Over the weekend, I was contacted by a mother who interviewed Madeline Wilson as an attorney for a possible marital dissolution filing.

Mother recalls that Wilson was "chatty about 'the many ways we can handle this.' When told that father was unaware of mother's intent, Wilson began a "very long monologue" about how they would "inform" father as an element of surprise. Mother recalls that she "couldn't get a word in edgewise," that Wilson didn't take time to listen, didn't seem to care which option sounded best to mother, and that Wilson continued rambling. Mother recalled that, although Wilson used words and phrases that were intended to make mother feel protected, Wilson's eagerness to dissolve the marriage without listening to mother's story made mother feel like Wilson didn't care about mother, or mother's deteriorating marriage, or the children.

After discovering this Web site, mother concluded it would be better to try and make her marriage work, but she nevertheless confronted Wilson with her findings. As you read through the dialogue, bear in mind that the prospective client is not shy about her Christian faith, as this will help deconstruct Wilson's choice of words:

Earlier today, an old friend of mine encouraged me to search the Internet for information on any of the attorneys I might be considering retaining and I found a Web site that does not speak too fondly of specific Colorado attorneys - you being one of them. I must say what I read on this Web site terrified me about even getting a divorce, so I'm going to cancel our appointment set for March 26 and see if I can make this marriage work.

What Web site could she possibly have been talking about? Hmmmmmmm. Well, let's put in the search terms of "Madeline Wilson Denver attorney" and see what comes up: click here

So, Wilson responded thus:

That's great that you may try to make your marriage work. I can tell you that the web-site creator I believe you are writing about was never my client and has been complaining about his "cause" of "evil lawyers" and "sinister judges" for about eleven years. It's not at all an accurate reflection of what I do or what have seen in the process. My recollection is this person stated that I was an evangelical Christian and that's why I was "after him." Wow. It's better (in my opinion) to speak to people I have actually represented (and most of their spouses who often refer cases to me because they say I'm fair) and ask them what I'm like. You can also go in and be an observer in Court and see what actually happens. Court is almost always open to the public. I recommend going in the County you live in and sitting in a family law case. I can inform you of where that is if you remind me what County you are in. I will remove you from my appointment book and pray for your marriage.

Not an "accurate reflection"? Did someone else write all those e-mails authored by esqmom@aol.com? Has Wilson's e-mail account been hacked?¹

And note that Wilson proposes that you go into court to observe her trial-lawyer brilliance first hand. Let me help you with that: Tomorrow, in Douglas County District Court, she'll be at a temporary orders hearing in Marriage of Bush in the courtroom for Division 2. On March 11 in Denver District Court, she'll be at a status conference in Marriage of Weissman in the courtroom for Division 15B. And on March 15, she'll be at another temporary orders hearing in Marriage of Roberts in the courtroom 2A of the First Judicial District Court in Golden.

You made some good points in your reply which have caused me to wonder, "Is what I read about you, including all those e-mails that you supposedly wrote in several different cases, the untrue, slanderous rantings of a pissed-off father, or is it just the Web site creator's opinion? And if it is slander, can't you sue to have it removed?" Just some thoughts from me to you to maybe help keep your reputation intact.

In response, Wilson wrote:

I find it's better to turn the other cheek. Thank you for thinking of me. I pray things are going well.

So, for now on, Wilson will be known here as "Madeline 'turn-the-other-cheek' Wilson."

And now, I will leave you with a few of Wilson's e-mails and memoranda from over the years, demonstrating the admirable ability to "turn the other cheek":



And so, on March 3rd, Wilson filed a remedial contempt Motion (here),









And, indeed, Madeline "turn-the-other-cheek" Wilson was so determined to have me jailed, that she forfeited the possibility of recovering attorney fees by filing it as a punitive contempt Motion (here), rather than a remedial contempt Motion (see Marriage of Prada, supra). In the Motion, Wilson wrote, "Petitioner prays that this Honorable Court direct the Clerk of the Court to issue a Citation to the Respondent under the Seal of this Court, ordering the Respondent to show cause if he has, why he should not be fined and imprisoned for Contempt . . . Petitioner prays for punitive sanctions."





Choke me to death? A bit morbid for Madeline "turn-the-other-cheek" Wilson, eh?

Then we have this transcript excerpt from the September 22, 2004 contempt hearing in Parental Responsibilities of Stadnyck, in which Wilson argues:





__________________________
¹ Note, however, that Wilson did suggest to her former client that I had, in fact, hacked into her computer. Click here.
² Ah, no she didn't send any fax. At that time, my fax number was at a Mailboxes, Etc. location, and all incoming faxes and mail from the courts or Wilson was logged at my request. No fax came in at the time she claimed. Apparently, lying to the client is also part of Wilson's quiver of trial-lawyer expertise.
³  Wilson's "he's-trying-to-bankrupt-my-client" argument is a little tired. See July 3, 2007 Emergency Motion Regarding Jurisdiction from Marriage of Harrington (" [Sean Harrington] has tormented [my client] for years, obviously trying to bankrupt her or worse"); and see her December 7, 2009 response) in Marriage of Gordon ("one of the father's primary goals is to attempt to bankrupt the mother, which the father knows could result in her husband's career loss from the military").

KnowYourCourts.com has obtained July 21, 2005 e-mail, written by attorney Terri Harrington to Gay Neirman (who is discussed in the previous entry, infra), in which she wrote that the divorcing parties agreement as to the minor children, “enraged Madeline Wilson, who seemed to have a personal interest in the outcome of this case. Madeline made comments to me about being an abused woman and apparently has had a great deal of difficulty with some of the relationships in her personal life.”

That explains a lot.

Also, attorney Jim Rouse alleged the following in a February 25, 2008 responsive pleading in Marriage of Gordon:

Wilson falsely accuses Respondent's counsel of being “abusive to the mother's counsel.” Apparently Petitioner's counsel believes that anyone who disagrees with her is “abusive,” as she has routinely made such allegations throughout this case. The court should not buy into this “victim mentality” espoused by Petitioner and her counsel, Madeline Wilson.

In a status conference this morning held by Judge Munsinger (2004 photo at left) in In re Marriage of Prada, Madeline Wilson argued vociferously for the appointment of Gay Niermann as CFI, even going as far as to urge, "the children would love to meet Gay," according to JT Prada, the pro se father and former Denver Nuggets and Minnesota Timberwolves ass't coach. Munsinger glared at Wilson, recalls Prada, and said, "Enough, I've heard enough."

In my experience, Wilson's strategy would have been to postpone by another four to six months a March 26th hearing where Prada's request for liberal parenting time would be decided, while a CFI promoted by Wilson divested Prada of several more thousand dollars, and produced a recommendation favorable to Wilson's client.

Days earlier, Wilson had filed a "Reply to Response to Motion for CFI & Motion to Strike and for Attorney Fees for Frivolous Filing as per CRS 13-17-102(2)," which is now presumably deemed denied. Perhaps I should reevaluate my perception of Colorado trial judges.

New readers might wonder what gives me license to label Wilson as a feminist. In addition to forming this opinion based on my personal experience with her, I also offer, as examples, her misandrist e-mails (see above).

It comes as no surprise that Wilson's choice CFI, Gay Niermann, appears to share Wilson's views, as evidenced by this misandrist e-mail from Niermann.

I've been commenting for years that the divorce industry is dominated by social extremists. And why is it, exactly, that our courts have delegated quasi-judicial authority (and immunity) to these people over our families and our children?

Wilson declined invitation to comment on this story.

