District Court, La Plata County, Colorado

Court Address:
109 W. Main
Cortez CO 81321

Plaintiff: Katrina Davis

Defendant: William ‘Billy’ Newmyer
Defendant: Ellen Livingston
Defendant: Gloria Newmyer
Defendant: Kim Owens


Case Number:

Division: Courtroom:

Plaintiff requests equitable tolling. Due to the extensive, pervasive and damaging nature of
the impacts from the alleged causes of action to Plaintiff’s mental and physical health, and affairs,
she has been unable to effectively pursue legal action until April-May 2013. Plaintiff asserts her
efforts to meet the criteria of equitable tolling have gone well beyond the ‘reasonable good faith
conduct on part of the plaintiff.’

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Katrina Davis, on behalf of herself, to file this Complaint and allege as


1. Plaintiff Katrina Davis, an individual, resides in Montrose, Colorado.

2. Defendant William ‘Billy’ Newmyer, an individual. At the time of the filing of this Complaint,
and to the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge resides at either 133 S 300 E Kanab, UT 84741. Or may have
returned to his previous address at 4065 Waters Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48103. During some periods of
the time relevant hereto, Billy Newmyer lived in Durango, CO, Ann Arbor MI, and possibly Costa
Rica. Plaintiff believes he could be living in any of these places, or somewhere else, at this time.

3. Defendant Ellen Livingston, an individual. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge Ms. Livingston’s
present principal place of residence is 4065 Waters Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48103.

4. Defendant Gloria Newmyer, an individual. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge Ms. Newmyer’s
present principal place of residence is 2 Hummingbird Court, Durango CO 81301.

5. Defendant Kim Owens, an individual, and former employee of Mr. Newmyer and Ms. Davis’
former business. Address unknown at this time.


5. This Court is vested with jurisdiction over the Defendants because a majority of the
Defendants’ actions as alleged took place within the State of Colorado.

6. Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 98 (c) Plaintiff requests venue of Montuzema County.


7. Discovery Plan to include: Production of documents, non-pattern requests for production of
documents and interrogatories consistent with C.R.C.P. 16.2, 26, 33, and 34. and 121, 1.12. If the
Court deems it appropriate, and to assist in process expediency, Plaintiff requests a Case
Management Order for this case, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 16(c).

8. Plaintiff complains and for causes of action alleges as follows: Defendant William Newmyer
committed repeated acts against Plaintiff of financial abuse and exploitation of a vulnerable
(disabled) person. (Uunless otherwise specified the word ‘Defendant’ as used throughout this
Complaint refers only to Defendant William Newmyer. Other Defendants will be noted by last name
only, except Gloria Newmyer; her first and last name will be used for distinction.) Defendant engaged
in multiple acts of fraud, and acted willfully and with intention to defraud and otherwise harm
Plaintiff; and engaged in wrongful acts, deceit, invasion of privacy, collusion and conspiracy to
commit fraudulent conveyance and / or transfers, and tortious interference with prospective
advantage. Defendant also committed acts of theft by false pretenses, breach of contract,
malfeasance, intimidation, coercion and attempted coercion, and reckless endangerment.
Defendant acted with negligence and intent resulting in infliction of emotional distress to Plaintiff.
Defendant also acted in violation of promissory estoppel creating detrimental reliance, negligent
misrepresentation and wrongful withholding, theft by fraud and deceit, theft by receiving, wage
violations and falsifying business records, and obstruction of justice.

9. Defendant Ellen Livingston engaged in wrongful acts, deceit, theft by receiving, collusion and
conspiracy to commit fraudulent conveyance and / or transfers, and tortious interference with
prospective advantage, obstruction of justice and acting willfully and with intention to defraud and
otherwise harm Plaintiff.

