ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE

1560 Broadway, Suite 675
Denver, Colorado 80202

Complainant:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
.. COURT USE ONLY ..
Respondent:
ALISON MAYNARD Case Number: 09PDJ028

April M. McMurrey, #34194

Assistant Regulation Counsel
Attorney for Complainant
1560 Broadway, Suite 1800
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: (303) 866-6400, ext. 6432
Fax No.: (303) 893-5302

COMPLAINANT'S OBJECTION TO SEAN HARRINGTON AND SUZANNE

SHELL'S REQUESTS FOR EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE

The complainant, by and through April M. McMurrey, Assistant

Regulation Counsel, hereby objects to the requests for expanded media
coverage filed by Sean Harrington and Suzanne Shell and states as follows:

1. On March 26,2010, via email, Sean Harrington ("Mr. Harrington"),

submitted a request for expanded media coverage.

2. Mr. Harrington is not the respondent or a witness In this

disciplinary proceeding.

3. On March 29, 2010, via facsimile, Suzanne Shell C'Ms. Shell"),

submitted a request for expanded media coverage.

4. Shell is not the respondent or a witness in this disciplinary

proceeding. The "media group" listed on Shell's request is "People for Equal
Protection."

-~ ------
 5. The People note at the outset that Mr. Harrington and Ms. Shell
are welcome to attend the Maynard disciplinary hearing, observe the
proceedings and report the same to whomever they wish. Such hearings are
public proceedings. See C.R.C.P. 251.31(c). The People object, however, to Mr.
Harrington and Ms. Shell's request for expansion of their own coverage of this
hearing through the use of a video camera, video operator, audio recording
devices and still photography. The PDJ courtroom has very limited space, and
is not large enough to sustain such an additional presence (the equipment and
operator) without impeding the presentation of evidence and argument in this
disciplinary matter.

6. The Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(8) applies to

these proceedings. That Canon provides in pertinent part that a judge "may
authorize expanded media coverage of court proceedings" subject to certain
guidelines. The Canon specifically leaves the decision to the discretion of the
judge with the use of the permissive "may."

7. Canon 3 (8)(a)(V) defines "media" as "any news gathering or

reporting agency and the individual persons involved, and includes
newspapers, radio, television, radio and television networks, news services,
magazines, trade papers, in-house publications, professional journals, or any
other news reporting or news gathering agency whose function it is to inform
the public or some segment thereof."

8. Mr. Harrington does not meet the definition of a "news gathering or

reporting agency," for the purpose of expanded media coverage. Mr. Harrington
is an individual and does not operate any newspaper, radio, television, news
service, magazine, trade paper, journal or other news gathering agency. Mr.
Harrington is not a member of the Colorado Press Association or the Colorado
Broadcasting Association or any other recognized association of news gathering
agencIes.

9. Instead Mr. Harrington's past ten years is best described in a U.S.

Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit order:

To say that Sean Harrington began this action on September 23, 2005,
would be at once perfectly accurate and highly misleading. That is the
day Mr. Harrington filed suit in federal district court, listing ten
defendants and twenty-eight claims for relief. But in fact, Mr.
Harrington's federal suit is only the latest installment in a long-running
battle for Mr. Harrington's only child, a battle waged largely in Jefferson
County, Colorado, District Court over a span of six years. In that time,
Mr. Harrington has launched a barrage of motions, actions, and petitions

2
 aimed at regammg access to, if not custody of, his daughter Shelby,
which he lost upon his divorce in May 2000. Frustrated at his lack of
success in state court, Mr. Harrington brought his campaign to the
federal court system [in 2005], and has named in his action here
defendants ranging from his former wife to the Colorado Attorney
General.

See July 18, 2007, Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Order in Sean Harrington, v.
Madeline Wilson, et. al, 242 Fed. Appx. 514, 2007 WL 2045485 (C.A. 10), a
copy of which is attached to this motion as Exhibit 1. See also "Stipulated
Agreement Modifying Parental Responsibilities, Parenting Time and Resolution
of all Outstanding Issues" from Harrington v. Harrington, 99DR3717 (Jefferson
County District Court), a copy of which is attached to this motion as Exhibit 2.

10. Mr. Harrington now operates a website in which he posts

statements critical of "the divorce industry" and the attorney regulation
process. Hosting a website does not constitute a "news gathering or reporting
agency." Mr. Harrington can take notes and report the hearing without a
camera or video operator. For this reason, Mr. Harrington's personal request
for expanded media coverage should be denied.

11. Mr. Harrington's request indicates he has been contacted by

"People for Equal Protection", that pooling arrangements have been made with
People for Equal Protection, and that a designated representative of People for
Equal Protection will actually be providing the video camera and operator in
the courtroom.

12. According to the Colorado Secretary of State's website, Suzanne

Shell ("Ms. Shell") is the registered agent of "People for Equal Protection". Ms.
Shell was enjoined from the unauthorized practice of law in People v. Shell,
01SA0136, in 2001. Ms. Shell was then found in contempt of the Colorado
Supreme Court's order of injunction, and was fined $6,000 in December 2006.
See People v. Shell, 148. P.3d 162 (Colo. 2006). Ms. Shell has not made any
payment, not even a partial payment, on this Colorado Supreme Court-ordered
fine to date. See C.R.C.P. 107(a)(4), which provides that a court-ordered fine is
a sanction "for conduct that is found to be offensive to the authority and
dignity of the court."

13. Ms. Shell's People for Equal Protection does not operate any
newspaper, radio, television, news service, magazine, trade paper, journal or
other news gathering agency. When one attempts to search for any prior
publication from People For Equal Protection, one does not find any
publication. When one performs an internet search for People For Equal

3
Protection, one is directed to www.profane-justice.org.Ms.Shell·swebsite.Ms.
Shell discloses that her website is "intended to generate income" and Ms. Shell
asserts a copyright claim to the website's contents. Neither Ms. Shell nor
People For Equal Protection are a member of the Colorado Press Association or
the Colorado Broadcasting Association or any other recognized association of
news gathering agencies. Thus, neither Ms. Shell nor People for Equal
Protection constitute a "news gathering or reporting agency."