Earlier today, I sent an e-mail to JT Prada, the father discussed in the previous (below). I copied Wilson's attorney, because I was under the [false] impression that he might want to run interference for her and, perhaps, request that I not copy her on such correspondence.

This evening, Huff responded to all of the recipients on the e-mail list, which included the Chief Assistant District Attorney for the 18th Judicial District:

Did Mr. Harrington tell you that he was recently sanctioned and fined over $6,000 in costs and attorney fees for filing substantally [sic.] frivolous, substantally [sic.] vexacious [sic.] and substantially baseless pleadings against Ms. Wilson in the Jefferson County District Court?

Did he tell you that his multiple lawsuits against Ms. Wilson in Colorado County Court and District Court were [voluntarily] dismissed [pursuant to a Stipulated Agreement]? Did he tell you that his federal court lawsuit was dismissed [by the now-disgraced former judge Edward Nottingham] and that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found against him ad [sic.] well, by upholding the dismissal. Did he tell you that he went all the way to Texas to file a lawsuit against Ms. Wilson and the court dismissed his case there too [because my client falsely testified in an Affidavit in Support of her Special Appearance]? Did he tell you that he has filed multiple grievances against Ms. Wilson and all of the[m] have been dismissed thus far [because of the OARC's well-known selective prosecution practices]?

You should know these things about Mr. Harrington when you weigh his spoutings, since he apprears [sic.] afraid to admit them or detail them on his self-serving website. There are many other things he is probably ashamed to tell you as well, but I'll leave that for you to ask him about.

Ashamed? Afraid?   It's obvious he doesn't visit the site very often:  the reason I'm unafraid to publish Huff's e-mail here, is because I've hidden nothing from my readers, and the full truth behind the half-truth invectives Huff wrote of in his e-mail are explicated fully on this Web site and well known to regular readers. This is the same attorney who wrote that I am "meticulous in his research and writing" (click here). Unfortunately, I can't say the same for him. In the same brief, he admitted that he couldn't find any cases factually similar to the one we were arguing (click here).

But, isn't is curious that a judge would characterize allegations against an unethical, dishonest, rogue divorce attorney as substantially frivolous, substantially vexatious, and substantially baseless, without discussing those allegations? ¹  It's called "pay-back" for getting a judge previously reversed three times in a row on appeal.

And, as I noted in my editorial comments above, the Jefferson County and district court cases were dismissed by me voluntarily pursuant to a Nov. 6, 2001 Stipulated Agreement. The federal case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by Judge Naughty, who therefore had not jurisdiction to reach the merits. The Tenth Circuit granted my Petition for Rehearing (granted even more seldom than Supreme Court cert. petitions) and reversed Judge Naughty's dismissal with prejudice, and dismissed without prejudice.  And, of course, Wilson was dismissed as a defendant in my Texas case, because she falsely testified in her Affidavit in Support of her Special Appearance, but she is still subject to that court's jurisdiction for contempt, pursuant to Sutphen v. Tom Arnold Drilling, and that day is coming.

In addition to the whole truth, I've also explained to the e-mail recipient list and readers of this site that the reason Madeline hasn't attempted to sue me yet (assuming what I've written is false, as Huff implies), is because she knows that the issue of her dishonesty would have to be litigated in a defamation action, and she's been trying for ten years to keep that issue out of court.

I have also explained that Wilson hired a lawyer, who is almost as lame as she is. And, therefore, it's fair to infer that Huff's e-mail is evidence that he's mad, because I've made him out to be the fool that he is. But, if he doesn't like it, he should go start his own damn Web site. And that, of course, is why Alan Prendergast penned the short article, "Judge Naughty's accuser is hell on lawyers."

_________________________
¹ See, e.g., Barton, Benjamin H., Do Judges Systematically Favor the Interests of the Legal Profession?, University of Tennessee Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1 (October 2007).

Although Wilson has threatened to kick one man in the shins (see August 20, 2003 e-mail from Wilson to attorney Terri Harrington), every man I have met who has had Madeline Wilson as opposing counsel has been accused by her of threatening her. This includes, of course, myself (click here), Gordon Stadnyck, Todd Gordon, and --most recently-- JT Prada.

In a document drafted and filed by Wilson in the First Judicial District Court, Wilson has again interjected herself into the underlying case, by refusing to attend a mediation conference and failing to comply with the Rule 121 duty-to-confer, allegedly because, "father had threatened mother's counsel." Prada told KnowYourCourts.com that he has never met Wilson and had never spoken to her by phone and he denies threatening her in any way.

As regular readers are aware, Wilson recently admitted that she "injected herself" into my marital dissolution case, and her former client (my ex- wife) stated under oath that Wilson was "very personally involved when, perhaps, she shouldn't have been."

In the recent case of OARC v. Beecher, where the attorney was suspended because of his conduct attributable to his improper involvement in his client's marital dissolution proceeding. Federico Alvarez (a Judicial Discipline Commission member) was retained as an expert and opined, "most parties to a divorce action are extremely emotionally vulnerable. Thus, they are dependent upon legal counsel’s professionalism and detachment to avoid issues not legally germane to the proceedings.”

The OARC's decision not to prosecute Wilson, which appears to be based on its hatred of me, rather than on the facts and prevailing law, has allowed Wilson for ten years to get away with the conduct that she continues to engage in, as demonstrated in the Marriage of Prada, Marriage of Stadnyck, and Marriage of Gordon cases, noted above.

Another two children will not see their father for yet another Christmas, thanks to divorce lawyer Madeline Wilson and Colorado's attorney regulation counsel, which refuses to protect the public by removing her from the profession.

KnowYourCourts.com has come into possession of legal documents and e-mails from Madeline Wilson in another case, Marriage of Gordon (District Court, City & County of Denver, No. 03DR1371). Another father (like myself, Gordon Stadnyck, and others) became a victim of Wilson's § 14-10-129(4) " 'Emergency' Motion to Restrict Parental Contact." See Aug. 2009 CLE in Colorado presentation, “A Judge’s Perspective on Civil Protection Orders and 14-10-129(4) Motions: Imminent Danger or Just a Tactic?”

While most fathers just give up in the face of adversity and fraud, it seems Todd Gordon hasn't. Three years later, he still hasn't seen his children, inexplicably demonstrating faith in our legal system by trying. But, Wilson is determined to make certain the children never know their father: in her December 7, 2009 response, Wilson argued that father failed to confer with her (recall that she also claims that she has no duty to confer with non-lawyer adversaries), and further:

father's Motion is frivolous and vexatious . . . the father's purpose for filing his merit-less motion is to mislead the Court in the hopes the Court will allow him to have more parenting time with the children, despite him making no changes in his life. The father continues to file Motions . . . one of the father's primary goals is to attempt to bankrupt the mother, which the father knows could result in her husband's career loss from the military.

Sound familiar? To those who've read any of Wilson's responses in my case, it should.

Also familiar is that Wilson accidentally sent an e-mail to father --intended for mother-- joking and calling the father "soooo bi-polar."  Wilson apologized, explaining, "I cannot imagine how painful it is to have your children so far away . . . I hate when a silly little joke goes wrong. Sorry."  I'm just thinking that the children looking for their father this Christmas don't think any of this is silly or funny.

