Case History Section 28

2000 - July - Dec	Continuing Efforts Towards Justice in Colorado
	Request For Motion To Disqualify El Paso County DA Jeanne Smith Request for Motion for Change of Venue Due to Conflict

Section 28 depicts Harmon's final efforts to challenge the original extradition custody charges on a level playing field.  After his first three failed attempts to submit his case to the Colorado justice system, with broken promises, illegal incarcerations and multiple violations of his rights under the US Canada Hague Commission Treaty, Harmon became very cautious.  Having by July, 2000  then lost all of his previous legal support to fear of retribution, betrayal, or his lawyers becoming conveniently dysfunctional and abandoning the case, his final course of action pointed toward one last attempt at obtaining new legal counsel in Colorado and in parallel, retaining high level legal representation in Washington DC to prepare and submit evidence to the US Justice Department in the hope that justice in America can at the very least,  be obtained at the federal level. 

The end result was to be abandoned yet again by the new set of Colorado attorneys under Bill Aspinwall (former prosecutor and Phil Freytag's attorney) and his associate Robert Watson. This occurred as a direct result of Harmon's ultimate refusal to return to Colorado until motions were filed to disqualify the El Paso County DA, and for a change of venue due to their conflict involving Harmon's report of the DA's part in the cover-up of the El Paso County Pension Fund embezzlement scheme.  At this point, given the past behavior of the El Paso County DA and court system, Harmon was justifiably concerned for his life and safety. Aspinwall and Watson refused to challenge DA Jeanne Smith by the filing of these motions and promptly quit the case.  They did however, in the December 2000 hearing, honor Harmon's final instruction to submit his letters of request to the court for the Motions to Disqualify and Change of Venue, and a request for a continuance as well as a copy of the Gregory Craig Summary (Section 6) as evidence of the conflict to support the motions. The final result was the court's ignoring and/or disallowance of any motions to be entered into the record and a revocation of Harmon's $10,000 bail.

Index of PDF Document in Case History Section 28, Continuing Efforts:

 

Pg       1            Request for Continuance

Pg       2            US Justice Department Activity report

Pg       3            Urgent Request for Investigation, Brief to USJD, Michael Horowitz

Pg      4-5         Second Request, Cover and Brief to USJD, Michael Horowitz

Pg        6           Request for Motion to Disqualify El Paso County DA, Jeanne Smith    

Pg      7-8          Request for Change of Venue and Continuance

Pg        9            Assistance

 

Questions:

1. With an obvious conflict of interest on the part of Jeanne Smith and John Suthers as accused perpetrators in the cover-up of the El Paso County Pension Fund embezzlement for nearly two years, and such having been declared over and over again by Harmon in letters, on the radio and even within his law suit against Witty and the Fund for non-payment of his fees, why would Harmon's attorneys refuse to act on his motion for disqualifying the DA?
2. With the withdrawal of Harmon's legal counsel from the case, understanding that Harmon was now pro se, and communicating directly to the court by letter and motions, backed up with solid evidence in the Gregory Craig Summary, how could the court legally ignore his communications and revoke his bail?
3. All during Harmon's investigation on the Fund embezzlement scheme, Harmon constantly pointed out the obvious conflict between the DA's office and the Pension Fund as to Deputy DA Dan May's role in investigating the Fund and being on the Fund's board of directors simultaneously, not to mention that it was the DA's Pension Fund.  How could the DA possibly justify doing the investigation directly let alone Witty's ultimate prosecution?