Transcribing Solutions, LLC 815 South Perry Street, Ste 110

Castle Rock, CO 80104 720-389-9420

1

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

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

*FOR COURT USE ONLY*

HARLAN STEIN

Petitioner,

And

SIGALIT STEIN

Respondent,

Case No. 13DR30128 Division 7

For Petitioner:

DON JACOBSON

DAVID JAPHA

For Respondent:

PRO SE

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

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

and the following FTR proceedings were had.

2

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

INDEX

WITNESSES: PAGE

SIGALIT STEIN

Direct Examination by Ms. Frazier-Abel 3

3

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

SEPTEMBER 23, 2014

SORENSON HEARING

THE COURT: I need you to be speaking, no. Go ahead

and have a seat. I need you to be speaking into the microphone.

Go ahead, Counsel.

MS. FRAZIER-ABEL: Thank you, Your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF SIGALIT STEIN

BY MS. FRAZIER-ABEL:

Q Please state your name and spell your last name.

A Sigalit Stein.

Q And how are you involved in this proceeding?

A I am the Respondent and the victim.

Q And you are currently in the process of a dissolution,

correct?

A Correct.

Q And how long were you married?

A It’s going to be our fourth anniversary on the 26th, on

Friday.

Q Do you know why were are here today?

A To look at a piece of misrepresentation that claims

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

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

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

of my other legal rights.

Q And do you understand what a Sorenson hearing is?

4

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

A I have been deprived of legal representation. Mrs.

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

property manager. Everything Bonnie Shields, every single thing

Bonnie Shields said, (inaudible) contracts, contrast to

documentation. I have a file, the complaint with the Attorney

Regulation Board that naturally only looks at the standard of

professional conduct, which have nothing to do with truth,

justice or consumer protection. But the documentation is there

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

the otherwise. So she filed a motion that is misrepresentation.

She used defamation. And that's why we're here.

Q Have you received a copy of the Sorenson case for your

review?

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

irrelevant to me. I had no legal representation and I had no

idea to expect here. The entire thing is entirely irrelevant

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

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

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

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

what is profitable for their business. This is all peop,

business people taking care of their business. Nobody’s taking

care of my business. And so I don’t have legal representation.

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

is being heard. I have spoken to our representative, asking them

5

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

to change the entire process because it’s fraught with conflicts

of interests. So, that's my position. That's why I didn't treat

it, and that's why --

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

I didn't ask --

A You, you --

Q -- you if you read it.

A -- emailed it to me. 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

making a determination from a treatment provider, that would

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

you need a guardian ad litem?

A I do. It’s in my car.

Q Okay. And why haven't you presented that information

to the Court today?

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

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

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

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

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

supposed to know if it’s good for me or bad for me? It was --

Q Okay.

A -- better for me to keep it.

6

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

Q 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. Plus, the result of the

defamation that I suffered is that everybody ignores me. So I

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

Everybody who knows me is supportive of me. But anybody who’s

heard this malicious defamation has completely ignored me. So,

what am I going to do?

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

going forward and making decisions in a timely fashion to bring

this divorce to a resolution?

A I don’t see how, considering a few, few surgeries and

stuff like that should deny me my legal entitlement. Court

schedules are usually very generous because most Attorneys are

taking care of many, many cases. All I have to take care of is

one case. All it takes is driving around and talking to people.

So I can do that.

Q And you mentioned that you had many, many surgeries.

Do you have any medical evidence to indicate when these surgeries

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

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

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

believes that this could be small lymphatic cancer. I believe

7

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

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

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

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

some antibiotics and I’ll be over it. If the tests for

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. And then I will have no

other options but to take the biopsy. So I'm very hopeful that I

will not have to take the biopsies. However, when I took my

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

for about a month. And so I told the same to Dr. Mill of Rocky

Mountain ENT. And so he told me that this is consistent with B

symptoms for small lymphatic cancer. He cannot confirm or deny

that I've had those. He can only say that it is consistent. And

he has written the same to the Court. And so, and he also knows

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

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

invasive being that they’ll just remove the whole thing and slice

it up. And so that's why they're requesting many. And he also

explained the same to the Court in the medical documents.

