Fraud on the Court: A Civil Rights Battle

Guest

Right, and this is where the 'fraud on the court' allegation really takes root. On August 15, 2025, Judge Michael McHenry issued an order explicitly stating, 'This court did not issue a dismissal.' He was rejecting an improper document the defendant had tried to slip in. So the case was very much alive. Then, on August 31, the same judge granted a motion to dismiss, saying the summons was void because no complaint had been filed. But Young had filed the complaint back in July. The contradiction is stark, and it's not just a clerical error—it's a complete reversal that ignored the court's own prior ruling.

Guest

That's a fair challenge, and it's exactly what the court might argue. But Young's motion to vacate points out that the August 15 order was in the court's own record, and the defendant's earlier attempt was labeled 'improper.' To then grant a dismissal based on a technicality that the record disproves—without addressing the prior order—suggests something more. When you combine it with the fact that Young had a pending default judgment motion that was completely ignored, it starts to look like the court was actively avoiding the merits. In legal terms, 'fraud on the court' requires an intentional act to deceive, and Young argues the inconsistency is so egregious it meets that bar.

Guest

So, on April 12, 2026, Young delivered a packet to the El Paso County District Court that contained his Social Security card, passport, driver's license, military ID, Medicare card, and dark web breach alerts. He says that information was only in the court's possession at that time. Then, on April 16, he got a call from law enforcement about suspected fraud. The police report notes that his credit and identity had been compromised multiple times, but the timing is highly suspicious. He's essentially alleging that the breach originated from within the court itself, because no other entity had that complete set of documents.

Guest

He's got the police report, which documents the breaches and the $500,000 loss. He also has records from monitoring services showing his Social Security number and email were on the dark web on multiple dates. The report says he has video surveillance and bank statements. But the key is the restricted access: the packet was submitted to the court, and then law enforcement contacted him. He's not saying a judge did it, but that the court's handling of his sensitive data was negligent or worse. This is why he's filed a federal civil rights complaint—he's arguing that the state court's actions, including the contradictory orders, are part of a pattern that denied him due process and equal protection.

Guest

He's bringing claims under the Fourteenth Amendment for due process and equal protection, the First Amendment's Petition Clause, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The due process claim is straightforward: the court dismissed his case without a proper hearing, ignoring his default motion and contradicting itself. The equal protection claim suggests he was treated differently as a pro se litigant. The Petition Clause is interesting—he argues the court is suppressing his right to petition by not acknowledging his police report and evidence. And the ADA claim says he's a member of a protected class and was denied access to the court's services. He's also invoking the Supremacy Clause to override any state immunity defenses.

Guest

He's trying to trigger federal intervention. The submissions outline the same constitutional violations and ask for investigations into judicial conduct and civil rights. He's also demanding that the court 'restore its credibility' by acknowledging the fraud and opening its records. There's a sense of urgency because he's set a deadline of August 18, 2026, for the courts to act before he escalates. That date is tied to a small claims case where the state is trying to dismiss based on governmental immunity.

Guest

It's a classic sovereign immunity defense. The state is saying, 'You can't sue us for tort damages because we're immune.' But Young is arguing that immunity doesn't apply when there are constitutional violations. He's using the Supremacy Clause to say federal civil rights laws override state immunity. The email from Rios is interesting because it came right after he'd sent his oversight packet. He views it as an attempt to shut down his case before the August 18 deadline. He's already delivered a FedEx package to her office with his evidence, so the battle lines are drawn.

Guest

The website is a fascinating blend. It serves as a public evidence locker, with sections dedicated to his police reports, court documents, and fraud allegations. But it also showcases his '4-Life Framework,' which includes community mapping, a ministry, fine art, and even youth intervention games. He's presenting himself as a 'fruit producer'—someone who contributes to society—and he's using the site to build a narrative that he's not just a litigant, but a person with a broader mission. It's a strategic move to humanize his case and show that the system is attacking someone who's trying to do good.

Guest

It's a double-edged sword. On one hand, it shows he's organized and transparent, which can bolster his claims. On the other, some might see it as a publicity stunt. But in pro se litigation, you have to advocate for yourself in every way possible. The website also serves as a backup—if the court tries to bury the case, the evidence is out there publicly. It's a modern form of 'sunlight is the best disinfectant.'

Guest

If proven, it could lead to vacating the dismissal, sanctions, and possibly judicial discipline. The Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline could investigate. But it's a high bar. Courts are reluctant to find fraud on themselves. Young's best shot is the federal complaint, where he can get a fresh look. If a federal judge finds that the state court's actions were so inconsistent that they violated due process, they could issue an injunction and order the case reopened. The identity theft angle adds a criminal dimension that might attract DOJ attention.

Guest

Young hasn't specified his disability in the public filings, but he's alleging denial of service to a protected class. Under ADA Title II, public entities must provide equal access to their services. If the court failed to accommodate him or treated him differently because of a disability, that's a separate civil rights violation. It's a strategic claim because it opens the door to federal jurisdiction and potential damages. It also puts the court on notice that they're being watched for discrimination.

Guest

It's devastating. Identity theft at this scale can ruin credit, lead to loan denials, and take years to untangle. He mentioned refinancing loan denials in the police report. The emotional toll is immense—you feel violated and powerless. And when you believe the institution that's supposed to uphold the law is part of the problem, it breeds a deep distrust. That's why he's so relentless. He's not just fighting for money; he's fighting for his reputation and his faith in the system.

Guest

Realistically, the state court is likely to grant its own motion to dismiss in the small claims case based on immunity. But that won't stop Young. He's already prepared the federal complaint and has the oversight agencies on notice. August 18 might just be the day he formally files in federal court. The state's attempt to dismiss could actually strengthen his argument that he's being denied a forum. So, it's not an endpoint; it's a pivot.

Guest

I'd say, document everything, keep the federal complaint ready, and don't miss any deadlines. The identity theft angle is his strongest narrative because it's concrete and provable. He should cooperate with any law enforcement investigation into the breach. And he should continue to use the website to maintain public pressure. The courts can ignore a single motion, but they can't ignore a well-documented pattern of irregularities when it's in the public eye. He's doing a lot right, but he needs to stay focused on the legal process, not just the outrage.

Guest

Thank you for having me. It's a case that raises fundamental questions about access to justice, and I hope it leads to some much-needed scrutiny.