Save The Date - Minnesota Judicial Branch: Fill & Download for Free

Fascinating book on the inner workings of the Supreme Court.Editorial ReviewsReview"Explosive...The most controversial book on the Supreme Court yet written."-- Los Angeles Times Book Review"Fascinating. The pace is swift, with details that rivet the attention."-- The Washington Post Book World"A provocative book about a hallowed institution...It is the most comprehensive inside story ever written of the most important court in the world. For this reason alone it is required reading."-- BusinessWeek"It is to the credit of Woodward and Armstrong that they were willing -- and able -- to shatter this conspiracy of silence. It is certainly in the highest tradition of investigative journalism."-- Saturday Review"One hell of a reporting achievement."-- The Village Voice"The year's best political book."-- New York PostAbout the AuthorBob Woodward is an associate editor at The Washington Post, where he has worked for forty-four years. He has shared in two Pulitzer Prizes, first for The Washington Post’s coverage of the Watergate scandal, and later for coverage of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He has authored or coauthored twelve #1 national nonfiction bestsellers. He has two daughters, Tali and Diana, and lives in Washington, DC, with his wife, writer Elsa Walsh.Scott Armstrong is executive director of the Information Trust. A former reporter for The Washington Post, he founded the National Security Archive and was a senior investigator for the Senate Watergate Committee.Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.PrologueEarl Warren, the Chief Justice of the United States, hailed the elevator operator as if he were campaigning, stepped in and rode to the basement of the Supreme Court Building, where the Court limousine was waiting. Warren easily guided his bulky, 6-foot-1-inch, 220-pound frame into the back seat. Though he was seventy-seven, the Chief still had great stamina and resilience.Four young men got into the car with him that fine November Saturday in 1968. They were his clerks, recent law graduates, who for one year were his confidential assistants, ghost writers, extra sons and intimates. They knew the "Warren Era" was about to end. As Chief Justice for fifteen years, Warren had led a judicial revolution that reshaped many social and political relationships in Amer-ica. The Warren Court had often plunged the country into bitter controversy as it decreed an end to publicly supported racial discrimination, banned prayer in the public schools, and extended constitutional guarantees to blacks, poor people, Communists, and those who were questioned, arrested or charged by the police. Warren's clerks revered him as a symbol, the spirit of much that had happened. The former crusading prosecutor, three-term governor of California, and Republican vice-presidential nominee had had, as Chief Justice, a greater impact on the country than most Presidents.The clerks loved their jobs. The way things worked in the Chief's chambers gave them tremendous influence. Warren told them how he wanted the cases to come out. But the legal research and the drafting of Court opinions -- even those that had made Warren and his Court famous and infamous -- were their domain. Warren was not an abstract thinker, nor was he a gifted scholar. He was more interested in the basic fairness of decisions than the legal rationales.They headed west, downtown, turned into 16th Street and pulled into the circular driveway of the University Club, a private eating and athletic club next to the Soviet Embassy, four blocks north of the White House. The staff was expecting them. This was a Saturday ritual. Warren was comfortable here. His clerks were less so. They never asked him how he could belong to a club that had no black members.With his clerks in tow, Warren bounded up the thick-carpeted steps to the grill. It was early for lunch, not yet noon, and the room was empty. Warren liked to start promptly so they would have time for drinks and lunch before the football game. They sat in wooden captain's chairs at a table near the television and ordered drinks. The Chief had his usual gimlet. He was pensive. They ordered another round. Warren reminisced, told political stories, chatted about sports, and then turned to the recent past, to Richard Nixon's election. The Chief thought it was a catastrophe for the country. He could find no redeeming qualities in his fellow California Republican. Nixon was weak, indirect, awkward and double-dealing, and frequently mean-spirited. Throughout the 1968 presidential campaign, Nixon had run against Warren and his Court as much as he had run against his Democratic rival, Senator Hubert Humphrey. Playing on prejudice and rage, particularly in the South, Nixon had promised that his appointees to the Supreme Court would be different.It was unlikely that a Nixon Court would reverse all the Warren Court's decisions. Though Justices John Harlan, Potter Stewart and Byron White had dissented from some of the famous Warren decisions, each of them had strong reservations on the matter of the Court's reversing itself. They believed firmly in the doctrine of stare decisis -- the principle that precedent governs, that the Court is a continuing body making law that does not change abruptly merely because Justices are replaced.But as Warren and his clerks moved to lunch, the Chief expressed his frustration and his foreboding about a Nixon presidency. Earlier that year, before the election, Warren had tried to ensure a liberal successor by submitting his resignation to President Lyndon B. Johnson. The Senate had rejected Johnson's nominee, Associate Justice Abe Fortas, as a "crony" of the Presi-dent. All that had been accomplished was that Nixon now had Warren's resignation on his desk, and he would name the next Chief Justice.Warren was haunted by the prospect. Supreme Court appointments were unpredictable, of course. There was, he told his clerks, no telling what a President might do. He had never imagined that Dwight Eisenhower would pick him in 1953. Ike said he had chosen Warren for his "middle of the road philosophy." Later Eisenhower remarked that the appointment was "the biggest damned-fool mistake I ever made." Well, Warren said, Ike was no lawyer. The clerks smiled. But Richard Nixon was, and he had campaign promises to fulfill. He must have learned from Eisen-hower's experience. He would choose a man with clearly defined views, an experienced judge who had been tested publicly on the issues. The President would look for a reliable, predictable man who was committed to Nixon's own philosophy."Who?" asked the clerks."Why don't we all write down on a piece of paper who we think the nominee will be?" Warren suggested with a grin.One clerk tore a sheet of paper into five strips and they sealed their choices in an envelope to be opened after Nixon had named his man.Warren bent slightly over the polished wooden table to conceal the name he wrote.Warren E. Burger.Three months later, on the morning of February 4, 1969, Warren Burger, sixty-one, was in his spacious chambers on the fifth floor of the Court of Appeals on Pennsylvania Avenue, almost midway between the White House and the Supreme Court. President Nixon, who had been in office only two weeks, had invited him to swear in several high-ranking government officials at the White House. When he arrived at the mansion, Burger was instantly admitted at the gate.Nixon and Burger first met at the Republican National Convention in 1948. Nixon was a freshman Congressman and Burger was floor manager for his home-state candidate, Minnesota Governor Harold Stassen. At the next convention, four years later, Burger played an important role in Eisenhower's nomination. He was named assistant attorney general in charge of the Claims Division in the Justice Department, and in 1956 he was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. On that famously liberal court, Burger became the vocal dissenter whose law-and-order opinions made the headlines. He was no bleeding heart or social activist, but a professional judge, a man of solid achievement.Now at the White House, the ceremonial swearings-in lasted only a few minutes, but afterward the President invited Burger to the Oval Office. Nixon emphasized the fact that as head of the Executive Branch he was deeply concerned about the judiciary. There was a lot to be done.Burger could not agree more, he told the President.Nixon told him that in one of his campaign addresses he had used two points from a speech Burger had given in 1967 at Ripon College in Wisconsin. U.S. News & World Report had reprinted it under the title "What to Do About Crime in U.S." The men agreed that U.S. News was the country's best weekly news magazine, a Republican voice in an overwhelmingly liberal press. Burger had brought a copy of the article with him.In his speech Burger had charged that criminal trials were too often long delayed and subsequently encumbered with too many appeals, retrials and other procedural