You are on page 1of 18

JRN-1-2012 15:48 FROM: TO: 141366951132 P.

1
t:"'LEO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT s ..

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO !.ll .. \; I . I
1
. I . J
Civil Action No. llCV- 1777-R.EBCBS
TRRNTON H. PARII..'ER,
Plaintiff,
v.,
DANIEL S. MAUS, Individual and in his official capacity;
ELIZABETH B. STROBEL, individually and in her official capacity;
BRUCE T . . BARKER, individually and in his official capacity;
STEPHANIE L. ARRIES, individually and her official capacity;
JOHN COOK, individually and in his official capacity;
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OJ? THE
COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO; AND
ln. Rc. Case No. 07-CV-189; and Case No llCV-19,
IN WELD COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO.
Defendants.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
4: 24
DEP.ClK
tJ .y ---__ ______...-
Comes the Plaintiff, Trenton H. Parker, prose, and alleges for his Complaint, as follows:
.JURISDICTION
l. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including Article III,
Section l, of the United States Constitution; Article IV, Section 4; Article XIV, Sections 1 and 2,
and Title 42 U.S.C. 1983. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.
1331, 1343 and 2201. The "Supplemental Jurisdiction'' of the District Court is hereby, invoked.
2. Venue is proper In the District of Colorado pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). All ofthe
events alleged herein, occurred within the state of Colorado, County of Weld. All of the parties
hereto, are residents of the state of Colorado.
JAN-1-2012 15:48 FROM:
TO: 141366951132 P.2
PARTlF:S
3. Standing; Plaintiff Parler (Pake) has standing to bring this action before this Federal District
Court because the Plaintiff is a citizen of the United and has resided in the state of Colorado
at all times relevant heeto, and is a registered voter in the state of Colorado.
4. Defendant DanielS. Maus (Maus) is a District Court Judge of Weld County, Colorado; Eliznbeth
B. Strobel (Strobel) is a District Court Judge in Weld County, Colorado; Bruce T. Barker (Barker)
is the Weld County Attorney; Stephanie L. Arries (Arries) is an Assistant Weld County Attorney;
John Cook (Cook) is the Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado; The Board Of County Commissioners
Of The County Of Weld, State Of Colorado is the governing political hndy of Weld County
Colorado; Case No. 07-CV-189 and 11-CV-19 are civil cases involving alleged Weld County zoning
code violations which .Plaintiff Patker has a direct and personal interest in, and which is the subject
of lawsuit, and which are described in detail, hereinnftel',
5. At all pertinent times mentioned herein, Defendants and Strobel were employed by the
sf:lte of Colorado and was acting as a Colorado state jud.ges without lawful or constitutional
authority to do so and lacked any jurisdictional authority to proceed as a judge or to have denied
the Plaintiff a jury trial (Mans and Strobel), or sentenced the Plaintiff to jail (Maus).
6. At all pertinent times mentioned herein, Barker and Arries were employed by the Commissioners
of Weld County, Colorado. At all pertinent times mentioned herein, John Cook was employed by
Weld County, Colorado as the Sheriff of said county.
7. This is an action for damages against Defendants Maus, Strobel, Barker, Arries, Cook; and the
Board Of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado for violating the .Piaintifrs
constitutional and civil rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments as protected under the Constitution of the United States.
8. Plaintiff Parker alleges that, for a period covering twelve (12) years, he has been sub.iected to and
made to suffer an ongoine and continuous loss and abuse of his constitutional rights at the hands of
the Weld County Commissioners and various Weld county employees. That Defendants Mans,
Strobel, Baker, and Arries have intentionally, kllowingly, l'ecklessly, and with deliberate
indifference to Plaintifrs constitutional rights, violated the Plaintiff's Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth,
and Fourteenth Amendment Rights when, the Defendants subjected Plaintiff Parker to numerous
illegal acts, wrongs, torts and imprisonment prior to, during nnd following a two day contempt of
court hearing in Weld County, Colorado in Case No. 07-CV-189, which took place on June l4'h and
25'" of 2009.
9. The l'Iaintiffwas sentenced to jail for 90 days. Tbe. Final Court Order and determination of
said trial and 90 day sentence was executed and issued by Defendant Mans on July 9, 2009. The
Plaintiff is not time-barred from bringing this action and constitutional to the Final
Otdcrs aforementioned. The and abridgments' of the rights of Plaintiff Parker have been
and are continuing in and nature at the bands of tbe Defendants name herein, as more fully
described
JAN-1-2012 15:48 FROM: T0:141366951132 P.3
CASE BACKGROUND AND IJME LINE
10. In 1997, Plaintiff Parker joined together with a number of individuals and companies in order
to pool various assets consisting of land, horses, construction equipment, tools, mobile homes,
construction offices and other various resouces in order to develop a series of equestrian
campgrounds which were to be located in the San Luis Valley in Costilla County, Colorado.
II, On October 3, 1997, a Colorado corporation named West World U.S.A. Inc. (West World)
formed to proceed with the equestrian campground project. The primary staging area for the West
World venture was located on a twentyfive acre storage facility located 10701 E. l04'h Avenue,
Commerce City, Colorado. Said facility was leased by lntermountain Mobile Home Services which
was owned by Mrs. Marjore A. Kcssling (Kessling).
12. Kcssling had purchased Intermountain in early 1997, and had assumed a short term lease.
Intermountain manufactured, stored, repaired, moved, removed and set up mobile homes,
construction offices and portable farm and ranch barns and storage units.
13. In November of 1999, due to unforeseen circumstances, Kcssling became ill and was unable lo
carry on with Intermountain's business. At the same time, Intermountain's property, which was
owned by a Chicago investment company, was sold and Intermountain's lease was terminated,
requiring Intermountain's liquidation and relocation and the relocation of West World's horses and
facilities.
14. In March of 2000, West World joined together with a land development group which had
acquired a lease-option to purchase 90 acres of open ranch land (The Ranch) located south of Weld
County Road 8 and Weld County Road 35, in Weld County, Colorado, with the closest residence
being 1/4 mile away.
15 The 90-acre ranch property was part of an unsettled estate consisting of 120 acres owned by two
warring sisters. Before moving onto The Ranch property, the development group retained attorney
John Ringinberg to review Weld's zoning codes. After' reviewing said codes, it was determined that
there were no problems with West World moving its and supporting equipment onto The
Ranch property which it did.