14. Ms. Shell has in the past stated that she acts as a documentary
video producer. See, e.g., Ms. Shell's Second Motion for Release of Videotapes
filed with the Colorado Supreme Court in People v. Shell, 04SA093, on July 11,
2007, attached as Exhibit 3. While at first claiming that she would make
pooling arrangements for public dissemination of the video recording in her
contempt trial, she immediately claimed a copyright interest in the videotapes
and attempted to collect a "licensing fee" and other remuneration from the
Colorado Supreme Court for depriving her of her right to exploit what she
considered to be her intellectual property, which she entitled "Contempt of
Court- SLAPP a Human Rights Activist" in her September 11, 2006 pre-
registration statement. See Exhibit 3, page 6, paragraph 2 and email attached
to Exhibit 3. This Court is not required to make any special accommodations
for Ms. Shell under her pretext of media reporting.

15. In accordance with C.R.C.P. 80, the evidence in this matter will be
taken stenographically by a court reporter. Accordingly, Mr. Harrington and
Ms. Shell may obtain a complete and accurate transcript of the hearing at the
conclusion of the hearing. And as stated before, the hearing is public and Mr.
Harrington and/or Ms. Shell may attend this hearing and take notes.

16. Canon 3 (8){d) provides: "A judge may restrict or limit expanded
media coverage as may be necessary to preserve the dignity of the court or to
protect the parties, witnesses, or jurors." Mr. Harrington poses a significant
risk of disrupting the disciplinary hearing in this matter in an attempt to
further his own personal agenda. Mr. Harrington is also likely to distort the
record in this proceeding in support of such agenda. Ms. Shell has already
been found to be in contempt of the Colorado Supreme Court; Ms. Shell
continues to display a flagrant disregard to the authority and dignity of the
Supreme Court by her unwillingness to satisfy the December 2006 fine. For
these reasons, the People request the Court to exercise its discretion by
denying Mr. Harrington and Ms. Shell's requests for expanded media coverage
to preserve the dignity of the Court and protect the parties and witnesses at
time of hearing.

4
 17. News media coverage of disciplinary hearings in Colorado plays a
valuable role in promoting transparency and accountability in the attorney
regulation process. The requests pending before this Court, however, have
little likelihood of public dissemination for any purpose other than to promote
personal agendas, disrupt the solemnity of the proceeding, and/or to create
error. The Court must protect the system from this type of abuse.

18. The People request that this Court hold a hearing regarding the
requests for expanded media coverage and that this Court require Mr.
Harrington and Ms. Shell to appear in person at such hearing to specifically
address their requests.

WHEREFORE, the People respectfully object to Mr. Harrington and Ms.

Shell's requests for expanded media coverage. The People further request a
hearing on this motion, and ask that Mr. Harrington and Ms. Shell be required
to attend such hearing.

Dated this :j '>day of/J7a;;;4\, 2010.

Respectfully submitted,

;!/ ~~ /7 -, /2'1 ( !;)l--I/~~v-L

April M. McMurrey, #34194 /
Assistant Regulation Counsel
Attorney for Complainant

5
 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

I hereby certify that one copy of the foregoing COMPLAINANT'S OBJECTION

TO SEAN HARRINGTON AND SUZANNE SHELL'S REQUESTS FOR
EXPANDED MEDIA COVERAGE was placed in the United States mail, postage
prepaid, this3/Y"day of March, 2010, and addressed to:

Alison Maynard
P.O. Box 22135
Denver, CO 80222

Sean L. Harrington
PO Box 351855
Westminster, CO 80035

Suzanne Shell
14053 Eastonville Road
Elbert, CO 80106

6
Westlaw.,
242 Fed.Appx. 514,2007 WL 2045485 (CAlO)
(Not Selected for publication in the Federal Reporter)
(Cite as: 242 Fed.Appx. 514, 2007 WL 2045485 (C.A.I0»
H This 'ase was not selected fo' publi,,·
tion in the Federal Reporter.
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter See
Fed. Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 generally gov-
erning citation ofjudicial decisions issued on or after
Jan. 1,2007. See also Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1. (Find
CTAI0 Rule 32.1)
United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.
Sean HARRINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Madeline WILSON; Christy Ryan; Bill J. Fyfe; Col-
umbine Counseling Center, P.C.; Laura Arcilise, in
her personal capacity; Louise Culberson-Smith, in
her personal capacity; John Gleason, in both his per-
sonal and official capacity; Wendell Pryor in his offi-
cial capacity; Robert Evans, in his official capacity;
and the Jefferson County Combined Court by and
through the Colorado Attorney General, John
Suthers, in his official capacity, Defendants-
Appellees.
No. 06-1418.
July 18,2007.
Background: Former husband sued former wife, her
attorney, state bar officials, and others, arising from
his loss of access to child in divorce proceeding. The
United States District Court for the District of Colo-
rado, 2006 WL 2724094, granted defendants' motions
and dismissed husband's claims with prejudice. Hus-
band appealed.
Holding: On rehearing, the Court of Appeals,
Michael W. McConnell, Circuit Judge, held that dis-
missals under Rooker- Feldman doctrine, under
Younger abstention doctrine, and for lack of standing
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 1
were on jurisdictional grounds and, therefore, should
have been without prejudice.
Judgment affirmed and remanded.
West Headnotes
~ 509
Courts 106
106 Courts
-106Vn Concurrent and Conflicting Jurisdiction
--1-06VlI(B) State Courts and United States
Courts
106k509 k. Vacating or Annulling Deci-
sions. Most Cited Cases
Federal Civil Procedure 170A ~ 1837.1
170A Federal Civil Procedure
170AXI Dismissal
170AXl(B) Involuntary Dismissal
170AXl(B)5 Proceedings
l70Akl837 Effect
l70Ak1837.l k. In General. Most
Cited Cases
Dismissals of former husband's claims against former
wife, her attorney, state bar officials, and others in-
volved in divorce proceedings, under Rooker-
Feldman doctrine, under Younger abstention doc-
trine, and for lack of standing were on jurisdictional
grounds and, therefore, should have been without
prejudice.
*515 Sean Harrington, Westminster, CO, pro se.
Brett N. Huff, White & Steele, Amy C. Colony, State
of Colorado, Department of Law, Christine K. Wil-
kinson, Colorado Attorney General, David Yun,
Long & Jaudon, Denver, CO, Randolph S. Dement,
Greenwood Village, CO, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before BRISCOE, McKAY, and McCONNELL,
EXHIBIT
/
242 Fed.Appx. 514, 2007 WL 2045485 (C.A.l 0)
(Not Selected for publication in the Federal Reporter)
(Cite as: 242 Fed.Appx. 514,2007 WL 2045485 (C.A.I0»
Circuit Judges.
ORDER
MICHAEL W. McCONNELL, Circuit Judge.
**1 This matter is before the court on appellant Sean
Harrington's Petition for Panel Rehearing. Upon con-
sideration of the petition, the panel grants the petition
and withdraws its prior order and judgment issued
June 07, 2007, 2007 WL 1636351. The attached
amended order and judgment is issued in its place.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT FN *
FN* After examining the briefs and appel-
late record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not
materially assist in the determination of this
appeal. SeeFed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th
Cir. R. 34.I(G). This case is therefore sub-
mitted without oral argument. This order
and judgment is not binding precedent, ex-
cept under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may
be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
To say that Sean Harrington began this action on
September 23,2005, would be at once perfectly accu-
rate and highly misleading. That is the day Mr. Har-
rington filed suit in federal district court, listing ten
defendants and twenty-eight claims for relief. But in
fact, Mr. Harrington's federal suit is only the latest
installment in a long-running custody battle for Mr.
Harrington's only child, a battle waged largely in
Jefferson County, Colorado, District Court over a
span of six years. In that time, Mr. Harrington has
launched a barrage of motions, actions, and petitions
aimed at regaining access to, if not custody of, his
daughter, Shelby, which he lost upon his divorce in
May 2000. Frustrated *516 at his lack of success in
state court, Mr. Harrington brought his campaign to
the federal court system nearly two years ago, and
has named in his action here defendants ranging from
his former wife to the Colorado Attorney General.
Most of his claims do not belong in federal court. The
rest are without merit.
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
The district court followed the recommendation of
the magistrate judge, dismissing all of Mr. Harring-
ton's claims. To review: The district court found that
the Rooker- Feldman doctrine precluded it from con-
sidering Mr.. Harrington's claims against Madeline
Wilson, the attorney for his former wife. See Rooker
v. Fidelity Trust Co.. 263 U.S. 413.44 S.Ct. 149,68
L.Ed. 362 (923); District or Columbia Court ofAp-
peals v. Feldman. 460 U.S. 462. 103 S.Ct. 1303. 75
L.Ed.2d 206 (l983). Because the state court's adjudi-
cation of the custody dispute is not yet final, all other
claims against Mr. Harrington's former wife, and Ms.
Wilson, the court dismissed as barred by the Younger
abstention doctrine. See Younger v. Harris. 401 U.S.
37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (] 971). The court
ruled Mr. Harrington lacked standing to bring suit
against John Gleason and Louise Culberson-Smith, as
private citizens may not force state bar officials to
discipline member attorneys. Dovle v. Oklahoma Bar
Ass'n. 998 F.2d 1559, 1566-67 (10th Cir.1993).
The plaintiff's remaining claims, suits under 42
U.S.c. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986 against defen-
dants Gleason and Culberson-Smith, fail for lack of
standing. A private citizen, however much aggrieved,
has no standing to sue a state bar association for fail-
ure to discipline an attorney. Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar
Ass'n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1562 (lOth Cir.1993).
The .district court went on to provide alternative
grounds for dismissal of many of the claims. Plain-
tiffsum claims must fail because Mr. Harrington
cannot show that Ms. Wilson or his former wife were
state actors. Nor can he show they conspired with
state actors. See Barnard v. Young, 720 F.2d 1188.
1188-90 (lOth Cir.1983) ("A prerequisite for any
relief under [42 U.S.C. § ] 1983 is that the defendant
has acted under color of state law."). Mr. Harrington's
Americans with Disabilities and Rehabilitation Acts
claims against the Colorado state defendants do "not
adequately alleg[e] that there has been any impedi-
ment to [Mr. Harrington's] access to the courts by
reason of a disability." As for defendant Laura Ar-
cilise, she is entitled, the district court found, to abso-
lute quasi-judicial immunity for services rendered as
the state court judge's division clerk. See Whitesel v.
Sengenberger. 222 FJd 861, 867 (lOth Cir.2000)
("[A]bsolute judicial immunity has been extended to
non-judicial officers where their duties had an inte-
gral relationship with the judicial process.") (internal
quotation marks omitted). Finally, the court con-
 242 Fed.Appx. 514, 2007 WL 2045485 (C.A.I 0)
(Not Selected for publication in the Federal Reporter)
(Cite as: 242 Fed.Appx. 514, 2007 WL 2045485 (C.A.I0))
eluded that Younger precluded it from granting Mr.
Harrington's "Emergency Forthwith Motion for Pre-
liminary Injunction and Sanctions."

**2 The district court erred, however, in dismissing

the claims with prejudice. Each of the twenty-eight
claims was dismissed on one of three grounds:
Rooker- Feldman, Younger abstention, or lack of
standing. All three grounds are jurisdictional, and
therefore all should result in dismissals without
prejudice. Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp.. 434 F.3d
1213, 1214 (10th Cir.2006) ("A longstanding line of
cases from this circuit holds that where the district
court dismisses an action for lack ofjurisdiction, as it
did here, the dismissal must be without prejudice.").
See also Chapman v. Oklahoma. 472 F.3d 747, 750
(10th Cir.2006) (addressing Younger); *517Jackson
v. Jackson. 195 Fed.Appx. 745, 745 (10th Cir.2006)
(addressing Rooker- Feldman).

The judgment of the United States District Court for

the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED insofar as it
dismisses the action. We REMAND to the district
court to modifY the dismissal to be without prejudice.

CAl 0,2007.
Harrington v. Wilson
242 Fed.Appx. 514,2007 WL 2045485 (CAlO)

END OF DOCUMENT

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

 -
By; "THE ~ROCK I-IO\lSIO LLCj 3033229545j
.
<

DlSTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY. COLORADO

100 Jefferson County Parkway
Golden, Colorado 80401
Telephone; (303) 271·6215

In re the Marriage of:

Petitioner: CHRISTY HARRlNGTON, nIkIa

CHRISTY RYAN
~I\ ~ ~.
and
L --+-_~ANE A. TiDBALL
Respondent: SEAN L. HARRINGTON, JUDGE {/-(, -Or

Attorney for Respondent: Case No. 99DR3717

Mitch Geller
1800 Gaylord Street
Denver. Colorado 80206
Telephone: (303) 333·9800
Fax No.: (303) 322·9546
Attny. Reg. #9739

STIPULATED AGREEMENT MODIFYING PARENTAL RESPONSmll..ITIES,

PARENTING TIME AND RESOLUTION OF AL.L OUTSTANDING ISSUES
I...-. ...:-.. ._. ...J

THIS STIPULATED AGREEMENT MODIFYING PARENTAL

RESPONSmILiTIES, PARENTING TIME AND RESOLUTION OF ALL
OUTSTANDING ISSUES, is made and entered into by and between Christy Harrington, nIkIa
Chri!lty Ryan, Petitioner, and Sean Lee Harrington, Respondent, this _ _ day of October,
2001.

