with a broken tailbone and he said yes. His wife put on a glove and physically readjusted my tailbone. During our sessions my skeleton would be adjusted as to to avoid pressure against my ruptured disk. This kept me safe and pain-free until my fractures fuse together again.At some point my car battery failed. The strain of lifting the battery charger caused me a limp. My osteopath was older and couldn't manipulate large joints like the hip. I began to see a different osteopath. His work was very different. I dreaded going on his table. There were times when I wondered whether his brisk style was going to leave me forever _______. But each time I got off of his table renewed and revived and experiencing better health in every respect.At some point this osteopath referred me to another one. This one made me sign a release acknowledging that his treatments could cause fractures. I signed and went on his table in dread. To my complete surprise his style was extremely gentle. A few months later I realized that my entire skull was fractured. During the assault the back plate of my skull got pushed inwards. I suffered fracture pain on both sides of my nose, where the pressure was. But now my entire skull began to move, allowing my back plate to gradually and safely move back into place.I started with aquatic therapy six months after the assault. The water neutralized the gravity deterring pressure from the ruptured disk. It took another year before I was ready for Reformer Pilates Integrated Physical Therapy. I don't allow physical therapists to manipulate my spine. They usually cause a lot of pain. But osteopaths can't develop my muscles for me. Only a physical therapist can do so.Together my physical therapist and osteopath saved me from all of these surgeries: on my hips, knees and feet. When I took my x-rays with Spine One they showed me a calcification underneath my right ribs. Spine One falsely told me that this was a normal sign of aging. My physical therapist explained that my body used calcification to keep me erect. My muscles work in relation to bones - and my bones were fractured. My muscles weren't able to keep me erect without calcification. Together we managed to clear the calcification. I got my elasticity and strength back.It was about two and a half years into my recovery that I reported a pain that I called "bone pain" in my pelvis. My physical therapist explained bone rhythms to me. Our bones follow a harmonic, circular movement as we walk. After a traumatic injury the muscles contract or they don't have the strength to function properly. The circular movement is arrested. The two hip bones chafe and painful bone spurs form. In response, orthopedics replace the hip. My physical therapist worked to reinstate my bone rhythms. Bone spurs did not form and I didn't need a surgery. More importantly - my muscles were taught how to regain their natural strength and position.It was a long and arduous process, "reminding" my muscles how to function following traumatic injury. I had to be reminded how to move and walk again. She had to walk me through the panic and fear that prevented me from moving correctly.As I gradually got stronger my muscles were contract and pull on my fractured skull from within. My plates would then pinch nerves. Sometimes nerve pinching would halt my digestion. At other times I would cause nausea and vomiting. Most often it caused severe and debilitating headaches. I didn't have to suffer any of these as long as I was regularly seeing my physical therapist and osteopath. But I was not going to get that excellent care, prescribed by Magistrate Moss, for long.I had good care when my knees and hips required support. It was three years into my healing when I began to suffer much pain in my feet. This happened as I was transfering my weight back onto my left pelvis. Sometimes it was muscular pain. New muscles had to perform but were still weak. At other time it felt like the cartilage in my heals was tearing apart because I didn't have the muscles to pull up the arches of my feet. My physical therapist helped me through all of these pains until I was able to feel perfectly balanced. I was no longer limping. My left leg was functioning. The nerve pinching in my skull became more rare. I could finally feel that my healing process was complete. Of course, I still can't sit on hard surfaces and must carry a pillow with me everywhere. Also, I will need to see a physical therapist for the rest of my life to manage my injuries. But my skeleton was balanced again.Back to Dr. Kutz. Without osteopathic care I suffered scary and as-of-yet undiagnosed chest pains. At the same time I suffered lack of emotional support. Virginia Fraser Able contacted all of my medical providers - including my counselor. Our meetings had been a valuable source of support for me. Now I lost my consumer power with him. Virginia Fraser Able was a better source of referrals for him. I saw no point in scheduling further appointments. All I had to work with at the time of my appointment with Dr. Kutz was the doctor's recommendation that should any chest pain last longer than 45 minutes I must immediately go to the emergency room.The scheduled meeting with the highly manipulative, hostile, Dr. Kutz created extreme stress. The mornings were cold and made breathing even harder. I didn't want to end up in the emergency room with who-knows what kind of heart damage. I decided to stay in bed and call Dr. Kutz to cancel.Dr. Kutz understood my situation and said that he would speak to me over the telephone instead of a physical meeting or any forms to fill. We spoke for less than an hour. I don't remember the details of our conversation but I got the impression that he might be talk Judge Arkin into to giving me six months of Stay. This would free me of the stress of injustice and infringement and I could take the mental evaluation to rule out the schizophrenia falsely alleged by the lay Bonnie Shields.The Sorenson HearingAt a Sorenson Hearing it is the judge's duty and burden to examine the facts and decide whether a person loses their constitutional freedoms and privilages. Judge Arkin