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!
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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