August 13, 2026
Host
Alright, let's get into something that, on the surface, looks like a dry legal filing but is actually a high-stakes thriller playing out in real-time in El Paso County, Colorado. We've got police reports, allegations of fraud on the court, and a man named Edward Earl Young who has turned his life into an open-source investigation. I want to walk through this because it’s a masterclass in how someone navigates the system when they believe the system is the threat.
Guest
It really is. And what makes this unique isn't just the volume of paperwork, it's the timeline. He’s essentially alleging a direct causal link between giving his most sensitive data to a court and then immediately being targeted for identity theft. That's a massive accusation. If you look at the police report number 2026-09003584, he's pinpointing the handoff of his Social Security card, passport, and military ID on April 12, 2026, and then a cascade of fraud calls from law enforcement days later.
Host
Right. And that’s the core of the 'breach' logic, isn't it? He says, 'I only gave this packet to the El Paso County District Court,' and then suddenly, his credit cards are being swiped on the dark web. But let’s back up for a second, because the police report is the second act of this story. The first act is the car case—Mercedes of Colorado. This is where the term 'Fraud on the Court' gets weaponized by Young against Judge Michael P. McHenry.
Guest
Correct. The civil suit, case number 2025CV315. And honestly, the paper trail here is visually contradictory. You have two orders from the same judge, just sixteen days apart. On August 15, 2025, Judge McHenry slaps down the defense attorney for submitting an improper dismissal. He basically says, 'This document is unauthorized, the court did not issue a dismissal.' It’s a 'no action taken' stamp. It looks like a huge win for Young.
Host
And then, boom. August 31, 2025. The same judge grants the defense’s motion to dismiss. Wait, what? How do you go from validating that the case is alive to flatlining it in just over two weeks? This is where Young’s antenna goes up, and frankly, looking at the two PDFs side-by-side, it feels like a glitch in the matrix.
Guest
Judge McHenry’s August 31st order hinges on a technicality. He cites Rule 3(a) of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, claiming service happened on July 15, but no separate complaint was filed within fourteen days. So, the summons is deemed void. But Young is arguing this is a fabrication. He points out that he commenced by filing the complaint first under section 3(a)(1), not by service first under section 3(a)(2). It's a procedural distinction that might have killed his case, unless it’s a misrepresentation.
Host
So, was the complaint actually already on file? Because if the judge got the factual basis of the dismissal wrong—that the complaint was missing—then you move from a bad ruling into the territory Young is screaming about, which is an intentional act. He’s calling it a 'perpetuation of fraud' to protect the dealership. It stopped being about a car and became about judicial integrity.
Guest
And this is exactly how pro se litigants get buried. He filed an Affidavit of Non-Appearance, a Motion for Default Judgment—the works. He did what you’re supposed to do. But the August 31st order doesn't even acknowledge his pending motion. It just ignores his due process rights. Mathews v. Eldridge is standard stuff: you can't deprive property interests without a hearing. He had a legal claim, and it was vaporized without the judge hearing him out on his default argument.
Host
Now, this brings us to the identity theft. Young is clearly connecting these dots. He sees the legal system as having failed him in the car case, and now he believes the leak of his breach documents—the ones submitted to prove his credit monitoring—actually caused his identity to be stolen. He lists dark web exposure dates: August 2024, January 2026, March 2026. But the big one is the $500,000 hit.
Guest
The financials are staggering. We're looking at refinancing loan denials, a PNC Bank account being accessed, and a specific credit card number ending in 4710 being used on the dark web. In the police report narrative, he states law enforcement contacted him about suspected fraud involving his personal information—and this is the first he’s hearing of it. He links that call directly to the court's possession of his packet. It’s a serious allegation of a leak from within a government entity.
Host
Think about that. He handed over a Social Security card, a passport, and a military ID to prove he had been monitoring his credit, only to have that very act potentially expose him further. It’s the ultimate Catch-22. You go to court to prove you’re a victim, and the evidence you provide becomes the tool for the next crime. No wonder he’s filed this oversight submission directly to the DOJ and FBI.
Guest
His legal framework is aggressive. He’s not just asking for a refund or a reversal. He’s invoking the 14th Amendment for Equal Protection, claiming he’s a protected class being denied service—likely as a pro se, self-represented litigant. He claims judicial bias, pointing to Judge McHenry’s flip-flop as evidence of 'mechanical, non-judicial responses' designed to stonewall him. He wants the August 31 order vacated under Rule 60(b)(3) for fraud.
Host
It’s a nuclear option. And reading his Motion to Vacate, you can feel the exhaustion. 'The Defendant, having been caught in an improper tactic, was allowed to file a subsequent motion without consequence.' He really believes the judge is rewarding the dealership's attorney for a fraudulent stunt. The bigger question is: does the court even have the bandwidth to restore its own record after this, or is the institutional inertia too strong?
Guest
The institutional issue is key. Young has compiled a 'Chapters of Evidence' approach on his Logical Leverage Impact 4 Life site. He’s trying to build a public record that supersedes the court’s official one. He’s bypassing traditional appeals and going straight to oversight. The FedEx tracking numbers on his motions are part of the evidence chain. He’s proving delivery to force a response, knowing that silence is the weapon his opponents use.
Host
Which leads us to the August 13, 2026 submission. He lists the statutory violations like a grocery list: Colorado Revised Statutes 18-5-902 identity theft, 18-5-113 criminal impersonation, and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. He’s not just saying 'I was wronged'; he’s giving the FBI a roadmap for a criminal case. He’s saying, look at the police report for the fraud, look at the contradictory orders for the fraud on the court, and look at the dismissal for discrimination.
Guest
And note the language he uses: 'The courts must first restore its credibility to be heard by removing this fraud on court and open its record to the approved police report before they can even think about moving forward as an entity with true merit.' He’s demanding a foundational reset. He’s placing a prerequisite on the court's authority—essentially saying 'you are not a legitimate venue until you address my documented accusations.' That’s a sovereignty-style argument, but it's backed by a lot of paper.
Host
The challenge for the oversight bodies receiving this is separating the signal from the noise. There’s a lot of spiritual and life-coaching language on his site—the 'Revelation & Discernment Ministry'—which might make some reviewers dismiss him as a crank. But the core exhibits, the police report, and the contradictory court orders are hard to unsee. If the timeline is accurate, Judge McHenry owes an explanation that goes beyond just 'case dismissed'.
Guest
Or it validates Young’s entire thesis. He points out that the defendant’s attorney tried to sneak in a fake dismissal, got caught on August 15, and then just sixteen days later got a real one from the same judge. If that isn't judicial inconsistency, what is? It looks like the court system protecting its own by clearing the docket of a persistent pro se plaintiff. And that’s before we even get to the $500,000 dark web fraud that happened while the courts were sitting on his complete identity portfolio.
Host
It's a dangerous cocktail: a financial crime, a paper trail of procedural oddities, and a plaintiff who has meticulously documented every step. Edward Earl Young is effectively running a counter-investigation using the DOJ and CBI as his filing cabinets. Whether it triggers a federal probe or gets lost in the stack, it’s a fascinating look at how the legal system’s black box looks from the outside when you suspect the box itself is compromised.
Guest
He’s testing the Supremacy Clause. He’s telling the state court that federal constitutional protections override whatever local judicial discretion killed his case. By copying the FBI and the US Attorney for Colorado, he’s betting that the optics of hiding a police-confirmed leak will force the court to crack open the record. If the August 31st dismissal wasn't a mistake but a cover-up, then this oversight submission might just be the last resort that actually works.