Report: #722796

Complaint Review: COLORADO JUDICIARY - Centennial Colorado

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Peter — VAIL Colorado USA
  • Author Not Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • COLORADO JUDICIARY 7325 S. Potomac Street Centennial CO 80112 Centennial, Colorado United States of America

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

                        M O T I O N  T O  R E C U S E  J U D G E  C H A R L E S  M .  P R A T T
District Court Arapahoe County, Colorado
7325 South Potomac Drive
Centennial, Colorado 80112
Peter Coulter
P.O. Box 3094
Vail Colorado 81657

COMES NOW the Defendant Peter Coulter, pro se to request that Judge Charles Pratt recuse himself from hearing the above case. In compliance with C.R.C.P. 97, the Motion is supported by Affidavit. As good and sufficient cause, Peter Coulter would state as follows:
1. Peter Coulter references his attached affidavit as though fully rewritten herein.
2. The affidavit contains 12 Exhibits that are a part of the affidavit and this Motion.
3. A litigant is entitled to a proceeding before a Judge who does not have a bent of mind. Johnson v. District Court 674 P2d 952 (Colo. 1984) While a judge may be convinced of his own impartiality, he nonetheless may so act as to lead a party to reasonably conclude that he is bias or prejudiced in the pending litigation. It is this appearance of bias or prejudice which undermines not only a litigants confidence in the fairness of the proceeding, but also public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the justice system. S.S.v.Wakefield 764 P2d. 70,73 (citing Johnson, 674, P2d. at 956.) The appearance of fairness and impartiality is critical to maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. Id.
4. The instant motion must be heard by a judge other than Judge Charles Pratt. The case of Johnson v. District Court, 674 P.2d 952 (Colo. 1984) is apposite. In that case, the Supreme Court said:
Where one of the litigants signs a verified affidavit alleging conduct and statements on the part of a trial judge which, if true, shows bias and prejudice or the appearance of bias or prejudice on the part of the trial judge it is an abuse of discretion if that judge does not withdraw from the case, even though he or she believes the statements are false or that the meaning attributed to them by the party seeking recusal is erroneous. In such a case, the judge should not pass upon the truth or falsity of the facts alleged in the affidavit, but only upon the adequacy of the motion as a matter of law.
5. In another case as reported in the Colorado Lawyer; Wright v.District Court, 16 Colorado Lawyer 541, March 1987 the court ruled that:
The fact that Judge Goldsmith in his own mind does not believe that he is prejudiced against Wright and his firm does not prevent disqualification if the motions and affidavits reflect prejudice and an appearance of impropriety.
6. The Supreme Court went on to say:
Once facts have been set forth that create a reasonable inference of a "bent of mind" that will prevent the judge from dealing fairly with the party seeking recusal, it is incumbent upon the trial judge to recuse himself. See People v. Botham, 629 P.2d 589, 595 (Colo. 1981); C.J.C. Canon 3(C)(1). A trial judge must accept the affidavits filed with the motion as true, even though the judge believes that the statements contained in the affidavits are false or that the meaning attributed to them by the party seeking recusal is erroneous. Johnson v. District Court, 674 P.2d. 952 (Colo. 1984).
7. C.R.C.P. 97 provides:
"A judge shall be disqualified in an action in which he is interested or prejudiced, or has been of counsel for any party, or is or has been a material witness, or is so related or connected with any party of his attorney as to render it improper for him to sit on the trial, appeal, or other proceeding therein. A judge may disqualify himself on his own motion for any of said reasons or any party may move for such disqualification and a motion by a party for disqualification shall be supported by affidavit. Upon the filing by a party of such a motion all other proceedings in the case shall be suspended until a ruling is made thereon. Upon disqualifying himself, a judge shall notify forthwith the chief judge of the district who shall assign another judge in the district to hear the action. If no other judge in the district is available or qualified, the chief judge shall notify forthwith the court administrator who shall obtain from the Chief Justice the assignment of a replacement judge."
8. We said in Johnson v. District Court, 674 P.2d. 952 (Colo. 1984).
"Ordinarily, the question of whether a judge should be disqualified in a civil case is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. In re Marriage of Mann, 655 P.2d 814 (Colo. 1982). However, where an attorney for one of the litigants signs a verified affidavit alleging conduct and statements on the part of a trial judge which, if true, show bias or prejudice or the appearance of bias or prejudice on the part of the trial judge, it is an abuse of discretion if that judge does not withdraw from the case, even though he or she believes the statements are false or that the meaning attributed to them by the party seeking recusal is erroneous. In such a case, the judge should not pass upon the truth or falsity of the facts alleged in the affidavit, but only upon the adequacy of the of the motion as a matter of law. 'The motion and supporting affidavit speak for themselves and the only question involved is whether the facts alleged are sufficient to compel the judge to disqualify himself.' Kovacheff v. Langhart, 147 Colo. 339, 343-44, 363 P.2d 702, 705 (1961). The motion and affidavits are legally adequate if they 'state facts from which it may reasonably be inferred that the judge has bias or prejudice that will prevent him from dealing fairly' with the party seeking recusal. People v. Botham, 629 P.2d 589, 595 (Colo. 1981)."
9. Because the act of appearing Pro-se, installs and grants an individual under the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of Colorado, full authority to act as an officer of the court in all matters both civil and criminal, it therefore stands to reason that an affidavit signed by an individual, pro-se and substantiated by others who were witness to the event, should bear up as having the same weight as an affidavit signed by an attorney for a litigant.
10. It therefore stand to reason that:
"A judge must grant a motion for disqualification if the motion and supporting affidavits state facts from which it reasonably may be inferred that the judge has a bias or prejudice that will prevent him from dealing fairly with the party seeking recusal. The judge must accept the affidavits filed with the motion as true even though the judge believes that the statements contained in the affidavits are false." Wright v. District Court, 731 P.2d 661 (Colo. 1987
11. Moreover, established Colorado law provides that a judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. C.J.C. (3)(C)(1). Courts must meticulously avoid any appearance of partiality. Although the trial judge believes in his own impartiality, it is the courts duty to eliminate every semblance of reasonable doubt or suspicion that a trial by a fair and impartial tribunal may be denied. Pierce v. United Bank, 780 P.2d 6, 7 (Colo. App. 1989) (quoting Zoline v. Telluride Lodge Assn, 732 P.2d 635, 639 (Colo. 1987)). Thus, in assessing the sufficiency of the motion and affidavits, the judge must consider the appearance of bias, for the integrity of the judicial process is impaired when the public perceives partiality on the part of a judge. Wilkerson v. Dist. Court, 925 P.2d 1373, 1376 (Colo. 1996).

