The biggest rip off of all - one that will shock the public conscious - and remember, this could happen to you....

(note to see addendum  to complaint and lab test copy at end of this complaint)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No.____________________________

DIANE F. BRANTHOOVER, Plaintiff, pro se.

CYNTHIA SILVA BURBACH, individually and in her official capacity as toxicologist for the Department of Health and Environment, State of Colorado

JASON GALLEGOS, individually and in his official capacity as deputy for Adams County Colorado Sheriff’s Department

DARYL STADLER, individually and in his official capacity as deputy for Adams County Colorado Sheriff’s Department

MICHELLE CHOSTNER, individually and in her official capacity as Assistant County Attorney, Adams County, Colorado,

ROBERT S. DOYLE, individually and in his official capacity as Adams County Judge, Adams County Colorado,

C. VINCENT PHELPS, individually and in his official capacity as Adams County District Judge, Adams County, Colorado, Defendants’

 

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(1)(2)(3)

WITH JURY DEMAND 42 USC sections. 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Diane F. Branthoover is a citizen of the United States who presently resides at 1211 E. 62^nd Ave., Denver, CO. 80216

2. Defendant Cynthia Silva Burbach is a citizen of the United States and can be located at 8100 Lowry Blvd., Denver, CO. 80230.

3. Defendant Deputy Jason Gallegos is a United States citizen and can be located at 450 South 4th Avenue, Brighton, Colorado 80601

4. Defendant Deputy Daryl Stadler is a United States citizen and can be located at 450 South 4th Avenue, Brighton, Colorado 80601.

5. Defendant Michelle Chostner is a United States citizen and can be located at 450 South 4th Avenue Brighton, Colorado 80601

6. Defendant Judge Robert S. Doyle is a United States citizen and can be located at 1100 Judicial Center Dr., Brighton CO 80601.

7. Defendant Judge C. Vincent Phelps is a citizen of the United States and can be located at 1100 Judicial Center Dr., Brighton CO 80601.

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is asserted pursuant the following statutory authorities: 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(1)(2)(3) Title 42 USC § 1983, 1985(3), 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 241 18 U.S.C. § 242 requesting attorney fees pursuant 1988.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

1. Plaintiff first wishes to note on the record that she has completed the sentence and all further obligation to the here noted charge, trial and conviction.

2. On February 22, 2008, Appellant was stopped by an Adams County Sheriff at Hwy. 224 and York St., Unincorporated Adams County, CO. at approximately 8 pm.

3. She performed a field sobriety test, breathalyzer for alcohol of 0.00. She was taken to Adams County substation in Commerce City, CO. and subjected to 3 hours of numerous pokes and prods and submitted to a urine test. Only distinctive test result was that her advanced hypertension blood pressure at time of arrest was 202/108. Which she was under doctor’s care for.

4. Her 1997 GMC Jimmy was impounded. She was cited for CR 42-4-1301(1)(a) Driving Under the Influence of alcohol and /or drugs and Careless driving CR 42-4-1402, by defendant Stadler who never witnessed her operate the vehicle.

5. That at the time of stop she was a full-time toddler teacher and delivery driver for Black Jack Pizza, both jobs lost as a result of these charges. This further caused plaintiff to lose the home they were buying in Commerce City, CO.

6.  She retained Joe Lusk as counsel.

7. The drug test submitted as evidence stated initial test was 20ng and secondary test as 5ng. Plaintiff had always claimed that any positive drug test results were due to tenants in basement apartment of their home smoking marijuana and it being forced through the heating system of the home, but always doubting the testing performed on unsealed/unnamed urine sample was her own.

8. On Nov. 5^th, 2008, a suppression hearing was held in Adams county Court, in which a finding was made that a statement that appellant "supposedly" made by plaintiff during arrest was unconstitutional. At this hearing defendant Gallegos testified under oath that plaintiff had crashed into a concrete median and almost hit a road sign. Said concrete median doesn’t exist.

9. On Nov. 11^th, 2008, at the advice of Joe Lusk, waived her right to speedy when the people’s drug test results were unavailable, instead of motioning to dismiss. Also stating in his motion that he needed time for transcripts of the suppression hearing for the purpose of later impeaching witness testimony. Original trial date was set for November 18, 2008. This led to several requests by district attorney that trial date be extended for missing witnesses that were granted, uncontested by Mr. Lusk.

10. In December 2008, plaintiff received a copy of the transcript of suppression hearing, and took pictures showing the concrete median doesn’t exist.

11. During the next several months, plaintiff informed Mr. Lusk regarding the median, and questioned him repeatedly regarding the actual low test results, and provided him other evidence including pictures and 8 people for witnesses. Also insisting that any THC in system was secondhand smoke.

12. The only subpoenas by Joe Lusk were State witnesses also named here as defendants.

13. Finally, nearly 1 ½ years after traffic stop, plaintiff received her jury trial. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, pro se with the court and entered a motion for stay of sentence pending appeal. At the hearing, defendant Robert S. Doyle, first granted stay, then the DA objected stating it was against the law, though he had no authority to support his objection. The judge then denied stay of sentence base solely on unsupported objection.

14. Plaintiff, having lost her 30+ year career as a toddler teacher and pizza delivery driver because of this arrest, had started school on student loan at Kaplan College for medical billing and coding. As a student of the school, she had access to LexisNexis on line, and access to their law library. Plaintiff found numerous errors is her case, including several incidents of perjury under oath by defendant Gallegos.

15. From the beginning, plaintiff has denied any use of marijuana or other drugs except that prescribed for high blood pressure. Always claiming any positive results – if they were actual tests of her urine, were due to second hand smoke from home heating system via basement tenant.

16. Plaintiff filed her opening appeal brief, 30 pages with approx. 27 verifiable authorities. Claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, officer perjury, expert witness perjury, the constitutionally of Colorado DUI statute, arguing the low test results compared to studies done by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, testing subjects with THC levels at 300-400ng with no noticeably adverse affects, and actually claiming improved performance skills, who defendant Cynthia Silva-Burbach claimed as authority in her testimony, all contrary to her testimony under oath. Also submitted the picture evidence that the concrete median defendant Gallegos testified under oath that plaintiff "crashed into which doesn’t exist, and that the median had become a stop sign that she struck between his testimony at suppression hearing and his testimony at trial. Appellant also filed an affidavit sworn under oath denying any drug use or statements supposedly made to that effect.

17. After filing the brief, plaintiff continued her research. A friend of plaintiff’s husband, a professional truck driver was visiting and saw the test result evidence submitted as evidence against plaintiff, which clearly states 20ng initial test, 5ng conformation test. He produced a Federal Motor Carriers Handbook from his truck. It stated specifically, that any initial test below 50ng was to be marked negative, and not to perform secondary test, which cutoff levels are 15ng. Plaintiff then began more research, finding more supporting laws. Plaintiff, awaiting response from Adams county Attorney to her brief, continued her research and found CFR TITLE 49: TRANSPORTATION § 40.85-87 which states the same " laboratory mandatory language".

18. Adams County attorney replied, which basically denied everything, not addressing the perjured statements made at either of the court hearings - or the low drug test levels. Plaintiff filed her final reply, basically showing that the drug test was per federal law was to be marked negative, which made the arrest, charge and conviction illegal. 30 pages, 30+ additional verifiable authorities. Plaintiff argued that if the original drug test was negative per all laboratory mandatory cutoff levels requirements of federal law, state employees, professional driver, Colorado Department of Transportation employees, even the arresting officers themselves, then plaintiff’s arrest, trial and conviction were illegal. Further showing that the same drug test results submitted as evidence against plaintiff could have been used to present to any federal or state licensing department to clear her to obtain a commercial driver’s license, if she so desired.

19. Plaintiff, during this time, was continuing to complete the obligations of sentence and because she was indigent, was unable to pay probation fees so was required to appear at probation weekly. She completed school, graduated with honors. She filed her paperwork with probation department regarding indigent status which they conveniently lost. Drug test performed by the probation department have the same 50ng cutoff levels requirements noted here – had the same test results used in court against plaintiff were presented to the department of probation for testing, they would have been marked negative. Plaintiff has 4+ probation drug test reports with cutoff levels at 50ng cutoff levels marked negative as evidence.

20. Plaintiff finally received a denial of her appeal 6 months after all briefs were given to court. The denial by defendant C. Vincent Phelps stated that plaintiff did not have ineffective assistance of counsel, that plaintiff was pro marijuana – solely because of the authorities she used to prove the perjury of defendant Burbach - and specifically used the supposed statement she made that was suppressed by the trial court in his decision against her, ignoring everything else.

21. Plaintiff received the decision in April, 2010. Plaintiff sentence was due to expire in June, therefore found it useless to appeal this decision because her sentence and obligation to the court would end in June, making the appeal moot. She therefore focused on completing probation, paid all the court costs, and as of June 14^th, 2010 is off probation, her license is reinstated, has no further obligation to the courts.

22. Because of this illegal arrest, trial and conviction, plaintiff’s 30 year career as toddler teacher is destroyed. After completing college, she has found that because of her age, 54, lack of experience in the field and the economy, the chances of obtaining gainful employment in the field is useless, only adding a $13,000 debt of student loan in addition to this illegal arrest, trial and conviction and cost of their home foreclosure debt of $250,000.

23. All the evidence in support of this complaint is in the record at Adams County court and in plaintiffs’ possessions. Plaintiff will pursue justice for the violations of her civil rights protected under the United States Constitution until the truth is exposed.

24. Plaintiff has submitted the drug test results filed in court and used as sole basis to support the charge of Driving under the influence, i.e., marijuana. Also legal laboratory testing requirements that apply to all commercial drivers, DOT, police officer, CFR TITLE 49: § 40.85-87. Also see attached drug test for plaintiff during probation for this offense, marked negative stating on the same form, cutoff level 50ng. Then note test level of plaintiff stating her reading was 20ng. This test was also performed on an unseal/un-named test sample. Evidence of the unsealed/un-named urine sample is part of the record. Plaintiff gave defendants notice of this complaint throughout her appeal briefs.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF AND SUPPORTING FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

That defendant Cynthia Silva Burbach conspired with other defendants under the color of law to deprive plaintiff of her United States Constitutional rights under the 5^th, 6^th, and 14^th Amendments and violating clearly established laws and 42 USC § 1983 and 1985(2-3); CFR TITLE 49: § 40.85-87; 18 U.S.C. § 1621, 18 U.S.C. § 241, violating clearly established state and federal laws, court rules and federally mandatory laboratory requirements pursuant , 49 CFR Part 40 § 40.83(c)(1)  resulting in the illegal arrest, trial and conviction of plaintiff, by:

1. Performing a test on an unmarked/unsealed/nameless urine sample and placing plaintiff’s name on the test, in violation of all mandatory lab procedures, state and federal evidence laws and court rules. Defendant Burbach and her lab at the Colorado Department of Health and Human Environment are federally accredited under the Code of Federal Regulations. She has no authority to change or alter the Federally accredited laboratory requirements described under:

"Title 49 – Transportation: § 40.83   How do laboratories process incoming specimens?" (c) You must inspect each specimen and CCF for the following "fatal flaws:" (2) The specimen bottle seal is broken or shows evidence of tampering, unless a split specimen can be re-designated. d) When you find a specimen meeting the criteria of paragraph (c) of this section, you must document your findings and stop the testing process. Report the result in accordance with §40.97(a)(3) . d) When you find a specimen meeting the criteria of paragraph (c) of this section, you must document your findings and stop the testing process. Report the result in accordance with §40.97(a)(3); (a) As a laboratory, you must report the results for each primary specimen tested as one or more of the following: (3) Rejected for testing, with remark(s);

This case should have ended there. She had no authority to go further. The label not sealed on the container, regardless of the situation, cannot be explained away. "Must", under a Federal Statute is mandatory language. She had no authority to continue the testing procedure. On what authority did she violate her federal mandated lab rules to conspire with state county officials to test a urine sample of a traffic offender? What authority gave her the permission to continue with both the initial test then perform confirmation test and turn it over to a county judge to make a determination on missing seal? What gives a county judge authority over a State federally accredited lab procedure? Can he usurp the CFRs? This will require US Attorney intervention. The Colorado Department of Transportation is bound by CFR TITLE 49. What places plaintiffs test procedure under a less stringent standard? This clearly shows plaintiff arrest, trial and conviction were illegal. Defendants cannot violate laws they are sworn to uphold to falsely convict a US citizen.

2. Falsely Submitting negative drug test results into court as positive in violation of another of her labs mandatory lab requirement: CFR TITLE 49: § 40.87: Easier shown in graph:

CFR TITLE 49: TRANSPORTATION

§ 40.85 What drugs do laboratories test for?

