Colorado continuous

corruption and coercion

“To delay justice is injustice.” ~ William Penn, Some Fruits of Solitude, Anno Domini 1693

Today let’s return to Colorado. Last time we were here it was the “ides of April” which is somewhat widely known as “tax day” in America. We received some details on a murder in Boulder county that has received international attention. Our friends in Montrose county are still struggling with the situation in Nucla. The Colorado Wealth Management Fund ColoradoWealthManagementFund has identified a problem with corruption in Colorado Springs, over to El Paso county. This week we received some detailed information about a case in Delta county that dates back to 2010. So, let’s spend some time with each of these stories. Rather than limit the content, I’m going to continue our previous policy over recent years and simply publish everything we’ve been sent.

Boulder county

Recently police in a Boulder county city presented themselves on the front porch of a prominent author. They shot him to death. Then they asserted that he was having a mental health crisis and killed himself.

This week we received information from a close friend and business associate of that same author. Apparently the one gun in the home was a gift from the close friend. Also it lacked percussion caps and ammo, being an antique. The more we learn of this story the more clear it becomes that the police in Colorado are mercenaries for hire who will murder anyone they are told to kill.

Nucla

The problems in Nucla, a town in Montrose county, Colorado are corruption and radiation. The corrupt town administration have feathered the nests of a few with a deeply cynical fifty year lease for a huge 5G cell tower complex right next to the school. The radiation from this tower is increasing cancer rates and sterilising children every day that it operates. Here is the link to the petition page and some text from that page:

Release the records

For years, I have called Nucla my home—a place where my children have grown and where I've been an engaged member of the community. Being a long-term resident and parent here has instilled in me a deep commitment to the values that make this town great, among which transparency stands paramount. Like many of my neighbors, I firmly believe that transparency is not just a virtue; it is a necessary cornerstone of public trust.

Recently, questions have arisen concerning a 50-year lease that will significantly impact our community for generations. It is crucial that all residents have full and unfettered access to the public records related to this lease, so we can properly understand its implications on our collective future. This is about ensuring clarity, accountability, and restoring confidence in the decision-making processes that shape the town we call home.

The Town of Nucla holds public records related to this lease, and in the interest of transparency, it is time to voluntarily release this information. Doing so would uphold the principles of open governance and reflect a commitment to public trust and accountability. Release of the current public records will empower the citizens of Nucla to make informed discussions and decisions about the future of our town.

The importance of transparency cannot be understated, not only for those currently living here but for future generations who will inherit the outcomes of today's decisions. This petition does not aim to assign blame for any past actions but rather focuses on the future, paving the way for clearer, more transparent governance.

Therefore, I urge all Nucla residents and anyone who cares about community integrity to join me in requesting that our town officials voluntarily disclose the existing public records related to the 50-year lease. Let us work together to ensure a transparent future for Nucla. Please sign this petition to stand for transparency and the long-term well-being of our community.

Here is the link to the GoFundMe fundraiser.

We’re raising funds to file a legal injunction and temporary restraining order (TRO) against a 50-year cell tower lease signed by the Town of Nucla without following required public procedures. We are also raising funds for an independent teaching place that students whose parents have withdrawn them from Nucla’s school can use until this situation is fixed. We plan to hire a part time teacher, buy a vehicle suitable for moving the kids to school and on field trips, and pay for some grant writing.

What We Know:

-The Town approved a 50-year lease with Vertical Bridge for a 5G tower.

-The final tower location was changed without proper public notice or a recorded vote.

- The tower lease action did not include a public comment period available to local residents.

-The tower site is within 1,000 feet of the public elementary and high school.

-When asked to provide documentation showing lawful approval, the Town Clerk responded in writing:

“The Town does not have separate documents or records responsive to this portion of your request regarding the authority and process for approving the lease.”

-The Town of Nucla is also unable to produce any of the legally required paperwork necessary to build the tower; such as Environmental Impact Review Reports along with the documents showing proof the tower is even necessary in the first place The Town Clerk who had refused to recuse has since resigned. This clerk has obstructed public records requests, charged excessive fees, and responded with hostility to residents seeking transparency.

Why This Matters:

A contract signed without lawful public notice, discussion, or a recorded vote is legally invalid under Colorado law. Yet the Town is moving forward—and is using your tax dollars to defend this flawed process. ⚖️This fight has gained national attention: our case is being supported by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Children’s Health Defense (CHD), who recognize the significance of standing up against unlawful tower siting and government overreach. We’re not just fighting a cell tower. We’re fighting to: Protect public process and legal transparency, Challenge unethical conduct and misuse of power, Void a contract that was never lawfully approved

How You Can Help:

We’re crowdfunding to hire legal representation and file for an injunction. Your donation helps cover: Attorney fees, Filing costs, Court documentation and strategy to defend our town, We also have a petition on Change.org which you can find with the key words “urge the town of Nucla to release public records.” We’re also crowdfunding for our alternative schooling project to arrange a space for teaching, at least one part time teacher, and a vehicle for bringing students from the 50 miles around Nucla who wouldn’t be able to afford to get to a radiation-free school otherwise. Important Note: If we succeed in court, we intend to bill the Town of Nucla for all attorney’s fees. In that event, donations will be refunded to supporters as funds are recovered.

Colorado Springs

The author of Colorado Wealth Management Fund recently wrote, “Our corrupt former mayor is helping to push a data center through for our city using a zoning loophole. We have unlimited donations (some would say bribes to be more honest about it) for city council from developers. So we’re about to have a new shitty data center. Thank you, Raeden and your ugly ass CEO. Condolences to all the tax paying citizens who are about to have their home value plunge. You people deserve better.”