Yet, in another email to father, Wilson tried to put a patina of levity on her depraved conduct, writing thus:

That [you believe I hate you as if I were the one who had been married to you] is an unfortunate and weird phenomenon that occurs due, I suppose, to the nature of the adversary system. It is just what people tend to think about the opposing counsel an overwhelming large percentage of the time. I certainly do not despise you. You may be shocked to learn that I prayed that [your ex-wife] would be able to stay in Denver; then I prayed both before this occurrence and will continue to that you and [your ex-wife] work out all the kinks and that you and your new wife have a blessed marriage. While I cannot speak for [your ex-wife], I do not believe she "despise" you, either. I point out to all of my clients that the other parent gave them their greatest gift, their children, and that should never be forgotten. I recently saw your first attorney at a Christian Legal Society function and it still seems as is she despises me, too. I doubt she does, it is just the nature of the system. Unfortunate.

Frankly, I don't think I need my regular readers need me to add any further commentary to the foregoing excerpt.

Although I will be bringing you more from the Marriage of Gordon case, I will conclude with this excerpt from a recent e-mail from Mr. Gordon to me:

Nevertheless, I certainly found and included several dispositive cases in my response brief to aid the court in deciding this unprecedented (in Colorado) situation, where a lawyer has become a defendant-party to her absent client's case.

Wilson's brief is here. My Brief in Opposition is here.

The Opening Brief in Marriage of Harrington (No. 09CA0751) is located here.

The significance of this appeal, in my opinion, is that it quintessentially illustrates (and challenges) the unapologetic failure Colorado trial courts to hold court-appointed custody evaluators accountable for unethical practices and, similarly, to hold unethical and predatory divorce attorneys accountable for their plain failure to comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct.

First, some colorful Colorado case law:

In People v. Roose, the supreme court said of one attorney, who knowingly submitted false statements to the court, that she “suffer[ed] from an extreme lack of understanding of the adversarial process. The inability to understand key concepts of the attorney's role with regard to the client and to the court system is so fundamentally lacking . . . that the lack of understanding results in profound harm to . . . the system as a whole.” 44 P.3d 266, 272 (Colo. 2002).

And, in People v. Chappell, 927 P.2d 829, 831 (Colo. 1996), an attorney in a custody matter aided mother’s flight, advised how to avoid being caught, and did not disclose mother’s activities during the proceedings. When the court questioned her about mother’s whereabouts, she demurred (relying on privilege). The court found the respondent-attorney perpetrated a fraud-on-the-court (Id. at 830) and, because she “used her license to violate the core ethical and professional standards of her profession,” disbarment was necessary. Id.

And in another factually similar case, Hall v. Hall-Stradley, 13 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1108 (Denver Dist. Ct. 1987, No 84-CV-2865), the custodial mother fled with the children without father’s knowledge. Father was referred to mother’s attorney, who knew but refused to disclose the children’s whereabouts. Judge Sandra Rothenberg ruled that the attorney’s “reliance upon privilege was misplaced. Counsel may not hide the whereabouts of children from a parent under the claim of privilege,” which ruling supported the jury’s verdict of $200K against mother’s attorney.

Regular readers already know the attorney the subject of this story is none other than: Madeline Wilson.

In this September 12, 2009 deposition transcript, which I released yesterday, Wilson's former client ("mother") admitted:

• That Wilson knew mother was leaving for Texas before she left for Texas and knew when she had arrived in Texas. Keep in mind that Wilson told the State Bar of Texas Office of Thief Disciplinary Counsel that she did not know her client's "residential location" and, therefore, could not have aided and abetted in the concealment of my daughter from me. Wilson also misled the court when, in a responsive pleading, she said her client couldn't attend a contempt hearing because she would be "out of town" (omitting that her client had fled the jurisdiction). Wilson also lied to the Colorado court when, in paragraph 4 of another responsive pleading, she denied my allegation (¶ 4 of my Motion) that mother and Wilson were hiding the child (despite the e-mail that I now have, which proves Wilson's receipt of a directive from mother to conceal the child's whereabouts from me).



• That the reason mother moved to Texas was to care for her ailing mother and that she communicated this reason to Wilson, and to Wilson's former law-firm employer, to mother's employer (prior to moving), and others. Note that, on January 31, 2005, Wilson fabricated a different reason for mother's move, sending mother an email captioned, "For your review - I think Sean has threatened to take Shelby before, right?" And, attached to her email was a draft copy of a responsive pleading (docketed later that same day), which alleged, among other things, that I threatened to kidnap my daughter. Then, on March 7, 2005, Wilson composed an email to mother that stated, in pertinent part:

  You are going to have to get him served, which has been a problem for quite some time, but telling the Judge/Magistrate things like: . . . he has asked shelby if he wants him to kidnap her, are all good things along with some of the pleadings he has sent that are threatening. You can tell them you "escaped" to Texas and he has lost all parenting time but that he has somehow stalked you to TX and you fear for your life and Shelby's if all of that is true.

  And, on July 26, 2005, Wilson composed another email, reminding mother of the kidnapping-allegation story:

  It is clear that he knows where you are. You were/are in Texas due to kidnap threats. I advise you to get a restraining order where you are, since we can't do it for you here. If I find him, I will let you know.

  In Wilson's April 25, 2006 statement to the Texas Office of Thief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC), she wrote, "[Mother] is extremely frightened of [Mr. Harrington] and has testified that Shelby claims that [Mr. Harrington] has threatened to kidnap her." (No such "testimony" existed).
  
  
• That mother sought and Wilson gave legal advice concerning transactions in Texas. Keep in mind that Wilson testified, under oath, that she did not give any legal advice to mother and that her only dealings with mother were as her Colorado lawyer and regarding transcactions in Colorado. Wilson also told the Texas Office of Thief Disciplinary that I must have been "guessing" that she was giving legal advice to mother and that she was not.



• That Wilson knowingly filed (on mother's behalf) an "Emergency" motion in Colorado in an attempt to undermine the Texas court's jurisdiction, which filing was in violation of a Texas injunction that prohibited mother from "instituting any actions" in any other jurisdiction.



• That Wilson became personally involved in the divorce case, which ultimately adversely affected the client (mother), the child, and --as it logically follows-- my parent-child relationship.

As an illustration of Colorado's exemplary "justice" system, I am being fined with attorney fees for having the temerity to complain about the conduct described above and the perpetrator (Wilson) is to be rewarded. The attorney fee hearing is this Thursday at 8:30 a.m. in Division 9 of the First Judicial District Court (click here).

_______________________________
¹ In the lodestar method, the court multiplies the number of hours the attorneys reasonably worked by the reasonable hourly rate for that work to determine the lodestar. The court may then multiply the lodestar by a factor to compensate the attorneys for the risks they faced and any other special circumstances.

• In December, 2004, Wilson's client (mother) moved to Texas without notice to father, in violation of a November 6, 2001 stipulated agreement, entered as an order of the court. Wilson is a party-signatory to the agreement.



• Immediately upon arriving in Texas, mother composed a memorandum, which she mailed to Wilson, announcing that she had moved to Texas and asking Wilson to conceal her whereabouts by giving father an Arvada, Colorado P.O. Box address. Mother also sent Wilson an e-mail with the same information. An e-mail response from Wilson established that Wilson received the notice. Thereafter, Wilson omitted mother's address from the pleadings.



• In a continuing attempt to reestablish contact with his daughter pursuant to  the 2001 Order, father sent numerous written requests and certified mail to Wilson, seeking the child’s whereabouts and her school and medical records pursuant to C.R.S. § 14.10.128.8.  Wilson refused to reveal the child’s location, but acknowledged in an e-mail to mother, “[Father] . . . is entitled to all of the information he is requesting,” and advised mother (in Texas) how to avoid complying with the Colorado Order.



• Father became suspicious and, in January, 2005, charged mother and Wilson with concealing his daughter’s whereabouts. (here at ¶4).



