Sound Off!

Us, Coloradoans need to quit being lazy and get rid of the money hungry people who don’t get a damn about us people, our rights.

There is a reason there is a voting system. They need to LISTEN to the voter!!

Judges in Pueblo need to be removed. Especially Judge Crockenberg, Judge Rayes, and Judge Mayes. Many judges in colorado come out of the law firm of Peterson and Fonda. The politics is all criminal with these men. We can’t get a fair trial when these judges are criminally linked to protect their friends. Judge Crockenberg refused to allow to me discovery in a rape case and Judge Rayes backed him up, as did the appeals and supreme court. The doctor had been molesting and raping women for years and women were afraid to stand up. He is a registered sex molester now and everyone who stood up to him is afraid. Judges don’t back up women. Clear the court in Denver. Then clear the court in Pueblo.

The biggest problem I have in my business is the fact that there is no penalty for
people who don’t pay or don’t perform. People can do what they want because
the worst they have to do is pay what they owe or perfomr what they were supposed to in the first place.

The courts have no empathy for this and have treated me as a plaintiff as if I were the criminal. Judges are asleep on the bench with their eyes open. They are more respondent to those who kiss their butts then findings of fact or rules of law.
Burden of proof is set so high that if you don’t have every “I” dotted and “T” crossed
you lose automatically, regardless of the justice.

This is no secret and many people take advantage of these facts and that you don’t want to go to court and will try and beat you up or where you down so that some of the biggest costs never see a court room in terms of settling out or eating losses
in order to avoid litigation.

The result is that the bad guys hold the cards in our system of “justice”.
Most judges I have encountered are mostly arrogant and/or apathetic, unknowledgable, havetheir own agenda etc.

I think that the majority of people keep retaining judges because they don’t have much first hand experience in a courtroom ( such as the self employed who must chase money) . They believe the brainwash about “liberty and justice for all”.
Even though that is an ideal, and life is never that perfect, the system is out of control. It’s up to the people to maintain “liberty and justice” by keeping after the numerous bad judges and magistrates.

To accomplish this vote “no” on all judges and shake up the whole system. Even if they are “good” judges they should be “team players” and putting peer pressure on their colleagues. Just vote “no” on all judges unless you know the judge is good.

Check out the new article about Denver probate court judge C. Jean Stewart in today’s Denver Post and VOTE NO on her retention: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16433519
Go to http://www.removecjeanstewart.com/ for more information.

Thanks for what you folks are doing. Many people contributing to the conversations in Colorado talk radio are not aware of the analysis and conclusions of CTBC. Although they are expressing many of the frustrations addressed in the CTBC literature, they are stating that they will vote no to all judges. I am surprised that even hosts (KOA) that interviewed CTBC earlier in the campaign have not brought the organization up in a response. I appreciate the fact that you are being outspent in this campaign, but it is just as important to retain good, Constitutionally mindful judges as it is to throw out the bad ones. This may work out fine in theory since they may put the no votes of Clear the Bench over the top, but in this unique election season, the number of no votes out of frustration with the status-quo could dangerously imperil a good judge. I just want to say your message is NOT getting out there as effectively as it could be, even if only to have Clear the Bench representatives contact these hosts, or even call in to the shows in this all-critical last few hours before the election.

What is needed is not just a vote yes or no, but rather a Constitutional Amendment that would force ALL Judges to have to seek election and/or re-election to the Bench with an Opponent. Thereby giving WE THE PEOPLE a true choice. This Nation is a Constitutional Republic, and it is time WE THE PEOPLE took back our rights to include selecting who will be our Judges, not have them choosen by their fellow members of the legal profession who will then in turn handle cases before them.

Clear the Bench Colorado, should be advocating an Amendment to the State Constitution that gives the Citizens of Colorado a real choice, and that is simply electing the people we want as judges, or continue under a Judicial Dictatorship.

I did forget to ask one question of your readers: has anyone had any experience with either Judge Raymond Satter or City Atty Peter Frigo? I would love to hear about it whether it be fair or unfair treatment by either or both. Thank you.

I also had a terrible experience with the Colorado courts and John Gleason.

I lived on Princeton Ave in Steamboat Springs across from a convicted drug dealer who was president of the city council.
http://www.exploresteamboat.com/news/2009/sep/30/candidates_divided_financing_issue/

I was criminally prosecuted because I complained that the Bennetts built extra buildings that violated the zoning. City and county officials tried to pass off a detached two story 2000 sq foot plus building with heating and plumbing that parked only two vehicles as a two car attached garage. They allowed a civilian Jane Bennett to sign a police summons and complaint that can only be signed by a police officer who actually witnesses a crime in progress. There was no crime in progress and she wasn’t a police officer. The police report shows only that I complained about zoning violations while I was standing on the street in front of my home and she was with 4 men at a distance. There was no warrant, no probable cause hearing, and no prosecutor’s signature. Jane Bennett claimed under oath that I went on her property and scared her construction workers but their testimony under oath was that they only saw me on my own property or coming and going and that they weren’t scared of me. The prosecutor violated state law by dismissing the prosecution without an oral hearing, which I requested. Then she issued a public statement that Jane Bennett was my victim but a trial was too expensive. The prosecutors’ husband was a real estate speculator and Bennett helped him get a permit for a new ski area which he tried to sell in the WSJ classified for $20 million, a big profit.

