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:
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?