WHEREAS. a Decree dissolving the parties marriage was entered by this Court on May
31,2000.

WHEREAS, there is one child born as issue of the parties marriage, to-wit: Shelby Anne
Harrington, who was born on June 12, 1995.

AND WHEREAS, the parties desire to modify the existing Orders regarding parental
responsibilities and parenting time, and further to resolve all issues currently outstanding
between them;

DOCKETED rl_~rOJ
000001 EXHIBIT
 . .
Sent By: THE aROCK HOUSE LLC; 303322B546; Nov·5·" 16:43; Page 3

AND WHEREAS the parties believe that the within parenting plan and agreement is fair
and not unconscionable u:to each of them, and. 1hat it is in the best interests oftheir miner child.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements hereinafter contained,

the parties hereby IIlipulate lIS follows and desire this Court to enter the wilhin STIPULATED
AGREEMENT MODIFYII'iIG PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES, PARENTING TIME
AND RESOLUTION OF ALL OUTSTANDING ISSUES as an Order of this Court.

I. MODIFIED PARlNTING PLAN

1.1 The pBtlies agree that the Petitioner shall conlinue to act as the child's primary
residential custodian for all legal purposeJi. The pBtlies further agree that the
Petitioner shall have tinal decision making authority regarding all rouline
educational decisions, including the choice of schools for Shelby. Any
educational decisions that would involve costs ahove those expended for public
education shall be made jointly by the parti.,., and the co.ts, if sgreed, shall he
.hared as agreed between the parties. Day-to-<lay decisions for the cltlld will be
made by the parent with whom the child re.ides at tbe time that the decision is
required.

1.2 The parties agree, with regard to religiou. activities for the child, that each will
mike appropriate decisions when Shelby is in their individual care. The
Petilioner shall have final decision making authority regarding the child', health
care, ...,d further agrees to consult with the Respondent in that regard whenever
possible. The Respondenl shall have aulbority to make any emergency medical
decisiolL!l that may be necessary when the child is in his care. The parties agree to
jointly decide the question. regarding e~lra-curricular activities jf those activities
will interfi:re with. or involve parenting time with the other parent, or if the
acdvities will involve additional "xpeDSe. Any CJ<tra-eurricular utivities
involving major expenses (those e~ceedjng $250.00) shall be decided jointly
between the puties and the expense divided equally.

1.3 The parties recognize, in structuring Ibe parenting plan set fORh herein, thaI Ihe
Respondent resides in the Slllle of MassachusClIS and thst a modiflcation Df the
Respondent'. parenting time may be ne<:essary, appropriate and required in the
future. The parties agree to modifY the Respondent's parenting time ifand when
it becomes necessary. The parti.. further agree that either party may relocst.
within the continental United States withDut restriction or penalty. However, any
relocation with the minOT child out,ide ofthe continental United StatC8 mus! have
lb. permission of the other party or Order from an appropriate Court. Should a
move of either party require. modification of parenting time, the parties .hall
jointly decide the sppropriate modifications. This Agreement shall be submitted
to any Coun of proper jurisdiction in any state in which the parties may reside for
purpDses Dfenfbrcement.

000002
 -
Sent ay: THE BROCK HOUSE LLC; 3033229548; !IIOV·5·f11 16:44; Page 4/9

1.4 The R.~pondent witt enjoy parenting time with Shelby on two week~nds .per
month in the State of Colomdo until May of 2002. These weekend pllt'Ontmg time
.sions will commence on Friday evening at 1;OD P.M. and terminate on Sunday
aftemoon at 4:00 P.M. Subsequent to the exercise of each parenting time
weeken~ Shelby shall pllCti(;ipate in a therapy session in order to assist her in
processing the change in parenting time and monitor for any difficulties she may
expmcllCc. The parties shall share the co!lt of the thempy for Silelby, which shall
be conducted by Dr. Price. Any additional parenting time beyond thlll stated in
this agreement may be granted to the Respondent by agreement of the partics
without the necessity of further Order of Court. Any agreements shan be
evidenced by written declaration of assent.

l.5 Commencing in June of 2002, the Respondent shall exercise his parenting time
with Shelby for two weeks during the month of June, and three weco during the
month of August, in the State of Massachusetts. Th.is parenting time 8MU be in
addition to the two weekends per monu. that. the Respondent exerciscs his
parenting time in the State ofCoJorado, as set fonh above,

1.6 The parties agree that should the PetitionOf' be presem in the state of
Mas5lchusetts during the Respondent's parenting time with Shelby, she shall be
pennitted to exercise pareming time with the child two evenings per week. If the
child is in the State ofMassllchusetts for an extended period, i.e_, three weeks or
more, the Petitioner 9111111 be entitled II) eXef'cise parenting time with Shelby every
other weekend.

1.1 The Rcsponck:nt agrees to retain the services of a theolpist for Sh.elby during the
extended periods of ti~ that she i9 in his physical custody in the State of
Massachusetts. The parties agree to rely upon th~ recommendations of the
therapist in determining if Shelby is having any <lifticuhy dllting sny extended
period of time that she is in the .Respondent's physical custody. Tfthe therapist
.bel1ew& that the cirCl,lmstanccs WilfTant it, tbe parties BgreC to n!tUm tl1e child
home to the State of Colorado prior to the ex.pintion of the Respondent's
parenting time. The parties agree to &harc the C08t of a family thempiat, and the
panics will provido each other with the name, address and telepbone number of
th.e party selccted to IlCl in diu capaaty. Further, the parties shall provide the
famil~ thelllpin with a releuc, enabling him or her to communicate directly with
each of the parries. The therapist shall be selected jointly with preference given to
provider-I;. IIPproved by me appliCBblc medical insuran~ carrier,

1.8 Commencing in September or 2002, th.e parties shall share holiday parenting time
with the minor child. The Petitioner shall exercise pllrenting time with the child
over the Thanksgiving weekend. u well as the fint half of Christmas. vacation.
The child will then visit her father for the second half of Chrittmas. vacation. The
child wi11 spend Spring break in the year 2.003 with her father. These holiday
schedules would then alternate on a yearl)' basis,

000003
Sont Sy: THE BRDCK HOUSE llC) 3033228546, Nov-5·"'~ 18:44; Pago 5/9

1.9 During the summer of the year 2003 and thereafter, Shelby will enjoy parenting
time with !he Respondent for a tolal of nine weeks. The Petitioner shall be
permiltcd 10 cxeccise some IIDrmal vacation time with lhe child during these
years, and thi. arransement will be made between the partie. in order to
<;oordinate the timing of that evelll.

