Update personal/OARC_complaint.md

personal/OARC_complaint.md

@@ -1,4 +1,143 @@
-25-2670ronda-white
+## 25-2670 rhonda white
+
+Okay, this is where we "maximize" by properly quantifying the damages and costs you've incurred due to Attorney Van Goetz's alleged misconduct.
+
+For a pro se litigant, requesting monetary sanctions primarily focuses on two things:
+1.  **Out-of-pocket expenses:** Direct costs like mediation fees, filing fees, printing, postage.
+2.  **Value of your time:** This is critical. Courts recognize that pro se litigants spend their valuable time responding to frivolous filings, and that time has an ascertainable value, even if it's not billed at an attorney's rate. You need to estimate the hours spent and propose a reasonable hourly rate for your professional time or the time spent performing tasks made necessary by her actions.
+
+Let's refactor the document, specifically beefing up the "Statement of Facts" and "Requested Relief" sections to justify a higher monetary sanction.
+
+**Assumptions for Calculation (You will need to confirm/adjust these):**
+
+* **Your Time:** We will conservatively estimate the hours you spent directly responding to her actions (reviewing her motions, drafting your Opposition, Sur-Reply, Sanctions Motion, Emergency Motion to Strike, compiling exhibits, extensive email correspondence, legal research specifically on CRCP 11/statutes/RPCs). Let's estimate **30 hours** for this intense period of work from July 8th to July 11th.
+* **Value of Your Time:** As a professional, your time has a value. A reasonable hourly rate for a professional's time, when forced to perform legal-like tasks, could range from $150-$250/hour. Let's use a mid-point of **$175/hour** as a justifiable value, which is significantly less than an attorney's hourly rate but reflective of the skilled work you performed.
+* **Mediation Fee:** $150 (as per your previous context).
+* **Filing Fees:** Let's conservatively estimate additional filing fees incurred due to her actions (e.g., for your various responsive motions). This can be a placeholder of **$60** (assuming ~3 filings at typical rates).
+
+**Proposed Calculation:**
+* Value of your time: 30 hours \* $175/hour = **$5,250.00**
+* Wasted Mediation Fee: **$150.00**
+* Additional Filing Fees: **$60.00**
+* **TOTAL PROPOSED SANCTIONS: $5,460.00** (Let's round this up to **$5,500.00** for simplicity and impact, framing it as "no less than").
+
+---
+
+### **Refactored Motion for Sanctions (Ready for Filing)**
+
+**DISTRICT COURT, ARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADO**
+**Case No.: 25DR30592**
+**Div.: 35**
+
+**In re the Marriage of:**
+**Melodi S. Davis, Petitioner,**
+**and**
+**Jason Davis, Respondent.**
+
+**RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO CRCP 11 AND C.R.S. § 13-17-102**
+
+COMES NOW Respondent, Jason Davis, pro se, and respectfully moves this Court for sanctions against Knicky Van Goetz and Colorado Legal Group for violations of Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and C.R.S. § 13-17-102. In support, Respondent states:
+
+**I. INTRODUCTION**
+
+Colorado Legal Group's Managing Attorney David Crum states in his professional writings: "The best lawyers win by being smarter, not sloppier. If you're cutting corners, you're cutting your own throat."
+
+Regrettably, his associate Knicky Van Goetz has:
+
+* Made repeated false statements to this Court regarding Respondent's compliance;
+* Attempted to intimidate Respondent into withdrawing valid motions; and
+* Withdrawn from representation when confronted with her misconduct.
+
+This pattern violates both ethical rules and her firm's professed standards of practice, forcing Respondent to incur significant and unnecessary costs and expenditure of time to defend against baseless claims and uphold the integrity of these proceedings.
+
+**II. STATEMENT OF FACTS**
+
+**A. False Representations to the Court Causing Unnecessary Litigation**
+1.  On June 16, 2025, Attorney Van Goetz informed the mediator that Respondent "never provided disclosures" (Exhibit 1). This statement was demonstrably false, as Attorney Van Goetz's own office, via her paralegal Linda Germanson, acknowledged receipt of Respondent's sworn financial statement and mandatory disclosures on June 9, 2025, at 8:34 PM (Exhibit 2).
+2.  Despite being served with irrefutable evidence of this falsehood on July 9, 2025, Attorney Van Goetz knowingly repeated the same misrepresentation to this Court in her Reply in Support of Petitioner's Motion to Waive Mediation and Set Default Hearing, filed on July 10, 2025 (Exhibit 3). This repetition of a known falsehood compelled Respondent to prepare and file a Sur-Reply to correct the record and defend against a baseless default request.
+
+**B. Unethical Litigation Tactics and Intimidation**
+1.  On July 11, 2025, at 10:07 AM, Attorney Van Goetz, in response to Respondent's detailed notice regarding her misrepresentations, defiantly refused to correct her filings. Instead, she demanded Respondent withdraw his valid Motion for Sanctions and threatened to seek attorney fees from Respondent for his efforts to bring her misconduct to the Court's attention (Exhibit 4). This demand and threat were baseless and intended solely to intimidate Respondent into abandoning legitimate legal action.
+2.  The frivolous nature of Attorney Van Goetz's claims necessitated Respondent's preparation and filing of an Emergency Motion to Strike Pleadings for Fraud, which further increased Respondent's time and expenses.
+
+**C. Failure to Correct Errors and Abdication of Responsibility**
+1.  Despite being presented with clear and undisputed evidence of her misrepresentations and given a final opportunity to correct the record, Attorney Van Goetz refused.
+2.  Instead of correcting the record as required by ethical rules, Attorney Van Goetz filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for the Petitioner on July 11, 2025 (Exhibit 5). While Respondent does not object to her withdrawal, this action followed directly upon confrontation regarding her misconduct, rather than an attempt to rectify her false statements to the Court. Her withdrawal does not absolve her of responsibility for the conduct detailed herein.
