On November 24, after the court’s normal business hours, he vacated it and then immediately reopened it to enter the Delay Prevention Order (“DPO”). Johnson to the witness stand where he was advised he was still under oath. Her first question was: “So when he was at Skyview and when you drove him back and forth to Coronado for the first, I assume it was his freshman year of high school, did he have overnight parenting time with [the Customer] at that time, where he would go and spend the night at her home? And if it was a problem, she would have told me, I think.” TR. Because for 16 months almost I’ve been unable to get… And I’ve tried and I’ve had face-to-face administrative reviews. Johnson’s surprise testimony and the Customer’s previously determined unplanned testimony about inheritance income made it impossible for Ms.
On the date the DPO was entered, the alleged arrears equaled ,874.50 (the Response total) – ,569.50 (amount of the levy on or about October 1) 8.80 (November’s child support payment), or ,743.80. Johnson’s motion requested the elimination of all unpaid child support for the three-year period, i.e., “438.80 x 30 = ,864.” (Error: 8.80 x 30 = ,164). (interruption by Magistrate Lyle) …the situation that’s here today, and I’ve been unable to correct it.” TR. Magistrate Lyle responded, “You’re hitting your head against a bureaucratic issue that comes up over and over and over. Most people have the most success communicating with the child support unit, not by calling them but by going there physically in person, and I guess just sitting there and waiting until somebody takes care of them.” TR. I – – I’ve done everything administratively possible to take care of this problem. Eigel to submit an order for signing the same date as the hearing even though the rulings were exactly determined. Eigel to decide to wait nearly a month after the hearing to submit a proposed order while knowing, if knowing, On January 15, 2010, Mr.
Johnson paid off the house in 2001 to complete his settlement agreement. Johnson asked again, “How many meetings have you had with, uh, with Child Support Enforcement? Second, the Continued Objection argued for a hearing of the objection on the basis that said hearing was not time barred and was a protected procedural right to be granted in the interest of justice; argued that refusing access to child support enforcement case records prevented him from preparing an adequate defense; asserted that Jonica Brunner and other PSI employees ignored the three-year change of custody reported to them during his direct engagement with PSI; asserted that the face-to-face meeting with Jonica Brunner resulted in her learning of the three-year change of custody; argued that the Customer’s failure to respond to the motion to modify within the statutory time limit and PSI’s late response violated his right to due process; asserted the entry of the summary total was to create a summary judgment to force the sale of real property; argued that borrowed State powers and the abuse of those powers had “suppressed [his] right to know and dispute the claims made against [him] that [had] seized [his] property and taken away [his] ability to move about freely;” and asserted the “El Paso County Child Support Enforcement Unit relied on [his] classification as a Title IV-D and the special provisions in Colorado law for this child support enforcement class of non-custodial parents, primarily middle class working men, to prejudice the outcome of the child support enforcement case in its favor. Johnson had erroneously claimed until that date that the Court had failed to rule on the motion for two reasons not discussed here.
Back In 1997, he paid her $18,000 in cash and agreed to make the remaining house payments in lieu of spousal support.) Ms. Federal welfare funding drives judicial discretion in child-custody determinations and domestic-relations matters.” Magistrate Candea-Ramsey denied the motion for a hearing of the objection(s) on March 26, 2010. As a result, he did not file a petition for review of the Order. Johnson notified numerous parties of this “overlooked” order and disclosed copies of the letters to the parties in the addendum to a document submitted to the El Paso Board of County Commissioners and others.) The half-page Order was personally signed and mailed together with the personally signed orders denying change of venue and the new motion to modify child support and the stamped Amended Order.
He did not know “El Paso County Child Support Enforcement Unit” was one of PSI’s registered trade names. Johnson filed a verified motion to modify child support with his sworn financial statement. When PSI’s November 2009 adjusted alleged arrears total is compared ($13,743.80) to the arrears summary based on Magistrate Lyle’s findings ($13,128.20), Ms.
As required, he mailed his former common-law wife (“the Customer”) and the El Paso County Child Support Enforcement Unit (“PSI”) copies of the motion and his financial statement. When it was nearing the deadline, he contacted the Customer by letter to encourage a response. Eigel had accomplished her objective to use up the money seized by the State before and during the adjudication of Mr. And I would just – – I’m taking this further than where we are today.
Johnson’s personal financial statement was already on file and disclosed to the Customer and the El Paso County Child Support Enforcement Unit. The letter was copied to numerous parties, including , County Commissioner Sallie Clark, PSI employees Jonica Brunner and Melissa Balquin, CDHS Executive Director Karen Beye, CSE Director John Bernhart, and Pauline Burton, Director of the Office of Self Sufficiency. Johnson mailed another letter written in anger to Belveal, Eigel, Rumans & Fredrickson and referenced the non-existent law firm again. Johnson was not considering the responsibilities of the Colorado Attorney General as legal counsel to the Colorado Department of Human Services or to the State Judicial Department or to El Paso County as an arm-of-the-state.