10. Defendant Gloria Newmyer engaged in wrongful acts, collusion and conspiracy to commit
fraudulent conveyance and / or transfers, and tortious interference with prospective advantage.
Defendant Gloria Newmyer also committed acts of malfeasance, and acted with intent resulting in
infliction of emotional distress to Plaintiff. Defendant Gloria Newmyer also committed theft by
fraud and deceit, theft by receiving, collusion in wage violations and falsifying business records, and
obstruction of justice.

11. Defendant Kim Owens engaged in wrongful acts, collusion and conspiracy to commit
fraudulent conveyance and / or transfers, and tortious interference with prospective advantage.
Defendant Kim Owens also committed acts of malfeasance, invasion of privacy, and acted with
intent resulting in infliction of emotional distress to Plaintiff. Defendant Kim Owens also committed
theft by fraud and deceit, theft by receiving, collusion in wage violations and falsifying business
records, and obstruction of justice.
13. In March 2004, Plaintiff and Defendant established a working relationship. Plaintiff engaged
Defendant as a real-estate advisor for the sale of her home. Defendant contracted Plaintiff to work
as a part-time assistant for his real-estate business. During the subsequent two years they worked
collaboratively in several different capacities and projects, as well as developing a personal

14. When Plaintiff and Defendant began the personal part of their relationship, Plaintiff
explained to Defendant, describing at length and in detail, a number of physical health and medical
issues that she had, and was affected by at that time. These included TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury;) a
Neuro-Endocrine-Immune disorder known as CFIDS (Chronic Fatigue Immune Deficiency Syndrome),
Environmental Illness and Liver damage (from pesticide exposure, among other things.) Defendant
was comprehensively informed of Plaintiff’s health issues stemming from chronic low-level toxic
exposures from growing up on the Gulf Coast of Texas, in Corpus Christi, near an area known as
‘Refinery Row;’ REF. and the special needs these conditions created. (The ‘REF.’ notations
throughout the Complaint indicate documentation that will be provided to the Court to substantiate
the preceding statement or concept. I am going to wait to send all that additional info to the Court,
until the Complaint is accepted by the Court, because of the CRCP rule to have the complaint be
concise.) During this period, Plaintiff received Disability status from the Social Security
Administration. (To the best of Plaintiff’s memory, she received her ‘lump sum’ SSDI payment in the
Fall of 2004.) Defendant was fully aware of Plaintiff’s Social Security award, including the total dollar
amount of the award.

15. Because of the associative, concomitant and dependency-creating nature of some aspects of
their relationship, which extended beyond only a personal relationship, between 2005 and
approximately July 2011, primarily at Plaintiff’s insistence, they jointly participated in thorough and
lengthy discussions, individually and with counselors, including financial advisors, regarding any and
all future collaborative involvement of their lives.

16. Plaintiff contends Defendant willingly participated in the creation and signing of documents
and contracts, created primarily and specifically to reduce any financial risk to Plaintiff and to assure
Plaintiff would have the financial resources available to provide for her future basic needs, reduce
undue stress in her life that would be damaging to her health, especially related to her special needs
for housing, health and medical care; and that Defendant fully understood the purpose, nature of,
and scope of those agreements and contracts. REF

17. Plaintiff asserts the increasingly complicated nature of their circumstances prompted
Plaintiff’s initiating making these agreements. They were created to clarify and document the
understandings and boundaries about the various aspects of the relationship; including the
significant legal and financial aspects (beyond a personal or romantic relationship.) They addressed
considerations, circumstances and parameters regarding separation or mingling of finances and
assets, to protect each other’s shared and individual interests and assets; and addressed many other
elements beyond financial factors. REF.

18. Plaintiff and Defendant were married for approximately one year, before Plaintiff filed for
divorce. The divorce contract was finalized on June 1, 2009. Evidence will show, due to an
increasing pattern of untrustworthy and financially risky behavior by Defendant, the primary reason
for the legal marriage was to assure provision for Plaintiff’s financial needs relative to her health and
medical issues. REF. Plaintiff asserts this one year marriage, during which time they only lived
together for a few months, was not the primary nor, most significant factor of the many aspects and
elements involved in their approximately 8 year relationship, pre-marriage and post divorce. But
rather, the nature and complexity of their circumstances, post divorce, provided sufficient elements
to meet the legal criteria of a ‘special relationship.’ REF. And the weighty factors related to Plaintiff’s
health and medical issues and needs, and the ongoing manner in which the Defendant participated
in the special relationship, relative to those needs, well after their divorce was final, were of much
greater significance and merit. Also, due to Plaintiff’s worsening health and psychological
dependency caused by Defendant’s wrongful actions, and as further indication of his ongoing
deception and manipulation, Defendant engaged in ongoing behaviors, for several years (post
divorce) which further obligated a duty of care. Plaintiff submits this is another critical factor
proving the existence of a special relationship.

19. However, due to the overlapping nature of some of the elements from the previous family
law matter, Plaintiff asserts some facts and information from that previous matter should be
considered in conjunction with the claims in this Civil Complaint. Especially as they provide
additional background facts that show a repetitive and persistent pattern of willful and intentional
behavior by the Defendant, including an ‘ongoing course of conduct’ that are relevant and in some
instances pertinent to claims in this Complaint.

20. Also, in his decision at a Contempt of Court hearing related to the Dissolution, Judge Plewe of
Montezuma County District Court 22 in Cortez, Colorado, stated: “The Separation Agreement has
been so wholly disregarded by Mr. Newmyer that it no longer is of any effect.” This decision was
recorded in District Court on 7.11.12. Plaintiff submits contract law provides that when an
agreement or contract is deemed ‘no longer of any effect,’ by a Judge, it is unenforceable and
revoked. C.R.S. 14-10-112 (5).

21. Plaintiff believes that ruling provides further legal grounds for this civil action, as distinct
from the family law matter; as Plaintiff and Defendant had created other contracts and contractual
agreements specifically to address Plaintiff’s special needs; and the special relationship that existed
post divorce was intricately involved with those previously existing agreements. Plaintiff submits
the special relationship was established after finalization of the divorce; and that it involved many
complex facets, including Plaintiff being manipulated into reliance on Defendant’s involvement in
supporting her health and medical issues, as well as housing issues. (Defendant was a Real-Estate
Broker and these things occurred during the height of Housing and Foreclosure Crisis, and there was
a very complicated legal and financial entanglement between Plaintiff and Defendant.) Plaintiff
alleges significant deception and fraud by Defendant, including criminal activities. Plaintiff submits
these entanglements and related dependencies created by Defendant should be given appropriately
recognition and merit to the significance of the special relationship; especially as it concerns
separating the civil claims from the separate family law matter. (Plaintiff includes an addendum
providing case law and precedent that validates the claim of special relationship.)

22. Further, preventing Plaintiff’s ability to acquire competent legal representation, Plaintiff
hired a ‘$20/hour online’ family law attorney (the only attorney Plaintiff could afford to hire,
because Defendant was withholding money owed to Plaintiff. ) This incompetent attorney who
initially advised Plaintiff with the Contempt motion filed in Dec 2011, should have appropriately
addressed the distinction between the family law issues and civil or tort issues. Plaintiff asserts she
received negligent or incompetent representation by that attorney. Plaintiff asserts her inability to
address this factor (file a complaint against this attorney) was due to Plaintiff being totally
overwhelmed by trying to cope with the extreme, chaotic and damaging and more pressing
circumstances created by the Defendants actions. Otherwise Plaintiff would have (and may still) file
a complaint against this attorney, substantiating this assertion. However, a review of Plaintiff’s
experience over the past 4 years will easily prove the overwhelming nature of the ‘extraordinary
circumstances’ Plaintiff has had to navigate through, and therefore the necessity of ‘picking one’s
battles.’ Filing a complaint against an attorney was low on the list, compared to other much more
urgent demands.