Q 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

know how this Court could possibly imagine that without a proper

mental evaluation actually giving you a real recording of my

8

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

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. And what Will Bishop told me is that even a professor

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. They need actual medical evaluation. And even

those evaluations, there are difficulties, like they’ll find that

black people score higher when they get interviewed by black

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

not here to serve the financial interest of anybody. And unless

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

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

that I felt I shouldn't be seeing. I still woke up at 5:50,

5:20, and I just, my heart won't pull. He is downtown, which

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

doctor, and she’s a family physician, her name is Michelle, and

she’s from the Castle Rock Family Physicians, and so she’s taken

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

and she’s given me all kinds of tests. She says she’s not a

cardiologist and a cardiologist need to take an x-ray. I'm going

to be able to do that Thursday. I was not able to accomplish it

yesterday. But Michelle said that if my heart palpitations start

and don’t stop, I need to be in an emergency room. Now, I can't

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

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

9

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

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.

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

this Court?

A I don’t believe that Kutz is part of a conspiracy, but

if you’ve learned anything about democracy and how democracy

works, it actually is about accountability, it is about

separation of authorities, and it is about resolving conflicts of

interests. So my conflict is that I am deprived of consumer

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

two million dollars, all cash, they are all after it. I'm not

his referral, she is. I'm not your referral, she is. And that’s

even good because it could be that Japha has recommended all

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

are you aware of the latest legislation by Governor Hickenlooper

to regulate HOA managers?

MS. FRAZIER-ABEL: Your Honor, I would ask that we move

onto the next question.

THE COURT: Okay. So, the Attorney has made an

objection regarding relevance. And I'm sustaining that

objection. What you're talking about is not responsive to her

question. Okay. Go ahead.

10

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

Q (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 she’s trying to, to not have that exposed, and that she’s

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

you will appeal to that. It’s not my interests. See, if you

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

representing my interests. Right now, my interest doesn't, your,

your interest is contradictory to my interest.

Q How is that?

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

case.

MS. FRAZIER-ABEL: I have no further questions, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Questions for this witness?

MR. JACOBSON: No questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Ma'am, you’ve made quite a number of

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

guardian ad litem. And it’s my understanding that you don’t

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

understanding of what you believe this proceeding is. But is

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

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

11

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

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. It’s just a question of

properly regulating everything. That's how America works.

That's how every democracy works. So why should I, so I don't

know if anybody’s arguing that I should trust Bonnie Shields and

I don’t think, don’t know whether anybody’s arguing that Bonnie

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

this motion. It’s hard for me to understand why you would state

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

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

right, you may be wrong. I think, of course I don’t have an

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

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

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

I also think I should give back to Colorado, and I don’t want to

see other people be taken advantage of their Attorneys. I think

that Attorneys have reputation that's consistent with them being

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

did not get a disclosure. I did not get, get a disclosure that

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

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

12

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

representation. However, all Colorado citizens are falling prey

to this consumer trap. It isn’t just me. And that's why I

wanted to share the story with you about regulating of HOA’s,

which I participated in the process. So --

THE COURT: Okay. 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

in this process. Ms. Shields hasn’t been, to my knowledge,

involved in this case since she withdrew. And thereafter, you

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

withdrew. But that Attorney also sought relief from the Court

with respect to an appointment of a guardian ad litem. So --

RESPONDENT: Which he denies with the, with the

Attorney Regulation Board. I have his statements --

THE COURT: I, I, I --

RESPONDENT: -- and he denies that he did --

THE COURT: -- I am not here to discuss with you what

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

This proceeding --

RESPONDENT: He claimed it.

THE COURT: Ma'am, I'm sorry, but this proceeding is

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

13

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

RESPONDENT: 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: But --

THE COURT: -- the purpose of the guardian ad litem

would only be to assist you in understanding the proceedings and

in petitioning the Court with the assistance of Counsel to assure

that your rights are vindicated in this matter. That's the only

purpose for the appointment of a guardian ad litem. The term ad

litem means in this proceeding, this proceeding only. It’s not

for any other purpose or proceeding. So, that is the only reason

we're here today. Sorenson does not impact anything but this

proceeding and this divorce, and your ability to represent your

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

Court. So --

RESPONDENT: You will never be able to establish that

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

I can do better than anybody else --

THE COURT: Okay. That's not the question before the

Court. The question before the Court is, are you able to

14

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

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. Definitely not. I will not, I will be forced to

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

misrepresentation and abuse of discrimination.

THE COURT: Okay. Was there anything else that you

wanted to tell the Court that relates solely to the domestic

relations proceeding and your participation that is not --

RESPONDENT: There is nothing --

THE COURT: -- something that you haven't already said?

RESPONDENT: There is nothing to show that I cannot do

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

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

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

done it in the past. Dr. Kutz said that it just happened, as if

these things happened. Nothing happens. Intelligent people know

that every successful effort has to be guided by intelligence.