The Routt County judge James Garrecht issued a restraining order on me without a statutory basis. He claimed in court that he was doing it because there was a pending criminal prosecution and that it would go away when the criminal prosecution ended but then he refused to take it away. Jane Bennett followed me around town asking the police to arrest me whenever she could get near me. She filed a police report saying that she followed me trying to take my picture to prove I was near her and therefore I should be arrested. Her lawyer Randall Klauzer agreed with Judge Garrecht that I molested Jane Bennett even though she stated under penalty of perjury that there was no offensive touching, I hadn’t been following her around town, and it had been years since I had called her.

I was also forced to give up my rights to Princeton Ave, as an adjoining property owner, and to sell the Bennetts’ land for $1 under threat of criminal prosecution in municipal court, with the judge reporting to the city council, because my employee trimmed without a trimming permit, even though the city never ever issued a trimming permit to anyone and didn’t have a trimming permit form. The assistant city attorney sent threatening letters.

I complained to OARC about these events and they thought the lawyers acted perfectly fine.

I am not sure where you’re getting your info, but good topic. I needs to spend some time learning more or understanding more. Thanks for great info I was looking for this info for my mission.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (in this case liberal judges).
Thomas Jefferson

You could certainly see your expertise within the work you write. The sector hopes for even more passionate writers such as you who are not afraid to say how they believe. All the time go after your heart.

I represent my father, A. C. R., of which was sued in Probate Court for the imposition of a Constructive Trust by his three nieces over some vague and unidentifiable issues dating back almost 50 years. The original issues were related to a business relationship between A. C. R. and his sister, Mary. The Petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The three nieces re-filed the same facts and information claiming an Express Trust. (Case number 2010PR660) There was a trial to the court which issued findings of fact and conclusions of law that there was no evidence of an Express Trust whereby the case was dismissed. We filed a motion for attorneys fees, of which was denied without findings and no order was issued on the Bill of Costs. This frivolous, groundless and vexatious case and the rightful award of resultant attorney’s fees as per CRS 13-17-101, are under appeal due to the error of the court and the abuse of the discretion of the court.

Since the above actions, the three nieces have once again repackaged the exact same facts and information, opened their mother’s estate of Mary, and have re-filed their suit against A. C. R. The issue went before the court for oral arguments and was once again dismissed for the third time without the court awarding attorneys fees. Now the sisters are appealing the courts decision and we have had to defend ourselves once again by cross filing an appeal of our own for our attorneys fees.

We have spent over $ 50,000.00 defending ourselves, not to mention the wasted time and expense of the court system. This gross dereliction of the judges duty to follow the laws of the State of Colorado are the root cause of it all.

The problem with all of this is that the Legislature of the State of Colorado has put into effect sufficient laws to deter this type of abuse of the legal system. The judges are even instructed to ‘liberally construe the provisions of the article.’ The judges must uphold the laws of the State and must be held accountable to do so. I am in hopes that somehow, someway, there is a ‘watchdog’ organization that has some authority to shine a ‘light’ on this abuse and get the judges to act accordingly to the law. It seems as though there is a ‘good-ole-boys’ club amongst the judges and the lawyers whereby the judges are hesitant to award attorneys fees, no matter how obvious it is that a case is frivolous, groundless and vexatious because they are all buddies and the judges remember when they were just attorneys??

What else can I do to get some justice here or to ‘shine a light’ on this travesty? I have ‘told my story’ on the Colorado Civil Justice League as well.

Help!! Who is watching the judges?
K. R.

Dear Sirs, or madam;
What Colorado Constitution, Sorry, no such document, it was suspended, many years ago, back in 1918, I believe, Whan Colorado Accepted from the U.S. Government, Thw War Powers Acts of 1917, Thats why Colorado is a police state, in a state of national Emergency, So was the U.S. Constitution, in March the 9th, 1933, Please read your history, It helps. Need more information from some one on Colorado Judges being freemason and illumniati, Thanks;
Lawrence

This may not be the right place for this request, I am sorry, But, need help;

Does your blog have a contact page?
I’m having a tough time locating it but, I’d like to shoot you an E-mail.
I’ve got some ideas for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great site and I look forward to seeing it expand over time.

I AM NOT A RESIDENT, BUT MY INVOLVEMENT OVER THE PAST YEAR AND ONE HALF STUDING THE JUDICIAL PROCESS SHOWS ME THAT COLORADO IS THE MOST CORRUPT STATE I HAVE EVER ENCOUNTERED. I MADE A COMMENT REGARDING A PETITION OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO CONVERT THE RULE 120 TO THE RULE 105 ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS. IT WAS SUMMARILY DENIED WITHOUT COMMENT.

I tried to help a colorado resident who simply to convert a rule 120 to a rule 105 on constitutional grounds in an original proceeding in mandamus in the Supreme Court of Colorado. They summarily denied it without comment. This is the petition:

EMERGENCY VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE,
PROHIBITION OR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF
AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MICHAEL L. BENDER AND THE HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO.
Petitioner Lisa Kay Brumfiel petitions this court for a writ of mandamus ordering the Honorable J Mark Hannen in the Rule 120 Foreclosure to convert to a Rule 105 foreclosure on constitutional grounds. There is no right to appeal from a Rule 120 foreclosure and no adequate remedy at law. Mandamus relief is appropriate when the person seeking such relief can show a duty owed to him by the government official to whom the writ is directed that is ministerial, clearly defined and peremptory. Scarafiotti v. Shea, 456 F.2d 1052 (10th Cir. 1972); Prairie Band of Pottawatomie Tribe of Indians v. Udall, 355 F.2d 364 (10th Cir. 1966). The Rule 120 is procedurally defective under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution in that it dispenses with the burden of proof required under the 14th Amendment (no doc foreclosure); and a predeprivation issue before a fair hearing can be adjudicated. The 14th Amendment Section 1 commands that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This is a duty owed to Lisa Kay Brumfiel by the State of Colorado and its judicial officers, Public Trustees, and by Reagan Larkin, attorney through her oath before the Colorado State Bar to support the Constitution of the United States and “employ such means as are consistent with truth and honor”.
Petitioner’s home is being foreclosed by a pretender lender (U.S. Bank) through a Rule 120 hearing [case no. 2011CV204001] whose standing to foreclose is an issue of fact that is not allowed to be determined in such summary proceedings. Petitioner Lisa Kay Brumfiel would be subjected to a predeprivation before the separate allowable fair action can be adjudicated (Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67) and without any proof that US BANK is the real party in interest with standing to foreclose thus violating the standard of proof required under the 14th Amendment as commanded by Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, (1979) which held:
“[T]he function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process Clause and in the realm of fact finding, is to ‘instruct the fact finder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.”

The arguments below more fully articulate petitioner’s constitutional claims.
ISSUES PRESENTED
Issue 1: Is a homeowners Property a Protected interest under the
14th Amendment requiring proof by clear and convincing
evidence that the lender is the real party in interest with
standing to foreclose?

Issue 2: In a Rule 120 Foreclosure is an Order Authorizing Sale
Of a homeowners property which triggers a Public Trustee
Deed and wrests Title; and a failure to post a bond which
Triggers eviction pending a separate fair action considered
a predeprivation under the 14th Amendment?

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Lisa Kay Brumfiel signed a promissory note and Deed of Trust dated on 11/14/2006, and recorded November 26th, 2006 at Reception No. B6166228 in the records of the County of Arapahoe, Colorado with First Franklin a division of National City Bank. The Trust Deed states in part that “”MERS” is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. Mers is a separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender, and Lender’s successors and assigns, MERS is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument. MERS is organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and has an address and telephone number of P.O. Box 2026, tel. (888) 679-MERS.”
Merrill Lynch purchased First Franklin in 09/2006.
On March 8th, 2008 Merrill Lynch shuttered First Franklin (EXHIBIT A) on 10/01/2010 BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP; a Bank of America company took over servicing of the loan and on 07/1/ 2011 Bank of America and N.A. proclaimed the rights to service this loan. On Oct 4th, 2011 MERS acting as agent (for an unidentified principal) assigned the mortgage and note to U.S. Bank. The assignment was made and notarized in Ventura County, California. (EXHIBIT B)
On 08/03/2011 Castle Stawiarski, LLC. began foreclosure proceedings by sending a Fair Debt Collection notice to Lisa Brumfiel prompted by the default in mortgage payments. NED papers were filed on 09/09/2011.
On 10/28/2011 Lisa Brumfiel received notice of a Rule 120 hearing set for 10/21/2011.
On 10/15/2011 Lisa Brumfiel filed an answer to the Rule 120 hearing. The Rule 120 hearing was reset for January 3rd, 2011.
Lisa Brumfiel filed for Bankruptcy prior to the January 3rd Rule 120 hearing and US Bank deferred foreclosure until the Chapter 7 bankruptcy ended.
On August 23rd,2012 US BANK is filed a motion to re-open the Rule 120 foreclosure, case no. 2011CV204001] which was granted and set for October 22, 2012 at 10 a.m. (Exhibit C)
This mortgage was created in November of 2006 with First Franklin with MERS as nominee. In December 2006, First Franklin was sold to Merrill Lynch through mortgage loan asset-backed certificates series 2007-FFI. Merrill Lynch closed First Franklin in March of 2008 and was taken over by Bank of America in April of 2007. In 2011 U.S. Bank, N.A. attempted to foreclose on Lisa Brumfiel through the firm Castle Stawiarski, LLC.
LAW AND ARGUMENT
Standard of Review
Construction of a statute presents an issue of statutory interpretation, which is reviewed de novo. Colorado Water Conservation Bd. V Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy Dist., 109 P.3d 585, 593 (Colo. 2005)
THE RULE 120 IS AN AFFRONT TO FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND A VIOLATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
Section 1. *** No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Allowing the Rule 120 to proceed is enforcing a law made by the Colorado legislature that abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of Colorado and deprives its citizens of due process of law and also the equal protection of the law. In Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill, 281 U.S. 673, 680 (1930), the Court, through Mr. Justice Brandeis, stated:
The federal guaranty of due process extends to state action through its judicial as well as through its legislative, executive or administrative branch of government.
In 2006 The Colorado Legislature passed HB-1387 amending portions of 38-38-100.3 (10) and 38-38-100.3 (11), (14), and (19), of the Colorado Revised Statutes. The new subsections read in relevant part:
SECTION 2. 38-38-101 (1), (4) (g), (4) (j), (6), (9), and (10),
Colorado Revised Statutes, are amended, and the said 38-38-101 (4) is
further amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW PARAGRAPH, to read:

38-38-101. Holder of evidence of debt may elect to foreclose.
(1) Documents required. Whenever a holder of an evidence of debt
declares a violation of a covenant of a deed of trust and elects to publish all
or a portion of the property therein described for sale, the holder or the
attorney for the holder shall file the following with the public trustee of the
county where the property is located:

***or (II) A copy of the evidence of debt and a certification signed and properly acknowledged by a holder of an evidence of debt acting for itself or as agent, nominee, or trustee under subsection (2) of this section or a statement signed by the attorney for such holder, citing the paragraph of section 38-38-100.3 (20) under which the holder claims to be a qualified holder and certifying or stating that the copy of the evidence of debt is true and correct and that the use of the copy is subject to the conditions described in paragraph (a) of subsection (2)

Colorado Revised Statutes are amended and the said 38-38-100.3 (20) (j) ET seq is further amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW PARAGRAPH, to read:
(2) Foreclosure by qualified holder without original evidence of
debt, original or certified copy of deed of trust, or proper indorsement.

a. A QUALIFIED HOLDER, WHETHER ACTING FOR ITSELF OR AS AGENT, NOMINEE, OR TRUSTEE UNDER SECTION 38-38-100.3 (20) (j), THAT ELECTS TO FORECLOSE WITHOUT THE ORIGINAL EVIDENCE OF DEBT PURSUANT TO SUBPARAGRAPH (II) OF PARAGRAPH (b) OF SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION, OR WITHOUT THE ORIGINAL RECORDED DEED OF TRUST OR A CERTIFIED COPY THEREOF PURSUANT TO SUBPARAGRAPH (II) OF PARAGRAPH (c) OF SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION, OR WITHOUT THE PROPER INDORSEMENT OR ASSIGNMENT OF AN EVIDENCE OF DEBT UNDER PARAGRAPH (b) OF SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION SHALL, BY OPERATION OF LAW, BE DEEMED TO HAVE AGREED TO INDEMNIFY AND DEFEND ANY PERSON LIABLE FOR REPAYMENT OF ANY PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL EVIDENCE OF DEBT IN THE EVENT THAT THE ORIGINAL EVIDENCE OF DEBT IS PRESENTED FOR PAYMENT***

In amending this statute, the Colorado legislature memorialized a procedure which is procedurally defective under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment because it “created a greater risk of error inherent in the truth-finding process as applied to the generality of cases”. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S.319, 344 A homeowner has a fundamental property interest protected under the 14th Amendment. A lender’s standing should be determined by clear and convincing evidence to prove that the lender is the real party in interest. A rule 105 does not have the same restrictions as a Rule 120 foreclosure. To subject petitioner to a rule 120 foreclosure where the lender is allowed to take the property, even temporarily pending a fair hearing, without certifiable proof would deprive petitioner of property without due process and equal protection of the law and put the court in the position of enforcing an unconstitutional law which the 14th Amendment specifically prohibits the state court from doing.
In U.S. v. $49,576.00 U.S. CURRENCY, 116 F.3d 425,429, the court applied the standard of clear and convincing evidence to in rem forfeiture proceedings and said:
***The Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, (1976), held that civil administrative proceedings which result in deprivations of property must provide meaningful due process safeguards. Subsequently, the Court specified that one such safeguard is the imposition of a heightened burden of proof on the government. Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 427*** the Court made it clear that the Mathews v. Eldridge test applies to civil in rem forfeiture proceedings***