23. Plaintiff also notes the Judge’s comments during the previous Contempt of Court hearing,
would be interpreted by any reasonable person, specifically using the words “reprehensible” and
“egregious” and “brazen disregard” to describe Mr. Newmyer’s actions and behavior. Plaintiff
asserts those statements by the Judge further augment the validity of the basis and subsequent
claims of financial abuse and exploitation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

24. Plaintiff asserts Defendant was fully aware and informed of the nature and extent of
Plaintiff’s disability and medical issues; and the special needs and requirements related to her
medical care, and other expenses involved with and related to her health and welfare; as well as
how these medical issues increased her vulnerability and susceptibility to further physical, mental
and emotional harm and injury.

25. Plaintiff’s continuing efforts to address her special needs substantially exceeded what would
normally be considered ‘reasonable diligence’ as she became increasingly affected by Defendant’s
wrongful actions.

26. Plaintiff attests Defendant knowingly, willfully, intentionally and repeatedly committed acts
that he knew would result in harm to Plaintiff relative to their agreements and contracts.

27. Plaintiff contends the level and extensiveness of the ongoing manipulative, controlling,
deceptive and fraudulent actions committed by Defendant, were so pervasive and overwhelming, in
the context of her dependent circumstances as a disabled person, that they eventually prevented
her from having and asserting appropriate and necessary control over her own life and affairs,
including but not limited to making appropriate decisions regarding her financial control. The
hardships, challenges and limitations Defendant’s actions created for Plaintiff’s physical and mental
heath, and affairs were prolonged, severe and eventually debilitating, to the degree that Plaintiff
needed and explored having a Special Needs Trust created, so someone else could manage her

28. Plaintiff submits, there exists a basis for the continuing course of conduct doctrine or action,
over an expanded time frame. While the legal basis of the cases were / are different (family vs. civil)
Plaintiff contends (partially because of some of the overlapping elements) the facts and evidence
clearly demonstrate a continuing pattern and course of conduct by Defendant towards Plaintiff.

29. Further, relative to determining statute of limitations, Plaintiff pleads that the incidents,
when viewed together with those incidents that occurred outside the time limitation, represent a
continuing pattern of and course of conduct, sufficient to prove this doctrine is applicable. REF.

30. Plaintiff contends she was subject to many of the same or similar manipulative, controlling
behaviors and circumstances, which at times lead to the development of Battered Woman’s and / or
Stockholm Syndromes (most commonly in women.) Those circumstances, created by Defendant
resulted in Plaintiff becoming increasingly dependent, psychologically and emotionally confused and
essentially ‘trapped’ in the situation. (Plaintiff’s use of the word ‘trapped’ is not literal, such as in
‘unlawful restraint or confinement’ although there were some similar elements involved. However,
in considering all the associated factors and elements involved, Plaintiff believes ‘trapped’ is the
most appropriate word to describe the situation, which will be explained more fully in evidence and

31. Plaintiff asserts that notwithstanding the lack of physical abuse, the various impacts of
persistent and long-term psychological manipulation, financial control and abuse were damaging
and injurious (especially relative to Plaintiff’s medical issues and related dependencies) that she
eventually developed and suffered from a variant form of those trauma-induced conditions. Plaintiff
additionally asserts that many credible studies confirm that people suffering from these types of
syndromes (Battered Woman’s and Stockholm Syndromes) further impede one’s ability to perceive
or find a ‘way out’ of the situation, REF. which often becomes a ‘Catch-22’ for victims who find
themselves trapped, dependent or otherwise confined, in these types of situations.

32. Plaintiff asserts that her specific health issues were significant elements contributing to
limitations to her ability to easily remove herself from this damaging and injurious situation; and
that Defendant clearly understood this; and manipulated, took advantage of, and exploited
Plaintiff’s vulnerability.

33. Plaintiff states that the health and medical conditions she had before becoming involved
with Defendant, while serious, were quite manageable and under control; and Plaintiff considered
herself to be in relatively good health and reasonably functional, even with the disability. Plaintiff’s
medical records will substantiate this claim; and Plaintiff asserts Defendant would concur with this
assessment. Plaintiff attests the conditions became significantly exacerbated and worsened from
the chronic anxiety and damaging stress she was subjected to from Defendant’s actions and the
long-term and extensive consequences of those actions.

34. Additionally, during the time period at issue, Plaintiff developed several new health and
medical conditions that are known to be stress-induced disorders. As noted above, Plaintiff had not
only extensively discussed, but had made verbal and written agreements with Defendant, to assure
Defendant was clearly aware of the potential impact to her health, should ongoing stresses, caused
by Defendant’s actions, start to reach damaging levels. To protect her health, Plaintiff was highly
proactive in attempting to address and prevent that from occurring. Plaintiff contends the
circumstances she was put in by Defendant, would likely result in extreme, and possibly intolerable
levels of injurious and health-damaging stress-caused conditions for most people. REF.

35. As indicated by her Dr.’s and other medical professionals, the complicated and chaotic
circumstances and intense stress Plaintiff was subjected to for so long, were a major contributor to
the development of and ongoing nature of these conditions. Dr.’s records and / or testimony will
confirm (by comments and statements made by Plaintiff during Dr. appointments) that these
conditions systematically developed over the period of time at issue, and were directly correlated
with each new, traumatic incident, event, or circumstances Plaintiff was having or trying to cope
with, due to Defendant’s deceptive, controlling and/or manipulative behavior, and it’s increasingly
damaging impacts on Plaintiff’s life situation and health.

36. Plaintiff submits she qualified as being ‘at risk adult’ per formal evaluation by the State of
Colorado Divisions of Vocational Rehabilitation, and consistent with C.R.S. 18-6.5-101, during this
period; and by other criteria, has continued to be ‘at risk’ in some ways since that time. (see

37. Plaintiff asserts her physical and mental health has been so severely affected and damaged
by Defendant’s reckless and illegal actions, that her quality of life has been profoundly diminished;
in many ways, irreparably.

38. Plaintiff alleges Defendant also committed conspiracy, collusion, interference and fraudulent
conveyance by giving, investing or otherwise attempting to hide money and/or real-estate assets
rightfully owed and belonging to Plaintiff.

39. Plaintiff further alleges during the time period between approx. December 2010 and July 5th
2013, Defendant committed some of these acts along with participation from and involvement with
Defendant Ellen Livingston and Defendant Gloria Newmyer (his first wife) and possibly involving (any
or all of) Defendants’ William and Gloria Newmyer’s three adult children. Plaintiff attests
Defendant William Newmyer has acknowledged to the Court (in the previously noted Contempt
hearing) that Defendant Gloria Newmyer engaged and participated in the transaction involving the
fraudulent transfer, conveyance and illegal withholding of Plaintiff’s assets. Documentation of that
fraudulent transfer was provided to the Court during the Contempt of Court action. (Plaintiff notes
again this is an example of the ‘$20/hour’ attorney’s negligent representation, and failure to
adequately address this issue. This was a clearly illegal transaction, which caused huge financial loss
to Plaintiff; and should have been a separate filing, at that time. But unfortunately, Plaintiff was so
confused and psychologically crippled by that time, she was unable to discern these things, and was
relying on the ((ineffective)) legal representation she had. Plaintiff asserts she should not be further
damaged by the Court’s unwillingness to review and consider these important facts.)

40. Plaintiff attests Defendant Kim Owens was Defendant’s business secretary during the time
Plaintiff and Defendant owned and operated the Glassmaster business; and that Defendant
informed Plaintiff on many occasions about (his own) and Ms. Owens knowledge of and
participation in actions that were likely illegal; and therefore indications of Ms. Owens’ illegal and /
or damaging actions that proximately impacted Plaintiff.

