HB1143 forum on Buck & Hartmann

Dream Stone, Inc.

Dream Stone, Inc. posts

Colorado Legal Ethics Prepared By
Holland & Hart L.L.P.
Denver, Colorado

Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct

ABA Center For Professional Responsibility

Weld DA's Tax Raid Lawsuit

Weld DA's Howling Pig Lawsuit

American Civil Liberties Union

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Department of Justice

Colorado Secretary of State

Colorado Homestead Exemption

Homestead Exemption Explained

Void Judgments

Quick Reference Guide:

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, 18 U.S.C. § 242 This provision makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides, in relevant part: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by theConstitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.



A violation of Rights: Weld County Court Judge Michele Meyer enters one sentence ruling to this motion.
"The defendant's Constitutional rights were not violated".


"Circling The Wagons". Corrupt Colorado "Justice System" Does Not Care About The Destruction of a Family, or the Loss of That Family's Home. They Will, "Protect Their Own" at ALL COSTS.


"A level of corruption unlike anything I have ever seen, " states felony victim, Craig Buckley.

Got Good Cause? Lee v. Missouri P. R. R. 152 Colo. 179, 381 P.2d 35 (1963) Corrupt Weld County District Court Chief "Judge" James Hartmann slaps Pro-se Plaintiff with Subpoena Duces Tecum in violation of Discovery Rules.

March 13, 2013 - Without Jurisdiction, Corrupt Judge James Hartmann Issues Fraudulent Order Denying Personal Knowledge of Criminal Acts by so-called "Harassment" victims.

Felony Victim and His Wife Likely to be Held in Contempt of Court for Refusing to Submit to the Will of Corrupt Judge.

Mr. James Hartmann, once again trespassing upon the Court issued a Fraudulent Order, March 13, 2013 in which he has transferred venue of the long-closed civil case, Buckley v. Dream Stone, Inc. Ron Murphy, Scott Murphy, Ida (Eve) Murphy to Division 4 of the Weld County District Court for further proceedings.

Mr. Hartmann stated in his fraudulent order, " It has come to the attention of the undersigned judge that Mr. Buckley , after the complaint was dismissed and the case closed, placed information on a website expressing his displeasure with orders issued by the undersigned judge."

BULLSHIT. On March 31, 2011 Corrupt "Judge" James Hartmann was sent evidence obtained from CDLE Director Ellen Golombek proving felony perjury by the Defendants in Weld County District Court Case # 09CV991. See paragraphs #49 - 50 of this Motion. On April 1, 2011 Corrupt James Hartmann reported to the Weld County Sheriff, and the Weld County DA that the Plaintiff had "Harassed" and "Threatened" him.

September 18, 2012 - Corruption At The Highest Level: Attorney General John Suthers Conceals Multiple Felonies by Alleged "Harassment Victims", and Weld District Court Chief Judge James F. Hartmann's Criminal Involvement.

An Incomprehensible Level of Corruption.

Alleged "Harassment" of Former Employers, Ron Murphy, Scott Murphy, and Ida (Eve) Murphy, of Dream Stone, Inc. by Felony Victim Craig Buckley, Caused In Equal part By Alleged Victims, With Their Criminally Complicit Attorney, Daniel T. Goodwin, aided by the Fraudulent and Malicious Rulings By Weld County District Court Chief Judge James Hartmann. With Personal Knowledge Of Hartmann's Involvement In Criminal Acts, Colorado Attorney General John Suthers Files Motion To Quash Subpoena OF James Hartmann. Read C.R.P.C. Rule Here...

Read John Suthers' Fraudulent Motion To Quash, then read what Corrupt Weld County District Court Chief Judge James Hartmann has done (below).

September 14, 2012 - Alleged Corrupt Weld County District Court Chief Judge James Hartmann Subpoenaed as Witness for the Defendant/Victim! MEDIA IS INVITED to Witness the "JUDGE" JAMES HARTMANN'S Testimony: SEPT: 19 - 20, 2012 8:00 AM WELD COUNTY COURT, DIVISION 8.

Weld County Chief Judge James Francis Hartmann -Alleged Violations by Hartmann: Title 18 U.S.C. § 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law - § 18-8-111. False reporting to authorities - § 18-8-404. First degree official misconduct - § 18-8-105. Accessory to crime


"Serious Unsubstantiated Allegations" Weld County Chief Judge James Hartmann Feigns "Fear" of Felony Victim to Avert Being Implicated In Crime.