You can join the discussion here.

Delta county

JusticeDeniedProject.org is the new domain for the authors of the following description.

What is “Justice Denied Project”?

This site covers the ongoing history of a case from Delta County, Colorado, in the 7th Judicial District beginning in 2010 to the events occurring presently. The information provided is taken from evidence, statements, interviews, court documents, filings, transcripts, as well as personal knowledge. The information presented will help connect the dots between the individuals involved and events that happened. The Justice Denied Project investigates two cases from Delta County, Colorado: the initial dissolution of marriage which served as the catalyst to the criminal case in the aftermath. (2010DR169, 2011CR003)

To help understand how justice was denied in these cases, let’s begin with what is the definition of justice. It is the ethical, legal, and philosophical principle of treating individuals fairly, impartially and reasonably, ensuring rightful outcomes and upholding the law. It involves correcting wrongs, protecting rights and fostering dignity.

The first step in the process towards justice begins with the truth. According to the former District Attorney that prosecuted the criminal case, “We are responsible for the truth in the courtroom. And we are the only ones responsible for the truth.” He goes on saying “We are equally responsible for the defendant getting a fair trial. People think we’re just advocates for punishment, but nothing can be farther from the truth”. These statements were made by District Attorney Dan Hotsenpiller, 7th Judicial District, in a video titled “Role of Prosecutors”, which appeared on the Facebook page for the Colorado District Attorneys Council, dated December 13, 2020. After you read what happened in the criminal prosecution of this case, you decide if he performed his job in accordance with the instructions he provided to other prosecutors.

The American Judicial System is claimed to be the best in the world. People go to court looking for resolution to their problems, thinking that the court will show fairness and respect. That is true only if the system functions the way it was designed. The Scales of Justice are supposed to be equal; the defendant is supposed to have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty; the truth is the key towards providing justice for all. Perhaps all these things happen in most cases. But in this incidence, that is not how the system worked. There are several reasons that can be implicated about why this defendant was denied justice. Two reasons shown here are power and corruption. The third reason is money. The Justice Denied Project centers around one case that resulted from the dramatic mishandling of another case. It reveals how the system can work against an individual ignoring their rights. This case study exposes what attorneys and judges can do together that have devastating effects on all those involved with the system. The aftermath has not been a small ripple effect, but a massive tsunami, crushing many lives. In the center of the storm is a small child that lost a loving mother, a loving father, as well as her extended family.

The Mission of Justice Denied Project is to make people aware of what goes on between attorneys and judges behind closed chamber doors. Knowledge is the key to understanding how the court and its affiliated agencies can operate and work together to deny justice to those unsuspecting individuals who find themselves caught up in the system. Equipped with the understanding of how the system functions, it is the hope that an individual can avoid being destroyed and wrongfully incarcerated.

The Goal is to save others from suffering the tragedy and devastation in their lives that has happened in this case.

The Purpose is to reveal the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, in telling what happened and the role the court system played in the events.

CHAPTER 1 IN THE BEGINNING………

Before there is a divorce, there must be a marriage. In this case, the relationship prior to the marriage was turbulent, with constant arguments and pain. When an unplanned pregnancy occurred, the couple decided the best course of action was to get married, claiming they were “doing the right thing”. It was a short period of time after the marriage that the arguing between the couple escalated into a very dangerous situation. During that argument, the wife brandished a weapon (Glock 22). Most people would consider pulling a gun dangerous. Not only did this argument become extreme but it was clear to most that theirs was a very troubled relationship. The couple hoped that by attending counseling they could resolve their problems. During the counseling session, the wife admitted to pulling her gun. Afterwards, the wife decided she did not like the counselor and did not want to continue attending. In the second attempt at counseling, the couple was told by the counselor that their problems could not be resolved without both parties participating and each taking personal responsibility. At that point, the wife did not want to continue any counseling. After the baby was born, both seemed to care deeply for the baby despite their ongoing problems.

THE DIVORCE……THE BEGINNING OF JUSTICE DENIED

The marriage lasted for 16 months. In July of 2010, the husband filed for divorce in Delta County. It was during a time the wife had left and took the baby out of state. After she and the child returned to Colorado, they had a short period of co-habitation. However, the husband moved in with friends temporarily as constant arguing continued. The wife did not approve of this temporary arrangement, so he moved into another friend’s furnished vacant house in town. In early August, there was somewhat of an agreement between the two about property division and money to help the wife move back to California. Since the husband owned the house prior to the marriage and had paid all the expenses and upkeep, the wife was not entitled to any equity in the property. She would be taking her car and personal property she had moved into the house. In addition, she was to take the couches and the baby’s furniture. It seemed that they had come to an agreement as to how to end the marriage financially and were working to resolve the other details. Despite their progress in moving forward, the wife retained an attorney in Delta to represent her. The husband felt forced to retain an attorney on his behalf. His decision was due to the allegations of abuse being made by the wife. Through the proceedings, there were several motions filed involving a myriad of things, mainly money. The wife was allowed to continue to live in the house with their child. The Temporary Orders Hearing was held to establish monthly payments to be made by the husband. The Orders from the hearing were filed in early October 2010. But the magistrate made a mathematical error which resulted in the husband being required to pay more than $1700 monthly to the wife. However, there was no consideration for the mortgage and utilities the husband was paying that allowed the wife and child to continue living in his house. The additional amount being paid was over $2100 per month. It seemed that the error would have been simple to correct. But that was not the case. There was a lengthy filing to correct the error with subsequent responses filed that delayed timely action on the part of the court. It took weeks of delays before the issue was corrected, putting financial pressure on the husband at that time. Although the error was apparent, the wife’s attorney filed for a garnishment of wages against the husband. In addition to the burden of the court’s mistake, the husband’s attorney’s fees had skyrocketed to more than $15,000. Unable to pay all the accumulating bills, the husband made the decision to proceed without counsel and act Pro Se in the case. Also, he accepted a position working out of the area during the week to limit contact with the wife. In the middle of December, the husband took further action to limit contact by requesting a temporary order to stop the harassment and stalking that was happening during his time in town and when he was with his child. A Temporary Order was granted with the hearing for permanent protection to be held January 7, 2011.

