Entry Denying Motion To Dismiss And Directing Further Proceedings: Fill & Download for Free

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.

Allahabad High CourtMukul Mohan Tripathi Alias Joshi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 December, 2018Bench: J.J. MunirHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD      Reserved   Court No. - 53 A.F.R.      Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4353 of 2004      Applicant :- Mukul Mohan Tripathi Alias Joshi   Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another   Counsel for Applicant :- A.K. Singh,K.K.Srivastava,S.K.Upadhyay   Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Dr.Arun Srivastava      Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J. 1. This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been brought with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 24.04.2004 passed by the A.C.J.M.-VII, Bareilly in Complaint Case no.2527 of 2003, Virendra Raizada vs. Mukul Mohan Tripathi, under Section 500 IPC, P.S., Subhas Nagar, District Bareilly, and, further, to quash the proceedings of the aforesaid case.2. Heard Sri S.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Dr. Arun Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. along with Sri Mayank Awasthi appearing for the State.3. This case is a tale of two teachers. It is about their journey from the class room to the court room. It appears that the complainant/ opposite party is a Lecturer employed with a certain Guru Nanak Khalsa Inter College, Subhash Nagar, Bareilly, whereas the applicant is a Teacher in the same college. The complainant/ opposite party laid a complaint before the Magistrate, alleging facts on the basis of which he prayed that the applicant be summoned and punished for an offence under Section 500 IPC. The short course of proceedings before the Magistrate leading to the summoning order were not very eventful. The complaint aforesaid was filed by opposite party no.2 on 08.12.2003. It appears that statements of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and those of the witnesses, PW-1, Sanjay Saxena and another, Ramesh, PW-2, who supported the complaint, were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 24.04.2004 passed in Complaint Case no.2527 of 2003, proceeded to summon the applicant to stand his trial for an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. The aforesaid order, is hereinafter referred to, as the impugned order. None of the parties have annexed the statements of witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., which ought to have been done, looking to the nature of the prayer, at least by the applicant. However, since the challenge goes far deeper and questions the maintainability of the complaint on the allegations carried, de hors the evidence led in support, the absence of the statements under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., is hardly of any consequence.4. This Court has carefully perused the complaint filed by the applicant. The first ten paragraphs of the complaint are devoted to a flourish of accolades and enconiums showered upon himself by the complainant with the least concern for the virtues of modesty and humility. It is not the desire of this Court, to censure or educate the complainant, but it has been quite an enterprise for the Court to locate those averments relating to facts in issue, and, relevant facts, that make for the requisite ingredients under Section 499 IPC, punishable under Section 500.5. The first of the relevant averment are to be found in paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the complaint. It is said there that the applicant made an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the court of the A.C.J.M.-VII, carrying allegations inter alia that the complainant/ opposite party by utilizing forged letter heads of others, and, also forging their signatures, filed false complaints against the applicant. It is averred that in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant it was wrongly asserted that the complainant/ opposite party used forged letters of Sri R.N. Verma, Advocate to bring false complaints under his forged signatures against the applicant, when the complainant had never done so. It is further averred that in the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., it has been further alleged falsely that the complainant/ opposite party using a forged letter head of one Didar Singh Oberoi, a Corporator, got a false complaint typed out himself on that bogus letter head, and forging the Corporator's signatures, sent it to the Joint Director of Education, Bareilly, presumably against the applicant, because it is not specifically so averred in the complaint. It is said that on account of these allegations in the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., the complainant's reputation suffered damage in the society. It is averred further in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the complaint that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, VIIth, Bareilly referred the said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for inquiry and report to the police. After a report from Police Station Subhash Nagar, Bareilly, the Magistrate did not find any substance in the application, and, rejected the same.6. Here, it may be added that the applicant has very fairly indicated in the affidavit filed in support of the present application vide paragraph no.2, that his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., that is the subject matter of allegations carried in paragraphs 12 to 15 of the complaint, was indeed rejected by the Magistrate