THEREFORE, it is submitted that the Justice Pratt must be disqualified from the above numbered and entitled action due to the facts presented in this Motion and Attached affidavit.
Dated this April 25, 2011
Peter Coulter
Certificate of Service
The above document including attached Affidavit was served upon the following parties by E-mail and/or personally:
G.Raymond Goodwin 7472 S. Shaffer Lane, Littleton, Colorado 80127
Brent Evans

                                                             AFFIDAVIT OF PETER COULTER

The undersigned, Peter Coulter does hereby swear, affirm and attest to the following:
This entire case has been a complete travesty of justice and reflective of the corruption and cronyism that has infested our judicial system. The bias shown by Judge Charles Pratt towards myself has been prevalent and ongoing since the first day this case was before him, March 31, 2009. Below are illustrated but a few of the more flagrant violations each of which demonstrates that Judge Pratt should recuse himself:

On December 18, 2008, I filed a counter, cross, jury demand and fee for removal to Arapahoe County District Court in the above case. (Ex.1) The counter, cross jury demand and jury fee of $192 was removed from the file without authority (Treason of the Constitution) by Edward Burns and Tammy Herivel. (Ex7) As there was no Public Access Terminal (as required by Supreme Court Directive. See also C.R.S. 13-1-119, Judgment record and register of actions open for inspection.) the only way I was finally able to review the records was to file an Open Records Request with the Administrator of the Colorado Supreme Court. As a result, I was not aware that Burns/Herivel had done these acts until nearly a year later. At the trial held on March 31, 2010, Judge Pratt would not let me present the counter claim and cross-claim against Brent Evans because according to the official court record, as with the jury demand and payment, I never filed it. As such, I was also not allowed to get a subpoena from the Court Clerk for Brent Evans as again he was not an official party according to the official court record. (This seems to be the same path that G. Raymond Goodwin is now following with his objection to discovery that he filed April 18, 2011; that is, there was only an FED action filed with no counter or cross claim.) By not allowing me to put on a defense or show that in fact Union Stanford owed me an offset in excess of what they stated I allegedly owed them; Judge Pratt showed extreme prejudice and bias towards me resulting in the loss of over $2,000,000 in inventory alone.


The official records of the Court indicate that I did not originally file a counter-claim, cross-claim, jury demand or payment of jury demand, in complete contrast to the court stamped records and cash receipts. (Ex. 1,2) Those entries were illegally removed by Edward Burns and Tammy Herivel in what can only be described as felony theft, fraud, and Treason of the Constitution. (See attached Exhibits) Under Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 38, (See also Ex 5) I was entitled to the Jury trial I demanded and paid for which was denied by Judge Pratt without reason or explanation other than to attempt to cover up the actions of his associates Tammy Herivel and Edward Burns and the eventual fraudulent and forged contracts put forth by G. Raymond Goodwin, John Brent Evans and associates on March 31, 2009.


From February 2009, the Court intentionally unplugged the Public Access Terminal at the Arapahoe County District Court making it impossible for any pro-se Defendant as myself from reviewing his/her file and in violation of C.R.S. 13-1-119 and Supreme Court Directive. On March 18, 2009, Peter Coulter filed a Notice of Jury Trial with the District Court. (Ex.5) On March 30, 2009, Peter Coulter filed a Writ of Petition with the Colorado Supreme Court in regards to the demanded jury trial. On April 3, 2009, the Supreme Court issued an ORDER in regards to the Petition. All documents pertaining to the request and demand for jury trial disappeared/stolen from the official court record even though there were official clerk stamps that indicate they had been filed and/or sent from the Supreme Court.
Those documents are as follows:

Counter and Cross claim timely filed on December 18, 2008.

Demand for jury trial in District Court filed and paid for on December 18, 2008.

Arapahoe District Court copy of Petition to Colorado Supreme Court concerning jury trial dated March 30, 2009

Court Order of Supreme Court concerning jury trial dated April 3, 2009.

These documents were intentionally removed by Tammy Herivel and Edward Burns to deny Peter Coulter his right to a Jury trial and were further covered up with the help of Judge Pratt.


Union Stanfords original complaint was for less than $10,000 and they named Audionly.com as a party but never served them. Before the trial on March 31, 2009, Peter Coulter filed a Motion that Audionly.com was a necessary party as they had cosigned the lease for the property with Union Stanford. (This motion was filed before Raymond Goodwin submitted the 2 forged leases.) Judge Pratt decided that even though Audionly was named by Union Stanford Properties and Raymond Goodwin; that they were not entitled to be at the FED trial and proceeded without them. According to the Court Registry, Judge Pratt handed down a final judgment on April 5, 2009 only ordering a Writ of Restitution to Union Stanford Properties and not taking into account the $17,000 dollars that was asked for in the counter and cross-complaint (that were removed from the files) against Union Stanford and John Brent Evans. On June 12, 2009, without notice or appearance by Peter Coulter, Judge Pratt held a hearing with only Raymond Goodwin where the two of them decided to now allow Audionly to be brought in as a party without leave of court, without the presence of Peter Coulter at the hearing and after the Judgment had been rendered. (Transcript of hearing attached Exhibit 4) Trial settings are on Tues. afternoons in Judge Pratts Court. Raymond Goodwin sent me a notice of trial setting on June 5th, 2009 that he was going to call the clerk of the Court at 8:15 on June 12, 2009 and set a one day Jury trial. I called the Court at 8:17am and Judge Pratts clerk, Patricia answered the phone. I told her why I was calling and she said that Raymond Goodwin had no authority to do what he did and that all trial settings were on Tuesday afternoon. I asked her what I should do and she said she would call me back that afternoon. I never received a call and because there was no way for me to review the files (no Public Access Terminal), I had to order a transcript of the hearing to find out what transpired (Ex 5) It is obvious from the transcript that Judge Pratt and G. Raymond Goodwin have been talking to each other as somehow the new jury trial (The previous judgment was not set aside by Judge Pratt; he just decided that were now going to have another trial to help cover up the previous fraud of the Court in conspiracy with Raymond Goodwin, John Brent Evans and Union Stanford Properties) went from one day to three days. Additionally, Raymond Goodwin and Judge Pratt, without the presence or notice of Peter Coulter or Audionly; decided that Audionly can now be brought into the case without leave, after the judgment had been rendered, and with no signature of Audionly on the fraudulent lease submitted by Raymond Goodwin. This hearing without Peter Coulter once again shows the complete bias of Judge Pratt toward Peter Coulter in his further efforts to cover up the actions of Edward Burns, Tammy Herivel and the fraud and forgery of Raymond Goodwin and John Brent Evans and their associates.. S.S. v. Wakefield, 764 P.2d 70 (Colo. 1988)