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

successful because somebody was lucky. If I was successful in

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

15

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

moved everything and I controlled everything. What I did not

know is that retainers are never returned, that Attorneys handle

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

It’s not my fault. The public does not know. The public needs

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

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. And so I'm asking the Court to dismiss the

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

Court. There is nothing to indicate that I would not. The Court

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

completely without legal advice and that legal advice will not be

given to me while there's an Attorney on my record. And so if I

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

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

best I can do. Judge Moss, herself, after Bonnie Shields filed a

motion, Judge Moss, herself, declared that she’s eager to get the

case back on track. And so it’s not my fault that it’s been

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

diverted. Judge Moss tried. I did not know that Attorneys are

unregulated. I did not imagine that, that an Attorney will stay

on my record representing my husband’s interest. Wolf told the

Court that he’s not representing my interest. He’s not the right

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

was in fear for my life. So I'm asking that you put this

16

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

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. And the Court will consider that not only the statement

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

since she has made her wishes clear to the Court. Ms. Frazier-

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

statement?

MS. FRAZIER-ABEL: I don’t, Your Honor. Unfortunately,

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

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Jacobson, anything further that

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

MR. JACOBSON: I hesitate to say that I will be brief.

But I will say that I will try. Your Honor, I think --

THE COURT: I need you to be brief.

MR. JACOBSON: I will try.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. JACOBSON: I think there are two issues before the

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

so I will deal with that one first. Sorenson lists four criteria

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

party in a divorce proceeding. And I think the evidence before

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

critical decisions herself, which is the second of the four

17

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

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. The

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. And therefore, she is incapable

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

move the case forward. I think there is a second issue before

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

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

reasonable efficiency, and without undue repetitious activity

that prevents the case from moving forward. And in fact, our

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

interest in moving their cases forward. And if we look, Your

Honor, at the Supreme Court’s decision in People versus Dunlap at

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

Commissioners versus Barday and People versus Spencer, and

Shotkin versus Kaplan, and other cases such as Karr versus

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

repeated instances in which the Colorado Supreme Court has held

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

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

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

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

18

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

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. And so whether Your Honor makes the

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. Stein’s genuine legal

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

move forward in an appropriate fashion, administratively, and we

can bring it to a timely close. Thank you.

THE COURT: And I'm thinking that the transcript is

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

transcript of the Court’s ruling. And, Ms. Frazier-Abel, I'm

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

the Clerk of Court following these proceedings. And I'm going to

ask that both the Petitioner and the Respondent pay equally for

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

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

within seven days after the receipt of the transcript. It will

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

order of the Court. Both parties will equally pay for the cost

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

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

19

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

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

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. And that's a Colorado

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

deems proper for the protection of that person. And, generally,

the Court must make a finding that the person is mentally

impaired so as to be incapable of understanding the nature and

significance of the proceeding or incapable of making critical

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

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

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

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

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

clear that the party lacks the intellectual capacity to

communicate with Counsel or is mentally or emotionally incapable

of weighing the advice of Counsel on the particular course to

pursue in his or her own interests. The Sorenson case actually

states that the guardian ad litem should be appointed for a

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

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

20

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

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. The Court heard today from two

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

Kutz was placed under oath. He is a PhD psychologist. And he

set forth in detail the limitations of his review of the

Respondent’s participation in the proceeding, the limitations of

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

the Respondent’s limited cooperation in the process, whether that

was because the Respondent intended not to cooperate or was

simply incapable, physically, of cooperating. He discussed the

other things that he relied and some of those things were

included in exhibits one through ten that were admitted with the

Court from the Petitioner’s Counsel, that he identified at least

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

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

to render his opinion regarding the functioning of the

Respondent. In addition, he talked to the Respondent for fifty

three minutes last evening and listened to the Respondent’s

statements before his testimony in Court today. Based on his

background and experience, and the limitations of his evaluation

of the Respondent’s functioning, for purposes of this Sorenson

21

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

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. And, frankly,

that was the latter specific issue that Sorenson requires the

Court to consider in determining whether a guardian ad litem is

necessary, that the Respondent would be mentally or emotionally

incapable of weighing the advice of Counsel on a particular

course to pursue in her own interests. That was what he

specifically said was most challenging and concerning regarding

Ms. Stein’s capacity in this case. And he felt that a guardian

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

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

of her own interests. He further stated that Ms. Stein’s

statements and actions, and behavior in the process had delayed

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

choices in this proceeding, that her statements and her actions

are contradictory, and that that is a constant state of

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

the general in seeing the big picture and understanding the

proceedings and the process, that he believed that without

22

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

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. Stein’s 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

