Statement of Concerns

What began as one father’s fight for fairness in a Colorado courtroom has become the most thoroughly documented case of fraud upon the court in state history spanning multiple divisions, judges, and attorneys. It is a story about what happens when the people sworn to uphold justice manipulate it instead and how one person, working alone, can still expose the truth. They may have the law, but I have the truth.

The Glassberg Effect

The name The Glassberg Effect was born out of necessity.

It gave me a way to make sense of what I was seeing how patterns of deception, misdirection, and procedural exploitation can shape an entire case without anyone realizing it.

It’s not just a name for my experience; it’s a name for something I now know many others have lived through but couldn’t define.

The term describes how procedural confusion, selective disclosure, and attorney coordination can bend a court’s perception until the record no longer reflects reality.

It’s about weaponizing formality turning the rules meant to ensure fairness into tools that conceal misconduct.

Why This Matters

This isn’t just about one case.

It’s about how the system reacts when someone without power a pro se litigant under ADA accommodations uncovers verifiable misconduct and asks the court to look. Instead of review, the filings were labeled “harassing.” Instead of protection, the system defended itself.

To bring transparency to what has been hidden, to educate others facing similar tactics, and to restore the public’s trust that the law still belongs to the people it serves. Every document, transcript, and exhibit here has been filed with the Court. Every word is drawn from the official record. No speculation. No defamation. Just facts and the rule of law.

The Glasberg effect

Preserved Authority Under C.R.C.P. 60(b) (Savings Clause)

What the rule is, and what the record questions are

Fraud upon the court is a narrow doctrine. It generally refers to intentional misconduct directed at the tribunal that compromises the integrity of the adjudicative process. Because the harm is to the court’s truth-finding function, the remedies can be different from ordinary fraud between parties.

1. Authority to set aside a judgment

C.R.C.P. 60(b) preserves the court’s power

Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) includes a “savings clause” in its final paragraph. In plain terms, it states that Rule 60(b) does not limit the court’s power to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court.

Important precision: this is an authority-preserving clause. It is not a guarantee that relief will be granted. It also does not eliminate the need for admissible proof.

What courts look for

A successful fraud-upon-the-court claim typically requires evidence of intentional conduct that corrupted the judicial process itself, not just disputed facts or ordinary litigation tactics.

2. Judicial ethics and diligence

Colorado’s Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to perform their duties competently and diligently. That is an ethics framework, not a private cause of action. It matters because it describes the system’s expectations for judicial administration and integrity.

3. Heightened disclosure duties in domestic relations

Colorado domestic relations cases impose affirmative disclosure duties. Parties owe each other and the court full and honest disclosure of material facts. Expert practice in domestic cases is also rule-governed. These rules exist because financial outcomes depend on accurate records. (Add exact rule text only if you can quote it from an official source or your filed documents.)

A narrow dirt path winds through a dense, green forest filled with tall trees and lush ferns.

A serene forest path lined with moss and wildflowers.

The "Savings Clause"

Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides two distinct procedural paths for post-judgment relief: a motion in the original case, and (in rare circumstances) an independent equitable action.

1) Ordinary fraud claims have a strict deadline.

Motions alleging “fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party” under C.R.C.P. 60(b) must be filed within 182 days after entry of judgment (and also within a “reasonable time”).

2) Fraud upon the court is addressed under the Rule 60(b) savings clause.

C.R.C.P. 60(b)’s final paragraph preserves the court’s power to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court and to entertain an independent action. Because the savings clause preserves this authority, courts treat true fraud-upon-the-court claims as outside the 182-day motion deadline.

3) “Not subject to 182 days” does not mean “no timing scrutiny.”

Relief for fraud upon the court is extraordinary. Courts still scrutinize whether the claim truly involves misconduct directed at the tribunal and whether the moving party proceeded diligently once the facts were discoverable. Unreasonable delay can still be raised as an equitable defense.

Practical takeaway: The key question is not simply “Is it late?” The key question is whether the proof shows a corruption of the adjudicative process, supported by admissible evidence, in a way that justifies extraordinary relief.