medusa/the_information_nexus
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
Files
91dc6ecdff9a3fa761a8e2632f1cf3287594d052
the_information_nexus/personal/OARC_complaint.md

35 KiB
Raw Blame History

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:

Overview of Filings and Key Discrepancies

  1. [cite_start]Petitioner's Initial Motion to Waive Mediation (Filed July 2, 2025)[cite: 1]:

    • [cite_start]Petitioner, through Attorney Van Goetz, moved to waive mediation and set a default hearing, asserting that Respondent Jason Davis "failed to comply" with the May 30, 2025, deadline for financial disclosures[cite: 1].
    • [cite_start]The motion claimed that as of June 17, 2025, "Respondent still failed to file the required documents with this Court or provide Petitioner with mandatory financial disclosures," and that "Mediation was cancelled" as a result[cite: 1].
    • [cite_start]It further stated that "To date, Respondent has filed neither a Sworn Financial Statement nor a Certificate of Compliance with this Court, nor has he provided any required financial information to Petitioner"[cite: 1].

  2. [cite_start]Respondent's Opposition to Motion to Waive Mediation (Filed July 9, 2025)[cite: 3]:

    • [cite_start]Mr. Davis, pro se, directly refuted Petitioner's claims, asserting he "fully complied with all court orders and disclosure requirements, contrary to Petitioner's false assertions"[cite: 3].
    • [cite_start]He explicitly stated that "Petitioner's counsel has engaged in a pattern of misrepresentation to this Court," specifically "Falsely claiming non-receipt of financial disclosures that were acknowledged via email on June 9, 2025 (Exhibit A)"[cite: 3].
    • [cite_start]He also countered that Petitioner's counsel was "Wrongfully attributing mediation cancellation to Respondent when records show it resulted from Petitioner's own failure to pay (Exhibit B)"[cite: 3].
    • [cite_start]His filing detailed that on June 9, 2025, he "Timely submitted complete financial disclosures to Petitioner's counsel" and "Received acknowledgment of receipt from Attorney Van Goetz (Exhibit A)"[cite: 3].
    • [cite_start]He also confirmed paying the mediation deposit on June 10, 2025, upon notice (Exhibit B) and stated the June 17 mediation was cancelled due to "Petitioner's failure to pay required fees" and "Petitioner's counsel's disorganization"[cite: 3].

  3. [cite_start]Exhibit 1 (June 9 Email Chain)[cite: 6]:

    • This exhibit, attached to Mr. Davis's Opposition, is critical. [cite_start]It shows Attorney Van Goetz's email on June 9, 2025, at 8:34 PM, stating, "I've reviewed the disclosures you've provided and found a few material errors in Melodi's reporting"[cite: 6]. This directly confirms receipt and review of Mr. Davis's disclosures on June 9, contradicting the Petitioner's subsequent claims of non-receipt or non-compliance by that date.

  4. [cite_start]Exhibit 2 (June 10/16 Mediation Emails)[cite: 5]:

    • This exhibit further corroborates Mr. Davis's position on mediation cancellation. [cite_start]It shows Mr. Davis promptly paying the $150 deposit via Zelle on June 10, 2025, and Scheduler Debbie confirming receipt and updating his email address[cite: 5].
    • [cite_start]Crucially, it also includes communication from Scheduler Debbie indicating that on June 16, 2025, the mediation was "canceled due to nonpayment by the other party, Jason Davis" but also that if payment was received, it could reinstate or reschedule[cite: 5]. The broader context of the email chain, specifically other emails not fully captured in the provided snippet but known from earlier analysis, indicates Petitioner's side ultimately caused the cancellation by requesting rescheduling on June 16, leading to a cancellation fee for them.