SOMETHING TO CONSIDER: What kind of problems can occur when the court hands over control of one party’s property and personal belongings, and even their pets, to someone that has neither personal nor financial accountability? It would be like letting a homeless person move into your house, take control of everything, let them do whatever they want. Do you think the situation would be rife with conflict? Now consider the antagonism that already existed between these people, how much more conflict would there be now? Wouldn’t that allow someone to take advantage of the situation? Do you see the conflict the court has set up in this situation? Now add the math problem and financial pressure created, this was a complete recipe for disaster.

CHAPTER 2 THE CATALYST………

The definition of a catalyst is something that provokes or speeds significant change or action.

OR a person or event that quickly causes change or action.

Alternative terms for “catalyst” include trigger, activator, and provocation.

The catalyst to the events that happened on January 7, 2011, was the Restraining Order Hearing that the husband sought against the wife.

Here is a recap of the events that occurred before the hearing on that date. Starting with the Monday before the hearing, the wife removed property from the husband’s house where she had been living free of rent and utility expensed, to a new residence in town. On Wednesday, she had completely moved out, and her new address was filed with the court. She had boarded the husband’s two dogs with a local veterinarian. The husband, who was working out of town at the time, had no idea this was happening. When he arrived back in town his neighbors told him the house was vacant and abandoned. They also told him that everything was removed. He then contacted law enforcement but was denied access to inspect his property.

JANUARY 7, 2011, RESTRAINING ORDER HEARING (Protection Order)

The husband appeared representing himself, acting Pro Se. The wife appeared, acting through her attorney, to contest the order from being granted permanently.

The following is a summary of the hearing, highlighting several important statements that should have provided a reason for the judge to take some kind of court action to protect both parties that appeared that day. The page and lines from the transcript are noted.

The Husband is allowed to present his case first. The Judge asks for specific acts that are the basis for the protective order. (page 4, lines12, 13, 23, 24)

The Husband responds by telling the judge about the constant contact from the wife threatening legal action. He brings up the incident of April 26, 2009, when his wife, who was 4 months pregnant at the time, pointed her loaded gun at him. He said he reported this to the police. He said, “it was pretty disturbing”. He goes on to provide the details about removing all firearms “for fear of my safety and hers as well”. (page 5, line 1-7, 10-20)

The Judge asks if she threatened him with the firearm. The Husband explained the wife pointed the gun at him with her finger on the trigger.” (page 5, line 21-25)

The Judge asks about other acts of violence. The Husband talks about her stalking and inflaming the situation and provocation through her legal representation. He says he needed protection from his wife because of her past firearm incident. He adds he wants no contact with her because of her irrational, threatening and provoking behavior that she displays around him and during exchanges with their child. (page 6, line 5-10, line 18-19, page 7, lines 9-11, 12-23)

During the questioning by the Wife’s Attorney, the Husband is asked that after the “alleged incident” with the gun, he wasn’t fearful of her pulling a gun. The Husband answered yes (he was fearful), especially during arguments. (page 9, lines 23-24)

The Husband tells the Judge he needs the protective order because since the wife pulled a gun on him, and she is contentious trying to pick fights during the child exchange. (page 17, line 25, page 18, line 1-2)

Wife’s Attorney presents the arguments to dispute the Protection Order. Several witnesses appear on her behalf. After the witnesses testify, the wife takes the stand.

The Husband then had an opportunity to question her. He begins by asking what firearms she owned. She replied “a Glock 22 and an AR 15, adding she carried both when she worked in nuclear security in California. (page 54, line 18- 20)

He then asked her if she was “proficient with the Glock 22. Her response,” yes “, adding the AR 15 as well. (page 54, line 21-23)

The Husband then asked the Wife about the day she pulled the gun on him, if she chambered a round. She interrupted him by saying there was always a round in the chamber. He asks what is the purpose of always keeping a loaded gun in her possession? Her response was that she always carried the loaded gun when she was at home or at work because she was a woman. (page 55, line 22-25, page 56, line 1-2)

Wife’s Attorney begins questioning Wife regarding seeking employment with TSA. Husband objects to the line of questions. Judge understands the relevancy of the questioning about how the protection order could keep wife from being employed with TSA and overruled Husband’s objection. (This is a key point made in the hearing. BUT IT WAS/IS A LIE! THE FACTS: TSA (Transportation Security Agents) are not trained with weapons and do not carry guns. They are not law enforcement. The attorney was misrepresenting the facts to influence the Judge, which he managed to accomplish.

