1

1
2
3

DISTRICT COURT
DOUGLAS COUNTY
COLORADO
4000 JUSTICE WAY
CASTLE ROCK, CO 80109

4
5

HARLAN STEIN

Petitioner,
*FOR COURT USE ONLY*

7
8

And

SIGALIT STEIN

10

Case No. 13DR30128

Division 7

Respondent,

11

For Petitioner:
12

DON JACOBSON
13

DAVID JAPHA
14

For Respondent:
15

PRO SE
16
17

The matter came on for hearing on September 23, 2014,

18

before the HONORABLE ANGELA ARKIN, Judge of the District Court,

19

and the following FTR proceedings were had.

20
21
22
23
24
25
Transcribing Solutions, LLC
815 South Perry Street, Ste 110
Castle Rock, CO 80104
720-389-9420

INDEX

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

WITNESSES:

PAGE

SIGALIT STEIN
Direct Examination by Ms. Frazier-Abel

SEPTEMBER 23, 2014

SORENSON HEARING
THE COURT:

3
4

and have a seat.

Go ahead, Counsel.

Go ahead

I need you to be speaking into the microphone.

MS. FRAZIER-ABEL:

Thank you, Your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF SIGALIT STEIN

7
8

I need you to be speaking, no.

BY MS. FRAZIER-ABEL:

Please state your name and spell your last name.

10

Sigalit Stein.

11

And how are you involved in this proceeding?

12

I am the Respondent and the victim.

13

And you are currently in the process of a dissolution,

14

correct?

15

Correct.

16

And how long were you married?

17

Its going to be our fourth anniversary on the 26th, on

18

Friday.

19

Do you know why were are here today?

20

To look at a piece of misrepresentation that claims

21

that I can't represent myself and that I need Attorneys to be

22

using funds out of my estate for their own purpose, and to deny

23

me my, part of my marital estate, my safety, my health, and all

24

of my other legal rights.

25

And do you understand what a Sorenson hearing is?

I have been deprived of legal representation.

Mrs.

Sorenson claims that she has no ability to look at money.

property manager.

Bonnie Shields said, (inaudible) contracts, contrast to

documentation.

Regulation Board that naturally only looks at the standard of

professional conduct, which have nothing to do with truth,

justice or consumer protection.

that every single thing she said, I could show documentation to

Everything Bonnie Shields, every single thing

I have a file, the complaint with the Attorney

10

the otherwise.

11

She used defamation.

12
13
14

I am a

But the documentation is there

So she filed a motion that is misrepresentation.

And that's why we're here.

Have you received a copy of the Sorenson case for your

review?
A

I couldn't be bothered to read it because it was

15

irrelevant to me.

I had no legal representation and I had no

16

idea to expect here.

17

because what this Court did not do is get the twelve hour mental

18

evaluation that will tell them, listen, her IQ is higher than

19

normal, she can do this, she can do that, she can, all that

20

you're doing is paying people, not out of, paying people to say

21

what is profitable for their business.

22

business people taking care of their business.

23

care of my business.

24

It does not make sense to me that this is how a Sorenson hearing

25

is being heard.

The entire thing is entirely irrelevant

This is all peop,

Nobodys taking

And so I dont have legal representation.

I have spoken to our representative, asking them

to change the entire process because its fraught with conflicts

of interests.

it, and that's why --

4
5

So, that's my position.

Mrs. Stein, I asked you if you received a copy of it.

I didn't ask --

You, you --

-- you if you read it.

-- emailed it to me.

9
10

That's why I didn't treat

But, previously, when I filed my

first appeal back in May, I already found that online.

Q

Do you have information that would help the Court in

11

making a determination from a treatment provider, that would

12

assist the Court in making a determination as to whether or not

13

you need a guardian ad litem?

14

I do.

Its in my car.

15

Okay.

And why haven't you presented that information

16
17

to the Court today?

A

Because I felt that I should, I felt that if you and

18

Dr. Kutz (phonetic) didn't know about this, and you couldn't,

19

then your lies will be exposed because I, I didn't feel that I

20

should give my documents to be used for the interests of other

21

people.

22

supposed to know if its good for me or bad for me?

Plus, I did not have legal representation, so how am I

23

Okay.

24

-- better for me to keep it.

25

It was --

1
2
3

Mrs. Stein, has this Court told you that you're not

allowed to have legal representation?

A

There is an ethics or a scam, a fraud scam,

masquerading as a fix by which if one Attorney is on a record,

nobody will give legal advice.

defamation that I suffered is that everybody ignores me.

have friends, anybody who knows me, I'm not delusional.

Everybody who knows me is supportive of me.

heard this malicious defamation has completely ignored me.

10
11

Plus, the result of the

So I

But anybody whos

So,

what am I going to do?

Q

And, Mrs. Stein, do you believe that you are capable of

12

going forward and making decisions in a timely fashion to bring

13

this divorce to a resolution?

14

I dont see how, considering a few, few surgeries and

15

stuff like that should deny me my legal entitlement.

16

schedules are usually very generous because most Attorneys are

17

taking care of many, many cases.

18

one case.

19

So I can do that.

20

Court

All I have to take care of is

All it takes is driving around and talking to people.