In late 2009 at a pretrial hearing, Judge Pratt asked if I was ready to go to trial. I stated then that because John Brent Evans had been removed as a party; (by Edward Burns and Tammy Herivel) Tammy Herivel refused to issue a subpoena for Brent Evans. At the same time, I was properly requesting the Supreme Court Administrative Division to correct the record noted in 3 above without success. Tammy Herivel, Edward Burns and Judge Pratt kept directing me back to Judge Pratts Court to remedy the situation. There was no doubt that they were trying to keep their previous actions hidden and away from public record. Judge Pratt eventually asked me to file a Motion with his Court requesting that Brent Evans be made a Party. Judge Pratt did not restore the record that would have made Brent Evans a party from December 18, 2008 (the day I filed the counter and cross-claim) but a party as of late 2009 when he made the ruling. Judge Pratt did not restore the record of December 18, 2008 where I filed the counter and cross-claim and demand for jury trial against Union Stanford and Brent Evans because that would have meant the trial Judge Pratt held on March 31, 2009 would have yet another reason to be improper and void. G. Raymond Goodwin requested a waiver of service for Brent Evans which was reflected in the Order dated November 3, 2009 which required Mr. Goodwin to be served within 30 days. Raymond Goodwin was served on December 1, 2009 at his office. Thereafter, neither Raymond Goodwin nor Brent Evans responded to the cross-claim nor had they ever properly respond to the original counter-claim. Mr. Goodwin had a habit of not sending Court documents to Peter Coulter and/or intentionally misaddressing them. (It got so bad that I had to contact the Court Clerk every day to see if Raymond Goodwin had filed any documents. On January 22, 2010, Mr. Goodwin filed a nonsensical and improper Motion to remove John Brent Evans from the case without sending notice to Peter Coulter. By this time the Court had Ordered Audionly back into the case without proper leave at a hearing between Judge Pratt and Raymond Goodwin where Peter Coulter was not given notice and prejudicial ex-parte communications took place (Ex.5) and of course Judge Pratt allowed this after he had rendered a Judgment on April 5, 2009. By Statute, Audionly and Peter Coulter had until Monday February 8, 2010 to respond. Peter Coulter filed a response with the Clerk on February 1, 2010 at 1:29pm which is evidenced by the Clerks stamp. That response was intentionally not uploaded by the Clerk to Lexis/Nexis until February 8, the day after the Motion was granted by Judge Christopher Cross at 4:30pm, the half-time of the Super bowl. (See report on Internet concerning manipulation of Court and Lexis/Nexis records concerning this matter in detail) Additionally, Audionly was not given notice of the Motion and was not given the statutory time to respond before the fraudulent ruling of Judge Christopher Cross on Super bowl Sunday; issued before Audionly had a chance to respond and before Peter Coulters response was uploaded to Lexis Nexis by Tammy Herivel. In conclusion, Judge Cross made an Order to a nonsensical Motion that did not follow statutory rules; issued before the statutory time line for Audionly to Answer and with Tammy Herivel intentionally withholding Peter Coulters response filed a week earlier and the coup de grace; a ruling recorded by Lexis/Nexis that was made during the Sunday half-time of the Super Bowl. Judge Pratt has been made aware of this through numerous briefs and continues to ignore it or address it with responses that do not reflect the record. The only conclusion one can then reach is that Judge Pratt is working in collusion with Judge Cross, Edward Burns, Tammy Herival and Raymond Goodwin in a concerted and continuing fraud on Peter Coulter.


I didnt know who Edward Burns and Tammy Herivel were or what they were doing in my case until nearly a year after the case had been filed because they were keeping me from seeing my files by unplugging the Public Access Terminal virtually stopping my ability to see what or who was sabotaging my case. And it was sabotaged, or their actions would have been done in open court and there would have been a record of it on the registry. They did not want their actions on the record because they knew what they were doing was seriously wrong and a breach of Edward Burns oath to uphold the Constitution as a lawyer and more importantly as a magistrate. What no one was expecting, including myself, was the corruption of Raymond Goodwin, Brent Evans and their associates in presenting fraudulent and forged documents to the Court and for what purpose? Greed. And what has it gotten them? A lawsuit going on 3 years; a piece of property that has sat empty and the exposure to friends, colleagues, their family and the world who they really are and the frauds they are capable and willing to undertake. But it is Edward Burns crime that is most intriguing. I doubt he would have done it had he known that Raymond Goodwin and Brent Evans were going to produce forged documents to the Court. But the fact is he did do it. There had to be a reason he would take such a risk. First, he had to know that if he was caught doing it; other Judges, i.e. Charles Pratt and Christopher Cross would cover for him as they have done. More importantly is why he did it? It had to be something substantial for him to take such a risk. As I had never had a case in front of Edward Burns, it had to be something else. Then, in the summer of 2010, the picture became clear to me; Mclean v. Robinson. I gave a deposition in that case in 2008. Before that time I did not have any issues with Union Stanford, and its managers/members Raymond Goodwin and Brent Evens. In fact, before Brent Evans showed his true colors, we consider him our friend and went to lunch quite often together and bet on the greyhounds. I did not know that Judge Pratt was the judge on that case and did not find out till the late summer of 2010; about the same time I found out that Edward Burns and Tammy Herivel were responsible for stealing the jury demand and fee in my case where Judge Pratt was assigned. I was and am convinced that the actions of Edward Burns are somehow related to this case where Judge Pratt presided. Having witnessed the actions of Edward Burns, Judge Cross and Judge Pratt as noted above; I felt intimidated in providing my testimony on the witness stand believing that it was going to further influence Judge Pratts actions in my case. I first tried to discourage the doctors attorneys from subpoenaing me and when that didnt work, I had two choices; take the witness stand and refuse to testify and see what Judge Pratt would do to me, or get lost for a couple of weeks so I couldnt be subpoenaed. The boundaries of corruption of Magistrate Edward Burns, Tammy Herivel, Judge Christopher Cross and Judge Charles Pratt have not been described and limited to my case alone. No matter what or how I feel about Ms. McLean; she is entitled to a fair and unbiased trial and judge and like me she did not receive that, no matter the outcome.