As a laboratory, you must test for the following five drugs or classes of drugs in a DOT drug test. You must not test "DOT specimens" for any other drugs.

(a) Marijuana metabolites.

(b) Cocaine metabolites.

(c) Amphetamines.

(d) Opiate metabolites.

(e) Phencyclidine (PCP).

Federal Motor Carriers Administrations Cut off Level Part 40.87What are the cutoff concentrations for initial and confirmation tests?

(a) As a laboratory, you must use the cutoff concentrations displayed in the following table for initial and confirmation drug tests. All cutoff concentrations are expressed in nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL). The table follows:

Type of Drug or Metabolite	Initial Test	Confirmation Test
(1) Marijuana metabolites (i) Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid (THC)	50	15
(2) Cocaine metabolites (Benzoylecgonine)	300	150
(3) Phencyclidine (PCP)	25	25
(4) Amphetamines (i) Amphetamine (ii) Methamphetamine	1000	500 500 (Specimen must also contain amphetamine at a concentration of greater than or equal to 200 ng/mL
(5) Opiate metabolites (i) Codeine (ii) Morphine (iii) 6acetylmorphine	2000	2000 2000 10 Test for 6-AM in the specimen. Conduct this test only when specimen contains morphine at a concentration greater than or equal to 2000 ng/mL.

(b) On an initial drug test, you must report a result below the cutoff concentration as negative. If the result is at or above the cutoff concentration, you must conduct a confirmation test. (c) On a confirmation drug test, you must report a result below the cutoff concentration as negative and a result at or above the cutoff concentration as confirmed positive.

Now see attached exhibit A. Her testing sheet submitted illegally as evidence into court against plaintiff. It states 20ng initial test, 5ng conformation. If the 20ng reading is that of plaintiff, if her own test results are accurate, plaintiffs test was below the cutoff levels, no conformation test required. The test results were negative. Same cutoff levels required by Colorado probation department. Attached exhibit B. Why was plaintiff held to higher standards than commercial truck drivers - See Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration. 40 § 87.

1. By testifying under oath that plaintiff’s drug test was positive.

2. By falsely claiming to be an expert on marijuana impairment, using unverifiable authorities to support her testimony as an expert on the effects of marijuana, all testimony in direct conflict with DOT HS 809 642 State of Knowledge of Drug-Impaired Driving and Marijuana And Actual Driving Performance, DOT HS 808 078. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and all other printed authorities,

3. Committing perjury by testifying under oath about the effects of marijuana were the cause of plaintiff’s high blood pressure, a pre-existing condition, taken hours after arrest. Where she first states, under oath that marijuana raises blood pressure which immediately drops. Than stating that plaintiff’s blood pressure raised and stayed there, bending facts to fit the case. All verifiable authorities state that it momentarily raises blood pressure and raises your pulse rate while under the influence. Plaintiffs pulse rate was normal. Further, valid authorities also claim marijuana lowers blood pressure. Plaintiff had verified pre-existing high blood pressure condition.

4. Falsely testifying that THC causes uncontrollable leg eye and tremors which caused plaintiff to fail the one legged stand test whereas all printed authority proves it doesn’t. "Performance on digit symbol substitution test, one-leg-stand, backward digit span, and free recall were impaired by alcohol only" See Cannabis, State of Knowledge of Drug-Impaired Driving, DOT HS 809 642.

5. By personally holding plaintiff to higher standards on drug testing than required of commercial truck drivers, police officers, those under adult supervision and parole (see attached exhibits). Her employer, Colorado Department of Health and Environment, has the duty to enforce the Code of Federal Regulations in the State of Colorado.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF AND SUPPORTING FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

That defendant deputy Jason Gallegos conspired with defendants under the color of law by committing perjury under oath, violating clearly established state and federal law and violating plaintiffs rights secured under the 5^th, 6^th and 14^th amendments, United States Constitution by and violating  42 USC § 1983 and 1985(3). 18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 242, resulting in the illegal arrest, trial and conviction of plaintiff, by:

1. Testifying under oath at suppression hearing that plaintiff crashed into concrete median at 74^th and York, while heading westbound on 74^th turning south onto York. There is no concrete median at that location. This prejudiced plaintiff, denying her right to a fair trial and due process.

2. That defendant again committed perjury during plaintiff’s jury trial by changing his testimony from that given at suppression hearing. At the suppression hearing he testified that at initial traffic stop he yelled at the plaintiff. At trial, he testified plaintiff yelled at him, severely prejudicing plaintiff in the eyes of the jury. Second, when testifying as to the non-existent concrete median plaintiff "crashed" into, he included a stop sign at a traffic signaled intersection, indicating to the jury that plaintiff had failed to stop also. Resulting in the illegal arrest, trial and conviction of plaintiff, False declarations before grand jury or court. By changing his testimony from that given at suppression to that given by defendant Chostner in her opening statement is defined as a federal crime pursuant 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 18 USC § 242, under color of law.

4. Filing a typed unsigned police report into record as evidence.

 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF AND SUPPORTING FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

That defendant Michelle Chostner conspired with other defendants to violate plaintiff’s rights secured under the 5^th, 6^th and 14^th Amendments, United States Constitution, Rule 3.8, et. al;  42 USC § 1983 and 1985(3) , CFR TITLE 49: § 40.85-87, 18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 242, ; Colorado Rule 8.4(a)(c) 49 CFR Part 40 § 40.83(c)(1) violating clearly established laws, resulting in the illegal arrest, trial and conviction of plaintiff

 

1. Admitting drug test result evidence from an unsealed/unmarked urine sample into evidence that was presumably misplaced for 2 months.

2. Presenting a negative drug test into evidence as positive, to secure the illegal arrest, trial and conviction of plaintiff.

3. Submitting an erroneous computer generated DRE report into record and as discovery to defense that incorrectly tallied his evaluation, incorrectly stating what Plaintiff failed and passed, which is a Brady violation. Plaintiff wasn’t aware of this until Stadler testified to this at trial. He changed the DRE results on the stand before the jury, 1 ½ years after the fact.

