Attorney Caroline R. Kert Acts In Criminal Conspiracy With Daniel T. Goodwin, Of The Law Offices of Daniel T. Goodwin, To Conceal Multiple Felony Acts.

Daniel T. Goodwin Broomfield, CO Attorney Known Felon.

Attorney Caroline R. Kert: The Law Offices of Daniel T. Goodwin 1877 Broadway#100 Boulder, CO, 80302 Image Courtesy of Avvo.com

Boulder, CO attorney Caroline R. Kert in criminal conspiracy with known felon, Daniel T. Goodwin Founding Member/Manager, of The Law Offices of Daniel T. Goodwin, 10901 W 120th Ave #350, Broomfield, CO 80021. Associate attorney Caroline R. Kert issues  DCMA Takedown Notification to hartmannconspiracy.com web host, NearlyFreeSpeech.net.

Boulder, CO. – In defiance of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, associate attorney Caroline R. Kert, of The Law Offices of Daniel T. Goodwin, took affirmative steps this week to conceal, aid, and abet the numerous criminal acts of  Founding Member/Manager Daniel T. Goodwin.

In a signed but undated letter stated to be accurate, “under the penalty of perjury” and believed to have been emailed to NearlyFreeSpeech.net on the week of February 12th,  Boulder, CO attorney Caroline R. Kert demanded takedown of images of Broomfield, CO attorney, Daniel T. Goodwin from a total of seven pages on this website. Caroline R. Kert, although often speaking in the first person regarding ownership of the copyrighted material, at the conclusion switches to a third party stating, ” I am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of exclusive right to the photographic image that is allegedly infringed”. The “owner” of the copyrighted material remains unidentified.

Attorney Caroline R. Kert’s letter complained of seven posts in which hartmannconspiracy.com is alleged to have used Daniel T. Goodwin’s image without consent of the copyright holder, inidentified, but presumed to be The Law Offices of Daniel T. Goodwin. The letter further states, “a good faith belief”  that the images, and derivative works are not subject to “fair use”, as hartmannconspiracy’s content is, “defamatory in nature”. To be, “defamatory” it must be false.

Caroline R. Kert, a Boston University School of Law graduate, devotes a significant amount of her practice to copyright and intellectual properties matters,  according to Avvo.com  and  Linkedin. A previous post on hartmannconspiracy.com, dated February 12, 2018, touched on the perils of The Law Offices of Daniel T. Goodwin associate Caroline Kert , as well as two other known Daniel T. Goodwin associates;  Sherin Chahal and Paige Orgel implicating themselves in Daniel T. Goodwin’s known criminal acts.

Defamation vs. First Amendment Rights: The Four Prong Test.

In order for a statement or publication to be, “defamatory”, it must meet the criteria of a four prong test. Although the law of defamation varies from state to state, there are some generally accepted rules. To prove defamation you usually have to show there’s been a statement that is all of the following:

  • published
  • false
  • injurious
  • unprivileged

Let’s look at each of these defamation claim elements in detail.

 “Published” – means that a third party heard or saw the statement.

The purpose of publication of hartmannconspiracy.com is to effect disbarment and incarceration of the offending individual.

“False” – A defamatory statement must be false — otherwise it’s not considered damaging.

Daniel t Goodwin, known felon, is proven on the record of the Court, to have committed the following six (if not more) criminal acts:

Count #1.

Title 18 – Criminal Code
Article 8 – Offenses – Governmental Operations
Part 1 – Obstruction of Public Justice
§ 18-8-105. Accessory to crime

(1) A person is an accessory to crime if, with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of another for the commission of a crime, he renders assistance to such person.

(e) Conceal, destroy, or alter any physical or testimonial evidence that might aid in the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of such person.

  1. Daniel T. Goodwin concealed time card evidence from the Colorado Division of Labor proving Craig Buckley’s uninterrupted 26 month term of employment with Dream stone, Inc., after he had falsely sworn as follows:Daniel T. Goodwin fraudSee Buckley’s check stubs HERE. Goodwin is known to have allowed the destruction of the timecards, as testified on the record of the Court by Dream Stone, Inc. Secretary/Treasurer Ida E. Murphy.

Count #2:

  1. having falsely sworn before the Division of Labor to influence their decision regarding Buckley’s accrued wage claim, shall be charged as follows:
2016 Colorado Revised Statutes
Title 18 – Criminal Code
Article 8 – Offenses – Governmental Operations
Part 3 – Bribery and Corrupt Influences
§ 18-8-306. Attempt to influence a public servant

Any person who attempts to influence any public servant by means of deceit or by threat of violence or economic reprisal against any person or property, with the intent thereby to alter or affect the public servant’s decision, vote, opinion, or action concerning any matter which is to be considered or performed by him or the agency or body of which he is a member, commits a class 4 felony.

Count #3:

Daniel T. Goodwin swears false affidavit and support document of Attorneys’ Fees before the Weld County District Court to obtain fees for a Response to Motion for which no fees were awarded.

