|
|
COLORADO JUDICIARY ARAPAHOE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, EDWARD BURNS, CHARLES PRATT, CHRISTOPHER CROSS, TAMMY HERIVAL, BRENT EVANS, G. RAYMOND GO |
| 26th of Jan, 2011 by User950947 |
| The judicial system in Colorado is really a Country Club catering to lawyers (read members) with decisions and violations of basic due process being made behind closed doors. When a person (Edward Burns) can electronically walk into a Clerks office and remove a demand and payment for a jury trial; without consequence and with support of the rest of the Judicial system; something is fatally wrong. Below please find one motion with an affidavit that explains these travesties of justice: MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST BRENT EVANS WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT COMES NOW Defendant, Peter Coulter pro se, and pursuant to C.R.C.P. 55,98, and 121§1-14 with supporting affidavit requests that the Court order a default judgment against John Brent Evans and for further sanctions as the Court deems appropriate. As grounds therefore, Defendant alleges and states: 1. The Defendant has e-mailed Mr. Goodwin concerning this matter with no resolution. (Exhibit 2) 2. The Defendant references the attached affidavit of Peter Coulter as though fully rewritten herein. 3. The original summons is attached and served in a timely fashion per Court Order of November 6, 2009. 4. The venue is correct in these matters as they occurred in Arapahoe County and John Brent Evans is a resident of Arapahoe County as further explained in attached affidavit. 5. On September 18, 2009 the Court held a hearing at which time it requested Defendant Peter Coulter to file a proposed Order correcting the record to show Brent Evans as a named Plaintiff/Cross-complainant so that he could be subpoenaed. 6. The Court gave Raymond Goodwin the choice of either accepting waiver of service for Mr. Evans and having the matter expedited; or have Mr. Coulter serve Mr. Evans directly. Mr. Goodwin indicated to the Court that he would waive service of process by his client/associate, Mr. Evans. 7. On September 19, 2009, Peter Coulter prepared and filed a Motion to Correct the Record to include Brent Evans as a party. 8. ¶8 of said Motion states: 8.On September 18, 2009 in a hearing before the Court; Mr. Goodwin agreed that he would accept a waiver of service on the behalf of Mr. Evans. 9. Plaintiffs/Mr. Goodwin never filed a response to said Motion and therefore in accord with C.R.C.P. 107§1-15(3); they confesses the same. 10. On November 6, 2010, the Court GRANTED the Motion with Amendments including that the Summons be served within 30 days on Mr. Goodwin. 11. On December 1, 2009, Mr. Evans was served in accordance with the request of Mr. Goodwin and Order of the Court by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to Mr. Goodwins receptionist. 12. Despite a denial by Mr. Goodwin in recent weeks, (Exhibit 2) said delivery of the summons and complaint is confirmed by the signature of Mr. Goodwin’s receptionist on a copy of the documents.(Exhibit 1) 13. To date, neither Mr. Evans nor Mr. Goodwin have responded to the Summons and Complaint. 14. Instead, Mr. Goodwin filed a frivolous and groundless Motion on Jan. 22, 2010 to exclude Brent Evans from the case proclaiming that he had never been served when in fact Mr. Goodwin knew he had been properly served in accordance with Mr. Goodwin’s request on Sept. 18, 2009 and subsequent Court Order on November 6, 2009. 15. Mr. Goodwin’s January 22nd Motion has numerous misstatements of facts meant to intentionally deceive the Court including: ü Certification pursuant to CRCP 121 § 1-15(8); Duty to confer.[1] Mr. Goodwin has Mr. Coulter’s E-mail and had every opportunity to discuss the matter with Mr. Coulter. To the best of knowledge and belief; Mr. Goodwin purposely did not want to warn Mr. Coulter of his motion because he knew Mr. Coulter would say that he had served Mr. Evans per his request and Court Order. ü ¶2 of Mr. Goodwins motion misstates the dates in accordance with the registry of actions. On September 18, 2009 Mr. Goodwin requested a waiver of service for Brent Evans. The Court then requested Mr. Coulter to provide a Motion which he filed on September 19, 2009 to correct the record to include Brent Evans as a party to the action. Mr. Goodwin did not file a response. On November 6, the Court GRANTED the motion giving Mr. Coulter 30 days to serve Mr. Goodwin per the waiver of service. On December 1, 2009 the Summons and Complaint were served on Mr. Goodwin at his office where they were signed for by the receptionist. (Exhibit 1) ü ¶4 is an intentional false statement of facts meant to deceive the Court. Mr. Evans was properly served via a waiver of service requested by Mr. Goodwin on December 1, 2009 in accordance with an Order of November 6, 2009. ü ¶5 of Mr. Goodwins Motion also misstates the facts. Mr. Coulters Motion to Correct the record (according to the Registry of Actions) to include Brent Evans was Ordered November 6, 2009; not September 18, 2009. ü Said Motion by Mr. Goodwin was never served on Peter Coulter and he only knew about it from continually checking with the Court Clerk to see what documents had been filed by Mr. Goodwin. ü According to the registry of actions, to date Mr. Evans has not filed a responsive pleading. 