7. Trial date settings:

This is the latest bias shown in this case that happened just last week. This action needs background information to fully understand. Brent Evans told me back in July of 2001 when we signed the lease that they had made Raymond Goodwin a 10% manager/member of Union Stanford Properties for helping with a property they had Purchased. Brent Evans also indicated that he wrote the first draft lease he presented to me and Raymond Goodwin wrote the second draft lease and the 3rd final lease for a three year base with 7 one year options which was signed and notarized by Brent Evans, Peter Coulter and Peter Coulter for Audionly.com. Brent Evans requested we go to his bank, Keybank, to have the lease contract notarized and as he only had one copy, he said he would take it home and make a copy and send me the original. To this date, that has never happened even though I had asked for it on numerous occasions over the 8 years and finally refused to pay the lease payment in December 2008 until they provided me a copy of the lease. Instead, Union Stanford, filed an FED. In the next 3 months, I formally asked for the lease on 9 separate occasions with no response. On January 7, 2009, Raymond Goodwin made an appearance into the case to act as Union Stanfords counsel and presented me with two unsigned leases that he intended to use at trial. They were the 2nd draft lease presented by Brent Evans in July of 2002, not the final lease prepared by Raymond Goodwin and signed by all 3 parties in late July 2002. Then, 5 minutes before the trial on March 31, 2009 before Judge Pratt, Raymond Goodwin presents two more leases. The first was a forged lease for the 2160 W. Radcliff property that only had two signatures, not three; the terms of the contract had been changed; (This was not the first time Union Stanford had been caught changing the terms of a contract after it had been signed. See American Comm. v. Union Stanford in Arapahoe County Court.) Linda Greens (Notary) signature did not match the one on file at the Secretary of State and the signing date had been changed to a date that I have evidence that I was not even in the State of Colorado at the time. The second lease was also a blatant forgery. Around 2004, we needed some additional space for cars and leased another small yard from Brent Evans and Union Stanford that was approximately 100 X 100 and was listed as Lot F(Ex 8). The price was normally around $700 but there were a bunch of truck tires and a dirt pile in the yard so Brent Evans discounted the price to $600 and indicated that he would pay us to remove the truck tires. That lease ended around 2005 and we had removed all the tires and also some cars and a meth lab that was on another property of Union Stanford per request of Brent Evans. We were never paid. That was the basis of the cross and counter claim offset that I filed against Union Stanford and Brent Evans that was stolen by Edward Burns and Tammy Herivel. Raymond Goodwin presented a forged lease with my forged signature for Lot V, not lot F. (Ex.9) Lot V was across the roadway from where we rented space and was at least twice as large. The stated rent on the forged document was $1,250. The purpose was to commit a Fraud on the Court by saying the $17,000 I requested in my counter and cross claim had been paid by a reduction in rent. (The difference between the total of the fraudulent and forged lease Mr. Goodwin submitted and the real lease for the entire term was/is approximately $17,000, the same amount asked for in the original counter/cross complaint. This forgery and fraud on Peter Coulter and the Court was brought up numerous times in Motions and Affidavits to Judge Pratt who to date has ignored them. He has no choice. He has to ignore them to protect Edward Burns and Tammy Herivel at the expense of Peter Coulter. This same behavior has been exhibited through the entire tenure of this case; Judge Pratt continually covering up for the acts of Edward Burns, Tammy Herivel, and Raymond Goodwin as partially written in this affidavit. Raymond Goodwin became so comfortable with his actions that he blatantly broke the Rules of Civil Procedure because he knew there would be no consequences; a kind of non spoken conspiracy and collusion between Judge Pratt, Edward Burns, Tammy Herivel, Raymond Goodwin, Brent Evans, Union Stanford and its associates. The only way to keep the despicable acts of the Court under wraps was to promote the fraud being headed and perpetrated by Raymond Goodwin against Peter Coulter. The latest incident began at a Motions hearing held by Judge Pratt in the fall of 2010. I had/have prepared an Amended Complaint against Union Stanford and its associates. Before I filed it, I told Judge Pratt that I would like to get some discovery from Union Stanford. Judge Pratt granted the request which was to be completed around November of 2010. Raymond Goodwin stalled the process and I filed a Motion for Contempt. Judge Pratt changed that to a Motion to Compel. That Motion and the request for discovery is still being considered by Judge Pratt today. In the mean time, despite the objections of Peter Coulter (Ex 10) Raymond Goodwin alone sets a one day trial to the Court without notifying anyone and effectively prohibiting me from filing the Amended Complaint naming him and his associates. Then, on April 4, 2011, 5 months after he secretly set the date with the Court; he sends a notice to Peter Coulter (Ex 11) that there is going to be a one day trial to the Court on May 16, 2011. This was one of the dates mentioned in his original E-mails. Even though Raymond Goodwin knew that a jury trial had been requested, paid for and previously set for 3 days; he secretively without notice and despite objection by Peter Coulter sets a trial date to the Court for one day. The sole purpose of this act again was to prevent Peter Coulter from filing an Amended Complaint joining him and his associates. (once a trial date has been set) When I received the Notice Raymond Goodwin sent on April 4, 2011, (Ex. 11) I immediately called Judge Pratts chambers to find out how Raymond Goodwin was able to accomplish this; especially since the Court knew we still had not finished discovery. Instead of admonishing Raymond Goodwin for his actions and behavior; Judge Pratt covers for him saying it is his fault. (Ex. 12) This comment in the Order of Judge Pratt (Ex. 12) does not match the previous E-mails that Raymond Goodwin sent to Peter Coulter in November of 2010 (Ex. 10)
The above are but a few of the blatant inequities and atrocities that I have endured at the hands of Edward Burns, Tammy Herivel, Judge Christopher Cross, Brent Evans, Raymond Goodwin and associates and Judge Charles Pratt. Judge Pratt has not only shown a continuing bias toward me; he has violated his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. The affidavit above is not just mindless innuendos but completely backed up by facts/exhibits. As clearly demonstrated here, there is no possibility for me to get a fair trial in Arapahoe County, Colorado.
Sworn to this _________day of April, 2011 by
Peter Coulter
The forgoing affidavit with 12 attached exhibits were acknowledged before me this __26___day of April, 2011 by Peter Coulter
My commission expires______________________
Notary Public________________________________


This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 04/27/2011 02:19 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/colorado-judiciary/centennial-colorado-80112/colorado-judiciary-charles-m-pratt-edward-burns-tammy-herivel-raymond-goodwin-christo-722796. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals


#12 Author of original report


AUTHOR: Peter - (USA)

POSTED: Saturday, May 07, 2011

The Motion to Recuse Judge Charles M. Pratt was filed April 26, 2011.  Union Stanford Properties filed through their associate, manager, member and counsel Raymond Goodwin of WATROUS, EHLERS, MILKE, & GOODWIN LLP filed a response on Tuesday, May 3. I then filed a reply on May 6. I have no way of posting Raymond Goodwin's response without retyping the entire 3 pages of the brief. If Union Stanford Properties / Raymond Goodwin want to post their reply here they are more than welcome to do so. Basically, Raymond Goodwin ignores all the facts presented in my original brief and infers that examples like the ex-parte hearing by Judge Charles Pratt and Raymond Goodwin never happened even though a transcript of the hearing indicates it did. It is just further rhetoric by Raymond Goodwin that has been accepted by the Court. It has to be accepted for Judge Pratt to further cover up the actions of his associates, Tammy Herivel, Edward Burns, and Christopher Cross. Below is my reply:

District Court Arapahoe County, Colorado

7325 South Potomac Drive
Centennial, Colorado 80112

PETER COULTER, AUDIONLY.COM LLC.                                          

 Peter Coulter



COMES NOW Defendant Peter Coulter, pro se and files his Reply to Union Stanfords Response in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Recuse supported by Affidavit.

Union Stanford, through their attorney, member and associate Raymond Goodwin[1] appear to complain that Peter Coulter has shown no basis for recusal and Requests that Recusal be denied. Peter Coulter replies to the allegations madein Union Stanfords Response and shows further sufficient basis for recusal in the following Argument and Citations.