16. At the same time, the development group moved their construction equipment and portable
buildings onto The Ranch property. Likewise, some of the investors moved some of their personal
items on to The Ranch property, such as motor homes, horse trailers, portable horse tack and hay
trailers, and farm, ranch and construction equipment. Ranch policy required all items to be on
wheels and mobile.
17. The first year on The Ranch was spent building and establishing a functional infrastructure
consisting of fenced pastures, horses pens, windbreaks and hay sheds. At that time, West World
owned 40 horses, which were show quality registered Russian and .Polish Arabians (l 0 stallions and
30 mares). During the year 2000, West World was operating on income derived from the repair
and sale off excess equipment and materials, and show horses.
JAN-1-2012 15:49 FROM: T0:141366951132 P.4
18. On .January 1, 2001, Weld County passed a new zoning code which was reviewed by the
development group's attorney, .John L. Ringenberg. Based on the reading of Weld's new code, it
was concluded that there was nothing on The Ranch property which was in violation of either the
old or new Weld county zoning codes.
19. On Oecember 14,2001 the development group formed Land Home l)evelopment
Company, Inc. (Land Home) and thereafter, on December 15, 2001 Land Home entered into a
Land Sale Contract and stuck purchase agreement with Amanda M. Witt, one of the two warting
sisters, who jointly owned the 120 acre ranch property.
20. In March of 2002, a dispute broke out between Weld's code enforcement agent,
Bethany Salzman, the warring sisters, Land Home, West World, Intermountain and a landlord
who bad leased 10 acres In the town of Roggen, in Weld County, Colorado to Intermountain. At
that time, Attorney Max Minnig, .Jr. (Minnig) was hired to represent the Defendants.
21. On April R, 2002, Weld County filed a law suit against all of the parties that had anything to do
with The Ranch property and the Roggen's/Intermountah1 storage facility (Board of County
Commissioners v. Trenton H. Parker et.al. Case No. 02-CV-558. This civil action took place more
than two years after the Ranch property had been occupied and more than a year after Weld's
zoning codes had been enacted. Weld County ignored the fact that Colorado's Statutes of
Limitation harred this action, CRS-30-15-409.
22. On April16, 2002, Minnig accepted service in 02-CV-558 on behalf of Land Home, West
World, Intermountain, and Parker. However, for whatever reason, Minnig never filed an Answer
in that case, while advising all concerned that be was working to have the case dismissed.
23. On August 12, 2002, the Weld County District Court entered a written "Order of
Dismissal" in the 02-CV-558 case, liS tn L11nd Home, West World, Intermountain and
Parker. After the Dismissal, Minnig took a mediealleave and moved from his law offices.
24. On September 27,2002, Weld County moved to reinstate the 02-CV-558 case. On
8/28/02 the District Court granted Weld's motion for reinstatement. Bnt Minnig never received the
notke of reinstatement, as he bad moved and was .not practicing law at that time. Additionally,
neither the Weld County Attorney or the District Court ever sent a copy of the Notice Of
Reinstatement of 02-CV-558 to Land Home, West World, Intermountain or Parker, who still
believed that the 02-CV-558 c:ase had been dismissed.
25. On October 23, 2002, a Default .Judgment was entered in 02-CV-558 by the District Court
against Land Home, West "World, Intermountain and Parker, who were stillnnder the impression
that said case had been dismissed.
26. On May 5, 2003, Parker found out from Minnig that n Contempt Citation was entered against
Parker in 02-CV-558. The Weld County Attorney mailed a copy ofthe Contempt Citation to Land
llome's business address in Brighton, Colorado. On May 16, 2003, Parker filed a scant prose
response to the "Contempt Citation" in 02-CV-558, having no information as to what had
tJanspired since the "Dismissal.'' Following Parker's prose contempt response, Minnig was
rehired to represent Parker, Land Home and West World in the 02-CV-558 case.
JRN-1-2012 15:49 FROM: TO: 141366951132 P.5
27. On May 14, 2003, Land Home Development Company was finally able to arrange financing
and entered into a contract to purchase Witt's undivided interest in The Ranch, as The Ranch was
still not officially divided. At about the same time, the second sister sold her undivided interest in
the 120 acre property to a next door neighbor. Since the sisters were no longer the owners of the
property, Land Home working with the neighbor, proceeded to work to obtain a legal division of
The Ranch property in the District Court in Case No. 02-CV-300.
28. On October 23, 2003, a hearing was held in the Weld County District Court in 02-CV-558. But
due to illness, Minnig could not attend. Parker attended, but was not sure what the hearing was
about. Weld was represented by Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison (Morrison). Said
hearing was continued with the understanding that if there was to be another hearing, Parker
would be notified. Another hearing was scheduled and held on 2/17/04, but Parker never received
any notice of the hearing, which resulting in aFT A Warrant being issued for Parker's arrest.
29. On April IS, 2004, Parker was arrested on the February 17, 2004, FIA warrant. Parker
bonded out of jail and was ordered to appear In court for a "Show Cause" hearing on May 4, 2004.
30. On May 4, 2004 Parker appearQd pro se in the District Court, to answer the April 29, 2003
contempt citation. When the dust cleared, Weld's nttol'ney, Monison, moved to dismiss the
contempt citation against Parker for lack of evidence. Parker had been jailed and harassed by
Weld County for more than two years over matters which Parker was either not responsible for or
had no control over. For all intents and purposes, the 02-CV-558 case came to an end.
31. The issues in contention in 02-CV-558 was that Weld's new International Code Enforcement
(ICE) Agent, Bethany Salzman (Salzman), was treating Land Home's portable buildings as mobile
homes and wanted Land Home to obtain building permits fo them, which is not required for
construction trailers. Second, Salzman had decided that every type oftruck or piece of
construction llquipment was a "commQrciaJ vehicle" and that only one "commercial vehicle" was
to be allowed on a farm or ranch, regardless of the size of the farm or ranch. Additionally,
Salzman had decided that no one was to have a "recreational vehicle'' stored or repaired on The
Ranch property, as they should be placed in commercial storage yards and garages.
32. Furthermore, West World's hay and feed storage trailers, along with Land Home's
construction office were considered illegal because they bad similar types of frames, wheels and
uxles which some mobile homes have and therefore, they must he "mobile homes" and thus were
illegal. A Tuft' Shed mounted on a small trailer frame was declared a "mobile home" by Salzman
because it was "mobile" and someone might put a bed and a heater in it and live in it. Salzman had
already determinl.ld that everything on The Rancb property was illegal for one reason or another.