• Wilson, in receipt of the aforementioned instructions to conceal the relocation, specifically and falsely denied the allegation to the court. ( here at ¶4).



• Unable to account for his daughter, father obtained a contempt citation ( here), but couldn’t locate mother for service. Wilson countered, “mother denies avoiding service of process” (here at ¶2), but had already claimed mother would be unavailable for a contempt hearing, because mother would be, “out of town” on February 1, 2005. (here at ¶4). We now know why she knew mother would be "out of town."

---

Consider the foregoing facts in light of the following:

• "Although lawyers have an obligation to represent their clients zealously, their zealotry is not unbounded." Mitchell v. Ryder, 104 P.3d 316, 322 (Colo. App. 2004)



• “Under Colorado law, an attorney owes a duty to his adversary not to engage in fraudulent or malicious conduct . . . or to commit intentional torts.” Allied Financial Services, Inc. v. Easley, 676 F.2d 422 (10th Cir. 1982)



• An attorney “need not owe plaintiff a duty to be held liable for aiding and abetting the misconduct of another.” Douglas R. Richmond, Lawyer Liability for Aiding and Abetting Clients’ Misconduct under State Law, 75 Defense Counsel Journal 2, April 2008, 130 (collecting cases). Aiding and abetting requires only that the attorney-defendant knowingly and substantially assist the principal wrongdoer and behave “in a manner that enables the primary violator to commit the underlying tort.” Id.



• Comment 3 to the Rules of Professional Conduct (R.P.C.) Rule 3.3 provides that “The obligation prescribed in Rule 1.2(d) not to counsel a client to commit or assist the client in committing a fraud applies in litigation.”



• Comment 1 to R.P.C. 4.1 provides, in pertinent part: “Omissions or partially true but misleading statements can be the equivalent of affirmative false statements.”



• C.R.S. § 14-13-209(4) imposes a continuing duty for the parties and counsel to keep the court informed of any material changes under the UCCJEA that may affect the court's jurisdiction. See also Board of License Comm’rs v. Pastore, 469 U.S. 238, 240 (1985) (Attorneys have a broad, continuing duty that any development that could deprive the court of jurisdiction “should be called to the attention of the court without delay”).



• One may not “use his license to practice law as a shield from consequences of participation in unlawful or illegal conspiracy.” Wahlgren v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 68 F.2d 660, 664 (7th Cir. 1934).

________________________
¹ See Comment 1 to R.P.C. 4.1 (“Omissions or partially true but misleading statements can be the equivalent of affirmative false statements”).

Over the last year and especially the last few months, I've provided readers with an emerging profile of this disturbed, paranoid woman who has stalked me through the courts over the last ten years.¹

Well, it keeps getting better. And the circle of attorneys that Wilson has whipped up into a frenzy has grown.

Today, I came into the possession of several interesting emails. One of these (here) reveals that, in December, 2005, when I arrived in Colorado for a hearing at the federal courthouse, Wilson had someone tailing me at the airport taking photographs. Wilson reported to my ex-wife the following:

The boys (our attorneys)² estimate he is a mere 145 pounds now. His cheeks are sunken, he is very pale, and he is balding but has a PONYTAIL. Other than that, he looks like the picture from the airport. He was wearing a long coat, his brown hat (from the pictures) and round glasses.

Well, I sure as hell wish I was 145 Lbs., because then --and now-- I could stand to get rid of ten or fifteen pounds. And, yes, I'm pale like everyone else who hibernates all winter long in the Great White North. And yes, I'm balding --guilty as charged.

"But wait" (Billy Mays shouts), "there's more!"

I also came into possession of yet another fantastically stupid couple of emails, as I'll explain:

Back in March of 2006, I filed a Notice of Change of Address with the federal court, which is required so they know where to mail orders and such. In this notice, I wrote. "Plaintiff . . . pursuant to D.C.Colo.LCivR 10.1(M) . . . advises that . . . his mailing address . . . will be as follows:

Sean Harrington
P.O. Box No 351855
7262 Meade Street
Westminster, Colorado 80035

The ensuing panic was hilarious!   When Wilson learned of the Notice, she e-mailed mother

Randy Dement told me he moved to Westminster and I am sick to my stomach with fear. I will go see the Judge tomorrow at 8:30 a.m. when they do restraining Orders in Denver. I will ask the Sheriff to serve him at the new address Randy gave me: Sean Harrington 7262 Mead Street Westminster, CO

Then Wilson's attorney, Brett Huff --a real Inspector Clouseau-- e-mailed Wilson:

Madeline, For personal curiosity sake, I plugged 7262 Mead Street into Google Earth and took a look at the satellite picture of this address... It looks like the top of a grocery store or some other commercial business with parking around it. I hope that he is not perpetrating a fraud on the courts with his recent filing.

No, no need to worry about that Brett. I couldn't possibly dream up the kind of frauds your client has perpetrated on the courts over the last nine years. By the way, brilliant work there, Brett. Do you suppose that building might be -- the Post Office?

Cracking this case proved too difficult for solo lawyers Randy Dement and Madeline Wilson and White & Steele lawyer, Brett Huff. Wilson decided to hire the big guns, as this following email from Wilson to Dement and Huff reveals:

As for the address Sean provided to you, my investigator says:

The property is listed as commercial property in Adams County Tax records. It is listed to a CFF LLC P.O. Box 27, Broomfield, Colorado 80038.

It's the: Westminster Post Office!!!!! 7262 Meade St.

So, can we snag him because of this???

Nope. Sorry, Madeline. There's no fraud or crime in providing a P.O. Box as a "mailing address" as set forth in the Notice. Better luck next time!

Honestly, who the hell would hire these people? They truly need magistrates and judges putting their finger on the scale of justice, because they couldn't lawyer their way out of a paper bag on their own!

Finally, we have this email from Madeline to mother, written out of the blue: "Curious if Sean is still paying child support each and every month. It's so weird that he pretends to be Mr. Law Abiding Citizen, yet bugs me and you to no end. Happy Holidays. Blessings" 

_______________________
¹ If you've followed this blog, you've read how Wilson has taken joy (schadenfreud) at separating me from my own child; how she's lied to disciplinary authorities and the courts; how she contrived a kidnapping allegation scheme; that she believes I hacked into her computer and stole her "confidential client list"; that she wanted to have me jailed for 180 days; that she advised mother to light candles, burn incense and wish my spirit away; that she claimed that this fax I sent her was death threat to her and her children; that she told disciplinary authorities that she advised her children to flee the state and change their names because of me; blah, blah, wah, wah.

And, you've read how our Attorney Deregulation Counsel, federal judge Michael J. Watanabe, feminist judge Jane Tidball and now Judge Jack Berryhill have all come to her defense, despite her behavior that can only be described as indefensibly execrable and opprobrious.
² Wilson is referring to Randy Dement and Brett Huff.

The following report, submitted to the 18^th Judicial District Attorney outlines the scheme; the evidence speaks for itself:

For context, I exhort you to first read my feature article, "The Sacred Oath: An outdated pro forma rite?" (Click here and then select Feb2009 link). And, consider this passage from Perkins & Boyce. (1982) Criminal Law, 3d ed. (p. 510) New York: Foundation Press:

The social interest in the integrity of a sworn statement in a judicial proceeding was well recognized before such statements made elsewhere were either common or thought to be matters of much importance. Hence, common-law perjury was limited to the false oath in a judicial proceeding. The penalty was "antiently death; afterwards banishment, or cutting out the tongue; then forfeiture of goods; and now [in Blackstone's time] it is fine and imprisonment and never more to be capable of giving testimony." It was one of the leading representatives of the so-called crimen falsi and the disqualification to serve as a witness was added rather to prevent the introduction of evidence thought not entitled to credence than as an additional penalty. Thus, in the maturity of the common law, perjury was a misdemeanor, although it carried the brand of infamy.