Parties to civil cases have a constitutional right to a fair trial. Latiolais v. Whitley,
93 F.3d 205, 207 (5th Cir.1996); Lemons v. Skidmore, 985
F.2d 354, 357 (7th Cir. 1993); Bailey v. Sys. Innovation, Inc.,
852 F.2d 93, 98 (3d Cir. 1988).
And [t]rial before an unbiased judge is essential to due process. Johnson v. Mississippi, 403 U.S. 212, 216 (1971); accord Concrete Pipe & Prods. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602, 617 (1993) (due process requires a neutral and detached judge in the first instance) (citation omitted).

The United States Supreme Court has stated:

and this stringent rule may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties.  Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954), Marshall v. Jerrico, 100 S. Ct. 1610, 446 U.S. 238, 64 L. Ed. 2d 182, (1980).Pg. 243:

We have employed the same principle in a variety of settings, demonstrating the powerful and independent constitutional interest in fair adjudicative procedure. Indeed, "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice,"
and this
 "stringent rule may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no
actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice
equally between contending parties,"

In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955). See also Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488 (1974).

If the Due Process Clause requires recusal only when a party could prove actual bias arising from personal animus in the judges heart or cold cash in the judges pocket, then the rights of parties to a fair and impartial judge would be imperiled. Probabilities of unfairness, likelihood of bias, and unacceptable perceptions are at the heart of circumstantial evidence, which is sometimes the
only evidence available on the issue of whether a judge is constitutionally required to disqualify Randall T. Shepard, Restraint and Liberty in Judicial Ethics, 9 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 1059, 1087 (1996)


On December 19, 2008, Peter Coulter filed a response, counter complaint and cross-complaint against Brent Evans for 17,000.

Additionally, Peter Coulter paid $192 for a jury trial in Arapahoe County District Court.

Tammy Herivel and Edward Burns, without authority or jurisdiction, removed the counter and
cross-complaint, jury demand and $192 fee.

4 documents referencing the jury trial were removed from official court records by Tammy Herivel and Edward Burns: 1.) Brent Evans as a party, counter and cross claim, jury demand and payment. 2.) Notice of Jury trial filed March 18, 2009, 3.Writ of Petition to Supreme Court (concerning jury trial) filed March 30, 2009. 4. Order of Colorado Supreme Court mailed to the District Court on April 3, 2009.

The Court intentionally violated C.R.S. 13-1-119, Judgment records and register of actions open for
inspection, by not having an operating Public Access Terminal for pro se litigants denying Peter Coulter the ability to review the files and therefore the criminal actions of Edward Burns and Tammy Herivel.

Judge Pratt denied Peter Coulter the jury trial he demanded and paid for.

Judge Pratt denied Peter Coulter to present his offsetting counter claim against Union Stanford at the trial on March 31, 2009

Judge Pratt held a trial without all named parties being present, i.e. John Brent Evans and Audionly.com even though a Motion was filed previously by Peter Coulter objecting to their

Union Stanford presented two forged lease contracts to the Court on March 31, 2009 as part of their Complaint. Even though Peter Coulter presented expert testimony to Judge Pratt that his signature was forged on one of the documents; Judge Pratt ignored it without comment.

On April 6, 2009, Judge Pratt issued a final judgment of Restitution to Union Stanford from Peter
Coulter resulting in the immediate loss of over $2,000,000 in inventory alone.

On April 7,  2009, Judge Pratt closed the case.

On Friday June 12, 2009 at 8:15a.m., without notice or appearance by Peter Coulter (ex-parte) or
Audionly, Judge Pratt and Raymond Goodwin have a hearing where Judge Pratt granted Union Stanfords request to bring Audionly into the case without leave of Court, without a signature of Audionly on the forged contract and after the judgment and trial had already been held and the case closed by Judge Pratt.

Judge Pratt denied Peter Coulters Motion for Change of Venue based on Courts violation of C.R.S.
13-1-119. Judgment records and register of actions open for inspection; in not having a Public Access Terminal for Peter Coulter to inspect the records in his case. Peter Coulter had to request an open records demand (Colorado Open Records Act) from the Colorado Supreme Court before he was allowed to inspect his files

The original amount of Union Stanfords complaint was under $9,000 which included attorneys fees.
Peter Coulter, as an officer of Audionly, was therefore qualified to represent Audionly in Court pursuant to C.R.C.P. Rules. Judge Pratt denied Audionly representation by Peter Coulter in yet another violation of due process, conspiracy and collusion with Tammy Herivel, Edward Burns, Union Stanford Properties and its Associates Brent Evans, Raymond Goodwin and others cited as parties in this case.

Judge Pratt allowing, despite objection, a default judgment Motion for over $50,000 by Union Stanford against Audionly when the original complaint amount was only $8,600 in defiance
of Statutes and Court rules that state that a default judgment can be for no more than the initial complaint amount.

Judge Pratt allowing, despite objection, a default judgment Motion for over $50,000 by Union Stanford against Audionly after a final judgment had been rendered by Judge Pratt on April 6, 2009 and the case closed on April 7, 2009.

Judge Pratt allowing,despite objection, a default judgment Motion for over $50,000 by Union Stanford against Audionly when the forged lease contract that Raymond Goodwin presented
to the Court on March 31, 2009 at the trial did not contain the signature of Audionly as a party to the contract.

On January 22nd, 2010, Union Stanford through its attorney and member Raymond Goodwin filed a
fraudulent and non-sensical Motion (that didnt meet CRCP requirements) to remove associate John Brent Evans from the case. As usual Raymond Goodwin did not send notice of the Motion to either Peter Coulter or Audionly (who had been made a party at the ex-party hearing held by Judge Pratt on June 12, 2009. See above.) Peter Coulter found out about it by continually calling the court clerk every day to see what had been filed and filed a response on Monday March 1, 2010 at 1:29pm; well within the timeframe specified for responses to Motions dictated by CRCP Rules. (Under the rules, Peter Coulter and Audionly had until Monday March 8, 2010 by closing time of the court clerk to respond to the Motion. On Wednesday, March 3rd (as evidenced by E-mails to the Supreme Court) Peter Coulter called the Court Clerk and his March 1 Response had not been uploaded to the system. Peter Coulter called again on March 4 and Friday, March 5 at 4:00pm and his Response still had not been scanned and uploaded to the system. Peter Coulter then E-mailed the Supreme Court IT division at 4:30pm Friday to see if they could find out what was going on.[2]The Supreme Court E-mailed me back at 9am Monday March 8th to inform me that she had contacted the Arapahoe County Clerk (Tammy Herivel) and that they had mistakenly uploaded my response with a February 1 date instead of March 1 date when it was filed. I went to the Court immediately and retrieved a
copy of my Response with the original filing date of March 1  and an upload and document number date of March 8, 2010 at 8:30am; not February 1, 2010 as they had E-mailed/told the Colorado Supreme Court.