33. A key key legal issue involving The Ranch property was that until it was divided up by the
District Court, no one could legally apply for or receive any permits from the Weld County
building department; and Salzman was the one who decided who could get a permit. Salzman had
already decided, without ever conducting an on-site inspection, that everything on The Ranch
property was illegal, so no permits were going to be given to Land Home, West World or Parker,
anyway. It was Salzman who had instigation the legal actions against Land Home, West World
and Parker which has to date, lasted for nearly twelve (12) years. When 02-CV-558 ended, Land
Home,West World and Parker returned to hudneu.
JRN-1-2012 15:50 FROM:
T0:141366951132 P.6
34. On March 18, 2005, the Weld County District Court entered a Order approving a "Stipulated
Settlement Agreement" regarding the division of The Ranch property; 02-CV-300. And on July 14,
2005 mutual deeds were issued between Land Home and Mr. Gerry Bowman. Howeve.r, the time
and money spent on fighting Salzman and Weld County had left Land Home and its investors low
on financial resources and spirit which resulted In some of the investors simply walking away from
the deal and leaving their various buildings, trailers, equipment and materials behind since they
had no other place to take them. Parker had to stay at The Ranch because he was the only one left
to take care of West World's horses, which had to be taken care of24 hours a day.
35. Land Home finally sold its interest In The Ranch property on July 14, 2006 to a another real
estate company, Rio Grande Canyon Properties, Inc. (Rio Grande). However, since .Land Home
had a mortgage on the property with a "due on sale" clause, Rio Grande did not record its deed
until after said loan was paid off. July 2, 2008.
36. On or about February 23, 2007 Weld County filed another Jaw suit against Land Home and
Trenton Parker; Weld County Commissioners v. Land Home and Trenton H. Parker, Case No. 07
CV-189 in violation of CRS-30-15409. This action took place nearly three years after the May 4'\
2004 contempt hearing was held in the 02-CV-558. Weld was represented by Assistant Weld
County Attorney, Stephanie L. Arrics (Arries) assisted by Salzman. Even though Land Home no
longer owned The Ranch property, the last investor, Robert K. Karpe (Karpe) thought an answer
should be filed. Karpe and Parker quickly fixed up one of the trucks which was left on The Ranch
property and sold it for $3,000. Attorney Frederick J. Scheafer was paid $3,000.00 to file an
A n ~ w e r , while Parker filed a prose Answer to Weld's new 07-CV-189 Zoning Code Complaint.
37. When Scheafer wanted more money, Karpe disappeared, Land Home died and Scbeafer
withdrew from the case. That left Parker holding the bag again. Richard Foreman (Foreman),
who was a mortgage broker, had taken over the management of Rio Grande. Forman decided that
since Rio Grande was not named in Weld's lawsuit, that there was no reason for him or Rio
Grande to get involved in it. Likewise, Foreman was in the middle of a divorce and was having
financial problems and did not wish to become envolved. in any additional litigation.
38. On October ll, 2007, Parker met with attorney J. Bryan Larson (Larson# 31822)
at his offices located 730 E. Bridge Street, Brighton, Colorado 80601 and retained Larson to
represent Patkllr regarding the zoning code violation matter in the Weld County Distril;t Court
Case No. 07-CV-189. At that time Parker paid Larson a $500.00 cash retainer to appear at an up-
coming hearing which was later rescheduled by the District Court to be held on December 20, 2007,
before Judge Donald Maus (Mans).
39. In early December of 2007, Parker contacted Larson by phone to make sure that Larson
would be ready for the 12/20/07, hearing and to confirm that Larson bad made a formal entry of
appearance. Larson told Parker that he had made a formal entry of appearance and that he would
be ready for the hearing. Parker told Larson that he wanted to stop by Larson's office and pick up
copies of whatever Larson bad filed with the Weld County District Court. That same afternoon,
Parker stopped by Lorson's office, at which time Larson gave Parker a copy of an "Entry of
Appearance" wbich Larson said he bad c-mailed to the Clerk of District Court in Greely,
regarding the 07-CV-189 case.
JAN-1-2012 15:50 FROM:
T0:141366951132 P.?
40. On Monday, December 17, 2007, Parker called Larson at his office to find out when they we1e
going to get together and prepare for the 12/20/07 bearing. At that time, Larson told Parker that
be had been in contact with the Weld County Attorney's office and bad gotten a continuance due to
the up-coming Christmas Holidays, and that a bearing date would be rescheduled after the first of
the year - 2008. With that information, Parker let the matter rest.
41. Thereafter, about mid May of 2008, Parker was served with n copy of a motion for an "Order
of Possession" by the Weld County Sberifrs Department, regarding the alleged zoning code
violations. After being served, Pmker called Larson at his oftice and asked him what was going on,
and why was Parker being served with an "Order for Possession." At that time, Larson told
Parker that it all just 11 big mistake- and that he (Larson) would the District Court nnd the
Weld County Attorney and get everything straightened out. Parker told Larson, at that time, that
he (Paker) wonted to know exactly what was going on In the Weld County case. Larson assured
J>arkcr that he (Larson) would let Parker know just as soon as he (Larson) got the whole matte1'
resolved.
42. Several day passed following the conversation with Larson, yet Parker had not received any
word from Larsou. Additionally, none of Parker's phone calls were returned, At that time, Parker
the Clerk of the .District Court and was informed that there was no record showing that Mr.
J. Bryan Larson had ever made an entry of appearance in the 07-CV-189 case.
43. Additionally, the scheduled hearing of lZ/20/07 bad not been set aside, as Larson had
represented to .Parker. Furthermore, the 12/20/07 hearing had been held and no one had
appeared for any of the Respondents in the case. This whole matter had turned into an absolute
critical legal disaster, along with other legal matters involving Mr. Larson.
44. After finding out that Larson had lied to Parker about a number of matters, Parker went to
office to confront him on the matters covered above- as well as other matters. Parker
found Larson at his of11ces and asked Larson to return all of the paperwork in the case and for
Larson to tell the truth about the 07-CV-189 case, as wcl111s several other matters which Larson
had been retained to work on.