Times have changed

Today, as a society, we no longer  cut out the tongues of perjurers. Usually, we don't prosecute them at all, ostensibly because of competing priorities (i.e., other crimes of more pressing urgency and social harm). And, if the perjurer is an attorney, our courts punish the victim who reports the crime and rewards the attorney-perjurer (see my March 5^th 2009 entry in the News & Comment section).

On December 3^rd 2008, I first reported to the Arapahoe County district attorney the false sworn statements in an affidavit executed on September 24, 2008.

We received Wilson's affidavit attached as an exhibit to her Special Appearance, and had one not been aware of her personal and inappropriate involvement in the case, one would have thought it was a boilerplate special appearance affidavit designed to refute the statutory requirements with the intent of defeating a Texas Court's jurisdiction of an out of state resident.

Although the statements were contrary to the actions she had taken in the Colorado and Texas proceedings, Wilson's sworn statements could not be directly contradicted by any physical evidence that we had in our possession at that time. After the Texas Court's ruling on the special appearance, we were able to obtain a number of emails between Madeline and her former client which directly conflicted with her sworn testimony. Many of these you will find attached as exhibits to my Contempt Motion (filed in Colorado court) and other recent pleadings found here.

Before I continue, I will pause here to mention that it surely must offend any reasonable person's sense of right and wrong when a lawyer (in Colorado) tells her client (who is in Texas) what to do (obtain a restraining order); how to do it (tell them he has threatened you and you are in fear of him) and how to use it (and take that restraining order to the child's school . . . ). Further, the emails suggest that she may have spoken with the child's school district and established conclusively that she was aware of the child's whereabouts.  Wilson's affidavit consisted of statements that directly conflict with the facts as we now know them and as she knew them at the time that she executed the affidavit.

Unfortunately, the affidavit was taken as true by the Texas court and used to defeat jurisdiction. As a direct and proximate result of the erroneous content of her sworn affidavit, and to some extent that the fact affidavit came from an officer of the court, Wilson has not (yet) had to answer for her conduct in Texas.

Doubtless, family law attorneys reading this blog are all too familiar with witnesses falsely testifying under oath - they didn't have an affair; there are no other financial accounts; or that they have disclosed all of the assets. You have come to expect that some people do not take their oaths and sworn testimony seriously. Perhaps, you assume when preparing for a proceeding that the opposing party\witness will not tell the truth, but know that justice will be served through the court's ability to hold them accountable for their false testimony by way of the court's orders.

Unquestionably, Wilson made deliberate, false statements under oath, and used those statements to obtain a favorable ruling on her special appearance. In my opinion, but for those false statements, the Texas court would have had no choice but to deny her special appearance. And, obviously, Wilson was aware of what needed to be placed in the affidavit to defeat jurisdiction and she was aware of the content of her communications with Ms. Ryan. The disparity between the affidavit and facts are significant and and intentional.

These same facts were investigated and corroborated by Tom Malone, an investigator in the 18^th judicial district. Malone certified his findings to the District Attorney on or about January 12, 2009, whereupon the task fell to Chief Assistant District Attorney Leslie Hansen to research the applicable law.

Under Section 18-8-502, a person commits perjury in the first degree if, in any official proceeding, he knowingly makes a materially false statement, which he does not believe to be true, under an oath required or authorized by law. Perjury in the first degree is a class 4 felony.

I alleged that Wilson's false sworn statements included that:

• Wilson has not engaged in any business in Texas, including any acts constituting “business” within the meaning of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 17.042;


• Wilson has not committed any tort in whole or in part in Texas;


• Wilson has not represented any Texas residents in litigation or transactions in the State of Texas;


• All of Wilson’s actions undertaken in connection with Christy Ryan occurred in Colorado; and


• Any attorney-client relationship between Wilson and Ryan was initiated in Colorado and that she remains her attorney in an ongoing matter related to the Colorado custody proceeding.

Today, I learned that Ass't D.A. Hansen is inclined to withhold an indictment at this time because of the issue of materiality. Under Section 18-8-201 (definitions), a "'Materially false statement' means any false statement, regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence, which could have affected the course or outcome of an official proceeding, or the action or decision of a public servant, or the performance of a governmental function."

Hansen reasoned that, because the Texas judge was presented with the evidence of the false swearing (but, after he had already granted Wilson's Special Appearance), and that he did not set the matter for hearing, the Motion presenting the new evidence is deemed denied and, therefore, the false statements were not material to the granting of the Special Appearance.

I submitted a memorandum of of law to Hansen, arguing that the "could have" (rather than "would have") language of the statute was permissive and did not require that the statements must affect the outcome of the proceeding. I also argued that an objective standard should apply (i.e., would Texas law ordinarily require a different outcome from any trial court concerning substantially similar fact situations), rather than a subjective standard (i.e., would this particular Texas judge have rendered a different decision, when presented with this evidence).

Although Hansen has not rendered her final decision, it is my impression that she will not bring an indictment out of concern that the materiality element is problematic to try, which decision is doubtless based on her experience. See People v. Onorato, 36 Colo. App. 178, 538 P.2d 898 (1975) (The people have the burden of proving "materiality" of a false statement and that element may not be presumed).

However, Hansen did remind me and my Texas attorney that perjury in Colorado has no statute of limitations. Therefore, if we are able to procure findings from a Texas court¹ that the false sworn statements were material in the granting of Wilson's Special Appearance, the materiality element will be conclusively established and the indictment will be brought.

______________________
¹ E.g., in our imminent Sutphin v. Tom Arnold Drilling contempt proceeding; or in an action for mandamus (because an interlocutory appeal, which can normally be taken from the granting or denial of a special appearance, is not available in Texas "family law" cases); or by filing a Motion to sever and prosecuting an ordinary appeal on this limited issue; or waiting until the conclusion of the case and taking an ordinary appeal. Because the case law is clear that the fact situation present here required that the court deny Wilson's Special Appearance and exercise jurisdiction over her, our chances of success on appeal are not bad.

Two bizarre emails written by the attorney CFI to her client, Christy Ryan (in re Marriage of Harrington), form the centerpiece of this epitome.

By way of background, when Wilson took the case of Marriage of Harrington (now, transmogrified into Wilson v. Harrington), she was working for Sturniolo & Associates, a firm that advertises itself as Christian:

Tony [Sturniolo] is a Christian attorney, who stands firm to Christian principles.  He works at every possibility of reconciling marriages prior to exploring divorce, unless there is unresolved abuse.

Hmmm.  Doesn't that sound like the "platform" of another individual we know vocally purporting to be a Christian? Mark Hoffman, perhaps?   Certainly, No efforts were made by this law firm to reconcile the Harrington marriage.   To the contrary, every effort was made to exacerbate the acrimony to create billable hours, consistent with any other divorce firm.¹

You may recall Sturniolo's name from when he got his ass in a sling for advising one of the Columbine families to avoid hiring Jewish lawyers, writing "I do not want you to be led astray to a position that might be a poor witness to our Lord." (Click here).

I wonder if he would feel that Madeline's Wilson's conduct in Marriage of Harrington and other cases --or the emails below-- would be a good witness to his Lord.



"Light candles" ? "Love, Madeline" ?



