PETITION FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF CHERYL L. POST, JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, ARAPAHOE COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO Pursuant to Colorado State Constitution Article XIII, Sections 1 and 2, Petitioner hereunder petitions the Colorado House of Representatives as follows: To investigate the charges made and brought hereunder by the undersigned Petitioner against The Honorable Cheryl L. Post, Judge of the District Court, County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, as more fully set forth in the Petitioner's Affidavit in support of this Petition, attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth, implicating Judge Post of malfeasance in office; implicating her failure to uphold her sworn duties as protector of the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Colorado, and the laws of the State; and implicating her failure to uphold and enforce the public policy of the State of Colorado for frequent and continuing contact between a child and both parents; and implicating her numerous decisions to the contrary of said public policy in her official capacity as State district court judge as violative of statutory and constitutional protections and liberties; and, If warranted, to indict said Honorable Cheryl L. Post for malfeasance in office, and to bind her over for trial on impeachment from office in the Senate of the State of Colorado at the earliest possible time. DATED this __________ day of September, 1998. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, PETITIONER __________________________________________ ROBERT MUCHNICK 5082 East Hampden Avenue, Suite 233 Denver, Colorado 80222 (303)282-1634 AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR IMPEACHMENT STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) I, Robert Muchnick, being duly sworn, upon oath, do hereby depose and state as follows: I am a legal resident of the City and County of Denver, State of Colorado. I make this affidavit in support of my Petition for Impeachment of Judge Cheryl L. Post, District Judge of the Arapahoe County District Court, State of Colorado. The statements made in this Affidavit are based on my personal knowledge. I am petitioning the Colorado House of Representatives to redress grievances against Judge Cheryl L. Post, who has misused her office and abused her power in order to illegally and unconstitutionally prevent and preclude me from frequent and continuing contact and a family relationship with my natural, biological children. I am the respondent in a post-decree civil action in the District Court in and for the County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, case number 95 DR 343. Judge Post was appointed to the above referenced case in October, 1996 pursuant to the recusal of Judge Timothy L. Fasing. Judge Post transferred the case to another Division of the Arapahoe District Court in August, 1998, subsequent to the herein petitioner's motion for her recusal. During the period in which Judge Post presided over the above case, she made numerous findings of fact completely unsupported or uncorroborated by the evidence; ignored blatant perjury; entered prejudicial and restrictive orders in manifest violation of due process and contrary to clear and convincing evidence contradicting the rationale of those orders; entered orders which violated Petitioner's constitutional right to free association and his liberty interest in his family relations; and entered orders which violated Petitioner's statutorily protected right to confidentiality, among other offenses. Custody, care and control of, and any semblance of a normal father-child relationship with, my natural children have been stolen from me by judicial fiat, operating under color of law. Judge Post, as more fully set forth below, has violated the laws of the State of Colorado on numerous occasions, and has severely prejudiced and damaged my natural rights as a father and my children's right to a relationship with their father. Judge Post has demonstrated a bias and prejudice so compelling that she has virtually destroyed my relationship with my children. Her bias and prejudice encompasses both socio-economic and gender issues. Judge Post stated, in a permanent orders hearing in the above referenced case, in September, 1997, "You should have given in to your ex-wife" regarding a dispute as to where the children would be taken during my parenting time while joint legal and physical custody was in effect. Post declared that my taking my children to a residential motel in an economically disadvantaged area for a scheduled visit, in the middle of a severe blizzard was "inappropriate" and a cause and reason for supervision of parenting time. These actions constitute prima facie violation of Canon 3.A.(9), Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct. C.R.S. § 14-10-127(1)(A)(I) states, in pertinent part: In all custody proceedings, the court shall, upon motion of either party. order . a licensed mental health professional. to perform an evaluation and file a written report concerning custodial or parenting time arrangements, or both. The court may order the reasonable charge for such evaluation and report to be assessed as costs between the parties. [Emphasis added.] Post unlawfully refused a proper motion for custody evaluation. She refused an indigent litigant's reasonable and legally grounded request for allocation of the cost of the custody evaluation to be assessed between the parties based on ability to pay, where the other party had a passive income of $837,000 per year (60 times that of indigent litigant), contrary to extensive case law. Post stated in a January, 1997 status conference, "We will proceed to permanent orders with or without a custody evaluation." This action constituted a violation of the evaluation statute, Canon 3.A.(9) of the Colo. Code of Judicial Conduct, and established mandate of case law. Post ignored significant evidence in the referenced custody proceeding. It was demonstrated to Judge Post that there was substantial and extensive positive involvement of father with children prior to divorce and virtually no evidence of detrimental paternal involvement: Mother consistently tried to get father to take the children off her hands before divorce, mother agreed to joint custody at dissolution, then contended father unfit after divorce. Judge Post cited instances of "domestic violence" in the parties' marriage, uncorroborated by any independent, credible evidence (no police or medical reports were ever entered in evidence), as aggravating factor against father when unrefuted testimony indicated mother instigated and initiated certain acts of aggression and father defended himself with minimally necessary force, and no other alleged incidents of "domestic violence" were even remotely proven. Judge Post permitted bad law of the case (finding of implied waiver of confidentiality of prior marriage counseling, based on hearing in blatant violation of due process) from previously disqualified judge to continue as law of case, contrary to appellate findings requiring bad law to be ignored. [Pearson v. District Court, Eighteenth Judicial Dist., County of Arapahoe, 924 P.2d 512, (Colo. 1996): "Law of the case as established by trial court rulings is not binding if it results in error."]