didn't do so. She had Virginia Fraser Able orchestrate the hearing for her.Judge Arkin seemed a little frightened, possibly takne aback by my level of knowledge or foreseeing the eventual loss of her appointment. I kept waiting for legal proceedings, but discussion remained lay and meaningless. I later learned that this was a mark of a partially recorded hearing.Dr. Kutz was called to testify. He admitted that I didn't show up for the mental evaluation. He was basing his testimony on the Record of the case - my written pleadings. He ended up making a statement that is true of all constituents everywhere. It went: "__________________________________________". Basically, Dr. Kutz "argued" that even after getting legal information I can not use such information to my advantage in court. His intention was to purposely confuse "legal information" with "legal advice." People in need of GAL are unable to take advantage of legal advice to their advantage because of mental incapacity. The public in general is unable to take advantage of free legal information obtained at theSelf-HelpCenterto their advantage in court because this legal information is very general and is not specific to the terms of any specific case.Judge Arkin issued her Ruling, which was not based on the hearing at all. She then ordered my husband to pay for a transcript of the ruling part alone. She ruled that I requested the appointment of a GAL and one is therefore appointed. She ordered me to file an official request for a GAL. This would assure that they state pays for it, she lied. In reality, this request for a GAL means that her fees are legally deducted from the poorer party's part of the marital estate.Rule 59 Review ScamsFollowing the Sorenson Hearing and the appointment of a GAL I hurried on to the Supreme Court and filed a Motion for Appeal. This was my second motion. Time had passed and my skeleton was stronger now. I was able to lift law books off the shelves of the Supreme Court Library and onto the tables. This made it easier to study.My experiences taught me that should I make any arguments at my initial Motion filing then Judge Arkin would be called and fight back. I purposely filed an extremely vague Motion. I gave Judge Arkin nothing she could fight. This gave me two weeks to study the Colorado Appeals Rules governing the process of appeals and to decide on documentation to include in my Designation of Record.Meanwhile I went to consult with the Sherlock at the self-help. The Sherlock called Judge Arkin by phone and was instructed to suggest a Rule 59 Review. I was handed a helpful information sheet, too. Rule 59 governs the proceedings should one want the court to re-hear an issue. Re-hearing is warranted if the party feels that it couldn't defend itself properly due to a surprise or if the party became aware of new facts after the hearing. I was preparing my Rule 59 Motion when I suddenly realized that Dr. Kutz refused to see me in the course of a couple of weeks. He insisted that he must see me just one day before the hearing and was not going to conclude our telephone conversation until 5pm, when all offices are closed. It occurred to me that Dr. Kutz was preparing the ground for a Rule 59, but why?Rule 59 is a unique opportunity to enforce attorney fees for the other party on the poorer party. In divorces the wealthier party always pays all of their own attorney fees and sometimes attorney fees for the poorer party too. But when asking for a re-hearing there is the danger that the party simply wants to waste court time and to lengthens proceedings. This is considered a contempt of court, and the poorer party can be ordered to pay attorney fees both for their own attorneys and for the other party's attorney as a punishment.The stories some of my friends told me suddenly came to life: they were all the poorer party; they were all overwhelmed with scores of thousands of dollars in attorney fees. I now realized that they must have had a hostile ruling made against them. Their attorney would have told them that the judge made a mistake and would have filed for a Rule 59 hearing. A huge hearing would have been organized with multiple attorneys and expert witnesses. At the end of the hearing my friends were declared to be in contempt of court by the judge. They all agreed to wave their part of the marital estate if the wealthier party agreed to pay their attorney fees. InColoradoit is illegal for the judge to accept an agreement that offers one party less than half of the marital estate. But the parties weren't aware of it so the judges had them sign the agreement. That's how divorced result in homelessness. The law forbids this. In fact, the law forbids that a party should remain with no earnings from a divorce and high attorney fees.I realized that Judge Arkin intends to declare me "extensively vexatious" and order me to pay all attorney fees. I remembered that David Japha prepares for such sold hearings by doubling up on legal representation. I would have had to pay for up to four expert witnesses too.Rule 93 Motion for RecusalWhen a judge is biased an attorney, or a private party, can motion for the judge to recuse herself. The law doesn't mention kickbacks or bribes. It speaks of the "appearance of friendship" towards one party. Rule 59 Review scams allow attorneys to make high profits without asking the judge to recues. They don't have to represent their party in order to increase their earnings. The judge arranges for two or more attorneys to be better paid by collaborating with her.When a Rule 93 Motion to Recues is filed the case is automatically Stayed, or stopped. The judge is given time to respond to the Motion. If she agrees, the _______________ Judge takes up to two months to appoint another judge in her place. If she refuses the party can appeal that ruling with theAppeals Court. I've heard of pro-se litigants who had success getting a judge to recues. But I can't imagine that Judge Arkin would have done so or that theAppeals Courtwould have forced her to recues.Once a judge is replaced her rulings can't be over-ruled. They can only be over-ruled in Appeals Courts before she is