4. Leading defendant Gallegos to commit perjury under oath when she motioned not to sequester Gallegos: Giving her opening statement regarding his testimony, then calling him to the stand. Gallegos recited Chostner’s opening statement verbatim. This resulted in his testimony as to plaintiff’s conduct changing critically from his testimony to same events in suppression hearing. At suppression hearing he testified that at initial contact during traffic stop, he yelled at plaintiff. The first mention of plaintiff yelling at Gallegos was by Chostner in her opening statement, which he repeated in his testimony immediately after her. The first mention of the stop sign on concrete median that plaintiff "crashed" into was in Chostners statement, repeated by Gallegos in his immediate following testimony. Neither of which exist. Critical changes prejudicing plaintiff before the jury. Her conduct changed literally every word of Gallegos testimony from that given describing the same incident at suppression hearing. This is further supported by his suppression hearing testimony where he had many memory problems in testimony, then at jury trial his testimony clear, violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1622, Subornation of perjury, a federal crime punishable by 5 years imprisonment.

5. Called defendant Cynthia Silva-Burbach to commit aforementioned perjury based on a drug reading negative as per federal law CFR TITLE 49: § 40.85-87.

Failing to disclose facts of below cutoff level drug test readings. Rule 3.8, et. al

FORTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AND SUPPORTING FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

That defendant Deputy Daryl Stadler conspired with other defendants to violate clearly established laws and plaintiff’s rights secured under the 5^th, 6^th, , 42 USC § 1983 and 1985(3), 18 U.S.C. § 241 , 18 U.S.C. § 242 8^th and 14^th Amendments, United States Constitution , by:

1. Issuing plaintiff a traffic citation for careless driving when at no time did he witness plaintiff operate a vehicle; testifying under oath to plaintiff weaving.

2. Subjected plaintiff to cruel and unusual punishment after finding her blood pressure was 202/108, far above any standard definitions of high blood pressure, and not notifying medical personnel. Showing deliberate indifference.

3. Failed to report the computer miscalculations of his DRE report prior to trial and changing his results on the witness stand before the jury, denying plaintiff prior notice of the evidence against her, 1 ½ years after the fact. (Trial transcript, pg. 70)

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AND SUPPORTING FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

That Defendant, Judge Robert S. Doyle, acting under color of law in furtherance of a conspiracy with other listed defendants,’ and failing to prevent a conspiracy to violate clearly established law and plaintiff’s rights secured under the 5^th, 6^th, 8^th and 14^th Amendments, United States Constitution, Rule 3.8, et. al;  42 USC § 1983 and 1985(2-3) and 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 242, CANON 3 et. al. Colo. R. Evid. 702 , 403, 49 CFR Part 40 § 40.83(c)(1), Colo. Const. art. II, § 19, by:

1. Allowing defendants limitless extensions of trial dates; allowing 2 months for test results that normally require one week, while the other defendants searched for a misplaced urine sample in an unmarked/unlabeled container to test.

2. Making evidence judgments on a unsealed urine sample released to a Federally accredited testing facility under the authority of the Code of Federal Regulations, usurping federally mandated laboratory requirement that the testing be refused if not sealed. In violation of Federal law.

3. Allowing other defendants to introduce into evidence drug testing evidence performed on unseal/unlabeled sample in violation of 49 CFR § 40.71(b)(5) and (6)   49 CFR Part 40 § 40.83(c)(1)  of state and federal court rules and statutes.

4. Accepting said results into evidence falsely marked positive that actually were to be marked negative as to state and federal law laboratory standards. 49 CFR § 40.87   

5. Permitting defendant Cynthia Silva-Burbach to testify as an expert witness as to marijuana intoxication without applying a Rule 403 determination as required under THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, v. Defendant: MICHAEL EUGENE SHRECK., 22 P.3d 68; 2001 Colo. LEXIS 337; 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1995. See trial court transcript page 120. He ignores defense objections and immediately changes her from toxicologist to a marijuana expert without question.

7. Granting defendant Chostner’s motion at trial to not sequester defendant Gallegos prior to trial which led to the aforementioned perjured testimony.

8. Knowingly allowing defendant Gallegos perjured testimony whereas he was the presiding judge at Gallegos original testimony to same events.

9. Allowing Defendant Deputy Daryl Stadler to change discovery evidence – DRE report – on the stand, before the jury, denying plaintiff prior notice of the evidence against her.

10. Finding that the supposed statement made by plaintiff was inadmissible in violation of Miranda then placing such unfair restrictions on the findings that plaintiff was denied every opportunity to present any evidence in her defense.

11. Denying plaintiffs pro se request for a stay of execution of sentence pending appeal, after first granting it, without statutory, constitutional authority in violation of Colo. Const. art. II, § 19, 8^th Amendment, US Constitution on an objection made by an unknown Adams County attorney stating that he could not grant the stay, without providing any supporting authorities, whereas plaintiff had never failed any court requirements of appearance, whereas the defendants had themselves had many failures to appear, therefore forcing plaintiff to prepare a pro se appeal with time limit restrictions, complete the conditions of her sentence, her obligations of school, pay her court fees and costs, probation fees when knowing she was unemployed whereas she had filed indigent waiver of fees request.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AND SUPPORTING FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

That C. Vincent Phelps Defendant, acting under color of law in furtherance of a conspiracy with other listed defendants,’ and failing to prevent a conspiracy to violate clearly established law and plaintiff’s rights secured under the 5^th, 6^th, 8^th and 14^th Amendments, United States Constitution, Rule 3.8, et. al;  42 USC § 1983 and 1985(2-3) and 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 242, Colo. Const. art. II, § 19, by:

1. Denying plaintiffs appeal based on a "supposed" statement made by her that was suppressed by the trial court as in violation of 4^th Amendment, evidence that was never proven and that plaintiff was never allowed to confront – which she denied under penalty of perjury in affidavit submitted with appeal - her only opportunity to deny said statement.

2. Failing to rule on Plaintiff’s claim regarding denial of stay of execution of sentence.

3. Deliberately delaying ruling on plaintiffs appeal for 6 months, with full knowledge that plaintiff’s sentence was due to expire 2 months after review and that any further appeal process would be moot, forcing plaintiff to seek relief in this Court.

4. Stating in his denial that plaintiff was "pro marijuana", based solely on her use of valid verifiable authorities regarding drug levels, effects, etc. Disregarding attached affidavits declaring under penalty of perjury true and correct.

5. Stating in his denial that she was afforded adequate counsel, that there was no record to support claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, whereas it was evidence in itself – no record – supports ineffective claim.