At ID 427 the court observed in Addington that heightened burdens of proof were “often required when an interest more substantial than mere loss of money” is at stake”
The court also observed at ID 429 “that allowing the government to forfeit property based on a mere showing of probable cause is a “constitutional anomaly.”*** As the Supreme Court has explained, burdens of proof are intended in part to “indicate the relative importance attached to the ultimate decision.” (Cite) Claimants are threatened with permanent deprivation of their property, from their hard-earned money, to their sole means of transport, to their homes.” [B, U]

Depriving homeowners of property pursuant to a Rule 120 on acceptance of
the court on a mere showing of standing on ‘blind faith” is no less a “constitutional anomaly” than the above court observed on a mere showing of “probable cause”. ID p. 429 The Due Process Clause prevents the deprivation of liberty or property upon application of a standard of proof too lax to make reasonable assurance of accurate fact finding. Hawkins v. Bleakly, 243 U.S. 214 The court in Mathews v. Eldridge 424 U.S. 319(1976), “specified that one such safeguard is the imposition of a heightened burden of proof on the government”
The Rule 120 hearing is flagrantly and patently unconstitutional because it in effect allows the lender to foreclose on a homeowner’s property without any proof that the lender is the real party in interest. The foreclosure law does provide an indemnity provision to any subsequent party who proves that they are the real party in interest. Pretender lenders hope the real party in interest never steps forward so they can keep the money. The proof required under the 14th amendment has been reduced to zero in a Rule 120 to allow lenders to foreclose on homeowners.
The issue of proof required in a rule 120 hearing has been the basis of outrage by homeowners and legal commentators throughout Colorado. Plaintiff Lisa Brumfiel ask this court to take judicial notice under rule 201 of an article in the Denver Post published on September 25th, 2011 exposing the events which led to amending the Rule 120 foreclosure statute in 2006. The article entitled “Colorado Public Trustees pushed to make it easier to foreclose on homes” (EXHIBIT D). Reporter David Migoya wrote in part:
***Interviews and documents reveal that the changes to foreclosure due process in Colorado were drafted and promoted by county public trustees***

Unique trustee system

***Until 1989 Colorado homeowners could only defend themselves against a foreclosure at a Rule 120 hearing by proving they weren’t in default on the loan or were in the active military. That changed, however, with a Colorado Supreme Court decision that said homeowners had the right to challenge whether the foreclosing party was legally entitled to go after their house.

“We were dealing with parties who knew the process and all their documents had the appearance of validity,” Colorado law was crystal clear: Foreclosing parties had to provide original documents in order to take someone’s house: notes, deeds of trust and their assignments.
But subtle changes in favor of the banks began in 2002.
Taking cues from the public trustees, the Colorado legislature passed a bill that re-wrote significant portions of the foreclosure statutes. The bill was drafted largely by Colorado’s top foreclosure lawyers in conjunction with the trustees***
***, [T]he legislation included a critical new provision: foreclosure attorneys could attest in writing that their client — a bank or other lender — actually possessed the note or deed of trust to a house they were foreclosing.
For the first time, a bank no longer had to provide an original deed of trust or note in order to foreclose, though they still had to show the original assignments — the proof that one bank sold a note to another, giving it the right to foreclose.
Undocumented leanings
***By then, the buying and selling of mortgages had become a common practice. *** The buyers of those loans bundled them into securities and sold them to other investors, often making it difficult to determine who actually owned the mortgage on an individual home.
The super-heated housing market collapsed in Colorado in 2006. *** *** Suddenly, with just a lawyer’s signature, a bank could foreclose on a house without ever showing any proof that it had the right to do so. **

The reporter, David Migoya wrote “Critics say Colorado has since become a state where it takes little more than a lawyer’s signature to take someone’s home.” Indeed, the pen is mightier than the sword. With a stroke of the pen, the Colorado legislature had erased the protections to property our founding fathers had sought to defend.
Plaintiffs also ask this court to take judicial notice under Rule 201 of an admission of a former lender’s attorney, Keith Gantenbein, Jr. (EXHIBIT E) who worked for Castle Meinhold & Stawiarski, LLC when he wrote:
As one of Colorado’s main Foreclosure attorneys, I was employed by Colorado’s largest Foreclosure Law Firm, in Denver, from 2009-2011.
I am now in private practice specializing in Foreclosure Defense.
During my employment with this firm, my signature alone was sufficient to take away a person’s home – and – I was involved in tens of thousands of Colorado foreclosures. This was compliant with the law as it stood, and still stands. ***

Often, I was the face of the foreclosure industry. I conversed with thousands of borrowers, both in and out of court. I listened to their concerns, conflicts and struggles. In short time, I realized there was a huge discrepancy in power.

Colorado’s current laws unfairly allow lenders and law firms/attorneys railroad through the foreclosure process and hide (or gloss) over substantive issues. I have intimate working knowledge of the public trustee system, and have personally executed tens of thousands of qualified holder statements. I have used that signature and document as evidence of standing to foreclose on those tens of thousands of homes.