That's cheeky: "light candles, burn some incense and send his spirit away and do not speak of him any more (but it's okay if you continue to receive and cash his monthly child support checks (and be unemployed for 7 months in 2005))."

I've looked through several of my family law books, including The Scientific Basis of Child Custody Decisions,² Family Law in America,³ and the ABA Guide to Family Law, but I was unsuccessful in locating any references to candle lighting or "protective light."

I also noted that Wilson capitalized Universe (twice). Although the International Astronomical Union (IAU), which is the official authority on naming celestial things, has been vague about whether "the universe" should be capitalized, doing so is considered noteworthy.  Indeed, scientists and theologians took notice when the physicist John A. Wheeler capitalized the word in his works.⁴  Scholars now recognize this as an indication of belief in the anthropic principle, which urges that the amazing coincidence of human existence made possible by highly restrictive range provided by Earth is proof that human existence somehow determines the design of the universe. This philosophical and religious view promotes the deification of man.

Indeed, the capitalization of universe, construed in harmony with the other parts of Wilson's email suggests that she intended to attribute to the universe the anthropomorphic qualities of a deity, which is inconsistent with Judeo-Christian doctrines.⁵  I, myself, am not a biblical or rabbinical scholar, but Colossians 2:8a does warn, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

________________________

¹ See, e.g., Grutman, R., and Thomas, B. (1990). Lawyers and Thieves. Simon & Schuster, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. (There are some attorneys who deliberately encourage acrimony, as the financial rewards for them are time dependent. In other words, the more involved the litigation process, the greater the profits for the attorney); See also Steven K. Berenson, A Family Law Residency Program?: A Modest Proposal in Response to the Burdens Created by Self-Represented Litigants in Family Court, 33 Rutgers L.J. 105, 122 n.13 (2001) (suggesting that litigants believe lawyers try to prevent amicable settlements and to drag out cases in order to increase their billable hours).
² Galatzer-Levy & Kraus. (1999). The Scientific Basis of Child Custody Decisions. New York: John Wiley & Sons
³ Katz, Sanford N. (2004). Family Law in America. Oxford University Press
⁴ See, e.g., Davis & Poe, "Responses to Anthropic Coincidences," last accessed November 28, 2008 from: http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%3D153259%26M%3D200170,00.html. ("Note that Wheeler capitalizes the word universe in his text"); see also Hugh Ross, "Design and the Anthropic Principle," last accessed November 29, 2008 from http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design.shtml (same).
⁵ G.h. Ritz, "Creation," last accessed November 29, 2008 from timeoftheend-faithandreason.net/ Creat001-1.doc ("Creation is the Universe (capitalized) . . . "); G.H. Ritz, "Creation," last accessed November 29, 2008 from http://timeoftheend-faithandreason.net/ Creat020.doc ("Do not accept Christ as the misguided milquetoasts of twilight spirituality recommend; instead become Christ and place the Golden Crown of responsibility upon your own head").

Wilson, a child and family investigator and parenting coordinator in Colorado, enjoying a little comic relief at the expense of a father (me) attempting to confirm that his daughter was alive and well, nicknamed him "Psycho". I filed complaints against Wilson with the State Bar of Texas Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel and in Texas district court, claiming that Wilson aided and abetted the concealment of my daughter and provided mother with legal advice in Texas (from Colorado) in the furtherance thereof. Wilson effortlessly deflected these charges with a time-honored practice of attorneys --lying. For example, in her November 14, 2007 statement to the Texas State Bar she wrote:

In no way did I "aid or abet" the mother in "concealment" of the child, as alleged by the Complainant once again in his grievance . . . I do not have my client's physical address. We communicate primarily by e-mail.

Yet, on mother's computer, a printer-spool file was found notifying Wilson just days after her arrival in Texas:

January 4, 2005 Madeline Wilson 501 S. Cherry St., Suite 610 Denver, CO 80246 Dear Madeline, I just wanted to write and update you on things here. We are in Texas now, staying with my mom to help take care of her. My mailing address here is P.O. Box 707, Decatur, TX 76234. However, if you have to include my address on anything sent to Sean, please continue to use the post office box address in Arvada. I am having everything forwarded to me here. If anything is urgent you can e-mail at the same address or call (940) 626-4978. I have been unemployed for approximately one month and cannot work until my nursing license is endorsed by the state of Texas. Although I initiated the process back in November, everything is still pending. I am sending a reduced payment of $10.00 and will continue to do so each month until I am employed. I am hoping to return to work imminently. The tax form you sent to me has been signed and returned. You may have received it by now. Also, I was not served any papers for court before leaving Colorado. I think that's everything. Please call me if you have questions. Sincerely, Christy Ryan
Times New Roman
HP DeskJet 640C Series #2
winspool

In her Answer to the State Bar of Texas, Wilson also stated:

I do not know what he is writing about regarding providing advice to a former client in Texas and concerning conduct and transactions in Texas. The only time I practiced in Texas was as a third-year bar student with St. Mary's University Poverty Law Clinic. I can only assume he is guessing I am providing legal advice to his former wife regarding the Texas case. Ms. Ryan is represented by counsel in Texas and I am not current on Texas Family Law and would not feel comfortable providing such advice. People often attempt to hire me to handle Colorado-Texas cases and I always refer them to others as I practice and stay current in Colorado.

Similarly, in this September 24, 2008 Affidavit, Wilson testified under oath:

I have not represented any Texas residents in litigation or transactions in the State of Texas . . . All of my actions undertaken in Ms. Ryan's representation occurred in Colorado.

And the October 6, 2008 brief to which the Affidavit was attached, states:

The allegations against Ms. Wilson relate solely to Ms. Wilson's representation of Ms. Ryan in prior divorce and child custody proceeding -- all of which took place in Colorado, not Texas.

Yet, in this March 7, 2005 email, Wilson advised the mother (residing in Texas):

Sean, as Shelby's father, is entitled to all of the information he is requesting. The only thing I can think of for you to avoid it is to file for a restraining order in Texas. You are going to have to get him served which has been a problem for quite some time, but telling the Judge/Magistrate things like he has threatened to kill himself, how he threw the stuff in the front yard way back when [December, 1999] and that he has asked shelby if he wants him to kidnap her are all good things along with some of the pleadings he has sent that are threatening. You can tell them you "escaped" to Texas and he has lost all parenting time but that he has somehow stalked you to TX and you fear for your life and Shelby's if all of that is true.

And in another March 7, 2005 email, Wilson clarified:

Your restraining order needs to prevent Sean from having any contact with the school or the school from having to release any records. Tell them you fear he is going to locate you through the school records.

And in another March 7, 2005 email, Wilson wrote:

I think you should get a restraining order based on him faxing the school and all the things that happened before that. I wouldn't leave out the kidnapping threat and that now that he has found her you think he will that you need a protection order to give to the school so no one can pick her up but you. Give the school pictures of Sean AND his wife. I will have a better idea when I know how he found her school location if you know. Get the Restraining Order, ask for the longest possible time to serve him, I can recommend a process server where he is. Look at Dr. Fyfe's bill, it has Sean's physical address in St. Paul if I am not mistaken.

And in this March 14, 2005 email exchange, mother asked "would the [Texas] school still be required to release information i[f] Shelby was withdrawn?" to which Wilson answered, "I thought the information had already been released, oh, without your address. That is a School Law issue and I do family law."

And in this June 10, 2005 email, Wilson wrote:

I cannot advise you to avoid the phone contact as he would likely file contempt against you. I would monitor her phone calls, meaning be on the other line and take notes of what he says and, if he says anything inappropriate, you might request a restraining order. You can try the Texas restraining/protective order request again if you are feeling lucky, but it sounded hard from what you told me [Texas attorney] Marilyn [Belew] said.