45. At that time, Larson told Parker that he could not return Parker's paperwork because the
police had raided his offices and bad taken all of his paperwork and his computers as a result of his
involvement with some real estate and mortgage scams that Larson had become involved in
through the title company which Larson owned. Additionally, Larson admitted that be was blling
suspended from the practice of law by the Colorado Attorney Regulation Council and apologized
for not showing np in court, which resulted in a default judgment against Laud Home and Parker.
Thereafter, Parker filed 3 different complaints against Larson with the Colorado Attorney
Regulation Council. Larson entered a plea agreement regarding his actions and was suspended
from the practice of law for n short time (Case No. 08-PDJ-046) entered on March 27, 2009.
46. l'arker filed a C.R.S.- Rule 60(b) Motion wltb the District Court, to set aside the entry of
default judgment because of Larson's unethical and fraudulent conduct. However, Judge Mans
summarily dismissed the motion without allowing Parker to present any proof or testimony.
JRN-1-2012 15:50 FROM:
TO: 141366951132 P.B
47. Parker was issued an order by Judge Mans in 07-CV-189 to show cause why Parker and Land
Home should not be held in contempt of court for some alleged zoning code violations. By this
time, Rio Grande had filed its deed from Land Home, and Foreman had taken over Rio Grande
under a stock purchase and option agreement. Arries was informed of these matters with copies of
the Land Home Rio Grande Deed, affidavits and sworn testimony. However, Arries refused to
drop the case against Parker, who was attempting to liquidate West World's assets and move the
remaining horses and equipment to the San Luis Valley. On August 19, 2008, Foreman died (by
suicide) from an overdose of drugs and alcohol without paying the money due under his stock
option purchase agreement, which left Parker, West World and its investors in a bind again.
48. Additionally, Arries kept an open-ended Lis Pendens on The Ranch property with no stated
amount, thereby making it impossible to obtain financing in order to begin developing said
property or to sell The Ranch to anyone. Thus, Parker had to seck a court nppointed attorney to
I'epresent him in the Contempt of Court matter. Judge Mans appointed an attorney by the name of
Christopher G. CollhJs (Collins) of Greely, Colorado, to represent Parker. Collins callt:!d Parker by
phone at The Ranch (303-6541048), with an established mailing address of 111 E. Bridge Street,
Brighton, Colorado 80601, which Parker gave to Collins over the phone.
49. When Collins called Parker, Collins explained thnt he had been appointed to represent Parker
by .Judge Maus, but that no date had been sat for the contempt of court hearing and that Collins
would contact Parker as soon as there was a firm date established. ln the meantime, Collins told
Parker that he was behind on a lot of work and that Parker was not to call him about Parker's case
until Collins called Parker. Parker told Collins that he was busy taking care of the horses and
repairing equipment to be sold or removed. Collins told Porker to just keep doing what he wos
doing and that he (Collins) would contact Parker when the time came. Parker told Collins to try
and buy as much time as he could, as Parker was alone and out of money and working to keep the
horses fed. Collins said he would do whatever he could to buy time, and then bung up.
50. Parker did not hear from or meet Collins until the morning of June 24, 2009 when Parker
appeared in Weld County Court on an unrelated matter. As Parker was In the process ofleavlng
the court, deputy sheriffs arrested Parker for a failure to appear at a contempt of court hearing iu
the 07-CV-189 matter. When Parker, who was surprised, asked the deputies, "What Contempt
Hearing'l", Parker was told to talk to his attorney, and pointed to a man standing next to Parker.
At that point, a man turned to Porker and said thnt he was Christopher G. Collins. That he could
not talk to Parker at that time; that Parker was under arrest for a failure to appear; that Parker
was going to be "booked" but that he would try to get Parker brought up to Judge Mans' court
room as soon as possible, as there was to be a forthwith trial regarding the contempt matter.
51. Thereafter, Parker was booked into Jail and then taken in handcuffs to Mans's court to meet
Collins for the first time. Collins said there had been a contempt of court hearing scheduled for
May 19, 2009, and that he tried to contact Parker, but Parker's phone was disconnected and the
address he sent a letter to was returned. As it turned out, Collins had written down Parker's phone
number as 970-654-1084 not 303-654-1048. And Collins had sent the notice letter to 837 S. Kuner
Rd., Brighton, Colorado 80601. This was an old address that Collins got off of an old pleading in
the 02-CV-558, case which had been a UPS Store that had closed down and moved two years
before.
JRN-1-2012 15:51 FROM:
T0:141366951132 P.9
52. Collins never bothered to call information or to ask Arries where The Ranch was or have
go to The Ranch where Parker was working every day. Parker had about two minutes to
talk to Collins before Judge Maus came into the courtroom to start Parker's contempt of court
trial. Parker asked Collins to request a continuance, as Parker had no way to contact witnesses or
to obtain any exhibits. And Parker had never spoken to Collins regarding any affirmative
defenses. As court opened, Collins advised the court of the mistakes that he had made. Collins
lived in the 970 area code and assumed that Parker did too. And Collins also acknowledged that he
had notice of the contempt hearing to the wrong address and asked for a continuance. Maus
denied request and st:nted Parker's contempt of court trial forthwith.
53. Parkcr asked Collins if he (Parker) could get two or three in order to get some
documents together. At that time, Collins informed Parker thnt he was to go back to ,inilund that
Maus had put a $15,000 on him. The trial was a judicial farce. Collins knew nothing about
The Ranch; or the history of the property; or the zoning codes that were alleged to be in violation,
or any of Parker's affirmative defenses; or who owned The Ranch property; or where The Ranch
was; or who owned the items on The Ranch; or who a.ny ofthe investors were. Nor had Collins
ever spoken to Parker or anyone else about Case No. 07-CV.189. told Parker that nothing
really would make any difference anyway because Judge Mans had already decided th11t Pnrker
was going to get 90 days In jail.
54. At lunch break, Collins had a meeting that he had to go to, so there was no time to confer with
Parker. At the end of the day, Parker was taken to the Weld County jail without any time to tallt
to Collins. Parker, using all of West Wol"ld's horse feed.ing money ($1500), managed to bonded out
of jail and get back to his car and back to The Ranch. Parker spent the whole night feeding and
watering the horses and trying to get ready for the next day's contempt of court hearing. Upon
lll'riving at court the following day, Parker notified Collins that he was fired and that Parker was
going to proceed pro se. When Judge Maus reopened the trial, Parker went on record firing
Collins and objecting to the proceedings. Parker testified in his own behalf, though U was never
clear as to what exactly Parker was on trial for. Parker was found guilty of some unspecified
zoning code violations and sentenced to 90 days in .iail to start 45 days later. Judge Maus never
actually made any record of exactly what is was that Parker was guilty of. However, Maus did go
on the record and said he did not know who the owner of The Ranch property was, but he did not
think it was Parker.