The current foreclosure process in Colorado is one of blind faith.
The foreclosure referral is typically nothing more than a one to two-page document simply stating the loan is in default, please foreclose. The referral is provided by the servicing company or a sub serving company. Servicing companies often provide copies of the note with a single line stating please foreclose in the name of xxx. Attorneys rarely inspect the original note or make any additional attempt to determine who the proper party is to initiate the foreclosure.

Further, the qualified holder statement avows the copy of the note is a true and correct copy of the original. In reality, this copy is rarely true or correct. More times than not, after inspection of original notes, there were additional endorsements that were NOT on the certified true and correct copy. I was extremely and personally concerned how, in the majority of foreclosures, these copies were being used as originals.

At this point it is appropriate to mention the role that Larry Castle, a senior partner in Castle Stawiarski, LLC in amending the Rule 120 foreclosure process to favor the lenders. Plaintiff ask this court to take Judicial Notice (Rule 201) of an article in the Denver Post dated 03/13/2012 entitled Honor system for foreclosure paperwork has led to illegal Colorado seizures, lawyer surmises (EXHIBIT F) specifically addressing Larry Castles involvement. David Migoya reported:
“The foreclosure process in Colorado is one of blind faith,” Gantenbein said. “Colorado’s current laws unfairly allow lenders and law firms and attorneys to railroad through the foreclosure process and hide or gloss over substantive issues.” The qualified-holder process is legal, created in 2002 and 2006 in paragraphs buried deep inside legislation designed to shore up Colorado’s foreclosure laws.

Castle was among a group of lawyers specializing in foreclosures who helped draft the laws, which were then backed by an association representing the state’s public trustees.

In a Denver Post story published in September on how the law was drafted, several trustees said the qualified-holder section was slipped in without their knowledge. Others said they believed the bill related to battling mortgage fraud, which was another aspect to it.
Gantenbein said it was passed “solely to make foreclosures faster and easier.” The reason: “To get paid faster. It’s all about the money.”

Petitioner surmises that prior to 2006, Larry Castle came to the conclusion that the burden to prove standing had become too burdensome for foreclosure attorneys to prevail because with the securitization of mortgage loans, documents were lost to the point where lenders and the attorney’s were unable to produce the note. Larry Castle therefore, must have decided that if they couldn’t win, cheat—CHANGE THE LAW.
Because the Rule 120 hearing involves a fundamental property interest (plaintiffs’ home) the standard of proof before a person’s property is taken should be by “clear and convincing evidence” which should extend to the determination of who is the real party in interest with standing to foreclose. But the Public Trustee in the Rule 120 only requires that the foreclosing Lender present a copy of the Trust Deed and an Affidavit, a form generated by the Lender or its attorney that the lender is the “real party in interest” without requiring that it be attested to under penalty of perjury. No notarized assignment by the original lender to the foreclosing lender of the note need be provided nor will the court require U.S. Bank to show that it has actual possession of the note as was held necessary on the issue of who is the real party in interest with standing. In Re MARK STANLEY MILLER No. 11-1232, February 1, 2012. In Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 274 (1872) the Supreme Court decided a case from Colorado and said “The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.” Why then is the issue of standing not based on whether the lender could show that it has the original note in his possession to evidence that it is the real party in interest with standing to foreclose? The prevailing requirement, as it now stands in a Rule 120, is in fact no proof supported by an attorney’s affidavit of Qualified Holder which is merely an illusory pronouncement to support a presumption that the lender is the real party in interest with standing to foreclose.
In Goodwin v District Court, 779 P.2d 837 (Colo. 1989) the court addressed the due process issues raised by the court in the Rule 120 failure to accept evidence concerning the real party in interest defense. The court in Goodwin said:
The message of Moreland is clear. The due process protections contemplated by Rule 120 will be satisfied only when a court conducting a Rule 120 proceeding considers all relevant evidence in determining whether there is a reasonable probability of a default or other circumstance authorizing the exercise of the power of sale under the terms of the instrument described in the Rule 120 motion. The court’s resolution of the Rule 120 motion, therefore, should necessarily encompass a consideration not only of the evidence offered by the creditor seeking the order of sale but also of any evidence offered by the debtor to controvert the moving party’s evidence or to support a legitimate defense to the motion. A court’s refusal to consider such properly offered evidence in resolving the issue of default adversely to the debtor is tantamount to the taking of property in a summary fashion without any hearing at all—a deprivation clearly violative of due process of law. [B, U]

Based on its prior decisions, the court in Goodwin ruled that once the defendant raised the real party in interest defense, a “party trying to foreclose has the burden of proving that it is the real party in interest”
A Rule 120 hearing violates the 14th Amendment Due
Process and Equal Protection Clause because it is a summary
Proceeding with no right to appeal “Nor” a right to a jury trial

In LINDSEY V. NORMET, 405 US. 56 (1972) the court said:
This Court has recognized that, if a full and fair trial on the merits is provided, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require a State to provide appellate review, (cites)