Felony Victim, Craig Buckley accused of harassing and threatening Weld County District Court Chief Judge James Hartmann (no criminal charges, just falsified police reports). Hartmann had presided over Weld County District Court Case #2009CV991, Buckley v. Dream Stone, Inc., Ron Murphy, Scott Murphy, Ida Murphy. Buckley had been forced from his employment by constructive discharge, and the State of Colorado determined that Dream Stone, Inc. was an, "abusive environment". Buckley's common law wife was discharged under similar circumstances. Lawsuit was for accrued wages, and other causes of action.

Corrupt Judge James Hartmann awards ALLEGED felons Ron Murphy, Scott Murphy, and Ida (Eve) Murphy, $20,000.00 in default judgment in Weld County District Court Case #09CV991. Plaintiff refused to attend deposition to be conducted by ALLEGED felon Daniel T. Goodwin. Plaintiff claimed subpoena defective, as a FELON can not be an attorney, therefore no proper subpoena.

Hartmann allows Daniel T. Goodwin to file a forged affidavit of attorneys'fees, and obtain an award for preparation of an affidavit attached to a Motion for which no fees were awarded.

Daniel T. Goodwin, of Donelson, Ciancio, & Grant (formerly Goodwin) , P.C. swore before BOTH the Weld County District Court, and the Colorado Division of Labor that NEITHER had jurisdiction over Craig Buckley's accrued wage claim, because the matter was before the other.

Weld County District Court Chief Judge James Hartmann, in his scathing July 22, 2010 Order Granting Defendants' Motion To Dismiss, stated in relevant part as follows:

"He (Buckley) has also repeatedly made SERIOUS (emphasis added) unsubstantiated accusations of criminal conduct against the Defendants and defense counsel. Plaintiff appears to be under the misguided belief that he can make such allegations with impunity."

On March 18, 2011 Buckley sought evidence (by request) from Colorado Dept. of Labor & Employment Director Ellen Golombek irrefutably proving the multiple felonies of fraud, perjury, conspiracy, attempting to influence a public servant, and offering false instrument for recording. The requested documents were obtained on March 30, 2011. The documents obtained from Ellen Golombek irrefutably PROVE that Ron Murphy, Scott Murphy,. Ida Murphy, and their criminally complicit attorney, Daniel T. Goodwin, had committed each and every one of the, "SERIOUS unsubstantiated accusations of criminal conduct". Using the identical piece of evidence before both the Court, and the Division of Labor, They had sworn simultaneously before the Court and the DOL that neither had jurisdiction over Buckley's wage claim, because the matter was before the other.

§ 18-5-114. Offering a false instrument for recording
(1) A person commits offering a false instrument for recording in the first degree if, knowing that a written instrument relating to or affecting real or personal property or directly affecting contractual relationships contains a material false statement or material false information, and with intent to defraud, he presents or offers it to a public office or a public employee, with the knowledge or belief that it will be registered, filed, or recorded or become a part of the records of that public office or
public employee.

Hartmann has personal knowledge of, and is, in violation of the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct, presently concealing this felony evidence.

Mr. Hartmann had exhibited a proven pattern of extreme bias, prejudice and outright malice toward Plaintiff Buckley throughout Case #2009CV991. Of particular interest is the Judge's fraudulent and malicious ruling regarding a forged affidavit of attorney's fees submitted to the Court by alleged felon Daniel T. Goodwin, causing Buckley to be billed for preparation of an affidavit attached to a Motion for which no fees were awarded. The Judge belligerently stood by his wrongful ruling, despite the clear and convincing evidence of fraud by Daniel T. Goodwin.

On March 30, 2011, evidence obtained from CDLE Director Ellen Golombek proving fraud, forgery, perjury, conspiracy, harassment, and theft by Ron Murphy, Scott Murphy, Ida (Eve) Murphy, and their criminally comlicit attorney, Daniel T. Goodwin, of Donelson, Ciancio, & Grant, P.C., was forwarded, to Judge James Hartmann by USPS 1st Class mail. With it was a brief handwritten note asking that the fraudulently obtained lien be removed from Buckley's home. At the time, Buckley was unaware of Colorado's Homestead Exemption which made it illegal for Ron Murphy, Scott Murphy, Ida (Eve) Murphy to attach a lien, through their criminally complicit attorney, Daniel Goodwin, committing Slander of Title Buckley's exempt equity. A "Judgment" is not a "lien" under these circumstances, their actions would only have been justified if they had Court authorization to file a Mechanics Lien on Buckley's property. They could have garnished wages, or ordered vehicles, etc. sold, but they had sworn since September 2008, per former Dream Stone, Inc. General Manager Todd Coday, that they were going to cause the loss of Buckley's home, and take everything he owns. The lien was filed on Buckley's home for the purpose of harassment and infliction of suffering, and was discovered by felony victims Craig Buckley and Pam Reynolds after they had been approved to refinance their home.