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

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

kinds of evaluations. The Court did not consult with Counsel or

any other entity to determine that. I simply contacted a Judge

who does not sit in this jurisdiction and who regularly appoints

folks to do evaluations in a probate context for information

regarding who does these kinds of evaluations. Dr. Kutz

testified quite credibly that he has never appeared in a divorce

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

Kutz before, and simply appointed him because it was the Court’s

understanding that he does evaluations that address the kinds of

issues that the Court needed addressed in this proceeding. The

Court finds that Dr. Kutz’s testimony, especially based on the

limited evaluation that he’s had in this case, but also based on

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

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

23

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

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. The

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 she’s taken

so far in this proceeding have obstructed the proceeding and made

it difficult for this proceeding to move to a conclusion. The

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

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

constitutional right of the Petitioner to see this proceeding

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

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

proceeding in a way that allows it to conclude while assuring

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

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

Court is required to do equity. This is an equitable proceeding,

and the Court cannot do equity unless both parties are willing

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

the Court to determine what the rights and interests of both

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

in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The Court finds that so

24

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

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

to move forward. And the Court previously stated, and I will

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

case. The Court’s estimation, based solely on looking at the

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

this case have been by the Respondent. The Court takes judicial

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. This is not

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

process, and it does keep the dissolution of marriage process

from moving forward. The vast majority of the filings of the

Respondent relate to her complaints regarding her prior Counsel

and the concerns that she has regarding the Petitioner and his

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

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

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

this case. And there are many, many things that have not yet

happened in this case that need to happen prior to permanent

orders, that have not proceeded forward because of the numerous

repetitive filings of the Respondent with concerns regarding the

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

truly before the Court, which is evaluation and division of

assets, debts, maintenance and attorney's fees. So, the Court

finds under In re the Marriage of Sorenson and the other

25

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

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. I am now going to ask

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. And knowing

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

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

date. So, and the Court’s best guess is that this case needs to

be set for at least a day. If anybody is thinking that it needs

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

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

matters in this case to be heard. This is a very, a relatively

brief marriage. There are assets that need valuation, both

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

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

There is a determination of the Respondent’s capacity to be self-

supporting, the Petitioner’s earnings and I'm not sure that

requires a significant amount of evaluation. I believe he’s a W-

2 employee and files tax returns. So, it’s just a question of

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

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

26

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

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

Court will set any amount of time that Counsel requests. But

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

additional time. And the Court divides that time, generally,

equally between the parties at the divorce proceeding. So, I

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?

MR. JACOBSON: 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: Well, that's not something the Court can

decide.

MR. JACOBSON: Yes.

THE COURT: Ms. Frazier-Abel, I don’t believe you are a

Divorce Attorney. I am assuming you're probably going to

endeavor to assist the Respondent in finding someone who she can

work with, with your assistance. Do you think one day would be

sufficient, based on your litigation experience?

MS. FRAZIER-ABEL: Your Honor, I have asked Mrs. Stein

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

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

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

for a four-year marriage.

27

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

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: I thought that I'm totally incapable. Why

would you even ask me this question?

THE COURT: Okay. So (inaudible) --

RESPONDENT: They intend for her to sign to waive all

of my legal entitlements. That's why they wanted it. This

novel, oh, she’s retarding the process, there is no proof of this

--

THE COURT: Okay. Ma'am --

RESPONDENT: -- and there no (inaudible) --

THE COURT: -- I have made my ruling.

RESPONDENT: -- (inaudible).

THE COURT: You are welcome to do what you need to do

regarding my ruling --

RESPONDENT: So, will you allow me time to go to the

Supreme Court?

THE COURT: Ma'am, I am not going to delay this process

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

but I am not staying this proceeding. So, I need a trailing

date. And I'm thinking it’s going to be at least a few months

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

pursued. So.

CLERK: March 18th.

28

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

THE COURT: Okay. We have a trailing date, March 18th,

2015. Counsel, do you have your calendars? Are you available?

MS. FRAZIER-ABEL: I do not have anything set for

(inaudible) --

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. FRAZIER-ABEL: -- (inaudible).

THE COURT: Mr. Jacobson?

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?

THE COURT: Yes, that would be trailing.

MR. JACOBSON: That should be okay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. 9:00. We need a firm date, please.

CLERK: July 16th.

THE COURT: July 16th, 2015.

MR. JACOBSON: I know I'm (inaudible).

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. FRAZIER-ABEL: I am free, as well, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Okay. So, the Court finds that one

of the more complicated questions here is the payment of the

guardian ad litem and the payment of Counsel that the Respondent

may wish to retain. So, the Respondent has stated to the Court

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

RESPONDENT: No, I don’t. I don’t. I know, I am not

able to (inaudible) she’s here. So what I'm going to do is, I

29

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

don’t want to spend any more money on this. I want to go to

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

because they can show that I retarded this case. He has no

mental evaluation --

THE COURT: Okay.

