0District Court
Jefferson
County, Colorado
Court
Address:
100
Jefferson County Parkway Golden Colorado
In re:
James
J Mohnhaupt
versus
Stacy
Slaton, Son Lowery, Daughter Mohnhaupt, and Daughter Slaton
|
COURT USE ONLY
|
James
J Mohnhaupt
Stacy
Slaton (mailing address only)
|
Case
Number: 00DR413
Division Courtroom
|
Verified AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF Emergency Motion
to Modify PARENTAL AND Decision-Making
responsibility PURSUANT TO cited subsections in C.R.S. §14-10-124, §14-10-129 and §14-10-131
via absentee testimony
|
Comes now, Stacy
Slaton, Mother of Daughter Mohnhaupt, Son Lowery, and Daughter Slaton, requesting
this Court to modify Verified AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF Emergency Motion FOR ORDER to Modify pARENTAL AND Decision-Making
responsibility PURSUANT TO cited subsections C.R.S. §14-10-124, §14-10-129
and §14-10-131 via absentee testimony, and states the following:
1.
The last Order regarding allocation of
parental responsibilities was entered by the Court in 2005 when James Mohnhaupt
was awarded sole decision making and residential custodianship of Daughter
Mohnhaupt and Son Mohnhaupt n.k.a. Lowery.
2.
A Motion for substantial modification of
allocation of parental responsibilities has not been filed in the last two
years per §C.R.S.14-10-131. Per
Rule 121, Stacy Slaton has made numerous attempts to contact James
Mohnhaupt and Attorney June Anglin, who has withdrawn from this case. STACY SLATON’S DAUGHTERS Daughter Mohnhaupt
and Daughter Slaton, are presently endangered and are suffering emotional
trauma created by the forced sequestration of their Mother, due to the acts and
threats of Domestic Violence; as defined in §C.R.S.14-10-124 (4)(b)(c),
which this court is accessory to. Stacy
Slaton, as their emotionally stable and healthy Mother, deems the following as the most appropriate way to resolve
violations of natural law, and of civil rights, to adhere to statutory rules,
and to estop Constitutional crimes. Any
other court appointed broker services are NOT
needed. Such services have proven to
cause further harm[1] in these
types of contested custody cases. The
rights of Stacy Slaton, Son Lowery, Daughter Mohnhaupt, and Daughter Slaton
have been blatantly and maliciously violated. The opposing parties and
adjudicators in this matter hold no regard for Domestic Abuse by Proxy,[2] The Constitutional Right to Be a Parent,
the sacrosanct relationship between
Mother and Child, or the irreplaceable sacred
bonds among siblings. The opposing parties and adjudicators have not recognized
the patterns of abuse to Stacy Slaton, her children, their extended family,
friends, and community. This court has
not taken steps to correct patterns of abuse in this case.
3.
C.
R.S. §14-10-124(4)(II)(b)(c) If a
party is absent or leaves home because of an act or threatened act of domestic violence committed by the other
party, such absence or leaving shall
not be a factor in determining the best interests of the child. Stacy Slaton, Son, Daughter,
and Daughter were subject to acts and threats of domestic violence. They continue to fall victim to habitual
domestic abuse, coercion, and threats by the other party.
4.
C.R.S. §14-10-124 (4)(a) Whether one of the parties has committed
an act of domestic violence, has engaged in a pattern of domestic violence, or
has a history of domestic violence, which factor must be supported by a
preponderance of evidence. Recent domestic violence theory and statutory
authority citing patterns of abuse comprise a preponderance of evidence in this
case.
5.
C.R.S. §14-10-129 (c) Documented
patterns in the history of this case and current environment of isolation of Daughter
and of her sister Daughter in a separate environment, support that the preponderance
of evidence necessary to substantiate the validity of this Verified AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
Emergency Motion FOR ORDER to Modify pARENTAL
AND Decision-Making responsibility PURSUANT TO cited subsections C.R.S.
§14-10-124, §14-10-129 and §14-10-131 via absentee testimony exists.
6.
C.R.S.
§14-10-131 the
retention of the allocation of decision-making responsibility would endanger
the child’s physical health or significantly impairs the child’s emotional
development and the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is
outweighed by the advantage of a change to the child.
travel,
medical, and or school records.
7.
What new
arrangements are you requesting? Stacy
Slaton, Mother of Daughter Mohnhaupt, requests the following new arrangements:
ü Stacy Slaton
shall be the primary residential custodian of her daughter Daughter Mohnhaupt.
ü Stacy Slaton
shall have sole decision-making and shall consult with father regarding major
decisions via e-mail on major.
ü Such
transition shall occur fourteen days from the date this motion is filed at 6:00
p.m. at the home of Desiree Moreno, 9161 W. 66th Avenue, Arvada,
Colorado.
ü James is
required to participate in a domestic violence and battering therapy program,
as recommended in the clinical textbooks, The
Batterer as Parent, by Bancroft, Silverman, and Richie[3],
and Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child
Custody, by Hannah and Goldstein[4]
before parenting time with Daughter can begin.
The following schedule shall serve as
Parenting Plan and will avoid transition problems.
·
James Mohnhaupt shall have parenting time
every other weekend from the end of school on Friday until Sunday with a return
time of 8:00 p.m.
·
James Mohnhaupt shall have a dinner visit
with Daughter Mohnhaupt on Wednesday of the alternating week from the end of
school until curb-side drop-off at Mother’s residence at 7:30 p.m.
·
Beginning in the summer of 2014, weekend
parenting time schedule shall remain the same with curb-side pick-up and drop
off at Mother’s residence, beginning at 6:00 p.m. on Friday until 8:30 p.m.
Sunday.
·
James Mohnhaupt shall have a one-week visit
in the summer, beginning in 2014. James will consult with Mother’s schedule by
giving thirty- day notice, a travel itinerary, and all other required
information.
·
Stacy Slaton shall have Daughter on Mother’s
Day (when this holiday falls on Father’s time) beginning at 10:00 a.m. There
will be no return to Father until the next scheduled parenting time.
·
James shall have Daughter on Father’s Day
(when this holiday falls on Mother’s time) beginning at 10:00 a.m. with pick-up
at Mother’s residence until drop-off time at 8:30 p.m.
·
Mother shall have Christmas Eve every year
and James shall have Christmas Day every year with the same pick-up and
drop-off as Father’s Day.
·
No deviation from scheduled parenting time
will be made for Memorial Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving or any other holiday.
·
§C.R.S.14-10-124 (VI) Mother has NEVER denied parenting time to Father,
as evidenced in the record of the Court.
Summary of case 00DR413 and this motion
The
first purpose of this document is to notify the court of patterns of domestic
violence in the current parental responsibilities and decision making
environment of Daughter Mohnhaupt, and continual acts of fraud upon the court,
collusion, and civil conspiracy, and entrapment. The 2005 custody switch removed Son
(Mohnhaupt) Lowery and Daughter Mohnhaupt from their Mother and sister Daughter
Slaton with no significant reason to change the environment of the
children. Furthermore, Stacy’s
constitutional rights to due process have been violated, and continue to be
abrogated by the use of coercion, intimidation, deprivation of the enjoyment
for employment, and extortion of her children as human capital for the profit
of state and private entities. The second purpose, once notice of crimes has
been given, is to appeal to this court to seek remedy for such crimes
immediately in an Emergency
Motion FOR ORDER to Modify pARENTAL AND Decision-Making responsibility
VIA ABSENTEE TESTIMONY in order to
avoid further legal action.
The
responsibility of attorneys and court officials is to protect children and to
moderate hostility in divorce. The
court has sanctioned the fraudulent activities in this case. If court officials fail to remedy the situation immediately, they knowingly and willingly violate
their oaths of office and can be held accountable for harm to parents and
children.
Stacy
Slaton has been entrapped, extorted, and deprived of her children by unlawful
child trafficking through an organized effort to eliminate her. False
testimony, consolidation of two custody cases under the same attorneys, Nic Jonson and June Anglin, bias
in this case, and subsequent patterns of domestic violence create a
preponderance of evidence of civil conspiracy.
12. Per C.R.S. 14-10-124 (4)(a) Whether one of
the parties has committed an act of domestic violence, has engaged in a pattern
of domestic violence, or has a HISTORY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, which factor must
be supported by a preponderance of evidence.
·
On December 19, 1999, James Mohnhaupt
destroyed property and threatened to KILL
Stacy in front of her children. He was
incarcerated and then hired attorney Nic Jonson. James filed for divorce in
December 1999 (Case # 99DR3753).
However, Stacy Slaton was never informed of this action, and had no
knowledge of this DR case. Per Register of Action, on December 30, 1999, there
was a Temporary Orders of the Dissolution of Marriage hearing that was vacated.
·
James’ intention to eliminate Stacy Slaton is
being played out by the imposition of chronic, long-term stress over the course
of 13 years.[5]
Sequestration of her relationship with her children and deprivation of access
to financial means for remedy are tactics used to debilitate protective
parents. Evidence of the effect of long-term, chronic stress over the course of
13 years has been validated by research.
In April 2012, in contact with Lynn Johnson of the Department of Human
Services, she expressed interest in Stacy’s health and stated that she would
make sure “all the i’s were dotted and the t’s were crossed” in this case. Lynn
Johnson did not concern herself with the well-being of Son and Daughter, at
all, but chose to protect her agency instead. (See Attached Affidavit.)
·
On January 3, 2000, at the hearing for the
Domestic Violence arrest, Nic Jonson interfered with victim protection. Nic Jonson pleaded to Golden courts that
James was sorry and he wanted to reconcile with Stacy. This allowed the DV
findings to be deferred. On January 10, 2000, the restraining order was granted
against James.
·
On February 14, 2000, James had divorce
papers served, opening Case #00DR413. It is clear that James and attorney Nic
Jonson dismissed the first DR filing from December 1999 so that he could
intentionally and strategically have the charges against him deferred.[6]
·
The temporary orders of April 2000 allowed
Stacy to have use of the “marital home” and to be responsible for all debts.
However, she was not allowed to finish the addition to the home to open her
Watsu business, even though the renovation was almost complete. Permanent
orders gave Stacy, Son and Daughter 30 days to vacate “James’ home.”
·
Since the business was a home-based
operation, this court prevented Stacy from opening her Watsu business; Stacy
lost stability and income averaging $80 an hour, as a result of this order.
Over the course of thirteen years at five hours per day, this amounts to
$1,325,000.00 in lost wages. As a result, James Mohnhaupt used and continues to
use this court to carry out threats against Stacy, her financial and
educational investments in business, her financial stability, her right to
procure employment, her health, and her physical safety.
