UPdate
The Plan forward
I have learned it is not about what law has been broken, it is about the binding precedent that supports.
The Glasberg effect
Fraud Upon the Court
The Judicial Branch's Unlimited and Mandatory Duty
Fraud upon the court is defined as an intentional deception aimed at the tribunal itself that corrupts the judicial process. This doctrine is distinct from ordinary fraud between parties and triggers the Court's inherent power and mandatory duty to act, regardless of the time elapsed since the entry of judgment.
I. The Court’s Unlimited Authority to Vacate a Judgment
A. C.R.C.P. 60(b): The Express Savings Clause
Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) explicitly preserves the Court’s jurisdiction to address fraud upon the court outside the standard time limitations.
C.R.C.P. 60(b) states in its final paragraph: "This rule does not limit the power of a court... to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court."
This provision confirms that the authority to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court is not subject to the six-month (182-day) limitation that applies to ordinary fraud between the parties.
B. Binding Precedent: Correction Permitted at Any Time
The Colorado Court of Appeals has affirmed the power of the trial court to correct this specific type of misconduct without regard to time limits.
In re Marriage of Gance, 36 P.3d 114 (Colo. App. 2001)
Holding: The court's power to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court is not subject to the six-month time limit in C.R.C.P. 60(b). The Court confirmed that a judgment obtained through this misconduct may be corrected "at any time," because such fraud "undermines the validity of the process itself."
II. Misconduct by an Officer of the Court Attacks Judicial Integrity
A. The Supreme Court Mandate to Preserve Public Confidence
The Colorado Supreme Court has held that actions by officers of the court that compromise the judicial process require a mandatory response from the judicial branch.
People v. Buckley, 848 P.2d 353, 355 (Colo. 1993)
Holding: Misconduct by officers of the court "strikes at the integrity of the judicial process." Accordingly, the judicial branch "must act to preserve public confidence."
B. The Judicial Duty to Act Diligently
The duty of a judge to act upon verified misconduct is an inherent component of their role.
Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 2.5(A)
Requirement: A judge shall "Perform judicial duties competently and diligently," which includes the essential judicial duty to maintain the integrity of the court and take appropriate action when verified misconduct affecting the tribunal is demonstrated.
III. The Heightened Duty in Domestic Relations
C.R.C.P. 16.2: Affirmative and Full Disclosure
In domestic relations cases, the duty of candor is codified, making any intentional concealment or misrepresentation a breach of duty owed directly to the Court.
C.R.C.P. 16.2(c)(1) mandates:
"Parties to domestic relations cases owe each other and the court a duty of full and honest disclosure of all facts that materially affect their rights..." This requires parties to "affirmatively disclose all information... without awaiting inquiry."
C.R.C.P. 16.2(e)(3) governs experts:
The Rule's strict control over expert testimony ensures that one party cannot manipulate the process through unauthorized experts or hidden reports that violate the duty of disclosure owed to the tribunal.
Financial Timeline & Current Proceedings
A forensic overview of payment patterns, redactions, and judicial reliance on disputed records.
Introduction
This timeline summarizes key financial events uncovered through a forensic review of billing entries, court filings, discovery materials, and authenticated business records. It focuses on fee activity, payment flows, redactions, and misstatements that influenced court decisions from 2022 to 2025.
The goal is simple: present the facts clearly and let the record speak for itself.
Financial Timeline
Alyson, controlled the money both for the company and family.
2022–2023: Tool Studios Pays the Bills
From late 2022 through July 2023, the majority of Co-Petitioner’s attorney fees were paid directly by Tool Studios, LLC.
These payments totaled more than $91,000. Internal logs, bank statements, and unredacted billing entries confirm the source and nature of each payment.
July 2023: Redactions and Concealment
The billing statement later filed with the Court removed references to outside valuation work, authorship, and internal coordination with undisclosed consultants. These redactions obscured who performed the work and who paid for it.
August 2023: Exhibit III Filed Before Trial
A heavily redacted billing exhibit was filed 46 hours before trial. The document was never authenticated or admitted into evidence, yet it became the foundation for later claims about unpaid balances and financial hardship.
Post-Trial Withdrawal
Two days after trial, a $10,000 transfer from Tool Studios to Co-Petitioner was made. This transfer was not disclosed as litigation-related and contradicts statements about outstanding debts.
Fee Award Reversed on Appeal
The trial court awarded $15,000 in attorney fees using numbers tied to the disputed billing records. The Colorado Court of Appeals later reversed that award for lack of evidentiary support.
2024–2025: Expanded Fee Claims
New fee affidavits were filed in 2025 seeking more than $80,000 in additional attorney fees. These requests rely on the same figures and billing records that were never admitted into evidence and were previously reversed on appeal.
What Is Currently Before the Court
Several issues tied to this financial timeline are now active in the District Court:
1. Fee Requests Exceeding $80,000
The Court is being asked to accept fee claims that rely on:
• Unadmitted billing exhibits,
• Inflated income figures, and
• Records that conflict with verified business and tax documents.
2. Motions to Correct the Record
Petitioner has asked the Court to correct the financial record where it conflicts with authenticated evidence. These motions address:
• Redacted billing entries,
• Misattributed payment sources, and
• Income figures built on unverified reports.
3. Continued Judicial Reliance on the Disputed Record
Even after an appellate reversal, the same numbers continue to appear in subsequent rulings. The Court must now decide whether the disputed record remains reliable.
What Is Currently Before OARC
The Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel is conducting an active review of several professional-conduct issues related to this timeline. The open OARC case examines:
1. Use of Unadmitted Expert Reports
Questions remain about how expert reports that were never admitted became part of judicial findings.
2. Redaction and Authorship Practices
Redactions removed key information about who performed the work and who paid for it.
3. False or Misleading Financial Representations
Several filings presented income and debt figures that contradict tax returns, business accounting, and joint expert valuations.
4. Misattributed Expert Designations
One expert was listed as having been retained by the wrong party, creating confusion in the record.
The OARC process runs alongside the judicial proceedings and involves the same factual foundation.
Why This Matters
The accuracy of financial evidence affects every major outcome valuation, maintenance, child support, fee rulings, and credibility assessments. When the financial record is distorted, the legal outcomes built on that record are distorted as well.
Both the Court and OARC now have the same question in front of them: What happens when rulings rely on data that was never properly disclosed, never authenticated, and never admitted into evidence?
This timeline is part of answering that question.