16. Mr. Goodwin as an officer of the Court has committed a Fraud on the Court by submitting Motions that he knew, or should have known, were not true in an effort to exclude his client and associate in Union Stanford Properties, Mr. Evans, from the proceedings. 17. Fraud on the court occurs when the judicial machinery itself has been tainted, such as when an attorney, who is an officer of the court, is involved in the perpetration of a fraud or makes material misrepresentations to the court. Fraud upon the court makes void the orders and judgments of that court. Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985) 18. Mr. Coulter filed a timely response to Mr. Goodwin’s Motion on Feb. 1, 2010; but Defendant believes it intentionally was not uploaded onto the system until a week later (after Judge Cross had made his decision at half-time of the Superbowl Sunday) after Mr. Coulter filed a complaint to the Supreme Court (See affidavit.) 19. The above named parties have intentionally refused to obey the Court Order requiring Mr. Evans to respond to the Summons and Complaint within 40 days of December 1, 2009 as prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure and Court Order and in fact committed Fraud on the Court in their January 22nd Motion in an effort to exclude John Brent Evans. 20. The conduct of Mr. Goodwin as an officer of the Court violates the Court’s Order and his Motion filed January 22nd 2010 is considered a Fraud on the Court. 21. The conduct of Mr. Goodwin as an officer of the Court as described above constitutes misbehavior of an officer of the court and disobedience or resistance of or interference with this court’s lawful order and, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a), constitutes contempt of court. 22. In light of the circumstances surrounding Brent Evans and Raymond Goodwin conduct and actions in this matter, Peter Coulter is entitled to a Default Judgment against Brent Evans including damages as described in the affidavit in amounts exceeding $1.5 million dollars. WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that the Court strike the ORDER of Justice Cross issued on February 7, 2010 and ORDER a Default Judgment for Peter Coulter against John Brent Evans and for such other relief including sanctions as the Court deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted this December 30, 2010, Peter Coulter District Court Arapahoe County, Colorado 7325 South Potomac Drive Centennial, Colorado 80112 UNION STANFORD PROPERTIES, Plaintiff, CASE NO 2008CV202587 JUDGE CHARLES PRATT DIVISION 402 v. PETER COULTER, AUDIONLY.COM LLC. v. Defendants, v. BRENT EVANS, PATTY EVANS, P & B Evans Family LLLP, JESSE ARAGON, PENNIE ARAGON, AAA EAGLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PJ ARAGON MANAGEMENT LLC., RAYMOND GOODWIN, BADGER CREEK INVESTMENTS LLC, AIDEN MCGUIRE, Cross-claimants. Peter Coulter P.O. Box 3094 Vail Colorado 81657 E-MAIL [email protected] PROPOSED ORDER FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST JOHN BRENT EVANS Default Judgment is ORDERED for Peter Coulter and against John Brent Evans. Venue has been considered and is proper. The principal amount of damages is $1,582,000.($1,365,000 in lost car inventory, $200,000 in lost parts inventory. $17,000 for disposal of tires on Lot F and disposal of Cars at Union Stanford Properties.) Interest thereon from December 17, 2008 at 8% equals $253,120 for total of $1,835,120. Court costs in the amount of $428. Total Judgment $1,835,548. BY THE COURT _______________________ Judge Charles Pratt AFFIDAVIT OF PETER COULTER: STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF DENVER AFFIDAVIT OF PETER COULTER Under penalty of perjury, the Affiant Peter Coulter states as follows: 1. The Affiant has filed a Motion for Default Judgment against John Brent Evans. A requirement of CRCP Rule 17a§1-14, Default Judgments requires: (d) An affidavit or affidavits or exhibits establishing the amount of damages and interest, if any, for which judgment is being sought. The affidavit must be executed by a person with knowledge of the damages and the basis therefor. 