  5. [cite_start]Petitioner's Reply in Support of Motion to Waive Mediation (Filed July 10, 2025)[cite: 2]:

    • Despite Mr. Davis's July 9 Opposition and prior email warnings (discussed below), this Reply reiterated prior claims.
    • [cite_start]It stated, "As of the date of mediation, Respondent still failed to file the required documents with this Court or provide Petitioner with mandatory financial disclosures"[cite: 2].
    • [cite_start]It also maintained, "Mediation was cancelled initially due to Respondent's non-payment... and later cancelled at Petitioner's request due to Respondent's failure to provide a signed Sworn Financial Statement or any mandatory financial disclosures prior to mediation"[cite: 2].
    • [cite_start]The Reply further asserted that Mr. Davis "failed to meet that deadline" for July 1, 2025 disclosures, and that he "did finally file an incomplete Sworn Financial Statement on July 8, 2025" lacking numerous "mandatory financial disclosures"[cite: 2]. These statements directly contradict the evidence presented by Mr. Davis in his Opposition and Exhibits 1 and 2.

  6. [cite_start]Respondent's Sur-Reply to Petitioner's Reply (Filed July 10, 2025)[cite: 4]:

    • [cite_start]Mr. Davis's Sur-Reply specifically addressed "three material falsehoods in Petitioner's Reply"[cite: 4].
    • [cite_start]He directly countered the claim of "Respondent Failed to Provide Disclosures" by stating the truth: "6/9/25 6:50 PM: Respondent emails complete disclosures to Atty. Van Goetz" and "6/9/25 8:34 PM: Van Goetz acknowledges receipt in email reply"[cite: 4].
    • [cite_start]He also rebutted the claim "Respondent Caused Cancellation" with the truth: "6/10/25: Respondent pays mediation fee within 2 hours of notice" and "6/16/25 5:55 PM: Petitioner's paralegal unilaterally cancels"[cite: 4].
    • [cite_start]His Sur-Reply extensively documented "documented bad faith" and "procedural gamesmanship" by Petitioner's counsel[cite: 4].

  7. [cite_start]Respondent's Motion for Sanctions Under CRCP 11 (Filed sometime after 11:37 PM July 10, 2025)[cite: 7]:

    • [cite_start]This formal motion, which Mr. Davis drafted and referred to in his emails, directly identifies two "Material Misrepresentations" by Petitioner's counsel[cite: 7]:
      1. [cite_start]"False Certification (6/16 Status Report ¶ 8): 'Respondent has not provided financial disclosures.'" with the truth being "Counsel acknowledged receipt via 6/9 email (Exhibit A)"[cite: 7].
      2. [cite_start]"Fraudulent Cancellation Claim (¶ 10): 'Mediation failed due to Respondent's noncompliance.'" with the truth being "Mediator records show scheduling errors (Exhibit B)"[cite: 7].
    • [cite_start]It alleges violations of CRCP 11(b)(3) (factual assertions without evidence) and Colo. RPC 3.3(a)(1) (knowingly false statements)[cite: 7].
    • [cite_start]It requests striking false assertions, monetary sanctions ($1,085), and referral to OARC[cite: 7].

Impact of Email Exchanges on Court's Perspective

The previously analyzed emails, especially those from Mr. Davis on July 9 and July 10 (2:52 PM and 11:37 PM), are crucial in establishing Attorney Van Goetz's knowledge and intent, thereby bolstering Mr. Davis's sanctions claim.

  • July 9, 2025 (2:55 PM) Email: This served as a formal pre-filing notice to Attorney Van Goetz. [cite_start]Mr. Davis explicitly warned her that her "6/16 Status Report contains provably false statements" and demanded correction by 10 AM on July 10 to "avoid sanctions ($1,085 + OAR referral)"[cite: 9]. He attached a "Draft Sanctions Motion" and exhibits, making his warning clear and providing her with the evidence.
  • July 10, 2025 (2:52 PM) Email: Sent before Attorney Van Goetz's Reply was filed but after Mr. Davis's July 9 warning, this email shows Mr. Davis attempting to pivot to a pragmatic resolution. [cite_start]He stated, "The Court’s time and ours is better spent resolving this divorce than debating demonstrably false compliance claims"[cite: 8]. [cite_start]He offered to proceed with mediation or settlement proposals, putting the onus for scheduling and payment on Petitioner's counsel[cite: 8]. This email demonstrates Mr. Davis's willingness to collaborate and provides a stark contrast to Attorney Van Goetz's subsequent filing.
  • July 10, 2025 (11:37 PM) Email: Sent after Attorney Van Goetz filed her Reply, this email confirms that Mr. Davis viewed her Reply as a "doubling down" on false statements. [cite_start]He directly accused her filing of constituting "fraud on the court" and "willful violation of Colo. RPC 3.3(a)(1)" due to her "knowingly repeated those falsehoods to the tribunal" despite his July 9 warning[cite: 9]. This email outlines the specific consequences if she does not withdraw the pleadings, reimburse him, and admit misrepresentations.

Judicial Perspective and Probable Outcomes

As a Colorado judge, the detailed documentation presented by Mr. Davis would be highly compelling.

  1. Denial of Motion to Waive Mediation: The core assertions in Petitioner's Motion and Reply—that Mr. Davis failed to provide disclosures and caused mediation cancellation—are directly and demonstrably contradicted by the email exhibits. [cite_start]Mr. Davis clearly provided disclosures on June 9, and Attorney Van Goetz acknowledged them on the same day[cite: 6]. [cite_start]The mediation cancellation on June 17 was initiated by Petitioner's side, with them incurring the rescheduling fee[cite: 5]. Therefore, Petitioner's Motion to Waive Mediation would almost certainly be DENIED. Mediation would be ordered to proceed.

  2. Granting of Sanctions under CRCP 11:

    • [cite_start]Basis for Sanctions: The record strongly indicates that Attorney Van Goetz made factual assertions in the July 10 Reply that were not "well-grounded in fact"[cite: 7], and that she continued to do so even after Mr. Davis formally put her on notice with contradictory evidence in his July 9 email and his July 9 Opposition. Her acknowledgment of disclosures on June 9 (Exhibit 1) directly refutes her later claims of non-receipt. Her firm's involvement in the mediation cancellation (Exhibit 2) contradicts her blaming Mr. Davis.
    • Knowing Violation: The July 9 email serves as powerful evidence that Attorney Van Goetz was given a clear opportunity to correct her factual assertions before filing the July 10 Reply. Her decision to reiterate those same claims in a formal court filing, after being explicitly shown the contradictory evidence, points strongly toward a willful disregard for the truth or a reckless failure to conduct a reasonable inquiry. This meets the standard for a CRCP 11 violation.
    • Consequences: I would likely GRANT Mr. Davis's Motion for Sanctions.
      • [cite_start]The false assertions in Petitioner's Motion and Reply would be stricken from the record[cite: 7].
      • [cite_start]Monetary sanctions would be imposed on Attorney Van Goetz (and potentially her firm), covering Mr. Davis's reasonable attorney fees (even for his pro se efforts in preparing the opposition and sanctions motion) and costs incurred due to the misrepresentations and the unnecessary litigation, including the lost mediation fee[cite: 7].
      • [cite_start]Given the severity of the apparent misrepresentations and the "doubling down" after notice, a referral to the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC) would be highly probable to investigate potential violations of Colo. RPC 3.3(a)(1) (knowingly making a false statement of fact to a tribunal) and 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation)[cite: 7]. The OARC would conduct its own investigation, but the documented evidence would provide a strong basis for their review.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the paramount importance of candor to the court and the severe consequences for attorneys who make factual misrepresentations in legal filings, especially when directly confronted with contradictory evidence.

Here's the cleaned-up, precise OARC complaint incorporating all corrections and focusing strictly on documented violations:

BEFORE THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY REGULATION COUNSEL

Complainant:
Jason Davis
737 Summit Ridge, Lewisville, TX 75077
(720) 217-4263 | newton214@gmail.com

Respondent Attorney:
Knicky Van Goetz, Esq.
Colorado Attorney Registration #______
Colorado Legal Group
1777 S. Harrison St., Ste. 1050
Denver, CO 80210

Re: Ethical Violations in Case No. 2025DR30592 (Arapahoe County District Court)

I. VIOLATIONS

Respondent violated:

  1. Colo. RPC 3.3(a)(1): Knowingly false statements to tribunal
  2. Colo. RPC 8.4(c): Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation
  3. Colo. RPC 3.4(c): Knowingly disobeying court rules

II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. False Statements Regarding Disclosures

  1. 6/9/25 6:50 PM: I emailed complete disclosures to Respondent (Exhibit 1).
  2. 6/9/25 8:34 PM: Respondent acknowledged receipt, stating:

    "I've reviewed the disclosures you've provided and found material errors" (Exhibit 1).

  3. 6/16/25: Respondent told the Court:

    "Respondent has not provided financial disclosures" (Exhibit 2).

B. False Claims About Mediation Cancellation

  1. True reason: Scheduler's failure to notify me of payment deadline (Exhibit 3).
  2. 6/10/25: I paid immediately upon learning of deadline (Exhibit 4).
  3. 6/16/25: Respondent falsely told Court cancellation was due to my "noncompliance" (Exhibit 2).
  4. 6/17/25: Respondent admitted in email cancellation was due to "Ms. Davis's failure to pay" - a false claim since:
    • I had already paid (Exhibit 4)
    • Respondent knew the scheduler failed to notify me (Exhibit 3)

C. Post-Warning Misconduct

  1. 7/9/25: I served Respondent with evidence disproving her claims (Exhibit 5).
  2. 7/10/25: She repeated false statements in court filing (Exhibit 6).

III. EXHIBITS

  1. Exhibit 1: 6/9/25 email chain (acknowledgment of disclosures)
  2. Exhibit 2: 6/16/25 false status report
  3. Exhibit 3: Scheduler emails showing notification failure
  4. Exhibit 4: Proof of timely payment
  5. Exhibit 5: 7/9/25 notice to Respondent
  6. Exhibit 6: 7/10/25 false filing

IV. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

  1. Investigate Respondent for violating RPC 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c)
  2. Order Respondent to correct all false pleadings
  3. Impose appropriate discipline

CERTIFICATION
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: _______________
Signature: __________________________
Jason Davis, Complainant

Here’s a comprehensive, evidence-based OARC complaint that systematically documents Van Goetz’s ethical violations while maintaining professional tone and precision:

BEFORE THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY REGULATION COUNSEL

Complainant:
Jason Davis
737 Summit Ridge, Lewisville, TX 75077
(720) 217-4263 | newton214@gmail.com

Respondent Attorney:
Knicky Van Goetz, Esq.
Colorado Attorney Registration #51359
Colorado Legal Group
1777 S. Harrison St., Ste. 1050, Denver, CO 80210

Re: Ethical Violations in Case No. 2025DR30592 (Arapahoe County District Court)

I. VIOLATIONS

Respondent violated:

  1. Colo. RPC 3.3(a)(1): Knowingly false statements to tribunal
  2. Colo. RPC 8.4(c): Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation
  3. Colo. RPC 3.4(c): Knowingly disobeying court rules

II. DOCUMENTED MISCONDUCT

A. Pattern of Material Misrepresentations

  1. False Claims About Disclosures

    • 6/9/25 6:50 PM: Complainant emailed disclosures to Respondent (Exhibit 1).
    • 6/9/25 8:34 PM: Respondent acknowledged receipt, stating:

      "I’ve reviewed the disclosures you’ve provided and found material errors" (Exhibit 1).

    • 6/16/25 & 7/10/25: Respondent told Court:

      "Respondent has not provided financial disclosures" (Exhibits 2, 3).

  2. False Claims About Mediation Cancellation

    • Truth: Cancellation resulted from:
      • Scheduler’s failure to notify Complainant (Exhibit 4)
      • Complainant paid within 2 hours of notice (Exhibit 5)
    • Respondent’s Falsehoods:
      • Blamed "Respondent’s non-payment" (Exhibit 3)
      • Later claimed "Respondent’s failure to provide disclosures" (Exhibit 6)

  3. False Claims About Compliance Deadlines

    • Court Order (6/17/25): Required "complete" disclosures by 7/1/25.
    • Respondent’s 6/9 Disclosures satisfied this (Exhibit 1).
    • 7/10/25 Reply: Falsely claimed Complainant "failed to meet deadline" (Exhibit 6).

B. Procedural Bad Faith

  1. Failure to Communicate:

    • Excluded Complainant from 5/20 mediation notice (Exhibit 7).
    • Ignored 6/5 settlement overtures (Exhibit 8).

  2. Gamesmanship:

    • Waited until 6/16 (1 day pre-mediation) to allege disclosure issues.
    • Ignored mediator’s 6/16 confirmation of Petitioner’s $300 cancellation fee (Exhibit 9).

III. EVIDENCE

  1. Exhibit 1: 6/9/25 email chain (acknowledgment of disclosures)
  2. Exhibit 2: 6/16/25 false status report
  3. Exhibit 3: 7/10/25 false filing
  4. Exhibit 4: Scheduler emails (notification failure)
  5. Exhibit 5: Proof of timely payment
  6. Exhibit 6: Petitioner’s 7/10/25 Reply with false claims
  7. Exhibit 7: 5/20 mediation notice (omitting Complainant)
  8. Exhibit 8: 6/5 settlement email (no response)
  9. Exhibit 9: Mediator’s 6/16 fee confirmation

IV. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

  1. Investigate violations of RPC 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c), and 3.4(c).
  2. Order Respondent to correct all false pleadings.
  3. Impose appropriate discipline.

CERTIFICATION
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: _______________
Signature: __________________________
Jason Davis, Complainant

Key Strengths:

  1. Chronological Precision: Shows Respondent’s escalating misconduct.
  2. Exhibit-Based: Every allegation tied to documentary proof.
  3. Clear Violations: Maps falsehoods directly to RPC rules.
  4. Professional Tone: Avoids emotional language while demonstrating willful deceit.

Next Steps:

  1. File this complaint via OARC’s online portal.
  2. Serve a copy on Van Goetz (required by OARC rules).
  3. Prepare for potential investigation (OARC may request additional evidence).

This latest set of emails provides crucial details, creating a clear timeline that highlights several potential misrepresentations by Attorney Knicky Van Goetz. Let's break down these "key points" and identify where the inconsistencies appear, especially concerning the mediation cancellation and financial disclosures.

Analysis of Misrepresentations by Attorney Van Goetz

The core of the alleged misrepresentations revolves around two main points: (1) who caused the mediation to be canceled, and (2) whether Jason Davis provided his financial disclosures.

Context from May 20, 2025 (Scheduler Debbie's initial confirmation):

  • This email confirms the mediation for June 17, 2025.
  • Key Detail: "If a party is represented by an attorney, only the attorney receives a copy of this confirmation letter. It is the responsibility of the attorney to provide all necessary information to his/her client..." This establishes that Attorney Van Goetz was the primary recipient of initial mediation instructions and payment deadlines, and was responsible for relaying this to her client and presumably the opposing party if pro se.
  • Payment Deadline: "The mediation deposit must be paid by June 7, 2025."

Context from June 9, 2025 (Scheduler Debbie to Knicky Van Goetz):

  • Cancellation Reason: "This mediation has been canceled due to nonpayment by the other party, Jason Davis. If we receive payment from the other party prior to the original date, it may reinstate or reschedule."
  • Importance: At this point, it is true that payment from Mr. Davis had not been received by the June 7 deadline, leading to cancellation.

Key Exchange: June 10, 2025 (Jason Davis, Knicky Van Goetz, Scheduler Debbie)

