You are on page 1of 20

Petitioner posits that by facts known to her, a duty Judge of the

Family Division of the Clark County, Nevada District Court, Family

Division was duped and hoodwinked by the most audacious of devious

plans to defeat the laws of the State of Nevada, the laws and Orders

of the Denver District Court and State of Colorado, and the

statutory due process rights and interests of Petitioner and the

children, to wit:

On December 14th, 2005, Respondent DAW tendered certain documents

and averments, including affidavit, which constituted real and

constructive fraud on the Nevada Court and knowingly and deliberately

violated Colorado orders, statutory provisions and legislative intent

of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act as

adopted by Nevada, and The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act for the

wrongful inducement of a Court order to the detriment of Petitioner and

the children for Respondent's own unlawful gain.

Respondent's Colorado attorney, EDP, has additionally tied himself to

this fraud by hiring, or purporting to hire, a private investigator,

Tim D, to posture to the Nevada Court that Petitioner had to be

'hunted down', which was an integral part of their scheme.

CO attorney EDP and NV family law attorney X, along with Respondent

father, orchestrated the whole sorry affair. The attorneys hands are

as dirty as respondent-fathers, if not dirtier. Because the goal

was to kidnap the children and extort, Respondent and his attorneys may

well have violated other State and Federal criminal statutes not specifically

cited herein.

Respondent's, etal, acts were not only fraudulent,

they were criminal. NRS 200.3599, in relevant part, states:

1. A person having a limited right of custody to a child by


operation of law or pursuant to an order, judgment or

decree of any court, including a judgment or decree which

grants another person rights to custody or a right of

visitation of the child, or any parent having no right

to custody to the child who:

(a) In violation of an order, judgment or decree, of any

court willfully detains, conceals, or removes the child

from a parent, guardian or other person having lawful

custody or a right of visitation of the child is guilty

of a category D felony and shall be punished as provided

in NRS 193.130.

Respondent had no right of custody to the children. None. He

violated every decree and preventative law of all courts

designed to preclude his conduct, and defiled the judicial

process in doing so. NRS 200.310 states that a person "who

...abducts, kidnaps or carries away a person BY ANY MEANS

WHATSOEVER with the intent to exact....any money or valuable

thing...is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree which is

a category A felony." Respondent secreted the children away

from their custodial mother, and now extorts a shared custody

agreement. This was the goal: to get the boys to Colorado, to

terrify the mother, to extort from Mother something he could

not lawfully get.

Regardless of how he affected the kidnapping, and also took

the boys accross state lines, it is criminal.

The law does not say that if a duty Judge is induced to make

a purposely ill-advised decision, or if a duty Judge is duped,

the kidnapping law does not apply.

There are no exceptions set out in this statute.


Respondent's only defense to kidnapping is set forth

in NRS 200.359(8) attached as exhibit __________

but then he would have had to claim abuse or neglect

when he preferred innuendo to avoid invoking the

provisions of 125A.335(4), as outlined below. Any defense

Respondent would articulate as to his state of mind rising

to an affirmative defense is mitigated against him by his

purposefully dupliteous conduct.

2. On December 14th, 2005, Respondent by motion "Exparte

Motion for Expedited Enforcement of Child Custody

Determination" (motion) purposefully hid relevant orders and

material facts from the Nevada Court for the wrongful inducement

of the issuance of an Order adverse to the interests and rights

of Petitioner and the children, and which was by design,

among other things, to harm and imprison the children and to

alienate them from their custodial parent.

2. Jeannie Walquist is properly referred to as Petitioner,

as she is the party who domesticated the foreign

determination of custody with the Nevada Court

in 2004. She was awarded all parental responsibility and

decision making and physical custody pursuant to an

Annulment with Parenting Plan in Denver District Court in

l999. An annulment is not a 'dissolution of marriage', as

it was called by Respondent. The relevant statute for her

status as Petitioner is 125A.415. Respondent improperly

referred to her as 'defendant'.

Petitioner properly registered the Determination of her

Custody pursuant to NRS 125A.465 in 2004.

Respondent was properly served notice of this registration.