1.10 The Respondent shall be permitted to exercise telephone communication with

Shelby two evenings per week, at 4:30 P.M. on Sunday afternoons, and at 7:30
P.M. on Tuesday evenings.

1.11 The .Respondent shall be solely responsible for all transportation co.ts involved in
exercising hi. parenting time with the minor child until lune I, 2002, .ubsequent
tn the Petitioner's graduation from her nursing studi... Thereafter, the partie.
agree to share those coots with the Respondent paying 65% thereof; and the
Petitioner paying 35% thereof. Transportation coots shall include airfare, car
rental, airport parking fees, transportation 10 and from the airport, end hotel
e"pen... for the Respondent only if he has to travel somewhere outside of the
State of Colorado for the purpo.e of el<ercising hi. parenting tim.. If that occur..
the Respondem will nol be reimbursed fur hotel ""pense. which e"ceed 540.00
per night. Travel expense. for the Petitioner if n:quired fur periods thal the child
is with the Respondent fur extended periods oftime sball be shared by the parties
65% • 350/. . with the Petitioner paying 65% of those costs. The Petitioner will
also pay 65% of her travol e><penscs if she should decide to accompany the child
when .he is traveling to exerci.e parenting time with the child and her own hotel
expenses jf .he i. accompanying the child out of stale.

1.12 The Respondent agrees to complete his anger management class.., IlIld the
Petitioner agrees to take whatever co=.. are deemed appropriato by the Special
Advocate, including a c1a.s in .hared parenting after divorce, after her graduation
from nursing school in the year ZO()2.

1.13 If the parties do not reach an agreement as to any issue involving the within
patenting plan, they will be permitted to submit thair dispute to mediation one
time per year, end if mediation foil., tbeftnal decision wJ1l be made by the COUlt.
Mediation end/or arbitration shall be conducted by a third party mutually agreed
upon by the parties. Trthe parties cannot agree upon a mediator, they will use the
stale Office of Dispute Resolution, and any mediation a. contennplated herein
shall be paid by the partie. equally. Only under emergency c;rwmstanccs such
that the physical or emotional health of the minor child are in danger, will the
parties submit any dispute to arbitration or mediation more than one time per year.

Ll4 If the restraining order expires, each party will inform the other party of any
changes of business or residential address end/or telephone number in advance of
the oe<:urrence, or within ten days of the chango. Both parties agree that each will
infonn the other of any emergency Dr other important event that involves their
child. Both parties agree that they will not belittle or critici.te the other in the

000004
· Sent By: THE BROCK HOUSE LLC i 303322954B i Nov-5·rtt 16:45; Paga B/9

-- --
pre8CIICC of the child, and that they wil1 conduct all communi~tions regarding
their child between themselves and that they will not use the child to convey any
information. The parties agree that they will aot discuss this proceeding with the
child lit any titne.

2. CHILD SUPPORTIINSURANCE ISSIIES

2.\ The Respondent shall continue to maintain, in full force BJld etrcct, all policies of
health and hospital insurance currently in place for the benefit ofilie miIlllr child

2.2 The Respondent shall continue to pay his current child support obligation of
5823.00 per month for the benefit of the minor child, and further agrees thn no
modification to that ,uppen will occur for a period of three years, deopite any
modification that would otherwi,e moult from the mooification of pareating time
and use of Worksheet B in tbis case, or any increase in Petitioner's income over
that lime period. The parties agree thaI if any arrears in child ,upport exist, after
crediting the Respondent with four months of child support payments in addition
to those fur which he has records of payments, he will pay such arrellTJ in equal
monthly installments of575.00, together with his current support

2.3 The Petitioner agree, to assiot the Respondent with child care costs during any
p~od. ofextended parenting time between he and the child (i.e., over one week),
upon Nch teoms and conditions lIS lhe parties may agree at the time of such event
The parries are unable attbistime to detennine what the potential coots may be.

3. PROPERTXJRESTRAINJNG ORDERS

3.1 The parties "8"" thel the Respondent will immediately di,mi.s his peneling
motion with regsrd to the Petitioner's de'h\lction oHis property. In exchange for
this dismi.. a~ tbe Petitioner will acc:ept the sum of $5,000.00 as payment in full
for any monies owed to the Petitioner regarding the parti.,.' previous property
distribution. The Respondent .hall pay this sum in equal monthly inSCallmeutli of
$75.00, with no interest, commencing subsequent to the Respondent's payment in
full ofany child support arrean thal may exist

3.2 The parties agree to modifY the restraining order exiSling in tbis case against the
Respondent to permit the parties to speak by telephone regarding the minor child,
and to allow personal contact when exchanging the child for parenting time, or
personal contact at such Dther times as tbe Petitioner may agree. If the parties
agree that events have proceeded in an appropriate whion for a period of six
mnnths, lhe Petitioner will then move 10 dismi.. the restraining order against the
P~ondenl

3.3 The parties agree lhat the Petitioner's attorney, Madeline Wilson, will dismi.. tbo
restraining order she obrained and which is currently in effect against the

000005
Sent B~: THE BROCK HOUSE LLC'
. . • 3033229546 i NOIl-5- I'll 16:45,
~05-2001 MON 04:32 PM L~FFICES FA}( NU 3D3 1 JU,tt
Page 1/9
r. U,
ltW..orZOOl rfC4{ 05:32 PrI FAX In -- p, 07/08
elm Iy: THE aROCK ItOUSE llC, ~mOi"6i Hov·G·Of Uil4DJ PlIO' 718

Reipandcnl. The R"p~cuI wID 'F- 10 .. JlQ-COIMCl unIcr 'klwetll the

Pcl'irtoac'. COIDI Illd . . ...,~ ~(~ r" chi, action tflrovaIl
fiCIl'" proceediltp if DI:l'lCSlJalJ.
4. MAUf'l'ENANC:C
•. J Tht PditioMr qe;it'it8!ly walva IIlJ ur";'''1 owd by tile Japoa*a& tor
Jl1lyul.01\t armaint~, Ad hit tun'MtmallltetllltlQO oh1l~ wUl eeut.