Additionally, there had been an Order granting RaymondGoodwins Motion by Judge Christopher Cross at 4:30pm on Sunday March 7, 2010which corresponds with the half time of the Super-bowl. (Time was marked and evidenced by Judge Cross uploading transaction time onto Lexis Nexis.) While Peter Coulter believes that both Judge Pratt and Judge Cross had seen Peter Coulters Motion previous to Judge Cross Order of March 7, they did not think Peter Coulter would file a response because Raymond Goodwin never sent notice and they did not want it as part of the record; just like the previous records for the demand of jury trial had been removed. Further, Peter Coulter and Audionly were denied due process by having the Motion ruled on before the deadline for a response, March 8, 2010 at 5pm. This begs the question, Why would Christopher Cross be rendering an Order for Judge Pratt at the half-time of a Super bowl Sunday before the CRCP response deadline had been reached? The only reasonable explanation is that they believed Peter Coulter would not catch them in these deliberate continual acts to deny him his due process of law and fraudulent conspiracy with Edward Burns, Tammy Herivel, Brent Evans, Raymond Goodwin, Union Stanford Properties and their associates and members.

At a hearing in September 2010, I told Judge Pratt that I had an amended complaint prepared to file but wanted to have discovery of Union Stanford first to save time. The court granted the request but Raymond Goodwin stalled the discovery and Peter Coulter filed a contempt Motion. Judge Pratt changed it to a Motion to compel and briefs were filed but never ruled on by Judge Pratt. In the mean time in December,  Raymond Goodwin sets a one day trial to the Court (even though it had previously been a 3 day jury trial) without first notifying Peter Coulter and then despite his objections noted in Emails and thereafter not making the date he set a part of the record. Thence, on April 4, 2011, Raymond Goodwin sends a notice to Peter Coulter that there is
going to be a one day trial to the Court on May 16, 2011. I was furious and called Judge Pratts chambers to see how this was possible. I could tell Judge Pratt was scrambling by the demeanor of his personal clerk Patricia. Instead of admonishing Raymond Goodwin for his fraudulent actions; Judge Pratt covers for him by saying it is the courts fault and ORDERS a new trial date setting which
preempts Peter Coulters prepared Amended Complaint and joinder of additional parties; exactly what Raymond Goodwin was trying to accomplish in the first place.

With all of the above happening in my case; I felt intimidated by Judge Pratt in testifying for Dr. Robinsons attorneys as I believe my testimony would affect the previous bias rulings by Judge Pratt in my own case. The result being whether Ms. Mclean received a fair and unbiased trial from Judge Pratt.

 Clearly, Judge Pratt has reason to disqualify himself. As was stated in Brief Amicus Curiae of 27 Former Chief Justices and Justices In Support of Petitioners in Caperton, et., al., v. At. Massey
Coal Company, Inc., et., al.,. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, No. 0822:

On page 7:
Lord MacMillan, Law and Other Things 217-18(1937). Jerome Frank noted the peculiarly individual factors that can influence decisions: "these uniquely, highly individual, operative influences are far more subtle, far more difficult to get at. Many of them, without possible doubt, are unknown to anyone except the judge. Indeed, often the judge himself is unaware of them." Jerome Frank, Courts on Trial 151 (1950).

On page 8:
But a judge who bases recusal not only on a subjective evaluation of fairness, but also on
a more objective appearance of fairness, preserves much more effectively the litigants
due process right to an impartial judge.

Each of the above bulleted instances in and of itself demonstrate an appearance of bias of Judge Charles M. Pratt required by the Motion; if not an intentional and blatant violation of Peter Coulters right to due process of law and fraudulent conspiracy on Mr. Coulter.

 WHEREFORE, Justice Charles M. Pratt should forthwith recuse himself from the above cited

Sincerely dated this May 5, 2011,

Peter Coulter


The above document was served on the following parties by first class mail or E-mail this May 6, 2011:

Raymond Goodwin      Goodwin@wemglaw.com

Raymond Goodwin has continued to deny his association with Union Stanford
properties even though Peter Coulter has produced documents where he has signed
as manager for Union Stanford properties. Further, Mr. Goodwin is a manager of
Badger Creek Investments which is a member of Union Stanford Properties.

Emails to the Supreme Court are available and have been presented previously to
Judge Pratt in this case.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#11 Consumer Comment


AUTHOR: Karl - (USA)

POSTED: Tuesday, May 03, 2011

because the corrupt people who run the corrupt corporations and the corrupt politicians who work for these corrupt people are fueling much of the legal system in this country with MONEY!

Make sure to read this Ripoff Report and spread it all over the web at sites like Twitter & Facebook.

Thank You

*****CORRUPTION ALERT: Don't forget to stay at this site and type in all of the following and read the Ripoff Reports for further proof that the USA is a country whose foundation is solidly built on corruption-


Respond to this report!
What's this?

#10 Author of original report


AUTHOR: Peter - (USA)

POSTED: Tuesday, May 03, 2011


The State of Colorado uses electronic filing in some of their Courts. It is ripe for manipulation as has been shown in this case by Edward Burns, Tammy Herivel, Judge Charles Pratt and Judge Christopher Cross. This electronic system is used exclusively in the Civil Division of Arapahoe County. It is comprised of two systems. The State portion is called Eclipse and the private contracted portion is called Lexis Nexus File and Serve. Attorneys are required to use Lexis Nexus to file all documentation from their offices. Pro-se litigants are not allowed to use Lexis Nexus and therefore all filings must go through the clerk of the Court where it immediately gets a Court filing
and time stamp and then is supposed to be scanned and uploaded onto Eclipse and Lexis Nexus so that it can be viewed by Attorneys at their office, the Judge from the bench, and pro-se litigants from view only terminals that are required in every court using electronic filing and called Public Access Terminals. (PAT).  The Colorado Supreme Court Administrative Division is very secretive about this system and refuses to answer questions even when subjected to a Colorado Open Records Act request. An example is that the Colorado Supreme Court states that there is no training or operating manuals for the clerks to study, use, and refer to when using the
Eclipse / Lexis Nexus File and Serve system.  As a result, there is no set rule as to when documents submitted to the court clerk are uploaded onto Eclipse and Lexis Nexus.  The court clerk, Tammy Herivel can change the file stamp times on both Eclipse and Lexis Nexis but she cannot change the
document no. and corresponding time that it was uploaded to Lexis Nexis. Three examples from this case exemplify the ability of court personnel, magistrates and judges to manipulate the system with the support and assistance of the Colorado Supreme Court. It needs to be noted here that Arapahoe County Head Clerk Tammy Herivel, is a member of the public access committee of the Supreme Court chaired by Supreme Court Justice Alex Martinez. As such Tammy Herivel is, or should be very familiar with the workings of the Eclipse and Lexis Nexis system and its provisions. Also on the committee with Tammy Herivel are Justice Roger Klein of the 19th District, Judge Leland Anderson of the 1st District, Miles Flesch of the 2nd District, Mike Reid of the 1st District Probation, Chris Yuhas of the 5th District, Bob Roper of the Judicial Business Integrated Technology Division of
the Colorado Supreme Court and Linda Bowers of the JBITS Division of the Colorado Supreme Court. Their Judicial Directive as provided on the Colorado Supreme Court Web page is as follows:

Public Access.Chief Justice Directive 05-01:

The court system's public records are open for inspection by any person at reasonable times except as provided by the Colorado Open Records Act or otherwise provided by federal or state
law, Colorado Supreme Court Rule, court order or local policy. The official custodian of any public records may make local policies regarding the inspection of records that are reasonably necessary for the protection of records and prevention of unnecessary interference with the regular discharge of the duties of the custodian or the custodians office.
The Criminal Justice Records Act ( 24-72-301
et.seq., C.R.S.) addresses court records in criminal proceedings. Two sections of note in the CJRA are:

- 24-72-304 C.R.S - the custodians authority to make rules and regulations for inspection of records. 