41. Finally, Plaintiff believes and alleges that Defendant hid assets from Plaintiff during the time
at issue; failing to fully disclose all of his financial assets, thereby preventing Plaintiff and the Court
during the Contempt hearing, access to fair and honest assessment of the value of his assets; and
preventing fair participation in any legal enforcement of contracts the parties were jointly involved
in. (Relative to this ongoing pattern of behavior, Plaintiff also submitted information to the Court,
that Defendant was guilty of committing perjury by knowingly providing false information on his
Financial Statement, required to be submitted to the Court during the divorce; but this was not even
acknowledged by the Court. Plaintiff felt this was a gross error on the Court’s part; ((or maybe it
was because Plaintiff, due to my ignorance of court procedures, failed to address it correctly.))
Regardless, there is clear evidence of perjury, and it should be addressed.)


41. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 40 are incorporated herein.

42. Through the conduct set forth in the Complaint, Defendants knowingly and willfully committed
the following separate acts and causes of action, numbered 42 -82.

43. Financial abuse and exploitation of a vulnerable and / or disabled person. Plaintiff refers to
C.R.S. 26-3.1-101. Specifically sections: (4) (a), (I), (c), (7). REF. Pls see additional information
44. Negligent and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress caused by, among other things, the
financial abuse and exploitation of a vulnerable and / or disabled person.

45. Violation of Promissory estoppel and creation of detrimental reliance, thereby causing
physical and mental injury, and intentional infliction emotional distress to Plaintiff.

46. Negligent misrepresentation

47. Wrongful withholding

48. Deception, intent to deceive and actionable deceit

49. Fraud -including:

50. Fraudulent representation

51. Fraudulent conveyance / transfers in a continuing scheme or artifice to defraud, in an ongoing
violation of C.R.S. 38-8-105 and 38-10-117.

52. Accounting and Record of Sales Fraud in violation C.R.S. 18-13-117.

53. Fraud in obtaining property or services in violation C.R.S. 18-5-209. Specifically, issuing a
false financial statement and obtaining a financial transaction device by false statements; and with
specific intent to deceive.

54. Electronic mail fraud in violation C.R.S. 18-5-308; and Mail & Wire Fraud using the United
States mails and wires to execute the scheme or artifice to defraud, in an ongoing violation of the
federal mail and wire fraud statutes, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 and 1343.

55. Money Laundering in violation of C.R.S. 18-5-309. For Leo and possibly his kids.

56. Multiple types of Fraud through Tax Avoidance and Evasion in violation of C.R.S. 39-21-118,
including, but not limited to:
57. Personal Income Taxes
58. Business Income Taxes
59. Employment Taxes
60. Capital Gains Income Taxes
61. 1031 Tax Deferred Exchange Fraud – 2 (two) separate instances
62. Malfeasance: C.R.S 29-1-115, 29-1-608, and other statutes

63. Invasion of privacy: C.R.S. 16-15-101 (5)

64. Computer related offenses, which closely parallel those stated in C.R.S. 18-5.5-102

65. Collusion: C.R.S. 12-16-115 (1) (d)

66. Conspiracy: C.R.S. 18-2-201

67. Intimidation: C.R.S. 18-9-111

68. Coercion: C.R.S. 18-6.5-102 and attempted Coercion

69. Negligence: C.R.S. 13-50-101

70. Reckless Endangerment: C.R.S. 18-3-208

71. Breach of contract and Tortious breach of contract C.R.S. 4-1-304

72. Interference with prospective advantage in violation of C.R.S. 13-80-108. 1,3,4,6,8,10

73. Wrongful acts, including, but not limited to obtaining information illegally and
unauthorized access: ECPA - Electronic Communications Privacy Act, (federal law)
74. Theft: 18-4-401(1) by false pretenses, embezzlement, breach of contract,

75. Theft by fraud and deceit

76. Theft by receiving

77. Wage violations and falsifying business records – Immigration law violations

78. Obstruction of Justice


83. Plaintiff is being (possibly overly) explicit in the relief requested because in the original
Contempt matter, Plaintiff’s (negligent) attorney failed to request sufficient or even appropriate
relief in the original Motion; which Plaintiff thinks may have led to insufficient relief being ordered
by the Judge. Plaintiff realizes making these kinds of specific relief requests may be unusual and not
common practice; but Plaintiff asks for the Court’s consideration of the Plaintiff’s lack of experience,
knowledge of the law, and pro se nature of this Complaint.