protections for the accused that had been devised by the courts.Burger had argued that five-to-ten-year delays in criminal trials undermined the public's confidence in the judicial system. Decent people felt anger, frustration and bitterness, while the criminal was encouraged to think that his free lawyer would somewhere find a technical loophole that would let him off. He had pointed to progressive countries like Holland, Denmark and Sweden, which had simpler and faster criminal justice systems. Their prisons were better and were directed more toward rehabilitation. The murder rate in Sweden was 4 percent of that in the United States. He had stressed that the United States system was presently tilted toward the criminal and needed to be corrected.Richard Nixon was impressed. This was a voice of reason, of enlightened conservatism -- firm, direct and fair. Judge Burger knew what he was talking about. The President questioned him in some detail. He found the answers solid, reflecting his own views, and supported with evidence. Burger had ideas about improving the efficiency of judges. By reducing the time wasted on routine administrative tasks and mediating minor pretrial wrangles among lawyers, a judge could focus on his real job of hearing cases. Burger also was obviously not a judge who focused only on individual cases. He was concerned about the system, the prosecutors, the accused, the victims of crime, the prisons, the effect of home, school, church and community in teaching young people discipline and respect.The President was eager to appoint solid conservatives to federal judgeships throughout the country. As chairman of a prestigious American Bar Association committee, Burger had traveled around the country and must know many people who could qualify. The President wanted to appoint men of Burger's caliber to the federal bench, including the Supreme Court. Though the meeting was lasting longer than he had planned, the President buzzed for his White House counsel, John Ehrlichman.Ehrlichman came down from his second-floor office in the West Wing. Nixon introduced them. "Judge Burger has brought with him an article that is excellent. Make sure that copies are circulated to others on the White House staff," Nixon said. He added that Burger had constructive, solid ideas on the judicial system as well as for their anticrime campaign. Judge Burger was a man who had done his homework. "Please make an appointment with him to talk," the President said, "and put into effect what he ... --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court: Bob Woodward, Scott Armstrong: 9780743274029: Amazon.com: BooksProduct DetailsPaperback: 592 pagesPublisher: Simon & Schuster; Reissue edition (July 1, 2005)Language: EnglishISBN-10: 0743274024ISBN-13: 978-0743274029Product Dimensions: 5.5 x 1.5 x 8.4 inchesTop Customer Reviews4.0 out of 5 starsBehind-the-scenes look at the Burger CourtBy D. Cloyce Smith on July 29, 2003Although "The Brethren" was written a quarter of a century ago and it covers the Supreme Court sessions from 1969 to 1975, there are two reasons to hunt down a used copy of this book and read it today. The first is its examination of the important Court decisions of Warren Burger's early years, all of which still reverberate with their controversy and implications. The second is to learn how, in spite of its famously left-of-center decisions, the Court began taking a sharp turn to the ideological right, spurred by the appointment of Burger and by the ascent of the young William Rehnquist."The Brethren" gave the Burger Court a reputation from which it never quite recovered. Although the Supreme Court has historically had its share of in-fighting, incompetence, and inanity, its internal meltdowns in the 1970s were occasionally beyond the pale. Woodward and Armstrong portray Burger as a well-meaning but ultimately misguided man obsessed by the legacy of Earl Warren, concerned far more with image than with principle, unskilled in management techniques that would have helped bring the Court to a consensus, and unashamed of his repeated attempts to assign the Court's decisions in a fashion insured to thwart the will of the majority. Even today, most historians, regardless of ideological bent, view the Burger years as a mediocre and often inconsistent transition between the liberal Warren Court and the conservative Rehnquist Court.It's not a perfect book, by any means. Woodward and Armstrong are at their page-turning best when they examine in detail some of the more famous decisions and controversies faced by the Court (busing, obscenity, abortion, the death penalty, and--especially--Watergate). And the account is surprisingly balanced: anyone expecting a "liberal" flogging of an increasingly conservative court will be surprised, on the one hand, by the authors' depictions of the increasingly unfit and ornery Douglas and the unsophisticated yet affable Marshall and, on the other hand, by their open admiration of Rehnquist, who comes across as (by far) the most likeable and amiable of the justices. Nevertheless, their account is a bit too heavy on office gossip. True--this journalistic style brings the fourteen justices who served during these years to life, but what's lacking is the necessary detailed legal background that would make sense of the Court's day-to-day work rather than its scandalous backbiting and personality conflicts. Overall, though, it's an admirable piece of journalism that makes the Court seem as human as it really is.5.0 out of 5 starsStill the best book to read to understand the Supreme CourtBy N. Peters on August 1, 2004This is still a must-read for people seriously interested in the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, some of my fellow reviewers had to read this for class or were not interested in the topic, which is really too bad, but these individuals should not be the last word on the issue. I would also like to respond to some of the more outrageous comments from other reviewers:"It is not an easy reading."To those who do not have trouble reading the newspaper, it will be extremely easy reading. In fact, it is written in such a clear style, with short, to-the-point sentences, as to be among the easiest books I have ever read."The secretive world of the court would be difficult for any journalist to penetrate, and here Woodward and his cohort Armstrong prove themselves not to be up to the task."Whoever wrote this obviously had not come of age when the book was published. The publication of "The Brethren" ranks as probably the most scandalous moment in the history of the Supreme Court, because no one to that date had even come close to gaining the insider access that Woodward and Armstrong did-- and no journalist has gotten this close to the Court since. This is an utterly glib and untrue comment. As close as is humanly possible, Woodward and Armstrong penetrated the Court."'The Brethren' is, more than any book I've ever read, a product of its times. It reflects the anti-war, anti-establishment, anti-Nixon, pro-activist, and downright revolutionary times of the early 1970s. If you choose to read "The Brethren," you should understand that it takes positions as being either right or wrong. And with political powder kegs (abortion, busing, the Watergate tapes, the death penalty, etc.), that is an intellectually risky proposition."Funny, because when I read it I had the exact opposite reaction-- I was upset by the excesses of that period. However, I should note that "The Brethren"'s presentation of the issues is absolutely non-judgmental. It notes with honesty what each justice's view was, in such simple language that it often sounds reductionist. People who have read Woodward's other books know that he is not a partisan hack.Again, people who are really interested in the Supreme Court should definitely hunt this down.4.0 out of 5 starsFascinating & full of insights; a vivid and still engaging account of the events and personalities of America's peak courtBy A. Spence on November 18, 2013Fascinating, fast paced and full of insights, it's easy to see why The Brethren remains in print decades after its originally release, and why it continues to earn praise to this day. Woodward and Armstrong exemplify the highest standards and efforts of investigative journalism, conveying a vivid account of the events and personalities of America's peak, and usually secretive, legal institution, during a period of significant political and social upheaval.Their account begins with the closing days of the Warren court, hailed as a liberal period for the court's jurisprudence. In the White House, Richard Nixon sees Chief Justice Earl Warren's retirement as an opportunity to begin hosing down what he perceives as rampant, bleeding-heart liberalism, appointing Warren Burger as Chief. Subsequent Nixon appointments would strengthen the conservative wing of the Court, but as The Brethren reveals, not all goes according to plan. The book traces then traces the first six and a half years of the Burger Court. Along the way their account is one of a Chief who more often follows than guides the court, of processes within the court that raise serious questions about the carriage of justice and of politics and personalities playing a greater a role than perhaps many realised.Woodward and Armstrong's writing covers significant ground, the structure and pace are both excellent and the injection of humour and the personalities of the various justices along the way speaks not only to their talent in writing this book, but also to the fine detail captured in their research for it.Accounts of the Supreme Court remain rare, and accounts of this quality rarer still. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend The Brethren.5.0 out of 5 starsA fascinating inside-look at the workings of the US Supreme Court.By William E. Hewitt Jr on February 24, 2013This book was the first and so-far, the best of the "tell-all" books about the Supreme Court. Though published in 1979, The Brethren is still a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at how the Supreme Court of the US really functions. The political ramifications of their judicial decisions have more of an effect on the lives of Americans those most presidential actions. It also reveals the transformation of previously unknown jurists into national figures and the affect upon their lives. Previously, nominees to the court were little-known and remained so for most of their tenure on the court, the nomination and confirmation process attracting little interest. But, beginning in the Nixon administration, the book also details the beginnings of the nasty political pitched-battles between the left and right about the nominee’s judicial philosophies that began during the period covered in this book. Previous Supreme Court decisions that changed American society for the better were decried as Judicial Activism by the right. Thus began the unfortunate politicization of the nomination process of new justices to the court. This is an unfortunate development that continues to this day.5.0 out of 5 starsGreat Timeless BookBy Adam Dukovich on October 3, 2005This book might seem dated: it describes the machinations of the court from 1969 to 1976, which included, among other things, Roe v. Wade and the Watergate tapes case. However, it is far from obsolete. The Brethren is a still-unprecedented look into the Supreme Court, the most secretive top-level branch of government. Although the faces (save one) and the cases are different, the way in which cases are decided by this body has likely not, plus it is a look at a tumultous time in ours as well as the Court's history.The focus of the story is Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger, who replaces Earl Warren after his retirement. The irony of the names is unexplored, but it is appropriate, because Burger becomes progressively preoccupied with trying to match Warren's legacy. Unlike Warren, though, he allows political concerns and vanity to influence his judgment and, bit by bit, erode the confidence of his colleagues, to the point where the late William Rehnquist, then a young conservative on the Court, makes fun of him behind his back. Although this book is unflattering to some of the justices, such as Thurgood Marshall, who is noted as lazy and uninvolved and Byron White, who is noted to be unlikeable, Burger is the biggest loser here. The book was published in the early 80s, only a few years before Burger left the court, and the image of him as a pompous, preening, intellectually deficient and generally clueless politician cost him, big time. In spite of the landmark rulings his Court made, he was unable to reverse the Warren Court's liberal activism (as he had hoped to do). His "Minnesota Twin", Harry Blackmun, would drift further away from him, both politically and personally, until finally becoming the most liberal justice after the departure of Thurgood Marshall in 1991. Burger's Macchiavellian strategizing to assign opinions caused such a backlash that, at one point, William Brennan decides to vote for whatever side of a case puts him in the minority so that Burger won't be able to assign him another crappy oppinion.Ultimately, Burger had good intentions, but his blunders dominate the book. He is a fascinating character, almost as bad a manager and as delusional as David Brent from the recent BBC TV Series The Office. Some of the principals come out looking good: Potter Stewart, for example, and Brennan also. But Rehnquist comes out best, in spite of some scheming and obfuscation. Burger, though, is front and center, and he's a reminder of how we're to seriously we all should take the business of the Court.4.0 out of 5 starsA Classic History of the Burger CourtBy R. E. Marsh on March 18, 2006I have just re-read this book, which I first enjoyed while I was taking Con Law in law school in the late 1970s. It is a little dated, but still a fun and well-written insider's story of the workings of the U.S. Supreme Court. Woodward and Armstrong write with an "inside the beltway" politically-correct perspective which may seem a little dated today. That's one feature that stands out. When it was originally released, Jimmy Carter was just being elected President, and the Congress was 2/3 Democratic. The political battlegrounds have changed in a generation. However, judicially, not as much as you might expect. Many key issues - abortion, free expression, and the role and limits of government, e.g., - continued through Rehnquist's term as Chief and still face the Roberts court. While today's Court line-up is more conservative, the process of internal court politics is certainly similar, so this book remains useful in attempting to understand both the history of the Court when it issued so many of those decisions that still drive politicians mad today, and how the often convoluted opinions on divisive issues are formed.It also provides a little nostalgia in remembering Justices such as Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall. The authors capture a famous incident involving these two. When the Court of the 1970's considered an obscenity case, the Justices would retire, often en masse, to a basement screening room to take in the offending film. This was a world without home videos. Justice Stewart was infamous for his statement in an earlier case that, while he couldn't define obscenity, "I know it when I see it." Apparently, at the crucial moment (you know the word I'm avoiding) of the film, Justice Marshall would turn to Justice Stewart and proclaim: "That's it - I know it, I see it!"Anyone interested in Constitutional Law and the Supreme Court should read this book.4.0 out of 5 starsThe Story Behind Roe v. Wade (and much more)By S. T. Sullivan on February 7, 2008In the Brethren, Woodward uses his insider credentials, and incredible set of sources to break the wall of silence that generally surrounds the inner working of the Supreme Court. Woodward can get just about anyone to talk to him, and that is never more clear than in this book. He's got direct quotes from meetings where there were only five people in attendance. It's amazing.This book is focused on the Burger court, when a Nixon appointed judge was tried to stem the type of progressive judicial activism the Warren court was known for. This book is fascinating for any one interested in what was happening inside the court during those important years. This book is worth reading for the fascinating back story of how Roe v. Wade got decided, but on top of that it provides gives us fascinating portrayals of some of modern histories most important justices, including William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, and William Rhenquist.This is a must read for anyone interested in the inner workings of the Supreme Court, or the controversies surrounding the death penalty and Roe v. Wade.