2. To the best of knowledge, belief and investigation; Mr. Evans is not a minor, incapacitated, an officer of the State of Colorado, or in the military service. 3. To fully inform the Court of the actions of Mr. Evans and his associate partner and attorney Raymond Goodwin in regard to the Motion for Default Judgment and the substantial damages incurred by the Affiant; it is necessary to restate the highlights of this case from the beginning. 4. In July of 2002, Union Stanford Properties signed a lease contract with Audionly.com and Peter Coulter for an initial term of 3 years with 7 one year options for 2060 W. Radcliff, Sheridan, Colorado. 5. Said lease was the third draft of the final contract. According to Brent Evans, he prepared the first draft and associate Raymond Goodwin prepared the second draft and the final contract. 6. Brent Evans indicated that Union Stanford Members had decided to allot Raymond Goodwin 10% of the organization in exchange for handling legal matters for Union Stanford. 7. Because of an error in transferring deeds that were prepared by Raymond Goodwin (without title insurance); Union Stanford Properties has never owned 2060 West Radcliff Ave., Sheridan, Colorado. 8. Union Stanford properties agent and signer for said lease contract was/is Brent Evans. 9. John Brent Evans is not registered either as a real estate agent or an attorney with the State of Colorado 10. John Brent Evans did not and does not personally own 2060 West Radcliff and is therefore violating statutes pertaining to selling real estate without a license. (Unauthorized practice of law.) 11. Because of errors by Raymond Goodwin in preparing deed transfers without title insurance; Union Stanford Properties has never owned 2060 West Radcliff Ave, Sheridan, Colorado. 12. The initial lease amount was $2,500 with a damage deposit of $2,500 paid over two months. 13. At Brent Evans direction; we went to his bank (Keybank N.A.) where Linda Greene, an employee of Keybank notarized the signature of Brent Evans and two signatures of Peter Coulter, one for Audionly.com LLC and the other personally for himself. 14. There was only one copy of the contract and Brent Evans indicated he would forward the original after he made a copy. 15. Although asked on several occasions informally, Brent Evans never provided a copy of the lease. 16. In 2003, Audionly needed additional space and leased Lot F from Union Stanford Properties for $600 per month which was discounted from $700 as there was a large pile of truck tires and a large pile of dirt in the Lot where we could not store cars. 17. Brent Evans agreed to pay us for the removal of the truck tires as the City of Sheridan considered them a hazard for mosquito larvae. 18. We removed all the tires before we left the property and were never reimbursed for removing the tires. 19. We also removed vehicles and meth lab materials from another lot for Mr. Evans and were never reimbursed. 20. We vacated lot in 2004/05 and were given our deposit back in full by Brent Evans. 21. Brent Evans/USP owes Peter Coulter in excess of $17,000 for work related to the removal of the tires and the removal of the cars and meth lab materials. 22. At the beginning of December 2008; Peter Coulter insisted on having a copy of the lease before he would make payment. 23. Mr. Evans indicated that he was going out of town to play golf and that if I gave him the payment now, he would not deposit the check until he had his secretary send me a copy of the lease and then I was to call her to tell her she could cash the check. 24. 3 days later Peter Coulter’s bank called and indicated that Union Stanford was electronically trying to cash the rent check. 25. I stopped payment on the check and Brent Evans showed up at the yard demanding the lease payment which I said I would pay as soon as I had a copy of the lease. 26. Instead, Brent Evans handed me a FED notice. 27. Thence Mr. Calderon, initial attorney for Union Stanford Properties served Peter Coulter (but not Audionly.com) with a simplified summons and complaint demanding under $7,500 inclusive of attorneys fees. 28. Between December 1, 2008 and and March 30, 2009 Peter Coulter formally asked 9 times for a copy of the original lease contract from either Brent Evans, Raymond Goodwin and their initial attorney in this matter, Mr. Calderon; with no response. 29. At 8am on December 27th, 2008, Peter Coulter walked into the Arapahoe County Clerk and filed a statutory prescribed answer, counter-complaint and a cross complaint against Brent Evans and a demand for a jury trial 30. As the counter and cross complaint exceeded the jurisdiction of the small claims court and the county court; Peter Coulter paid the requisite district court fees of $428 (cash[1]), including $190 for a jury trial. 31. Under CRCP Rule 17a§1-3; the jury trial fee is non-refundable “under any circumstance”. 32. The clerk immediately called the District Court and a jury trial date was set for January 8, 2009. 33. Peter Coulter left the Arapahoe County Court by 8:40am that day and drove with friends to a funeral in Georgetown, Colorado that began at 10:30am. 34. Unbeknownst to Peter Coulter[2] as to the identity until November of 2009, a person(s) stole said demand for jury trial in the District Court, the $190 jury trial fee, and the counter-claim that had been filed against John Brent Evans. 35. If one looks at the official Court records; it shows that Peter Coulter did not demand or pay for a jury trial or file a cross-claim against John Brent Evans contrary to the actual receipts and counter-claim and cross-claim filed on December 27, 2008 that unequivocally shows that those items were requested and paid for. 36. At 3pm, January 7th, 2009; Peter Coulter filed chapter 11 bankruptcy in an effort to save the business. 37. At 3:15pm, January 7th, Raymond Goodwin made an appearance into the case and sent an E-mail to Peter Coulter stating to be ready for a jury trial set for the next day and also forwarding two non signed leases marked exhibit A and B. 38. The bankruptcy filing stayed the jury trial set for January 8, 2009 in front of Judge Sheryl Post. 39. Peter Coulter’s only creditor was listed as Union Stanford Properties. 40. Although on January 8, 2009, Mr. Goodwin stated that he would file a claim in the bankruptcy court; Union Stanford Properties never filed a claim even though court records indicate that they were served notice. 41. Peter Coulter was unaware at the time; and according to official Eclipse memo records[3] and in contempt of a Federal Court Order, Edward Burns ordered the District Court Clerk to refund Peter Coulter’s jury fee of $190 on January 23, 2009. 42. In mid-February, 2009; Arapahoe County District Court’s Public Access Terminal was disabled and would remain that way until September of 2010, leaving Peter Coulter with no way to review his file. 43. The Chapter 11 Bankruptcy was dismissed in early March and Mr. Goodwin immediately requested a trial date which was set for March 31, 2009. 44. In mid-March; Peter Coulter filed a notice of Jury trial with the District Court Clerk. 45. At the time, Peter Coulter was unaware that the District Court Clerk never scanned and uploaded said Notice onto Eclipse and/or Nexus/Lexus and therefore never became a part of the official record of the Court. 46. Being able only to review the Eclipse registry (which Peter Coulter had to pay to have copied) provided by the clerk which did not show Brent Evans as a party and also did not show that a jury trial had been demanded and paid for; Peter Coulter petitioned the Supreme Court on March 30, 2010 to review the matter. 47. An advisory copy of that Petition was filed with the District Court Clerk on March 30,2010. 48. At the time, Peter Coulter was unaware that the District Court Clerk never scanned and uploaded said Petition onto Eclipse and/or Nexus/Lexus and therefore never became a part of the official record of the Court. 49. On March 31, 2009; a non-jury trial was held in front of Justice Charles Pratt. 50. Five minutes before the trial started; Raymond Goodwin handed two signed leases to Peter Coulter and the Court marked Exhibit A and B as part of Union Stanford Properties proof of rents due. 51. Exhibit A was/is a 12pg. lease for 2060 West Radcliff Ave. It is not signed or notorized by Audionly; it indicates that it was allegedly signed on September 19, 2010; and notarized by Linda Greene of Key Bank. 52. Exhibit B was/is a lease for Lot V that was allegedly signed by Peter Coulter, Audionly, and Brent Evans indicating a monthly rental rate of $1,250. 53. The transcript of that trial indicates that Peter Coulter questioned both documents provided to the Court. 54. Peter Coulter later had his signature and initials on Exhibit A examined by two independent hand writing experts and both indicated that they were forged 55. Additionally, Peter Coulter was not in the State of Colorado on the alleged signature date of September 19, 2010. 56. Additionally, the monthly amount prescribed by the forged lease does not match the amount prayed for by Union Stanford Properties. 57. Additionally, after having to request a Motion to Compel from the Court; Union Stanford Properties allowed Peter Coulter to examine the original signed copy of Exhibit A lease. 58. It became very apparent and provable at that time to Peter Coulter that the document was forged. 59. It also eventually became apparent that Exhibit B was a forged and fake document meant to deceive the Court. While Peter Coulter and Audionly did lease another property from Union Stanford Properties back in 2003-2004; it was Lot F, not Lot V, and the lease amount was $600, not $1,250 as described in the fake lease. 60. Peter Coulter believes the lot no. and amount were forged to convince the Court of an offset of the amounts Brent Evans and Union Stanford properties owed him as prayed for his original cross-claim and counter claim. 61. Union Stanford Properties was able to convince the Court with these forged documents that Peter Coulter owed rent when in fact Union Stanford and Brent Evans owed Peter Coulter in excess of $17,000. 62. Immediately after the trial, and followed by E-mails; Union Stanford Properties, Raymond Goodwin and Brent Evans tried to extort $20,000 from Peter Coulter by telling me that they would give me an extra two weeks to remove the contents of 2060 West Radcliff Ave. 63. Having no choice; over the next 10 days, Peter Coulter removed and crushed 182 vehicles each having an average of at least $7,500 worth of parts on each of them. 64. Additionally, Peter Coulter gave away over $200,000 worth of parts to friends and associates. (The alternative was to leave it for Union Stanford Properties.) 65. Additionally, the actions of Union Stanford Properties and Brent Evans destroyed a very viable and ongoing business solely for greed with the intent of taking the inventory and leasing the property to Darryl Patton and D and R automotive to take over the business. 66. According to the Court Registry of Actions; a final judgment was issued on April 6, 2009 and the case was closed. 67. CRCP rules require that Complaints, Counter-claims and cross-claims must be filed within 40 days of being received (December 27, 2008) and pay the required fee. Union Stanford did not respond until over after the trial in the third week of April, 2009 (over 120 days) and according to Eclipse did not pay any required fee. 68. In the summer of 2009, Peter Coulter came to realize that 4 documents dealing with the requested jury trial and cross-claim of Brent Evans were not noted on the Court registry: 1) The original demand for jury trial in the District Court and cross-claim against Brent Evans filed December 18, 2008. (Attached) 2) The notice of demand for jury trial filed March 18, 2009 (Attached) before the trial on March 31, 2009. 3.) The Petition to the Supreme Court concerning the jury trial filed with the District Court Clerk on March 30, 2009 and 4.) The Order of the Supreme Court concerning the jury trial mailed to the District Court Clerk on April 3rd, 2009. 69. In accord with Supreme Court Directives, Peter Coulter contacted the Supreme Court Administrator to restore the records. 70. The Supreme Court directed me to contact Tammy Hervil, Arapahoe County head clerk. 71. Upon contacting Ms. Hervil on Sept. 16, 2009, she contacted Magistrate Burns who indicated to her that I needed a Court Order from Judge Pratt to restore the records; contrary to Supreme Court Directives. 72. On October 21, 2009, Peter Coulter again contacted Tammy Hervil concerning the missing records. (attached) 73. Additionally, Peter Coulter contacted the Attorney Generals office about the missing documents who in turn referred me to the Arapahoe County District Attorney who then referred me to the Arapahoe County Sheriffs office where I filed a formal complaint. (10/28/09 #T09000315) 74. According to the Sheriffs office; they immediately contacted Ms. Hervil who told them that all the records had been found except for the Notice of Jury Trial and the Sheriffs office closed the case. 75. I immediately contacted Ms. Hervil and she indicated that she had gone through 13 boxes of files and found all the missing documents except the Notice of Jury trial and she would be restoring them to the record. 76. Contrary to Ms. Hervil’s statement; the records weren’t restored but new ones were inserted in their place[4] The original jury trial demand and cross-claim was not restored. The Order of the Supreme Court was not restored. Further, under directives of the Supreme Court, Ms. Hervil has no authority to restore records which is limited the Supreme Court Administrator. 77. Since Peter Coulter is a pro-se litigant, he has to rely on the Clerk’s office to sign Summons. Since the clerks office would not recognize Brent Evans as a party; they refused on 3 separate occasions to issue a summons to answer the cross-complaint I filed against him on December 18, 2008 78. On September 18, 2009 at a pre-trial hearing; Peter Coulter indicated to the Court that he was not ready for trial because he had no ability to have Brent Evans served. After discussion and per the specific request of Raymond Goodwin to waive service for Mr. Evans; the Court asked Peter Coulter to submit a Motion rectifying the error in the record of the absence of third-party Brent Evans so that he could be served. Union Stanford did not respond to the Motion and it was thence Ordered by the Court on November 6, 2009 including the waiver of service requested by Mr. Goodwin and a requirement that the documents be provided to Mr. Goodwin within 30 days (December 6, 2009) 79. The cross-complaint was signed for by Mr. Goodwin’s office on December 1, 2009. 80. As recent as December 2010; Mr. Goodwin denied that he had received the cross-complaint until he was shown a signed receipt of said document by his receptionist.[5] 81. To date Mr. Evans has not responded to that cross-complaint which included allegations of fraud. 82. On January 22, 2010; Mr. Goodwin filed a groundless and frivolous Motion to exclude Brent Evans as a party where he indicated that he DID NOT converse with Peter Coulter prior to filing the Motion. 83. Mr. Goodwin knew that Mr. Evans had been served in accord with his wishes and would have been reminded of that had he properly (In accord with CRCP rules) conversed with Peter Coulter before he filed the Motion. 84. As with numerous Motions that Mr. Goodwin has filed and despite the certificate of service indicating otherwise; Peter Coulter never received a copy of said Motion from Mr. Goodwin which I believe was by design so that Peter Coulter would not respond. 85. As has become normal in this case; Peter Coulter has had to continuously call the Civil Clerk of Arapahoe County to determine if Mr. Goodwin filed any Motion. 86. In this instance, after driving 100 miles to pick up a copy from the Clerk (and having to again pay for it) of the Motion that Mr. Goodwin filed; a response was filed (and stamped) directly with the District Court Clerk’s office on February 1, 2010. 87. As mentioned earlier, Peter Coulter was having issues with the Clerk’s office in getting his filed documents uploaded onto the system. 88. Peter Coulter checked with the Clerk’s office on several occasions during the week of Feb. 1 and each time was told that the response I filed on Monday had not been uploaded. 89. On Friday, Feb. 5, 2010, Peter Coulter became concerned about the situation and contacted the Supreme Court Administrative Division to determine the problem. 90. On Monday, February 8th, the Supreme Court Administrative Division responded saying that they had contacted Ms. Hervil and that they had mistakenly filed it on Nexis on Jan 1 instead of Feb. 1 and that it had been corrected. 91. But the upload Nexis stamp indicated otherwise. It unequivocally shows that although it was filed by Peter Coulter on February 1; it was not uploaded onto the system until after being contacted by the Supreme Court on February 8, 2010. In short, the District Court Clerk lied to the Supreme Court Administrator in an effort to cover up the fact that Peter Coulter had filed a timely response that should have been considered before any decision was made concerning Mr. Goodwin’s Motion. 92. In the meantime, unknown to Peter Coulter until later, Justice Christopher Cross granted Mr. Goodwin’s Motion. The timing of that granting is extremely suspicious. The Nexis time stamp indicates that it was filed by Justice Cross at the halftime of the Super Bowl. (Sunday) 93. It is quite obvious that this entire event was “setup” and conspired by Raymond Goodwin, Tamey Hervil, Justice Cross and Edward Burns showing a complete and ruthless bias and violation of due process of law towards Peter Coulter. 94. Throughout this entire process, I have not only had to deal with the unethical lies, greed, suborn of perjury, etc. of USP, Brent Evans and Raymond Goodwin but also with the drastic action of Magestrate Edward Burns and his associates. 95. When Peter Coulter responded to the original action in December of 2008, he was unaware that Edward Burns had any part in this case and by 8:30am on Dec. 18, when the case was transferred to Arapahoe County District Court with a jury demand and cross-complaint against Brent Evans; Mr. Burns had absolutely no authority or jurisdiction pertaining to 2008CV202587. 96. But Mr. Burns took the drastic action of going into the Court files and removing the jury demand, the payment thereof, and the cross-complaint against Brent Evans. 97. Because there was no Public Access Terminal provided by Arapahoe County District Court (as required under Supreme Court Directives) Peter Coulter did not know of Mr. Burns identity and actions until after the trial on March 31, 2009. 98. Edward Burns then acted in concert with Ms. Hervil in removing all documents from the file concerning anything to do with Brent Evans and the jury trial demand and payment including a Court Order from the Supreme Court concerning the jury trial. 