Case History Section 9

1997 - October 14	Ciccolella Conflict Issues and Evidence - Disqualified!
	October 17, 1997 Transcript, Dearna Wilfred Case April 27, 1998 Transcript, Dearna Wilfred Case Ciccolella’s Perjury in Court September 14, 1998 Transcript, Dearna Wilfred Case Motion To Disqualify Ciccolella November, 97 Order for property confiscation

Section 9 provides legal documentation in regard to the issue of clear conflict by Dearna’s attorney, John Ciccolella and his law firm, J D Ciccolella & Weston PC.  Ciccolella had previously reviewed Harmon’s case and received all pertinent documentation including the permanent orders information from his previous divorce.  When Harmon could not pay his retainer, Ciccolella subsequently accepted Harmon’s wife as his client in his second divorce case and used the previous information against Harmon.   Ciccolella prepared for the trial in record time because no new research was done to ascertain Harmon’s then financial or personal position.  Harmon believes  Ciccolella’s direct cooperation with DA Suther’s and Assistant DA Jeanne Smith in fabricating the criminal custody charges in record time was no coincidence, especially when the onerous permanent orders in the Dearna case were essentially identical to the previous divorce.  Once his dirty work was done for DA’s Suther’s and Smith, Ciccollela quit the case due to his……….. CONFLICT!  Double Whammy. 

 

 

Index of PDF Documents in Case History Section 9

 

 

 

Pg       1          Letter to Dale Parrish, Conflict issues regarding John Ciccolella

Pg       4          Case No. 89 DR 477   Division 10.  Permanent Orders transcript.

Pg       6          Case No. 97 DR 3393   Division 3.  Divorce proceedings transcript

Pg       22        Case No. 97 DR 3393   Division X.  Final orders hearing transcript

Pg       55        Evidence of John  Ciccolella’s perjury in court

Pg       57        Case No. 97 DR 3393   Division 2.   Transcript of custody hearing

Pg       69        Civil Action No 97  DR 3393,Motion to disqualify John Ciccolella

Pg       71        Harmon Wilfred affidavit re: original consultations with John Ciccolella

Pg       72        Collin Finn affidavit re: Harmon’s consultations with John Ciccolella.

Pg       74        Case No 97 DR 3393 Division Ex Parte Order for temporary award of property.

 

 

PDF    Article on Ciccolella. He became a Family Court Judge,  then was shot in the face by angry father!

 

Questions:

 

 

 

 

1. How is it possible an attorney who has clear conflict of interest is permitted to act in a contested divorce case when this is pointed out to the court?  Why did Ciccolella initially refuse to recuse himself when he knew he was clearly in a conflict of interest?  Why did the judge not insist he recuse himself?  Was his dirty work for Suther’s and Smith not complete?
2. Why was Ciccolella allowed to use the previous Permanent Orders to set the second marriage permanent orders when the previous orders set were eight years old and questionable and clearly bizarre?  Eight years between each divorce would at the very least raise questions around a totally different set of circumstances.
3. If it is the law for Judge Kane (who by the way was a colleague and a friend of John Suthers) to always be required to consider “what is in the best interests of the children,” why did he refuse to hear the evidence of 6 witnesses present in the court on the facts of Dearna’s mental instability and registered child abuse?
4. Why did all the officials from the local, state and federal levels who were sent affidavits from witnesses and notified about the children’s plight in this case regarding Dearna’s recorded / registered child abuse and mental instability, still do nothing to remove the children from the abusive situation even to this day?
5. How could DA’s Suthers and Smith be permitted to meddle in a family court case even to the extent of forcing the children to be returned to Colorado to an abusive situation, knowing full well that they had placed the children at great risk?
6. How could Harmon pay the exorbitant accumulated child support when he was in prison and couldn’t work in Canada when out on bail, because of the false charges against him?
7. When child support was set, why didn't the court ask for evidence of employment, earnings etc. but instead used the previous eight year old divorce case to set parameters which was clearly bogus in the first place?