84. Plaintiff believes Restorative Justice is usually a better solution for rehabilitation and
restitution, especially for the types of damaging acts (and related crimes) alleged in this Complaint
(and in the related Criminal Complaint.) Plaintiff does not believe incarceration would be the most
appropriate sanction in this case because Defendants being jailed would not be helpful in her
recovering damages. Therefore, Plaintiff requests alternatives (as noted below) to the punitive
sanction of incarceration, (except as noted in para. 91.) should the Court find Defendants liable for
the alleged acts.

85. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants and the following relief:

86. An order declaring Defendants’ above-described conduct to be in violation of the relevant and
appropriate Colo. Rev. Statutes.

87. Appropriate orders necessary, to prevent Defendants’ continued or future damaging and
injurious acts towards Plaintiff, specifically for Defendant William Newmyer only, items A.– H.

A. If the Court deems ‘home confinement’ or ‘home detention’ as a possible and appropriate
sanction for civil punitive damages in this case, Defendant Newmyer to be subject to a State
supervised and enforced home detention program. Pursuant to C.R.S. 18-1.3-106, this type of
program is authorized to any county to provide a program whereby any person sentenced to the
county jail upon conviction for a crime, nonpayment of any fine or forfeiture, or contempt of court
may be granted by the court the privilege of leaving the jail during necessary and reasonable
hours for various purposes. Plaintiff requests Court-appointed supervision, to document
Defendant’s efforts to acquire and maintain a job, and track whether or not he is employed. If
Defendant remains unemployed for more than a month, Plaintiff requests Court orders
stipulating a mandatory job placement, through a court-ordered Work Program for a period of
time that would be a ‘proportional response’ to the alleged actions and subsequent damages.

B. Garnishment and financial Injunction orders, to take place immediately, before Defendant can
(once again) move, hide or otherwise transfer any funds, he has or may have access to from any
source, as he has repeatedly done in the past, which would prevent Plaintiff from acquiring
restitution due her. Court ordered supervision of all garnishment process and actions relative to
any employer or business partner of Defendant, to prevent Defendant from trying to arrange
some kind of ‘deal’ (as he did when fraudulently transferring funds owed to Plaintiff to Gloria
Newmyer, which was documented in a previous Court action); and which prevented Plaintiff from
collecting the full amount of the Garnishment due her, and obstructing justice; and further
burdening Plaintiff with more challenges from the efforts necessary to collect money owed to
her. Plaintiff asserts she does not have the physical or mental health to continue to manage the
many efforts involved with trying to collect Garnishments when Defendant continues to move
every few months as he has done since the time Plaintiff was awarded the Judgment against him.
Plaintiff has made several efforts to enact the Garnishments, but Defendant moves before the
complex administrative processes can even be completed.

C. An order that Defendant provide documentation from his employer in Michigan, Lodi Farms,
documenting any and all ‘trades’ they participated in that would have reduced Defendant’s work
pay, and subsequent garnishment funds. Documentation of all hours worked corroborated by at
least 2 other employees, who are not related by family-ties to the business owners, or otherwise
may have a bias in this corroboration. Also, that any errors or adjustments discovered are
corrected by additional garnishment from employer and mailed to Plaintiff; and that Defendant
be required to show proof of this documentation to the Court. Also, any Orders the Court deems
necessary to prevent Defendant from attempting to make any other sorts of ‘deals’ like this with
his present or future employers.