·
In Permanent Orders hearing in August 2000,
court ordered temporary restraining order to be vacated in August 2001.
·
In 2001, the court removed the restraining
order against James Mohnhaupt despite concerns over his continued behavior and
Stacy’s motion to reinstate such restraining order. James began an onslaught of
filings as a result. [7]
·
Stacy Slaton made it clear to the court that
James’ litigious behavior constituted harassment. Nic Jonson informed Stacy that
James’ intention was to work on their marriage, although it had been dissolved in
August, the year before.
·
James and his attorney, Nic Jonson,
repeatedly filed Motions to have Dr. Jean Lacrosse appointed as Special
Advocate (S.A.). The court granted the motion on November 1, 2001.
·
On December 4, 2001, a stipulation was
entered into the court dismissing the appointment of the Special Advocate (S.A.).
The stipulation also included that Stacy move back into the marital home. She
agreed, since the restraining order had not been reinstated, in the belief that
James would stop the use of the court to harass her and that she would be in a
better position to protect the children. It is documented that victims of domestic
violence return to the perpetrator under coercion and threat of harm to
themselves and the children.[8] Within
months, James abandoned Stacy and all efforts to reconcile by moving Stacy’s
and the children’s belongings into the street. Stacy removed the children
immediately in order to protect them from the psychological abuse of having
their belongings placed in the street by their father. After the children had
been removed, the situation escalated and required police intervention on a
civil assist.
·
James then reverted to using the court’s authority
to harass and badger Stacy by continuing to
request Jean LaCrosse as well as modification
of parenting time. Dr. LaCrosse and James’ attorney Nic Jonson had
participated in a course on “How to Train your Client for a C.F.I.
Investigation.” This type of coaching is tampering the C.F.I. investigation in
order to create a situation for profit,[9] as well as
fraud upon the court.
·
On April 24, 2003, a hearing was held to
reduce James’ child support payments despite the fact that Stacy had already
agreed to do so before the hearing was set. This unnecessary hearing
constituted frivolous and malicious adjudication for profit, a practice
regularly observed in contested custody cases, even when no opposition is
present.[10]
·
On April 25, 2003, Magistrate Christopher Voisinet
denied motions for Special Advocate and
change in parenting time, and stated there were no grounds to appoint an S.A.
or to grant James more parenting time. The scheduling of two hearings one
day apart constitutes legal abuse and harassment allowed by the court.[11]
·
The court allowed the badgering behavior to
continue and escalate, allowing James to file yet another request for LaCrosse,
resulting in Stacy Slaton needing to hire attorney, Rene Koller, costing
approximately $4,000.00.
·
On Koller’s advice, Stacy Slaton agreed to do
an investigation, as long as the Special Advocate was not Jean LaCrosse.
·
S.A. LaCrosse was appointed anyway, costing
Stacy $2,600.00, and James $2,500.00.
LaCrosse’s investigation was flawed and incomplete because she never
visited Stacy’s home, yet she committed fraud upon the court in her testimony
about Stacy’s home. LaCrosse’s reports were biased and unsubstantiated.
·
Rene Koller earned $4,000.00 to push the
appointment of S.A. LaCrosse against Stacy’s vehement and repeated
protestations. Then Koller withdrew from the case.
·
Due to S.A.
LaCrosse’s irresponsible report, in which her criminal intent is apparent, this
court felt compelled to appoint a professional with greater qualifications, A Child
Family Investigator (C.F.I.), Dr. Claire Purcell. Stacy bore the full cost of $5,000.00 for
this independent “more qualified” investigation.
·
In this instance, Dr. Claire Purcell’s[12] investigation
was thorough because she did visit both homes, and her findings were
responsible, substantiated, and definitive.
·
During the period of Dr. Purcell’s
investigation, one or several of the parties, released personal information to the
alleged “Dr.” David Kieffer, who presented himself as a Child Family
Investigator, without the consent of Stacy or the court. Verbatim language in both
his and LaCrosse’s reports is evidence of collusion.
·
Stacy Slaton had no knowledge of this
conspiracy to collude against her and her children until Kieffer’s report was
submitted to the court, generating a situation for further profit for brokers
in this case. At this time, the amount of David Kieffer’s profits is still
unknown.
·
Stacy’s court costs included removing David
Kieffer’s report and testimony, which were never ordered by the court.
·
David Kieffer claimed to understand the
family situation without ever interviewing or conducting any visitation to the
home of Stacy Slaton. In fact, Stacy Slaton and her family never met or had any
contact whatsoever with David Kieffer.
·
David Kieffer’s practice is currently under
investigation by D.O.R.A.
·
Stacy retained Attorney David Bolocofsky with
an approximate $30,000.00 retainer.
·
Despite Magistrate Voisinet’s statements in
April 2003, that no grounds for Special Advocate or modification of parenting
time existed, Stacy Slaton incurred costs of approximately $45,000.00 to engage
and refute the appointment of Jean LaCrosse and her testimony. However, Jean
LaCrosse’s unfavorable opinions were the only factors cited in the Permanent
Orders. Stacy’s efforts and costs were
futile, against what has now been recognized as a conspiracy to eliminate her from
her children’s lives, by continuing a pattern of domestic violence, with the
endorsement of the court as his proxy[13].
·
As a result of James’ continual threat and
the removal of her children from the home of Stacy and John Slaton, Stacy’s
marriage to John Slaton foundered.
·
John Slaton then began to collude with James
Mohnhaupt and Nic Johnson in an effort to join the winning team and to form a
civil conspiracy to include Stacy’s family and friends, using the threat of
withholding the children from them as well.
·
This pattern of using family to assist in
withholding Stacy’s children is extremely evident in the Affidavit Nic Jonson
colluded to prepare for Desiree Moreno in 2007, using the children to
intimidate Desiree into signing the affidavit, which she did not prepare. Subsequently in 2008 Desiree wrote a letter
to this court to bring clarification.
·
Furthermore, using tactics coached by the
attorney and documented in Dr. Sharon Araji’s documentary, Domestic Violence Continued: Contested Child Custody,[14] James Mohnhaupt and John Slaton
colluded to incarcerate Stacy Slaton, thus attempting to sever the maternal
bond and defame Stacy Slaton in her children’s eyes. James
Mohnhaupt and John Slaton continue to participate in a relationship focused on
eliminating Stacy Slaton from the lives of Daughter Mohnhaupt and Daughter
Slaton.
·
Since 1999, James has committed fraud with
Child Protective Services, as well as with the Court. Whenever James’s abusive behavior is
reported, he has repeatedly stated that all such claims by mandated reporters,
Karlis Center personnel, strangers and children are lies. In James’ testimony
(August 2005), he called Son a liar and blamed him in an incident involving Daughter
at the Evergreen recreational center.
James was not even present, perpetuating a pattern of using a scapegoat,
which is characteristic of an abuser.[15]
·
Because of collusion in this case, Stacy
Slaton became disenfranchised and was placed under constant threats of
incarceration. The pattern of aggression has occurred again with the false
arrest and detainment of Son Lowery in 2009. This led to Son’s removal from the
custody of James Mohnhaupt, resulting in a
change in the circumstances of Daughter Mohnhaupt. The initial removal of her
mother, and her sister Daughter, and the subsequent removal of her brother have
caused Daughter to suffer a series of profound losses. Clearly, a preponderance of evidence
indicates that James pattern of abuse exists.
·
If such
patterns of abuse are allowed to continue, anybody who has anything to do with Daughter’s
mother Stacy will become extinct in Daughter’s life, thereby robbing her of
half of her identity.
13. Court-appointed Special Advocate Jean LaCrosse
intentionally violated professional conduct with perjury, causing
discrimination and bias against Stacy Slaton, and committing fraud upon the
court.
· Court-appointed S.A. Lacrosse recommended
therapy for Son and Daughter, even though they were currently in therapy with
Doug Lehman as a result of James abuse.
Based on LaCrosse’s disregard for an opposing professional in this case,
Stacy complied and placed Son with new therapist Dr. Edith Israel, costing
Stacy, after insurance, approximately $1,200.00; and Daughter with Dr. Marsha
Franklin costing $1,980.00, after insurance. The findings of all those
professionals were dismissed. Furthermore, in a distorted twist of her own
recommendation, Jean LaCrosse and Judge Enquist stated that the need for
therapy at all was an indication that the children were not doing well in
Stacy’s care.
· The children were thriving in school, which
Jean LaCrosse attributed this to the need for the children to get away from
their mother. Such distortion of children’s achievement is biased, belittling
and demeaning. Jean LaCrosse has no regard for the children’s need to have two
parents in their lives.
· How many other children have lost access to a
loving, responsible, protective parent due to Jean LaCrosse’s biased reporting’s
over the decades of this type of practice?
· Jean LaCrosse has a personal relationship
with Judge Margie Enquist. Both personal and professional relationships between
these two were disclosed in the two-day hearing in August 2005.
· Such bias has denied Stacy’s opportunity to
be heard and receive due process. Stacy’s rights have been jeopardized,
demoralized, discriminated, undermined, and she has been labeled with bogus
psychological findings. As a result, Stacy Slaton’s children have been
endangered by the actions of this court.
· Margie Enquist adopted the findings and
conclusions of Jean Lacrosse and dismissed entirely all recommendations made by
Dr. Purcell. The insistence on using
Jean LaCrosse, hiring David Kieffer to mirror LaCrosse’s report, and dismissing
an alternative, independent report by Dr. Claire Purcell and other
professionals constitutes collusion among these professional brokers, allowing
James Mohnhaupt to commit habitual domestic abuse.[16] James’
harassment and coercive behavior were perpetuated by the court, thus creating a
pattern of Domestic Violence by Proxy
and resulting in continual child abuse[17].
· It is Stacy’s claim and sworn testimony that
Son knew his biological father, Sean A. Lowery, since birth. Son had a
relationship with Sean before his adoption by James Mohnhaupt, and he knew from
his earliest awareness that Sean was his father.
· Jean LaCrosse was aware that Son knew that he
had been adopted at the age of five by James Mohnhaupt. LaCrosse committed
fraud by withholding such knowledge and falsifying the facts of the adoption in
her report.
· It should be noted that research supports
disclosure of adoption as a healthy and appropriate act.[18] Jean LaCrosse’s testimony undermined Stacy
Slaton. LaCrosse’s personal opinions and
refusal to recognize established practice in disclosure of adoption weighed
heavily in the final Order.
· In 1997, a stranger reported abuse by James
Mohnhaupt against Son to police. James blamed Son by claiming that he was just
disciplining Son. Jean LaCrosse ignored this and many more reports of
documented abuse against Son and Daughter.