The judge wants to be able to control the results, in case of bribes….Here’s Judge Moore of Boulder County for you:8. Now You See Me, Now You Don'tAttorneys at the Legislative Branch; District Court; Civil ProceduresBack in 2000, on a billboard at theUniversityofMinnesotaI saw a simple printed sign on colored legal paper that etched itself into my being. It suggested that innocent people are being incarcerated in private prisons as a method to access tax money by private entities. It suggested they are making money per head out of public funds. At the time, although the sign engaged my imagination, I had no way of assessing the truthfulness of what it suggested. Whoever printed out this sign quite obviously lacked the types of fund they would need to satisfy my curiosity. No funds for TV advertisements or mass mailings. No funds for printing books. Enter: Judge Moore.Before running into Judge Moore I had become fairly familiar with County Court and Civil Procedures to think up solutions. The aura of importance cast by judges and attorneys turned out to be nothing more than a temporary dust storm. I saw civil law for what it was: amazingly simple to write and execute. No need for "complicated law." No need for expensive representation.The West Law Practice Series law books hardly make for leisurely or enjoyable free time reading. But they are simple enough, crystal clear on most points and totally worth it. Every high school student should be introduced to the Series.Family Court spans over two easy to read volumes. It should be all a person needs to represent themselves in a divorce case. Appeals Rules constitute one volume. The constitutions are very short. Civil Injury Law was the most intricate law I encountered, spanning over seven volumes and requiring some court "pizzazz" or experience.I felt I knew civil law enough to make recommendations on how civil courts should get reorganized. But I still felt illiterate and inexperienced in criminal law or criminal court. I had no idea what kinds of corruption and legal and illegal tricks took place inside these intimidating court rooms. I couldn't get the aura of mystery dispelled. Criminal law has such devastating effects on people, surely it can't be simplified. Right? Judge Moore turned out to be a heavenly gift to me.The Judicial-Legislative Branch Visits the Legislative BranchInColorado, much like in many other states, managers of Home Owners Associations, HOAs, used to be self-regulating. HOA Managers assigned themselves only two duties. They had to follow whatever instructions they receive from the board of directors. And they had to "know" the governing documents.HOAs, now generally called OAs to include Commercial Associations, are corporations. Management companies are nothing but an uninvolved third party. Decisions are made by the Board of Directors. Doing whatever the Board asked for made sense.The Board does the hiring of management companies. Managers obtained contracts by exempting the board of directors from having to pay the monthly HOA fees. They showered the Board with gifts. They authorized any and all receipts submitted by Board Members and reimbursed them for their expenses. Board Members would order private renovations or landscaping to their homes. They would then submit those receipts to the management company. Managers would pay the Board of Directors' private electric and water bills simply by adding them up to the Association's bill. They would prevent other Association Members from entering or renting the clubhouse. The clubhouse refrigerators were full of foods bought by Association funds for the Board to enjoy. The Managers would prevent Association Members from participating in monthly meetings. If the membership got suspicious the managers would prevent them from accessing any of the Association's accounting. If the Members decided to cast a vote to dismiss their Board Members then the manager would continually cancel Annual Meetings at the last moment to prevent a quorum. Managers could prevent Annual Meetings for many years, leaving the Membership helpless.In my HOA there was a woman who told all renters that their parking spot is hers. They would call the HOA manager, but the manager played a game by which they would only respond to service requests that were submitted through their internet website using a password. That policy wasn't advertized. That woman was on the water board withBouldercity and at some point submitted a bill for $8,000 in tree trimming for the association to approve. The Board held a meeting in which they approved some tree work before the bill was submitted.For themselves, managers would collect a standard 10% kickback fee for any contracts they issued. They sometimes offered a share of their kickbacks to the Directors. They purposely avoided scheduled maintenance to generate inflated expenses and corresponding kickbacks. The buildings were left in disrepair while Association Reserve Funds got depleted. To get kickbacks from insurance claims, managers paid high insurance fees to insurance agents and purposely avoided due diligence. Most importantly for the purpose of our story, OA managers stirred litigation to enjoy kickbacks from attorneys. They spent high sums on extravagant construction projects, but would leave the slippery stairs and other hazards unattended. They purposely miscommunicated with the membership and ignored their requests to generate dissatisfaction. Sometimes they had a secret, unadvertised, rule stating that all service requests must only be submitted through their online internet site or be ignored. The attorneys, on their part, endorsed illegal decisions by the Board of Directors.At times the Board of Directors refused to expose the accounting and receipts to the membership. Some Boards avoided annual and other meetings in order to avoid being voted out. They would schedule these meetings according to the Governing Documents but then cancel them repeatedly at the last moment. Some Boards would prevent the membership from using the Clubhouse because the refrigerator was full of food they purchased with Association funds for their personal enjoyment. If an attorney explained the law to the Board or insisted that they obey it the attorney would get replaced with a more "supportive" attorney firm.It was estimated that about 5000 homeowners inColoradowere affected by the situation. Their funds were misused, their homes were not deteriorating, and the management ignored their pleadings. A group of attorneys conducted a Sunshine Study spanning five years. It was concluded that statutory regulation of OA managers is justified. However, attorneys at the Capitol still wanted to continue enjoying increased litigation prospects by providing a financial incentive to the managers at the expense of the Association. The new regulation allows "undisclosed fees" to managers in the form of kickbacks, hence defeating the entire purpose of regulation.Corporate Law forbids the Board of Directors from hiring such managers, who experience a conflict of interest. This is the stuff of great and elongated hearings. It is an "error in the law" purposely executed by attorneys exploiting the legislative branch. Our Governor, Hickenlooper, is himself an attorney, and must have been fully aware of implications of the statutes he was signing into law.Coloradoattorneys have previously tweaked statutes to prey on builders. Builders have been so intimidated that only 3% of homes built inColoradoat the time of writing this book are condominiums - for fear of construction litigation expenses.Dan Schubert and his coalition took over. If anyone didn't show up for the Annual Meeting Dan and the management would produce fraudulent proxies in their names. Those who did show up got lied to. A couple of years later Classic Property Management encased our mailbox station. The mailperson couldn't access the boxes. CPM tore down their own job twice more before we could get our mail again. Most importantly, CPM installed strong lights that were now on 24/7.I began to wonder whether we were now paying Dan Schubert's utility bills. This is typical of HOA management companies, to introduce a new energy-wasting component to the Association's bill to explain a much bigger jump in utility expenses. Some managers bill utilities from one association to the other. Some pay utility bills for all Board Members.I called CPM. I began by mentioning to the owner that should she refuse to disclose all aspects of my finances to me, including receipts, utilities, income, etc., that there was a $1000 fine to be enforced against her according to the new regulations. She began by gaslighting me. She then wouldn't say that she refuses to disclose my finances. She said that I should write the manager requesting a time for the audit.The manager flatly refused, and in writing. HOA managers get "legal" consultations for free when they contract an attorney for the association. I suspect that our attorney considered Dan Schubert's utility bills and monthly HOA fees an undisclosed fee collected by the Manager. And who is to say otherwise? Certainly not the courts.Luckily I was able to communicate with the membership. Between those who wanted to sell and those who wanted to join in, it may have been hard for Dan the Pharaoh to continue with the scam. There are merely twenty six members. If four or six or eight stop paying, the numbers might not work.The Cease and Disease ScamI patiently waited for the new OA Manager regulations for five years. I kept a close watch over my Association by participating with the Board of Directors. When legislation let me down, I shared my concerns with the other Board members. I felt that we should become self-managing to avoid any possible exploitation on behalf of managers. the OA president, Dan Schubert lead about four men who wished to exploit the new possibilities. Together with manager, they took to fighting me.At the same time the 2013 flood hitBoulder. Our condominium complex is built on two mounds. As an aftermath of the flood, the extremities of the mound sank slightly, causing visible cracks in the underlying cement slab. Some of the patio landscape shifted and water was now wicking into the walls. The board of directors fudged the meeting minutes to deny any knowledge of these conditions. They also lied about