Pursuant to NRS 125.465(b), Respondent had 20 days from that

date to request a hearing to contest the validity of the

registration, and he did not do so. Accordingly, the

provisions of NRS 125.465(c) are operative. The statute

states, "Failure to contest the registration will result in

confirmation of the child custody determination and preclude

further contest of that determination with respect to any

matter that could have been asserted." Respondent's late

allegation that Petitioner did not file the complete history

of the case is therefore without merit, even if true.

Respondent lost his argument regarding the April 2004

order by Default, even if it were legitimately recited

by him, which it wasn't. And, even if enforcement of the

April 2004 order were enforcable under some other

theory, it does not lead to Respondent's custody.

This no doubt points to his deceptive actions. Further,

Respondent has been represented by the same Colorado

counsel since February of 2000, or before. Petitioner has

been seriously outfinanced historically by Respondent, and


Respondent appears to have taken advantage of this yet again,

this time, most egregiously, as she had no Nevada counsel

of record who might have precluded this charade.

3. Respondent fraudulently induced a Court of the

State of Nevada to unwittingly modify, and without

notice or hearing, a registered Foreign Determination of

Custody Decree by his inducment to grant physical custody

to Respondent.

NRS 125A.475(2) (enforcement of registered determination),

states in relevant part:

"A court of this state shall recognize and enforce, but


may NOT modify except in accordance with NRS 125A.305

to 125A.395, inclusive, a registered child custody

determination of a court of another state."

Respondent did not rely on any of these exceptions.

Respondent might have cited NRS 125A.335, which could

have given the Nevada Court temporary emergency jurisdiction,

but this did not suit his purpose. To do so, he would have

had to articulate mistreatment or abuse of the children. He

preferred only innuendo, as it filled in one square for

him, but precluded a big roadblock to his scheme. Invoking/

relying on this statute would have compelled communication

with the Colorado Court by the Nevada Court, as mandated at

No.(4) of that statute, and that surely would have exposed him.

125A.495 was cited in his motion, but he really sought

to defeat Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 125A in its

entirety, and most particularly 125A.465(c), which prescribes

any true remedy available to him if he wanted enforcement of

any order.

He also purposefully sought the misapplication of the

very rule he cited.

Respondent would no doubt attempt to hang his hat on

125A.495(3), which states, in relevant part, that the

Nevada Court may, upon a petition having been filed,

issue any order necessary to ensure the safety of the

parties and the child". Respondent failed to state a

particular claim which would have given him the particular

'relief' he sought, which was his own control of the

children. He couldn't, because the dots don't connect.

He was not really looking for enforcement of an Order; he


was looking for a new order, a new order of modification

to an existing custody determination. Seeking an order for

the placement of children with a person against whom a

Protective Order has been in place for almost six years is

not even arguably consistant with 'ensuring safety', a fact

known only to Respondent, and not the duty judge, since he

did not disclose the material fact of the No-Contact Order's

existence, as against 125A.495(2)(b) and(c). In fact,

by his actions, Respondent unilaterally and unconscionably

determined that the children were less likely to be

traumatized by a stranger kidnapping than whatever he

was insinuating to the Nevada Court constituted an emergency.

That is one option. The other is, he gave the children's

welfare no thought whatsoever because he needed to terrorize

Petitioner to extort an agreement from her, their custodial parent.

4. Respondent called his motion "Motion for

Expedited Enforcement of Child Custody Determination" in

a brazen and successful constructive fraud to mislead a

duty Judge of the Nevada Court regarding Respondent's

true limited parenting time, which parenting time was

actually to supervised contact only in the State of Nevada,

the almost 2 year domicile of Petitioner and the children.

His documents and actions were calculcated to

deliberately deceive the Nevada Court as to Respondent's

right to the children and enforcement of orders. And,

he fabricated orders at Point 11 of the Motion.

He requested that the children "be delivered to (father)

for transportation to Colorado in accordance with the

orders of the Denver District Court therein". There is


no such Order, not factually and not arguendo.

Respondent's deliberate obfuscation in his

deceitful misquote/'paraphrasing' is transparent.

Respondent pretended he had custody, a right to custody,

a right to physical custody, a right which went to him for

the removal of the children from Nevada, a right to

enforce an order, a right to enforce an order he made up,

and something he did not, and in his own manner.