replaced. My appeals were all treated illegally so I never ventured in to a Rule 93 Motion.My Second AppealI was now almost ready to proceed with my appeal. TheAppeals Courtissued an Order to Show Cause. I argued that I have exhausted all of the self-check mechanisms offered at the lower court level. That should make my appeal Final and Appealable.I was going to explain to the justices the nature of Dr. Kutz's testimony and the lack of mental evaluations. However, the court transcribing services let me know that although I paid for so many hours of transcript, they can't transcribe that much. I approached the Court's Clerk and soon I got an Affidavit. The Affidavit stated that the Electronic Recorder was in order but that the hearing was recorded on-and-off.I went back to C.A.R Rule #10. Replace the C forColoradowith the first one or two letters of your state to read Rule #10. The language of the West Law Practice Series books is crystal clear. However, a few sentences explaining Rule #10 were different. They were convoluted and satum. I realized that there are previous cases of partially recorded hearings. Partially recording a hearing constitutes judicial misconduct and warrants automatic reversal of the ruling. However, if one only submits the Ruling part of the hearing that makes the Ruling part automatically valid. Judge Arkin tried to cast a trap by ordering my husband to transcribe the Ruling part and file it with the lower court case.I now solved my case. I filed a Designation of Record that excludes any partially recorded hearings and includes the Clerk's Affidavit, which was now part of the Register of Record. I was entitled to an automatic reversal of Ruling. That means that Virginia Fraser Able would be dismissed from the case.My appeal was dismissed again. I believe that the dismissal was illegal; however, I did designate my husband as the Appelee based on intervention by the Supreme Court Librarian. It is possible that it is legal to dismiss my appeal based on this mistake - however the law dictates that the court ignore mistakes and imperfections and work for the purpose of upholding a constituent's procedural constitutional rights at all times. So the justices were knowingly ignoring the law.Meanwhile my husband's criminal hearings relating to the domestic assault were partially recorded. A year had passed and David Japha motioned for the case to be sealed. David Japha has to show that there is no public interest in keeping the case opened. Should the victim object, the judge must keep the case as public records. Due to involvement by avid Victim's Advocates judges do actually record these hearings to seal the case. However, as my friends predicted, the judge requested the police to physically prevent me from entering the courtroom. I suspect the police doesn't question these requests but simply make arrangement.I later learned that judges delete positive DNA analysis paid by the state from the database to declare rapists innocent. A woman who files rape charges suffers invasive tastings, endangers her state treasury and makes a judge and some attorneys wealthy. Why should the courts deter rapists? Juicy murder cases and multiple appeals from prison are way more profitable.StipulationsI was at a loss. I was not able to get Virginia Fraser Able off the case. Although a GAL is supposed to do nothing but closely follow instructions from DORA regulated psychiatrists following mental evaluations and hearing Judge Arkin illegally accepted Stipulations from Virginia Fraser Able. Perhaps Fraser Able doubled up as my attorney without my knowledge, but she repeatedly denied being my attorney in emails. I also continued to receive copies of pleadings, as if I was a pro-se party.Stipulations are written agreements between two attorneys regarding a course of action. A Stipulation is filed with the court and the judge accepts or rejects them. An era of fear ensued. David Japha and Virginia Fraser Able could have agreed on anything at any time. I could not feel safe in the house.One Stipulation claimed that I keep changing my mind as to whether I want a GAL on the case or not. This was a lie and Judge Arkin's duty was to hear me on the matter. Instead, Judge Arkin accepted the stipulation and stated that she isn't giving me a chance to be heard on the matter since she saw me "behave" in court. Instead of insinuating that I'm schizophrenic, the judge and two attorneys settled on "______________". It was a lie, I had never suffered from __________ and there was no mental evaluation to either confirm of deny _____________. But very little of what happens in the courts is actually legal.Next David Japha and Virginia Fraser Able singed a stipulation allowing my husband to enter the house and secure his chattels. They made an "error" in forgetting the words "in-situ." A policeman was going to be present to keep the peace but without a no-contact Civil Protection Order I could not be present in the home. ********* at the time because of a lack of Civil Protection. The present Civil Stand-by policeman was not going to prevent my husband from hugging me or touching me. It didn't take much to aggravate my injuries. Basically, my husband was going to come into the marital home and freely take anything he wanted. I made arrangements for a shelter inBoulderand moved all of my personal possessions there. To my delight I discovered that lifting boxes made my back stronger and I was getting a much needed exercise. I had professional movers transport my personal furniture a day before the scheduled visit by my husband.[1] July 16 2014.[2] It appear that an attorney to Ms. Sorenson asked for the appointment of a GAL. Ms. Sorenson was able to fire the attorney and to avoid the appointment of a GAL. Ms. Sorenson later appealed her divorce, possibly regretting that a GAL wasn't appointed. TheAppeals Courtabused its discretion by decreeing that a judge who does not instantly appoint a GAL as soon as a party makes the request "abuses their discretion." Since then the appointment of a GAL is only appealable in Supreme Court appeals, and likely only if sufficient financial incentives are offered.