IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR BLACK HAWK COUNTY

_______________________________________________________________________
_

Colleen A. Collins (Tasseff) EQUITY#: CDDM046901

Petitioner, pro se MOTION TO STRIKE

vs. APPLICATION FOR DEFERRED

Thomas G. Tasseff FILING FEE AND RESPONSE TO

Respondent, pro se ORDER

TO SHOW CAUSE

COMES NOW PETITIONER, COLLEEN A. COLLINS, PRO SE, AND FOR HER

RESISTANCE TO THE RESPONDENT’S APPLICATION FOR DEFERRED FILING

FEE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE STATES AS FOLLOWS :

1. RESPONDENT HAS NOT BEEN FORTHCOMING IN HIS APPLICATION

REGARDING INCOME STATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT FOR DEFERRED FILING AS

FOLLOWS:

3. “The only income I receive is a DHS food-stamp benefit of $113.00

monthly.”

2. RESPONDENT FAILED TO REPORT INCOME FROM UNEMPLOYMENT

BENEFITS, POSSIBLE GAMBLING WINNINGS, AND INCOME ACCESSIBLE

TO HIM FROM HIS PRESENT WIFE COLLECTING THREE CHILD SUPPORT

PAYMENTS MONTHLY.
3. RESPONDENT HAS BEEN SEEN GAMBLING AT MESKWAKI CASINO SINCE

HIS REQUEST FOR DEFERRED FILING FEES. IF THE COURT WOULD SO

CHOOSE TO SUBPOENA MESKWAKI CASINO, THE RESULTS WOULD VERIFY

PETITIONER’S STATEMENT IS TRUTH, ALTHOUGH PETITIONER WAS

INFORMED BY HER FORMER ATTORNEY THAT ONE “CANNOT SUBPOENA A

TRIBE”. IN RETROSPECT COUNSEL’S OBJECTIVES WERE TO CONTRIBUTE

AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE TOWARD HIS CLIENT’S INTERESTS AND NOT

CREATE ANY MORE WORK DUE TO “PRO BONO” STATUS AND MAY HAVE

GIVEN PETITIONER INACCURATE INFORMATION.

4. IOWA CODE RULE 1.1017 SUPPORTS PETITIONER’S CLAIMS AS FOLLOWS:

FRAUDULENT ASSIGNMENT; MOTION. THE COURT MAY, ON MOTION,

INQUIRE INTO THE ASSIGNMENT OF A JUDGMENT, OR ITS ENTRY TO THE
USE OF ANY PARTY, AND CANCEL THE ASSIGNMENT OR STRIKE OUT SUCH
USE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WHENEVER IT DETERMINES THE SAME TO
BE INEQUITABLE, FRAUDULENT OR DONE IN BAD FAITH. [REPORT 1943;
NOVEMBER 9, 2001, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 15, 2002]

AND

IOWA CODE RULE 702.9 DECEPTION.

“DECEPTION” CONSISTS OF KNOWINGLY DOING ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
1. CREATING OR CONFIRMING ANOTHER’S BELIEF OR IMPRESSION AS TO
THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A FACT OR CONDITION WHICH IS
FALSE AND WHICH THE ACTOR DOES NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE.
2. FAILING TO CORRECT A FALSE BELIEF OR IMPRESSION AS TO THE
EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A FACT OR CONDITION WHICH THE
ACTOR PREVIOUSLY HAS CREATED OR CONFIRMED.
3. PREVENTING ANOTHER FROM ACQUIRING INFORMATION
PERTINENT TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN
ANY COMMERCIAL OR NONCOMMERCIAL TRANSACTION OR TRANSFER.
4. SELLING OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRING OR ENCUMBERING PROPERTY
AND FAILING TO DISCLOSE A LIEN, ADVERSE CLAIM, OR OTHER LEGAL
IMPEDIMENT TO THE ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY, WHETHER SUCH
 IMPEDIMENT IS OR IS NOT VALID, OR IS OR IS NOT A MATTER OF
OFFICIAL RECORD.
5. PROMISING PAYMENT, THE DELIVERY OF GOODS, OR OTHER
PERFORMANCE WHICH THE ACTOR DOES NOT INTEND TO PERFORM OR
KNOWS THE ACTOR WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PERFORM. FAILURE TO
PERFORM, STANDING ALONE, IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT THE ACTOR DID
NOT INTEND TO PERFORM.

5. PETITIONER HAS APPEALED FROM THE BLACK HAWK DISTRICT COURT’S

RULING; FILED BY THE IOWA SUPREME COURT UNDER DOCKET #09-0265.