6. Ignoring official documentation that plaintiffs high blood pressure was a pre-existing condition and not due to marijuana use.

7. Accepting Adams County’s response briefs only response in reply to her appeal regarding the perjured testimony of defendant Cynthia Silva-Burbach, which was "that defendant’s claims in her opening brief are not sufficient to even call into question the veracity of the witness", over plaintiffs several pages with numerous authorities disclaiming every word of her testimony, showing her authorities were fake.

8. By reviewing the transcripts of two court hearings of testimony given by officer Gallegos sworn under oath as true, by testifying as to him yelling at defendant at initial stop at suppression hearing, then testifying that Plaintiff jumped out of the vehicle and yelled at him before the jury at trial, showing perjury in clear evidence of a conspiracy defined under 18 U.S.C. § 241 under color of law 18 U.S.C. § 242, both punishable by imprisonment and refused to act violated 42 USC § 1986. Essential testimony whereas Plaintiff’s conduct was basis of the trial.

9. By reviewing evidence as to testimony of Plaintiff’s "crashing" into a concrete median and stop sign at ‘74^th and York in Denver, CO., then being presented with picture evidence showing neither exist, and refusing to act or acknowledge the evidence, is clear evidence of a conspiracy defined under 18 U.S.C. § 241 under color of law 18 U.S.C. § 242, both punishable by imprisonment and refused to act violated 42 USC § 1986. Essential testimony whereas Plaintiff’s conduct was basis of the trial.

10. Ignoring clear and convincing proof that the drug test submitted as evidence against plaintiff was actually a negative test, making the arrest, trial and conviction illegal.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff, filing and presenting this pro se, herein promises to all parties to go to every extreme to follow court rules and procedures. She is attempting to find legal assistance to assist because of enormous allegations raised herein. But plaintiff has every piece of evidence necessary to prove said allegations. She is prepared to address the coming immunity arguments with supporting authorities.

Plaintiff also wishes to note on the record that though she is no longer under any obligation to this conviction, she fears reprisal due to the fact that her employment is a place frequently visited by two of the defendants’,. She also resides in Adams County jurisdiction, Denver. Therefore intends to motion for a restraining order. Plaintiff further serves notice of possible amendments to this case as it unfolds. The errors in the case in question here are overwhelming because of the total disregard by the defendants of Plaintiffs rights secured under both the State and Federal court rules, laws and Constitutions. Plaintiff has no prior arrests, had a 30 year career in child care, she had been purchasing her first home for 4 years, now only insurmountable debt remains, with a false drug conviction The conduct of defendants alone are responsible for the loss of it all and this is her only recourse.

Plaintiff further serves notice here that she is distributing copies of this complaint to any and all reputable lawyers, firms and civil rights organizations in search of adequate counsel to represent her, and a copy to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, fearing that the repercussions from allegations made herein against the local government may jeopardize her personal security, health and wellbeing.

Plaintiff now herein submits Request for Relief:

A. CYNTHIA SILVA BURBACH: that this Court find the actions and/or conduct of Defendant Cynthia Silva Burbach violated clearly established laws and Plaintiffs’ rights secured under 18 U.S.C. § 1621, CFR TITLE 49: § 40.85-87, 42 USC § 1983 and 1985(3), 18 U.S.C. § 241 under color of law 18 U.S.C. § 242, both punishable by imprisonment, 4^th, 5^th, and 14^th Amendments, United States Constitution and that this Court.

1. Issue a declaratory judgment against Defendant Cynthia Silva Burbach, declaring she violated plaintiffs rights under Federal and State Constitution and the resulting conviction be cleared from Plaintiffs record;

2. Issue a injunction against her that she may not work in her field and revoke any licenses she holds within the United States.

3. Issue an order to the United States Attorney’s Office to investigate the evidence of the Federal Statutes and Constitution rights violated and pursue prosecution for the afore noted criminal acts, perjury, conspiracy and violation of plaintiff’s rights under color of law.

4. That this Court covers attorney fees pursuant 42 USC § 1988.

5. That she pay compensation for plaintiffs suffering, amount determined by jury.

6. That she pay punitive damages, amount to be decided by jury.

7. That she pay plaintiff’s actual losses to be decided by jury.

B. JASON GALLEGOS that this Court find the actions and/or conduct of Defendant JASON GALLEGOS violated clearly established laws and Plaintiffs’ rights secured under 18 U.S.C. § 1621, CFR TITLE 49: § 40.85-87, 42 USC § 1983 and 1985(3), 18 U.S.C. § 241 under color of law 18 U.S.C. § 242, both punishable by imprisonment, 4^th, 5^th, and 14^th Amendments, United States Constitution and that this Court:

1. Issue a declaratory judgment against Defendant JASON GALLEGOS declaring he violated plaintiffs rights under Federal and State Constitution and the resulting conviction be cleared from her Plaintiffs record;

2. Issue a injunction against him that he may not work in law enforcement and revoke any authority he holds within the United States.

3. Issue an order to the United States Attorney’s Office to investigate the evidence to the Federal Statutes and Constitution rights violated and pursue prosecution for the afore noted criminal acts, perjury, conspiracy and violation of plaintiff’s rights under color of law.

4. That this Court cover attorney fees pursuant 42 USC § 1988

5. That he pay compensation for plaintiffs suffering, amount determined by jury.

6. That he pay plaintiff’s actual losses to be decided by jury.

7. That he pay punitive damages, amount to be decided by jury

C. DARYL STADLER that this Court find the actions and/or conduct of Defendant DARYL STADLER violated clearly established laws and Plaintiffs’ rights secured under 18 U.S.C. § 1621, CFR TITLE 49: § 40.85-87, 42 USC § 1983 and 1985(3), 18 U.S.C. § 241 under color of law 18 U.S.C. § 242, both punishable by imprisonment, 4^th, 5^th, and 14^th Amendments, United States Constitution and that this Court.

1. Issue a declaratory judgment against Defendant DARYL STADLER, declaring he violated plaintiffs rights under Federal and State Constitution and the resulting conviction be cleared from Plaintiffs record;

2. Issue an injunction against him that he may not work in his field and revoke any authority he holds within the United States.

3. Issue an order to the United States Attorney’s Office to investigate the evidence to the Federal Statutes and Constitution rights violated and pursue prosecution for the afore noted criminal acts, perjury, conspiracy and violation of plaintiff’s rights under color of law.