Here is a summary of the Husband’s Remarks in closing:

He states that since there has been no contact since the order was put in place, the situation had de-escalated, helping to move towards resolution. He asked that a temporary no contact order be in place until final orders are given to stop any further contentious behavior and malicious comments from either party. He stated that limiting the exposure of talking back and forth between them keeps the situation at bay. He added that the wife’s attorney has inflamed and antagonized the situation with his comments and has not acted to finalize the proceedings. In fact, he has extended the circumstances. He asks for no communication until there is resolution. (page 62, line 12-21)

The judge denied the husband’s request for a protective order, stating there was no threshold basis shown of an act or threatened act of violence or harassment by stalking. Judge referenced the gun incident in April 2009 stated, “that that wasn’t an act of violence.” (page 63, line 7) Another statement made “None of those are alleged to have any physical threat, but sometimes the excessive number of calls or harassing nature of calls can itself form harassment by stalking.” (page 63, line 10-13) The judge noted, “And there were nasty, immature communications made by (wife). Those were mutual bickering.” (page 63, line 16-17) The judge went on to tell the husband that his action was groundless and awarded the wife’s attorney’s fees to be paid by him.

After the hearing ended, as the husband was going to leave the courtroom, the judge said to him, “You look like a big, strong guy and you can handle it.” People in the galley laughed at the remark.

The testimony presented that seemed to influence the judge’s denial of the husband’s request for no contact relief from his wife was based on the misrepresentation (OR LIE) about TSA. The important testimony provided to the court about the situation with his wife brandishing her gun was discounted by the judge. The reality is that there is no situation involving a gun that should ever be discounted or considered not serious. The court did acknowledge that the situation between the parties was ugly and nasty but failed to act. Therefore, it was negligent for the judge not to take some kind of action to protect both parties. At the end of the hearing, there was no Retraining (Protection) Order in effect against either party.

When two people are involved in a “heated” argument, and one person pulls a gun, how and under what circumstances, is that not considered “threatening”?

CHAPTER 3 WHAT HAPPENED NEXT…..

SHORT REVIEW: People have been given the impression the wife had exclusive control of the house. That is false. The wife was allowed to live in the house with the couple’s child. She had no legal property rights – not in title, nor was she entitled to any equity from the property. As previously stated, earlier in the week, she vacated the premises and was living in another house. Her new address was filed with the court which was actual notice of her vacating the premises.

PROVOCATION. The act of inciting another to do a particular deed. That which arouses, moves, calls forth, causes or occasions. Such conduct or actions on the part of one person towards another as tend to arouse rage, resentment, or fury in the latter against the former, and thereby cause him to do some illegal act against or in relation to the person offering the provocation. (Definition from Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition)

After the hearing, the husband left the town where the courthouse was located and drove to the location of his house, approximately 37 miles. He wanted to check on his house and to see what personal property had been taken. He did not know that the wife’s friend was located as a lookout to his house. After he arrived on scene, the friend texted the wife with the code 911, which meant the husband was at his house. The wife told the friend that was riding with her, “We’re going!” The friend later stated that the wife said, “she had to do something, even if he broke her nose.” The wife called the local police in town and told the officer that the husband was at his house. The husband went through the house and saw that had been emptied. When he came out the back door of the house, his wife was perched on the back fence. She appeared to be photographing him and was yelling that he was “going to go to jail.” The husband ran across the back yard and scaled the back fence. His wife was waiting for him on the other side. There was a violent physical altercation between the couple. When the couple fell to the ground, the husband broke his left hand as he was holding onto her right arm as they fell. The struggle continued, ending with the wife dead.

The husband left the scene. However, later he surrendered to the authorities in Montrose and was put into custody without incident.

THINGS TO CONSIDER

Since the wife was no longer living in husband’s house and had moved all her belongings out of his house, why did she follow him to the house? (Remember the friend saying that the wife said she “had to do something even if he broke her nose”?) Doesn’t that sound like she was going to confront the husband?

Considering what she said in court that day about always carrying her gun and having a round in the chamber, is there any reason to believe she did not go to the location without her loaded Glock? (A magazine full of bullets was found in her car. So here is the question to answer: Would someone have bullets for a gun they didn’t have?)

If the judge had considered the previous gun incident serious and taken some form of action to prevent the wife from pursuing the husband after the hearing, do you think she WOULD BE ALIVE?

CHAPTER 4 THE PROSECUTION OF THE DEFENDANT……

THE ARREST/INVESTIGATON/TRIAL #1

After the husband turned himself into law enforcement, he was incarcerated in the county jail in Delta County. A criminal defense counsel was retained for the husband. He was charged with 2nd degree murder which had a sentence range of incarceration from 4 years to 16 years maximum. However, the newly appointed District Attorney Dan Hotsenpiller eventually added domestic violence charges against the defendant to increase the sentence. (See Section about Domestic Violence.) The legal process continued towards the trial for months. In the investigation, facts revealed potential crimes committed by others involved. To list a few that were revealed were perjury, several conspiracies, and tampering or concealing evidence. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation, county sheriff’s department and the local police were all involved in the investigation. A great deal of “information” was provided by the wife’s attorney to the head of CBI. The agent told the attorney that his information “changed the course of the whole investigation.” It is important to note one piece of evidence that was not allowed into the trial and that was the transcript from the hearing on January 7th. The second most important item missing from any evidence gathered was her gun, the Glock 22. Remember, the gun she said she always carried with her? Apparently, her attorney did not remember her gun since he kept telling the agent from CBI, she did not have one. So somehow, the gun completely vanished off the face of the earth. (No doubt in the hands of aliens. You know, the ones with green skin and big black eyes.)

The District Attorney released a press statement claiming the husband had violated the “restraining order.” His claim allowed him to add the charges of domestic violence. More importantly, his statement gave the impression to the public that the husband was the stalker and had tracked down the wife. This deceptive action was so effective that people still believe that is what happened. Remember, this is the same District Attorney that made the video about the prosecution being responsible for the truth.

