Case History Section 26

2000 - June 29	Further Evidence of Treaty Violations and Successful Dismissal of Arapahoe County Order to Appear for Financial Examination
	Draft account of Federal Treaty Violation Notice of Hearing and Order to Appear on $750,000 Appearance Bond Motion and Order to Vacate Rule 69 Financial Examination Hearing for Violation of Hague Commission Extradition Treaty

Section 26 provides an additional draft account of Harmon’s illegal Denver Jail incarceration, as well as copies of the order to re-appear one month later in Arapahoe County for a financial examination.  The Order to re-appear under bond was dismissed as a result of the Judge agreeing to Harmon’s attorney's Motion to invalidate and Rescind Bond due to a further violation of the Canada / US Treaty.

 

 

 

Index of PDF Documents in Case History Section 26:

 

 

Pg       1          Draft overview of Extradition Treaty violations in Colorado

Pg       5          Notice of Hearing, District Court, Arapahoe County

Pg       7          Motion to Invalidate and rescind $750,000 Arapahoe County

Pg       12        Motion to vacate orders re: Rule 69 Proceeding.  Arapahoe County

Pg       19        People’s response to motion to vacate rule 69 proceeding, Arapahoe County

Pg       23        Reply to People’s response to motion to vacate, Arapahoe County
Pg       25        Court Order vacating Rule 69 proceeding- Treaty Violation

 

 

 

Questions:

 

1. To this day, Harmon has not been permitted to face or defend the original extradition custody charges due to the recurrent arrest diversions in cooperation with DA Jeanne Smith. What does this say about the substance of the original charges?
2. Why did the court force Harmon to agree to a $750,000 non deposit bond when Larry Bowling, the Arapahoe County Assistant District Attorney advised the court that they had no right to detain him based upon the Federal order? Could it have to do with Bowling having deliberately chosen a Judge who was ignorant of extradition and international law? 
3. If the judge in the initial Sandra Wilfred divorce trial in June of 1990 (see Transcripts Section 11, 12, Sandra Wilfred Divorce and Case History, Section 3) had allowed Harmon his constitutional rights to be properly represented and had permited his side of the case to be heard by proper legal representation, he would not be in the situation he is today.   How is it that the family court system in the US can be so easily hijacked to so egregiously violate father’s rights?