by his order dated 30.05.2002, and, against that order, a criminal revision preferred to the Sessions Judge has been rejected. An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., further challenging both orders, has been dismissed by this Court.7. There is a further averment in paragraph 16 of the complaint to the effect that the complainant has incorrectly shown his date of birth in his service book to be 28.12.1958, fraudulently by interpolating the same. In this connection, it is alleged that the applicant has in connivance with the management, regarding which there are averments in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the complaint, caused his service book to be taken in their custody by the management. It is further said in paragraph 19 of the complaint that complaints regarding this matter have been examined and found untenable on inquiry by the Joint Director of Education, Bareilly Region, Bareilly vide his memo dated 26.04.03. By the said memo the applicant's promotion, on the basis of his qualification and service record, granted by the Regional Level Committee, has been notified. It is averred that the complaints regarding manipulation in his service record by the applicant against the complainant are all directed to damage his reputation in society, that are untrue.8. The last imputation carried in paragraph 20 of the complaint on the basis of which the complainant has sought to prosecute the applicant for an offence under Section 500 IPC, is a certain news item published in the Dainik Jagran Hindi Daily, issue dated 06.04.2003, where it is claimed that the applicant has caused news of false allegations about the complainant to be published, that have caused immense harm in reputation to him and embarrassment to his family members. It is not indicated as to what are the precise news published, but the best that can be presumed is that it is about the same subject matter of imputations, that have been mentioned in paragraphs 13 to 19 of the complaint.9. Before proceeding to examine the matter whether a case for quashing the impugned order or the complaint is made out, it is necessary to notice here that though the complaint is based on defamatory publication, that falls in the class of libel, that is to say, defamatory imputation made by words written or other representations in writing, as distinguished from those spoken, the complainant has not filed, as the record reveals, any of the subject defamatory publication. This Court thinks that before a Magistrate can consider whether written representation or imputations claimed to be defamatory and punishable under Section 500 IPC, are indeed worth proceeding, and, issues process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the writing that is claimed to be defamatory should be there before the Magistrate, to which the Magistrate must apply his mind. In the present case a perusal of the impugned order shows that all that the Magistrate has taken into consideration, as presumably that was all that was before him, are the statements of the complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. There is stark non-mention of any of the published defamatory writing, that is the basis of the prosecution under Section 500 IPC, being filed.10. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Magistrate has proceeded to pass the same in the most mechanical fashion. Though, styled as his satisfaction but the summoning order, is no more than the blind folded acceptance of what the complainant and his two witnesses have said. It is well-nigh settled that while a summoning order need not and must not carry a detailed analysis of evidence, but at the same time, the order being one of moment, at least to the accused, who is thereafter to suffer the rigors of the criminal process, it must disclose due application of mind to all relevant evidence, both documentary and oral, depending, of course, on the nature of the offences involved. In the present case since the case is one involving an offence under Section 500 IPC, where as already said, the imputation is written, or in other words libel, the document carrying the imputation being considered, albeit briefly by the Court while passing the impugned order, would be the minimum requirement of the law. In this connection, the law regarding the requirement of application of mind to the material on record at the stage of summoning by the Magistrate is succinctly laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, where it is held:"28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."11. In view of what has been said above, the impugned order does not stand to the scrutiny of a valid summoning order, and, on this score alone, it is liable to be quashed. That would necessitate a remit of the matter to the Magistrate for consideration afresh, subject of course, to the constraint of limitation prescribed by law. But, the learned counsel for the applicant is not content with that and seeks to press his further relief, that is to quash the entire proceedings.12. Turning to the imputations that have been made the subject matter of prosecution, the first is a failed application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. regarding the complainant using forged letter heads, of different men of importance, to bring false complaints against the applicant under forged signatures of such persons. It is submitted that the said application being rejected, the allegation is untrue. The learned counsel for the applicant submits, in support of his challenge to the complaint, on this part of it, that the 8th Exception to Section 499 IPC, clearly acts as a bar to the Magistrate proceeding against the applicant on the basis of his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that did not succeed. In order to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 499, and, specifically its 8th Exception. The provision reads thus:"499. Defamation.--Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.Explanation 1.--It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.Explanation 2.--It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.Explanation 3.--An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.Explanation 4.--No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.Illustrations(a) A says--"Z is an honest man; he never stole B's watch"; intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions.(b) A is asked who stole B's watch. A points to Z, intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation unless it fall within one of the exceptions.(c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B's watch, intending it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions.Eighth Exception.--Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person.--It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.Illustration If A in good faith accuse Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z's master; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, and child, to Z's father--A is within this exception."13. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that it is not the success or the failure of his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., that would attract the provisions carried in the 8th Exception. He submits that the act of a person, making in good faith an accusation against any person to another, who has by law the authority to deal with the subject matter of accusation, is protected and cannot be subjected to a valid prosecution for an offence under Section 500 IPC. Learned counsel submits that the Magistrate is eminently a person authorized by law to deal with an accusation laid before him, through an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., seeking a direction to the police to register and investigate a case. He further submits, that the fact that the Magistrate did not find substance in the application to order registration of a case, would not take the matter out of the teeth of the 8th Exception to Section 499 IPC. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/ opposite party has submitted that the issue whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of the 8th Exception, is one of defence, on the basis of which the proceedings cannot be quashed, inasmuch as, the exception is attracted only when the accusation to a person in authority is made in good faith. The burden to prove that good faith is on the accused, which he can prove at the trial, and, not otherwise. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the complainant/ opposite party has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in M.A. Rumugam vs. Kittu alias Krishnamoorthy, (2009) 1 SCC 101, where it has been held thus:"18. Allegations made in the said complaint petition, thus, in our opinion, make out a case for proceeding against the appellant under Section 500 of the Penal Code as thereby imputation concerning the respondent had been made intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation would harm his reputation.19. For the purpose of bringing his case within the purview of the Eighth and the Ninth Exception appended to Section 499 of the Penal Code, it would be necessary for the appellant to prove good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it or of any other person or for the public good.20. It is now a well-settled principle of law that those who plead exception must prove it. The burden of proof that his action was bona fide would, thus, be on the appellant alone.21. At this stage, in our opinion, it would have been premature for the High Court to consider the materials placed by the appellant before it so as to arrive at a definite conclusion that there was no element of bad faith on the part of the appellant in making the said complaint before the police authorities."14. Learned counsel for the applicant on the other hand has placed reliance on a judgement of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam, (1999) 3 SCC 134, where dealing with the said issue it has been held:"7. The next question that arises for consideration is whether reading the complaint and the report of the Treasury Officer which was obtained pursuant to the Order of the Magistrate under sub-section (1) of Section 201, can it be said that a prima facie case exists for trial or Exception 8 to Section 499 clearly applies and consequently in such a case, calling upon the accused to face trial would be a travesty of justice. The gravamen of the allegations in the complaint petition is that the accused persons made a complaint to the Treasury Officer, Amravati, containing false imputations to the effect that the complainant had come to the office in a drunken state and abused the Treasury Officer, Additional Treasury Officer and the Collector and circulated in the office using filthy language and such imputations had been made with the intention to cause damage to the reputation and services of the complainant. In order to decide the correctness of this averment, the Magistrate instead of issuing process had called upon the Treasury Officer to hold an enquiry and submit a report and the said Treasury Officer did submit a report to the Magistrate. The question for consideration is whether the allegations in the complaint read with the report of the Magistrate make out the offence under Section 500 or not. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence of defamation and Section 500 provides the punishment for such offence. Exception 8 to Section 499 clearly indicates that it is not a defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with regard to the subject-matter of accusation. The report of the Treasury Officer clearly indicates that pursuant to the report made by the accused persons against the complainant, a departmental enquiry had been initiated and the complainant was found to be guilty. Under such circumstances the fact that the accused persons had made a report to the superior officer of the complainant alleging that he had abused the Treasury Officer in a drunken state which is the gravamen of the present complaint and nothing more, would be covered by Exception 8 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. By perusing the allegations made in the complaint petition, we are also satisfied that no case of defamation has been made out. In this view of the matter, requiring the accused persons to face trial or even to approach the Magistrate afresh for reconsideration of the question of issuance of process would not be in the interest of justice. On the other hand, in our considered opinion, this is a fit case for quashing the order of issuance of process and the proceedings itself. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and confirm the order of the learned Sessions Judge and quash the criminal proceeding itself......"15. It appears that the two decisions of their Lordships above referred lay down law that is applicable to two different situations on facts. One is where an accusation is laid before a person in authority empowered by law to determine it, and, upon due determination the accusation finally fails, with no further inquiry or proceeding pending. In that kind of a situation, it would be for the accuser to prove it as a matter of defence at the trial, once he is summoned on the complaint of the exonerated accused under Section 500 IPC, that he made the accusation bonafide and is, therefore, entitled to the protection of 8th Exception to Section 499. This was the position which their Lordships dealt with in Rumugam (supra). The other contingency would be where the accusation is finally accepted, and yet the accuser is summoned at the instance of the accused, on a complaint under Section 500 IPC to stand his trial for an imputation that have withstood the competent authority's scrutiny. In that situation, the 8th Exception to Section 499 IPC would come to the immediate rescue of the accused, entitling him to have those proceedings quashed. It was this kind of a contingency that their Lordships dealt with in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande (supra).16. In the present case, a perusal of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. shows that the accusations regarding the use of bogus letter heads by the complainant/ opposite party, under forged signatures of the owners of those letter heads, in order to address false complaints against the applicant, though did not find favour with the Magistrate while dealing with the applicant's prayer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., that was rejected throughout, by this Court too, an FIR on those allegations did come to be registered by the police on 01.03.2004 giving rise to Case Crime no.123 of 2004, under Sections 419, 420, 468, 470, 471 IPC, Police Station Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly, against the complainant/ opposite party. The said FIR led to a charge sheet being filed on 25.03.2004, thus, prima facie vindicating the imputations. The said fact is asserted in paragraph 4 of the affidavit in support of the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., and, in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant/ opposite party, the fact of registration of the FIR as aforesaid, culminating in a charge sheet after investigation, has not been denied.17. It must be said here that an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. is a procedural remedy as distinguished from a substantive remedy. It does not by itself determine the truth or falsehood of anything that is alleged there. Though some satisfaction of sorts about the truth of the allegations made in the application, is now the requirement of the law on the Magistrate's part, after their Lordships' decision in Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of U.P. and others, (2015) 6 SCC 287, yet that by no means alters the nature of those proceedings. The requirement of examining the truth of the allegations in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) is to ferret out those annoying, frivolous and sometimes embarrassing prosecutions, particularly, in certain class of cases, that act to the grave detriment of public affairs. But, all in the end of it, the conclusion of a proceeding under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not the decision about the truth of an allegation. It is only the refusal of a remedy to invoke the process of investigation, that otherwise remains open to the concerned police agency, if they are satisfied, at any stage, that the allegations do require investigation. Also, it does not debar the complainant from invoking the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, to proceed in the matter as a complaint. This being the position, the rejection of the applicant's prayer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. does not in the least show that the accusation brought by the applicant against the complainant/ opposite party, relating to use of forged letter heads, to lay false complaints against him, in the name of those