I've recently obtained evidence that Wilson enlisted her client --hiding and concealing a minor child in Texas-- in a scheme to have me "jailed and fined or both." This generous service to the community was offered by Wilson pro bono.

The evidence is an email from Wilson to her client, begging her permission to file a contempt Motion in her name, for the purpose of coming after Harrington, writing, "Sean has really 'asked for it' by involving my children.¹ I need your permission to file this Motion for Contempt . . . [Y]ou would have to testify as to his contemptuous ways - I would prepare you, as usual . . . it will be easy as pie."

Wilson assured her client (Harrington's ex-wife) that that she would not be charged for any aspect of the personal vendetta.

The email included a communiqué sent to another attorney, Randy Dement, from whom Wilson was obtaining legal advice. In this email, she admits that there is a conflict of interest because she is acting under the cover of her client's case but --nevertheless-- she wrote, "I would like to hit a home run."

Another email disclosed the ultimate objective of Wilson's Master Plan (mu ha ha ha ha ha ha ha):

Put him in jail, give him some mental help. We cannot ask for attorney fees if we ask for jail time. I would like to see him go into lock-down for 180 days. I think Jane Tidball would do it.

For those of you who don't already know, 180 is that magic number of days under which a party to be deprived of liberty is not entitled to a jury.² Thus, it's an opportunity for a lawyer to persuade a judge she frequently appears before in a relatively private setting and without the benefit of an unbiased jury. (Secrecy and obscurity has always been essential to the divorce industry cabal in Colorado, until this Web site came along to expose an infitessimal fraction of what goes on behind these closed doors).

 It should come as no surprise. As Alan Prendergast (The Westword) recently conjectured, a handful of small-time attorneys are somewhat unhappy with Harrington. This chicanery is par-for-the-course for Colorado's divorce industry experts, relied upon by Colorado courts to determine the placement and best interests of our children. As documented in here (see July 10, 2008 entry),  the Brodbecks pursued Gordon Stadnyck for his role in exposing them. Stadnyck narrowly escaped jailtime thanks to a plea deal brokered by his attorney, David Lane.

If you're wondering if the reason Wilson is still practicing is because no one has filed a complaint, you'd be mistaken. Click here to see how our state's Attorney Deregulation Council has protected Wilson for years.

Harrington has filed cases in federal court and in Texas against the mother for unlawfully concealing his daughter from him for years and against her Colorado attorney, Wilson, for aiding and abetting in the concealment.

The federal case was thrown out by former judge, Edward Nottingham ostensibly because reading Harrington's briefs "would require the abandonment of all other cases." (Actually, we now have cause to believe that it would have required the abandonment of his one-handed Internet surfing activities (click here)). The case in Texas remains pending.

______________________

¹ Wilson was referring to this facsimile sent by Harrington. She later told the St. Paul (MN) Police Department, the U.S. Postal Inspector, the Worcester County (MA) Sheriff Department and John Gleason (Attorney Regulation Counsel that this document constituted a death threat to her and her children. She also told the State Bar of Texas Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, "As a result of Mr. Harrington's threats, I have encouraged my children to change their names and move out of state" (click here).

² See, e.g., People v. Shell, 148 P.3d 162, 175 (Colo. 2006) (en banc) (no jury entitlement in contempt proceedings); People v. Rodriguez, 112 P.3d 693, 709 (Colo. 2005) (en banc) ("Because the misdemeanor charges in this case are punishable by more than six months imprisonment, [defendant] is clearly entitled to a jury trial").

A divorce lawyer who's lost three appeals in a row to that non-lawyer. And one who is a party to her client's fraud. Click here.

KnowYourCourts.com takes care to allege fraud with particularity. By way of example, take this 1/31/2008 responsive pleading drafted by Wilson, where she repeatedly alleged that father had threatened mother in the past, had just threatened Wilson and her children, and had threatened to kidnap the minor child. Earier in the day, Wilson provided a copy of the pleading as an attachment to an email entitled, "For your review - I think Sean has threatened to take Shelby before, right?"

So, she wrote that responsive pleading without being certain?

Long after they had agreed on their story, Wilson wrote in her November, 2007 Answer to the State Bar of Texas:

First, I do not have my client's physical address. We communicate primarily by email. Second, she is extremely frightened of the Complainant and has testified that Shelby claims that the Complainant has threatened to kidnap her. On January 26, 2005, at my client's request, I asked that the Court disallow the Complainant from having my client's address or even telephone number based on hcr apparently legitimate fears.

It is clear that Wilson and her client conspired to fabricate the claims of kidnapping threats as an afterthought and pretext to request the court to withhold the Texas address information, which request was never granted by any court. Circumstantial evidence of the collusion and falsity is found in three printer-spool files located on mother's hard drive:

• The first of these is a November 30, 2004 resignation memo from mother to her Colorado employer notifying the employer that the purpose of her move is for “urgent family matters.”



• The second is a January 4, 2005 memo from mother to Wilson’s former law firm, explaining the move to Texas was “to help care for my mother.”


The third and most compelling is a memo from mother to Wilson explaining, “we are in Texas now, staying with my mom to help take care of her.”

None of these three memos even hints at “hiding due to kidnap threats” as the reason for the move (which would have been inexplicable, anyway, in light of the fact that father had not lived in Colorado in four years since December of 2000).

Later in March of that year, Wilson advised her Texas client that she needed to get a restraining order: "You can tell them you "escaped" to Texas and he has lost all parenting time but that he has somehow stalked you to TX and you fear for your life and [the child]'s."

Escaped from what? Father hadn't lived in Colorado since December of 2000. And he hadn't visited Texas since December of 2002. Maybe she meant telepathic stalking? Perhaps they suspected father of lighting candles, burning insense, wishing the mother's spirit away and poking at voodoo dolls (see wicca story above for context).

In fact, only a few months later, Wilson found it necessary to remind her client of the agreed-upon story, writing "It is clear he knows where you are. You were/are in hiding due to kidnap threats. I advise you to get a restraining order where you are, since we can't do it for you here. If I find him, I will let you know."

Indeed, it seems Wilson needs all the training she can on this subject. (Click here).  For example, in this transcript, she seemed to advocate that, because a parent offered to make partial payments and did not make a full payment of a $1,500, that he should, not only be jailed but, also have no further telephone contact with his daughter.  Judge Barnhill agreed and abolished all telephone contact because, "I want [the father's] attention." Id. at 138. In the same transcript, she substituted herself and began to testify (in violation of Rule 3.7) as a fact witness in place of the special advocate.  Id. at 35.  In three other appeals (04CA1161, 04CA1986 and 07CA0379), she unsuccessfully argued on behalf of the special advocate, `though she was not representing him.

       Instead, all that is required is practice of surprise (e.g., § 14-10-129(4) motions or any Motion captioned, "Emergency"), deception, material misrepresentations and reliance of favoritism towards by the bar by judges where one party is pro se.
       For example, as revealed by this transcript at pp. 4 - 5, Wilson served a surprise 14-10-129(4) Motion on one father, providing him with less than one business day of notice.  Wilson defended her practice, noting her misplaced belief that the Rules do not require her to confer with an unrepresented party prior to the filing of any motion.
       In an identical example, in this transcript at pp. 102-04, Wilson haled another father into court in less than six business hours of notice only a few days after his attorney withdrew and failing to provide a copy of her motion or any notice as to the charges against him, as required by law.  Wilson later lied about this, claiming that she had provided the father with a fax copy of the "emergency" motion and claiming to be bewildered by the Court of Appeals censured her for manipulating the Rules. (see here at pp. 5-6)   Her material misrepresentation was exposed by the Affidavit of the manager of a private mailbox facility, who catalogued all mail and faxes sent by Madeline Wilson. Id.).  Lying, however, is an effective strategy for an attorney of limited resources, because judges assume attorneys are honest (see, e.g., this transcript at p. 42, (where the judge proclaimed, "I'm sure that Ms. Wilson, as an officer of the Court, is not going to prevaricate")).
 