the use of $500.They claimed that through phishing, money was wired to thieves who stole $11k. Insurance, almost instantly and forgoing an investigation, promised to refund all of our funds except for the deductible $500. The manager lied, then agreed to show me all documentation. The membership supported the board of directors and their conduct, some intended to sell. For myself, I had no intention of selling my condo and had no use of "not knowing." I felt that I deserved correct information and proper analysis of the situation. I now got on the wrong side of the membership as well.Simultaneously, Dan Schubert, and his daughter, Emilia, removed the underlayment from their floor right above my unit. I suspect that they glued down an engineered hardwood floor.The City claimed that flooring is a mere cosmetic issue, not a matter to be addressed by city codes, obviously under influence of attorneys. Attorneys also write the Governing Documents for Association and do not regulate flooring. They also offer free consultations to OA managers, never supporting enforcement of flooring options.Hardwood floors inevitably generate a sound hazard for residents of lower floors. Even a small cat walking across a hardwood floor can be heard by the downstairs residents. It is the right of every homeowner to benefit from the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment. Hardwood floor, therefore, constitutes a noise nuisance. The courts make millions through these civil law suits. They declared the matter a "per-fact" issue, meaning that they must hear every case individually and never reach any generalized conclusions regarding the attributes of hardwood flooring. Undoubtedly, they never consulted architects.In my case the underlayment and insulation were gone and air was traveling freely between units. I can't heat up my unit without heating up the Schubert's two stories above me first. However, the Schuberts suffer psoriasis. Their breath is foul. Their feet are foul. Their showers are foul. And they pass foul airs 24/7. I was forced to open my windows year round regardless of the weather. Every Passover a variety of Schuberts congregated above me, each emitting the most fantastic tones of foul, each in their own personal rhythm of expulsing air. I let the Schuberts heat up my unit for me. My gas bill is zero dollars. My tenants didn't want to renew their lease and I could find no one to replace them. My tenants said that Emilia would stomp at them. It was impossible to get a good night's sleep. She stomped hard enough to dislocate the ceiling light in the kitchen and the blower wheel of the bathroom fan.I wrote Dan Schubert an email, asking him to remediate the situation. Despite everything I have learned of the courts by that time, I knew of previous case in which the courts forced the upstairs owner to reinstate their 2.5" insulation and carpet and to compensate the lower unit owner for their troubles and expenses. Naively, I threatened a law suit.Dan wrote me an email warning me not to "harass" him again by contacting him. In damage law suits one must send a letter declaring their intention to start a law suit and to declare the conditions under which they will settle out of court. This is to prevent overly litigious individuals from using the expensive court system to intimidate others. With this warning not to contact him Dan threw me a legal curve ball. I would have to send the warning letter as soon as I've paid the filing fee.One of the board members kept in touch with my husband. She heard from him that I was "dangerous" and spread the defematmatory rumor. She may have also spread the false notion that my husband owns my condo, or is about to win it back in court. The OA manager, Dan Schubert, Emilia and possibly others were now making false accusations against me in unison to the police. The Boulder Police force is made highly trained, expert officers. Moreover, they are not corrupt. I was only mildly nervous, and mostly hopeful.To my delight, the police rejected all allegations against me. Dan Schubert alleged telephone harassment. At the time, my husband illegally cut off my cell phone service, which a policeman noted. I didn't even have Dan Schubert's phone number. Emilia alleged that I polluted her second floor balcony with cigarette butts. A policeman noted that I'm not a smoker. The manager claimed I was "dangerous" towards her, but the police has access to sealed records. Judge Arkin's "determination" didn't exist outside of case 13DR30128. None of the allegations stuck.Nonetheless, before reading Dan's warning email I answered a previous email that he sent me and the rest of the Board of Directors. A policeman showed up at my door writing a ticket over this technicality. He consulted with the DA, he said, and the DA told him to issue a ticket. Whether there was a breach of statues or whether the technicality was no more than the DA's ability to mislead or confuse a police officer, I don't know. The policeman's body language told to me that I he believed I was going to be fine as long as I didn't hire an attorney. I would simply have to show the court that I was unaware of Dan Schubert's Warning Email when I responded to an earlier one. I went online and printed out the information from my email account.I now had a court date for District Court. They were going to start with an Advisory Heating. I wondered whether the same Rabbi who peddled my husband's interests in court was behind this again. I now had to tackle illegal activity in two courts as they simultaneously try to appoint me attorneys to me in tandem. An attorney from one court can immediately enter appearance in another court. Before I get a chance to appeal I'd be fully divorced.Activity from Judge Arkin's side stopped. Perhaps David Japha was waiting for developments. I had no time to spare. I had to make my mark on the Register of Action while it was still possible. I made sure to choose revealing headlines. I had no way of knowin whether any of my pleadings would ever get read. I filed four Position Statements.My first pleading stated that I'm a pro-se party perpetually. I explained that I have no client-relationship with any attorney nor trust nor shall I ever had such a relationship in the future. I let the judge know that I'm aware that attorneys are free from fiduciary duties and liabilities. I then pleaded with the judge to avoid the notorious practice of appointing a court entity who would double up as my attorney without my knowledge.My second pleading stated that I plead not guilty. In jail girls told me that their attorney would plead guilty to all charges against their consent. I assumed that such guilty pleadings generate the standard three months litigation for each person,, plus income for incarcerating them.My third pleading stated that I request a jury trial. While constituents are deeply disturbed by the way judges stir juries away from the law and the constitution, nothing is worse than facing a judge without witnesses in a partially recorded hearing. In criminal hearings so much more so.My last pleading stated that I uphold all of my constitutional rights and statutory entitlements. The courts have been playing a "Simon Said" game by which, if a party doesn't uphold its rights by stating so, their rights would not be upheld. Surely, if a party tries to uphold their civil rights and plays the "Simon Said" game right, the courts would find other reasons to deprive them.I didn't want to go to jail for contempt of court. I made my pleadings as accommodating as possible and didn't reveal the full extent of my familiarity with the court system. I braced myself as I entered the courtroom for my first hearing.Advisory HearingTo my complete relief a Magistrate conducted the first hearing, not a judge. Nor was I in a private setting. The Advisory Hearing took place in a large room. Defendants populated rows of seats. Some were there for minor traffic violations or other misdemeanors. We were collectively advised that we could enter a pleading: guilty or not-guilty. We could also hire an attorney or represent ourselves in a Pro-se capacity. Those pleading guilty should see the DA after the hearing. If we pleaded not-guilty we were to see the clerk for the date of our next hearing.Jury TrialMy second hearing was inevitably to take place with a judge, not a magistrate. Judge Moore revealed her intentions immediately by using a method that was new to me. My pleadings were all Position Statements. Judge Moore didn't respond to my pleadings with a General Order Form. She didn't simply recognize my Position Statements in the next hearing. Instead, Judge Moore jotted down orders on my pleading pages. The orders were there - but never entered into the Register of Action. They therefore had a special status - they could be portrayed as orders that could result in Contempt of Court incarceration if not followed, but they could also be considered non-orders since they were not part of the Register of Action. This early on, and before seeing her, I had no doubt the Judge had an