Conversely, if a full and fair trial on the merits is NOT provided, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to provide appellate review.
The Rule 120 hearing does not provide a full and fair hearing, nor does it provide appellate review. The state can deny one or the other but cannot deny both. The inclusion by the Court of the above quoted passage must be read and analyzed in the context of the procedures implicit in the FED action referred in Lindsey. The complaint in Lindsey alleged that the tenant was limited in the defenses it could set up in the FED action. If the FED action in Lindsey was a full and fair hearing which would include issues the tenant could have brought in a separate action, then there was no requirement for the state to provide appellate review. But, if the FED action in Lindsey was a summary proceeding without appellate review, then plaintiff submit that a reasonably strong inference that the Supreme Court would hold that the FED action would be in violation of the 14th amendment and would have required the State in the Oregon FED action to provide appellate review to satisfy the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, otherwise it would have had no relevance to the case itself and no need to include it.
In Lindsey, ID at p. 64 the court stated the FED procedure:
The Oregon Forcible Entry and Wrongful Detainer Statute …may be tried to either a judge or a jury, and the only issue is whether the allegations of the complaint are true…A defendant who loses such a suit may appeal …
The FED action in Colorado, like the FED action in Lindsey, does have a constitutional right to appeal [article 40, 13-40-120] and a right to a jury [Colorado Constitution, section 23], has a right to counter-claim even though the actions are summary with a right to file a separate action to determine other issues that cannot be addressed in such summary proceedings. A rule 120 foreclosure has none of those rights with the exception of the right to a separate action. In Lindsey, ID. At pg. 78, the court said “…When an appeal is afforded, however, it cannot be granted to some litigants and capriciously or arbitrarily denied to others without violating the Equal Protection Clause”. Why then is a Homeowner precluded in a Rule 120 foreclosure proceeding from a right to appeal, a right to a jury trial, and a right to counter-claim when these rights are afforded in the Colorado FED action? These rights would also be included in a Rule 105 foreclosure (Judicial foreclosure). There is no rational basis for this arbitrary and disparate treatment between a tenant and a homeowner whose property interest is at risk as well as between a homeowner in a rule 120 and a homeowner in a Rule 105 foreclosure. Homeowners as a class should not to be singled out for “arbitrary and irrational” treatment when seeking legal relief made available by the State. See Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw, 486 U.S. 71, 83 (1988) The Colorado Rule 120 foreclosure law discriminates against homeowners who are processed under a rule 120 (non-judicial foreclosure) and a Rule 105 foreclosure, and bears no rational relation to a legitimate end and therefore does not comport with equal protection. White v. Colorado, 157 1226, 1232 (10th Cir. 2001)
FORCLOSURE AND EVICTION PRIOR TO A FAIR HEARING FOR FAILURE TO POST A BOND VIOLATES THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

To stay on the property a cash bond is required of Petitioner after the Rule 120 order authorizing sale, which is not a final order, and pending the separate fair action which could reinstate the property to Petitioner.
In In Re Mark Miller No. 11-1232 (2012) pgs 11, 12 the court said:
We further note indications that the Colorado courts would limit the effect of determinations in Rule 120 proceedings. The Colorado Court of Appeals has stated that “proceedings pursuant to C.R.C.P. 120 are not adversarial in nature, are not final, and generally no appeal may be taken to review the resulting orders.” United Guar. Residential Ins. Co. v. Vanderlaan, 819 P.2d 1103, 1105(Colo. Ct. App. 1991) [B, U]

Without a bond, petitioner will be subjected to a predeprivation which violates the 14th Amendment. The Order authorizing sale leads to a Public Trustee’s Deed. Under C.R.S. §13-40-104(f) wresting the right of title to the property which is a property interest. Thereafter a foreclosing party routinely files an action for forcible entry and detainer(FED) to wrest the right of possession(also a property interest) against the homeowner regardless of whether the validity of the foreclosure proceeding—and, therefore, ownership under the Public Trustee’s Deed- is at issue in an independent action. In order to prevent the homeowner from being evicted before the validity of the Public Trustee’s Deed is adjudicated, it is necessary to file a Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction in the Rule 105 Court requiring a cash bond, and/or file an Answer and Motion to Transfer the FED in the County Court, requesting that the FED action be transferred for lack of jurisdiction. The legal basis for both of these approaches is that ownership must be determined before possession can be determined, and the County Court lacks jurisdiction to determine ownership of the property. See In Re: Beeghly, 20 P. 3d 610, 614-615 (Colo. 2001) The posting of a cash bond is necessary so that the homeowner is not physically removed from the property pending adjudication of the separate action. The issuing of the Public Trustee Deed which wrests the right of title (a property interest), and a FED action which wrest the right of possession
(also a property interest) triggered by failing to post a bond, transpires prior to adjudication of the only fair hearing the homeowner will receive. Petitioner’s foreclosure and eviction after the Rule 120 non-final order, and before the separate fair action, suffices to invoke a “deprivation” even temporarily in terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, p. 85 (1972) the court said:
But it is now well settled that a temporary, nonfinal deprivation of property is nonetheless a “deprivation” in the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U. S. 337; Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535. Both Sniadach and Bell involved takings of property pending a final judgment in an underlying dispute. In both cases, the challenged statutes included recovery provisions, allowing the defendants to post security to quickly regain the property taken from them. Yet the Court firmly held that these were deprivations of property that had to be preceded by a fair hearing.