Hartmann was obligated under the Colorado Rules of Judicial Conduct, Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to do the following:

Report Daniel T. Goodwin, and Donelson, Ciancio, and Grant, P.C. to the Colorado Attorney Regulation Counsel. Hartmann did not.

C.R.P.C. Rule 8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct

(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

Report the Criminal Conduct to the appropriate law enforcement agencies. Hartmann did not.

Vacate the void judgment against Craig Buckley due to Goodwin's fraud upon the Court. Hartmann did not.

A void judgment or order is one that is entered by a court lacking jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacking the inherent power to enter the particular order or judgment, or where the order was procured by fraud, In re Adoption of E.L.,  733 N.E.2d 846, (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 2000).

A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud, or entered by court that did to have jurisdiction over subject matter or the parties, Rook v. Rook, 353 S.E. 2d 756,(Va. 1987).

Void judgment is one which has no legal force or effect whatever, it is an absolute nullity, its invalidity may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place and it need not be attacked directly but may be attacked collaterally whenever and wherever it is interposed, City of Lufkin v. McVicker,  510 S.W. 2d 141 (Tex. Civ. App. – Beaumont 1973).


Hartmann, realizing that due to his gross misconduct in the handling of Weld County District Court Case #2009CV991 CONCEALED the EVIDENCE of Ron Murphy, Scott Murphy, Ida (Eve) Murphy, and Daniel T. Goodwin's criminal acts.

Hartmann falsely reported to the Weld County Sheriff's Dept. that Buckley had "Harassed and threatened" him which, if true, is a Class 4 Felony. No charges have been filed, although numerous known-falsified Police reports have been generated.

Hartmann, has allowed a felonious attack on Buckley's family and home and has, in equal part with ALLEGED felons Ron Murphy, Scott Murphy, Ida Murphy, and Daniel T. Goodwin, caused Buckley to contact the offending individuals, and subsequently be charged with "Harassment".

Corrupt Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck has filed 3rd Degree Misdemeanor charges against Craig Buckley for alleged "harassment" of Ron Murphy, Scott Murphy, and Ida (Eve) Murphy, for Buckley having demanded that the spurious lien be removed from his home.

Buckley released on a wholly retaliatory bond amount of $20,000.00. DDA Steve Wrenn offers plea agreement of a mere twenty hours of community service for the alleged "Crime". Plea bargain attempted enticement so Buckley can not later sue for malicious procecution.

Hartmann is now feigning "fear" of felony victim Craig Buckley, and is using the Weld County Sheriff's Department to stalk, harass, terrorize, and intimidate, and inflict further suffering on Buckley everytime he is forced to appear at the Weld County Justice Center in response to Ken Buck's malicious prosecution. Weld County Sheriff John Cooke has personal knowledge of this case, and is concealing evidence of Hartmann's illegal acts.

Hartmann has inflicted incomprehensible suffering on Buckley and his family for no other reason than the preservation of his own career.

All documentation and so-called evidence in the possession of the Weld County Sheriff's Dept. of any alleged "Harassment" of Judge James Hartmann remains concealed from Buckley at this time by Weld County DDA Sarah Bousman, and Division 8 Judge Michele Meyer.

Pursuant to C.R.S. 18-8-105, Weld County District Court Chief Judge James Hartmann has Gotten Himself Into a Huge Pile of Trouble.

18-8-403. Official oppression.
(1) A public servant, while acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity, commits official oppression if, with actual knowledge that his conduct is illegal, he:
(a) Subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, or lien; or
(b) Has legal authority and jurisdiction of any person legally restrained of his liberty and denies the person restrained the reasonable opportunity to consult in private with a licensed attorney-at-law, if there is (2) Official oppression is a class 2 misdemeanor.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 461, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § danger of imminent escape and the person in custody expresses a desire to consult with such attorney.