D. The Court provide a Claim of Exception to support Plaintiff’s petition to the IRS and the First
National Bank of Durango, that Plaintiff’s Garnishment Order take priority position over any IRS
garnishment collections, or other liens due to fines and / or penalties that may be assigned and
levied against Defendant.

E. Revocation or denial of Defendant’s passport to prevent him from continuing to leave the
country on vacations to foreign countries, as Defendant has done several times since being
sanctioned by the Court. Also, Court ordered limitations on Defendant’s ability to travel
anywhere outside of the place he currently lives, with revocation or denial to remain in effect
until such time all restitution has been made to Plaintiff.

F. Defendant provided Plaintiff with a notarized document stating that any inheritance he received
from his parents would be subject to a first lien to Plaintiff. REF Plaintiff does not know whether
or not this is actually a legally enforceable document, but if the Court deems it is, Plaintiff submits
this indicates willingness by Defendant to fulfill the terms of the document. Plaintiff therefore
requests a Court order that will give actual legal credibility to this document; including validating
from Defendant’s parents; and provide Plaintiff the ability to collect on this, regardless of trusts,
wills or other inheritance or estate documents that might otherwise preclude it or make it
unreasonably difficult or complicated for Plaintiff to collect. Plaintiff asserts this enforcement is
specifically important because of the previous deceit and fraud that Defendant acted with
towards Plaintiff.

G. An order that Defendant take all necessary action to collect any Garnishments from the Michigan
Department of the Treasury, as part of the Foreign Judgment that Plaintiff processed against him
last year. Again, Plaintiff does not have the physical health resources necessary to continue to
attempt to struggle through all the complex, time-consuming garnishment processes; especially
when Defendant continues to move from one state to another every few months; and requests
the Court order the burden to accomplish them be placed on Defendant; including requiring
sufficient documentable proof that he is doing it in a way that complies with the law, because of
his long history of fraudulent behavior.

88. An order requiring all Defendants to pay to Plaintiff civil penalties pursuant to the appropriate
Colo. Rev. Statutes.

89. Sanctions and Judgments against all Defendants, including liens against real-estate or any
other financial assets they may have; should they be found liable for the alleged acts.

90. An order requiring Defendants to pay any and all of the costs and expenses of this action
incurred by the Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, Plaintiff’s attorney fees, and expert fees,
pursuant to the appropriate Colo. Rev. Statutes.

91. An order for incarceration (for Defendant William Newmyer only) if he fails to comply with
any of the above sanctions or judgments that may be ordered or levied.


92. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 91 by this reference as if each paragraph
was set forth herein in its entirety.

93. Plaintiff has suffered general, special, incidental and consequential damages as the direct and
proximate result of the Defendant’s negligent and intentional acts and omissions, which damages
shall be fully proven at the time of trial. Such damages include, but are not limited to, personal
injury with accompanying pain and suffering, physical disability, mental anguish, loss of property,
damages for loss of enjoyment of life, both past and future; health, medical and rehabilitation
related expenses, both past and future; emotional distress and future emotional distress; past and
future; wage loss; financial loss, loss of consortium; and other ordinary, incidental and consequential
damages as would be anticipated to arise under the circumstances.


WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays:

94. That the court award Plaintiff judgment against Defendants in such sums as shall be
determined to fully and fairly compensate Plaintiff for all general, special, incidental, consequential
damages incurred, or to be incurred by Plaintiff as the direct and proximate result of the acts and
omissions of Defendants;

95. That the court award Plaintiff her costs, disbursements and reasonable attorneys’ fees

96. That the court award Plaintiff the opportunity to amend or modify the provisions of this
complaint as necessary or appropriate after additional or further discovery is completed in this
matter, and after all appropriate parties have been served; and

97. That the court awards such other and further relief as it deems necessary and proper in the

Respectfully submitted this 23th day of November, 2013.

Katrina Davis
Pro se litigant

1686 Amador Court
Montrose CO 81401