· Another example of bias by Jean LaCrosse occurred
in 2004. James Mohnhaupt locked Son in a car for five hours as a form of
discipline. Jefferson County sheriffs were informed of this abuse, reported by
therapist Doug Lehman. James refused to
speak to the sheriffs until Nic Jonson could be present, in an attempt to
circumvent the urgency of intervention. LaCrosse
once again failed to recognize the pattern of abuse, and by doing so, endorsed
James’ abusive behavior. After her investigation, reports continued to
be made by mandated reporters, by school district and Karlis Center personnel,
by private therapists, and by strangers.
· The result of fraudulent testimony by Jean
LaCrosse has resulted in custodial kidnapping.[19] Fraud
upon the court makes the orders and judgments of that court
void.
· Jean LaCrosse admitted in testimony that she
was never in Stacy’s home. The court’s
reliance on her flawed, irresponsible, and fraudulent information constitutes
denial of “the essential elements of due
process of law are notice, an opportunity to be heard, and the right to defend
in an orderly proceeding. Fiehe v. R.E. Householder Co., 125 So. 2, 7 (Fla.
1929).”
· Lacrosse’s
fraudulent testimony and omission of facts regarding the adoption created
confusion for Margie Enquist who relied heavily on allegations of parental
alienation in her custody switch decision. Enquist’s reliance on fraudulent
information and bogus diagnosis constitutes fraud by the court.
· The concept of Parental Alienation has been
discredited by scientific and legal communities. Richard Gardner, who coined
the term, used it as a way to give abusers custody and to allow domestic abuse
by proxy toward the protective parent.[20]
· The discredited concept of Parental Alienation
was a key factor in the 2005 Order that disrupted Son and Daughter’s relationships
with their mother and their sister Daughter, with maternal extended family,
friends, classmates, and other significant relationships, as well as family
heritage that the children were developing in Stacy’s care. Stacy’s children
continue to be isolated from these significant people, causing harmful,
unnecessary separation and interference with the opportunity for Stacy’s
children to become whole, happy, healthy, productive people, requiring
implementation of C.R.S. §14-10-131(c). The retention of the allocation of decision-making responsibility would
endanger the child’s physical health or significantly impairs the child’s
emotional development and the harm likely to be caused by a change of
environment is outweighed by the advantage of a change to a child.
· Given the flaws and bias of LaCrosse’s
testimony, James was empowered as a parent despite identified defects, Stacy
was treated with discrimination, and her children were kidnapped. C.R.S.
18-3-304 (2) (2.5) of this section, any parent or other person who violates an
order of any district or juvenile court of this state, granting the custody of
a child or parental responsibilities with respect to a child under the age of
eighteen years to any person, agency, or institution, with the intent to
deprive the lawful custodian or person with parental responsibilities of the
custody or care of a child under the age of eighteen years, commits a class 5
felony.[21]
· James
if further empowered to violate Per
§C.R.S. 14-10-124(1.5)(b)(II) Whether the past pattern of involvement of the
parties with the child reflects a system of values, time commitment, and mutual
support that would indicate an ability as mutual decision makers to provide a
positive and nourishing relationship with the child; all evidence
of this case support Stacy Slaton is the parent to support such positive
relationships
14. Governor-appointed, Jefferson County Judge
Margie Enquist expressed her doubts and confusion as to the best course of
action in closing statements of the 2005 Orders when she switched custody from
Stacy Slaton to James Mohnhaupt. Such ambivalence undermines the intent of C.R.S. §14-10-131(c)
to create a significant
reason to change the environment of the children. The retention of the allocation of decision-making responsibility would
endanger the child’s physical health or significantly impairs the child’s
emotional development and the harm likely to be caused by a change of
environment is outweighed by the advantage of a change to a child.
·
The collusion between Jean LaCrosse and
Margie Enquist is evidence that Margie Enquist has abandoned her Oaths of
Office. She has done so by unfairly denying due process, failing to disclose
personal relationships, and making biased decisions in this case.
·
Margie Enquist has clearly stated her
indecisiveness, ambiguity, and confusion in making a decision to change the
environments of Daughter Mohnhaupt and Son (Mohnhaupt) Lowery. The custody
switch of 2005 violated statutory intent because the harm caused by a change of
environment from Stacy Slaton was not outweighed by the advantage of such
change to the children. There was no
significant, evident reason to change the environment of any of Stacy’s
children. This court needs to remedy
this situation immediately.
·
Margie Enquist stated concerns of the
validity of the recommendations from both Dr. Purcell and Dr. LaCrosse in this
case, (sections 8 to16 of the court transcripts). Margie Enquist stated that
she found it “simply astounding to me that— you think they interviewed four
people or maybe two people who have switched sides. Because it’s astounding how they would see
the same traits in Ms. Slaton in the first evaluation and then similar traits
in Mr. Mohnhaupt in the second and vice versa. And I don’t know what happened
there but it certainly seems that –I don’t know. They formed an opinion.”
·
Please refer to page 279 of Court Transcript
of August 2005. Margie Enquist stated,
concerning the matter of sexual abuse “Daughter said ‘Daddy touched me’, and
apparently nobody investigated whether that was Mr. Slaton or not. Nobody even
considered that. The first thing everybody jumps on is it’s the biological dad.” These statements by Enquist that nobody
investigated were false.
·
Enquist ignored the report made by mandated
reporter, Dr. Marsha Franklin, confirming that it was James who was being
sexually inappropriate. Enquist further stated, “That concerns me immensely
because she calls two people Dad, and then didn’t talk about the disclosure
later and then who knows what kinds of questions she was asked in therapy.” Margie Enquist knew that someone-- in
this case, Marsha Franklin-- had in fact, investigated, which is in direct
contradiction to Enquist’s statement. Judge Enquist was not concerned with
findings of any court-ordered “professionals,” except Jean LaCrosse.
·
Transcript further reflects Enquist stating “Maybe
that is the reason it was unfounded because it’s not the right dad.”
This statement supports claims that the Court is colluding with the Department
of Human Services by finding no grounds or substantiated findings, or
conducting definitive investigation, when the evidence is clear. Caseworkers are not qualified to overturn
findings made by a doctor. This is a violation of Jefferson County’s duty to
protect.
·
Dr. Marsha Franklin reported allegations of
abuse made by Daughter to Child Protective Services (C.P.S.). A Colorado Safety Plan was put in place
dated, April 14, 2005. Franklin was not
the only mandated reporter who notified C.P.S of James’ abuse to these
children. When Stacy signed the safety plan, she was then coerced to
file a motion to the court for a restriction of parenting time, or she would be
charged for James’ actions. Therefore, Stacy was pressured into doing the job
that C.P.S. is mandated to do.
·
Such failure to act on evidence comprises
neglect and abuse by Jefferson County and Child Protective Services, substantiating
reports by the Denver Post and 9News, entitled, “Failed to Death.” Jefferson
County has engaged in domestic abuse by
proxy to Stacy, resulting in abuse to Son, Daughter and Daughter. Such discrimination denies Stacy’s rights as
a protective parent; which are guaranteed by the Colorado Constitution and the Constitution
of the United States, and places the children in danger by cutting off their
access to remedy and protection.
·
Treatment for James was the action that Stacy
would have preferred. Stacy also was
concerned that Jean LaCrosse would use this motion to further substantiate the “false
“parental alienation” claim. This is exactly how Jean LaCrosse testified,
although she never met with Daughter to gain any first-hand knowledge of the
incident. Nor was it ever clear if
LaCrosse is qualified to assess such claims.
·
Due to C.P.S. neglect, failure to protect Daughter,
and intimidation, Stacy did file the Motion to Restrict Parenting Time on April
18, 2005. The Court failed to hear this
motion, and it was dismissed on April 28, 2005. Four months later in August
2005, this court gave custody of Daughter and Son to James.
·
In December of 2005, Daughter was taken to
the doctor. Report states “she has had a
history of intermittent itching in the vaginal area and that Dad has seen no
discharge.” Daughter had no medical history of this condition until the custody
switch to James in August. This report has been ignored as evidence by this
court. Since Stacy saw this medical report from Kaiser, James stopped all
access to medical and educational records by Stacy.
·
Presently, Daughter is forced to live without
recourse from James’ abuse or opportunity to escape and heal from James’s
imminently dangerous behaviors. All avenues for Daughter Mohnhaupt to report
further abuse have been cut off.
·
Although Dr. Marsha Franklin was working with
all family members, she was dismissed after being sequestered. Marsha Franklin
was not allowed the opportunity to testify as a qualified expert, violating Due process of a recognized liberty
interest was at stake and violated,
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564,69 (1972). Thus, access to remedy by appeal was thwarted
because there was no record of Dr. Franklin’s informed findings. Such failure
to hear testimony from witnesses is a tactic used in cases involving physical
and sexual abuse.[22]
·
David Bolocofsky sent home the only qualified
expert witness to these crimes against Stacy’s daughter Daughter, Dr. Marsha Franklin. This action by
Stacy’s’ attorney David Bolocofsky was a violation of attorney conduct in
representing his client and in protecting the welfare of Son and Daughter.
·
David Bolocofsky now resides on the Jefferson County Courts approved and recommended
C.F.I.’s.
·
Margie Enquist further gave personal opinions
belittling Stacy decisions to give her 11 year old son Son a cell phone to
communicate with James as being an inappropriate parenting decision. However, in the Keske case, Enquist’s
magistrate, Chris Voisinet ordered for Catherine’s arrest for choosing not to
provide an e-mail to her 10 year old son, for communication purposes[23].
·
Margie Enquist also addressed that the
“Petitioner has several deficits in his parenting skills” and demanded that
“Petitioner acknowledge those deficits and obtain education and assistance with
them.” Enquist found it necessary to further state “Petitioner will also need
to adjust his life and schedule to properly provide for these children’s needs
on a daily basis.” To this day there is
no evidence that James has complied.
·
Accordingly, court professionals failed in
their duty to protect Son, Daughter, and Daughter, and to do what was best for
them. They violated Oaths of Office in August of 2005. Stacy’s children were taken as a result of
bias and unfairness, as supported by numerous errors. Yet another example in the orders of August
2005, Margie Enquist erred significantly by mixing up the names and genders of
children Son and Daughter, creating confusion and making this order voidable. Her befuddlement and ambivalence preclude a
determination that there was a significant reason to change the environment of
the children.