In response to an August 20, 2007 complaint, the Colorado Secretary of State agrees that, "Notaries are not permitted to notarize documents in which they have a disqualifying interest . . . This matter is serious enough to warrant an action to revoke a notarial commission. Click here. However, the Office of Secretary of State cannot pursue the complaint and revoke Frazier's license, because Frazier is no longer a registered notary. According to a Andrew Whitfield, Ass't Director for Licensing and Enforcement, Frazier's file has been flagged, should she decide to reapply for a license in the future. In additon the Attorney Regulation Counsel has opened an inquiry (click here).

Take, for example, Wilson's July 3rd 2007 "Emergency Motion" Regarding Jurisdiction in a Jefferson County trial court case, where she argued that the best interests standard of the Uniform Child Custody Act (UCCJA) of 1967 required Colorado to retain jurisdiction, purportedly because of the "bests interests" language therein. Unfortunately, there was one "small flaw" in her argument: The UCCJA was repealed and replaced with the UCCJEA of 1997 (which Colorado adopted in 2000). The official comment to the Uniform Act provides that The UCCJEA eliminates the term "best interests" in order to clearly distinguish between the jurisdictional standards and the substantive standards relating to custody and visitation of children. Oops.

 

Modern jurisprudence generally provides that, when a person proceeds in a case pro se, the standard that apply to attorneys apply equally to pro se litigants. See, e.g., Moore v. SouthTrust Corp., 392 F. Supp. 2d 724, 736 (E.D. Va. 2005) (Rule 11 also applies to pro se litigants); Negron v. Golder, 111 P.3d 538 (Colo. App. 2004) (“pro se litigants are bound by the same rules of civil procedure as attorneys licensed to practice law in this state”).  Likewise, the procedural protections that are applicable to attorneys are also applicable to the pro se litigant. See e.g., Dowden v. Super. Ct., 73 Cal.App. 4^th 126, 129-30 (1999) (rejecting the argument that a pro se litigant has no work-product privilege because he is not an attorney, finding that he was entitled to claim privilege because he was standing in the shoes of an attorney”).  There are few exceptions to this principle.^[1]

Although Madeline Wilson uses comparatively few legal authorities in the motions she prepares, one of her most frequently used citations is People v. Romero, 694 P.2d 1256 (Colo.1965) for the proposition that, “While the father has chosen to represent himself pro se, the father is charged with the knowledge of an attorney.”  Responsive pleading filed September 3, 2004 in the Colorado Court of Appeals, case N0 04CA1161 at ¶ 5.  However, judging from any one of Wilson’s drafted pleadings or briefs, one might wonder whether she is aware that, in Colorado, attorneys are also charged with the knowledge of an attorney. As noted in one December 20, 2004 pleading, Wilson, “appears to believe that the Rules of civil procedure apply to everyone except attorneys.”

Wilson appears to believe that pro se litigants should not be afforded the procedural due process protections and adjudicatory procedures available to attorneys (and their clients). In fact, the pleadings seem to indicate that she believes that they should be procedurally disadvantaged in addition to their deficit of legal knowledge and experience. For example, on numerous occasion, Wilson has argued that the so-called duty-to-confer, as required by Colo.R.Civ.P. Rule 121 (district court practice standards) requires the pro se party to confer with her, but that she need not confer with the pro se party, prior to filing a motion (especially a surprise motion) and, despite the fact that notice is, perhaps, the most basic due process procedural protection in our justice system. See, e.g., Wilson’s in-court testimony of May 17, 2004 in Taylor v. Stadnyck (Douglas County) (“I’m not required to confer with him as per rule one twenty one”).  See also Wilson’s July 1, 2004 Answer Brief in Colo. App. N0 03CA1825 at p. 7 (“Regarding the Duty to Confer under Rule 121 15 1-8, the father’s counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw on June 18, 2003; there was therefor [sic] no opposing counsel to confer with. . . “)^[2]   Both of these instances are based on her claim that the “duty to confer with opposing counsel” is inapplicable to non-attorneys, because they are not, “counsel.”  They are, in fact, examples of a pattern on the part of Wilson in ambushing a father with a surprise 14-10-129(4) motion to abolish his parenting time under the now-repealed Rule 16.2(g) (expedited hearings), perhaps, because she could not otherwise prevail by relying on good lawyering and a good faith presentation of evidence wherefrom the trial court may ferret out the truth. The Colorado Court of Appeals characterized Wilson’s trickery this way: “[W]e do not approve of mother’s attorney’s apparent manipulation of the notice provisions and the rules of civil procedure.” Dec. 20, 2004 opinion in 03CA1825 at p. 6.

In this latest appeal, No. 04CA1986, Wilson's Dec. 7th 2005 Answer Brief suggests that she forgot what issues were on appeal and which Order had been appealed.  Rather than addressing the trial court's denial of a appellant's Motion to Reconsider a May 4, 2004 Order (the subject of the appeal), Wilson argued why the trial court's July 2nd 2003 Order should be affirmed.

There was just one small problem with her argument, however: the July 2nd 2003 Order had already been decided (aff'd in part, rev'd in part, and remanded with instructions) in appeal case No. 03CA1825, decided on Dec. 30, 2004 (one year earlier).

Do you have a $350,000 mortgage that the court has ordered you to pay during a pending marital dissolution?  Do you owe $3,000 to a court-appointed child-and-family-investigator? Have you been ordered to pay child support, maintenance (alimony), child[ren]'s medical expenses, supervised visitation costs and various marital expenses and debts?  Madeline Wilson's solution: skip a few meals and take a job at Home Depot for "$10.00 per hour" — or go to jail.  See transcript here at pp. 109-113.

Wilson has some novel/profound advice for couples, which she offered under the guise of an Amazon.com book review (located here) of, How to Make Love Last a Lifetime by author Barbara DeAngelis. Unfortunately, it appears that Wilson was unable to implement her own advice. (One of her recent divorces is located here. However, for a fee, she may available to help you perfect a divorce, when making love last a lifetime is no longer convenient.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: tax returns and confidential financial information have been excluded from this docket listing. Please contact tipline@knowYourCOURTS.com if you have a compelling reason to request this information.

As one unfortunate father discovered, unwary pro se litigants are unable to match wits with Ms. Wilson.  For example, when the father notified Wilson that he had retained an attorney with an excellent reputation in appellate work, Madeline called the father's bluff, writing in her January 31st 2005 Motion, "The father recently sent another threatening letter to the mother's counsel . . . counsel believes that the father is attempting to 'bait' her into contacting the father's alleged attorney to attempt to cause trouble for the mother's attorney. Obviously, the father has no such attorney for the domestic case."  Unfortunately, Ms. Wilson experienced a minor embarrassing set back when she learned that the attorney had, in fact, filed an Entry of Appearance in the case. (Oops!)

KnowYourCourts.com obtained an August 20, 2003 e-mail from Wilson to opposing counsel, regarding father Todd Gordon, asking, "Can I kick him in the shins?"