55. What transpired over the next 45 days was covered in a "Status Report" to Judge Maus and
the District Court and ended in the seizure of West World's remaining 24 horses.
56. On September 3, 2009, Judge Maus granted Colorado's motion to seize Parker's and West
World's hones in Case Nu, 09-CV-881, and on the morning of September 4, 2009, the Weld
County Sheriffseized 24 horses valuede at $500,000 and took them to an undisclosed place.
57.0n September 8, 2009, Plaintiff Parker committed himself to the Weld County .Jail pursuant to
Mans's executed order of July 9, 2009, to begin serving a 90 day contempt of cuurt jail sentence.
JAN-1-2012 15:51 FROM:
TO: 141366951132 P.10
58. On Septembe ll, 2009, Plaintiff Parker was taken from the Weld County Jail, in prison garb,
with no notice, and taken before Judge Mans, and forced to attend a TRO hearing in Case No. 09-
CV-881, with no chance to consult with any attorney, talk with any witnesses, make any phone
calls, obtain any defense materials or documentation, or be informed u to what happened to the
sci11.:ed 24 horses valued at more than $500,000. Later, Judge Maus secretly helped to arrange for
sell West Worlds 24 hurses to his friend Nick Meagher for $7,500, without any notice to any of the
horse owners.
59. On ____ ,, 2009, Plaintiff Parker was released from the Weld County Jail.
60. On Aprill, 2010, upon motion from Arries, Judge Mans dismissed Laud Home Development
Company from the 07-CV-189 civil action, but kept Parker as a Defendant in the zoning code law
suit.
6). On September 23,2010, Judge Maus disqualified himself as a. judge in 07-CV-189 and the case
was moved to Division 3, Judge Elizabeth B. Strobel.
62. On November 26, 2010, the District Court Uudge Strobel) entered an order dismissing the
contempt citation against Parker in 07-CV -189.
63. On December 21, 2010, Judge Strobel entered an order releasing the Lis Pendens against Land
.Home Development Company and The Ranch property, even though said property had not been in
the name of"Land Home" for almost three years.
64. On January 5, 2011, Weld County, via Defendants Barker and Arrics filed another zoning code
violation law suit, but this time it was against Rio Grande Canyon Properties, Inc., Case No. 2011-
CV-19. Additionally, Arries filed another Lis Pendens against The Ranch property even thought
ruo Grande's deed had been recorded on July 2, 2008,- past Colorado's two year statute of
limitations to bring a civil action.
CLAIMS FQR RELIEF
65. Plaintiff Parker hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 64 of this Complaint, as part of
the facts relating to and in support of his !'laims for relief, and furthermore states as follows;
66. LACK OF JURISDICTION NO. 1: Plaintiff Parker hereby alleges that Colorado's judges in
general and Defendants Mans and Strobel in particular, have no jurisdiction to hear any legal
matter regarding the Plaintiff, pursuant to Article VI, Section 9, of the Colorado Constitution
because said statute is in violation of the United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 2,
"Equality of Privileges" and Section 4, requiring a "Republican form of government", and Article
XIV, Section 1, "Equal protection ofthe Jaw", and Section 2, which requires all state Judicial
Officers to be popularly elected in free and open elections, and requires the Joss of congressional
representation for any state that fails to allow for the free and open elections of its state judges
(Judicial Officers).
JRN-1-2012 15:52 FROM:
TO: 141366951132 P.ll
67. .Piaintitl' Parker hereby alleges that he (along with all other Colorado voters) have and are
currently being denied the right to vote in any free and open election for any state judge "Judicial
Officer" inasmuch as Colorado passed a constitutional amendment in 1966, which became law on
January 17, 1967, requiring state judges (Judicial Officers) to be appointed by a political
committee rather than elected by popular vote (Colorado Constitution, Article VJ-1 OS, 1 06).
68. Plaintiff Parker further alleges that ''Article TV, Section 4" requires the federal government
(Federalism) to guarantee the citizens of every state in the Union, a republican form of government
Likewise, "AJticle XIV, Section 2" J'eads as follows; "Representatives (congressional) shall be
apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole
number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any
election for the choice of" ..... " the Executive and Judicial Officers (state judges) of a State, or the
members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being
twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, 01 in any other way abridged, except for
participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of (congressional) representation therein shall
be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole
number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State." Parker claims that even if the
citizens of a state wanted to give up their rights to elect theh own .iudges, for what ever reasons,
The Constitution Of The United States prohibits such actions.
69. In 1!:170, Congress enfranchised the Indians (Native Amcricau) under Article XIV. In 1920,
"Article XIV, Section 2" was expanded as to persons authorized to vote with the passage of
"Article XIX", whieh granted women the right to vote. Thereafter, in 1924, Congress passed the
''Indian Citizenship Act" which granted United States Citizenship to the Indians (Native
Americans) and then in 1968 Congress passed the Indian Civil Rights Act. Thereafter, Congress
passed "Al'ticle X.XVT" thereby changing the national voting age from 21 to 18 years of age.
70, The Plaintiff' is claiming that the "Fourteenth Amendment, Paragraph No. 2" requires the free
and open elections of all state Executive, Legislative and "Judicial Officers" of a state and to the
degree that dtizcns, eighteen years of age or older, are denied the right to vote for their "Judicial
Officers" in free and open elections, a state loses its right to congressional representation in
proportion to the ratio of qualified electors denied the right to vote for said state Judicial Officers
or in this case, Colorado judges. Sinee no qualified person can openly run for a Colorado
judgeship, and since Colorado voters cannot vote for the judges of their choice, Plaintiff Parker
contends that Judge Mans has exercised jurisdiction by a fiction and that all Colorado judges arc
illegal and that Colorado is not entitled to have any representation in the United States Congress.