·
This order exposes a personal involvement
between James Mohnhaupt’s mother, Jean Githens, and Judge Margie Enquist. The order cited Githens as a party who testified
when Court transcripts of this hearing clearly prove that SHE NEVER TESTIFIED. Relationships
among Jean Githens, Jean LaCrosse, Nic Jonson, and this court were not
disclosed prior to the 2005 hearing. Such failure to disclose confirms Stacy’s
concerns of bias, conspiracy, and collusion.[24]
·
This Order was signed with an “X”, faxed
between this Court and Nic Jonson’s office at 10:40 a.m., without knowledge to
Stacy’s counsel. Per David Bolocofsky, Stacy’s attorney, orders were final
sometime after 3:00 p.m. that day. James
was given custody and sole decision making, while uprooting our children. NO government funded programs,
reunification, or other practices were used and are now not necessary to
correct the situation that has ensued.
·
Stacy’s
daughter Daughter shall be returned to her mother within 14 days. “The right to the custody and control of
one’s child is a fiercely guarded right in our society and in our law. It is a right that should not be infringed
upon only under the most compelling circumstances.” Brooks v. Parkerson Georgia
Supreme Court (1995). No such compelling circumstances existed against Stacy
Slaton to justify the severing of the maternal relationship in this case.
·
This Court chose to give James sole decision
making and residential custodianship without meeting any standards of law. Only the opinions of a very biased
“professional” supported such a harmful change. James obtained the children
from Stacy through the wrongful use of actual and threatened force under color
of official right. Such extortion[25] violates
Stacy’s rights to due process and fairness.
·
Pursuant to custodial kidnapping, changes to
Permanent Orders, without justification, were entered on August 18th, 2005.
James was ORDERED to continue therapy for each child with current therapist. He
did not comply with this court order, and the court relieved him of this
obligation.
·
Further a Motion to Clarify had to be filed, concerning
Stacy’s parenting time and addressed other matters such as parenting time
exchange, summer vacation time, and holidays; this would support a claim that
the court’s only concerns were to sever the sacrosanct relationship and to
engage in parental interference. Such vagueness also blocked any opportunity
for meaningful appeal.
·
(a). In 1994,
the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required
if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's
impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer
to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be
disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162
(1994).
·
(b)That Court also stated that Section 455(a)
"requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her
impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady,
888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir.
1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only
actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."
·
(c) "Recusal
under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in
support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte
under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d
1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
·
(d)
The behavior of the professionals involved indicates that this hearing was not
about what was best for Son, Daughter and their sister Daughter, making this
order voidable. Whenever any officer
of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged
in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d
1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is
fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself.
15. James has not complied with this parenting schedule
since the custodial kidnapping of 2005. Magistrate Voisinet allowed James to
place two substantially frivolous, substantially groundless and substantially
vexatious restrictions upon Stacy and her children, causing continual emotional
abuse over two years for the children and her.
·
In July 2007, within months of the first
unfounded restriction (which lasted nine months), Stacy Slaton and the children
had begun their two-week summer parenting time. They had never been allowed
this summer scheduled time since the 2005 custody switch, due to the unfounded
restriction in 2006.
·
The second unfounded restriction occurred as
a result of an incident in July 2007 when Officer Miklos of the Arvada Police
Department engaged in actions to further the civil conspiracy against Stacy
Slaton and the efforts to kidnap her children.
Officer Miklos used her badge, her uniform, and her authority to kidnap
Stacy’s children.
·
On or about July 21, 2007, an incident
occurred between Stacy Slaton and her sister.
Police arrived THE NEXT EVENING at approximately 11:30 p.m., and conducted
an investigation to determine if a crime had been committed or if there was a
child welfare concern. They did not find
any evidence to substantiate that a crime had been committed or that there was
a child welfare issue.
·
On or about July 24, 2007, Officer Miklos
entered Stacy’s home without her knowledge, consent, or a search warrant when
Stacy was at work. Son, who was thirteen years old, was responsibly caring for
his sister Daughter. Officer Miklos, using
her uniform to intimidate 13-year-old Son, entered the home and interrogated Son,
without cause.
·
Officer Miklos contacted Stacy via phone from
inside Stacy’s home to inform her that Stacy needed to be questioned about the
July 21 incident that had already been investigated with no findings. Officer Miklos made it clear to Stacy that
she was holding the children until Stacy returned; thereby, denying Stacy’s
right to have her attorney present during interrogation.
·
Officer Miklos refused to release the
children to the responsible adult that Stacy designated in her effort to
protect the children and reduce trauma to them. Miklos’ reason was that the
dads would not allow that, suggesting that Miklos had colluded with James and
John to interfere with Stacy’s parenting time, and to unlawfully remove her
children without cause.
·
When Stacy arrived at the home, approximately
five police vehicles were present at the address to investigate a report that
had already been unfounded. Officer Miklos informed Stacy that she was being
arrested. No officer present read Stacy her Miranda rights, and Miklos ordered
a fellow officer to take Stacy to the Arvada Police Department to be processed
for alleged crime.
·
Stacy asked Officer Miklos to leave her home
and Miklos refused, stating that she needed to contact James Mohnhaupt (in
Evergreen) and John Slaton (in Commerce City) to come pick-up their
children. Officer Miklos said she would
report to the police station once the children were picked up.
·
Stacy was then taken to the police
department, finger printed, and photographed.
Shortly after, and within a time frame that was impossible for James to
arrive from Evergreen and John to arrive from Commerce City without prior knowledge,
Officer Miklos arrived at the Arvada Police station and released Stacy, without
a citation, and with no reason for detaining Stacy. Instead, Officer Miklos
informed Stacy the District Attorney would be contacting her. Therefore, Stacy Slaton was held by the
Arvada Police Department long enough for her kids to witness her false arrest,
be illegally removed from her home, and be horribly traumatized by the civil
conspiracy against their mother.
·
When Officer Miklos told Stacy to leave the
police station, Stacy feared for her very life and that of Son, Daughter and Daughter.
·
Officer Miklos engaged in a pattern of civil
conspiracy designed to deny Stacy’s constitutional right to be a parent, rights
to life, liberty, and happiness, and guarantees of due process and fairness. In
doing so, she violated her Oaths of Office and her duties to the Constitution.
·
The Jefferson County District Attorney’s
office never contacted Stacy Slaton. Stacy went to their office on numerous
occasions to find out how her case was to be resolved, and she was told she was
never arrested, because she did not have a summons. She told them that she had
been handcuffed, put into a police car, fingerprinted, photographed, and placed
in a jail cell, and then released. The district attorney had a hard time
locating information about this false arrest. Upon research, the district
attorney determined that this case had NO substantial evidence of any crime
being committed, and it was declined immediately.
·
As a result of these actions, Stacy was
placed on her second unfounded restriction by Chris Voisinet, who refused to
hear this restriction for a period of more than a year, as R.O.A. supports.
Magistrate Voisinet violated §C.R.S. 14-10-129 (4).
·
Voisinet maliciously slandered and blamed
Stacy on court record for the amount of time that had passed between when the
restriction was filed and the day the court heard the matter, despite repeated
filings by Stacy’s attorney to have the matter heard within seven days, as the statute
required. Thus, Voisinet committed fraud upon the court.
·
When James realized he could no longer be
given latitude from this court to restrict Stacy’s time with the children,
James moved to file contempt on Child Support arrears, violating C.R.C.P. 107. Despite James’ testimony
to the court that he did not want Stacy to serve jail time, Voisinet ordered
nine months’ incarceration anyway.
·
How many parents has Christopher Voisinet
incarcerated? What is the proportion of incarcerated mothers to fathers? How many families have suffered a severing of
relationship with one parent by the actions of Christopher Voisinet in the past
decade?
·
Christopher Voisinet assisted James in
severing the sacrosanct relationship between Mother and Children. This further supports civil conspiracy and
malicious actions of this court to use the children, Son, Daughter, and Daughter,
to inflict domestic violence by proxy and to carry out James’ threat of eliminating
Stacy.
·
James has violated Court Order to authorize
Stacy to have access to the children’s medical, educational, daycare, therapy,
and extracurricular records, blocking all attempts by their mother to get those
records and to have any contact with Daughter.
·
An ex parte meeting took place during the
last hearing for restriction and was confirmed by James Mohnhaupt and Magistrate
Christopher Voisinet. After a recess of Division Q, and Court was back in
session, Magistrate Voisinet stated that John Slaton, and John’s and James’
attorney June Anglin were not present.
James Mohnhaupt responded, “They are meeting with the court.” Voisinet’s response was that court was in
session, thus acknowledging an ex parte meeting.
·
Additionally, failure to provide access
occurred when Son Mohnhaupt, n.k.a. Son Lowery, was incarcerated for
self-defense against James. Son was
released after 30 days’ detention when the Court dismissed this case in a Writ
of Habeas Corpus in November, 2009.
·
Stacy was never notified, and Court granted Son
a restraining order against James. James, in turn, demanded a R.O. be placed
upon Stacy even though James falsely reported he did not know how to contact
Mother. In another ex parte hearing, a restraining order was placed by Judge
J.K. Moore between Son and his mother, who had been sequestered from him six
months prior to James’ assault on Son. There never was imminent danger by Stacy
nor was there probable cause to suspect that there might be danger. James Mohnhaupt once again managed to control
the court to interfere with Son’s relationship with his mother while he was in
state detention.[26] This is yet
another violation of due process of Stacy and Son’s rights and is a further
violation of Oaths of Office by Jefferson County’s’ appointed PUBLIC OFFICERS.
·
James continues to be in violation of Stacy
and Daughter’s parenting time since the permanent orders of this Court in
2000. Failure to provide any information
to Stacy about Daughter’s removals from the State of Colorado by uninvolved
parties is tantamount to interstate kidnapping of the parties who engage in
such removal. Stacy requires full
parental responsibility and decision making of Daughter Anastasia Mohnhaupt, as
James has proven his inability to co-parent and support a relationship with
Stacy and Daughter. He has also violated this Court’s trust that he will to
support such relationship.
16. WHO ARE
THE EXPERTS AND WHAT DO THEY KNOW ABOUT cases parallel to THE Mohnhaupt/Slaton
CASE?
- Mo
Therese Hannah, PhD
- Barry
Goldstein, J.D.
- Karen
Anderson
- Sharon
K. Araji, M.Ed., PhD
- Nicholas
Bala, J.D.
- Lundy
Bancroft
- Rebecca
L. Bosek, PhD, L.M.F.T., L.P.C.
- Mike Brigner, J.D.
- Claire
V. Crooks, PhD., C.Psych
- Margaret
K. Dore, J.D.
- Molly
Dragiewicz, PhD.
- Nancy
L. Erikson, J.D., LL.M., M.A.
- Marjory
D. Fields, J.D.
- Paul
Jay Fink, M.D.
