The Underlining Facts Behind the AG’s Last-Hour Attempt

Guest

It's fascinating, really. The AG's move was not spontaneous; it was a calculated bet that the individual would be off-balance. She needed two specific conditions to become a matter of record to block due process without overstepping her lane. First, a non-response. She assumed that without his evidence in hand, he wouldn't engage. And she was right—he refused to respond without his evidence. But she miscalculated the consequences of that refusal.

Guest

Exactly. That's the conventional wisdom. But here's the twist: by not responding, he didn't give her any new ammunition. He forced her to act on the existing record, which was already pristine. He didn't, as he puts it, change horses in the middle of the stream. He had a fleeting notion to play along, but he held his ground. That non-response was a strategic choice, not a sign of weakness. It preserved the integrity of his position.

Guest

The second condition was even more clever—or so she thought. She wanted him to respond in a harmless format, not through proper service channels. Basically, she wanted informal communication that would bypass the strict legal procedures. But he stuck to the rules. He only moved through proper channels. That adherence to form is what infuriated her strategy. She outsmarted herself because she underestimated his commitment to procedure.

Guest

I'd call it applied common sense. He says that all opposition over the past three years has crafted him into a pure mirror—in thought, word, and action, without any embellishment. That's not stubbornness; it's a system. He's built a tracking and record-keeping method so precise that it's more reliable than any external help. He's not paranoid, he just reads the signs. His life is structured around principle. That's infuriating to people who thrive on chaos.

Guest

They're all linked by a common thread: the misuse of the court system to leak sensitive information. The police report is chilling. He reported a five hundred thousand dollar loss due to identity theft. His Social Security number and other personal data showed up on the dark web repeatedly. But here's the kicker: the timeline. Law enforcement contacted him about fraud only after he submitted a packet of identity documents—Social Security card, passport, military ID—to the El Paso County District Court as part of a separate legal matter. The only entity with that complete set of documents was the court. That's a direct implication of a leak from within the judicial system.

Guest

It's more than a breach—it's a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection. He's a protected class, a veteran, and the system was supposed to safeguard his information. Instead, it appears to have weaponized it. The police report explicitly notes that the timing is significant. He had not filed any fraud report before, and the only agency that had the documents was the court. Days after the court received his packet, law enforcement called about fraud. The pattern is undeniable.

Guest

Absolutely. This is where the fraud on the court becomes crystal clear. On August fifteenth, twenty twenty-five, Judge McHenry issued an order formally rejecting an improper dismissal document filed by the defendant's attorney. The order stated, and I quote, 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. That was a clear recognition that the defendant's filing was fraudulent. Then, just sixteen days later, on August thirty-first, the same judge granted a motion to dismiss the entire case—claiming that no complaint had been filed within fourteen days of service. But the complaint had been filed first, before service, which is perfectly valid under Colorado Rule three a one. The judge either misapplied the law or willfully ignored the record.

Guest

Because it's not just an error. It's a direct contradiction of his own prior order. The August fifteenth order acknowledged that no dismissal had occurred, and the case was active. Then, without addressing that order or the plaintiff's pending motion for default judgment, the judge dismissed the case on a technicality that was factually wrong. That's not a mistake; it's an inconsistency that rewards the defendant's earlier fraudulent attempt. It's fraud on the court when the judge perpetuates a false narrative. The plaintiff's motion to vacate lays it out: the defendant's unauthorized dismissal was rejected, yet the same judge later gave them what they wanted. That's bias, plain and simple.

Guest

It is. He's not just fighting a case; he's documenting a systemic collapse. The oversight submission includes a certified police-approved identity theft report, evidence of contradictory judicial orders, and claims of denial of service to a protected class. It cites the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment Petition Clause, and the Supremacy Clause—arguing that state-level immunity cannot override federal constitutional protections. He's asking the DOJ and FBI to investigate the El Paso County District Court for judicial misconduct and corruption. That's a bold move.

Guest

It's a warning against getting caught up in a circus. He says he's not a clown. He's not going to be distracted by the chaos. The quote speaks to the dangers of engaging in a fight that drains your resources and time without a clear foundation. But he's found his foundation in documented truth. He's not going farther than he should—he's exactly where he needs to be to expose the system. The cost is high, but he's willing to pay it because the principle is worth more than the monetary loss.

Guest

It's a microcosm of the same pattern: corporate obstruction. He canceled his plan within the thirty-day window, returned the phone, but Verizon refused to provide a return label, then billed him for a non-return fee. They then sent the debt to collections. He documented everything, filed complaints with the FTC, BBB, and the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs. He points out that if Verizon's systems are authenticated enough to transmit his personal data to a collection agency, they're authenticated enough to generate a return label. It's a Kafkaesque trap. And it shows how even major corporations can manufacture debt when you don't have the resources to fight back.

Guest

He's turned his life into a living affidavit. Every communication is tracked, every document is timestamped and sent via certified mail with return receipt. He uses a self-contained tracking system. He's not relying on the court's record-keeping; he's creating his own parallel record that can't be altered. That's his pure mirror. He says, Everything about my life is common sense being applied to principle. That's not just a phrase—it's a methodology. By refusing to hand over responsibility to anyone else, he eliminates the gaps where fraud can creep in.

Guest

The endpoint is federal oversight. He's taken the fight out of the state court's hands and into the DOJ. The submission to the Civil Rights Division, OIG, and FBI is a strategic escalation. He's not asking the local court to correct itself; he's asking external authorities to investigate the court itself. That changes the game. If the FBI opens an investigation into judicial misconduct, the evidence he's preserved becomes irrefutable. It's a long shot, but he's built the foundation.

Guest

The timeline suggests that the AG was facing a deadline to respond to his oversight submissions or to his motions. The fact that it was last-hour implies she was trying to close the door before he could get his evidence into the federal record. By trying to get him to respond informally, she could characterize his response as a waiver of proper service. If he had responded in her format, she could have claimed he was engaging outside the rules, weakening his position. But he didn't bite. He stayed silent, and then she had to act on the record as it stood. That record included his previous filings, which were flawless. So her attempt fizzled.

Guest

In a system that often punishes silence with default judgments, yes. But he had already filed his motions, so his silence was not a default—it was a refusal to be drawn into a procedural trap. He knew the AG needed a response to manufacture a justification. Without it, she had nothing new. He says, All systems are go and have morphed into go, only by the grace of God. That's his way of saying that the momentum was already in his favor, and he just had to let it play out.

Guest

The lesson is that documentation is power. If you can't find a basic foundation for something, it's too confusing and too costly. Build a system where every fact is verifiable. Don't rely on the goodwill of institutions; hold them to their own rules. And when you're faced with a calculated attempt to derail you, don't react emotionally—respond with the record. This man is not a lawyer, but he's become a master of civil procedure because he treats his life like a case. That's a model for anyone fighting against bureaucratic abuse.

Guest

My pleasure. The system is only as strong as the people who hold it accountable. And he's holding it accountable.