4. That this Court cover attorney fees pursuant 42 USC § 1988

5. That he pay compensation for plaintiffs suffering, amount determined by jury.

6. That he pay punitive damages, amount to be decided by jury

7. That he pay plaintiff’s actual losses to be decided by jury.

D. MICHELLE CHOSTNER: find that defendant Michelle Chostner conspired with other defendants to violate plaintiff’s rights secured under the 5^th, 6^th and 14^th Amendments, United States Constitution, Rule 3.8, et. al;  42 USC § 1983 and 1985(3) , CFR TITLE 49: § 40.85-87, 18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 242,  Colorado Rule 8.4(a)(c) 49 CFR Part 40 § 40.83(c)(1) violating clearly established laws, resulting in the illegal arrest, trial and conviction of plaintiff

1. Issue a declaratory judgment against Defendant MICHELLE CHOSTNER, declaring she violated plaintiffs rights under Federal and State Constitution and the resulting conviction be cleared from Plaintiffs record.

2. Issue an injunction against her that she may not work in her field and revoke any licenses she hold within the United States.

3. Issue an order to the United States Attorney’s Office to investigate the evidence to the Federal Statutes and Constitution rights violated and pursue prosecution for the afore noted criminal acts, perjury, conspiracy and violation of plaintiff’s rights under color of law.

4. That this Court cover attorney fees pursuant 42 USC § 1988

5. That she pay compensation for plaintiffs suffering, amount determined by jury

6. That she pay punitive damages, amount to be decided by jury.

7. That she pay plaintiff’s actual losses to be decided by jury.

E. ROBERT S. DOYLE find that Defendant, Judge Robert S. Doyle, acting under color of law in furtherance of a conspiracy with other listed defendants, and failing to prevent a conspiracy to violate clearly established law and plaintiff’s rights secured under the 5^th, 6^th, 8^th and 14^th Amendments, United States Constitution, Rule 3.8, et. al; 18 U.S.C. § 1621, 42 USC § 1983 and 1985(2-3) and 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 242, CANON 3 et. al. Colo. R. Evid. 702 , 403, 49 CFR Part 40 § 40.83(c)(1), Colo. Const. art. II, § 19.

1. Issue a declaratory judgment against Defendant Robert S. Doyle, declaring he violated plaintiffs rights under Federal and State Constitution and the resulting conviction be cleared from Plaintiffs record;

2. Issue an order to the United States Attorney’s Office to investigate the evidence of the Federal Statutes and Constitution rights violated and pursue prosecution for the afore noted criminal acts, perjury, conspiracy and violation of plaintiff’s rights under color of law.

Plaintiff declines seeking monetary relief to preclude immunity arguments involving judges.

F. C. VINCENT PHELPS find that C. Vincent Phelps Defendant, acting under color of law in furtherance of a conspiracy with other listed defendants, and failing to prevent a conspiracy to violate clearly established law and plaintiff’s rights secured under the 5^th, 6^th, 8^th and 14^th Amendments, United States Constitution, Rule 3.8, et. al; 18 U.S.C. § 1621, 42 USC § 1983 and 1985(2-3) and 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 242, Colo. Const. art. II, § 19.

 

1. Issue a declaratory judgment against Defendant C. Vincent Phelps, declaring he violated plaintiffs rights under Federal and State Constitution and the resulting conviction be cleared from Plaintiffs record;

2. Issue an order to the United States Attorney’s Office to investigate the evidence of the Federal Statutes and Constitution rights violated and pursue prosecution for the afore noted criminal acts, perjury, conspiracy and violation of plaintiff’s rights under color of law.

Plaintiff declines seeking monetary relief to preclude immunity arguments involving judges.

Any other relief this Court my find, forthwith,

I, Diane F. Branthoover, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________ Scribed and sworn before me this ___________________ day of ___________20_______. Notary public in and for _____________,, my commission expires ____________________.

Date__________

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

 

Civil Action No.____________________________

 

DIANE F. BRANTHOOVER, Plaintiff, pro se.

 

CYNTHIA SILVA BURBACH, individually and in her official capacity as toxicologist for the Department of Health and Environment, State of Colorado

JASON GALLEGOS, individually and in his official capacity as deputy for Adams County Colorado Sheriff’s Department

DARYL STADLER, individually and in his official capacity as deputy for Adams County Colorado Sheriff’s Department

MICHELLE CHOSTNER, individually and in her official capacity as Assistant County Attorney, Adams County, Colorado,

ROBERT S. DOYLE, individually and in his official capacity as Adams County Judge, Adams County Colorado,

C. VINCENT PHELPS, individually and in his official capacity as Adams County District Judge, Adams County, Colorado, Defendants’

 

 

Addendum to Complaint

 

 

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Diane Branthoover, pro se, and submits Addendum to complaint, herein. She begs this Courts forgiveness and apologizes to all parties for inconveniences she may have caused. But after again reviewing the trial court transcript, she noticed a fact that was somehow missed by original trial court counsel and deliberately and artfully avoided by Defendant    MICHELLE CHOSTNER when the testimony was made. Plaintiff is not making any changes to complaint, only adding these additional claims prior to filing complaint, that:

1.      Malicious Prosecution be added to Defendant  MICHELLE CHOSTNER

2.      Deliberate Indifference be added to claims against all Defendants

In regards to the urine sample sealing label that defense counsel tried to argue in Court but missed. On page 79, line 9 of the trial court transcript.  Deputy Shawna Treasure testifies under oath after a question by defense attorney Joe Lusk as these questions:

Lusk : “Are you familiar with the requirements that at least at the time, I'm referring to the requirements that were in at the time of arrest. The requirement at the time that each urine specimen be affixed with an identification label?

    A:”Yes, sir, thats that-thats the seal I put on top of the bottle with my information on it. It also has Ms. Branthoover’s name on it””.

Then testimony of lab tech at Transcript page 87 L21- 88-

Q: “Okay, and when Mr. Wells opened the mail was there anything he noted on the urine sample?”

A: yes, he noted the seal wasn’t on the urine sample container. It was in the box and he put it on the container.”