- Ann
Grant, M.A., M.Div.
- Marvin
Timothy Gray, J.D., M.A., C.D.S.V.R.P.
- Paige
Hudson, B.A.
- Thomas E. Hornsby, J.D.
- Peter
G. Jaffe, PhD., C.Psych.
- Jan
Kurth, M.U.P.
- Larissa
Pollica, R.N., B.S.
- Lois
Schwaeber, J.D.
- Jay
G. Silverman, PhD
- Rita
Smith, B.A.
- Evan
Stark, PhD, M.S.W.
- Erika
Sussman, J.D., LL.M
- Wendy
Titleman
- Garland
Waller, M.S.
- Robin
Yeamans, J.D.
- Annette
Zender Joan Zorza, J.D.
A.
If you don’t know who these experts are in
the fields of law, psychology, child abuse, domestic violence abuse, and
related fields, then you lack the required knowledge to be involved in
Mohnhaupt/Slaton cases.
B.
If you don’t know what their scientific
studies conclude in the fields of domestic violence abuse, child abuse, and
contested child custody, then you lack the required knowledge to be involved in
Mohnhaupt/Slaton cases.
C.
If you do not honor your oath to the United
States Constitution by protecting the rights of Stacy Slaton, Son Lowry, Daughter
Mohnhaupt, and Daughter Slaton, you are willfully and knowingly inviting
litigation upon yourself. It is summarily
illegal, unlawful, and ultimately inhumane, to strip children away from their
mother without cause, without due process of law, and without consent of those
innocent people who have been unconscionably injured by those who are required
to protect them.
17. Why are you requesting a Verified AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF Emergency Motion FOR ORDER to Modify pARENTAL AND
Decision-Making responsibility via absentee testimony Statutory
Authority for the following meets the requirements of §14-10-124, §14-10-129
and §14-10-131, C.R.S.
·
§14-10-129
(1) (a) (I)
Except as otherwise provided in
subparagraph (I) of paragraph (b) of this subsection (1), the court may make or
modify an order granting or denying parenting time rights whenever such order
or modification would serve the best interests of the child.
·
This is an
emergency motion to order via absentee testimony given the imminence of the
circumstances.
·
§14-10-129
(1) (a) (II) Does not apply
·
§14-10-129
(1) (b) (I)
Stacy
Slaton is not requesting restriction; she is respectfully demanding a Verified
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF Emergency Motion FOR ORDER to Modify pARENTAL AND
Decision-Making responsibility via absentee testimony unless, given
the following information, the court deems otherwise to restrict Father’s
parenting time under C.R.S. §14-10-124
(7).
·
C.R.C.P.16.2
(3) (A) Emergency matters may be brought to the
attention of the clerk or the Family Court facilitator for presentation to the
court. Issues related to children shall be given priority on the court’s calendar.
·
§14-10-129
(1) (b) (II) Does not apply
·
§14-10-129
(1.5) Does not require a hearing
·
§14-10-129
(2) The court shall not modify a prior order
concerning parenting time that substantially changes the parenting time as well
as changes the party with whom the child resides a majority of the time unless
it finds, upon the basis of facts that have arisen since the prior decree or
that were unknown to the court at the time of the prior decree, that a
change has occurred in the circumstances of the child or the party with
whom the child resides the majority of the time and that the modification is
necessary to serve the best interests of the child. In applying these
standards, the court shall retain the parenting time schedule established in
the prior decree unless:
(a) Does not
apply (b) Does not apply (c) Does not
apply
(d) The
child's present environment endangers the child's physical health or
significantly impairs the child's emotional development and the harm likely to
be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantage of a change
to the child.
·
James Mohnhaupt has failed to comply with the
custody switch orders of 2005, resulting in parental interference, a change in
the Child’s circumstances, and new facts
for the Court to consider. James has
utterly and habitually abandoned Stacy Slaton and all attempts to comply with
the custody switch order since 2005.
·
John Slaton, who was a party to the case, has
failed to comply with the custody switch orders of 2005, resulting in parental
interference, a change in Daughter Mohnhaupt’s circumstances, and new facts for the Court to consider. John has utterly and habitually abandoned
Stacy Slaton and all attempts to comply with the custody switch order since
2005 and with subsequent Permanent Orders in 2006.
·
James Jeffery Mohnhaupt colluded and
conspired with John Paul Slaton of case 06DR2673 while being empowered by this
court to commit legal abuse, to commit custodial kidnapping, to circumvent any
boundaries or protection against the use of malicious restrictions and
malicious prosecutions. They have conspired to sever the sibling/maternal
relationships, and at times have tried to coerce Stacy’s family and friends to
engage in such crimes, controlling access to the children as punishment or
reward. Some of Stacy’s family members
have chosen to engage in these crimes, as a result.
·
Continued collusion between James Mohnhaupt
and John Slaton shows a pattern of conspiring to create separation and
character defamation between Mother and Children, which pattern constitutes new facts for the court to consider in this
case.
·
Given the fact James Mohnhaupt and John
Slaton have been allowed to abuse Stacy and her children by proxy, crimes of
civil conspiracy that ultimately led to kidnapping have been allowed to play
out in Division Q of Jefferson County Courts. Other people involved in
collusion to commit crime currently include Jean Githens, John Moreno, June
Moreno, Mary Edwards, David Riethmann, Jean Githens and Linda Slaton. James and John have used the children to
develop this conspiracy against Stacy and at time used the children to bribe
others to engage in these criminal activities.
Therefore the above parties should be included in future Judgments that
compensate Stacy and her children for their crimes.
·
Order of November 7, 2008, Court appointed
Doris Waters as child and family investigator to interview the children and
parents to report how unsupervised parenting time was progressing and to
monitor Stacy’s interactions with the children over a six-month period. Waters
met with Stacy one time to discuss the policies of the CFI investigation.
During the months after being appointed, Waters failed to monitor Stacy and her
children.
·
Doris cancelled several appointments with
Stacy; however she met with John and James.
Stacy has numerous emails from her attorney and therapist, as well as
phone records that support Doris Waters’ falsified contact with Stacy to this
court.
·
Waters instead did a legal analysis, based on
discriminations in this case as demonstrated in her report in which she cited
the Court’s Order verbatim. She failed to provide the monitoring and interviews
of Stacy, Son and Daughter as ordered.
·
Had Doris Waters been looking out for the
best interest of the children, surely she would have noticed the escalation of
James’ hostilities towards Son. Hence, the court chose to accept her so-called
“investigation” over another expert who had recommended “shared parenting.”
·
The Court gave “no weight” to Ben McCracken’s
expert testimony, and instead chose to criticize Stacy and allowed statements
of hearsay and perjury. Dr. McCracken had also witnessed interactions with
parties that testified in this hearing.
Instead, the opposing parties who had conspired to sever the maternal
relationship, and Christopher Voisinet, chose to criticize Stacy and to make
defamatory psychological statements as if they were the experts. Furthermore,
they mocked and belittled Dr. McCracken’s expert testimony.
·
This Order also found Stacy indigent, having
the State pay for Doris Waters’ investigation, so James could again retain a
financial advantage.
·
Stacy has researched Jefferson County’s
transparency site looking for a copy of this payment to Doris Waters (a board
member for the Jefferson County Courts). Waters’ involvement represents a
conflict of interest and collusion to sever the maternal relationship between
Stacy, Son and Daughter.
·
In fact, none of the experts appointed in
this case are on Jefferson County’s current Roster of Child Family
Investigators. The involvement of “experts” in this case to date has resulted
in a flawed, biased, and unconstitutional exchange of children as human
capital.
18. A
significant change has occurred in the environment of Daughter Mohnhaupt,
resulting in the need for a change in parental responsibilities.
·
Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department, Child
Protective Services, and Honorable Judge J.K. Moore removed Son Lowery from
James Mohnhaupt’s custody in October 2009, seven months after unlawful contempt
citations were ordered in this case. James Mohnhaupt gave false information to
the sheriff that Son had initiated an assault against him. In fact, police
verified that James pushed Son first, held him in a headlock, and wrestled Son
to the ground, causing Son to fear for his life.
·
Exhibiting habitual abuse and neglect, James
held Son Lowery, then a frightened 15-year-old, in false detention for thirty
days and effectuated Son’s humiliation by public shackling. James brought Daughter
Mohnhaupt to the detention facility to further witness Son’s public humiliation
in order to punish and intimidate both children. (Agency Case #09-36249) Son’s
plea in this matter was self-defense, Son requested Child Protective Services
TRAILS reports of documented abuse dating back to 1997 to substantiate the habitual
coercion, control, punishment, intimidation, and revenge by James Mohnhaupt
against him and his sister, Daughter Mohnhaupt. His requests were denied.[27] However,
the referrals were reviewed by James Mohnhaupt and Jefferson County Department
of Human Services (JCDHS), as evidenced in Minute Orders.
·
According to Minute Orders dated October 29,
2009, James Mohnhaupt, “was working with Jefferson County Department of Human
Services and checking into referrals.” In fact, Child Protective Services
collaborated with Father to redact records of abuse referrals against him.
·
District Attorney Scott Storey did not press
charges against Son, but released him to Stacy Slaton’s sister, Desiree Moreno,
under a Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Case
Number 09JD00962) Police records
confirm these facts.[28]
·
Of gravest concern, Daughter Mohnhaupt
witnessed the altercation and arrest of her brother and has suffered from the
ensuing removal of her brother who had resided with her since birth, from James
Mohnhaupt’s custody. This series of incidents resulting in the removal of Son
Lowery has created a significant change
in Daughter’s circumstances, creating further isolation and endangering Daughter’s physical health
and emotional development.
·
When Child Protective Services failed to investigate
the environment and the documented pattern of habitual abuse, and to protect Daughter
Mohnhaupt in 2009, they not only “failed her” egregiously, but must be
restrained from any contact with Daughter as they are a danger to her physical
safety and emotional well-being by their forfeiting their mandated
responsibilities.
·
The continued separation
between Mother and Child is creating imminent danger to Daughter Mohnhaupt.
This Court has summarily allowed domestic violence by proxy, substituting the
children of Stacy Slaton for Stacy Slaton in the abuse dynamic. Daughter
Mohnhaupt, Son Lowery, Daughter Slaton, as well as extended family members and
lifelong friends and their children, have been exposed to latent anger against
Stacy Slaton by James Mohnhaupt and John Slaton and have been subject to the
same forms of retaliation including coercion, control, punishment,
intimidations, and revenge, used against Stacy Slaton, which have been
empowered by this court.