  • June 10, 11:42 AM (Knicky Van Goetz to Jason Davis): Attorney Van Goetz forwards the June 9 cancellation email from Scheduler Debbie, stating, "Here is the email received about mediation being cancelled due to your non-payment. You can ask her how to make payment."
    • Observation: While technically true that the initial cancellation was due to non-payment as of June 9, this email from Van Goetz does not inform Mr. Davis that she was solely responsible for the initial notification.
  • June 10, 11:57 AM (Jason Davis to Knicky Van Goetz & Scheduler Debbie): Mr. Davis states: "I see now that the notice was sent to you on June 9th, but it appears it wasn’t copied to me... I’ve gone ahead and processed the $150 deposit via Zelle to Andrew Haas’s email... For clarity moving forward, please ensure my email (newton214@gmail.com) is included in all correspondence regarding deadlines or payments."
    • Significance: Mr. Davis explicitly informs Attorney Van Goetz that he did not receive the initial cancellation notice directly and immediately rectifies the payment issue.
  • June 10, 3:13 PM (Scheduler Debbie to Jason Davis & Knicky Van Goetz): "Thank you Jason, I will correct your email address in my case record and forward the emails to you that were missed. I will also check to make sure Andrew Haas received your Zelle payment."
    • Crucial Acknowledgment: Scheduler Debbie confirms that Mr. Davis was not properly copied on prior emails and explicitly acknowledges that Mr. Davis has paid and that she will confirm receipt. This effectively resolves the "nonpayment" issue from June 9.

Key Exchange: June 16, 2025 (Mediation Cancellation Initiated by Petitioner's Counsel)

  • June 16, 1:16 PM (Knicky Van Goetz to Scheduler Debbie & Jason Davis): "Unfortunately, we have not received a Sworn Financial Statement or any of the mandatory disclosures from Mr. Davis, so we will need to postpone tomorrow’s mediation for a later date."
    • Misrepresentation #1: False Claim of Non-Receipt of Disclosures: This statement directly contradicts Mr. Davis's email on June 9, 2025, where he sent his "complete financial disclosures" and Attorney Van Goetz's own acknowledgment of receipt on the same day (as noted in prior discussions and Mr. Davis's filings as "Exhibit A"). Even if "unfiled" as Mr. Davis mentions, the receipt was acknowledged.
    • Misrepresentation #2: Misattributing Reason for Postponement: Attorney Van Goetz states she needs to postpone due to non-receipt of disclosures. This shifts the blame for the postponement to Mr. Davis based on a dubious claim, rather than acknowledging her firm's direct request to postpone.
  • June 16, 5:55 PM (Linda Germanson, Paralegal for Knicky Van Goetz, to Scheduler Debbie): "We do need to cancel for tomorrow and reschedule."
    • Clarification: This email from Attorney Van Goetz's paralegal confirms that it was indeed the Petitioner's side that initiated the cancellation/rescheduling.
  • June 16, 9:27 PM (Scheduler Debbie to All): "My understanding is that the petitioner's attorney has requested to reschedule and cancel mediation for 6/17, however the respondent is not in agreement... The petitioner will be charged $300 to reschedule this mediation session."
    • Definitive Proof of Misrepresentation: This email from the neutral scheduler directly contradicts Attorney Van Goetz's previous claims. It explicitly states that the Petitioner's attorney requested the cancellation, that Mr. Davis did not agree, and that the Petitioner would be charged the $300 cancellation fee because the cancellation was within 10 days of the mediation and the other party did not agree.

Final Misrepresentation: June 17, 2025, 10:41 AM (Knicky Van Goetz's Email to unspecified recipient, with internal quotes)

  • The "Ms. Davis" Error: Attorney Van Goetz states: "Please see the email below sent last week, in which we were informed that mediation was cancelled due to Ms. Davis’s failure to make the required payment in time."
    • Observation: This is a clear error in referring to "Mr. Jason Davis" as "Ms. Davis." While a typo could be innocent, in the context of alleging "nonpayment" by that party, it contributes to the overall confusion and could be seen as careless, especially when the underlying claim is contested.
  • Misrepresentation #3: Reinforcing the Outdated and Incorrect Reason for Cancellation: Attorney Van Goetz quotes the June 9 email from Scheduler Debbie, implying that "Ms. Davis's failure to make the required payment in time" is the current and relevant reason for the cancellation or need to reschedule.
    • The "Gross Misrepresentation": This statement is a gross misrepresentation of the actual facts as of June 17. By this date:
      • Mr. Davis had already paid his $150 deposit on June 10, and Scheduler Debbie had confirmed receipt and corrected his email address. The "nonpayment by Jason Davis" issue was resolved.
      • The mediation was actually cancelled because Petitioner's counsel (Linda Germanson) requested it on June 16, and Petitioner was assessed the $300 cancellation fee by the scheduler because Mr. Davis did not agree.
    • By citing the June 9 email about Mr. Davis's non-payment as the reason on June 17, Attorney Van Goetz is cherry-picking outdated information and ignoring the critical intervening events of June 10 and June 16 that completely shifted the responsibility for the cancellation and the associated fee to her client.