The court, defense and prosecution never associated this statement to the fact of the urine sample bottle with plaintiffs name and officers name applied, then sealed in plastic bag seal w/glue, then sealed in box for shipping, then the testimony of 2 lab technicians testifying under oath that the seal was found by the person who opened the box at the lab, not attached to the bottle or inside of the plastic bag in which the bottle was sealed,  Clear and convincing proof that the chain of custody, between the time it was given and it’s arrival at the lab, 2 days later had been broken.  Any assumption that it fell off the bottle into the box where it was found is false because the officer swore under oath that she sealed it into the bag with glue, deliberate indifference to plaintiff rights to a fair trial. Defendant Doyle and CHOSTNER both heard the testimony and ignored it.  Their duty is to the truth, not to convict regardless of it.

Therefore, plaintiff wishes to add the complaint to include Malicious Prosecution claim to defendant MICHELLE CHOSTNER, and that deliberate indifference be attached to all plaintiffs. Plaintiff attaches this additional claim as to her understanding of the 10^th Circuit’s decision in Pierce v. Gilchrist H, 359 F. 3d 1279 (2004), which is very similar in the aspect of being a 42 USC sec. 1983 claim against a forensic chemist and District Attorney from someone who was falsely convicted, “wherein questionable prosecutorial tactics, including reliance on unfounded forensic analysis, were routinely used to secure convictions”…. “with a false sense of efficient justice, if the allegations are correct, it deprived criminal defendants of basic constitutional rights and led to at least one unwarranted conviction”, as described in plaintiff’s complaint and further substantiated by this additional evidence.   No one ever provided an answer as to the only evidence to plaintiff’s illegal arrest, supposedly positive for marijuana, was sealed per regulation by police when taken by police at station and unsealed and “missing the plastic  evidence bag” the container was sealed into when taken into custody at the lab, two days later. Further the fact that it was missing for 2 months while in lab custody – see dates. Exhibit A.  Then it was not filed onto record until 3 months later.  Plaintiffs’ attorney tried to show this but lost his way, apparently, as the record will show.  Plaintiff had never been in a courtroom before this arrest, how was she supposed to know? Plaintiff has spent every spare minute studying law since conviction to procure her innocence.

Plaintiff further submits afore noted authority Pierce v. Gilchrist H, 359 F. 3d 1279 (2004), supra, to disclaim defendants forth coming immunity defense claims. She is prepared for jury trial.  Plaintiff herein recognizes that the conduct of Defendant Burbach and the lab she controls – if only by the testimony before trial by her lab techs and the “Standard Operating Procedure” of evidence handing they describe under oath- show deliberate indifference to plaintiffs rights. It also calls into question every test they’ve performed.  Plaintiff is actively seeking other possible victims who may have been falsely convicted of a crime, falsely fired or denied employment because of this labs improper evidence custody policies and illegal cut-off levels per federal law, for class action suit; by placing ads on sites such as Craigslist, legal, 9news and other news  websites, etc. They testified under oath to performing 300 urine tests per month under color of law? Plaintiff can only imagine the outcry were it is found that SOP was when the chain of custody on an evidence sample is broken, just stick a label on an unlabeled urine sample and test it.  Then test it with cut-off levels 30ng below the federal, CDOT, and supervised probation and parole standards? Just the testimony of the lab techs here is enough to shock the public conscious. Plaintiff will be submitting subpoenas to all parties that testified in court and additionally the Mr. Well’s referred to during testimonies in court.

Another error noted. See Exhibit A. Note Defendant Stadler’s name above the note about the missing seal? Was his name written on the unattached seal found in box?  If so- why?  Is he the one who tampered with the evidence? See On page 79, line 9 of jury trial transcript. Deputy Shawna Treasure testifies under oath that she put her own name of the seal along with plaintiffs.  Plaintiff further asks, if this court would go to such extremes to convict plaintiff to get her one year sentence to probation, etc., to what extent would they go to convict someone else that questioned their authority by demanding her right to jury trial.

Sign this ____________day of _________, 2010

________________________

Diane F. Branthoover, Plaintiff, pro se

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To All Associates and staff of Robert J. Hopp & Associates:  click to enlarge

Re: Desiree P. Comiskey, Payroll Administrator 303.225.0808 303.531.2153 d.comiskey@hopplawfirm.com

Dear Robert J. Hopp & Associates:

Please note first that copies of this email are being sent to each email address listed on your firms website with the exception of the one noted.  Also note that the conduct of described herein in a violation of Colorado criminal law – see attached evidence, stop payment check.  This matter requires your immediate attention whereas I will be filing criminal charges with the Adams County Colorado Sheriff’s department and with Jefferson County, on 4/8/2010 on the above noted employee.

C.R.S.  18-5-512. Issuance of bad check. (b.5) A class 1 misdemeanor if the fraudulent check was for the sum of five hundred dollars or more but less than one thousand dollars or if the offender is convicted of fraud by check involving the issuance of two or more checks within a sixty-day period in the state of Colorado totaling five hundred dollars or more but less than one thousand dollars in the aggregate;

My name is Timothy R. Branthoover writing in regards to one of you employees/associates with your firm named Desiree P. Comiskey and something she has done that has literally destroyed my business, my home, my marriage, the life of my help Joshua Martin, and it is essential that her character as a person be known.  It involves a $900.00 check she wrote for a repair job that cost me over $1400 in parts alone, which does not include $500 of which I paid my employee. (her check which she stopped payment attached) believing the check was good.  Please read this thoroughly because writing this may be the last thing I ever do, it’s that bad.  The cost for this work performed at any other professional shop in the state of Colorado, $3,000.00 minimum, and the car in question is driving today, fully functional.  And not one phone call from her or Joseph questioning the work done on engine, she just stopped payment.

I realize you don’t know me, but until this I was just a hard working auto mechanic trying to make a living; info on me can be found here www.timthemechanic.com   Her boyfriend Joseph Erwin and Desiree Comiskey  brought his car to me almost a year ago, 2002 Subaru Impreza.  It had no oil in the engine, broken timing belt, 24 bent valves.  We removed the heads, took them to a machine shop, paid them $290 to replace the valves.  The head gaskets were $43.00 x 2,  added 5 quart oil.  In short, about 20 hours labor, $600 parts which I let her have for almost $10/ hour in labor.  When we completed the engine and started it, we noticed a slight knock when it first started up then it went away. It was a rod bearing noise.  Something we couldn’t know because usually they don’t happen at the same time and to even know there’s a bearing problem the engine has to run.  She wrote me a bad check then, but came and paid me the cash- I ate the bounced check fees then, too.  I instructed Joseph to get an oil change and put an additive in it, which he didn’t do.  He called me 1 month later and told me the engine was making noise.  Joshua drove out to Kittredge, (50 – 75 miles?) and diagnosed the rod.  He actually needed an engine replacement, but he couldn’t afford it.  Months later he called me, had his car towed to me.  The cost of a used engine was $2500, cheapest anywhere I could find.  I told him this – told him engine rebuilds were really difficult because I’m not set up for it.  He cried, blaming us for his admitted stupidity in not getting even one oil change in 70,000 miles since he bought the car new, saying we should have known of the deeper engine damage.  It needed a crankshaft, bearings and one piston rod replaced.  Only place that I could get the crank was directly from Subaru - $457.00, my cost. (I can show pictures of the work we did, parts receipts).  Also, gaskets, crank timing gear, seals…  We had to wait 1 month for the crankshaft.  Finished assembling the engine and installed it – every single bolt in the engine had to be removed, the block splits in half.    