RESPONDENT: -- he’s got no authority to say anything

he said.

THE COURT: Ma'am --

RESPONDENT: So --

THE COURT: -- we're, I am --

RESPONDENT: -- I can't afford her --

THE COURT: -- not going to --

RESPONDENT: I can get my own --

THE COURT: Ma'am, you’ve --

RESPONDENT: -- my own transcript --

THE COURT: -- made all of these --

RESPONDENT: I can't afford her.

THE COURT: Ma'am, you’ve made all of these arguments.

I've heard all of these arguments. I am appointing a guardian ad

litem.

RESPONDENT: I can't afford her. I can't afford her.

THE COURT: Okay.

RESPONDENT: I can't afford anything. I don’t want any

expenses.

30

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

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. And if the State will pay for the

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

Colorado. And I'm assuming you take State pay?

MS. FRAZIER-ABEL: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I, I was hoping that the answer was yes --

RESPONDENT: I want twenty five cents a pa, a piece for

my transcript. I don’t want to pay her. I can't afford her. I

don’t make any money. I don’t make any money. I can ask for a

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

cents a page. And I don’t, I can't afford her. He should be

paying for her until the (inaudible) --

THE COURT: Okay. The transcript has to be prepared by

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

transcript. If you would prefer, ma'am, I’ll order the

Petitioner to pay for the transcript. But you seem to have a

problem when I order the Petitioner to pay for anything.

RESPONDENT: No, I want him to pay for everything. But

it’s not --

THE COURT: Okay.

RESPONDENT: -- a contradiction.

THE COURT: All right.

RESPONDENT: It’s not (inaudible) --

MR. JACOBSON: May I pl, may I please the Court --

31

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

RESPONDENT: -- to represent myself.

MR. JACOBSON: According to the Respondent’s sworn

financial statement, she owns two condominiums in Boulder free

and clear. They are both, we believe, rented. So she has income

in addition to what she’s receiving as maintenance now. So this

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

money, and she can't afford anything --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. JACOBSON: -- flies in the face of her own filings.

RESPONDENT: But why should I pay more than twenty five

cent a page for a transcript? She's --

THE COURT: Okay.

RESPONDENT: -- out of my league. I make zero dollar

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

her --

THE COURT: The, the Petitioner will put up the money

for the transcript of the Court’s ruling only. That, those fund

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

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

Attorney for the Respondent will be considered by the Court in

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

the --

RESPONDENT: I will consider it prevention of being

heard by the Court because --

THE COURT: Right.

32

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

RESPONDENT: -- (inaudible) --

THE COURT: Ma'am, I understand that you do not agree

with the Court’s decision here today. I am trying to assure that

this matter moves forward. I am going to order that there be a

pretrial with the Court by telephone. And let's look for

something in February, please.

CLERK: February 13th at 1:30.

THE COURT: Okay. This would be by telephone, February

13th at 1:30. And, generally, we have Counsel organize this.

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

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

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

organize a conference call with the Court, for purposes of

pretrial conferences. It would be the Court’s hope and

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

ordering them to do so. And we're going to issue a minute order

rather than doing a notice of hearing. That will be the notice

of hearing. And that will be sent to everyone. And, Ms.

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

serve the Respondent directly if you are JPOD. There may be a

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

can continue to send things directly to the Respondent, in

addition to you being sent things. Okay. My, my staff assures

me that's possible.

33

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

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. Beyond that, whatever needs to be addressed

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

to do so consistently in a timely fashion. If there's an appeal

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

guess that is what it is. I have no control over that. So, I am

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

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

that has been at her wish regarding her safety. The Court has

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

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

for any individual involved in a case. So. And nice to meet

you, I guess, personally, for the first time. And I don’t know,

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

MR. JACOBSON: Well thank you for saying it was a

pleasure.

THE COURT: Well, but I am certain I will see you all

again. Thank you, all, for your appearances. If, if you all

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

MR. JACOBSON: We will take our time.

THE COURT: Great. Thank you.

34

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

CERTIFICATE

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

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.

I further certify that the aforementioned transcript is

a complete and accurate transcript of the FTR proceedings based

upon the audio facilities of these CD’s and my ability to

understand them. Inaudibles are due to microphones not working

properly, excessive noises or muffled voices.

Signed this 30th day of October 2014, in

Westminster, Colorado.

Kim A. Frodine