. Post considered and applied discredited and recanted testimony of an expert witness which was, in addition, adduced in violation of psychologist- patient privilege and in flagrant violation of due process. Judge Post refused to recognize the provision in divorce decree (general release and waiver) prohibiting future action based on any matter, fact or theory antedating dissolution. Mother's evidence in post-decree action was overwhelmingly based on barred, estopped, previously litigated matters, facts and theories. Judge Post ignored the doctrine of res judicata and the collateral estoppel effect of a dissolution decree throughout the post-decree proceedings leading up to post-decree permanent orders. In the January, 1997 "status conference," Judge Post unconstitutionally usurped petitioner-father's statutory right to confidentiality, stating, "In custody proceedings, mental health is relevant. You waive your rights." [Emphasis added.] Judge Post coerced father's waiver of continuously asserted confidentiality, by ordering letters rogatory for deposition of California therapists and ordering father to pay thousands of dollars in fees and costs for same, when father was in forma pauperis in custody proceeding. (January, 1997 status conference.) In "status conference" Post entered a "no contact" restraining order against father ordering him not to contact any of the children's care providers, despite the existence of a valid decree of joint legal and physical custody of the children. The Order was entered sua sponte and entirely without notice or hearing, in violation of the constitutional protection of due process (January, 1997). Judge Post allowed extensive hearsay throughout multiple hearings, initially over father's objections which were all overruled. None of the hearsay testimony fell under the exceptions rule. Judge Post allowed rampant speculation and mere opinion testimony by expert witnesses to enter as evidence and law of the case, stating, in response to father's objection, "That's what experts do." Judge Post failed to follow statutory and case law guidance in allocation of costs of the Guardian ad litem between the parties, ordering father to pay equivalent of 60% of his yearly income towards G.A.L. fees (mother's income in excess of $800,000 was approximately 60 times that of father). Judge Post entered punitive and retaliatory orders for continued supervised parenting time and reduction of parenting time (January, 1998), contrary to Guardian ad litem's own observations and recommendations, and contrary to weight of evidence and repeated testimony of long-time supervisor that father was appropriate with children at all times, and in spite of compelling evidence that Mother was the proximate cause of perceived distress in the children (in addition to other evidence, mother had children 97% of time). Judge Post, in hearing March 18, 1998, sua sponte suppressed the Court file in a domestic relations case. Neither party had made a motion for such limitation. C.R.C.P. Rule 121, Section 1-5(1), states, pertinent part: Upon motion by any party named in any civil action, the court may limit access to court files. {Emphasis added.] There is no provision in the Rule for an order sua sponte for limitation of access to court files. Judge Post flagrantly violated C.R.C.P. 121, § 1-5. Judge Post's copious and extensive violations of statute, constitutional protections, and case law mandates - and her ingrained and rampant bias and prejudice against a party (in this case, the father) as evidenced by her selective weighing of evidence, ignoring of credible and tangible rebuttal evidence against allegations which were themselves unsupported by any evidence, and blatant statements to the father such as that he should just have "given in" to his ex-wife - exceed any definition of plain error. Judge Post's conduct throughout the referenced custody proceeding demonstrates an extreme gender and socioeconomic bias, and an inability or unwillingness to correctly, impartially and fairly apply the law, severely prejudicing father's standing as an active, involved parent in the children's lives. As a consequence of Judge Post's gross mishandling of the above custody case, the children, now aged 4 and 7, continue to suffer, are in continuing mental health treatment, have virtually no meaningful contact with their father in anything resembling normal circumstances or a normal environment (over two years of supervision), are continuing to be brainwashed, programmed and alienated against the father by the mother, and are experiencing ongoing diminished contact with their father. Judge Post has utterly failed to protect the children in this case. Judge Post's rationale of father's "crimes" which warranted imposition of these severe, long-term penalties are: (a) being "angry" that his children were essentially stolen from him, by judicially sanctioned and condoned fraud and deceit; (b) having taken the children, in the middle of a severe blizzard three years ago, to a residential motel in an economically disadvantaged area of Denver; and (c) having contradicted several misrepresentations the children's mother made to them regarding the father, which apparently caused some tension and confusion in the children (the judge should have reprimanded the mother for making such false statements at all, not punished the father for having to refute them). Judge Post's continuing malfeasance against the law and the rights of the children and this parent is repugnant to the protections provided by federal and state constitution and state statute and rises to the level of impeachable offenses. She is a disgrace to and an abomination against the legislative goal of, and the fundamental natural right to, preservation of the relationship between children of divorce and both parents. Judge Post destroys families and people's lives and should be impeached immediately. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. ____________________________ Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this ___________ day of _______________, 1998, by Affiant ____________________________________. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: _______________