August 13, 2026
Host
We're going to spend this time diving into something that reads like a legal thriller and a whistleblower dossier, all rolled into one massive constitutional argument. It's a case that involves allegations of identity theft, not from a dark-web hacker in a basement, but potentially sourced back to the very institution that's supposed to safeguard our records: a courthouse.
Guest
Right. And we're not just talking about a few bucks. We have a police report here citing a $500,000 loss. This involves Edward Earl Young, who is essentially arguing that the El Paso County District Court in Colorado didn't just lose his case—he alleges they lost his entire identity, causing a cascade of constitutional failures.
Host
So, let's set the stage. This all comes from a formal oversight submission he's made to the DOJ, the FBI, the Colorado Civil Rights Division... essentially, he's called in the federal cavalry. But, before we get to the alleged breach, there's a fundamental claim of 'Fraud on the Court' regarding a civil case. Can you walk us through the judicial confusion with Judge McHenry?
Guest
Exactly. This is Case 2025CV315, where Young sued Mercedes of Colorado. The procedural ping-pong here is alarming. On August 15, 2025, the defendant tried to file a motion that acted like a dismissal, but it was totally improper. Judge Michael McHenry issued an order explicitly stating, 'The court takes no action on this request because it does not know what is being referred to.' The judge clearly wrote, 'This court did not issue a dismissal.' So, the slate is clean, the case is alive.
Host
Okay, so that's a very strong, protective order. But then, just sixteen days later, on August 31, something fundamentally shifts.
Guest
It completely flips. On August 31, the very same judge—Judge McHenry—grants the defendant's motion and dismisses the entire case. The reasoning now is that Young failed to file a separate complaint within fourteen days of service, citing Rule 3(a). Suddenly, the summons was deemed 'ineffective and void.' It's a whiplash-inducing change.
Host
Is there any way legally that both orders can be true? Could the first order have been about a different document, and the second about a technicality that Judge McHenry simply missed the first time?
Guest
That is the defense's potential argument—that the judge simply corrected a procedural error. But Young’s motion to vacate says no, this isn't a correction, it's a false narrative. He points out that he did file the complaint with the court to get the summons—that's how you commence an action under option one of the same rule. He views the second order as a pretext, a cover to dismiss a case where the defendant actually had already defaulted.
Host
And here is where the narrative takes a massive turn from procedural dispute into something much darker. It’s this exact court that Edward Young now accuses of leaking his private data. We have a police report here. Break down the timeline of this identity theft claim for us.
Guest
The timeline is really the central mystery here. On April 12, 2026, Young submits a massive packet of evidence to the very same El Paso County District Court. We're talking about his Social Security card, passport, driver's license, Medicare ID, military ID... the keys to the kingdom of his financial identity.
Host
And he argues that this packet was strictly in the court's possession? Not with the bank, not with his lawyer, but physically in the court's hands?
Guest
Exactly. According to the incident report narrative, he states that no other entity possessed the complete set. Then, within just a few days of the court receiving this exact packet, he starts getting contacted by law enforcement—about fraud committed against him. The documents start showing up on the dark web. We're talking about a $500,000 loss, specifically mentioned in the report, because refinancing loans were denied due to this sudden, severe identity theft.
Host
So, for our listeners, this is the core allegation: that the courthouse itself acted as the breach point. Not a hacker external to the system, but a compromise of the physical or digital records held by the court.
Guest
That's the inference he's drawing, and why he's framing it not just as a clerical error, but as a violation of his 14th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. If the court is the source of the leak, the institution tasked with impartial justice became the vector of his financial destruction.
Host
What puzzles me is the scale of response. We then see August 2026 roll around, and there's an email in this record from the Colorado Department of Law. They're intervening in a small claims case he filed, Case 26S424, trying to vacate a trial. Why is the state's attorney general stepping in now if this is just a baseless grievance?
Guest
It's a fascinating strategy. In the email from Senior Assistant AG Lidiana Rios, they're moving to dismiss his claims against the district court based entirely on 'governmental immunity.' They are saying 'we can't be sued for this.' For Young, this is the last straw. He sees the state using immunity as a shield not just for a traffic accident, but to block accountability for what he claims is a violation of federal constitutional rights and the leaking of identity documents.
Host
And that gets us to the Supremacy Clause argument he's making. He basically contends that a state's immunity statute cannot override a federal constitutional violation.
Guest
Exactly. His submission says, look, you've got the 14th Amendment and the Petition Clause of the 1st Amendment. Those are federal constitutional safeguards. A state can't just pass a law granting total immunity from federal constitutional claims. His argument is that once the 'fraud on the court' and the 'identity breach' become facts, the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act has to yield to the United States Constitution.
Host
It's an audacious legal strategy. And it’s packaged within this broader personal philosophy he calls 'Leverage 4 Life.' Even his art is tied up in this struggle. It feels less like a standard lawsuit and more like an existential fight to prove that his identity—both his legal record and his literal Social Security number—hold value that the system tried to erase.
Guest
Totally. The website is a repository—a 'public record,' as he says—to circumvent what he perceives as a sealed or manipulated court docket. He’s effectively saying: 'If the court destroys or hides the physical record, the public internet will be my record.'
Host
It’s a high-stakes pressure campaign. He's thrown down the gauntlet to the DOJ and the FBI, arguing that if we can't trust the court to hold onto a passport photo without it ending up on the dark web, the entire fabric of legal credibility in that district is ruptured. We're talking about judicial indiscretion, not just discretion.
Guest
And that's why the upcoming rulings on the motions to dismiss are so critical. If the courts manage to throw this out on immunity grounds without addressing the evidence of the data leak, it will likely just confirm Young's entire thesis. This isn't just about one man's credit score; it's a test of whether a court system can be held accountable under federal civil rights law for data stewardship.
Host
A terrifying question at the intersection of judicial integrity, digital security, and constitutional law. We'll keep an eye on how the federal oversight bodies respond to Edward Young’s call for what he terms 'sovereign identity.' For now, thanks for joining us on this deep dive.
Guest
Thank you for having me.