COUNTY COURT, ARAPAHOE COUNTY

STATE OF COLORADO
1790 W. LITTLETON BLVD.
LITTLETON, CO. 80120

4425 SANTA FE LLC,

Plaintiff,
v.
PETER COULTER,
Defendant,
CASE NO. 18C 31775

Defendant DIVISION A-1

Peter Coulter
Mailing Address:
151 Summer Street #654
Morrison, Colorado 80465
Phone 720 549-5349

DEFENDANT’S MOTION AND AFFIDAVIT FOR

CITATION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT

I, Peter Coulter state that 4425 Santa Fe LLC and their counsel, Daniel Vedra have failed to
comply with an order of this court as follows:

1. On February 2nd, an Order [exhibit F, original on file with court ] was signed by this court
ordering 4425 Santa Fe LLC and thier counsel Mr. Daniel Vedra to do the following: Allow
Defendant unimpeded access to both his vehicles and storage unit up to February 23rd.
2. The Defendant references and incorporates his Motion to Dismiss filed contemporaneously with
this Motion as though fully rewritten herein.
3. There has not been a stay of execution or modification of the stipulated order of February 2.
[Exhibit F attached. Original filed with Court ]
4. The actions of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s counsel are contrary to the Order of this court.
5. Defendant requests this court to issue an order to the Plaintiff and their attorney to appear
before the court at a specific date and time for a hearing to show cause why there has been a
failure and/or refusal to comply with the Order of this Court.

Page | 1
 I. BACKGROUND
6. Before the Return hearing on February 2, 2018. Plaintiff’s attorney1, Mr. Vedra suggested that
the parties try and reach a stipulated order before such time as the Defendant filed his Motion to
Dismiss.
7. It was important to Defendant that he have complete access to his property2 to further complete
sales of items in the storage unit and the sale of the automobiles. Defendant has a business
and AA storage is where he stores his inventory.
8. Defendant wanted a month of storage and access to have all items sold or removed, but finally
settled on three weeks with Mr. Vedra. Principals of 4425 Santa Fe did not appear for the
hearing.
9. Defendant immediately went over to the AA mini-warehouse complex after signing the
stipulation and gave Dominic, the Plaintiff’s manager, a copy of the stipulated Order3. He
indicated that he could not do anything until he spoke with Mr. Mitchell [one of two principals]
who he indicated was currently on the phone with their counsel Mr. Vedra.
10. I returned the next day and Dominic was unavailable but the two cars were still blocked in by the
trailer with tires which is still in place today and there was still a second lock on the storage
door. [Exhibit G]
11. The next day, Sunday the 5th of February, I again visited the storage facility and spoke briefly
with Dominic who told me I would have to speak to the Mr. Vedra about getting access to my
property per the stipulated Order.
12. For the next two weeks, I sent Mr. Vedra texts, faxes and Emails and my new phone numbers4,
with copies of some to Mr. Mitchel, one of the principals of 4425 Santa Fe LLC.
13. I also requested that we meet at the Courthouse and sign a new stipulated order giving me an
extra week with complete access so I wouldn’t have to submit this Motion to the Court. There
has been no response from Mr. Vedra. It is as if he has disappeared from the face of the earth,
and I couldn’t understand why until this week.
14. Additionally after Mr. Vedra willfully and wantonly refused to respond, I reported his actions and
lack thereof to the Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation but not before sending him a
warning that I was going to do so if he and his clients continued their egregious actions. That
report has been assigned a case no. Additionally, in speaking with OARC, I found out that Mr.

1
Plaintiff’s did not show up for court.
2
Plaintiff’s had blocked in both of his vehicles and unlawfully placed a lock on his storage unit.
3
Exhibit 3 Stipulation and Order transcribed
4
On January 9th, I received 6 phone calls from principal John Franzman with different threats [available for review]
ending with the threat “You better watch your back or you could die” so I disconnected my phone.