71. Plaintiff Parker further alleges that "Article IV, Section 4" and "Artiele XIV, Section 2"
forbid any state of the United States from becoming a totalitarian dictatorship run by a dictator or
an oligarchy that appoints state executive, legislative and or Judicial Officers and thereafter, every
six years or ten years graciously grants the citizens of the state the right to confirm or not confirm
the various politically appointed officials .... which was the way elections were conducted in the
former Soviet Union under the Communist Party, and which is the way many current dictatorships
conduct their own phony national elections.
JAN-1-2012 15:52 FROM:
T0:141366951132 P.12
72. .Plaintiff Parker also alleges that Colorado's current "judicial political appointment and
confirmation system" does not constitute the free and open election of Colorado's Judicial Officers
(state judges) as required by The Constitution Of The United States by any standard of judicial
review. Currently, no qualified person is presently at liberty to run for any Colorado judgeship on
behalf of himself, nor may anyone be drafted to run for any judicial (lffice by any group of persons
of any form of persuasion because, all Colorado judges must first be appointed by a political
appointment committees to automatically serve from six (6) to ten (10) year terms in office before
ever haviog to face a public "reconfirmation" vote, and without any type of formal opposition.
73. Furthermore, the Plaintiff alleges that no Colorado judge can be recalled under Colorado's
current election laws regardless of how incompetent, rude, or corrupt they may be, because
Colorado .iudges are not considered to be elected officials under the current elections laws and
therefore, a Colorado judge eannot be recalled.
74. The Plaintiff further alleges that no Colorado judge is ever required to make any form of
financial disclosure pursuant to Colorado's "Sunshine Law" because Colorado judges are not
considered to be publicly elected officials. There is nothing to prevent a Colorado judge from
establishing a reconfirmation campaign fund and accepting financial contributions (hribe.s) for
some future reconfirmation campaign- even though Colorado judges seldom ever spend any
money on their own reconfirmation, Defendant Maus, at all times relevant hereto, has been and is
an illegal judge without lawful jurisdiction.
75. Additionally, Colorado judges are not required to file any finaneial reports regarding their
campaign funds and those funds can be invested in anything from real estate to stocl>s and bonds.
Likewise, said funds can be gathered up at the time of retirement and used by the ex-judge at will
and in most cases, tax-free. There arc no Colorado laws in place to prevent such financial dealings
on the part of Colorado judges bec:ause Colorado judges are not considered publicly elected
officials. And no Colorado judge is subject to any Colorado law governing term limitations
because Colorado judges are not considered elected officials under the Colorado Constitution,
Article VI, Sections 24 and 25.
76. Plaintiff Parker hereby claims that Colorado's judicial system has become corrupt because no
Colol'ado judge is currently required to make any kind of public disclosure regarding any personal
bac.kground information suc.h as: information regarding bank accounts, financial records, real
estate holdings, trust accounts or tax records; or any information regarding past educational
background such as the schools attended, years graduated or GPA; or any information regarding
past employment history or military service or any marital information; or any driving history,
citizenship history, or any disclosures regarding memberships in any clubs, fraternities, soda!
organizations, or societies ... because Colorado's Judicial Officers (state judges) are not
considered publicly elected officials; and, any information pertaining to a license to pntctice law is
also, more or less, kept confidential.
77. Twelve additional states have chosen, in one way or another, to deny their citizens the right to
elect their own state "Judicial Officers" by way of open populnr elections. The general thinking for
doing away with the open popular electious of state judges revolves around the belief on the part of
the legal community, supported by the judicial elite, that the general public is simply not smart
enough (too stupid) to be put in charge of electing even the lowest of their own state judges.
JAN-1-2012 15:53 FROM:
T0:141366951132 P.13
78 .. But if the voting public is not smart enough to elect their own state judges, what would cause
anyone to believe that the voting public should ever be allowed to select a Congressman, or a U.S.
Senator or the President or Vice President of the United States? Surely these jobs are far more
important and require a great deal more aptitude than that of some city court judge
79) Plaintiff Parker hereby alleges that when "Article XIV" was passed and became part of the
Constitution Of The United States, it was done with the clear intent to initiate a clearly defined law
with serious consequences fm the failure of any state to comport or comply with said Article, and
that it was NOT the intent of Congress to pass some vaguely written series of mild "political
suggestions" which could be casually disregarded or liberally construed. Defendant Mans acted
against the Plaintiff by putting him in jail without any lawful jurisdiction and all in violation of the
Defendant's due process l'ights.
80. Plaintiff Parker hereby alleges that "Article 4, Section 4" is the constitutional safeguard which
prohibits foolish citizens from giving up their rights to vote in free and open elections for their
Executive, Legislative and Judicial Officers - rights which were won only after many years of
lighting- at a cost of millions of lives. If 113 of Colorado's government (,Judicial Officers) can be
appointed by a committee, why not have a second committee appoint all state "Legislative"
ofticers'? And while we are at it, why not have a third committee appoint all "Executive" officers?
And of course, we should also appoint a committee to "oversee" the conduct of the other three (3)
committees. And why not call this new "oversight" committee the "State Central Committee"-
Comrades!'! ("It is not who votes that counts- but who counts the votes, that matters"- Stalin)
81. LACK OF JURISDICTION NO.2: The Colorado Constitution gives District Courts general
jurisdiction pursuant to Article VI, Section 9. in civil cases .... "except as otherwise provided for.".
Plaintiff P<trker admits that Colorado district courts and county courts have concurrent
jurisdiction with respects to matters which fall within the jurisdiction of both courts. However,
Plaintiff Parker hereby alleges that, the District Court does not have legal jurisdiction in Case No,
07-CV-189 or ll-CV-19, for the following good and sufficient reasons set forth below.
82. C.R.S. 30-15-410 specifically confers jurisdiction in the prosecution of violations of county
ordinances on the County Court and not the District Courts. Furthermore, in her Weld County
Complaints, Arries cites C.R.S. 3028124 for jurisdiction -said jurisdiction is clearly vested, per
said Colorado statute, in the County Court and not the District Court. Furthermore, nowhere in
Weld's Complaints does Weld motion the District Court to hear or decide any case. Plaintiff
Parker alleges that Defendant Maus never had lawful jurisdiction to rule on any alleged county
zoning code violations and to put Plaintiff Parker in jail. Aud furthermore, that Barker and Anics
knew or should have known that the statute of limitations barred the filing of cases 07-CV-189 and
llCV-19.