2016 Colorado Revised Statutes
Title 18 – Criminal Code
Article 8 – Offenses – Governmental Operations
Part 3 – Bribery and Corrupt Influences
§ 18-8-306. Attempt to influence a public servant

Any person who attempts to influence any public servant by means of deceit or by threat of violence or economic reprisal against any person or property, with the intent thereby to alter or affect the public servant’s decision, vote, opinion, or action concerning any matter which is to be considered or performed by him or the agency or body of which he is a member, commits a class 4 felony.

Buckley had filed a Motion to have his case consolidated with that of another Dream Stone, inc. employee; Vice President Todd Coday. Coday had also terminated his employment under less than ideal circumstances, having allegedly left because he could no longer handle the “screaming” and “toxic, evil bitch”, Dream Stone, Inc. Secretary/Treasurer Ida E. Murphy.

The Defendants’ Response to Motion for Consolidation contained an Affidavit from Todd Coday’s attorney, Michael Matthews: described as being attached, “hereto”.

Buckley’s Motion for Consolidation was denied by the Court, and no fees were awarded. Logically, one would conclude that since no fees were awarded, the Defendants would have to “eat” the cost of their Response, including all work product, evidentiary materials prepared for that Motion, preparation and review time, etc.

Buckley had also filed a Motion to have Dream Stone, Inc. attorneys, Daniel T. Goodwin, and Blaine Bowne joined as Defendants to the civil case. As proven by the evidence in the above paragraphs, Daniel T. Goodwin and his subordinate were not acting as “attorneys” or “Officers of the Court”, they were, in fact, criminal conspirators. Despite the irrefutable evidence of fraud, perjury, obstruction, and Attempt to Influence a Public Servant by Goodwin, the Motion was denied, and fees were  awarded for the Motion for Joinder. Weld County District Court Chief judge James Hartmann had chosen to conceal the criminal acts of Daniel T. Goodwin.

Here is where the felony is committed. All of a sudden, the Affidavit of Michael Matthews, prepared by Daniel T. Goodwin, and attached as an exhibit to the Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Consolidation, is NOW part of the fee demand for the Defendants’ Response to Motion for Joinder.

On May 18, 2010 , the Court held a Status Conference, and Buckley thankfully recorded it. Next in Count #4, hear what Daniel T. Goodwin, an Officer of the Court, and presumed to be under Oath at all times, said about the fraud he had perpetrated via his Affidavit of Attorneys’ Fees, and exhibit to affidavit of attorneys fees.

Count #4:

2016 Colorado Revised Statutes
Title 18 – Criminal Code
Article 8 – Offenses – Governmental Operations
Part 5 – Perjury and Related Offenses
§ 18-8-502. Perjury in the first degree

Having falsified Affidavit of Attorneys’ Fees and support document, Daniel T. Goodwin went on to commit First Degree Perjury in this statement before the Court, May 18, 2010.

Count #5&6 (2 Counts – Attempt to influence a public servant)

2016 Colorado Revised Statutes
Title 18 – Criminal Code
Article 8 – Offenses – Governmental Operations
Part 3 – Bribery and Corrupt Influences
§ 18-8-306. Attempt to influence a public servant

Any person who attempts to influence any public servant by means of deceit or by threat of violence or economic reprisal against any person or property, with the intent thereby to alter or affect the public servant’s decision, vote, opinion, or action concerning any matter which is to be considered or performed by him or the agency or body of which he is a member, commits a class 4 felony.

…and this is the Big One!

For the specific purpose of quashing Craig Buckley’s Due Process Rights under C.R.S. 8-4-110(2) of the Colorado Wage Act, Daniel T. Goodwin swore simultaneously before both the Weld County District Court, and the Colorado Division of Labor, that neither had jurisdiction over Buckley’s wage claim, because the matter was before the other:  corroborated by Dream Stone, Inc. VP Ronald Murphy’s sworn testimony before  Weld County Court Judge John Briggs on April 7, 2011:

Six Felony Counts…So far.

“Injurious” – those suing for defamation must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statement.

A claim of “injury” by alleged offending content  is negated by the fact that all claims on this website are factual. Whether charged and tried or not, Daniel T. Goodwin is a felon whom, because of his stature in the community, has been allowed to commit crime. Daniel T. Goodwin’s “injuries” are caused by his own criminal acts.

 “Unprivileged.”

All evidence posted on hartmannconspiracy.com is Public Record, with the exception of confidential internal memoranda shared by (Fmr.)  Colorado Dept. of Labor & Employment Director Ellen Golombek.

Attorney Caroline R. Kert’s Claims of, “Defamatory Content” on this Website FAIL for the Above Stated Reasons.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

All information posted on this website is proven to be TRUE. The Hartmann Conspiracy seeks to, “Petition the Government for a redress of grievances” through public outcry. that RIGHT shall not be abridged.

Daniel T. Goodwin Broomfield, CO Attorney Known Felon.

Law Offices of Daniel T. Goodwin 1877 Broadway#100 Boulder, CO, 80302 Image Courtesy of Avvo.com

So Where Does This Leave Attorney Caroline R. Kert?