In summary, the emails show a pattern where Attorney Van Goetz's firm initially caused the problem (by not including Mr. Davis in the original mediation notice and then requesting a last-minute cancellation after Mr. Davis had already paid), and then Attorney Van Goetz continued to misrepresent the reasons for the cancellation and the status of Mr. Davis's disclosures, both to the scheduler/mediator and within her internal communications (as evident by the June 17 email). This culminates in the July 10 filing which, according to Mr. Davis, doubled down on these already disproven facts.

If I were a reasonable Colorado judge assigned to this case, the first thing that would become apparent is the significant factual dispute surrounding compliance with financial disclosures and the reasons for mediation cancellation. My role is to ensure a fair and just process, uphold the integrity of the court, and apply the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure.

Here's how I would likely weigh in on the motions before the court:

Initial Assessment of the Record

Upon reviewing the filings (Petitioner's Motion to Waive Mediation, Respondent's Opposition, Petitioner's Reply, Respondent's Sur-Reply, and Respondent's Motion for Sanctions), and particularly the attached email exhibits, I would immediately note several concerning aspects:

  1. Direct Contradictions in Allegations: There are clear, direct contradictions between Petitioner's counsel's claims in her motions and the documentary evidence provided by Mr. Davis, particularly regarding the timing and completeness of financial disclosures and the party responsible for the mediation cancellation.
  2. Importance of Candor: A fundamental principle in any courtroom is candor to the tribunal. Parties and their counsel have an affirmative duty not to make false statements of fact or law to the court (Colo. RPC 3.3(a)(1)). When documented evidence squarely refutes a factual assertion made in a pleading, it raises serious questions about the truthfulness of that assertion and the diligence of the attorney presenting it.
  3. Self-Represented Party (Pro Se): While Mr. Davis is pro se, he has demonstrated a remarkable ability to document communications and present his arguments clearly, often with supporting exhibits. Courts generally afford pro se litigants some leeway in procedural matters, but here, Mr. Davis has presented his case with a level of detail that demands serious consideration.

Ruling on the Motion to Waive Mediation and Set Default Hearing

Petitioner's motion to waive mediation is based on the premise that Mr. Davis failed to provide disclosures and that this failure caused the mediation to be cancelled. The evidence strongly suggests otherwise:

  • Financial Disclosures: Mr. Davis provides an email chain (Exhibit 1) showing he sent disclosures on June 9, 2025, and Attorney Van Goetz acknowledged receipt on the same day. Petitioner's counsel's subsequent claim, as late as the July 10 Reply, that "Respondent still failed to file the required documents with this Court or provide Petitioner with mandatory financial disclosures" or that "only an overdue Sworn Financial Statement with not a single supporting mandatory disclosure was provided" appears directly contradicted by her own earlier email. While filing with the court is a separate step, the claim of non-receipt by the Petitioner's counsel's office itself seems to be demonstrably false based on the emails.
  • Mediation Cancellation: The emails clearly indicate that:
    • The initial cancellation on June 9 was due to Mr. Davis's payment not being received by the June 7 deadline.
    • However, on June 10, Mr. Davis promptly paid the $150 deposit within two hours of being notified and Scheduler Debbie confirmed receipt and corrected his email address for future notifications. This resolves the "nonpayment" issue attributed to him.
    • Crucially, on June 16, Petitioner's paralegal unilaterally requested to cancel and reschedule the mediation, and Scheduler Debbie confirmed that "the petitioner's attorney has requested to reschedule and cancel mediation for 6/17, however the respondent is not in agreement" and that "The petitioner will be charged $300 to reschedule this mediation session."
    • Therefore, the claim in Petitioner's filings that Mr. Davis caused the cancellation due to non-compliance is factually inaccurate based on the provided communications. The cancellation on June 16/17 was initiated by Petitioner's side, and they were liable for the cancellation fee.