Anyway, we were almost finished so we called him.  No answer, left messages FOR TWO MONTHS!!  We stored it for 2 months at no cost - we prepared to scrap the car to get some of my money back. 

 

 Then he calls with some excuse that he was out of state, that he had the $900.  So, after all that, all I wanted was the money I had in it back – no extra charges for storage, money I had paid my help out of my pocket.  I knew he was financially strapped! So we pulled the car back into the shop, it was leaking oil. Where the oil was coming from was not an easy fix, coming from the back of the engine block so we had to pull the engine back out. We couldn’t see where the oil was coming from so the engine came apart again,  every nut and bolt to see if we’d clogged an oil return journal.   I didn’t have any money for parts of this job, figured the rear main seal that we reused didn’t seal.  We replaced the seal.  Originally we had questioned the position of how the seal sat in place because it was different than any one we’d seen. Our manuals, every printed info, even called 7 different Subaru service departments who insisted it was to be fully seated back, though none of them had actually replaced a seal in one – 2002 was the first production year of the 2.5L design and aren’t meant to go 70,000 miles without an oil change.  So we replaced the seal ($17.00), reinstalled the engine, same leak, 2 full days, putting other customers off.  Start the engine – same leak! Should have given up then, but Josh started pulling it again.  So apart it comes 4^th time pulling this engine.  We pulled out the seal.  One thing we didn’t try – setting the seal ¼ inch out from being fully seated, as instructed.  It worked but burned another 2 days and another $17.00 seal. Finally we thought, done. Engine sounded great, no leaks. But the engine light was on and automatic transmission temperature light was flashing, as it was when it came in. We plugged the computer diagnostic Snap On. It gave codes P0778 and P0748, both 1-2 and 3-4 transmission shift solenoids.  Our job was just the knocking piston rod. But when test driving the car we noticed it wasn’t shifting gear.  Again, not wanting the over-revving because the transmission to damage the engine we’d just basically rebuilt, we drained the transmission, replaced the 2 solenoids, $40.00 parts never charged and 2 hours not labor charge. Refilled with the same transmission fluid we drained out because it was another $40’s cost for a job I wasn’t getting paid to do. We started the engine and the lights, check engine light and trans light went out by themselves because the problem was solved Desiree and Joseph came to get the car, with explicit instructions to bring cash. They didn’t. stating the bank was opening at noon, because of the snow, and he had to be to work by 11:00.  I reluctantly accepted the check.

After 4 days, believing the check had cleared, I paid the rest owed on rent, and $500 to Josh, believing the check had cleared.  The next day, the check had bounced, placing me another $900 in debt.  This is after Joseph had called stating the check engine light had come on.  He said he had taken it to Auto Zone, who pulled the code, telling him 2 different transmission codes, a speed sensor and 4^th gear ratio.  He said he took it to a transmission shop who quoted him $3500. The same codes he was given from transmission shop I researched and found did not refer to rebuild. Told him bring it by, we’d figure it out. Again, my job was to fix the engine, not the transmission.  We spoke more and he said that he was going sixty miles an hour at 2,000 rpm, showing it was getting 4^th gear. Engine was running great. Friday, April 2^nd, I received copy of check attached.  They had stopped payment on the check on 3/24/10.  When I first found the check hadn’t cleared, angered I attempted to Joseph, who’s phone went directly to voice mail every time I called.  The number on the check itself written to me by Ms. Comisky, we she assure me was hers, was not.  It is her mothers.  I left angry message regarding my losses because of her and that I was going to repo the car, I admit.  She just destroyed my life, I was angry. I wasn’t aware it was her mother’s phone or I wouldn’t have left the message.  Apparently, her mother knew the sole reason she cancelled the check was the light. She called a Jefferson County Sheriff deputy Dave Bruening, who then called me.  We talked for over 30 minutes, he had read my website and agreed with my situation. He called the next morning, not concerned with their supposed complaint, but for mine.  Again, we spoke for 20+ minutes, me assuring him I wouldn’t harm myself. I am of the understanding that we both were of the belief that the check had bounced, not payment stop.  

 

She fraudulently wrote and stopped payment on this check.  The transmission issue was not my job and was not preventing him from driving. He stated it drove normal except for the light on dash.

 

Parts of this letter will be printed and signed under oath for criminal proceedings pursuant to the above noted statute. I have all receipts, pictures of the engine disassembly and reassembly. Have retained old crankshaft, rod and bearings we replaced. I will produce phone records of the times attempted to contact Joseph for two months that we believed he’d abandoned it, without response; shop time estimate manuals that show costs $1,000’s more than I charged. I will also subpoena above noted officer and 2 Subaru techs, more…

 

Further, this email will be sent to every newspaper and TV station. My business has stopped operation as a result of this criminal act which is worse than robbery in its results.  I have lost it all, am going on permanent vacation on 4/8/10 but will be accessible at this email and 720-338-7848 and for court appearance.

 

I also believe that because this is fraudulent theft, you question her integrity closer to home as payroll administrator of your firm.

 

Sincerely,

Timothy R. Branthoover

www.timthemechanic.com

I'm giving up trusting people or being the nice guy because of evil people like this.

 

 

 

Horror stories of Rip Off's in the auto repair industry and elsewhere

My Story of how I lost my car at Tennyson Automotive Clinic on 29th and Tennyson in Denver Colorado.  Owned and operated by Rich Lamb

 

 

 

I lost my pride and joy simply due to Rich Lambs business performance and received nothing as compensation!

 

Thank you,

Gary R