agenda.However, Judge Moore couldn't prevent me from a trial in the presence of my peers - a jury trial. If she unconstitutionally did, I could appeal. I had to prepare for a jury trial.I studied the Register of Action more closely. I noticed that the charges filed by the police, as in the police ticket, never made it to the Register of Action. Instead, Judge Moore listed a long list of unsubstantiated allegations against me unsupported by any police charges. The allegations were the ones made by Dan Schubert and collaborators. Those allegations dismissed by the police following investigation.The allegations, listed under "Charges," were intentionally made to look like a mistake - innocent enough to clarify in a hearing but severe enough to warrant spending money on the appointment of an attorney.I now recalled the stories inmates shared with me in jail. Attorneys plead guilty to all charges. Sometimes they'll advise their customer that they "know the judge." The judge is "so severe" that if they pleaded not-guilty she is likely to charge them with perjury on top of the regular penalties. In "their situation" they were better off pleading guilty to all charges, even if they are "mistakes". In at least one case the girl I met in jail claimed that she refused the attorney's "consultation" and ordered him to plead not-guilty. The attorney pleaded guilty to all charges nonetheless.In jail she had no access to any facilities. She could file a paper-Kyte asking for the Register of Action and hoping it would arrive. Sometimes the Kytes go to the judges who prevent documents from being received. She could have fired the attorney verbally. She could have used the two pieces of paper she was given twice a month to write him a letter firing him, using the short pencil, envelope and stamp the jail supplies. But did she have his address with her in jail? He can avoid seeing her for as long as he wants, and can prevent her from coming before the judge too. How does one fire an attorney from within jail? And how do they appeal if the judge chooses to keep the attorney on record? Before their first Motion arrives at theAppeals Courtmailbox plenty of complications in their case can be initiated by the judge and attorneys.Of course, without reading the Register of Action clients have no idea what charges are actually filed against them. The judge will claim that the constituent is entirely confused and has no grip on his real charges. Attorneys have no professional or any other reason to inform clients.I remembered that Sunday teacher who got pregnant gets fired by her synagogue. The Rabbi propagated falsities against her. The Supreme Court ruled that it is legal for a judge to be influenced by what she hears out of court. However, it is misconduct to ignore charges as listed in police tickets and to instead list random street rumors officially as if they were police charges. I began to wonder whether the Dan Schubert Method originated in the synagogues. Judges need votes. Rabbis have them. Anyone who wants to violate the law or prevent a law suit against them simply sends a round of bourbon bottles to the DA and their lies transform into police charges using judicial penmenship.So that's when I gained my first insight into the illegal workings of District Courts around the country. The DA finds a way to get the police to issue a ticket. The ticket might be issued over a technicality. The judge lists an array of charges that are in reality nothing more than unsubstantiated allegations not issued by the police. The constituent is either unaware of the actual charges against them or doesn't realize that only the police can charge him - not a judge nor the DA. An attorney pleads guilty to all charges. That generates three months of activity for both the judge and attorney.If the party is placed under probation, their consultants and attorney collaborate to fraudulently accuse them of violation of their probation. They lose any bail moneys to the court system - perhaps to cover "attorney fees and other expenses." More activities are generated for the judge and attorney. Perhaps they can take it all the way to making the person a felon. Felons are homeless and often take to crime due to lack of opportunity. This generates as much activity as the courts would hope. Cities that house their homeless report saving on their taxes. It is less expensive to house the homeless in humble apartment buildings than it is to house attorneys and judges in castles.The newspapers reported that theWashingtonowner of the Clean and Safe House was charged with drug possession and spent Valentines Day of2016 injail. This was just a few months after I started talking inmates out of drug court and into the Clean and Safe Houses. Inmates travel between states fast. Were the courts fighting me? Was theWashingtonowner a victim of my indiscretion? Perhaps he was always consciously keeping a low profile, never stepping over judicial toes. Perhaps he was in jail because of me? I sent a chain email letter to anyone with a public email in theWashingtonarea. I hoped his wife would get a copy. I had to give him a chance. Does he have the list of the charges against him? Does he believe his attorney would represent his interests?I worried that Judge Moore had me marked to turn into a felon. I believe that when divorcing a felon one can get the entirety of their part of the marital estate. So perhaps this was the new plan of action in my divorce case? Would a jury help?A friend told me a revealing story. Their father-in-law stopped to help a victim of an accident who was on the side of the road. That victim later sued the father-in-law. The police stated that the father-in-law was not involved in the accident. Witnesses also confirmed that the father-in-law was not involved in the accident. The case should have never moved forward, except that a judge and two attorneys had an interest in pushing it forward. The insurance company ended up with an out-of-court settlement for the victim of $120k.The insurance company explained that a judge can swerve a jury any way they wanted. That's why they settled the case. I suspect that in insurance claims the attorney, and judge, take a percentage cut of the winnings. This allows for out-of-court settlements without compromising their fees.I found another witness. This was a homeless man who suffered autistism. He said that in his case the judge raved about her ability to obtain a jury conviction without providing proof-beyond-doubt of the person's guilt. His story was telling in two ways. First, that a judge is, in fact, able to stir a jury any way she wants to. Second, that each time a judge swerves a jury illegally precedence is created that is then used in judging other cases. This is again the legislative power of the judicial branch, which usurps any real power of the legislative branch.As I prepared for my jury trial I realized that judges are free to prevent defendants from being heard. Appeals judges are also free to abuse their discretion and may decline an appeal based on one's right to be heard. One strategy I was already aware of is for the lower court to appoint an attorney. In my case they might appoint a court entity who then doubles up as my attorney without my knowledge. The Appeals court would then strive to prevent any mention of such practices from appearing in the public record, as searchable appeals. Perhaps Judge Moore would issue an illegal arrest warrant to prevent me from meeting my Appeals deadlines.Another tactic would be to "find" the defendant or their attorney in contempt of court and arrest them as a deterring strategy. The person is then immediately arrested. Their Appeal process could take longer than their incarceration.I saw a posting on YouTube that is a TV news report. An attorney, perhaps straight out of attorney school, made an attempt to uphold the civil rights of their client. The judge refused. Just as the attorney prepared to uphold Rule 92, asking the judge to recues themselves due to bias, the judge declared them "to be" in contempt of court and sentenced them to a year in prison. Just like that - no evidence, no trial, and no jury - a whole year in prison. The TV anchor gasped at the injustice of it all. The video is out there for the public to watch. But apparently the justice department can take such exposure without anyone feeling competent enough to intervene with the court system. The courts normally forbid any recording of court proceedings to prevent such videos from surfacing. I'm not sure how a video became available. Perhaps the police?In reality, one can only speak when a judge orders them to and on the subject they are ordered to speak about. Any requests the party makes regarding evidence can be illegally denied. If an attorney is present, then they are denied unconstitutionally through agreement between attorneys. Its not so much that they were found guilty of a crime, it is more that they have agreed, without their knowledge, to be indicted of the same.NPR, National Public Radio, has tried to tackle the issue of unregulated public