And you mentioned that you had many, many surgeries.

21

Do you have any medical evidence to indicate when these surgeries

22

are scheduled or what the procedures are, so that the Court can

23

take that into account, with respect to docketing this case?

24
25

I filed one document from Dr. Mill (phonetic), where he

believes that this could be small lymphatic cancer.

I believe

that this could be tuberculosis, and so I've taken microscopy,

and the results are coming on the 1st of October.

1st of October, if I'm lucky, this is tuberculosis, and Ill get

some antibiotics and Ill be over it.

tuberculosis are negative, then according to the CT scan, which I

have documented with this Court, there's a variety of cancers

that could explain what's happening.

other options but to take the biopsy.

will not have to take the biopsies.

And so on the

If the tests for

And then I will have no

So I'm very hopeful that I

However, when I took my

10

first biopsy, I experienced that I was unable, I was bed bound

11

for about a month.

12

Mountain ENT.

13

symptoms for small lymphatic cancer.

14

that I've had those.

15

he has written the same to the Court.

16

that the reason I did not take my other biopsies, so, biopsies

17

start with the least invasive to the most invasive, the most

18

invasive being that theyll just remove the whole thing and slice

19

it up.

20

explained the same to the Court in the medical documents.

21
22
23

And so I told the same to Dr. Mill of Rocky

And so he told me that this is consistent with B

He cannot confirm or deny

He can only say that it is consistent.

And

And so, and he also knows

And so that's why they're requesting many.

And he also

Who is the provider that you have information about,

with respect to not using a GAL?

A

That's Will Bishop (phonetic).

And, actually, I don't

24

know how this Court could possibly imagine that without a proper

25

mental evaluation actually giving you a real recording of my

abilities and disabilities, how do a bunch of people talking and

talking and talking are going to tell this Court what I can or

can't do.

is not in a position to say whether I'm delusional or not,

whether, they're not in a position to say anything based on

talking to me.

those evaluations, there are difficulties, like theyll find that

black people score higher when they get interviewed by black

doctors.

And what Will Bishop told me is that even a professor

They need actual medical evaluation.

And even

And so I come from a European culture, and, yes, I am

10

not here to serve the financial interest of anybody.

And unless

11

they serve my interests, then why should I be forced to see them?

12

And so yesterday, I was forced to see a person that I dreaded,

13

that I felt I shouldn't be seeing.

14

5:20, and I just, my heart won't pull.

15

means I have to take a bus and walk in the cold.

16

doctor, and shes a family physician, her name is Michelle, and

17

shes from the Castle Rock Family Physicians, and so shes taken

18

several EKGs, she's given me a heart machine for one weekend,

19

and shes given me all kinds of tests.

20

cardiologist and a cardiologist need to take an x-ray.

21

to be able to do that Thursday.

22

yesterday.

23

and dont stop, I need to be in an emergency room.

24

be in an emergency room because I have to be here today.

And so

25

that's the reason I didn't go to the mental evaluation.

And if I

I still woke up at 5:50,

He is downtown, which
And so my

She says shes not a

I'm going

I was not able to accomplish it

But Michelle said that if my heart palpitations start

Now, I can't

were to take mental evaluation, I would want to get copies of all

the written stuff and a recording of all the interviews, so that

if I go to appeal it, then I will be able to use my own medical

experts showing why the doctor misrepresented or misunderstood

the results of the test.

this Court?

Do you believe that Dr. Kutz is part of a conspiracy by

I dont believe that Kutz is part of a conspiracy, but

if youve learned anything about democracy and how democracy

10

works, it actually is about accountability, it is about

11

separation of authorities, and it is about resolving conflicts of

12

interests.

13

power and the pr, I'm nobody, basically, I have an estate worth

14

two million dollars, all cash, they are all after it.

I'm not

15

his referral, she is.

And thats

16

even good because it could be that Japha has recommended all

17

these people.

18

are you aware of the latest legislation by Governor Hickenlooper

19

to regulate HOA managers?

I'm not your referral, she is.

So I don't know, but can I tell you a story about,

MS. FRAZIER-ABEL:

20
21

So my conflict is that I am deprived of consumer

Your Honor, I would ask that we move

onto the next question.

22

THE COURT:

Okay.

So, the Attorney has made an

23

objection regarding relevance.

24

objection.

25

question.

And I'm sustaining that

What you're talking about is not responsive to her

Okay.

Go ahead.

10

(BY MS. FRAZIER-ABEL)

Do you believe that the Judge has

a personal interest in somehow causing you not to have

representation in this case?

A

I believe the Judge is a little bit out of her depth

and shes trying to, to not have that exposed, and that shes

trying to appear like she knows what she's doing, and that all of

you will appeal to that.

were hired by me and I paid you at the end, then you would be

representing my interests.

10

Its not my interests.

See, if you

Right now, my interest doesn't, your,

your interest is contradictory to my interest.

11

How is that?

12

Because I want you off my case and you want to be on my

13

case.
MS. FRAZIER-ABEL:

I have no further questions, Your

16

THE COURT:

Questions for this witness?

17

MR. JACOBSON:

18

THE COURT:

14
15

Honor.
Okay.

No questions, Your Honor.

Okay.