83. LACK OF NO. 3; The District Court- Judge Maus lacked jurisdiction to
hear this matter in the first place because Land Home a.nd Parker began "RENTJNG" and
"USING" The Ranch property in the spring of2000 and therefore, said usage pre-dates the
codification of the Weld County Zoning Code whi.ch, according to Weld's Complaint (11-CV-19)
paragraph 2., did not become effective until January 2, 2001. This fact was made known to
attorney Arries and Weld iu Land Home's Answer to Weld's original Complaint's (07-CV-189) See
Land Home's "General Allegations, Paragraph 2. which was filed with the Distl'ict Court on
JAN-1-2012 15:53 FROM:
TO: 141366951132 P.14
April 25, 2007. However, Judge Strobel along with Defendants Maus, Barker and Arries, have all
ignored this fact, and have refused to allow the Plaintiff to ever have a hearing on an ex post facto
law. Furthermore, Plaintiff Parker was and is protected against Defendants and Arries
claims for injunctive relief pursuant to an existing and non-conforming use in accord with CRS
3028-UO(l), which reads:
"The lawful use of a building or structure or the lawful use of any
land, as existing and lawful at the time of the adoption of a zoning
tesolution or, in the case of an amendment of a resolution, ut
the time of such amendment, may be continued, although such usc
does not conform with the provisions of such resolution or amendment,
and such use may be extended throughout the same building if no
structurnlnltcration of such building is proposed or made for the
purpose of such extension."
84. Defendants Mans, Barker and Arries knew or should have Known that the aforesaid
Defendants had no right or jurisdiction to prosecute either Land Borne Development Company or
Plaintiff Parker in the 07-CV-189 case pursuant to CRS-30-:28-120(1).
85. LACK OF JURISDICTION NO.4: Plaintiff Parker further alleges that, CRS-3015409
establishes a one year statute of limitation which bars the recovery of any fine or the prosecution
for the commission of any offense made punishable under any ordinance of any county. By
attorney Arries' own admission, pursuant to Paragraph 6. of the 11-CV-19 Complaint, condructive
notice as to tbc ownership of The Runch property, wus given by Rio Grande Canyon Properties,
Inc. by the filing of its deed with the o.ffice of the Weld County Recorder on July 2,2008. There
have been no facts or allegations presented by Defendants Hal'k.er and Arries that any of the
alleged zoning code violations complained of, started within the one year statutory time period
prior to the filing of the 11-CV-19 Complaint.
86. Furthermore, CRS-3015409 does not make any distinction between one type of entity over
another, such as individuals, corporations, or county governments, etc. Plaintiff Parker alleges
that whatever zoning code violation(s) Weld, Barker and Arries are claiming have occurred on
The Ranch property, said violations would have originally taken place in the early part of 2000.
thus, Weld, Barker and Arrles filed 11-CV-19, eleven (11) years after the fact. Thus, the statute of
limitations has long run its legal course. Plaintiff Parker alleges thut the doctrine of "laches"
clearly applies in this case and that Defendants Weld, Barker and Arries knew or should have
known that the District Court had no Jurisdiction to hear this case nor was Weld County entitled to
any equitable relief against West World or its stockholders/investors by statutory limitation.
87. LACK OF JUIUSDJCTION NO 5: Plaintiff Parker hereby alleges that Defendants Weld,
Barker and Arries were barred from bringing the action against Parker in 07-CV-189 or llCVl9
and that Defendants Maus and Strobel lacked jurisdiction to hear the cases under the doctrines of
Collateral Estoppel and Res .Judicata in that the Weld had already had its day in Court under 02-
CV-558. There was not a single issue raised in the 07-CV-189 or 11-CV19 which was not raised in
the 02-CVSSS case. During the May 5, 2004 con 'tempt hearing regurding 0:2-CVSSS, the District
Court granted the Weld County Attomey's "Motion To Dismiss" the case against Parker due to
"lack of evidence". This was not a "settlement agreement".
JRN-1-2012 15:53 FROM: T0:141366951132 P.15
88. Plaintiff Parker alleges that after the contempt hearing in 02-CV-558, Weld waited three (3)
years before it filed its 07-CV189 case, which covered the very same issue that were addressed in
the OZCVSSS. The current case (11-CV-19) covens the same claims and the same ranch property
which was addressed in the two previous cases. Additionally, public notice regarding the purchase
of said ranch property by Rio Grande, was made known to attorney Arries in the early part of
2007. Attorney Arries waited for 4 years before filing the llCVl9 case which covers the very
same issues that were addressed in the two previous cases, and all in violation of Colorado's statute
of limitations, pursuant C.R.S. 30-15-409. Weld, Barker and Aries know or should have known
that they had now lawful right or jurisdiction to bring the aforementioned actions thereby resulting
in an absolute abuse of process against the Plaintiff.
89. The Defendants Mans, Weld, Barker and Arries caused the Plaintiff to be arrested on June 24'\
2009, for alleged violations of unspecified "Weld County Zoning Codes" on r a n ~ : h property whkh
the Plaintiff did not own, and which was located in Weld County, Colorado, in violation of the
l'laintift's Fifth Amendment rights.
90. Defendant Maus, supported by Baker and Arrics, caused the Plaintiff to be held on an excessive
bond of $15,000, in violation of the Plaintifrs Eighth Amendment rights, "Excessive Bail".
91. 'fhe Defendants Maus, Weld, Barker and Arries caused the Plaintiff to undergo a QUICK "trial
by the court" forty-five (45) minutes after the Plaintiff was arrested, for said alleged zoning code
violations, which took place in the Weld County Oistrict Court on the morning of June 24, 2009 in
violation of the .Plaintifrs Fifth Amendment rights (Oue Process of Law), Sixth Amendment rights
(right to a jury trial and competent attorney) and bis Fourteenth Amendment rights, Section 1,
denial of due process of law and equal protection.
92. The Plaintiff was provided with a court appointed attorney by the name of Christopher G.
Collins (Collins) of Greeley, Colorado, whom the Plaintiff had never met or spoken to regarding the
case at hand (Case No. 07-CV-189) before said trial began. Likewise, Collins knew virtually nothing
about: I. The alleged zoning code violation; 2. The subject ranch property, or 3. Any of the
Plaintiff's affirmative defenses regarding said zoning code violations; and all in violation of the
Plaintiff's Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendmcn t rights- denial of Due .Process and Assistance of
competent legnl Counsel.