18-8-404. First degree official misconduct.
(1) A public servant commits first degree official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit for the public servant or another or maliciously to cause harm to another, he or she knowingly:
(a) Commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official function; or
(b) Refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law; or
(c) Violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office.
(2) First degree official misconduct is a class 2 misdemeanor.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 462, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-8-404. L. 83: (1)(b) amended, p. 710, § 1, effective June 10. L. 2000: IP(1) amended, p. 709, § 41, effective July 1.

Here is an accurate representation of Dream Stone: the ANIMALS Buck and Hartmann are protecting.

Update - August 15, 2012

Battling a Corrupt/Incompetent Judge: How badly did James Hartmann screw up Buckley's Weld County District Court case against Dream Stone, Inc. Ron Murphy, Scott Murphy, and Ida (Eve) Murphy. Let's look at the evidence:

Defendants used their Response to Plaintiff's Motion For Settlement Conference to plead that the Matter of Buckley's accrued wages was before the Division of Labor. Hartmann applied their fraudulent pleading to the Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery, and issued this order. 6.17.2010 Order Re Discovery.pdf and, as a result of the Defendants' fraud upon the Court, stripped Plaintiff Buckley of all relevant evidence necessary to prosecute his case. Hartmann, throughout his Order, states as follows:

Hartmann admits implied consent to jurisdiction by Defendants: "The Defendants provided a response to Plaintiff objecting to Discovery Requests 1,2,4, 5, 6,7, 8, 10, 13, 14. 16, 17. 18, 19 and 20, stating that the requests were immaterial and irrelevant to Plaintiffs claims for wrongful termination and nonpayment of vacation pay."

Hartmann falsely states: "Plaintiff currently has a claim pending before the CDLE for vacation pay he believes Defendants owe to him."

"Whether Defendants owe Plaintiff payment for accrued vacation pay is an issue
before the CDLE and not this court."

"This information may be relevant to Plaintips CDLE vacation pay claim, but the
court fails to see the relevance to the issues raised by Plaintiff in this case."

"This information is relevant in Plaintiffs CDLE cases, but does not appear to be relevant to his claims in this case."

"Plaintiff asserts that this information is relevant to rebut Defendants' fraudulent claims that Plaintiff quit employment on December 6, 2007 and was rehired on December 11.2007. This information may be relevant in Plaintiffs CDLE claim for vacation pay, but the court fails to see the relevance in this case." Fraudulent Statement, regardless of whether it comes before the Court, or the DOL. and constitutes a felony. Hartmann has personal knowledge of, and is presently concealing this felony evidence.

OK, so when Ida Murphy, of Dream Stone, Inc.,was proven to have influenced the Colorado Division of Labor into believing the matter of Buckley's wage claim was before the Court, and Hartmann received Proof of Murphy's communication, why did Hartmann conceal it and attack the victim, and why was no arrest warrant issued for Ron Murphy, Scott Murphy, Ida Murphy, and their criminally complicit attorney, Daniel T. Goodwin?

Even IF Buckley's Wage Claim was actually before the Division of Labor, lying psychopaths Ron Murphy, Scott Murphy, Ida (Eve) Murphy, and their criminally complicit attorney Daniel T. Goodwin had that covered too. Buckley was fraudulently put into a "no win" situation before BOTH the Court and the DOL. Look at this felony evidence:


Fraud by Daniel T. Goodwin - Donelson, Ciancio, & Grant, P.C. Read Goodwin's fraudulent report to the DOL: per the pay stubs, where is the hole in Buckley's employment between December 6, 2008 and December 11, 2007? Read Goodwin's fraudulent ICAO Response Brief, dated February 27, 2009. Where is the missing week, making Buckley ineligible for accrued wages? DOL Ruling Proof of Fraud: December 2007 Check Stubs...Further Exhibit: All Check Stubs Further fraud by Murphys and Goodwin Re: "Buckley left without notice." False, per the ICAO. All concealed by James Hartmann, all concealed by Ken Buck, all concealed by Weld County Sheriff John Cooke.

After Three Years of Harassment by Dream Stone, Inc., Felony Victim Craig Buckley was Forced by the Inaction of Law Enforcement to Get Himself Thrown In Jail, Just to Get THIS EVIDENCE.


C.R.S. 8-4-114. Criminal penalties

(2) In addition to any other penalty imposed by this article, any employer or agent of an employer who, being able to pay wages or compensation and being under a duty to pay, willfully refuses to pay as provided in this article, or falsely denies the amount of a wage claim, or the validity thereof, or that the same is due, with intent to secure for himself, herself, or another person any discount upon such indebtedness or any underpayment of such indebtedness or with intent to annoy, harass, oppress, hinder, delay, or defraud the person to whom such indebtedness is due, is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than thirty days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

  Also see: C.R.S. 18-5-102(2), C.R.S. 18-5-114(2)  


The Problem?