Ma'am, youve made quite a number of

19

statements prior to now and in response to the questions of the

20

guardian ad litem.

21

believe that this proceeding is, well I'm not exactly sure my

22

understanding of what you believe this proceeding is.

23

there something that you haven't addressed or discussed in your

24

statements today or in your prior testimony, just a few moments

25

And its my understanding that you dont

But is

11

ago, or in the status report that you filed with the Court on the

12th of September, 2014, that you wish to add?

RESPONDENT:

I guess it seems unclear to me whether you

misunderstand how systems work or whether you're just pretending.

Are you pretending that people will represent others interests?

Everybody represents their own interest.

properly regulating everything.

That's how every democracy works.

know if anybodys arguing that I should trust Bonnie Shields and

Its just a question of

That's how America works.

So why should I, so I don't

10

I dont think, dont know whether anybodys arguing that Bonnie

11

Shields did not have a financial interest in fraudulating [sic]

12

this motion.

13

that I should somehow work with a system that is not regulated.

14

And you say that it will never be regulated, and you may be

15

right, you may be wrong.

16

understanding like you, but I think DORA would, and of course I

17

understand this is not what this Court is about and if any

18

changes will happen, they will not be during this Court case, but

19

I also think I should give back to Colorado, and I dont want to

20

see other people be taken advantage of their Attorneys.

21

that Attorneys have reputation that's consistent with them being

22

unregulated.

23

did not get a disclosure.

24

there's going to be entry of an appearance of, or an Attorney of

25

record, or that I will not be able to decide on my own, on my own

Its hard for me to understand why you would state

I think, of course I dont have an

I think

So what I'm saying is, yes, it is hard for me.

I did not get, get a disclosure that

12

representation.

However, all Colorado citizens are falling prey

to this consumer trap.

wanted to share the story with you about regulating of HOAs,

which I participated in the process.

THE COURT:

It isnt just me.

Okay.

And that's why I

So --

Ma'am, that's not relevant to this

proceeding.

Nothing about Ms. Shields at the moment is relevant

to anything other than the fact that some many, many months ago,

before she withdrew, she filed a request that the Court determine

whether or not you would need a guardian ad litem to assist you

10

in this process.

11

involved in this case since she withdrew.

12

hired another Attorney and you asked, or actually, that Attorney

13

withdrew.

14

with respect to an appointment of a guardian ad litem.

15
16

Ms. Shields hasnt been, to my knowledge,

And thereafter, you

But that Attorney also sought relief from the Court

RESPONDENT:

Which he denies with the, with the

Attorney Regulation Board.

17

THE COURT:

18

RESPONDENT:

19

THE COURT:

So --

I have his statements --

I, I, I --- and he denies that he did --- I am not here to discuss with you what

20

you claimed about Mr. Wolf, with respect to Attorney (inaudible).

21

This proceeding --

22

RESPONDENT:

23

THE COURT:

24
25

He claimed it.
Ma'am, I'm sorry, but this proceeding is

only addressing the dissolution of marriage, and that's it.

13

RESPONDENT:

1
2

This is a Sorenson hearing.

How can it

address a dissolution of marriage?

THE COURT:

Because the Sorenson case is a dissolution

of marriage case and a guardian ad litem, if appointed in this

case, would only be somebody who assists you with this case, not

with any other issues in your life or in this state or anywhere

else.

And --

RESPONDENT:

THE COURT:

But --- the purpose of the guardian ad litem

10

would only be to assist you in understanding the proceedings and

11

in petitioning the Court with the assistance of Counsel to assure

12

that your rights are vindicated in this matter.

13

purpose for the appointment of a guardian ad litem.

14

litem means in this proceeding, this proceeding only.

15

for any other purpose or proceeding.

16

we're here today.

17

proceeding and this divorce, and your ability to represent your

18

own interests in this divorce, which is the issue before the

19

Court.

The term ad
Its not

So, that is the only reason

Sorenson does not impact anything but this

So -RESPONDENT:

20

That's the only

You will never be able to establish that

21

anybody is in a position to represent my interest better than me.

22

I can do better than anybody else -THE COURT:

23
24
25

Court.

Okay.

That's not the question before the

The question before the Court is, are you able to

14

communicate with Counsel in a way that moves your interests

forward.

And that's the issue.

RESPONDENT:

Not with a Counsel that I did not hire

myself and that I do not, that, and that I'm not the only source

of funds for.

by the Court, but I will consider every single step to be

injustice and I would want the Appeals, the Supreme or the

Federal Court to understand my claim, that there was fraud,

conspiracy to commit fraud, misrepresentation, negligent

10
11

Definitely not.

I will not, I will be forced to

misrepresentation and abuse of discrimination.

THE COURT:

Okay.

Was there anything else that you

12

wanted to tell the Court that relates solely to the domestic

13

relations proceeding and your participation that is not --

14

RESPONDENT:

There is nothing --

15

THE COURT:

-- something that you haven't already said?

16

RESPONDENT:

There is nothing to show that I cannot do

17

pretrial and permanent orders, and everything in between, as well

18

as I also have a legal right for a civil protection order.

19

so there is nothing to indicate that I can't do it because I've

20

done it in the past.

21

these things happened.