4.1 Each Plrt)' wlivQ ,.,. .fsh~ in ~ lDI1nteMn~i'o. dlo

ud lind! ,artb.. undenlJrld. Illat 11, wtWlq mal~UQ
1It_..In tk ildllrc,
thil t1nu,
mMifttelW1C&J l:IJI never IpIIt be awarded,

I. oyg:, LAWIJJj11I

lb- Plie:t ....- that thl: 1U1pDftlf0llf IiaII dlllI'Il" any IItft4t., dvl1 acdoa
JlIIm tho r-1iUouf ... her IIlOmq.Ma4e1l1lo wn.... arullM peddaMr __
to aiWte a al.1l\dftd IllDnficbftU.aity . . . .. pM at jbat: II"'''''. TIt.
J!,OIplo..deut I&tMt I. putWe 110 Alrta. JedGIIIllli. . ehhot the Jlctitl.Dder tit ....
ClD\oInIlei ~r dainat IbM ~ kw arlHa by tho - . 01 tlUl _aneaus. IIftd to
II'IIb ntl (lIIIIIJd wiJh the PotllloQ". IlnJI'16Y«. d.ool or 1ieeIlliBI ~iClI.
$.2 'fh4 Pttkionet', COIlIIlet. Mllldolilc WiJA01'I, MIl die htitll1lllllfC1'eby WllYe an)'
Iflomey &cI orjulJgmt:ar•• 1In' i" their flwor II1li I&IIM tbtJ,~ t:rter
Ind above thOle momet ~ flieS oyt1l6llap01llJfJt1,

T'" .n
panlt.. ",. to- __ce tppIOpriIIc IIIIt scp.v. fCIUt__ Io~
COlICemilllhe lMpondel\t'. IIMlltwllllt t.pin. 'die PetlIloMt.

Up61 euMlon of lbe 'ft'IIhi'J\ doE:Ull\tM, the JtHpaDlln Mil dbJDlu JQ "P'~
~tIy pclldill. betbr. ~ ea. of AppuJJ, Silk l\f' Cokndo. tdeat1ficd 0..
Ctll No. OOC,\lJ54.

.M..r.~---- f2 ~
CIiR1STYHA~~'­
alRT!lTY llYAN
PetitiOJltl'

000006
• Sent. By: !ttE BROOK HOUSE LLCj 3D33229546j
Nov-5· ~i 16:4e;
NtlV-Ooa2001 MOH 04; 32 Ptf L~fJ CES FAK 00, 303~ 3196
Page B/9
.
Sum By; 'ttlE B~OCl( H0IJ8~ LLc J 30332295iliJ NDV·5-0t 15:44, P'~I
p, 0;:1
tl8

70~
Jj.,/...JjJNB~WILS~~ON:fn4060
Auomey fflr Pc:tiliooCf
)300 Bast 1- Avenue. Suitt! 600
D&Ivu. Color-.do 1020&
Telephone: (30]) :121.6113

NATAUE VAN NOTe

Special Advocate

oaoaOl
Sent 'By: ~HE BROCK HOUSE LLC; 3033229546j NoY·~ -, 16:46j Page 9/9
I 1-fa5-2~ 1 :2, 56PM
:lim "Y~ JH~ 1I~~ HUU~j; Ll.Ci
i='ROM~AHCE MHC 79793<16
3Q!92~a!.8;
- ,.
P,2

..,

APPR.OVED AS TO fO~:
..
l

M.AD£L.1NE W1LSO~. #2Atl6Il -

A!t01dey fbr Petitioner ' .,
3JOO)!Nt j* A~Su;lC,600
, ,OaftVCf. COlorado ~6
Telephone: (303l321~m

" ,

: .
"

000008'
,07/23/20137 138: 31 COLORADDSUPRE~URT PAGE 132/10

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO

_THE
~.,~, __ ~YRT ]
2. E. 141h Ave JUl1 , 2001
Denver, CO 80202
.....-.........
OF THE S'rATE OF COLORADO
.-
Petitioner: SUSAN.1. '......._--
FEST~G,CLERK
.--=.-.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

Respondent:
SUZANNE SHELL .. COURT USE ONLY ...

Sw..anne Shell
14053 Eastonville Rd. Case Number 04 SA 093
Elbert, CO 80106
719~ 749-2971
Fax Number:

SECOND MOnON FOR RELEASE OF VIDEO TAPES ~ EXmUJTS 16A, 16B, 16C, &
)tiD

Comes now, Respondent Suzanne Shell~ for the sole puroose of thi8 single i$$ue "ppearing

pro sl, to request this court to release her intellectual property to her forthwith; s~cj:ficaUy the

video tapes of the above captioned contempt trial on January 14 & 18,2005, recorded by Ms.

Shell under the authority of court~approvedexpanded media coverage, labeled Exhibits 16A~

16B. 16C, and 16D. and in support tbereofcites as foHows:

1. This case, having exhauSted all appeals, is closed. As such, the property owner is entitled to

recover her property held by the court.

2. Ms. Shell, acting as a documentary video producer~ filed a timely request for expanded media

coverage for the above referenced case, to video tape the proceedings for her own u''le, which

request the Presiding Disciplinary Judge granted. Ms. Shell never intended, and was never
I
asked. to create any oth,el:' record in co~iW1ction with her expanded media request. ~ EXHIBIT
iB
~
~
3
~
'07/23/2007 08:31 COLORADOSUPRE1IItURT PAGE 03/10

3. Ms. Shell, using her own equipment and supplies and personnel, video recorded the entire

proceedings of the above-captioned case.

4. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge immediately seized and has since retained custody and

control of Ms. Shell's intellectual property and tangible property and labeled the video tapes as

Exhibits IGA, 16B, lGC, and J6D. Ms. Shell labeled the tapes with the legally required

copyright Dotice e.g. Copyright 2005 Suzanne Shell. This seizure was performed against the

wishes of Ms. Shell and without her voluntary consent.

5. This court used the subject t video tapes as aD official record of this action without Ms. Shell's

permission in violation of copyright law and without payment to her tor the creation or use of

that property.

6. Ms. Shell has pre-registered this property with the United States Copyright Office -

preregistration number # PRE000000002. Copy ofpreregistration attached.

7..Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 102,201 /1£ 202, as the author of this intellectual property, Ms. Shell

retains all rights to this intellectual property and has never voluntarily waived any rights

associated wi.th this property.

8. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 201(e), this court Clla"lIlot transfer her property rights to this intellectual

property nor order her or otherwlse compel her to waive her rights to this intellectual property.

9. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 106, as the copyright owner, Ms. Shell possess the exclusive rights to

reproduce and distribute this property and create derivative works based OD this property. The

Colorado Supreme Court or the PDI has never requested nor received permission from Ms.