·
Neither James Mohnhaupt nor
John Slaton has the ability to place the needs of Daughter, Son and Daughter
ahead of his own needs. C.R.S. 14-10-124
(XI). The presence of continued
coercion, control, punishment, intimidation, and revenge against both Daughter
Mohnhaupt and Stacy Slaton, the ensuing isolation created by Son’s removal, and
the severing of the maternal bond have
created a change in Daughter’s
circumstances and require a change in custody from James Mohnhaupt.
·
James Jeffrey Mohnhaupt has
colluded and conspired with John Paul Slaton of case 06DR2673 and has been
empowered by this court to allow legal abuse, to commit custodial kidnapping
and to circumvent any boundaries or protection against the use of malicious
restrictions and malicious prosecution in the effort to sever sibling/maternal relationships,
violating §C.R.S. 14-10-124 (1.5) (III)
(VI), (VII) and (XI). This includes incidents where James has severed the
interaction and interrelationship of Daughter and Stacy, Daughter’s siblings,
and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interests.
Karlis Center reports (previously entered as evidence of this court,
acknowledges the father’s violation of these statutes).
19. Orders in
2009 resulted in this Court imposing excessive bail, and the denial of lawful
forms of bail, in violation of Colorado
Constitution Act II,§19 and 20:
Excessive bail, fines and punishment. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted the fact there was no court order for arrears, is a violation of C.R.C.P. 107.
·
This Court did not comply with C.R.S.
§14-10-129 1(b)(I) when restricting, nor did it
comply with
C.R.S. §14-10-129.5(4)
when the restriction was
unfounded, because it did not refund or credit
substantial expenses incurred as well as make-up parenting time for unfounded restrictions.
Furthermore, this court ordered a second restriction within months, AGAIN
violating C.R.S. §14-10-129 1(b)(I), in
yet another unfounded restriction,
violating C.R.S. §14-10-129.5(4), for
a second time.
·
Stacy
had been court ordered to pay an estimated $5,000.00 in attorney fees for James
as well. Stacy was forced to make a
financial choice to lease her time with her kids from the Karlis Center so she
could see them, or not see her kids to meet the child support payment that was
set above her financial means. C.R.S.§ 18-3-502(1)(A), Trafficking
in children
(1) A
person commits trafficking in children if he or she:
(a)Sells, exchanges, barters, or
leases a child and receives any money or other consideration or thing of value for the
child as a result of such transaction; or
(b)Receives a child as a result of a
transaction described in paragraph (a) of
this subsection (1).
(2) As
used in this section, "child" means a person under eighteen years of
age.
(3) Trafficking
in children is a class 2 felony.
·
The failure of this Court to follow statute
caused child support to stay in arrears, further allowing violations of C.R.S. § 14-10-129 (3)(B)(XI) C.R.S. Mother’s due
process, which is guaranteed by the United States Constitution
and the court officials’ oaths of office.
·
Colorado Law prohibits the incarceration of
an indigent parent for child support.
Magistrate Chris Voisinet declared Stacy Slaton indigent for the purpose
of appointing Doris Waters to be state paid.
·
Voisinet contradicted himself by stating that
Stacy Slaton could not pay $3,000.00 for court-appointed CFI Doris Weeks.
However, within weeks, this court stated that Stacy would go to jail unless she
came up with $14,000.00 in child-support arrears. Based on Stacy’s history of
child support payments, the court deviating from statute and child support
worksheets, and the court failing to reimburse the costs of two years’ worth of
unfounded malicious restrictions, these arrears may not have even existed.
·
C.R.C.P. 107 a court
order must be on record prior to issuing a contempt of court order. At the time
this contempt was filed there was no order for child support arrears in this
matter. In fact, both parties’ attorneys
were working to modify support to include the arrears; however, James Mohnhaupt
refused to cooperate and a hearing was set for a malicious prosecution of
contempt. This court denied the lawful
support payments and James’ statements that he did not want Stacy in jail.
·
James Mohnhaupt and John Slaton used this
contempt to create blackmail, bribery, ransom, extortion, child trafficking and
exploitation, while causing intentional emotional distress to Son, Daughter,
and Daughter and committing parental interference.
·
Sentencing and Request for Stay of Execution
were bifurcated allowing the court to order an excessive punishment. Margie Enquist granted a stay of execution on
grounds that the Court was inconsistent. However, Jane Tidball denied this
stay, thus causing Enquist to go back on her order.
·
The consolidation and bifurcation allowed the
court to play against itself in a violation of due process protection against
loss of significant liberty interest.
·
These cases were consolidated for the
contempt hearing until the punishment of incarceration was ordered.
·
The cases were then “unconsolidated” in order
to sentence a 9-month debtors’ prison confinement. This allowed the request for
the stay of execution to have two separate rulings and sever the maternal relationship.
·
When the court failed to compensate Stacy,
according to the statutes, for the cost to lease her parenting time for two
years, it set Stacy up for entrapment. Complying with the crime of entrapment C.S.R. §18-1-709 in this matter would
make Stacy an accessory to such crimes, as well as indicate that she consented
to the violation of her rights.
Therefore, the court allowed an illegal contempt to silence Stacy, and
sanctioned bribery, extortion, ransom, false incarceration, and further
severing of the sacrosanct maternal relationship.
·
In
2008, attorneys had spent several months figuring out the correct legal amount
of child support, which would have included arrears. Given James’ failure to recognize this child
support, a child support hearing was set, and the modification was denied by
this court. Court further ordered Stacy
to pay $918.00 in attorney fees to June Anglin.
·
In a letter that included a stipulation,
dated April 10, 2009, and submitted as an exhibit to the court January 12,
2012, James attempted to bribe Stacy with the threat of incarceration, stating
James would agree to reconsider accuracy of child support figures. However the 2009
stipulation used lawful figures of the 2008 hearing, as long as Stacy agreed to
relinquish her parental rights “temporarily.”
This amount of $347.18 per month, is close to the
figure previously denied by the courts in 2008.
·
The state
has been accruing $525.00 per month for the past five years, which includes Son
who has not been in James’ care for the past four years.
·
In regards to child support for Son Lowery,
Court should note, (13) Emancipation.
(a) For child support orders entered on or after July 1, 1997, unless a
court finds that a child is otherwise emancipated, emancipation occurs and
child support terminates without either party filing a motion when the last or
only child attains nineteen years of age.
·
Child Support Enforcement is still
calculating a debt for Son, despite a motion to terminate child support for him
dated January 13, 2012. Stacy also submitted a motion offering her inheritance
from her grandfather’s estate to pay this ransom. Jefferson County denied the motion stating
they did not need to be burdened with this matter.
·
John Slaton had child support payments
altered in this matter by having Child Support Enforcement remove evidence of
payments, therefore altering the arrearage of child support in this case to
John’s benefit. March 31, 2008 document
shows arrearage of $232.15 page 2 shows arrearage on March 2, 2008 of $1,940.26
and on April 2, 2008 amount owed of $2,252.41.
These documents have already been submitted to this court as evidence,
validating conspiracy and collusion. These documents and the on-going
violations constitute new facts for the
Court to consider.
·
Such actions are tantamount to extortion,
ransom, bribery, blackmail, C.R.S.
§18-3-502. These actions deny Stacy’s right to due process, particularly
when incarceration is possible. More
importantly, Stacy Slaton will never terminate her parental rights. Intentional
emotional distress was inflicted and continues to be inflicted on Stacy Slaton
and her children, and further indicates fraud and civil conspiracy. This court
has allowed Stacy to be sequestered from her children and substantiates Stacy’s
claim that she would never be absent unless there was a threat of abuse, which
is violent, by the other parties. The court has practiced domestic violence by
proxy by forcing Stacy to choose between unlawful incarceration and abrogation
of her Constitutional right to be a parent. The court has allowed James Mohnhaupt
and John Slaton to control, coerce, punish, intimidate and seek revenge against
Stacy Slaton. Even more urgently, Stacy’s daughters are being forced to live
without their Mother, who comforts them, teaches them, and defends them from
crime.
20. Stacy is
asking this Court to implement C.R.S. 14-10-129.5 (2)(c) An order
requiring the violator to post bond or security to insure future compliance; and to further hold James and his
colluders liable for any expenses past and present to Stacy, Son, Daughter and Daughter,
to assist in returning their lives,
sibling, maternal relationships and family to a healthy status.
·
Stacy was awarded every other weekend from
5:30 p.m. on Fridays until 5:30 p.m. on Sundays. Stacy was also awarded a dinner visit during
the alternate week from 5:00 p.m. until 7:30 p.m.
·
Child support was switched to James as the
recipient in the 2005 Permanent Orders custody switch. The court determined
that Stacy was underemployed despite the fact that she had operated the same
cleaning business since 1994, and financial disclosures showed her current
situation. The statutes and
worksheet were manipulated to make the child support figure higher than Stacy
could afford at her present income.
·
The costs incurred for the leasing of the
children by the court and the Karlis Center, caused by unfounded restrictions,
put Stacy further behind in the child support obligations, which were already
inflated. This amount is included in Karlis Center records and should be
included in the judgment to rectify the forced leasing of the children.
· Per C.R.S. §14-10-129.5 (2) (e.5) Stacy is
entitled to one hundred dollars per incident of denied parenting time. James owes Stacy $64,400.00 per child or a
total of $128,800.00, based on denied time since 2006 of 66 overnights and 26
dinner visits over the last seven years. The court needs to enter a judgment
immediately on this matter to enforce statute and prevent further violations by
any party.
· If void
judgment of the custody switch is sought, James would owe for 273 denied
visits, totaling $382,200.00 per child or $764,400.00 total.
·
James continues to manipulate this court, and
commits domestic abuse by Proxy by using control tactics on all parties
involved, endangering Son, Daughter and Daughter. James continues to
maliciously restrict Stacy’s parenting time, by bringing false restrictions and
using unlawful contempt of court charges with no regard to the fact that the
parent-child relationship is sacrosanct, causing a lease, exchange of her
children; refer to C.R.S. § 14-10-129
(3)(B)(XI) and C.R.S.§ 18-3-502(1)(A). This on-going restriction of Stacy’s
parenting time constitutes a change in the Child’s circumstances and new facts
for the Court to consider.
·
Stacy further requests
relief under 14-10-129.5 (c) in the amount of Two Million dollars a month for
every month that the sacrosanct parent-child relationship continues to be
severed, effective
14 days from the day this motion is filed, as remedy for James
causing Stacy, Son, Daughter and Daughter substantial emotional and economic
hardship; for depriving Mother, Son, Daughter and Daughter of their Civil Rights, 42 U.S.C. section 1983;
for depriving Stacy, Son, Daughter and Daughter the right to family integrity;
for depriving Stacy, Son, Daughter and Daughter of their Constitutional Rights;
for depriving Stacy, Son, Daughter and Daughter
the right to life, liberty, property, and the rights guaranteed by
statute; and for disregarding the probability of Son, Daughter and Daughter
suffering physical, emotional and mental distress.