99. Had Mr. Burns had any authority or jurisdiction in these matters; he would have done them in open court and on the record; but instead he did it on his own and manipulated the electronic records to make them look as though nothing had been filed/paid. Court cases I have reviewed compare it to a next door neighbor walking into the Court and stealing manipulating files. 100. Mr. Burns and Ms. Hervil committed Treason on the Constitution and thereafter continually tried to cover it up; including the orchestration, conspiracy, and implementation of Mr. Goodwins Motion of January 22nd, 2010 and subsequent “Superbowl Suday” Order by Judge Cross. 101. Mr. Burns actions were/are extreme and there has to be a very good reason why he risked his license to practice law in a matter which didn’t involve him. 102. The only reasonable connection that I have been able to put together has to do with another case that is being heard by Judge Pratt, McLean v. Robinson[6]. I dated Ms. McLean for a couple of months and during that time she indicated that her left arm did not work and believed it was because she had some plastic surgery done on her stomach to remove an appendectomy scar and that the skin on her stomach was so firm that they pulled her left arm over her head to stretch the skin on her stomach and when they did so; Dr. Robinson damaged her arm. But, I had seen Ms. McLean move her arm normally when she wasn’t thinking about it. She also had a degenerative eye disease called Retinitis Pigmentosa which impared her vision and blinded two of her siblings. I always felt that the arm was just a ruse for the RP because Ms. McLean couldn’t be a flight attendant with the disease. As time went on Ms. McLean’s stories about the abuse of her daughter by her ex-husband proved to be false. The final straw was when out of the clear blue she accused me of having affairs with two of my friend’s wives. The reason; because I was too tired to go to a tango dancing lesson with her. We parted without saying another word to each other but I felt I should give Dr. Robinson a heads up and sent him an E-mail to contact me if by chance Ms. McLean went forward with her accusations of Dr. Robinson. Two years later I get a phone call from Chris Miller who said he represented Dr. Robinson in a case that had just been filed by Ms. McLean. I told him what I knew and then didn’t hear from him for another year at which time the E-mail I sent to Dr. Robinson showed up in discovery. Shortly thereafter, I got blasted for 7 hours in a deposition by Ms. McLean’s attorney, Mr. Leventhol. I felt like the smoking gun and that Ms. McLean had not told Mr. Leventhol about me and that I put a severe dent in their case against Dr. Robinson. At the time this was going on; I was not having any issues with Brent Evans, Raymond Goodwin or USP; but within 6 months thereafter Edward Burns committed his drastic acts toward me. I now feel that Edward Burns actions were somehow retribution for raining on Ms. McLean and Mr. Leventhol’s case. It is the only plausible explanation to Edward Burns actions. I became so intimidated by the notion that I told Chris Miller that I would not testify against Ms. McLean as I was concerned what else Edward Burns was willing to do towards me. To me, it was nothing short of witness tampering by Edward Burns to the point that I got “lost” for 3 weeks during the trial so I wouldn’t have to testify and wouldn’t be thrown in jail for contempt by taking the stand and refusing to testify. 103. Again, throughout this entire case Peter Coulter has felt extreme bias; that the Court and associates of USP including Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Evans have acted to protect each other from their actions at my expense. 104. Mr. Evans was served on December 1, 2010 (as evidenced by the signature of Mr. Goodwins receptionist) in accord with Mr. Goodwins request and the Court’s Order which Mr. Goodwin with the help of the Clerk’s office thereafter exploited in violation of Peter Coulter’s right to due process of law. 105. To date, nearly 10 months later, Mr. Evans has still not responded. 106. The costs associated with the actions of Mr. Evans exceed $1,365,000 alone in vehicles that had to be crushed. 107. Additionally, Peter Coulter gave away over $200,000 worth of parts and inventory to customers/friends rather than leave them there for USP and Brent Evans. 108. Additionally other economic and non-economic costs as the result of Brent Evans. 109. The attached exhibits are a part of this affidavit. Dated and signed this 29th day of December, 2010 ________________________ Peter Coulter |
|
|
|
Post your Comment
|
|
|