Shell to possess, own, copy or distribute tl1is intellectual property in violation of J 7 U.S.C.

501.
· , '07/23/2007 08:31 COLORADOSUPREMtifURT PAGE 04/10

10. This unreasonable seizure of her property has deprived her of the use and control of her

intellectual property for 2 years and 6 months without her consent, without compensation

and without cause.

11. Ms. Shell objects to this court continuing to exercise custody and control over her

intellectual property. She further objech to this court denying her use the of her property

and denying her the right to exploit her property for her benefit, particularly without

paying Ms. Shell for that privilege. She also objeets to the unreasonable seizure of her

intellectual property and the wholesale denial of due process associated with thgt seizure.

She further objects to the court's distribution oCher preregistered intellectual property in

violation of her rights under copyright law.

.POINTS OF LAW Colorado constitution Article II Seetion 15

12. A taking of property occurs "when government action directly interferes with or

substantially disturbs the owner's use and enjoyment ofthe property." Black's Law

Dictionary 1493 (8th ed. 2004). This includes a legal interference with the physical use,

possession, enjoyment, or disposition of property, or acts that translate to a governmental

entity's exercise of dominion and control. Pub. Servo Co. v. Van Wyk, 27 P.3d 377,386-87

(Colo. 2001). Wall V. City of Aurora, No. 05CA2456 (Colo.App. 05/3112007

13. A taking ofproperty occurs when the entity clothed with the power of ernine.nt domain

substantially deprives a property owner of the use and enjoyment of that property. A taking

can be effected by a legal interference with the physical use, possession, disposition. or

Second Motion for Release oiVideo Tapes - page 3

07/23/2007 08:31 COlORAD05UPREMtlfURT PAGE 05/10

enjoyment ofthe property, or by acts which constitute all exercise of dominion and control

by a governmental entity. A taking also occurs if an owner is requited to forego all

economically beneficial use of his or her property. Clare v. Florissant Water & San. Dist.,

879 P.2d 471 (Colo. App. 1994); Thompson v. City & County of Denver, 958 P.2d 525

(Colo. App. 1998); Fowler Irrevocable Trust 1992-1 v. City of Boulder, 992 P.2d 1188

(Colo. App. 1999), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 17 P.3d 797 (Colo.

2001).

14. Purpose ofthis section of the [ColoradoJ constitution (Art. n §15) is to provide a remedy
in damages for injury to property, not common to the public, inflicted by the state or one of

its political subdivisions; and this section is not limited in application to condemnation

proceedings. Srb v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 43 Colo. App. 14,601 P.2d 1082 (1979). See

also: Combined Communications Corp. v. City and County of Denver, 542 P.2d 79, 189

Colo. 462 (Colo. 11/03/1975); City of Northglenn v. Grynberg, 846 P.2d 175 (Colo.

02/16/1993) reference to taking "trade secret" or other property which is protected by the

federal or state constitutions.

15. . Section protects private property or some right peculiar to owner. It is only when !lOme

specific private property, or Some right or interest therein or incident thereto, peculiar to

the owner, is taken or damaged for public or private lise that the constitution guarantees

compensation therefor. Gilbert v. Greeley, S. L. & Pac. Ry., 13 Colo. SOl, 22 P. 814

(1889).

Second Motion for Release of Video Tapes - page 4

07/23/2007 08:31 COLORADOSUPREWURT PAGE 06/10

16. Property includes right to freely possess, use and alienate chattel or land. Property, in its

broader and more appropriate sense, is not alone the chattel or the land itself, but the right

to freely possess, use and alienate the same; and many things are considered property

which have .no tangible existence, but which are necessary to the satisfactory use and

enjoyment of that which is tangible. City of Denver v. Bayer, 7 Colo. 113,2 P. 6 (1883).

17. As this section makes compensable both taking and damages inflicted by the state of

Colorado or one of its agencies or constituent parts. Mosher v. City of Boulder, 225 F.

Supp. 32 (D. Colo. 1964).

18. Just compensation mlL,t be paid for a temporary, as well as a pennanent, taking. Fowler

Irrevocable Trust 1992-1 v. City of Boulder, 992 P.2d 1188 (Colo. App. 1999), affd, 17

P.3d 797 (Colo. 2001).

19. Owner entitled to just, not token, compensation. Swift v. Smith, 119 Colo. 126,201 P.2d

609 (1948).

20. Right of action not taken away by governmental immunity. A "right ofaction" cannot be

lU\constitutionally taken away or damaged by the application ofsovereign immunity to a

tort claim, since there is no "right" in the absence of a statute granting such. Abeyta v. City

& County ofDenver, 165 Colo. 58, 437 P.2d 67 (1968). As just compensation clause

creates exception to doctrine of governmental immunity. Srb v. Bd. of County Comm'rs,

43 Colo. App. 14,601 P.2d 1082 (1979). See also Desert Truck Sales Inc. v. City and

County ofDenver, 821 P.2d 860 (Colo.App. 06/06/1991)

Second Motion for Release of Video Tapes - page 5

07/23/2007 08:31 COLORADOSUPREMtifURT PAGE 07/10

21. If, in the execution of any power, no matter what it is, the government, federal or state,

fUlds it necessary to take private property for public use, it must obey the constitutiollll1

injunction to make or secure just compensation to the owner. City & County of Denver v.

Denver Buick, Inc., 141 Colo. 121, 347 P.2d 919 (1959).

Wherefore, Ms. Shell respectfully requests the following remedies from this Honorable Court

forthwith:

I. The Court provide Ms. Shell with the original recordings of the subject vidco tapes which

remain her property, which shall consist of the unedited origillll1s ofthe su~ect video.

2. The Colorado Supreme Court shall be immediately ordered to negotiate appropriate license

fees, remuneration and payment with Ms. Shell for its taking of her goods and services in

creating the video tapes, and for the original taking and for the past denial of her physical

.custody and control of her intellectual property; and if the court denies her motion to release

the originals to her, for continuing to exercise custody and control of her intellectual property

and for the associated deprivations of her rights to exploit this property since the creation of

this intellectual property.

-"
3. If the Court is going to retain any copies of this property, that it shall negotiate with and pay a

fee for that ownership and use with Ms. Shell, which purchase price and tenns of us sha11 be

defined in writing and agreed to by this Court and Ms. ShelL

4. The Court order that all parties who havc received or who possess copies of those video tapes

shall not copy or distribute them for any reason without first negotiating with and paying a

Second Motion for Releasc of Video Tapes - page 6

• 87/23/2007
, 08:31
COLORADOSUPRE1IIiURT PAGE 68/10

license fee to Ms. Shell, and the court shall order that all parties who are still in possession of

copies of this intellectual property immediately return them to the copyright holder and they

5halJ retain no copies of them or any part of them in any fonnat.