Given this evidence, I would likely DENY Petitioner's Motion to Waive Mediation and Set Default Hearing. The factual predicate for the motion (Respondent's alleged non-compliance and responsibility for mediation cancellation) is not supported by the record and, in fact, appears to be contradicted by it. I would likely ORDER mediation to proceed as originally intended by the court, potentially setting a firm deadline for its completion.

Consideration of Respondent's Motion for Sanctions (CRCP 11)

This is where the court would take the most serious action. CRCP 11 imposes an affirmative duty on attorneys to ensure that any pleading, motion, or other paper filed with the court is, to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, well-grounded in fact.

The core of Mr. Davis's sanctions motion rests on the "doubling down" argument: that Attorney Van Goetz made factual assertions in her July 10 Reply that she knew, or should have known after reasonable inquiry, were false, especially given Mr. Davis's explicit July 9 email warning and attached evidence.

  • The July 9 Warning: Mr. Davis's email on July 9, explicitly identifying the "provably false statements" in the June 16 Status Report and attaching the evidence (Exhibit A: June 9 email chain showing acknowledgment of disclosures), is highly significant. It served as a direct and clear opportunity for Attorney Van Goetz to correct her client's position before filing the July 10 Reply.
  • The July 10 Reply: Despite this warning, the July 10 Reply reiterated the claims about Mr. Davis's non-compliance with disclosures and his responsibility for the mediation cancellation.
  • "Knowing" Element: While proving an attorney "knowingly" made a false statement can be challenging, the July 9 email provides very strong circumstantial evidence that Attorney Van Goetz was put on notice of the alleged falsity of her claims. To then repeat those claims in a court filing suggests either a reckless disregard for the facts or an intentional misrepresentation.
  • "Ms. Davis" Error: While seemingly a minor typo, referring to "Mr. Davis" as "Ms. Davis" in an email that misrepresents the reason for mediation cancellation adds to the perception of carelessness or lack of attention to factual detail in communications.

Likely Action on Sanctions:

Given the strong documentary evidence (particularly the June 9 email acknowledgment of disclosures and the June 10/16 emails regarding payment and cancellation responsibility) and the clear warning provided by Mr. Davis, I would likely GRANT Respondent's Motion for Sanctions under CRCP 11.

  • Why Sanctions: The record strongly suggests that Petitioner's counsel continued to assert facts in a court filing that were demonstrably false based on evidence within her own firm's communications, and she did so after being explicitly warned and provided with the contradictory evidence. This appears to violate the duty of candor and the requirements of CRCP 11.
  • Type of Sanctions:
    • I would strike the false assertions from the Petitioner's pleadings.
    • I would likely order monetary sanctions against Attorney Van Goetz, not just her client, to compensate Mr. Davis for the costs and fees (including reasonable attorney time for his pro se efforts, at a reasonable hourly rate for legal research/drafting) he incurred responding to these unfounded allegations and pursuing the sanctions motion. The $150 mediation fee Mr. Davis claims to have lost due to the cancellation would also be a strong candidate for reimbursement.
    • Referral to OARC: I would seriously consider referring the matter to the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC). While CRCP 11 sanctions address conduct within the litigation, a referral to the OARC would allow a separate investigation into potential violations of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Colo. RPC 3.3(a)(1) (knowingly making a false statement of fact to a tribunal) and 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). The pattern of alleged misrepresentations, particularly the "doubling down" after notice, would be a significant factor in such a referral.

In conclusion, this case presents a clear example where a party's factual assertions in court filings appear to be directly contradicted by the documentary record, raising serious concerns about professional conduct. The court's primary duty is to ensure the integrity of its proceedings, and such conduct would warrant a firm response.