The trial was held in the fall of 2012. Based on consultation with his counsel and the report of Karen Fukutaki, a forensic psychiatrist who evaluated him shortly after he was arrested, the defendant pled Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. There were a few things that happened during the first trial that could have been the basis of an appeal. One of the prosecution’s strategies during trial was to present collateral evidence, which is using evidence that has nothing to do with the crime but makes the defendant appear to be a criminal. (The Supreme Court has since ruled using that type of evidence is unconstitutional.) The biggest error of the trial was made by the judge. After all the evidence was presented and both sides had rested their case, the judge ruled that the plea the defendant had entered many months prior to the trial could not be considered by the jury as his defense. It was confusing for the jury to understand. During deliberation, the jury sent a note to the judge for an explanation why they could not consider the plea. The judge responded he did not believe the plea applied to the case. Without being able to consider the plea for a verdict of not guilty, the jury arrived at a guilty verdict of 2nd Degree Murder.

For the sentencing phase of the trial, there was an interview with the defendant by an evaluator that was to make recommendations for a sentence based on other cases, as well as the defendant’s background. At the time of the interview was done, the defendant’s attorney was not present. The information presented in the final report was flawed as it did not contain complete background information. The case used for the sentencing guideline involved a defendant that has been found guilty of murder in two separate and different cases. The defendant’s counsel did not properly review the report to file an objection about the recommendation and the lack of background information. The term the prosecution was seeking was 42 years. It was granted by the judge.

THE APPEAL

Reaction of most people involved with the judicial system concerning the action of the judge throwing out the defendant’s plea was disbelief. Only the defendant can change the plea. The only recourse to overturn the judge’s action was to file an appeal. The Appeals process is long and drawn-out, with less than 2% of all appeals being successful and therefore granted.

A new defense counsel was appointed through the Public Defender’s Office in Denver. At first glance, the new attorney thought it was the defendant that had changed the plea. But after a discussion with the defendant and review of the transcripts, the conclusion was to prepare an appeal on the action of the judge in the trial. The second issue to present in the appeal’s brief was how the court used the forensic psychiatrist’s information to violate the defendant’s privacy rights under HIPPA. (Patient’s privacy rights regarding their medical records.) The process started with an opening brief, then a response from the Attorney General’s Office. There were extensive delays in the process mainly due at the request of the Attorney General’s Office. Finally, after months of waiting, the appellate court notified counsels that it would take up the case. Not only did the court take the case, but requested oral arguments be presented. The oral arguments hearing was scheduled for September 30, 2016. Just thirty days later, on October 30, the court issued their Opinion. Their decision reversed the conviction, finding the judge’s action was an irreversible error. The court noted the defendant’s privacy rights were violated but did not take any further action. On December 20, 2016, the court issued the mandate and remanded the case to Delta County for a new trial which was to be held within 6 months.

The Appeals process took 3 ½ years. District Attorney Dan Hotsenpiller was present for the oral arguments to the Appeals Court. He had a front row seat to see both sides being presented. Anyone watching could see that the counsel for the defendant had the strongest argument. A comment was made after the DA saw the oral arguments; he had to be sad. It was very clear from the hearing that the verdict would be reversed. However, the DA had used the 3 ½ years wisely to plan how he would effectively prosecute the next trial. He had some “tricks” up his sleeve and he was prepared.

THE SECOND TRIAL

By the time the Mandate was published on December 20, 2016, District Attorney Hotsenpiller had started the first phase of his prosecution announcing that he would be seeking a first-degree murder charge in the new trial. Legal authorities deemed this action as punishment towards any defendant who was successful in the his appeal. The second action he decided to take was to increase the bond, which was $250,000 previously, to $750,000. His actions were front page news. He explained to the press how very complicated this case was, but it would still require new evidence to prove 1st degree murder. The bond amount was allowed but there was never any evidence presented for the new charge he was seeking. As to why the DA took these actions, the theory offered here was to present a “more guilty” appearance of the defendant to the public.

While the DA had a new plan for the upcoming trial, the defendant also had a plan moving forward. He had read the appeal briefs as well as the opinion of the Appeals Court. This provided him with important insight that helped him understand what had to be changed for the next trial. The most important of which was his plea.

The proceedings started on January 6, 2017, with both the District Attorney and the newly appointed defense counsel present. The judge was appointed as a district judge in 2015. His appointment came after he had relocated years earlier from the East coast and had been in partnership with a couple of local attorneys, one of which was the attorney for the defendant’s deceased wife. Not present for the hearing was the defendant. The parties discussed how they intended to proceed with the new trial. There was a question about the defendant relinquishing his right to a speedy trial. The court was not sure it could accommodate the requirement for the trial to be held within 6 months. The judge asked about the defendant’s plea. Despite the fact there had been contact with the defendant, counsel indicated that it would probably be the same as the last trial.

For the next hearing held in February, the defense counsel met with the defendant shortly before the hearing. The bond was set for $750,000 with no objection made by the defense counsel. In the months to follow, there were a few problems. Some of those issues were 2000 pages of missing evidence and motions that were not filed within the set dates. There was conflict between the defense counsel and the defendant about the plea he intended to enter. The requirement for the court to conduct the trial within 6 months was also an issue. At the hearing in May, the defendant fired his counsel due to their ongoing conflict. To comply with the defendant’s request for new counsel, a special hearing was to be held, and it occurred immediately. Before adjourning to accommodate the special hearing, the hearing procedure to be followed was outlined for the court. The special hearing was an hour long and allowed for none of the previously outlined procedures. The defendant’s request was denied. Upon the original hearing going into session, the defendant reasserted firing of his counsel. No further action was taken and the process continued. One of the most memorable moments occurred during a hearing where the district attorney attempted to explain what expert testimony is or is not. It reminded him about the movie, “My Cousin Vinny”. He described the scene discussing skid marks. Recalling from the movie how the girlfriend, who was not an expert, explained the difference between two vehicles, one with the ability to leave skid marks, and other not able to leave marks. Then he said he may have the cars wrong. The judge seemed to find this amusing. However, the movie review the DA was making seemed inappropriate in a hearing for a murder trial.

Finally, the trial was held starting in February and ending in March. The defense was less than standard by most accounts. Neither party read nor understood what the Appeals Court noted about the defendant’s rights pertaining to his privacy. There was a lot of confusion about whether certain testimony by the state expert was or was not allowed in courts. Even the judge was confused. Although there was ample opportunity for objections about how the prosecution and the judge handled the situation, there was no objection made which would have created the basis for an appeal. In the last stage of the trial as the district attorney was giving the closing remarks to the jury prior to their deliberation, he made several statements. The first being, that the defendant entered the house through a dog door. (Anyone looking at the defendant could be able to figure out that a 230 lb. man could only go through a “dog door” IF he was raising a miniature horse in the backyard. Since it was his house, do you think he had keys?) The second statement the DA made was that the defendant hid the jacket that he was seen wearing on 1/7/11. After the defendant pointed out the photo of the jacket the defense team objected to the DA. A photo of the jacket showed that it had been entered into evidence. That was the one objection that was used for the appeal citing prosecutorial misconduct. The result of the trial was the same.

What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over again, expecting a different result. This trial was pure insanity.

SECOND APPEAL/RECONSIDERATION OF SENTENCE

After the trial, another appeal attorney was appointed. She reviewed all the case information and concluded that the second trial was a bigger mess than the first. She could not understand why the defendant had not entered a plea of self-defense. That question can only be answered by the defendant’s attorneys, the first one and the second one. This attorney believed that ineffective assistance of counsel or Rule 35 (c) could be successful and the best option for the defendant going forward. She was appointed to file an appeal based on what happened at trial, which she did. An appeal for the prosecutorial misconduct of the district attorney prior to the jury entering deliberation was denied by the Appeals Court.

The next action she filed was Rule 35 (b), Reconsideration of Sentence. Due to the excessive length of the sentence, this seemed to be the most expedient action to take on behalf of the defendant and the court. This action had to be filed in Delta County and was reviewed by the same judge that presided over the last trial. The reconsideration was denied.

RULE 35 (C), INEFFECTIVE ASSISSTANCE OF COUNSEL

On August 22, 2022, the defendant, acting Pro Se, filed a Rule 35(c). This motion is a post-conviction proceeding that allows a defendant to challenge their conviction or sentence based on constitutional violations, most commonly ineffective assistance of counsel. Under the Sixth Amendment, this refers to legal representation that falls below an objective standard of reasonableness, depriving the defendant of a fair trial. The judge assigned to preside over this motion was the same judge that presided over the trial and the reconsideration of sentence motion. In November 2022, the judge ruled that an attorney needed to be appointed to represent the defendant. An Entry of Appearance by the appointed attorney was filed in November. However, the attorney failed to notify the defendant of his entry. After Christmas, the attorney went to the prison to meet the defendant, unannounced and unprepared. The attorney claimed he had worked with post-conviction matters. Online he advertised working in several areas of law including personal injury, immigration, DUI, traffic tickets and criminal matters. There was no mention of post-conviction experience. Given his graduating from law school in 2016, and being a sole attorney in practice, it is difficult to believe he had the experience that would be required for this type of post-conviction case. Over the course of three years, hardly any advancement was made by counsel. The one filing he submitted on behalf of the defendant was incorrect and not outlined as agreed by the defendant. Over the course of time, there were three special hearings about the defendant’s counsel. Finally, the attorney filed a motion to withdraw from the case stating an ethical conflict. Ultimately, he was released from the case in May 2025. Since then, the defendant has had no counsel. Over the course of the past three + years, there were several status hearings held where the defendant was not present. A special counsel from the Attorney General’s office was appointed to assist the District Attorney’s office in District 7. This new counsel joined the AG counselor who was already assisting the DA. In October of 2025, the District Attorney of District 7 resigned from office. In early December, the interim District Attorney replacing the former DA, filed a response citing the Murder One charge against the defendant. After the defendant’s attorney was released, the defendant had no other choice than to file responses, as well as other motions, in order to preserve his appellate rights. There have been no rulings or action taken on any of the motions filed since that time. Most importantly there has been no forward progress or disposition on the motion Rule 35 (c) filed on August 22, 2022. The court has acted negligently and unreasonably in delaying any resolution of this motion. The statute regarding Rule 35 (c) Motion requires disposition within a 3-year period.

SHORT REVIEW OF THE COST OF ACTIONS:

Listed below are estimates of costs for the prosecution of this case so far. The foundation of those costs is based on actual costs, estimated costs from different sources and recent articles discussing current costs of incarceration.

Trial #1 – Estimated cost of $125,000 - a three-week felony trial, can easily exceed $30,000 to over $100,000. This was at the higher end of the scale due to expert specialized witness fees and travel costs, intense research and pre-trial motions.

Appeal to Supreme Court – Minimum of $30,000. Transcript fees can cost a minimum of $5,000

Trial #2 – Estimated cost of $125,000 for a three-week felony trial.