who never made those complaints, has been proven false before an authority invested by law with jurisdiction to determine it. Rather, the subsequent registration of an FIR on the same allegations against the complainant/ opposite party at the behest of the applicant, that led to a charge sheet being filed against him, a fact not denied to the complainant/ opposite party, leads to a completely different consequence under the law.18. The fact that the applicant's imputation of the bogus use of letter heads to lay false complaints against him by the complainant/ opposite party, that is one limb of the impugned proceedings, has been found vindicated in an investigation by the police on the basis of an FIR, in the opinion of this Court, would attract the principle in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande (supra), rather than Rumugam (supra), where the 8th Exception can be invoked by the applicant to seek quashing of proceeding under Section 500 IPC. It is not a case where the exception would have to be pleaded as a defence and established at the trial. The position would have been different, in case a complaint on those allegations were preferred by the applicant to the Magistrate, and, rejected, with the rejection becoming final. Here, an investigating agency of the State has interposed to probe the applicant's allegations that the complainant/ opposite party has used bogus letter heads of others to lay false complaints against the applicant, and, found the same vindicated, so as to move the investigating agency to launch a prosecution through a police report. Thus, as far as the imputation in question goes, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.19. The other imputation on the basis of which the applicant has been summoned is regarding the wrong entry of his date of birth in his service record. It is submitted that the said imputation is one regarding which the complaint shows in paragraph 15 of it, to be acknowledged for a fact, that a First Information Report has been registered by the police giving rise to Case Crime no.30/2003, under Sections 324, 504, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly. The said fact about the applicant lodging an FIR against the complainant/ opposite party, regarding an incorrect entry in the complainant/ opposite party's service record as to his date of birth, besides forgery made in his certificates and mark sheets, has been asserted by the applicant in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The said fact has not been denied in paragraph no.5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party, though the locus standi of the applicant is to lodge such an FIR and his bonafides in doing so, have been questioned. The fact remains that the imputations relating to manipulation of his date of birth by the complainant/ opposite party, are the subject matter of a criminal investigation, commenced on the basis of an FIR. The said imputation also, for the same reason as the last considered, does not fall into that class of a rejected and discarded allegation made to an authority competent by law to determine it, that may invite on a complaint under Section 500 IPC, a requirement for the applicant to raise a defence at the trial based on the 8th Exception to Section 499. It can, and, ought to be quashed.20. So far as the last allegation mentioned in the impugned complaint regarding publication of some false allegation in the Hindi Daily Dainki Jagran, dated 06th January, 2003 is concerned, the said allegation reads as under (extracted verbatim in Hindi vernacular):" 20- ;g fd mijksDr f?kukSus d`R; ls tkucw> dj >wBs QthZ feF;k vkjksi yxkdj nSfud tkxj.k fnukad 6 tuojh 2003 dks izdkf'kr O;kid izpkj] izlkj dj foi{kh us oknh dh lkekftd izfr"Bk dks {kfr igqWpkdj Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 499 ds vUrxZr vijk/kh nq"d`R; fd;k gS tks fd Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 500 vkbZ0ih0lh0 ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k gSA rc ls oknh o mlds ifjokj okyksa dk lkekt esa mBuk cSBuk nqHkj gks x;k gS] yksx rjg rjg dh izkFkhZ o mlds ifjokj ij NhVk dlh djus yxs gS bruk gh ugha vf[ky Hkkjrh; egk lHkk ds lnL;ksa us ekSf[kd o fyf[kr :i ls oknh ds egkeU=h in ls gVkus rd dh ekax dj Mkyh gSA bl lEcU/k esa lat; lDlsuk rFkk jes'k pUnz flUgk us fyf[kr :i ls oknh dks gVkus dks v/;{k ls ekWx dh gS ftls layXu dj Lo;a oknh ls v/;{k Jh vkj0 ,u0 lDlsuk us Li"Vhdj.k ekaxh gS ftlls oknh dks o mlds ifjtuksa o b"V fe=ksa dks dkQh ekufld vk?kkr igqWpk gSA"21. A perusal of the said paragraph, carrying the imputation under consideration, shows it be woefully vague and indeterminate. It does not mention as to what precisely was the content of the imputation that was published in the newspaper, so as to enable the Court to ascertain prima facie, that in fact the publication was defamatory in character. No offence punishable under Section 500 IPC is made out, on the basis of allegations said to be published in the Hindi Daily, as per allegations in paragraph 20 of the complaint.22. In the result, this Application succeeds and is allowed. The impugned proceedings giving rise to Complaint Case no.2527 of 2003, Virendra Raizada vs. Mukul Mohan Tripathi, under Section 500 IPC, P.S., Subhas Nagar, District Bareilly pending on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIIth, Bareilly, are hereby quashed.23. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court forthwith by the office through the Sessions Judge, Bareilly.Order Date :- 4.12.2018 AnoopSource: Mukul Mohan Tripathi Alias Joshi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 December, 2018

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