defenders and greedy courts numerous times. One of their stories covered an innocent man who was indicted and imprisoned. The attorney explained that it is this "new thing" where judges convict based on what a person didn't say as well as what the person said. In other words, judges abuse their discretion misimplamenting oral agreements law. When a defendant doesn't immediately object they have automatically agreed, without their knowledge.As I was doing my research for my first Appeal I noted that two people appealed who were indicted of murder convictions. They were convicted during the time when the Aurora Colorado Chief of Police ____________ was dealing drugs and exploiting prostitutes. As soon as the Chief of Police got exposed and removed from office, their Appeal succeeded and they were both cleared of all charges. The Chief of Police, although charged and indicted, was given nothing more than probation. This taught me that the higher courts will deny appeals while they are covering for the crimes of people in positions of power, but will release them when this is no longer needed.A TV investigative report described an incidence in which aWashingtoncouple became aware of a politician's schemes. They were later found dead and burnt in their home. A neighborhood kid was charged, indicted and incarcerated, even though the TV reporter and the police were aware of two admitted murderers who committed this particular crime. There was obviously no evidence to support indicting the kid. It didn't stop the courts.Washingtonis the country's murder capitol because of the presence of so many politicians. And this is possible only through the organizational work of the local Supreme Court.TV also reported that inFloridajudges were putting people away for twenty five years in private prisons if they had three misdemeanors. I had no doubt that this law was a well kept secret. A court rule that was not advertized in order to dupe victims in. I now gained a complete understanding of that sign I saw posted inMinnesotafifteen years earlier.I noticed that when President Obama collaborated with Hillary Clinton, the first thing they did was create many more private prisons. I noticed that right afterwards Michelle Obama's wardrobe suddenly jumped up a level.At the same time, to prevent excellent police work from deciding court cases, from deterring criminals and from discouraging spending on attorneys the courts started the "Miranda Rights" debate. The courts were "concerned" that constituents were not aware that they are allowed to remain silent and not testify against themselves. The police must now inform each suspect of their Miranda Rights or the criminal walks free.As I write this book the courts took this a step forward. A detective read the Miranda Rights to the suspect. The suspect then proceeded to provide a complete confession. The courts were "concerned" that even though the constituent heard their Miranda Rights read, that they didn't actually understand them. So the courts are refusing to indict the confessed criminal and the Supreme Court has taken on the expensive cause of making it easier to send more criminals free for a fee.I now filed a new pleading with my case. This was another Position Statement. I stated that no real charges were filed against me. I disputed that the allegations listed under "charges" were not supported by any police ticket and were unsubstantiated. Basically, there was no case against me as no charges against me were being investigated.I had very little hope to win my jury trial. I saw the real face of the hostile, powerful and corrupt system. Mr. Hide could no longer hide from me. Typically, when a psychopath discovers that they can no longer mislead their victims, they take to physical confrontations. That's what Judge Angela Arkin did. I picked up my courage and went to face Judge Moore in person for the first time.Second HearingMy second hearing was again protected from lack of witnesses. Many defendants were in the courtroom along with me. An assistant to the DA called the defendants one at a time. She then offered each one a plea deal. Each defendant had a right to agree to the plea deal or proceed to trial.As my name was called Judge Moore picked up my file and read my pleadings for the first time. She turned pale. The DA's assistant offered to reduce my multiple charges of misdemeanor to a lesser charge of disorderly misconduct if I plead guilty. I could not allow Judge Moore to indict me of anything. If I did, I feared, she would proceed endlessly until she successfully turned me into a convicted felon. I had to fight this head on. I pleaded not guilty and requested a jury trial.Judge Moore was forced to accept my not-guilty pleading because of the multiple witnesses. This was a huge step up from Judge Angela Arkin's witness-free hearings.Moorewas also forced to admit that I had a right for a jury trial, and added that there was no fee associated with the trial. She then warned me that she'd happily consider the maximum sentence of six months in jail.Now I asked Judge Moore about the fraudulent charges against me. "You know the law," Judge Moore asserted, appearing disinterested, and said no more.Next time I looked at my Register of Action a few new and fraudulent entries were made. "Entries" and "Appearances" were reported on certain dates - although no attorney has made their entry on my record and no attorney appeared before the judge on my behalf. Judge Moore tried to create the impression that I had an attorney represent me at the second hearing and that same attorney later entered his general powers of representation as the Attorney of Record. The titles were empty, no documents were associated with them and no attorney was identified by name.Non-AppealI filed a Motion to Stay Case for an Appeal. I didn't bother driving toDenveror paying the Appeal fees. TheAppeals Courtwas entirely dysfunctional. In my Motion I reported my awareness of the illegal entries; I denied hiring an attorney or having an attorney-client relationship with any attorney. I denied any appearance of an attorney on my record. I then mentioned that I'm in a position to file a Motion for Mistrial Due to Judicial Misconduct and Bias.Perhaps Judge Moore didn't realize that I didn't file a copy of my Motion for Appeal with the record. Perhaps she knew no appeal was filed. Following her own style, and repeating Judge Arkin's tactics, Judge Moore jotted down on my pleading an "order" to show up for a hearing before her at the lower court. She specified a date and time. Engaging with the lower court was going to make my Motion, although I never filed one, moot. I ignored the "order" and never bothered showing up to the hearing. So now I had a non-order violating my non-appeal in my non-case. I was successfully adjusting to the manner in which the courts were conducting themselves.Shortly after I received a letter from the DA stating that "in the interest of justice" the case against me has been dismissed. I imagined that the DA was now out of a bottle of bourbon brokered by a Rabbi.Quiet EnjoymentA friend suggested that in any case of a law suit against the Schuberts, if I tried to ask the courts to order them to reinstate the previous floor and pay damages for lost rent and pain and suffering, Judge Moore was going to abuse her discretion. She was going to declare the Schuberts a protected minority, immune from having to follow laws. Like Judge Arkin, the laws being abused were not going to be mentioned, other than through vagaries. It has to be enough to indicate to higher courts how the judge chose to proceed, but not enough to alert the legislature to the corruption of law. The Schuberts would become a protected minority because they can't control sound conductivity or thermal movements of air nor can they stop emitting corpse-like odors at jet plane speed. As a protected minority the court won't order them to uphold my right to quiet enjoyment of my home.I wonder whether Judge Moore intended to "transform" the criminal proceedings against me into a civil law suit regarding the flooring, suddenly naming the Shuberts as "the other party" in mid proceedings. That would have prevented me from preparing for my case and from saving on attorney fees. I would be ordered to pay for the Schubert's attorney fees. This is not different from what Judge Arkin did by incarcerating me. I grew to believe that whatever equity one has, either in real estate or in other assets, that is what the courts will order them to pay. Courts seem disinterested in debt collection, but whatever the public has, that they will order to themselves.I remember reading about a family that was sued over an alleged barking dog. City ordinances should be able to settle any such disagreements over a barking dog with no cost to constituents, at most some city tickets. But whether a dog ever did exist on the property or not, as long as two attorneys agree to proceed, statutes don't matter. The family lost the equity on their home.I remembered reading about a second family. They were victims of gun