5. The language through out the Nevada motion is purposefully

misleading to yet again manipulate and persuade the Nevada

Court, this time regarding Petitioner's 'whereabouts'. The

language used in the motion and attachments would incite

the reader to believe that Petitioner and the children's

Nevada residency was unknown both to Respondent and the

Colorado Court. This was malicious and fraudulent.

Respondent falsely stated that Petitioner

'fled' Colorado AFTER the April 12th 2004 order. One of

his reasons for doing this was to fraudulently induce

reliance on a prior bad act when there was no such

prior bad act.

The April 12th order quotes Petitioner's testimony

concerning her move to Nevada - which she testified

occurred PRIOR to a March 3rd, 2004 Colorado hearing.

At that hearing, Petitioner

stated her exact address and phone number, which was in

Las Vegas, Nevada. Thus, Respondent knew this assertion

to be false. He deliberately painted a false picture.

Both the characterization as to 'fleeing' and the 'act'

are unreliable, and known to be unreliable, and were


fabricated with malice to incite and induce, and

for false reliance.

Notwithstanding the above, there is no rational or honest

basis in fact for an allegation, as made, that Petitioner

would 'flee' the jurisdiction of the Nevada Court.

Petitioner herself registered the Foreign Determination

with the Nevada Court, a fact known to Respondent. The file

was given the case no. 04D328161 and assigned to Judge

Delvecchio in Family Court. Petitioner notes that the '04"

was left off their Motion. Additionally, Petitioner

moved rather than 'fled' to Nevada to be near and for

the needed support of her family, who themselves

had moved to Nevada from Colorado, a fact known to

Respondent. The Colorado Court has affidavits on file

from Petitioner and family members regarding the welfare

of the children, their interaction with extended family,

and their education in Nevada.

Petitioner's proper registration of the foreign Determination recites

a Nevada address, as well.

6. Respondent cites C.R.S. 14-10-101 as authority for his statement in

his Motion that Colorado had proper jurisdiction when it entered an

April 12, 2004 order.

This is a matter of law to be determined by the proper

trier of fact. However, since his own motion relies

on and invokes Colorado jurisdiction, No. 2 in his motion

is fraudulent, and (inadvertantly) admitted to be

fraudulent, as more particularly articulated at No. 8

below.
Further, their reference to, or the fact of, a foreign

arrest warrant for civil contempt against Petitioner is not

sufficient to defeat Petitioner's lawful custody of the

children and the Laws of the State of Nevada. And, the

Colorado Court had specifically denied Respondent's motion

for a writ of assistance to Nevada for the pick up of the

children, another material fact withheld from the Nevada

Court.

There may be legal remedies for this, or there may not,

but kidnapping children by deception or any other method

is not among them.

7. While NRS 125A.525 authorizes a court to issue a warrant

for pick up of children under certain circumstances, it

also provides at No. 3 that a warrant to pick up children

must "(a) recite the facts upon which the conclusion that

the child is immediately likely to suffer serious physical

harm or to be removed from the state is based." The pick

up warrant by the NV Court does not comport with this

provision. A recitation of Petitioner's purported

disobedience of a Court order is not sufficient.

No where is it addressed how this alleged infraction

would impact the children, and certainly not how this poses

"serious physical harm' or the 'removal' by Petitioner from

the State of Nevada. Thus, the pickup warrant is materially

defective. Respondent could not articulate any other

reasons in the warrant prepared by him because of his

need to not invoke NV statutes whose mandates would expose him.

There is similarly nothing in Respondent's favor which

justifies the pick up and removal of the children from their


legal custodian, and certainly not in such a fashion, and

absolutely nothing which warrants giving the children to

Respondent.

There is an affidavit from a "Timothy A. Dillard".

However, no where in the Motion is this affidavit

referenced, and accordingly, it is not clear if it is

admissable. However, with that caveat, the gist of this

affidavit is that the children at issue 'appeared' to be

unsupervised after school one day from 3:30 until 5:57.

Even if true, and it is not conceded by

Petitioner, and this purported "latch-key" circumstance

rises (or lowers as the case may be) to exigent

circumstances, there are many good but harried parents in

the United States of America who can look forward to the

removal of their children.

The handing over to Respondent of the children

is not a prescribed remedy, one way or another. It was

subterfuge and the pick up was not requested in good faith.