Caroline Kert’s DCMA Takedown Notice stipulated it was being presented, “under penalty of perjury”. As an Officer of the Court, sworn to uphold the law, and considered under Oath in official matters at all times, we believe Second Degree Perjury is the least of her problems.

Provably, Ms. Kert has combed this website and viewed all the evidence in search of actionable (libelous) material. What that means, is that she has confirmed that she now has, “personal knowledge” of criminal acts committed by Daniel T. Goodwin.

Her present criminal involvement, in the form of a DCMA notice, in light of her full knowledge of evidence on this website subjects her to disciplinary action under the Colorado Rules of professional Conduct, specifically:

Rule 8.3. Reporting Professional Misconduct

(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

Rule 8.4. Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, except that a
lawyer may advise, direct, or supervise others, including clients, law enforcement officers, or
investigators, who participate in lawful investigative activities

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

and…

2016 Colorado Revised Statutes
Title 18 – Criminal Code
Article 8 – Offenses – Governmental Operations
Part 1 – Obstruction of Public Justice
§ 18-8-105. Accessory to crime
Universal Citation: CO Rev Stat § 18-8-105 (2016)

(1) A person is an accessory to crime if, with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of another for the commission of a crime, he renders assistance to such person.

(2) “Render assistance” means to:

(d) By force, intimidation, or deception, obstruct anyone in the performance of any act which might aid in the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of such person; or

(e) Conceal, destroy, or alter any physical or testimonial evidence that might aid in the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of such person.

(5) Being an accessory to crime is a class 5 felony if the offender knows that the person being assisted has committed, or has been convicted of, or is charged by pending information, indictment, or complaint with a crime, or is suspected of or wanted for a crime, and if that crime is designated by this code as a felony other than a class 1 or class 2 felony; except that being an accessory to a class 6 felony is a class 6 felony.

To establish that an accused is guilty of being an accessory under subsection (5), the following statutory elements must be proven: (1) A crime has been committed; (2) the accused rendered assistance to the actor; (3) the accused intended to hinder, delay, or prevent the discovery, detection, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of the principal; (4) the accused knew that the person being assisted has committed, or has been convicted of, or is charged by pending information, indictment, or complaint with such crime, or is suspected of or wanted in connection with such crime; and, (5) the underlying crime is designated as a felony other than a class 1 or 2 felony. Barreras v. People, 636 P.2d 686 (Colo. 1981).

The relevant standard for knowledge in regard to the accessory statute is whether defendant knew the principal had committed a crime. People v. Young, 192 Colo. 65, 555 P.2d 1160 (1976).

Elements of offense. The offense may be committed by either concealing the commission of the crime from the magistrate, or by harboring or protecting the felon. Howard v. People, 97 Colo. 550, 51 P.2d 594 (1935).

Since the early days of the English common law, it has been generally held that any assistance whatever given to one ALLEGED to be a felon in order to hinder his being apprehended, or tried, or suffering punishment makes the assistor an accessory after the fact. Self v. People, 167 Colo. 292, 448 P.2d 619 (1968).

The accessory statute is held to create a substantive statutory crime and, as construed, the conviction of the principal is not a condition precedent to the conviction of an accessory. Roberts v. People, 103 Colo. 250, 87 P.2d 251 (1938).

Read this excellent study at lumendatabase.org to examine how disreputable companies like The Law Offices of Daniel T. Goodwin use online reputation management to conceal negative reviews, and censor Google content. 

Think the Statute of Limitations has expired on these crimes? It hasn’t. These are ongoing criminal acts, an “active crime scene” if you will.  Liens on Buckley’s home, obtained as a result of Daniel T. Goodwin’s fraud, continue to accrue interest (read theft) at 8% per year.
Daniel T. Goodwin Broomfield, CO Attorney Known Felon.

Daniel T. Goodwin Broomfield, CO Attorney & Known Felon Swears to both the Court, and the Division of Labor that Neither have Jurisdiction over man’s Wage Claim, Because the matter is Before the Other. Here’s your Non-DCMA Violating Image, FELON!

Please join us for much, much more on Daniel T. Goodwin, and

 The Law Offices of Daniel T. Goodwin, 10901 W 120th Ave #350, Broomfield, CO 80021.

The Government of Colorado, with full knowledge of crime by Judge James Hartmann, Congressman Ken Buck,  Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett, and DANIEL T. GOODWIN should, rightfully, publicly release all transcripts related to the ongoing crimes of the aforementioned. The Government of Colorado WILL, however continue to use our socioeconomic status to conceal evidence. We need (very expensive) transcripts. Please Donate!

 

 

 

 

 

 

About the Author

HC Staff
Known Felon Weld County District Court Chief Judge James Hartmann Conceals, Aids, Abets, and Compounds Class 4 Felony Attempt to Influence a Public Servant & Fraud Upon The Court. Enlists Legions of Others. Then, Judge James Hartmann Wages 8 Year War On Victim: Longmont, CO homeowner Craig Buckley.

Be the first to comment on "Attorney Caroline R. Kert Acts In Criminal Conspiracy With Daniel T. Goodwin, Of The Law Offices of Daniel T. Goodwin, To Conceal Multiple Felony Acts."

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*