5. The Court order that no other copies of this property in the control or custody oftbis court or

of the Attorney Regulation Counsel, in part or in whoJe~ be released to anyone by anyone

witl10Ut the copyright owner's express written permissjon.

Respe fully submitted July J0, 2007

SU1'..anne Shell
14053 .Eastonville Rd.
Elbert, CO 80106
719-749-Z971

Certificate of Service

I certify that on July 10, 20071 sent a true and correct copy ofthis document, by first class mail,
postage prepaid to:

James Coyle
Deputy Regulation Counsel
600 l-rh St.• Suite ZOO-South
Den 080202

Sw..anne Shell - July 10, 2007

Second Motion for Release of Video Tapes - page 7

 · 07/23/2007 08:31 30386~29 COLORADOSUPREMtitURT PAGE 09/10
Notificatiqn from the Electronic Copyright.ce (eCO) system

Sllbjett: Notification from the Electronic Copyright Office (eCO) system

From: cop-rc@loc.gov
Date: 11 Sep 200605:30:24 -0400
To: dsshell@ix.netcom.com

This is to notify you that:

Preregistration has been completed for the worK Contempt of Court - SLhPP a
HUIOan Rights Activist under tne number PRE000000002. Below you wU.1 find a full
summary of the contents of this prereqistratj.on reco.'t'd as it exists within the
Copyright Office records.
This Notification provides a copy of required information in the Office's
formal. and permanent record of the preregistration of this claim. This Notification
is not the equivalent of a certificate of re9istration, which is provided for in
section 4101c) of the copyright law.
Please be advised that pre:r.egistret.ton is not a substitute for: registra.tion,
but is • preliminary SUp pri.or to a cull registration that should taKe place after
the WOrk has been published or infringed. FaUure to complete registration within
the earlier of 3 mO,oths after the fir.st publ:Lcation of the work Or 1 month after
you have learned o.r an in.fringement will deprive you of. important rJ.ghts and
remedies under the copyrj,ght law. For more l.nformation ~~e Section 408 (fJ of the
copyright law.
When you complete the app.l.ication for full regi~tration, be sure to give the
preregistration number ~RE000000002 in space Sto enable the two recorda for tile
particular work to be cross-referencAd.
P.reregistration Number: PRE000000002
Effective Date of Preregistraticn: 11/15/2005
Class(es) of Work: Motion Picture

Title: Contempt of Court - SLAPP a ijl>man Rights Activist

Additional Title(s):
Author(s): Suzanne Shell
Claimant (s) :
suzanne Shell
14053 Eastonvil1e rd, Elbert, CO, 80106
Description of the work: Documentary film covering violaCions ot rights,
persecutions, prosecutions and attacks against human rights activists who are
advocates and activists promoting and protecting the fundamental human right to
family association. This film features Suzanne Shen "nd depicts a series of events
Which constitute civil ri9hts violations, ))I)man ri9hts violations, assaults and
manUfactured and false prosec1Jtions against hAr while she J.s engaged j.n her human
rights work or as a direct result of her human rights activiSm. ,t specifically
incJ.I..Jdes an illegal arrest tn Walworth County, Wisconsin; a j.lleqal eviction f.r.om
In l?"61so county Courthouse, Colorado; a contl2rnpt of the Colorado Supr~rne Court t.rial
for which ~he was granted ey.p~nded media coverage and filmed the antire
proceedings; coverage of a chUd abuse trial in Arapaho County, Colorado wheretn
ShR was denied access to witnesses and jurors by a judicial edict and harassed for
filming in a public area; threatening confrontations with various security
personnel and law enforcement nationWide for filming 1n public ar~aS; interviews
with judges and adrninstr,ut!ons in various statelii en th.:L3 tOJ;lic.

Date on which creae.i.on commenced' 01/15/2001 (Approximately)

Date l)f anticip,;lt.ed completion: l2/~1912006 (Approximately)
D~te of antic~pated publication: 12/7.~/2006 (Appr.ox~matp.ly)

7/9120078:53 PM
· . 07/23/2007 08:31 30386~29
COLORADOSUPREllifURT PAGE 10/10
Notific.tion.fi';m the Electronic Copyright.co (eCO) system

Apl'lication certified by: Suzann<> SheU

[THREAD 10: 1-l.P6IHl

unHecl States Copyright QUice

? nf?
7/9120078:53 PM
• 07/23/2067 08:31 COLORADOSUPRE~T PAGE 01/HI

§5,uprtmt QCourt of 'lSolorabo

STATE JUDICIAL BUILDINC
;Z EAST 14TH AVENUE
DENl/f.R, COLORADO IID2[)3-7.116
(303) 861-1111

SUSAN ). FESTAC CLERK OF COURT

COURT ADMINISTRATOR

FACSIMILE 1,'BANSMISSION NOTICE

DATE: 7-;J.?;- 07
TO:

FAX #

FROM: ~ ..
.1~}_JL!J .
"'"

TOTAL PAGES INCLUDmG COVER SHEET: _..u]D",-_ _~_ _~_ _

VOICE PHONE: (303) 861-1111 X JlfJ

+ FOR INFORMATION

AS REQUESTED

FOR MODIFICATION & REVIEW

AS AN AUTHORIZED REQUEST

COMMENTS:
 f,

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO CASE NO. 04SA93

TWO EAST 14 TH AVENUE
DENVER, COLORADO 80203

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN CONTEMPT, 03UPL35

Petitioner:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,

v.

Respondent:

SUZANNE SHELL

ORDER OF COURT

Upon consideration of the Second Motion for Release of Video

Tapes- Exhibits 16A, 16B, 16C & 16D along with Petitioner's

Response and the Reply filed in the above cause, and now being

sufficiently advised in the premises,

IT IS THIS DAY ORDERED that said Motion shall be, and the

same hereby is, DENIED.

BY THE COURT, EN BANC, AUGUST 29, 2007

Copies mailed via the State's Mail services Division on ~/J9/01 J{OP

James Coyle Suzanne Shell

Deputy Regulation Counsel 14053 Eastonville Rd.
Elbert, CO 80106
Hon. William Lucero
Presiding Disciplinary Judge
Attn: Tammy