Respondent was not entitled to immediate physical custody

of the children for this or any other stated or made up

reason in his motion. Again, the dots don't connect.

8. Respondent relied on, in addition to the order he made up

in his motion, an April 12, 2004 order of the Denver

District Court for the return of the minor

children to Colorado. Respondent appeared to

rely on Colorado jurisdiction. Yet, there is a later order

of September, 2004, nunc pro tunc July, 2004 which

directly impacts the substantive issues of the April 12th

Order, namely the issue of the return of the children to

Colorado. And, there are other subsequent Orders which would


weigh against any claim made by Respondent if known to the

Court.

It was fraudulent to knowlingly assert authority for their

actions on an order known by them to be outdated and

superceded, or at least materially impacted by subsequent

Orders. 125A.495(b) mandates disclosure of these

material facts. And, Respondent swore in his affidavit that

there was no such order or modification. The Motion recites

the same falsehood. Even if the Order were reliable, it does

not legally lead to Respondent's physical custody.

(see attached exhibit 1, Denver District Court Order

September 9th, 2004, nunc pro tunc July 20th, 2004)

This Order also includes that Petitioner may be ordered

into a Nevada Court. It does not contemplate, let alone

order or endorse, Respondent's actions. That was one of

his Problems. Respondent stated that he did a new

registration that very day, if that is possible. However,

his motive that day, in addition to kidnapping and extortion,

was to induce the duty judge to act in a manner which would

violate Petitioner's right to contest this registration or

any of its terms.

He would have already been "off" with the children, thereby

rendering any Petitioner protest of the registration rather

'moot'.

9. The September 2004 Order does not order the return of the

children to Colorado, but instead allows Respondent to

limited supervised parenting time with the children in the

State of Nevada "in an appropriate facity" , arguably

in regard to Petitioner's non-compliance with the prior


order, as it is the first time in 6 years of incessant

litigation Respondent was awarded ANY parenting time,

supervised or otherwise. There was an earlier Order for an

interactional assessment between the Respondent and the

children. However, the Colorado Court specifically stated

that this did NOT constitute parenting time for Respondent.

No supervised parenting time was ordered by the Colorado

Court until AFTER Petitioner had moved to Nevada.

Respondent made no attempt at any contact with the

Petitioner and the children until most recently, and he

will no doubt posit he happened to be in Nevada to

exercise his supervised parenting time. However,

cumulatively, the facts weigh against this and support

a different conclusion.

Respondent's Colorado counsel sent a certified letter to

Petitioner indicating Respondent's desire to participate in

the supervised parenting time of the September 2004 Order.

This letter was received by Petitioner at her Las Vegas

residence on November 25th. Her zip code is wrong on

certain documents, which is something Petitioner is

familiar with in regard to Respondent and his Colorado

counsel. Three weeks later, Respondent posited,

regardless of how he framed it, that she had to

be 'hunted down'. Three weeks passed between the receipt

of the letter, and yet, lo and behold, Petitioner had not

'fled', as against his allegation that she would. This

letter not only confirms knowledge by Respondent as

to Petitioner's 'where abouts", the letter was another

integral part of the scheme because it was to provide

Respondent a claim for why he was suddenly in Nevada. It


was very much an ingredient in his very sophisticated,

but foul, recipe.

Respondent did not provide any documentation that he had

ever communicated with Petitioner as to any date, time, or

place for supervised parenting time.

10. Petitioner's child support payments were withheld by the

Colorado Court pursuant to that September Order, as well.

Since it is the duty of a Court to insure the best

interests of a child, it is clear the Colorado Court had

done all it felt appropriate by way of sanction to

Petitioner in regard to the children's interests when

she did not return to Colorado.

11. Respondent made the false assertion that there

is no modification (to the April 14th Order) "whose decision

must be enforced", in violation of NRS 125A.495(b). Clearly

the September 2004 Order impacts the substantive issues of

the earlier April 2004 Order. And, the Colorado Court ruled on

Respondent's 2003 Motion for Change of Parental Responsiblity

on January 5th of 2005. So strong is the evidence that

Respondent should not have physical or legal custody/

parental responsibility of these children, his motion was

denied even in light of Petitioner's alleged or actual

violation of Court Orders. While it is true that it was

denied without prejudice, the Order states it can only be

revisited if the children and/or Petitioner are in Colorado,

and this is apparently justification for fraud and kidnapping

to Respondent. This January 2005 Order denying his December

2003 motion was similarly withheld from the Court's

consideration.
There can be no doubt these actions were designed to

deceive the Nevada Court.