+
+**D. Resulting Unnecessary Costs and Expenditure of Respondent's Time**
+1.  As a direct result of Attorney Van Goetz's false statements, groundless arguments, and unreasonable litigation conduct, Respondent has been forced to expend substantial and unnecessary time and resources defending against baseless claims and pursuing accountability.
+2.  This includes, but is not limited to, time spent meticulously documenting Attorney Van Goetz's conduct, compiling exhibits, conducting legal research, drafting and filing numerous responsive pleadings (including Respondent's Opposition to Petitioner's Motion to Waive Mediation, Respondent's Sur-Reply, this Motion for Sanctions, and the Emergency Motion to Strike Pleadings for Fraud), and engaging in extensive correspondence to clarify facts and demand compliance.
+3.  Respondent also incurred a wasted mediation fee of $150.00 due to Petitioner's counsel's unilateral cancellation of the July 15, 2025 mediation, which was necessitated by her office's false claims regarding Respondent's non-compliance.
+
+**III. LEGAL BASIS FOR SANCTIONS**
+
+**A. CRCP 11 Violations**
+Attorney Van Goetz's false statements regarding Respondent's compliance, particularly their repetition after being presented with irrefutable contrary evidence, clearly demonstrate violations of CRCP 11. These statements were:
+
+* **Not grounded in fact;** Attorney Van Goetz knew, or should have known through reasonable inquiry, that her claims were false.
+* **Not warranted by existing law;** There was no legal basis for her claims of non-compliance, particularly after Respondent confirmed his method of disclosure for non-existent documents.
+* **Made for an improper purpose;** The consistent pattern of misrepresentation was designed to obtain a default judgment through misdirection and to obstruct the mandatory mediation process.
+
+**B. C.R.S. § 13-17-102 Violations**
+Respondent has incurred significant and unnecessary costs and expenditure of valuable time due to Attorney Van Goetz's litigation conduct, which has been:
+
+* **Substantially frivolous;** Her claims of non-compliance and attempts to seek default judgment were utterly lacking in a factual basis.
+* **Substantially groundless;** Her arguments were not supported by any credible evidence or reasonable legal interpretation.
+* **Unreasonable litigation conduct;** Her refusal to correct known falsehoods, her attempt to intimidate Respondent, and her withdrawal from the case rather than rectifying her misrepresentations constitute unreasonable conduct that has prolonged litigation and wasted judicial resources.
+
+**IV. REQUESTED RELIEF**
+
+Respondent respectfully requests that the Court:
+
+1.  Order **monetary sanctions against Attorney Knicky Van Goetz personally** in the amount of **no less than Five Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($5,500.00)**, representing:
+    * The reasonable value of Respondent's time spent responding to Attorney Van Goetz's frivolous and groundless conduct (conservatively estimated at 30 hours at a reasonable value of $175/hour).
+    * Reimbursement for the wasted mediation fee ($150.00).
+    * Reimbursement for additional filing fees incurred due to her actions (approximately $60.00).
+2.  Order a **referral of Attorney Knicky Van Goetz to the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel** for investigation into her violations of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly Rules 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal) and 8.4(c) (Misconduct/Dishonesty).
+3.  Take **judicial notice of these violations** for all purposes in this case.
+4.  Grant any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
+
+**V. CONCLUSION**
+
+Respondent brings this motion not out of malice, but from necessity – to preserve judicial integrity, ensure the efficient administration of justice, and hold counsel to the ethical standards her own firm proclaims. The egregious and repeated nature of Attorney Van Goetz's misrepresentations and unethical tactics necessitated this action to prevent further abuse of the legal process.
+
+WHEREFORE, Respondent requests this Motion be granted.
+
+Respectfully submitted this 11th day of July 2025.
+
+**JASON DAVIS, Respondent**
+[Your Contact Information]
+
+**CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**
+I hereby certify that on this 11th day of July 2025, a true and correct copy of RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO CRCP 11 AND C.R.S. § 13-17-102 was filed with the Court via CCEF and served upon the following:
+
+[List Petitioner/Attorney information as per court rules]
+Melodi Davis
+[Her Address, if known, or via Email]
+
+[Former Attorney for Petitioner (if serving her directly)]
+Knicky Van Goetz, #51359
+COLORADO LEGAL GROUP
+1777 South Harrison Street, Suite 1050
+Denver, Colorado 80210
+Via CCEF/Email [Confirm appropriate service method per local rules, often to counsel of record via CCEF if they are still counsel, or directly if they are not. Better to serve via CCEF as she is still counsel until withdrawal is granted.]
+
+Jason Davis
+[Your Contact Information]
+
+/s/Jason Davis_____________
+Jason Davis, Pro Se
+
+---
+
+**Crucial Reminders Before Filing:**
+
+1.  **Exhibits:** Ensure all referenced Exhibits (1 through 5) are meticulously compiled and attached to the motion. Their clarity and directness are paramount.
+2.  **Filing Date:** Double-check the date you actually file this with the court.
+3.  **Service:** Ensure proper service on both Melodi Davis and Knicky Van Goetz/Colorado Legal Group via the court's electronic filing system (CCEF) and/or direct email/mail as required by local rules.
+4.  **Confirm Hours:** Reconfirm your estimated hours for accuracy. While "conservatively estimated" allows some leeway, ensure you can justify the number if questioned.
+
+This motion is incredibly strong. Good luck.
 
 Here's a concise outline for Mr. Davis's talk-track when speaking to OARC investigators and the judge. They should indeed be very close, if not identical, as the facts and the legal arguments remain consistent across both forums.