July 22, 2010, James Hartmann granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice: 7.22.2010 OrderDismisswithprejudice.pdf

Hartmann falsely states as follows: "In a separate action, Plaintiff filed a claim with the CDLE for vacation pay he believed he was owed." FALSE, Buckley was only seeking criminal penalties, and civil penalties payable to the CDLE. Belligerent Hartmann refused to read that the matter was before the Court.

Again, so when Ida Murphy, of Dream Stone, Inc.,was proven to have influenced the Colorado Division of Labor into believing the matter of Buckley's wage claim was before the Court, and Hartmann received Proof of Murphy's communication, why did Hartmann conceal it, and why was no arrest warrant issued for Ron Murphy, Scott Murphy, Ida Murphy, and their criminally complicit attorney, Daniel T. Goodwin?

Also See:

Colorado Wage Act, in relevant part.

8-4-110. Disputes-fees

(2) Any person claiming to be aggrieved by violation of any provisions of this article or regulations prescribed pursuant to this article may file suit in any court having jurisdiction over the parties without regard to exhaustion of any administrative remedies.

The Second problem.


Hartmann admits the following: "Plaintiff sought damages in his amended complaint of over $400,000, of which $820.00 was for unpaid vacation
hours (plus penalties of $1,640.00 on the vacation time claim)."


  If an employer refuses to pay all wages earned
and vested through the employee’s last day of
employment, the employee may:
1. Make a written demand within 60 days after
the date of separation specifying where to
send the wages.
2. If the employee’s earned wages are not
mailed to the place specified in the demand
and postmarked within 14 days after the
receipt of the demand, the employer shall be
liable for the wages and a significant
penalty that may meet or exceed 125% of
the amount owed or up to 10 days of
compensation, whichever is greater.
3. The employee may only recover the above penalties in court; the Division cannot recover penalties for employees.
  from the Colorado Wage Act fact sheet.  

Colorado Wage Act, in relevant part. 8-4-109(3)(d). Termination of employment-payments required-civil penalties-payments to surviving spouse or heir

(d) The daily earnings penalty shall not begin to accrue until the employer receives the written demand set forth in paragraph (a) of this subsection (3). The employee or his or her designated agent may commence a civil action to recover the penalty set forth in this subsection

Colorado Wage Act

Hurt Feelings are a Poor Reason to Destroy Somebody's Life and Cause the Loss of Their Family's Home.

Colorado Statutes


Article 8. Offenses - Governmental Operations


Current through 2011 Legislative Session

§ 18-8-105. Accessory to crime

(1) A person is an accessory to crime if, with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of another for the commission of a crime, he renders assistance to such person.
(2) "Render assistance" means to:

(d) By force, intimidation, or deception, obstruct anyone in the performance of any act which might aid in the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of such person; or

(e) Conceal, destroy, or alter any physical or testimonial evidence that might aid in the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of such person.

To establish that an accused is guilty of being an accessory under subsection (5), the following statutory elements must be proven: (1) A crime has been committed; (2) the accused rendered assistance to the actor; (3) the accused intended to hinder, delay, or prevent the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of the principal; (4) the accused knew that the person being assisted has committed, or has been convicted of, or is charged by pending information, indictment, or complaint with such crime, or is suspected of or wanted in connection with such crime; and, (5) the underlying crime is designated as a felony other than a class 1 or 2 felony. Barreras v. People, 636 P.2d 686 (Colo. 1981).

The relevant standard for knowledge in regard to the accessory statute is whether defendant knew the principal had committed a crime. People v. Young, 192 Colo. 65, 555 P.2d 1160 (1976).

Elements of offense. The offense may be committed by either concealing the commission of the crime from the magistrate, or by harboring or protecting the felon. Howard v. People, 97 Colo. 550, 51 P.2d 594 (1935).

Since the early days of the English common law, it has been generally held that any assistance whatever given to one ALLEGED to be a felon in order to hinder his being apprehended, or tried, or suffering punishment makes the assistor an accessory after the fact. Self v. People, 167 Colo. 292, 448 P.2d 619 (1968).

The accessory statute is held to create a substantive statutory crime and, as construed, the conviction of the principal is not a condition precedent to the conviction of an accessory. Roberts v. People, 103 Colo. 250, 87 P.2d 251 (1938).