12. Further, and significantly, had Respondent

properly relied on NRS 125A.455, his lawful remedy, he

might have asked the Nevada Court for enforcement of

orders, at least of any for which he might have been

entitled to enforcement.

NRS 125A.455(1)(b) exits to allow Respondent to seek

lawful enforcement of the supervised parenting time order

issued in September 2004, nunc pro tunc July 2004.

This was clearly not his goal.

A hearing would have uncovered the truth and the defects

and fraud both in his pleading, and in the inducement,

and clearly Respondent could not have legitimately gotten

what he has "pulled off". It may have been lawfully

adjudicated that Respondent had no Orders for

enforcement.

10. Respondent did not apprise the Court as to the date and

place of registration of the Foreign Determination, pursuant

to NRS 125A.495(f) in yet another attempt to materially

mislead the Court. Further, 125.495(1) requires Respondent

to provide the court with a copy of the order confirming


registration.

11. Respondent's affidavit did not rely on nor state rights which

he had. He further knew it was against the Colorado Orders

on whose jurisdiction he relied for him to have physical

custody of the children. He sought it, as against the

No-contact order, and materially misrepresented the

Colorado Court's posture and orders to get it.


12. There is referenced in the Motion an affidavit

from a "Harold Hyman", but there is in fact no affidavit

from a Harold Hyman. Petitioner objects to any

inclusion now or later of such an affidavit. Respondent

would pursuade the Court there was an attempt at

notice to Petioner, assuming that were the content of the

"Hyman" affidavit. This is clearly disingenuous, and since

there is, in fact, no affidavit, it weighs consistantly

with other deception in Respondent's actions. By his own

false assertions, he postured that Petitioner would

"flee" were she given notice. He is self-defeated.

13. Most egregiously, in violation again of NRS

125A.495, as well as other Nevada Rules, Respondent failed

to inform the Nevada Court of other significant material

facts which if known, most likely would have caused the

Nevada Court to rule differently on any purported emergency

motion including delivery of the children to Respondent or

the enforcement of the April 2004 Order, either as written

or made up.

There is and has been since March 14, 2000, a "No-Contact"

Order issued by the Colorado Court between Respondent and

the minor children, pursuant to a report of severe

abuse of the minor child "J" done by Lost and Found, Inc.,

a Colorado Non Profit Organization, and annulment testimony.

This Protective Order has only been modified to the extent

that Respondent, after 16 hearings and lengthy litigation,

has been awarded only limited, supervised contact with the

children IN NEVADA, that being recited in the September 2004 nunc pro

tunc July 2004 Order (above). And even this can only be
true if Colorado retained jurisdiction in September 2004.

Respondent similarly did not include critical evidence and

documents in the case, in their "certified case history",

such as the sex offender specific evaluation/report

and polygraph(s) of Respondent which weighed against his

custody or contact with the children. It does not appear

that the 'history' which they provided the Nevada Court

contains much if any information on Respondent's

cross-dressing for sexual stimulation, and possibly in

the children's presence, and if the Colorado

Court's material finding in 2000 of Respondent's guilt of

abuse of the children pursuant to 18-6-401 were

included in the 'history', it was certainly not highlighted.

This was just for what he readily admitted.

They did not include other material facts, such as the older

child's (admitted) court ordered therapist's reports and

other documentation and exhibits regarding the abuse of his

child.

The matters contained in these documents and exhibits have

been central to the adjudication of this matter.

13. Respondent was himself 'forum shopping'.

He has been denied each and every motion in the Colorado

Court for an award of parenting time or decision making,

with the exception of the September 2004 order for supervised

parenting time in Nevada, and has now

perpetrated a fraud on the Nevada Court to get what he

could not otherwise: control of the children. Each of his

fraudulent assertions and omissions and statutory and

procedural violations was designed to use the unsuspecting


forum of a Nevada duty Judge to gain unfettered access to

children who are protected by lawful Order from his

unprofessionally supervised contact or physical or

other custody. He is in violation of the No-Contact

Order. The true history of the case supports Petitioner's

fears for her

There are no conflicting Orders here. There is only a ruse

to unlawfully induce an order for defense to the violation

of one or more others, the provisions of the UCCJEA, as

well as criminal charges.