93. When the .June 24, 2009, trial started, Defendant Mans never provided the Plaintiff with any
form of advisements regarding the Plaintiff's rights or advised the Plaintiff of the specific charges
that the Plaintiff was being put on trial for, and all in violation of the Plaintiff's Fifth, Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments rights to due process of law, right to competent legal counsel and the right
to proper advisement of the charges against the Plaintiff,
94. Defendant Maus, supported by Weld, Baker aiid Arries, denied the Plaintiff the right to a jury
trial, in violation of the Plaintifrs Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
95. Defendant Maus, supported by Baker and Arries, denied the Plaintiff any time in which to
contact and call witnesses in his defense, and all io violation of the Plaintiff's Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights to due process of Jaw and the right to call witnesses on his own behalf.
JRN-1-2012 15:54 FROM:
TO: 141366951132 P.16
96. Defendant Mans, supported by Baker and Arrics, denied the Plaintiff a continuance of said
trial, thus denying the Plaintifftime to consult with court-appointed attorney Collins, in viol.ation of
the Plaintiffs Fifth, Sixth and Foul'teenth Amendment dghb to due pocess of law, unjustified
deprivation of liberty, right to legal counsel, and the right to call witnesses on Plaintiffs behalf.
97, Near the end of the Trial (.June 25, 2009), Defendant Mau went on the record and stated that he
(Maus) did not know who owned the subject ranch pl'operty, and then, on the record, dated that he
(Maus) did not believe that the Plaintiff (Parker) did, in violation of the Plaintiffs Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights.
98. Defendant Ma.us, supported hy Weld, Raker and .Arries, found the Plaintiff guilty of some
zoning code violations and sentenced the Plaintiff to serve 90 days in the Weld County
.Jail, in violation ofthe Plaintiffs Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment l'ights to due process of
law and false imprisonment.
99. Defendant Mans, supported by Baker and Arries, ordered Plaintiff to commit himself to tbc
Weld County Jail to begin his 90 day sentence on June lS, 2009; and coerced the Plaintiff to
undergo 45 days of involuntary servitude and hard labor, during which time the Plaintiff was
expected to go on to the subject ranch property, which the Plaintiff did not own, and thereafter, to
proceed to destroy, sell, demolish, haul off, steal, vandalize and engage in numerous criminal acts,
which the Plaintiff documented and reported to Defendant Maus, and all in vinlation of the
Plaintiffs Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights- denial of due process of Jaw,
cruel and unusual punishments and involuntary sel'vitude.
100. Defendant Mans, supported by Baker and Arries, denied the Plaintiff a stay of execution in
order for the Plaintiff to appeal his 90-day sentence and the outrageous conduct of the entire two-
day trial proceedings to the Colorado Court of Appeals (Case No. ), in violation of the
Plaintiffs Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
101. While the Plaintitiwas serving his 90-day sentence in the Weld County Jail, he was
constitutionally handicapped from gaining access to the Colorado Court of Appeals and obtaining
any aid from outside sources, due to fact that the Weld County Jail has no law library or any
Federal or Colorado law books and the Weld County Jail operates an inmate phone calling systl:m
that costs from $5.00 to $7.00 per minute- in advance- and bars inmates from making any outside
collect calls, in violation of the .Plaintiffs Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. As a direct result
of being deprived of any access to any Colorado law book, Plaintiff Parker was denied access to the
court of appeals and was denied any reasonable ability to pursue his appeal of his contempt of court
sentence all in violation of his constitutional rights to due process of law. Plaintiff hereby alleges
that the Weld County Jail is willfully run by Defen_dant Cook with the intention of keeping
prisoners from having any reasonable or meaningful access to the courts and to cause any form of
legal communication with the courts or judicial system to be as costly for the prisoners as possible.
102. The Plaintiff alleges that while the Weld County Jail does have some kind of a computer inn
black box that rolls around on a metal stand, which jail officials call a "Law Library". Said
computer comes with no operational manuals; and the .Plaintiff could not find any jail official who
knew how the black box computer worked. Additionally, the Weld County jail offered no form of
JAN-1-2012 15:54 FROM:
T0:141366951132 P.17
instruction as to how the black box computer worked. The Plaintiff spent hours, without any
- success, attempting to figure out how the Weld County Jail's black box computer worked. Plaintiff
Parker alleges that the clcnr mnnngcmcnt structural plan of the Weld County Jail is to make it
virtually impouible for any inmate to have any meaningful access to the c.ourts and the judicial
system. Defendant Cook's jail management policy, had the clear net affect of depriving Plaintiff
Parker from havina any meaningful access to the courts, and all in violation of the Plaintifrs Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendment right have reasonable access to the courts and to due process of law.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
I 03. The Plaintiff incorporates all of the paragraphs in this Complaint for purposes of his claims
for relief.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Parker seeks ,judgment against Defendants Mans, Strobel, Weld,
Barker, Arries and Cook as follows;
A. Compensatory damages for each and every claim made in and from
Paragraph 1 to t 03, as a jury may deem just, fit and reasonable.
B. Punitive damaees as to all issues raised herein, as a jury may deem just,
fit and reasonable.
C. All costs associated with this action.
D. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on any
award of damages to the extent permitted hy law; and,
E . For such other and further relief ns this court or jury may deem just, fit,
reasonable and appropriate.
105. Plaintiff Parker hereby combines and incorporates allrlaims for relief into this Complaint
and seeks additional relief as follows;
106, Plaintiff Parker seeks relief in the form of a reversal of the finding of contempt in Case No.
07-CV -189 due to the violations of his civil and constitutional rights claimed herein.
107. Plaintiffseeks: l) The reversal of the default judgment entered in Case No. 07-CV-189; 2)
Appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief; 3) Compensatory and consequential damages,
including damages for emotional distress, loss of reputation, humiliation and forfeiture of
enjoyment of life and 4) Compensation for all other pain and sufferine on all claims allowed by law
in an amount to be determined at trial; and 5) For all other economic damage and losses allowed by
law.
JRN-1-2012 15:55 FROM: T0:141366951132
DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff Parker hereby makes demand for a .iury trial on all issues so triable.
Dated this 9'" day of December 2011.
Trenton H. Parker
111 R. Bridge Street,
Brigbton, Colorado 80601
(303-6541 048)
P.18

You might also like