- 24-72-305 C.R.S. - the custodians authority to deny inspection if prohibited by law, Colorado Supreme Court rule, existing court order, or if disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. Public Access to Court Records.
Inspection of civil case records is determined by the Colorado Open Records Act unless otherwise provided by law. Included in the Act are the following provisions:

- 24-72-203(1) C.R.S. - the custodians authority to make rules and regulations regarding inspection of records.

- 24-72-204 C.R.S. - the custodians authority to deny inspection if inspection is contrary to law, Supreme Court rule, existing courto rder, or if disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.
The availability of juvenile records is primarily determined by the Childrens Code ( 19-1-301, et. seq., C.R.S.).
Directives issued by the Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice and the judicial districts Chief Judge impact what public access is allowed with respect to information made, maintained, or kept by the courts. This document is designed specifically as a reference tool only. Refer to the Colorado Revised Statute citations included for more specific details.
Colorado Revised Statutes reiterates this directive in 13-1-119, Judgment record and register of actions open forinspection:

The judgment record and register of actions shall be open at all times during office hours for the inspection of the public without charge, and it is the duty of the clerk to arrange the several
records kept by him in such manner as to facilitate their inspection. In addition to paper records, such information may also be presented onmicrofilm or computer terminal. It would seem simple with these rules in place that is should/would be easy for one to see and review ones file. That was
not the case in dealing with Tammy Herivel, Head Clerk of Arapahoe County, Colorado. My case was removed to Arapahoe County District Court on December 18, 2008 at 8:31am. From that time forward, Arapahoe County District Court did not have an operable Public Access Terminal to view
my file. After numerous attempts by Tammy Herivel and Judge Charles Pratt to keep the matter under wraps and in-house; I finally filed an open records request with the Colorado Supreme Court. They referred me back to Tammy Herivel. She had conveniently forgotten to tell me that there was a PAT terminal in the Aurora division of Arapahoe County Court where I could review the records of the district court. Tammy Herivel, Edward Burns and Judge Charles Pratt were intentionally
keeping me from reviewing my file for over a year while they were manipulating it, not uploading files, destroying others, removing jury demands and taking actions against Peter Coulter while he was under the stay and protection of a Federal Court Order. It was at this time that I discovered the first two manipulations of Eclipse and Lexis/Nexus file and serve. See chapter 4 for 3 examples of manipulation of official court records in this case. 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#9 Consumer Comment


AUTHOR: Karl - (USA)

POSTED: Saturday, April 30, 2011

is available at this website!

*Just type in 502469 and it appears as 'Consumer Comment #4' at Ripoff Report #502469.

Thank You


Respond to this report!
What's this?

#8 Consumer Comment

Encore presentation of- CORRUPTION POEM

AUTHOR: Karl - (USA)

POSTED: Thursday, April 28, 2011


It'll happen again
A financial eruption
'Cause the U.S. economy
Is based on corruption
Our leaders don't care
Their brains must be dead
Bowing down to their masters
The ones at the FED
Keeping Wall Street afloat
Killing Main Street each day
Politicians and big-shots
Still collecting their pay
This poem is over
But corruption is here
An eruption is coming
And that day is quite near.


"CORRUPTION POEM" was originally posted at this site on January 6, 2011. Just type in 648567 and it appears as 'Consumer Comment #3' at Ripoff Report #648567.

Thank You


Respond to this report!
What's this?

#7 Consumer Comment

Wrong Venue.

AUTHOR: Robert - (USA)

POSTED: Thursday, April 28, 2011

ROR is the wrong venue for your complaint against the judiciary of your state.  Publishing your motions and other "evidence" here is not going to accomplish a darn thing.

I suggest you retain an attorney to represent you in this manner.

Barring that, you should file a written complaint/appeal to your State Judiciary Board to protest the actions of the court.

If you wish to make a complaint on the grounds of "corrupt government,"  the FBI would be an appropriate venue.

You might also consider contacting your Congressional representatives as well as your State Legislature representative.

I wish you good luck, but you're wasting your time and bandwidth posting this stuff here.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#6 Consumer Comment


AUTHOR: Karl - (USA)

POSTED: Thursday, April 28, 2011

turn their heads from the truth and protect the corrupt people who run the many corporations, companies, and even the government, because these corrupt people have what our legal system wants; MONEY!

My guess is that well over 50% of all the lawyers and judges in the USA are corrupt. I believe that well over 90% of the politicians in the USA are corrupt too.

The corrupt people who run the many corporations in the USA ultimately control the government, the military, the mainstream media, and of course- Wall Street. If you want to see who sits at the very top, just 'Google' this- WHO OWNS THE FED?, and go to the site with the 5 charts. The 'bankers' are the ones who really control this country. Much of our legal system protects these 'bankers', and the other so-called 'corporate elite'.

Some people in the mainstream media, the legal system, and in the corporate sector of this country, had information regarding the collapse of the U.S. economy and the stock market crash as early as April of 2005. They chose NOT to alert the American people about it because it would have EXPOSED the ones who ultimately control this CORRUPT country.

***Make sure to stay at this site and type in 271454 and read what was posted in 'Consumer Comment #1' at Ripoff Report #271454 on September 3, 2007. (Pay attention to what was stated in paragraph #3.)

Then type in 269041 at this site and read what was posted in 'Consumer Comment #3' at Ripoff Report #269041 on August 21, 2007. (Pay attention to what was stated in paragraph #4 and the rest of that comment.)

**Both consumer comments were posted a little over a year BEFORE the collapse of the U.S. economy and the stock market crash, which occurred on September 29, 2008. The mainstream media, corporate sector, and the legal system all knew!


Respond to this report!
What's this?