22

that every successful effort has to be guided by intelligence.

23

If you ask, nobody thinks that things just happen to be

24

successful because somebody was lucky.

25

bringing the Court to the point of temporary orders, then I have

And

Dr. Kutz said that it just happened, as if

Nothing happens.

Intelligent people know

If I was successful in

15

moved everything and I controlled everything.

What I did not

know is that retainers are never returned, that Attorneys handle

their own dismissal.

Its not my fault.

disclosures.

mistake signing a retainer with an Attorney and that led to a

second retainer with an Attorney, and that led to this horrendous

travesty of justice.

GAL, allow me to go pro se and allow me to proceed with the

So there was a lot that I didn't know.

The public does not know.

The public needs

And so I've made a horrible, horrible, horrible

And so I'm asking the Court to dismiss the

10

Court.

There is nothing to indicate that I would not.

The Court

11

needs to remember that all of my motions were when I was

12

completely without legal advice and that legal advice will not be

13

given to me while there's an Attorney on my record.

14

had limited representation and I could go back to how things were

15

when I had le, legal representation, then all I can do is the

16

best I can do.

17

motion, Judge Moss, herself, declared that shes eager to get the

18

case back on track.

19

diverted.

And I, I will not take the blame for it being

20

diverted.

Judge Moss tried.

21

unregulated.

22

on my record representing my husbands interest.

23

Court that hes not representing my interest.

24

person.

25

was in fear for my life.

And so if I

Judge Moss, herself, after Bonnie Shields filed a

And so its not my fault that its been

I did not know that Attorneys are

I did not imagine that, that an Attorney will stay

Wolf told the

Hes not the right

But the Court ignored it and kept him on my record.

So I'm asking that you put this

16

proceeding back on track, that this fraudulent motion will be

dismissed, that I will, and that we will all be allowed to

continue from where we left off.

THE COURT:

Okay.

You can come down.

Thank you,

ma'am.

of the Respondent, but also, in essence, her closing argument,

since she has made her wishes clear to the Court.

Abel, did you wish to make any sort of closing argument or

statement?
MS. FRAZIER-ABEL:

10
11

THE COURT:

Unfortunately,

Okay.

Mr. Jacobson, anything further that

you wish to argue, in terms of the evidence presented?

MR. JACOBSON:

14
15

I dont, Your Honor.

Ms. Frazier-

for you, I think this rests on your shoulders at this point.

12
13

And the Court will consider that not only the statement

I hesitate to say that I will be brief.

But I will say that I will try.

16

THE COURT:

17

MR. JACOBSON:

18

THE COURT:

19

MR. JACOBSON:

Your Honor, I think --

I need you to be brief.

I will try.

Okay.
I think there are two issues before the

20

Court.

And I think Sorenson, in a way, addresses them both.

And

21

so I will deal with that one first.

22

for which Your Honor should appoint a guardian ad litem for a

23

party in a divorce proceeding.

24

you today is very clear that Mrs. Stein is incapable of making

25

critical decisions herself, which is the second of the four

Sorenson lists four criteria

And I think the evidence before

17

criteria, and is mentally or emotionally incapable of weighing

the advice of Counsel on the particular course to pursue in her

own interests, which is the fourth of the Sorenson criteria.

statements that she has made, the filings that she has made make

it very clear that when she hears advice she doesn't like, she

perceives it as betrayal and must not only attack the betrayer,

but fight the perceived slight.

of taking the advice and evaluating the advice that she needs to

move the case forward.

The

And therefore, she is incapable

I think there is a second issue before

10

the Court, and that is the constitutional right of all parties to

11

have their cases heard in a reasonable amount of time and with

12

reasonable efficiency, and without undue repetitious activity

13

that prevents the case from moving forward.

14

Supreme Court has gone so far as to say that the Courts have an

15

interest in moving their cases forward.

16

Honor, at the Supreme Courts decision in People versus Dunlap at

17

623 P.2d 408, which in turn refers to Board of Coun, County

18

Commissioners versus Barday and People versus Spencer, and

19

Shotkin versus Kaplan, and other cases such as Karr versus

20

Williams before the Supreme Court at 50 P.3d 910, we have

21

repeated instances in which the Colorado Supreme Court has held

22

that when the conduct of a pro se party interferes with the

23

sufficient administration of a case, it damages the Courts, it

24

damages the party who is not so interfering, and deprives that

25

other party of the constitutional right, and in fact, damages the

And in fact, our

And if we look, Your

18

citizenry by wasting the limited resources of the Courts.

And I

suggest, Your Honor, you have ample evidence before you that that

also has happened here.

decision that a GAL needs to be appointed because of these

repetitious irrelevant filings that have interfered with the

progress of the case, or because Mrs. Stein is incapable of

acting in the manner necessary to move the case forward, there is

ample record for Your Honor to make the appointment of a guardian

ad litem so that, number one, Mrs. Steins genuine legal

And so whether Your Honor makes the

10

interests can be protected, and number two, so that the case can

11

move forward in an appropriate fashion, administratively, and we

12

can bring it to a timely close.

13

THE COURT:

Thank you.

And I'm thinking that the transcript is

14

going to be the order of the Court, and that will just be the

15

transcript of the Courts ruling.

16

going to ask you to be the person who seeks the transcript from

17

the Clerk of Court following these proceedings.

18

ask that both the Petitioner and the Respondent pay equally for

19

the cost of the transcript, and that within seven days of today,

20

Ms. Frazier-Abel will seek the transcript from the transcriber

21

within seven days after the receipt of the transcript.

22

be filed with the Court with a brief proposed order making it the

23

order of the Court.

24

of the preparation of the transcript and the cost of the e-filing

25

of the transcript, which is the per page cost plus the brief

And, Ms. Frazier-Abel, I'm

And I'm going to

It will

Both parties will equally pay for the cost

19

proposed order.

Initially, the Court finds that the matter was

scheduled for a Sorenson hearing, pursuant to the case In re the

Marriage of Sorenson, 166 P.3d 254, which is a Colorado Appeals

case from 2007.

17(c), and the case of People in the interest of M.M., which is

276, I'm, I'm sorry, 726 P.2d 1108.

Supreme Court case from 1986 that states in pertinent part, the

Court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for a person not

otherwise represented in an action or make such other order as it

The Sorenson case is primarily based on C.R.C.P.

And that's a Colorado

10

deems proper for the protection of that person.

And, generally,

11

the Court must make a finding that the person is mentally

12

impaired so as to be incapable of understanding the nature and

13

significance of the proceeding or incapable of making critical

14

decisions that are that persons right to make, and that if the

15

Court were to choose not to appoint a guardian ad litem in that

16

circumstance, then the Court would be engaging in an abuse of

17

discretion.

18

appoint a guardian ad litem in those situations in which it is

19

clear that the party lacks the intellectual capacity to

20

communicate with Counsel or is mentally or emotionally incapable

21

of weighing the advice of Counsel on the particular course to

22

pursue in his or her own interests.

23

states that the guardian ad litem should be appointed for a

24

spouse in a dissolution of marriage proceeding if, as the Court

25

stated in the beginning of the case, that spouse is mentally

And, in fact, the Court has an affirmative duty to

The Sorenson case actually

20

impaired so as to be incapable of understanding the nature and

significance of the proceeding, or is incapable of making

critical decisions, or lacks the intellectual capacity to

communicate Counsel, or is mentally or emotionally incapable of

weighing the advice of Counsel on a particular course to pursue

in his or her own interests.

witnesses, the first being Doctor, I think, Stuart Kutz.

Kutz was placed under oath.

set forth in detail the limitations of his review of the

The Court heard today from two

He is a PhD psychologist.

Dr.

And he

10

Respondents participation in the proceeding, the limitations of

11

the evaluation that he engaged in of the Respondent, based upon

12

the Respondents limited cooperation in the process, whether that

13

was because the Respondent intended not to cooperate or was

14

simply incapable, physically, of cooperating.

15

other things that he relied and some of those things were

16

included in exhibits one through ten that were admitted with the

17

Court from the Petitioners Counsel, that he identified at least

18

exhibits two through ten, which he identified as being items that

19

he had reviewed and foreseen prior to today in reviewing in order

20

to render his opinion regarding the functioning of the

21

Respondent.

22

three minutes last evening and listened to the Respondents

23

statements before his testimony in Court today.

24

background and experience, and the limitations of his evaluation

25

of the Respondents functioning, for purposes of this Sorenson

He discussed the

In addition, he talked to the Respondent for fifty

Based on his

21

hearing, the doctor opined that although Ms. Stein is an

intelligent person and Ms. Stein is not mentally impaired so that

she is incapable of understanding the nature and significance of

this proceeding, is capable, she does not lack intellectual

capacity to communicate with Counsel, but he opined that she is

incapable of making critical decisions and/or is mentally or

emotionally incapable of weighing the evidence of Counsel on the

particular course to pursue in her best interests.

that was the latter specific issue that Sorenson requires the

And, frankly,

10

Court to consider in determining whether a guardian ad litem is

11

necessary, that the Respondent would be mentally or emotionally

12

incapable of weighing the advice of Counsel on a particular

13

course to pursue in her own interests.

14

specifically said was most challenging and concerning regarding

15

Ms. Steins capacity in this case.

16

ad litem would be necessary for Ms. Stein because of her

17

challenges in being able to weigh the advice of Counsel on issues

18

of her own interests.

19

statements and actions, and behavior in the process had delayed

20

and obstructed the process, that Ms. Stein had made some poor

21

choices in this proceeding, that her statements and her actions

22

are contradictory, and that that is a constant state of

23

contradiction, that Ms. Stein focuses on the specific rather than

24

the general in seeing the big picture and understanding the

25

proceedings and the process, that he believed that without

That was what he

And he felt that a guardian

He further stated that Ms. Steins

22

assistance, Ms. Stein would be, would have difficulty following

the advice of Counsel, that Ms. Stein would have difficultly

accepting any advice from Counsel that she disagreed with, and

that she has taken certain steps in the proceeding to obstruct

the process in a way that could harm Ms. Steins own position

seeking maintenance in this case and/or the payment of assets and

debts to which she might otherwise be legally entitled, but might

be blocked from receiving because she failed or refused to fully

comply with the process.

The Court finds that the testimony of

10

Dr. Kutz, who the Court appointed based on the information she

11

received from a Judge in a different Court as to who does these

12

kinds of evaluations.

13

any other entity to determine that.

14

who does not sit in this jurisdiction and who regularly appoints

15

folks to do evaluations in a probate context for information

16

regarding who does these kinds of evaluations.

17

testified quite credibly that he has never appeared in a divorce

18

proceeding.

19

Kutz before, and simply appointed him because it was the Courts

20

understanding that he does evaluations that address the kinds of

21

issues that the Court needed addressed in this proceeding.

22

Court finds that Dr. Kutzs testimony, especially based on the

23

limited evaluation that hes had in this case, but also based on

24

the evidence presented to him today, and the statements of the

25

Respondent, both in writing and also in Court today, and his

The Court did not consult with Counsel or

I simply contacted a Judge

Dr. Kutz

And the Court has never seen Dr. Kutz or met Dr.

The

23

background and experience were credible.

The Court finds his

opinion regarding the challenges that the Respondent has in her

mental or emotional capacity of weighing the advice of Counsel on

a particular course to pursue in this case to be credible.

Court finds that the statements of the Respondent herself under

oath that the Respondent states were all truthful and credible,

also strongly indicate to the Court that the Respondent has

difficultly understanding how this proceeding needs to move

forward on her own behalf, and how the actions that shes taken

The

10

so far in this proceeding have obstructed the proceeding and made

11

it difficult for this proceeding to move to a conclusion.

12

Court finds, therefore, and with all due respect to Mr. Jacobson,

13

whose arguments the Court believe are novel, in terms of a

14

constitutional right of the Petitioner to see this proceeding

15

through to its conclusion, the Court finds that the issue before

16

the Court is solely, can the Respondent fully participate in this

17

proceeding in a way that allows it to conclude while assuring

18

that her particular rights are addressed by the Court in a manner

19

that is fair, which is the requirement that the Court, well, the

20

Court is required to do equity.

21

and the Court cannot do equity unless both parties are willing

22

and able to participate in the proceeding in a manner that allows

23

the Court to determine what the rights and interests of both

24

parties are, and how to fairly divide those rights and interests

25

in a dissolution of marriage proceeding.

The

This is an equitable proceeding,

The Court finds that so

24

far, for the past year, that has not been a process that was able

to move forward.

restate, there have been a hundred and seventy filings in this

case.

JPOD record is that at least seventy percent of the filings in

this case have been by the Respondent.

notice of its own record that the Court has read the motions of

the Respondent that she has often filed repeatedly, requesting

the same relief over and over, and over again.

And the Court previously stated, and I will

The Courts estimation, based solely on looking at the

The Court takes judicial

This is not

10

illegal, but it does delay the process, it does obscure the

11

process, and it does keep the dissolution of marriage process

12

from moving forward.

13

Respondent relate to her complaints regarding her prior Counsel

14

and the concerns that she has regarding the Petitioner and his

15

actions, and her concerns regarding her own health and well-

16

being, but not necessarily as it relates to evaluations of the

17

financial circumstances in this case, of the assets and debts in

18

this case.

19

happened in this case that need to happen prior to permanent

20

orders, that have not proceeded forward because of the numerous

21

repetitive filings of the Respondent with concerns regarding the

22

process and her prior Counsel, rather than the issues that are

23

truly before the Court, which is evaluation and division of

24

assets, debts, maintenance and attorney's fees.

25

finds under In re the Marriage of Sorenson and the other

The vast majority of the filings of the

And there are many, many things that have not yet

So, the Court

25

citations that the Court has made to, let's see, in People in the

interest of M.M. and C.R.C.P. or Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure

17(c), that a guardian ad litem should be appointed for the

Respondent to continue to allow her to participate in the

proceeding and to participate in the proceeding in a manner that

allows this matter to reach a conclusion.

the division clerk to give me some dates for a pretrial

conference and for trailing permanent orders, and firm permanent

orders, so that the matter can be set for hearing.

I am now going to ask

And knowing

10

the Courts calendar, that's going to be, probably, December or

11

January before we can get a trailing date and July to get a firm

12

date.

13

be set for at least a day.

14

to be set for more than a day, now would be the time that you

15

need to tell me, so that we can set sufficient time for all

16

matters in this case to be heard.

17

brief marriage.

18

premarital and marital assets, as I understand it, but I'm not

19

really certain what is marital and what isn't at this point.

20

There is a determination of the Respondents capacity to be self-

21

supporting, the Petitioners earnings and I'm not sure that

22

requires a significant amount of evaluation.

23

2 employee and files tax returns.

24

the separate assets of the parties and the marital assets of the

25

parties, and their value, and any debts that need to be

So, and the Courts best guess is that this case needs to
If anybody is thinking that it needs

This is a very, a relatively

There are assets that need valuation, both

I believe hes a W-

So, its just a question of

26

evaluated.

Court will set any amount of time that Counsel requests.

once the amount of time is set, we will not be adding any

additional time.

equally between the parties at the divorce proceeding.

guess I need to ask you, Mr. Jacobson, whether you think more

than a day is going to be necessary to get this thing heard?

10

So, I

Your Honor, I think this case ought to

be resolvable in one day if we can't do it without a permanent

orders hearing at all.
THE COURT:

11
12

But

And the Court divides that time, generally,

MR. JACOBSON:

8
9

So, pursuant to In re the Marriage of Yates, this

Well, that's not something the Court can

decide.

13

MR. JACOBSON:

14

THE COURT:

Yes.

Ms. Frazier-Abel, I dont believe you are a

15

Divorce Attorney.

16

endeavor to assist the Respondent in finding someone who she can

17

work with, with your assistance.

18

sufficient, based on your litigation experience?

19

I am assuming you're probably going to

MS. FRAZIER-ABEL:

Do you think one day would be

Your Honor, I have asked Mrs. Stein

20

if she things one day will be sufficient based on what she might

21

like to present to the Court and she is not speaking to me.

22

in my experience, I do believe that one day should be sufficient

23

for a four-year marriage.

24
25

But

27

THE COURT:

Okay.

Ma'am, did you want to make any

statements regarding the amount of time that needs to be set for

this matter to proceed to hearing?

RESPONDENT:

4
5

I thought that I'm totally incapable.

Why

would you even ask me this question?

THE COURT:

RESPONDENT:

Okay.

So (inaudible) --

They intend for her to sign to waive all

of my legal entitlements.

novel, oh, shes retarding the process, there is no proof of this

10

THE COURT:

12

RESPONDENT:

13

THE COURT:

14

RESPONDENT:

15

THE COURT:

Okay.

Ma'am --

-- and there no (inaudible) --- I have made my ruling.

-- (inaudible).
You are welcome to do what you need to do

regarding my ruling -RESPONDENT:

17
18

This

--

11

16

That's why they wanted it.

So, will you allow me time to go to the

Supreme Court?
THE COURT:

19

Ma'am, I am not going to delay this process

20

or reset this proceeding, except in compliance with the law.

21

but I am not staying this proceeding.

22

date.

23

that will allow discovery and disclosures, and the process to be

24

pursued.

25

So,

So, I need a trailing

And I'm thinking its going to be at least a few months

So.
CLERK:

March 18th.

28

THE COURT:

1
2
3
4

2015.

Okay.

Counsel, do you have your calendars?

MS. FRAZIER-ABEL:

THE COURT:

MS. FRAZIER-ABEL:

THE COURT:

MR. JACOBSON:

10

Are you available?

I do not have anything set for

(inaudible) --

We have a trailing date, March 18th,

Okay.
-- (inaudible).

Mr. Jacobson?
Your Honor, I'm turning on my phone and

I should be able to tell you in a few minutes.

Did you say March

18, Your Honor?

11

THE COURT:

Yes, that would be trailing.

12

MR. JACOBSON:

13

THE COURT:

14

CLERK:

15

THE COURT:

16

MR. JACOBSON:

17

THE COURT:

18

MS. FRAZIER-ABEL:

I am free, as well, Your Honor.

19

THE COURT:

Okay.

That should be okay, Your Honor.

Okay.

9:00.

We need a firm date, please.

July 16th.
July 16th, 2015.
I know I'm (inaudible).

Okay.

Okay.

So, the Court finds that one

20

of the more complicated questions here is the payment of the

21

guardian ad litem and the payment of Counsel that the Respondent

22

may wish to retain.

23

that she wants to be able to hire her own Attorney and hire an --

So, the Respondent has stated to the Court

24

RESPONDENT:

No, I dont.

25

able to (inaudible) shes here.

I dont.

I know, I am not

So what I'm going to do is, I

29

dont want to spend any more money on this.

Appeals, Supreme Court, U.S. District Court, whatever it takes,

because they can show that I retarded this case.

mental evaluation --

THE COURT:

RESPONDENT:

-- hes got no authority to say anything

he said.
THE COURT:

Ma'am --

RESPONDENT:

So --

10

THE COURT:

11

RESPONDENT:

12

THE COURT:

13

RESPONDENT:

14

THE COURT:

15

RESPONDENT:

16

THE COURT:

17

RESPONDENT:

18

THE COURT:

-- we're, I am --- I can't afford her --- not going to -I can get my own -Ma'am, youve --- my own transcript --- made all of these -I can't afford her.
Ma'am, youve made all of these arguments.

19

I've heard all of these arguments.

20

litem.

21

RESPONDENT:

22

THE COURT:

23

RESPONDENT:

25

He has no

Okay.

24

I want to go to

expenses.

I am appointing a guardian ad

I can't afford her.

I can't afford her.

Okay.
I can't afford anything.

I dont want any

30

THE COURT:

Okay.

So, what I'd like, Ms. Frazier-Abel,

is if you can get the cooperation of the Respondent, to get her

to fill out a JDF 208.

guardian ad litem, then it will be paid for by the State of

Colorado.

And if the State will pay for the

And I'm assuming you take State pay?

MS. FRAZIER-ABEL:

THE COURT:

RESPONDENT:

my transcript.

Yes, Your Honor.

I, I was hoping that the answer was yes -I want twenty five cents a pa, a piece for

I dont want to pay her.

I can't afford her.

10

dont make any money.

11

transcript myself and file it, and it will cost me twenty five

12

cents a page.

13

paying for her until the (inaudible) --

14

I dont make any money.

And I dont, I can't afford her.

THE COURT:

Okay.

I can ask for a

He should be

The transcript has to be prepared by

15

the Court reporter and the parties both have to pay for the

16

transcript.

17

Petitioner to pay for the transcript.

18

problem when I order the Petitioner to pay for anything.

19
20

If you would prefer, ma'am, Ill order the

RESPONDENT:

But you seem to have a

No, I want him to pay for everything.

its not --

21

THE COURT:

Okay.

22

RESPONDENT:

23

THE COURT:

24

RESPONDENT:

25

MR. JACOBSON:

-- a contradiction.
All right.
Its not (inaudible) -May I pl, may I please the Court --

But

31

RESPONDENT:

-- to represent myself.

MR. JACOBSON:

According to the Respondents sworn

financial statement, she owns two condominiums in Boulder free

and clear.

in addition to what shes receiving as maintenance now.

business about she can't do anything and she doesn't have any

money, and she can't afford anything --

They are both, we believe, rented.

THE COURT:

MR. JACOBSON:
RESPONDENT:

10
11

THE COURT:

13

RESPONDENT:

-- flies in the face of her own filings.

But why should I pay more than twenty five

She's --

Okay.
-- out of my league.

I make zero dollar

14

an hour and she, I don't know how much she makes.

15

her -THE COURT:

16

So this

Okay.

cent a page for a transcript?

12

So she has income

I can't afford

The, the Petitioner will put up the money

17

for the transcript of the Courts ruling only.

18

and any funds that the Court might order going forward related to

19

the appointment of the guardian ad litem and the securing of an

20

Attorney for the Respondent will be considered by the Court in

21

its determination of the division of marital assets and that's

22

the --

23
24
25

RESPONDENT:

I will consider it prevention of being

heard by the Court because -THE COURT:

That, those fund

Right.

32

RESPONDENT:

THE COURT:

-- (inaudible) -Ma'am, I understand that you do not agree

with the Courts decision here today.

this matter moves forward.

pretrial with the Court by telephone.

something in February, please.

CLERK:

THE COURT:

13th at 1:30.

I am trying to assure that

I am going to order that there be a

And let's look for

February 13th at 1:30.

Okay.

This would be by telephone, February

And, generally, we have Counsel organize this.

10

I'm, at this point, not knowing who that's going to be, going to

11

ask Ms. Frazier-Abel if you are able to organize this.

12

Sometimes, also, people use freeconferencecall.com as a way to

13

organize a conference call with the Court, for purposes of

14

pretrial conferences.

15

expectation that the parties would appear, although I'm nor

16

ordering them to do so.

17

rather than doing a notice of hearing.

18

of hearing.

19

Frazier-Abel, I'm not certain, but I think that JPOD would not

20

serve the Respondent directly if you are JPOD.

21

way that we can keep that from happening, and I'm hopeful that we

22

can continue to send things directly to the Respondent, in

23

addition to you being sent things.

24

me that's possible.

25

It would be the Courts hope and

And we're going to issue a minute order

That will be the notice

And that will be sent to everyone.

Okay.

And, Ms.

There may be a

My, my staff assures

33

MS. FRAZIER-ABEL:

And, Your Honor, we have made it a

plan, our office, that everything that we receive will be sent

immediately to her via email.

THE COURT:

Okay.

All right.

So, once I have received

the JDF 208, I will make a decision regarding payment of the

guardian ad litem.

or filed with the Court, the Court will address, and will attempt

to do so consistently in a timely fashion.

of this case, and someone takes appellate jurisdiction, then I

Beyond that, whatever needs to be addressed

If there's an appeal

10

guess that is what it is.

11

going to ask, sir, for you to stay in the courtroom for a few

12

moments so that Ms. Stein can be escorted out to her car.

13

that has been at her wish regarding her safety.

14

not made any findings regarding a need for safety or security.

15

We do provide those services upon the request of an in, a party

16

for any individual involved in a case.

17

you, I guess, personally, for the first time.

18

Mr. Jacobson, if I've ever had the pleasure.

MR. JACOBSON:

19
20

I have no control over that.

So.

So, I am

And

The Court has

And nice to meet

And I dont know,

Well thank you for saying it was a

pleasure.
THE COURT:

21

Well, but I am certain I will see you all

22

again.

Thank you, all, for your appearances.

23

would just sort of be very slow, I would appreciate it.

24

MR. JACOBSON:

25

THE COURT:

If, if you all

We will take our time.

Great.

Thank you.

34

CERTIFICATE

1
2

I, Kim A. Frodine, certify that I transcribed this

3
4

record from the digital recording of the above-entitled matter,

which was heard on September 23, 2014, before the Honorable

Angela R. Arkin in Division 4 of the Douglas County Combined

Court.

8
9

I further certify that the aforementioned transcript is

10

a complete and accurate transcript of the FTR proceedings based

11

upon the audio facilities of these CDs and my ability to

12

understand them.

13

properly, excessive noises or muffled voices.

14
15

Inaudibles are due to microphones not working

Signed this 30th day of October 2014, in

Westminster, Colorado.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Kim A. Frodine