The Rule 120 is not a fair hearing. It is only after that separate fair action that can constitutionally justify removal of the homeowner, and not before.
CONCLUSION
Lisa Kay Brumfiel has a legally protected property interest in her home.
The issues in this petition raise serious constitutional questions which this court has a duty to address. The State of Colorado has enacted amendments in the Rule 120 non judicial foreclosure that are defective under the 14th Amendment, and the courts should not allow enforcement of that which the 14th Amendment has prohibited. This court should address and declare those portions unconstitutional and issue a preliminary and permanent injunction against the use of the Rule 120 foreclosure until constitutional protections are implemented as addressed in the argument by petitioner.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that a Writ of Mandamus issue out of this Court directed to the honorable J MARK HANNEN, respondent to do his duty and not enforce the Rule 120 foreclosure which is procedurally defective under the 14th Amendment and command him to convert the proceeding to a Rule 105 where US BANK must show chain of title and produce the note properly endorsed.
Respectfully submitted,

____________________ DATED: ________, 2012 LISA KAY BRUMFIEL

LISA KAY BRUMFIEL VERIFICATION
I, LISA KAY BRUMFIEL, hereby declare as follows:
I am the petitioner in this matter. I have read the VERIFIED PETITION
FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION, OR OTHER APROPRIATE RELIEF and know its contents. The facts alleged in this matter are within my own personal knowledge, and I know these facts to be true, except for matters stated on information and belief, and I believe them to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Colorado that the foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was
executed this ____ day of ____________, 2012 in Aurora, Colorado.

____________________
LISA KAY BRUMFIEL

Judge Antrim is unabashed about refusing to uphold the law if she feels sorry for one of the parties and openly stated so. Refusing to oust parents of a disabled adult woman out of pity, she allowed them to brazenly refuse to pay a judgment, transfer property into a trust, transfer it out of a trust long enough to encumber the property and then transfer it back into the trust rendering the parents uncollectible. When told that these people sold a property for $178,000 in cash but refused to pay the judgment against them, her response was “you have to pay judgments or people get mad”. Dah? Despite all of this she openly stated that she was “reluctant” to find a fraudulent conveyance. Being in her courtroom was useless and a great travesty of justice took place. This woman should not be on the bench.

Judge Mark Hannen is a dim witted procedure bound judge whose command of legal theory is missing. He threw out a very large case because of an electronic filing failure. (file too large to be transmitted with no warning that it didn’t transmit). Lacking evidence he threw it out. On motion to reconsider with full explanation of what happened, he threw the case out causing a terrible miscarriage of justice. He simply didn’t care. This man should not be on the bench.

Judge Chris Cross is a level headed judge who came up from years on the County bench. He is experienced, good demeanor and basically does a good job though not without excessive expediency in some of his decisions. Good command of legal theory and not overly bound be procedure – retain this guy.

Judge Tobias is a hot headed County Court criminal judge in Arapahoe county. He often lets prosecution violate constitutional rights of defendants which harms all of us by diminishing the Constitution. His sentencing is a bit harsh but not overly so. No command of legal theory. All procedure. There are worse judges but I would recommend not retaining.

To reuben nieves, it appears you filed a rule 21 petition to the supreme court on a 120 case. if that petition was denied without comment, that is the norm. a recent study came out in the colorado lawyer stating that the supreme court only issues rules to show cause in about 2% of rule 21 petitions, so 98% are, like yours, denied without comment. that doesn’t mean that the supreme court is corrupt.

voting from overseas this year and site was extremely helpful! Thank you so much. There are several district 18th judges that I am unsure of whether to retain or not since there are no comments regarding them on the site. Would you recommend a yes or no vote on them?

I just want to Thank Judge Cross, for totally making a decision on a motion that was filed against my Ex-Husband that completely left me financially ruined! I don’t even think he took the time to read the motion and to make a logical decision as to what a devastating effect it had on my well being . He granted a motion that entitled my Ex to have a free for all for every bit of equipment on that property which is 5 acres and to take in his possesion anything he wanted with no consequences. He acquired about 60,000.00 dollars worth of material property and not to be accountable for his contempt of court monies owed to me. I really hope that someday you can stop and consider what effect one judgement like you made can change someones life. DB

Please visit http://www.weldcountycorruption.com for the true story of three corrupt Weld County Judges.