21. 14-10-131 (c) The retention
of the allocation of decision-making responsibility would endanger the child’s
physical health or significantly impairs the child’s emotional development and
the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the
advantage of a change to the child.
·
Retention of the current
allocation of custody and decision making endangers Daughter Mohnhaupt’s
physical health and impairs her emotional development because an environment of
coercion, control, punishment, and intimidation exists. Daughter Mohnhaupt
currently lives in an environment where abuse has been habituated. In Stacy
Slaton’s care, Daughter Mohnhaupt will learn a system of values that includes healthy,
respectful interactions and language, and proper placement of Daughter’s needs
ahead of the parent’s needs.
·
Son Lowery has been residing
with Stacy Slaton since November of 2011. He has entrusted his growth and
healing from emotional and physical abuse inflicted by the colluding of James
Mohnhaupt and John Slaton to his Mother. At this time, the sibling relationship
is continuing to be severed and the parent-child-sibling bonds are continuing
to be withheld from Stacy Slaton, Son Lowery, Daughter Mohnhaupt, and Daughter
Slaton, further violating C.R.S.
14-10-124 (1.5)(III).
·
Since Son has been in
Stacy’s care, he has successfully graduated from high school, gained
responsible employment requiring security clearance in a field that aligns with
his plans to attend college.
·
It is of great significance
that Son has had no encounters with law enforcement or school authorities since
the attack and accusations made by James Mohnhaupt in 2009. However, during the
four years when James utterly alienated Stacy Slaton from Son’s life he had
several run-ins.
22. Psychological abuse, formerly called
parental alienation, in Daughter Mohnhaupt’s present environment is causing
physical and emotional distress, violating C.R.S. 14-10-124 (1.5) (III) (VI), (VII)
and (XI).
·
On October 12, 2004, Jean
LaCrosse, Ph.D., gave “informed recommendations” to this Court expressing
concerns of parental alienation by Stacy Slaton. In her testimony of August
2005, Jean LaCrosse further stated to all parties, in her “professional opinion
that ‘parental alienation’ is a form of psychological endangerment.” However, Parental Alienation Syndrome has been
discredited.[29]
·
Stacy Slaton has recognized
her own flaws and acknowledged any defects in her parenting, which could have
an impact on her children. She acknowledges her role in the dynamics of this
case. Stacy has continued to learn and understand parenting in high-conflict
divorce, what psychological abuse is, and how damaging separation of children
from either parent can be.
·
Karlis Center reports from
2006 to 2008, which include the monitored period of Stacy’s unfounded restrictions, previously
entered as evidence of this court, repeatedly acknowledge the fathers’
violations of C.R.S. 14-10-124 (1).
Court orders PROHIBIT, both parties from
disparaging the other in front of the children. Disparagement of Stacy
Slaton’s character has in fact occurred in this case, which is psychological
abuse.
·
Karlis Center reports also
prove that Stacy is the only parent capable of complying with C.R.S. 14-10-124 (1.5)(XI). “The right to
the custody and control of one’s child is a fiercely guarded right in our
society and in our law. It is a right
that should not be infringed upon only under the most compelling circumtances.”
Brooks v. Parkerson Georgia Supreme Court (1995.) No such compelling circumstances existed.
·
As a Court-appointed agency
the Karlis Center should be ordered to report to the courts when they see signs
that the wrong parent is being restricted, so the court can remedy the
environment of the children.
·
Circumstances in this case
since August 2005 indicate that psychological abuse has, in fact, occurred, and
has escalated since 2009. The behavior of James
Mohnhaupt provides extensive evidence that he is the parent who has separated Daughter
from her mother. Such pattern of behavior constitutes new facts in this
case.
·
Psychological abuse,
formerly called Parental Alienation is
grounds for an immediate change in custody.
·
At this time, James Mohnhaupt has refused to
allow Daughter Mohnhaupt any unsupervised contact with her brother Son Lowery,
who is 19 years old. James has blocked Daughter’s phone from calling Stacy
Slaton or Son Lowery. This happened as a
result of Daughter making a comment that if Mom paid only five dollars she
could see Stacy and Daughter, but it would be at the Karlis center but she
could see us.
·
James is leading Daughter to believe that her
mother does not want to see her. The truth
is Stacy has been sequestered from her daughter as a result of domestic
violence and civil conspiracy.
·
Given the use of
legal abuse and domestic violence by proxy[30] in these cases, not only has Daughter been, and continues to be,
isolated from Stacy unlawfully, but the same deprivation has occurred from
extended family, friends, community, and family culture and traditions, that
only Daughter Mohnhaupt’s mother, Stacy Slaton, can provide.
·
Judge Margie Enquist’s, findings, as stated
in the August 2005 hearing that parental alienation “may” occur in Stacy
Slaton’s care have, in fact, occurred in James Mohnhaupt’s care. The “alienation” this Court and experts
attempted to avoid in the custody switch of 2005, has in fact, taken place at
the hands of James Mohnhaupt, further depriving
Daughter of security and maternal affection, and placing the children in
imminent danger. James has failed to comply with the parenting time of Stacy
and Daughter for more than seven years. The
right to family relationships applies reciprocally between parent and child.
Smith v. Fontana, 818 F.2d 1411, 1414, 1418 (9th Cir.1987); Duchesne v.
Sugarman, 566 F.2d 817, 825 (2d Cir.1977).
·
Margie Enquist’s statement that parental
alienation MAY occur is conditional
at best. In truth, Margie Enquist incorrectly and unfairly caused a change in
the environment of the Daughter, Son, and Daughter without the substantive
requirement that the advantage of such change outweigh the harm. She further
exhibited profound ambivalence, indecision, and speculation about the decision
when the statute demands a significant reason. Therefore, this court must remedy these situations immediately to
prevent further harm to Daughter, Son, and Daughter.
·
The financial costs of malicious pay-to-play
proceedings and leasing of her children and coercion by James in this matter
have allowed him to use this Court to sever the relationships among Stacy
Slaton, Son Lowery, Daughter Mohnhaupt, and Daughter Slaton.
·
Dependence on James Mohnhaupt to fulfill Daughter’s
needs may have caused her to develop Stockholm syndrome[31] and places
her physical health and emotional
development in imminent danger. The harm likely to be caused by a change of
environment is outweighed by the advantage of a change to the child. At this time, a change of environment for Daughter
into Stacy’s custodianship far outweighs the harm of such a change.
·
James Mohnhaupt and John
Slaton have forcibly removed Stacy Slaton from her children’s lives; Stacy has
never abandoned her children as her repeated efforts to plead with the court
indicate. Stacy Slaton has pursued local and national avenues to understand how
Jefferson County Court personnel have removed her children with no regard to
the harm inflicted upon Daughter, Son and Daughter.
23. A change
in Stacy Slaton’s circumstances has an effect on the circumstances of her
daughter, Daughter Mohnhaupt. As a result of unlawful actions by
James Mohnhaupt to falsely restrict parenting time and to place contempt of
court charges against Stacy Slaton, she has been unable to enjoy employment, a
right that is protected by the United States Constitution and any violations
under Color of Law are illegal. Stacy’s rights to enjoy the parent-child
relationship and to enjoy employment or any prerequisite thereof, outlined as
duties of this court and any agency of the United States to protect, have been
jeopardized by the very people entrusted to protect these rights.
·
As a result of financial hardship, the
Court’s lack of compliance with statutes, and the collusion between James
Mohnhaupt and John Slaton to abrogate due process and equal protection
guarantees of Stacy Slaton by altering of child support payments; by ordering a
jail sentence when the child support history did not justify doing so; by
failing to modify support to the lawful amount, and by using coercion to demand
a nine-month jail sentence or demand payment in full, and by attempting to
coerce her into terminating her parental rights, Daughter Mohnhaupt has been
denied the right to have her mother in her life, and the environment of Daughter,
Son, and Daughter has been impaired. This
definitely constitutes a change in the circumstances of Daughter Mohnhaupt.
·
Stacy Slaton has made efforts to improve her
circumstances. She is in possession of numerous phone recordings with Katie
Smith, Ray Washington and Beth Barr, of Child Support Enforcement, since the
time James filed for the Contempt Hearing in 2009. C.S.E. personnel were
shocked by the Court’s ruling to incarcerate Stacy due to her continued
history of child support payments well into 2010.
·
Constitutional Law does not warrant such
cruel and unusual punishment, including further severing of the maternal
relationship without considering the best interest of the child. Further,
James knew child support was set above Stacy’s ability to pay and this court’s
discrimination towards the mother in these cases, caused further harm, by
ordering her to pay attorney fees for requesting a lawful modification of child
support. Ray Washington even made an attempt to work on a payment plan in 2012
with James, given that the inaccuracies in child support figures have
interfered with the parental relationship, which constitutes imminent harm.
·
Court should note the child support case in
06DR2673 has been closed.
·
Stacy has evidence of communication with Dan
Welch, (State of Colorado Human Services Grant supervisor), as to his concerns
about the mental health of James and that the funding to the fatherhood
programs within Jefferson County would not help James. Dan Welch has stated “he
(James) is a monster and beyond help.” If programs that are already in place
are futile in this situation, Daughter Mohnhaupt is in imminent danger, and the
remedies offered in C.R.S. 14-10-124 (8)
do not pertain.
·
Stacy Slaton’s rights under 18 USC §242 and 18 USC §245 have
been violated! James, John and other persons have been allowed to engage in
activities tantamount to kidnapping, forcing Stacy into further financial
hardship and costs similar to ransom.
·
Stacy Slaton has
co-founded Parent Child Justice, she has done research for National Forum on
Judicial Accountability (NFOJA), and
works with California Protective Parents’ Alliance (CCPPA). She serves
as advisor to attorneys and researchers about contested custody issues.
·
In Stacy Slaton’s care, Daughter Slaton will
learn a system of values that includes healthy, respectful interactions and
language, and proper placement of Daughter’s needs ahead of the parent’s needs.
In Stacy’s care Daughter will be allowed to love and have a supportive
relationship with both Father and Mother. This has been neglected in Daughter’s
life for far too long, which impairs psychological development, creating the
emergency in this matter.
