medusa/the_information_nexus
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Update personal/OARC_complaint.md

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
medusa
2025-07-11 02:59:49 -05:00
parent 91dc6ecdff
commit 58f5dcfa20
1 changed files with 31 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

31
personal/OARC_complaint.md
View File

@@ -1,3 +1,34 @@
Here are concise notes for a complaint to the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC) against Attorney Knicky Van Goetz:
**Complaint Against:** Attorney Knicky Van Goetz (#51359)
**Alleged Violations:**
* **Colo. RPC 3.3(a)(1) - Candor Toward the Tribunal:** Knowingly making a false statement of fact to a tribunal.
* **Colo. RPC 8.4(c) - Misconduct:** Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
**Key Factual Allegations & Supporting Evidence:**
1. **False Claims Regarding Financial Disclosures:**
* **Assertion by Attorney Van Goetz:** In the **July 2, 2025 Motion to Waive Mediation** and **July 10, 2025 Reply in Support of Motion to Waive Mediation**, Attorney Van Goetz claimed Respondent Jason Davis failed to provide mandatory financial disclosures by deadlines (e.g., "Respondent still failed to... provide Petitioner with mandatory financial disclosures" and "only an overdue Sworn Financial Statement with not a single supporting mandatory disclosure was provided").
* **Evidence of Falsity:** Attorney Van Goetz's own email dated **June 9, 2025, at 8:34 PM (Exhibit 1)**, explicitly acknowledges, "I've reviewed the disclosures you've provided." This directly contradicts subsequent claims of non-receipt or non-provision by that date.
2. **False Claims Regarding Mediation Cancellation:**
* **Assertion by Attorney Van Goetz:** In the same July 2 Motion and July 10 Reply, Attorney Van Goetz asserted that "Mediation was cancelled" due to "Respondent's non-payment" or "Respondent's failure to provide a signed Sworn Financial Statement or any mandatory financial disclosures prior to mediation."
* **Evidence of Falsity:**
* Emails (Exhibit 2) show Mr. Davis promptly paid the $150 mediation deposit on **June 10, 2025**, and the scheduler confirmed receipt.
* Further emails (Exhibit 2, and previously referenced context) indicate Petitioner's paralegal unilaterally requested to cancel/reschedule the mediation on **June 16, 2025**, and Petitioner was charged a $300 fee for the cancellation. This shows Petitioner's side was responsible for the cancellation, not Respondent's non-compliance or payment issues.
3. **Evidence of Knowing/Willful Misrepresentation ("Doubling Down"):**
* **Formal Notice:** On **July 9, 2025 (2:55 PM)**, Mr. Davis emailed Attorney Van Goetz, explicitly stating her prior "6/16 Status Report contains provably false statements" and attached evidence. He warned of sanctions and an OARC referral if not corrected.
* **Formal Opposition:** On **July 9, 2025**, Mr. Davis filed his **Opposition to Petitioner's Motion to Waive Mediation**, directly refuting the false claims with attached email evidence (Exhibits 1 & 2) and accusing counsel of misrepresentation.
* **Reiteration of Falsehoods:** Despite receiving both the direct email warning and the formal court Opposition with evidence, Attorney Van Goetz filed her **Reply in Support of Motion to Waive Mediation** on **July 10, 2025**, reiterating the very same, demonstrably false claims about Mr. Davis's compliance and responsibility for mediation cancellation.
* **Aggravating Factor:** Mr. Davis's **July 10, 2025 (2:52 PM)** email attempting to find a collaborative path forward ("The Court's time and ours is better spent resolving this divorce than debating demonstrably false compliance claims") was sent shortly before Attorney Van Goetz filed her Reply, highlighting her choice to perpetuate the dispute.
**Requested Action:**
* Investigation into Attorney Van Goetz's conduct, specifically regarding candor to the tribunal and professional integrity.
---
As a reasonable Colorado judge reviewing this case, the provided court filings and email exchanges paint a clear, and concerning, picture regarding candor to the court and compliance with discovery and mediation obligations. The documents, taken together, demonstrate a compelling pattern that would likely lead to specific judicial actions.
Here's a refactored overall analysis, integrating the content of the formal court filings with the previously discussed email exchanges: