Identity Theft, Judicial Fraud, and a Preemptive Strike

Guest

Thanks for having me. This case is genuinely one of the more complex and troubling I've encountered in a while. It raises questions about how courts handle their own record, the integrity of the judicial process, and what happens when a litigant claims the very institution holding his documents is the source of a data breach.

Guest

Right. The timeline is critical. On April 12, 2026, Young submitted a detailed evidence packet to the El Paso County District Court in a separate case against Mercedes of Colorado. That packet contained his Social Security card, passport, driver's license, military ID, Medicare card, and even dark web breach alerts. Just days later, he was contacted by law enforcement about suspected fraud involving his identity. He says the only place all those documents existed together was at the court. So he's essentially arguing that the court became a vector for identity theft.

Guest

Absolutely. The police incident report number 26004441 is a government-approved document that says, in essence, 'identity theft occurred.' It lists a $500,000 loss, refinancing denials, and unauthorized access to his bank account. But more importantly, it ties the breach to the court's possession of his documents. That's not just a claim; it's now a law enforcement record.

Guest

That's the core of his argument. He says the court loses jurisdiction—or at least, its moral authority collapses. A court is supposed to be a neutral forum. If the court itself, or its employees, are implicated in an identity theft that harmed the plaintiff, it can't then sit in judgment of that same plaintiff's unrelated case. It becomes a fact witness, maybe even a perpetrator. He's calling it a 'jurisdiction collapse.' And legally, a judge cannot preside over a case where they are a material witness. So, he's forcing the court to answer for the breach before it can proceed.

Guest

Sure. In another case, 2025CV315, Young sued Mercedes of Colorado. On August 15, 2025, Judge Michael McHenry issued an order rejecting an improper dismissal document the defendant had filed, saying 'The court takes no action on this request because the court does not know what is being referred to. This court did not issue a dismissal.' So the case was still alive. Then, just 16 days later, on August 31, the same judge signed an order dismissing the case.

Guest

Exactly. And the second order was based on a claim that Young hadn't filed a complaint within 14 days of service, but Young says he had already filed the complaint to get the summons, so the rule didn't apply. The bigger issue is that a judge contradicted his own prior order without any explanation. To Young, and to many legal observers, that's not just a mistake; it's a sign of fraud on the court, or at least a blatant abuse of discretion.

Guest

Yes, he filed a motion under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) for fraud, and 60(b)(5) for extraordinary circumstances. He argued that the defendant's initial improper dismissal attempt was fraudulent, and the judge's contradictory orders compounded that. He also raised due process violations under the 14th Amendment and equal protection. So that's the fraud on the court angle.

Guest

Well, all of this—the identity theft, the fraud on the court—became the basis for a massive filing to federal oversight bodies. Young submitted to the DOJ Civil Rights Division, FBI, U.S. Attorney, and others, alleging constitutional violations. He also filed a small claims case against the El Paso County District Court itself. The trial for that was set for August 18, 2026. But just days before, the Colorado Attorney General's office stepped in.

Guest

On August 12, Lidiana Rios, a senior assistant AG, emailed Young directly. She said the AG's office intended to file a motion to dismiss the small claims case based on governmental immunity and failure to state a claim. They also wanted to vacate the August 18 trial or, at least, appear remotely. For a pro se litigant, getting a direct conferral email from the AG is highly unusual.

Guest

Right. The AG's position is that the state is immune from tort claims. But Young is arguing that immunity doesn't apply when federal constitutional rights are at stake. He's citing the 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection, the 1st Amendment's petition clause, and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says federal law trumps state law. If the court violated his constitutional rights, state immunity can't shield it. That's a pretty strong argument, and it's one the federal oversight bodies will have to consider.

Guest

He says he's a member of a protected class—though he doesn't specify exactly which—and that the court's actions amount to a denial of service under CADA. That's a separate angle that, if valid, means the court's discretionary authority is eliminated. He's essentially saying, 'You can't even choose to proceed because you've already discriminated against me.' It's a bit of a stretch, but it adds another layer of mandatory correction.

Guest

I'd actually respectfully challenge that assumption. I think it's too easy to dismiss judicial mistakes as mere clerical errors. When a judge signs an order saying there's no dismissal, and then 16 days later signs a dismissal, that's a significant inconsistency. And in the context of an ongoing case where the defendant had already tried to slip in an improper dismissal, it raises red flags. Add to that the fact that the identity theft appears to have originated from the court's possession of the documents, and the pattern becomes more concerning. This isn't just a misunderstanding; it's a systemic breakdown that warrants a closer look.

Guest

Exactly. He's arguing that the fraud on the court must be corrected, the identity theft must be addressed, and the constitutional violations must be acknowledged before the court can hear any further matters. He calls it a 'void ab initio' situation—meaning any action taken is void from the start. That's a bold claim, but it's grounded in the idea that the court has lost its legitimacy.

Guest

Well, the AG's office likely wants to avoid a hearing where these explosive allegations—identity theft from the court, fraud, discrimination—are aired in public. A small claims trial might seem minor, but the issues are huge. By seeking to dismiss or vacate, they're trying to kick the can down the road. But Young had already filed with federal oversight bodies. So the AG's move came after they knew about the federal complaints. That's why Young calls it preemptive: he's not waiting for the court to rule; he's forcing the issue onto a national stage.

Guest

He says the very act of proceeding would be a constitutional violation. It would be a court acting without jurisdiction, in defiance of the police report and the contradictory orders. He's essentially saying, 'You can't even hold a hearing until you fix your own record.' And if they do, any judgment would be void and subject to challenge. So it's a standoff.

Guest

It's a real problem. Pro se litigants often face an uphill battle. They're expected to know the rules, and sometimes courts are less patient with them. But here, Young has meticulously documented everything. He's using the rules to his advantage, and he's not backing down. The fact that he's gotten the attention of the AG and federal agencies shows that his arguments have some teeth.

Guest

Yes, his website 'Leverage Impact 4 Life' weaves together legal documents with spiritual concepts. It's an unusual approach, but it seems to give him a sense of purpose. He's not just fighting a legal battle; he's framing it as a moral and spiritual struggle against systemic corruption. That might resonate with some people, even if it's unconventional.

Guest

The key takeaway is that the integrity of the judicial system is only as strong as its own record. When a court's own documents are contradicted, and when a litigant can plausibly show that the court itself was the source of a crime against him, the usual rules of deference break down. Young is forcing the system to look in the mirror, and that's a powerful thing. Whether he wins or loses, he's raised questions that can't be ignored.

Guest

Goodbye.