6. PETITIONER’S ATTORNEY, ROBERT THOMPSON WAS GRANTED A

WITHDRAWAL ON THE GROUNDS THAT “THE CASE HAS BEEN CONCLUDED
AND REPRESENTATION IS NO LONGER NEEDED”, ALTHOUGH HIS
“MISREPRESENTATION” HAS CAUSED AN ESCALATION OF LEGAL TRAUMA
CAUSING IREPARABLE HARM AND PRESENTLY PETITIONER FACES
CONTEMPT CHARGES.

7. PETITIONER’S FIRST CONVERSATION WITH HER COURT APPOINTED

ATTORNEY GRANTED BY THE COURT TO REPRESENT HER IN THE HEARING
TO “SHOW CAUSE” SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 24, 2008 HAS AFFIRMED THAT
HER DEFENSE ONCE AGAIN, WOULD NOT BE HEARD.

8. APPOINTED COUNSEL, DEL WERNER’S REPLY TO PETITIONER’S

EXPLANATION OF NOT BEING ABLE TO SPEAK IN COURT IN HER DEFENSE,
STATES AS FOLLOWS:
“YOU AREN’T SUPPOSED TO SPEAK IN COURT.”
MR. WERNER’S REPLY TO PETITIONER FILING A GRIEVANCE AGAINST HER
ATTORNEY FOR MISREPRESENTATION STATES AS FOLLOWS:
“YOU CAN’T FILE A GRIEVANCE AGAINST AN ATTORNEY THAT WORKS
FOR FREE!”
THUS, IN ORDER TO ASSURE THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO DEFEND
HERSELF, PETITIONER MUST PROCEED PRO SE.
9. PETITIONER HAS BEEN FORCED TO APPEAL THE OUTCOME OF A FINAL
RULING THAT WAS BASED ON FRAUDULENT TESTIMONY, INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE, LACK OF CONCERN BY COUNSEL, AND A PREJUDICIAL COURT
WITHOUT COMPETENT LEGAL REPRESENTATION. PLEASE REVIEW
ATTACHMENTS AS A MERE “SLICE” OF PROOF REGARDING THESE CLAIMS
HERETO ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT____.
A. EXCERPTS FROM TRANSCRIPT
B. JUDGE FISTER’S RULING
C. MOTIONS IGNORED/PHONE CALLS NOT RETURNED/ LETTER TO
JUDGE GEER.
D. EXCERPT FROM TRANSCRIPT

10. PETITIONER CONTINUES TO BE BURDENED BY RESPONDENT’S

CONTINUAL MOTIONS ON THE DISTRICT COURT LEVEL IN WHICH THE
COURT DISPLAYS PREJUDICE AGAINST PETITIONER, PRO SE.

11. PRIOR PERSONAL TESTIMONY AND TAX STATEMENTS HAVE

BEEN MADE EVIDENT TO RESPONDENT AND THE COURT REVEALING
PETITIONER’S INABILITY TO SOLELY ASSUME THE MORTGAGE ON THE
RESIDENCE AT 327 MAIN ST., DIKE, IA.

12. PETITIONER WAS “AWARDED” THE MARITAL HOME IN THE

DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS ALTHOUGH THE COURT’S OBSTENSIBLE
“AWARD” TRANSLATES AS HOLDING PETITIONER SOLELY RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE MARITAL DEBT.

13. PETITIONER HASN’T THE ABILITY TO “COLLECT” ON SUCH ASSETS.

DUE TO NATIONAL “MORTGAGE REGULATIONS”, ETC, SHE DOES NOT
QUALIFY FOR “SOLE ASSUMPTION” OF THE INVOLVED DEBT BASED ON 1.)
HER PERSONAL INCOME AND/OR 2.) HER HISTORY OF BANKRUPTCIES
PERPETUATED BY RESPONDENT’S UNCONTROLLABLE ADDICTIONS
THROUGHOUT THE 27 YEARS OF MARRIAGE.

14. PETITIONER HAS BEEN UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH JUDGE JON

FISTER’S RULING PERTAINING TO RELEASING RESPONDENT FROM THE
OUTSTANDING MORTGAGE DEBT AS HER ATTEMPT TO REFINANCE OR
MODIFY THE LOAN IN HER OWN NAME WAS DENIED BY REGIONS
MORTGAGE LOSS AND MITIGATION DEPARTMENT. PLEASE
REFER TO ATTACHMENTS AS EVIDENCE.

15. PETITIONER CANNOT QUALIFY TO REFINANCE WHEN THERE HAS BEEN

A RECORD OF NONPAYMENT. RESPONDENT IS AWARE OF THIS
DISADVANTAGE WHICH HE, HIMSELF CAUSED.

16. PETITIONER CONTACTED NIKKI ROE, FORECLOSURE SPECIALIST FROM

OPERATION THRESHOLD IN WATERLOO, IA.. AND SUBMITTED AN
APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE TO HALT THE FORECLOSURE PROCESS
THAT HAS ALREADY BEGUN. DUE TO THIS PROCESS, THERE ARE NOW
LEGAL FEES ADDED TO THIS DEBT.

17. RESPONDENT’S WILLFUL INTENT TO NEGLECT THE COURT’S ORDER TO

PAY THE MORTGAGE THROUGHOUT 2008, AND THE COURT’S NEGLECT TO
ENFORCE THE TEMPORARY ORDER FOR SUPPORT RULED UPON BY JUDGE
BAUSH ON APRIL 4, 2007 INITIATED A NEGATIVE PAYMENT HISTORY AND
DENIAL TO MODIFY THE LOAN. THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDER WAS TO
PROTECT THE PETITIONER AND HER CHILDREN THROUGH SPOUSAL
SUPPORT,CHILD SUPPORT.

18. TAX STATEMENTS OF 2008 REVEAL RESPONDENT’S “REPORTED”

INCOME TO BE $31,000.00 PROVING HIS VICTIMIZING PERJURIOUS
TESTIMONY OF BEING HOMELESS, PENNILESS, AND DEPRESSED ARE BUT
A RUSE. RESPONDENT HAD THE FINANCIAL MEANS TO ABIDE BY THE
COURT ORDER AND PAY THE MORTGAGE .

19. RESPONDENT ALSO HAD THE MEANS TO PAY HIS OTHER VARIOUS
COURT DEBTS CONCERNING CHARGES AGAINST HIM. HE SIMPLY CHOSE
TO USE HIS “INCOME” FOR OTHER PURPOSES. RESPONDENT’S
“HOMELESSNESS” WAS SELF-IMPOSED AND WAS USED TO DECEIVE AND
MANIPULATE THE COURT. PETITIONER IS ABLE TO AFFIRM THESE
STATEMENTS WITH EVIDENCE.

20. PETITIONER HAS ACQUIRED RESPONDENT’S CRIMINAL RECORDS

THROUGH IOWA COURTS ONLINE AND IS AWARE OF HIS VARIOUS
FINANCIAL DEBTS OWING TO THE COURT. RESPONDENT HAD THE
FINANCIAL MEANS TO SATISFY THIS DEBT AND SPOUSAL SUPPORT
THROUGH “REPORTED” GAMBLING WINNINGS AND UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS PROVING HIS AFFIDAVITS TO BE PERJURIOUS AND HIS NEGLECT
TO ABIDE BY THE COURT ORDERS, WILLFUL.

21. RESPONDENT HAS MANIPULATED THE COURT THROUGH VICTIMIZING

STORIES OF HOMELESSNESS, RESULTING IN THE COURT EXCUSING
RESPONDENT FROM HIS COURT ORDERED OBLIGATIONS TO HIS FAMILY
AND THE DEBT OWING TO THE COURT. PETITIONER AND FAMILY HAVE
SUFFERED IRREPARABLE HARM WHILE THE COURT HAS CONFUSED
RESPONDENT’S DECEIT AS TRUTH.

WHEREFORE, THE FINAL RULING HAS MOVED FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
AND AWAITS APPEAL BY THE IOWA SUPREME COURT WITH THE
INTENTION THAT PETITIONER’S VOICE WILL FINALLY BE HEARD AND
JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED.
 THE ABOVE IS TRUE AS I VERILY BELIEVE.

__________________________________

COLLEEN A. COLLINS (FORMERLY TASSEFF)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME COLLEEN A. COLLINS, THIS DAY

OF
MARCH, 2009.

___________________________________

NOTARY PUBLIC, IN AND FOR THE STATE OF IOWA

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

COLLEEN A. COLLINS, PRO SE (FORMERLY TASSEFF)

______________________________
PO BOX 316 DIKE, IA. 50624
CCCOLLINS11@GMAIL.COM

COPY TO:
BLACK HAWK COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK OF COURT
IOWA SUPREME COURT
THOMAS G. TASSEFF
ORIGINAL FILED.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THE UNDERSIGNED CERTIFIES THAT THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS
SERVED UPON
ALL PARTIES TO THE ABOVE CASE BY SERVICE ON EACH OF THE
ATTORNEYS OF RECORD
HEREIN AT THEIR RESPECTIVE ADDRESSES DISCLOSED ON THE
PLEADINGS BY
_X_US MAIL THOMAS G. TASSEFF AND IOWA SUPREME COURT.
_X_ HAND DELIVERED TO BHC CLERK OF COURT
ON _________________________________,2009
_____________________________________