#5 Author of original report


AUTHOR: Peter - (USA)

POSTED: Thursday, April 28, 2011

Exhibit 10 shows the typical behavior and actions of Raymond Goodwin and the Court's (Judge Pratt) typical reaction.
Judge Pratt issued a final judgment and closed the case on April 5, 2009. Then, he opened it back up again and decided I could have a jury trial (had to pay for it again) that was to last 3 days.
We had set a date but it had to be set aside because I had no way of subpoenaing Brent Evans because according to the official court record, I never named him as a party and therefore Tammy Herivel wouldn't issue the summons for me, a pro se litigant. At one point in time I confronted her with the counter and cross-claim I had filed on December 18, 2008 which named Brent Evans and she went and asked Edward Burns what to do and of course he insisted that I needed a Court Order from Judge Pratt. (There is only one way to reform the official court record and that is through the Administrative Division of the Colorado Supreme Court. No judge has the authority or capability to correct court records on his/her own admonition.  It was just another act on the part of Edward Burns, Tammy Herivel and Judge Charles Pratt to hide their actions and violate the constitutional rights of Peter Coulter
In April, 2011, Raymond Goodwin in collusion with the Court (Judge Pratt) decide amongst themselves that they are going to set the trial for a one day trial to the Court instead of a 3 day jury trial that had been asked and paid for. Of course this was done while we hadn't even finished discovery and Peter Coulter had indicated to the Court that he had an amended complaint that he wished to file. The emails show that I objected to what Raymond Goodwin was doing and because he did not send any notice of the trial and put it on the record, I believed we were going to proceed through discovery and my amended complaint before attempting to set it for trial. That was not the case. On April 5, 2011, Raymond Goodwin sent me a Notice (Exhibit 11) that the trial was set for May 16 for a one day trial to the Court. I immediately called Judge Pratt clerk, Patricia, and asked her what was going on? I could tell she was shook up by the revelation and said she would get back to me. Then, the next day Judge Pratt issues an Order (Ex. 12) that indicates that it is his fault and covers for Raymond Goodwin once again. Judge Pratt's comment on his Order (Ex 12) does not match the E-mails of Raymond Goodwin made 4 months earlier.......

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 Author of original report


AUTHOR: Peter - (USA)

POSTED: Thursday, April 28, 2011

Raymond Goodwin of WAITROUS, EHLERS, MELKE & GOODWIN and as a member/manager of the Plaintiff, Union Stanford Properties along with associate John Brent Evans were asked formally 9 times for a copy of the lease to 2060 W. Radcliff and refused to comply. Then, 5 minutes before what was supposed to be a jury trial; Raymond Goodwin submitted two exhibits to the Court and Peter Coulter marked "A" and "B". A was a 12 pg. forged contract missing Audionly's signature and allegedly signed on September 19, 2002; a date that I have evidence that I wasn't even in the State of Colorado. Exhibit B (Exhibit 9 here) was another forged lease put forth by Raymond Goodwin to fraudulently convince the court that the offset of $17,000 I had requested as an offset counter-claim / cross-claim had been paid in the form of reduced rent. Exhibit 9 shows the lease for Lot "V" when in fact we leased lot "F" across the road. Peter Coulter questioned the authenticity of this document in front of Judge Pratt on March 31, 2009; and he ignored it. It was also brought up again in a Motion for Default Judgment against Brent Evans and again it was ignored.

If one looks at the last page of the fraudulent and forged contract where a diagram of the lot is depicted, and compare it to Exhibit 8; one can plainly see that Audionly occupied Lot F and not Lot V.  Raymond Goodwin has committed a Fraud on the Court by submitting known false documents that I believe he prepared. I have proof of this. The notary at Union Stanford's bank, Linda Green, notarized all 3 signatures, Brent Evans, Peter Coulter and Audionly in late July, 2002. The forged contracts presented by Raymond Goodwin and Brent Evans on March 31, 2009 to the Court and Peter Coulter had  Linda Greene's notary only on two signatures with the signature and notary of Audionly missing! The signing date of the Notary had been crossed out from July and written above Sept. with no initials. I asked Linda Greene about this and she indicated that she would usually not do this and if she had, she would have initialed it in accordance with Notary rules. On the other hand, I have found other documents where Raymond Goodwin was the notary and he crossed out the dates in the exact same way with no initials and installed a new date. Also, Linda Greene's signature is on file with the SOS. The "G" in her last name that is on file, looks nothing like the "G" on the forged document. (Expert has issued opinion that Peter Coulter's signature is forged) In fact, the G of Linda Greene's signature looks exactly like the G in Raymond Goodwins signature. All of this has been brought up in detail to Judge Charles Pratt who just ignored it. Again, he has to because he has decided to cover for the actions of his associates Edward Burns and Tammy Herivel in their theft of the counter claim, cross-claim, Brent Evans as a party, demand for Jury trial in the District Court and the $192 fee for the Jury trial in the District Court.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Author of original report


AUTHOR: Peter - (USA)

POSTED: Thursday, April 28, 2011

EXHIBIT 8 is the most telling of all the Exhibits. It is a 2004 Google Earth picture of Union Stanfords property. The lower part of the picture shows lot "F" which was leased to Audionly and Peter Coulter for $600 per month. ($100 off because there were truck tires and dirt taking up space.) Lot V at the top of the picture was occupied at the same time by another tenant. The forged and fraudulent lease that Raymond Goodwin and Brent Evans submitted to the Court (Exhibit 9) as Ex. "B" says that Peter Coulter rented Lot V for $1,250. The total difference in the rents that Peter Coulter and Audionly were paying on Lot F and the forged lease that Raymond Goodwin provided the Court on March 31, 2009 is for the total term of the lease was/is $17,000; the exact amount of the counter and cross claim that Peter Coulter originally filed against Union Stanford Properties and John Brent Evans on December 18, 2008. Judge Pratt would not let me present the counter and cross-claim at the trial because according to the "official court record", I never filed them. The exhibits show that I did file them but that they were then removed by Tammy Herivel and Edward Burns and Judge Pratt was covering for their acts.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Author of original report


AUTHOR: Peter - (USA)

POSTED: Thursday, April 28, 2011

This is the transcript of a hearing that was held without Peter Coulter present where the Court now decides to allow Raymond Goodwin (who is acting both as attorney and as a manager/member of of Union Stanford Properties) to bring in Audionly after the Judgement was rendered by Judge Pratt, without leave and without notice and presence of Peter Coulter to the hearing.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#1 Author of original report


AUTHOR: Peter - (USA)

POSTED: Thursday, April 28, 2011

Attached are the Exhibits for the Motion to Recuse Judge Charles M. Pratt. 

The last page is an opinion of an expert handwriting analyst who indicates that Peter Coulter's signatures and initials on the associated contract  for 2060 West Radcliff that Raymond Goodwin and Brent Evans submitted to Peter Coulter and the Court (Judge Pratt) on March 31, 2009 are forged. This fact was brought to the attention of Judge Pratt in a Forthwith Motion to Reconsider on April 6, 2009. Judge Pratt ignored these facts. He had to in order to cover up the actions of his associates Edward Burns and Tammy Herivel.  

Respond to this report!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

Segment Now