Appeal to Supreme Court - $10,000 minimum

Rule 35 (b) – Appointed Counsel fee – estimate $12,000

Rule 35 (c) – Appointed Counsel fee – estimate $12,000

Cost of incarceration for defendant to date $1,140,000

TOTAL COST: $1,424,000

The cost for prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, as well as incompetence, is high. In this case, there are two court actions that can be viewed as the cause of this situation; a magistrate that could not perform basic math and a judge that could have acted to protect both parties and didn’t. The price paid by the public is huge and is ongoing. The monetary cost doesn’t take into consideration the real cost on those who have suffered the trauma and grief of the situation. There is no amount of money that can ever make up for what those individuals have suffered because of this tragedy.

District Attorney Dan Hotsenpiller left office in January 2021. He became a part-time assistant director at Technical College of the Rockies, formerly known as the Delta-Montrose Vocational Technical (Vo-Tech) School. Before leaving the office, he gave a speech outlining the struggles and triumphs of his time in office. He mentioned this case and another murder case. The cases were similar since both held two trials. Both trials in the other case mentioned ended with a hung jury. (See NBC, “48 Hours Secret of Cottonweed Creek”, May 31, 2014) This Delta County case not has only had two trials, but there have been a number of actions filed involving this court. There is one action pending that could possibly result in another trial. One can only wonder if Mr. Hotsenpillar realized that the repercussions of his actions in this case would outlast his time in office?

CHAPTER 5 THE KIDNAPPING

What is kidnapping? The overview of that term is the unlawful seizure, confinement and taking away of a person by force, threat, or fraud, usually to hold them for ransom, as a hostage, or to commit another crime. Key elements of kidnapping are:

Asportation (movement): Moving the victim from one place to another, sometimes required to be a “substantial” distance.

Confinement: Holding the victim against their will in a concealed place.

Force or fear: Using physical force, threats, or fraud to take the victim.

Lack of Consent: The victim does not agree with the movement or detention.

Common Purposes and Types: Parental/Custodial Kidnapping: A non-custodial parent unlawfully takes a child away from the custodial parent.

Kidnapping involving a child is the unlawful taking, enticing, detaining, or concealing of a minor (under 18) from their legal guardians. Symptoms and related terms: Child Theft Unauthorized removal of a child.

After the husband went into custody of law enforcement, he asked about the care and location of his young child. No one would give him or his family any information. The child was not present during the altercation nor was there any history of his abuse of the child. Therefore, why wouldn’t those in charge provide him with details about the child who was just beginning to say words but too young to speak?

To answer the question, all the pieces of the puzzle as to what was happening behind the scenes will be put together.

News travels fast in a small community such as Delta County. It was not long before about what happened in the small mountain town was buzzing through the courthouse. Imagine the reaction of the attorney and judge involved in the hearing that morning. It must have been an “Oh S**t!!” moment, only to be followed with a big dose of Maalox. Both jumped into action. It may have been understandable that this attorney requested and obtained a protection order for himself, his staff and family, due to the role he played in attacking the husband over the past months. In fact, he admitted in his CBI interview that days before the hearing on 1/7, he met with a psychologist to discuss his concerns about the behavior of the husband. He was concerned that he was at risk. However, in preparing the order against the husband, this attorney included several people, who played a role in stalking and harassing the husband, as well as the couple’s young child. There are questions about how the order was created and its legality since there no hearing was held. Both officials from the hearing that morning were involved. The order was created by the same officials that acted to deny a protection order for the husband and there was a conflict of interest. The reality of the situation was it was highly unlikely, even impossible, that anyone was at risk of harm. The husband was in custody therefore making this order unnecessary. What was accomplished is the first step in taking the child from the state and ignoring the parental rights of the father.

Less than 48 hours after the event, a newspaper article appeared stating that the child was with “family”. Most of the wife’s family was in California. A couple of members were in other states. But no family members were close to the location in Colorado. It seemed highly unlikely that the child was with family so quickly. The father was the only person with the legal rights to the child and he was in Delta. Why didn’t anyone ask him about what care and who could take care of his child? There were plenty of people that knew this father as caring and loving towards his child. There was NO PROOF to assume otherwise. (Parental rights: The sum total of the rights of the parents/parents in and to the child as well as the rights of the child in and to the parent/parents.)

Standard procedure in a situation such as this is for Social Services and Child Protective Services to take custody of the child, assign a case number and hold a hearing to decide proper placement. In this case none of that happened. Further, no one from either service contacted the father to ask him about his child’s care. That seemed like the logical thing to do given that he was the only person with legal authority to make those decisions. There was no legal action taken by the authorities to designate who could take guardianship and care for the child. However, nobody would provide information about his child, despite his repeated inquiries. What was the purpose of keeping the information secret? Ultimately the child was taken out of state without any investigation being carried out into the living situation she was taken to, nor was there any kind of system, even a case number, in place for social services to monitor her well-being after the move. Bottom line, social services abdicated their responsibilities.

There was no verification of the information about the child’s location being with family. It seemed impossible for any family to have taken the child from their out-of-state locations. Appearing online and in the news articles, was a website displaying a picture of the child, requesting money for the child’s care. In other words, it was a panhandling scheme. After some research, it was revealed that the domain for this site was obtained on September 6, 2010, by the wife’s sister, which is four months prior to the events on 1/7/2011. The question to be asked was how quickly this site was put online and knowing the date of acquisition of the domain name, was there some kind of conspiracy? Secondly, why would someone take a child and then start asking for other people’s money to care for the child? The site was a display of financial inability towards the child which should have been checked out before the child was taken from Colorado. Financial details regarding the bank account used for the website were finally revealed after a year and a half, indicating that around $40,000 was in the account. There had been withdrawals over the past months that were obviously not for the benefit of the child. Since that time no one has ever released the full amount of money that was collected or if the money is still there for the child. There has been no monitoring of the account, its activity or use.