24. Due to the dangers of the James’ behavior,
Stacy demands this Court grants this VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO MODIFY PARENTAL AND
DECISION-MAKING RESPONSIBILITY PURSUANT TO CITED SUBSECTIONS C.R.S. §14-10-124,
§14-10-129 AND §14-10-131 VIA ABSENTEE TESTIMONY by August 16, 2013 and remedy
this matter as follows:
· Stacy demands the unlawful warrants are
lifted, and her driver license is reinstated at the State’s expense, as a
remedy to the above violation.
· Child support arrears are dismissed, and
the new child support worksheets (filed with this motion) take effect no later than
August 16, 2013.
·
Parenting plan cited in this motion is
adopted no later than August 16, 2013. No further restriction is warranted. Daughter
needs both parents, but most importantly, Daughter needs to be placed in
Mother’s residential custody in order to heal from the effects of maternal
deprivation.
·
A judgment in the amount of $179,718.00 is
entered with this court per statute, to include James Mohnhaupt, Jean Githens, John
Slaton, Linda Slaton, Mary Edwards, John Moreno, June Moreno, and David Riethmann,
as compensation for their civil conspiracy, fraud upon this court, and domestic
violence, with this court ordering full payment within 90 days. The first
payment of $59,906.00 is to be paid at the exchange of parental
responsibilities on August 16, 2013. The second payment of $59,906.00 shall be
due no later than September 16, 2013. The final payment of $59,906.00 shall be
due no later than October 16, 2013.
·
Stacy should not be asked to appear in “good
faith” on these matters as this Court and all other parties are not acting in
“good faith.” This is for her protection
and safety.
25. Have you talked to the other party
about this modification of allocation of parental responsibilities? Yes, numerous attempts have been made to seek
remedy, yet this court has given power to James to sever the sacrosanct
parental relationship between mother and child.
James refuses all communication, including the necessary requirements of
C.R.S. for school, medical and travel.
26. Is either
party currently receiving Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) or public assistance? Not for Stacy
27. Does the
other party live in another state? No
VERIFICATION
AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I
swear/affirm under oath that I have read the foregoing Motion and that the
statements set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
_________________________________________________________________Mother-Respondent
Signature Date
Subscribed
and affirmed, or sworn to before me Subscribed and affirmed, or sworn to before
me in the County of ________________________,
State of
____________________, this _______day of ________________, 2013
My
Commission Expires:
_________________________________
Notary
Public/Clerk
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
by placing it in the United States
mail, postage pre-paid, and addressed to the following:
To: James Mohnhaupt
P.O. Box 2321
Evergreen,
Co 80437 _________________
Your
Signature
CC:
Chief Justice
Michael Bender
Colorado
Supreme Court
101 West Colfax
Ave Suite 800
Denver,
Colorado 80202 USA
303-837-3742
Chief Judge
Steven M. Munsinger
100 Jefferson
County Parkway
Division 11
Golden,
Colorado 80401 USA
Honorable
Dennis Hall
100 Jefferson
County Parkway
Division 5
Golden
Colorado 80401 USA
Governor John
Hickenlooper
136 State
Capitol
Denver,
Colorado 80203-1792 USA
Senator
Michael Bennet
458 RUSSELL
SENATE OFFICE
BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC
20510 USA
Mark Udall
328 HART
SENATE OFFICE
BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC
20510 USA
Mike
Mauer Colorado
State Legislative Council
Email:
lcs.ga@state.co.us
Director
200 E Colfax
Ave
Denver,
Colorado, 80203 USA
Amy
Zook Colorado
State Legislative Council
Email:
lcs.ga@state.co.us
Deputy
Director
200 E Colfax
Ave
Denver,
Colorado, 80203 USA
Kevin Lundberg
kevin@kevinlundberg.com
Steven King
Senate
steve.king.senate@state.co.us
Jeanne
Nicholson Senate
jeanne.nicholson.senate@state.co.us
Linda Newell
Senate
linda.newell.senate@gmail.com
Carroll Morgan
Senate
morgan.carroll.senate@state.co.us
Betty Boyd Senate
betty.boyd.senate@state.co.us
Angela Giron
Senate
angela.giron.senate@state.co.us
Lucia Guzman
Senate
lucia.guzman.senate@state.co.us
Ellen Roberts
Senate
ellen.roberts.senate@state.co.us
Legally
Kidnapped
legallykidnapped2001@yahoo.com
Cindy Rose
nafcjcal@aol.com
Parents United
for Change
Safe Kids International
SafeKidsIntl@yahoo.org
Alan
Prendergast Writer Westword
alan.prendergast@westword.com
Dr. Jean
LaCrosse
445 Union Blvd
#221
Lakewood,
Colorado 80228 USA
Doris Waters,
Board of Jefferson County Courts
143 Union Blvd
Denver
Colorado 80228 USA
Jody Martinez
1575 Sherman
St Floor 5
Denver,
Colorado 80203 USA
Lynn Johnson
900 Jefferson
County Parkway
Golden,
Colorado 80401 USA
[2] Domestic Violence by
Proxy (DV
by Proxy), a term first used by Alina Patterson, author of Health and
Healing. DV by Proxy refers to a pattern of behavior which is a parent with
a history of using domestic violence or intimidation, uses a child as a
substitute when he no longer has access to his former partner.
[3]
Bancroft, L.,Silverman, J.G., and Ritchie, D. DAUGHTER Series on Violence Against Women: The Batterer as Parent:
Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics. (2nd
ed.). 2012.
[4] Hannah,
Therese and Goldstein, Barry. DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, ABUSE AND CHILD CUSTODY-Legal Strategies and Policy Issues. Kingston,
New Jersey: Civil Research Institute. 2010.
[5]
Kiecolt-Glaser, Janice, and Glaser, Ronald. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences.”Researchers Pinpoint Stress-Illness Link.”
July 1, 2003. Reported by CBS News and Associated Press, February 11, 2009
as Why Stress Kills.
[6] Colorado
Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Annual Conference
Training. Vail, Colorado. 2011 attended by Stacy Slaton.
[7] Huffer,
Karen. Legal Abuse Syndrome. Fulkort
Press. 2001.
[8] DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE AND CHILD CUSTODY-Legal
Strategies and Policy Issues (Civic
Research Institute/ 2010
[9] Traditionally,
obtaining or extorting money illegally or carrying on illegal business
activities, usually by Organized Crime . A pattern of illegal
activity carried out as part of an enterprise that is owned or controlled by
those who are engaged in the illegal activity. The latter definition derives
from the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations Act (RICO), a
set of laws (18 U.S.C.A. § 1961 et seq. [1970]) specifically designed to punish
racketeering by business enterprises.
[10] DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, ABUSE AND CHILD CUSTODY-Legal Strategies and Policy Issues (Civic
Research Institute/ 2010
[11] Huffer, Karen. Legal Abuse Syndrome. Fulcort Press. 2011.
[12] McLean,
Maralee. Prosecuted but not Silenced:
Courtroom Reform for Sexually Abused Children. Oklahoma: Tate Publishing. 2012.
[13]
Domestic Violence by Proxy (DV by Proxy), a term first used by Alina Patterson,
author of Health and Healing. DV by Proxy refers to a pattern of behavior which
is a parent with a history of using domestic violence or intimidation, uses a
child as a substitute when he no longer has access to his former partner.
Calling this behavior “parental alienation” is not strong enough to convey the
criminal pattern of terroristic behaviors employed by batterers.
When his victim leaves him, batterers often recognize
that the most expedient way to continue to hurt his partner is to assert his
legal rights to control her access to their children. By gaining control of the
children, an abusive male now has a powerful tool which allows him to continue
to stalk, harass and batter an ex-partner even when he has no direct access to
her. Moreover, by emotionally torturing the child and severing the bond between
children and their mother, he is able to hurt his intended victim -- the mother
-- in a way she cannot resist.
DV by Proxy includes tactics such as: threats of harm
to children if they display a positive bond to the mother, destroying favored
possessions given by the mother, and emotional torture (for example, telling
the child the mother hates them, wanted an abortion, and is not coming to get
them because they are unloved).
DV by Proxy may also include coaching the child to
make false allegations regarding their mother's behavior and harming or
punishing the child for not complying. DV by Proxy perpetrators may also create
fraudulent documents to defraud the court in order to prevent the mother from
gaining custody. Whether or not the child is biologically related to them is
irrelevant to perpetrators of DV by Proxy. The perpetrator's main motivation is
to hurt his ex; whether or not his own child is harmed in the process is
irrelevant to him.
[14] Araji,
Sharon, Ph.D. Domestic Violence
Continued: Contested Child Custody. Strategies by Attorney Herb Viergutz. 2009.
[15] “Of course, abusers
will try to scapegoat the victim and portray themselves as the injured party,
sometimes successfully.” Steps to Healing
from Domestic Abuse.” Skylar, 2012.
[16]
Yvan Stark: Coercive
Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (Interpersonal Violence). New York: Oxford University Publishing, Inc. 2007.
[17] C.R.S. §14-10-129(2)
“Domestic Violence” means an act of violence
or a threatened act of violence upon a person with whom the actor is or has
been involved in an intimate relationship, and may include any act or
threatened act against a person or against property, including an animal, when
used a s a method of coercion, control, punishment, intimidation, or revenge
directed against a person with whom the actor is or has been involved in an
intimate relationship.
[19] C.R.S.
18-3-304
[20] DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE AND CHILD CUSTODY-Legal
Strategies and Policy Issues (Civic
Research Institute/ 2010
[21] Key 27
Colo. 1990
[22] McLean,
Maralee. Prosecuted but not Silenced:
Courtroom Reform for Sexually Abused Children. Oklahoma: Tate Publishing. 2012.
[23]
Prendergast, Alan. “Catherine Keske, CSU
Prof, ordered back to jail in parenting dispute over email.” Westword. August
24th, 2011.
[24] 18 USC
§ 241- Conspiracy against rights.
[25]
Extortion: “the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or
threat of violence, property damage, harm to reputation, or unfavorable
government action.
[26] Rubinkam,
Michael. “Mark Ciavarella Jr., Judge,
Gets 28 Years in Kids for Cash Case.” Huffington Post. August 11, 2011.
[27] “Failed to Death.” The Denver Post. January
29, 2012.
[28] Urbina,
Ian and Hamill, Sean D. “Judge Pleads Guilty in Scheme to Jail Youths for
Profit.” NY Times: February 12, 2009.
[29] HB
13-1259 Summary
[30] HB
13-1259
[31] If the child's formerly
favorable view of the victimized parent changes when exposed to tactics like
this over time then it is more likely a form of "Stockholm Syndrome"
or traumatic attachment to the abuser.” The Leadership Council.”