14. The children at the heart of this matter are Seven (7)

and (9) years old. They have not seen respondent in over

Six years, and this has been by Respondent's choice,

as he had declined all offers for supervised contact

extended by Petitioner in an effort to mitigate this

nightmarish situation and its collateral damage, a fact

he has kept from both the Nevada Court and the Colorado

Court. In fact, he has given downright false testimony

about it and used this testimony to the detriment of

Petitioner.

These offers were made well before the Colorado Court's

September 2004 Order. Respondent has routinely sought

sympathy to which he is not entitled, and when that

didn't work, he has resorted to fraud and kidnapping.

15. Respondent has now obtained an interim Order from the

Denver District Court, for the care and

control of the children in a hearing for which Petitioner

was not noticed and was determined to be set on "Arrest

Warrant." Apparantly, the Order was obtained before

another duty Judge during a busy holiday vacation period.


This Colorado order, which Respondent could not get

otherwise, and the request for which has repeatedly been

denied by four presiding Judges of the Colorado Court, is

"fruit of the poisonous tree". He should not be rewarded.

He and the other participants in this scheme have

made a mockery of the judicial system. They should be

sanctioned and criminally prosecuted.

All of this is a violation of the substantive and

procedural rights of the Petitioner and the children.

"Substantive due process ensures that state action is

not random and unpredictable." In re: Kirkpatrick v.

District Court, 118 Nev. 233.

16. If this order is allowed to stand, even briefly,

Petitioner, in a gross miscarriage of justice, will be

further victimized and will be irrevocably prejudiced.

Petitioner may owe a mea culpa, but she does not owe

her children or her constitutionally protected rights.

There is no legal, rational, moral, or statutory

authority for what Respondent has done. Respondent has

dramatically changed the playing field, which was

already uneven, by fraud and deception, and now has a

markedly distinct 'advantage' to which he is not entitled

in his current position. He has done this at the expense

of the dignity of the Nevada Court, and to the detriment of

Petitioner and the children. Most significantly, his actions

seriously endangered and continue to endanger the emotional

and physical welfare and development of these children.

The status of the Colorado case showed

"closed" at the time of Respondent's Nevada motion. The


Colorado Court, on whose jurisdiction Respondent relied

whether properly or not, was not petitioned by Respondent

to reopen that case prior to his 'emergency' Nevada motion.

Respondent's real emergency was to take advantage of a

Court's holiday schedule, as both presiding judges were

on vacation.

16. This honorable Court is urged in the strongest of terms to

adjudicate this matter in favor of this motion, and whether

it be denominated extrinsic or intrinsic or both, to make a

finding of fraud on the Court, to assist in undoing the

wrong, and to otherwise grant meaningful relief to the

Petitioner and the children. It would not be equitable to

not grant the relief in the expedited, exparte manner

requested.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. And

THIS motion contemplates the law and will restore the

dignity of the Court.

Respondent designed and participated, or participated in,

an unconscionable plan and scheme designed to improperly

influence the Court in its decision. Occhiuto v. Occhiuto,

97 Nev. 143, 146, n.2d, 625 P.2d 568 (l981), quoting

England v. Doyle, 281 F.2d 304, 309 (9th Cir. l960)

Affiant respectfully asks this Court to vacate

its Order/Judgment of December 20, 2005, in the interests

of the Petitioner and the children, and to issue a pick up

warrant for the minor children, Joshua Walquist and

Jonathan Walquist, which is to be enforced by law

enforcement in the State of Colorado or wherever the

children may be found. If this exceeds the Authority of


this Court, a written recommendation for same is sought

to an Authority which has such authority.

There is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

17. The documents used by Respondnet are

attached hereto 18. The Verified Affidavit of Petitioner is attached.

19. The Verified Affidavit of ___________ is attached.

Dated this _______ day of ___________ , ______.