It is worth noting that almost immediately after the child was taken to California, the couple that ultimately took possession filed for adoption. The California court ruled that the child was a resident of Colorado and the jurisdiction was with that court, not California,

The person that took the child to California was the deceased wife’s attorney and his wife. The same attorney that created a restraining order against the father, listing his minor child. This is the same attorney that objected to the husband’s request for the protection order. A number of people knew about his trip to California. However, it was his wife that boldly proclaimed that they were the ones responsible for taking this child to California.

Colorado kidnapping laws, primarily under C.R.S. ss 18-3-301-305, define kidnapping as knowingly seizing, detaining, or moving a person without consent or legal justification.

Federal kidnapping laws, primarily governed by 18 U.S.C. ss 1201, makes it a felony to unlawfully seize, confine, or abduct a person across state or foreign borders, or involving federal property/officials.

NOTE: THERE IS NOT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE CRIME OF KIDNAPPING.

Review of what happened with the child.

1 The location of the minor child was concealed from the parent with parental rights to the child.

2 Nobody involved with secreting the child across state lines had any legal authority to do so.

3 Social Services failed to perform their state statute defined duties to ensure the safety and well-being of the child. Nor did the agency take action to assign a case number to follow up on the possession, location or care of the child who was a resident of the state of Colorado.

4 Money seems to have been a motivating factor in acquiring the child and was a factor in the kidnapping showing premeditation.

The case sets a very dangerous precedent for how situations like this one are handled. There was no proper authority given for the taking of and caring for the child PRIOR TO REMOVING THE CHILD OUT OF STATE. There should have been a hearing held by the court to decide guardianship. What was accomplished by the attorney and judge in their creation of the order to deny the father’s parental rights? The action was legally questionable. The father had the right and should have been involved with decisions with his child. The simplest way to decide guardianship was to talk to the father and get his consent and permission for placement of his child. There is no justifiable excuse why either action was not taken. The system’s failure to act on that option left the child at risk. This should never be the precedent moving forward regardless of whose child or children are involved.

CHAPTER 6 Domestic Violence

What is considered domestic violence? The term is often used, but few really understand what it is.

Domestic violence is the mistreatment of one family member or intimate partner by another. The abuse can be physical, sexual, verbal, emotional or psychological.

The CDC defines domestic violence as “physical violence, sexual violence, stalking and psychological aggression (including coercive acts) by a current or former intimate partner.

Emotional abuse is a pattern of behavior used to control, demean, or intimate, often leaving the victim feeling anxious, isolated, and diminished. Key signs include constant criticism, gaslighting (making a person doubt reality), isolation from loved ones, and extreme jealousy. These behaviors are designed to damage self-esteem and create dependency on the abuser. (Ultimately it is about the abuser having complete control over the victim.)

There can be no denial that women and children have been subjected to domestic violence. Both are vulnerable given their lack of size and strength. Naturally they could be easily victimized. However, research of the past years, show that domestic violence exists against males. Statistics show that 34% to as high as 50% of domestic violence is being perpetrated on men. The result can be physical injury and, in some cases, death. The difficulty in obtaining more accurate statistics about domestic violence towards men is since men are often reluctant to report incidences of violence to law enforcement. As such was in this case, judges are inclined not to recognize the problem. After all, “you look like a big strong guy, and you can handle it.”

Colorado correspondence

If you or anyone you know has additional information about corruption or coercion in Colorado or anywhere else, we would be interested in further information. You can contact us through the comments on this article or using the direct messages system.

Please support my work

Right now I am raising several hundred dollars so I can pay the rent on my book storage in Ohio in full. I was unable to get together enough to pay on time, so a late fee has been added. Right now I am raising at least a thousand dollars to get started going to Ohio to retrieve my things in storage and move them to Illinois, where a friend has agreed to store them for me for free.

Things have been very difficult for me for several years, so you may rely on me for advice on how to get through difficulties. I am looking for work, investors, customers, and help. The Secure Perimeter Institute continues to offer classes on communications privacy and data security.

I refuse to have anything to do with Stripe and its policies. They are very bad. So if you would like to support my work, trying to “upgrade to paid” won’t happen. Pledging is pointless because I will never turn on payments.

If you want to support my work please get in touch through the comments or direct messages unless we’re already in touch by encrypted email or messaging or some other means. I am currently able to receive payments by Zelle Quickpay, by CashApp, by BTC, ETH, or ICP crypto currencies, and in some other ways.

It has been brought to my attention that there briefly existed a substack profile calling itself 15news which is obviously using the sans serif problem of the numeral 1 being confused with the lowercase letter l in casual reading. Please do be careful about direct messages and double check whether you are receiving a message from some “Jim Davidson” who has stolen my name, banner image, and profile pic and is deceptively calling itself 15news. Yes, of course, I have reported this matter to Substack through their reporting system. (To their credit it appears that account is currently gone.) Also be aware that I will never send you BTC or other crypto addresses in direct messages and the same for other payment info. So anyone sending you a BTC address in direct messages isn’t me.

In California some friends of several years are raising money for their aerospace venture. In Oregon some friends are raising money for their Freedom Renaissance film studio. In Georgia a friend provides accounting services to investment funds. I’m happy to put you in touch with any or all of these outfits.

If you are not in a position to contribute money or to invest money, that’s cool. You can help by commenting on this article, or by restacking it, or by restacking it with a comment and tagging one or two other Substack writers, or by hitting that like button. Everything you do that improves the standing for this article in the algorithm helps make things here in the algorithm ghetto a little brighter.

Thank you for all the help you choose to provide.

---

That’s all I’ve got for today. Come back next time when I have something new. Or old.