violence. A pro-bono attorney offered to sue the gun manufacturer on their behalf. The law suit was frivolous and based on Statutes would have never gone forward. But based on agreement between attorneys the law suit progressed. By the end, the family had a quarter million dollar in attorney debt. I couldn't help but wonder whether that was split three ways equally between the judge and the two attorneys.Statutes dictate which subjects are to be heard before the court and which aren't. However, agreement between attorneys overrides such Statutory limitations on judicial incomes. The law suit against a famous musician stated nothing more than that she cost a man his job, being an unhappy customer of his radio station. Jobs aren't ensured by the Constitution. Another law suit stated that Este Lauder discriminates against males by offering longer maternity leaves to women. However, males are not a protected minority. They hold consumer power of their own. These and other illegal matters are regularly heard by the courts for profits. Since the litigation is illegal, the fees paid by the parties are falsely presented as legal fees. They are, in fact, Protection Moneys.I grew thankful for my District Court misadventures. Judge Moore, being overly enthusiastic, saved me from the loss of my home. Any attorney anywhere in the country can remove the underlayment and insulation from their flooring. When law suits ensue, they can own the downstairs unit, or perhaps share it with a judge and the DA.In fact, some of the stories I heard as a member of the Boulder Area Rental Housing Association made me think that law students purposely rent places and violate their lease. The landlord ends up spending up to $20,000 in litigation fees and loses the case. I suspect that's enough profit for law students, in preparation for the standard quarter million law suits awaiting them upon graduation.My understanding of the court system was now rounded and included civil law suits as well as misdemeanor and criminal proceedings. All quite worthwhile.Blatant Building Code ViolationsWho invented the first copper wire? Those were two Schuberts fighting over a penny. I wish I could have behaved as if the Schuberts' incessant gaseous emissions were very valuable. They would have responded by keeping them all to themselves.As it was, I remained unable to heat up my condo. I gained weight to keep warm. I was physically exhausted by the effort to keep myself warm. Warm weather people don't normally produce heat. I was unable to fend off the heavy traffic pollution outside with my windows open. I developed a chronic cough. This compounded the chronic sore throat. On my own, I would close my windows and Hepa filter my entire unit. This would allow me to use the night to detox any traffic pollution I absorb during the day. I would heat my condo to a nearly comfortable 70 degrees.Emilia Schubert, The Upstairs Stench, never seemed to leave her condo. She didn't seem to work or study. She appeared to have the social skills of a four year old. I imagined that the couple had been preying on each other. They couldn't let the budding child express that reality to the world. So they stunted her growth. This is typically achieved through life threatening situations and forces. Then they gave the child all the carrots she wanted, turning her into a narcissist. Emilia now had buttons for eyes. Those buttons that Coraline fought against with all her little might.Once a week a UPS truck brought a package, perhaps groceries. On high holidays Emilia would drive out for a few hours only to come back emitting a whole new range of inconceivably putrid odors. She also avoided flushing down her toilet.She seemed to spend her days adjusting her HVAC system. She dusted every so often. Did her nails once a week, emitting chemicals I personally avoid in my house and my blood stream. I couldn't tell what else she did in there.Emilia already destroyed the bathroom fan. Now she didn't like the smells. She would stomp for hours to prevent me from using my toilet. She would stomp if she wanted the windoes opened or closed. She would stomp to impose a 9:30pm curfew and a 10:00pm bedtime. She would follow me around the house and squat to pass airs at me directly. She would crouch above my bed at night. It was likely the ammonia, I actually suffocated.It was at this point that staying in bed quietly was no longer an option. I began a routine of cooking, cleaning and eating at night. In the summer of 2017 Emilia installed an HVAC system sufficient for the heating and cooling of all three levels and some of the neighborhood outside. Being a semi-decomposing corpse, Emilia seemed comfortable at morgue temperatures. I, who only get comfortable in the high 80s, now had a sore throat throughout the summer season too.For me, when the weather is nice - and by nice I mean 90 degrees - I lose my desire to eat. I will gulp down a large bottle of vegetable juice and a couple of veggie protein smoothies. I will snack. Every so often I will cook a meal. I love this detoxing lifestyle. It was the time to let my stomach rest and regenerate after the winter hyper-activity. This was going to give me longer life and manage the extra weight.But now I was too cold to jump in the pool. Too cold to enjoy washing my hair. I was forced into grocery stores to cook three sumptuous meals daily.Emilia behaved as if it was a surprise that hot air travels upwards. I remember a night when frustration reached new heights. The next day, on coming back home, I discovered that the planters on my front porch were vandalized in my absence. The police won't take complaints without proof.I moved all of my flowering pots to my fenced back yard. I next moved my candles and decorations to the back too. I hoped that due to the pain of psoriasis and a sedentary lifestyle Emilia would not be agile enough to climb up my fence or dangle down her balcony,A couple of days following the vandalism Emilia flushed items down her toilet. Once the sewer backed into my condo she repeatedly flushed down her toilet. Each time more water flooded my floor. I couldn't keep up. Thankfully, guests soon arrived at her home. She flushed once more and then put on her social face, hiding her anti-social one. By the time the plumber arrived a couple of hours later my floor was mopped. The membership wasn't thrilled about their HOA plumbing bill. Emilia became careful about not letting my water pipes burst in winter.In mid July a single layer of area rugs was spread sufficient to keep most of Emilia's airs upstairs. However, the floor began to amplify all sounds, like a giant guitar case. By "all sounds" I mean "every trinkle." Emilia would crouch between the seems to employ her gases at me. The rugs disappeared after a couple of days.A distant Schubert came to visit upstairs, blessing Emilia with malodorous discharges at regular intervals. That's when Emilia realized that chemicals bother me. She began dousing me around the clock: eye-irritants, sulfates, parabens, paraffins, etc. She sprayed, she diffused - she tried anything and everything. My chronic cough transformed into involuntary convulsions and bouts of throwing up. Gradually I lost my ability to breath. It was hard talking, it was hard walking. I made up my mind not to take the medications prescribed inside asthma inhalers. Asthma attacks are created by white blood corpuscles crowding lung cells while trying to save them from acids and chemicals disrupting membrane transport processes such as parabens. Medications may stop that healthy, life saving response by the body, but it doesn't stop the chemicals from generating diseases. Mostly, inhalers are a good product because they generate more inhaler consumption. If the new Judge in Division 8 enforces Temporary Orders I could get an oxygen concentrator and heal the cause of my disease.For now I moved out to my car. I parked as far as I could from my unit as it emitted stench throughout the parking lot. Emilia would come by my car two or three times a night to share her exudations and sprays with me.

This would surely be the Triple Paid Guardian Ad Litem Bribe Scheme…..In my case, Virginia Fraser Able, the illegally appointed guardian ad litem was triple paid. Once by the state, $27k. Once by my husband on behalf of Judge Angela Arkin, $27k and once by the poorer party on behalf of the chief judge and justices.The poorer party is told they can attend a meeting at which some stolen property will be returned to them. They think they are meeting the state paid/husband paid guardian ad litem. But the GAL has already been dismissed from the case. They are now meeting their own attorney. They will be billed on behalf of the chief judge and justices. In my case $27k.I didn't show up to the meeting Warren Marshal of G&G Guns in Lakewood has had my gun for years and won't return it unless I sign a Legal Separation Agreement that grants me my gun only, and pay the chief judge and justices.Here’s a piece of a book I’ll never write for fear for my life: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.