Page | 2
 Vedra has been disciplined with suspensions twice in the last 6 years and one of the cases is
like the circumstances here.
15. There have been no responses and they continue to not let me have access to my property in
egregious violation of the stipulated Order and refuse to keep in any type of contact.5
16. Defendant visited the property on 2/12/2018 and discovered the reason that the Plaintiffs and
their attorney Mr. Vedra did not want the Defendant on the property.
17. Both principals of 4425 Santa Fe are very familiar with real estate and building, 6 yet they started
an addition in early January without obtaining a building permit. And to do their unlawful acts,
they needed my two cars out of the way. Mr. Franzman decided the best way to get me to go
was to threaten me which culminated in a death threat on January 9th when the Arapahoe
County Building Department issued a STOP WORK ORDER whereupon the Plaintiffs blocked
the 2 automobiles in and placed a second padlock on the storage facility in direct violation of
CRS 38-25.1 et. seq. Mini Storage liens.7
18. On January 23rd, Mr. Vedra filed an unauthorized lawsuit that did not follow the mandates of
CRS 38-25.1 et. seq. which requires that nothing will be done for 30 days for storage
possessions and 60 days for automobiles.8,9 Neither the Plaintiff’s nor there attorney have
complied with any of these required mandates.
19. Further, the Plaintiff’s have not submitted the notice mandated by CRS 38-25.1; nor did they
ever properly serve the Defendant as required by the Statute which now questions whether this
court has res-jurisdiction to determine this matter. [See footnote 8 and 9 below]
20. The Plaintiff’s and their attorney have had numerous outs but could not /would not take
advantage of them because of their pre-occupation of money and profits at any cost.
21. To the best of knowledge and belief, they did not get a building permit, hoping they would get
their addition done before being discovered, enabling them not to update to current codes and
more importantly, not having to comply with strict ADA requirements which are triggered by any
new construction, with or without a permit10.

5
See Exhibit G, picture of Trailer parked in front of Defendants cars. [Still there as of todays filing 2/14/2018]
6
See Motion to Dismiss filed contemporaneously with this Motion.
7
See Contemporaneous Motion to Dismiss for further discussion.
8
CRS 38-21.5-103 (1)(a) No enforcement action shall be taken by the owner until the occupant has been in default
continuously for a period of thirty days.
(b) After the occupant has been in default continuously for thirty days, the owner may begin enforcement action
if the occupant has been notified in writing. The owner shall deliver the notice in peron or by verified mail or
electronic mail to the last-known address of the occupant. [emphasis added]
9
Mr. Vedra filed before the 30 day requirement and the 60 day requirement for the vehicles has yet to be reached.
See exhibits in Motion to Dismiss.
10

Page | 3
22. The Plaintiff’s tried to push their luck even further after being issued a Stop Work Order by
continuing their unlawful construction which explains why they are further now in contempt of
the Court’s order. After the stop work order was issued, they hid a 40 yd dumpster [Exhibit H]
behind the building to place their demolition refuge. As the Plaintiff’s know or should have
known, a building permit is needed for any demolition
23. And this is why they don’t want the Defendant around, I would have discovered the container
and it’s contents. Further, the Plaintiffs have now applied for a Building Permit and there is no
mention of demolition on the premises which necessarily means they are hiding other
construction without a permit.
24. Again, to the best of knowledge and belief, the Plaintiffs and now their attorney are violating the
Court’s order so that they can hide construction and required permits so they don’t need to
comply with fire codes11, Storm water Codes, and most importantly ADA requirements which will
necessitate a handicap restroom instead of the present san-o-let.[Exhibit
25. The Plaintiffs and their attorney are more than willing to violate building codes, ADA
requirements and be in contempt of a court order that Mr. Vedra wrote, to make a buck at the
Defendant’s expense.
26. The Plaintiff’s have egregiously kept the Defendant from working since January, 9th, 2018 when
they blocked his cars and put a second lock on his inventory/possessions.
II. DISCUSSION.
27. The power of contempt by the Plaintiff’s and their attorney falls within a court's broad authority.
Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 343-44, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970);  In re J.E.S., 817
P.2d 508, 511 (Colo.1991). A court may hold the Plaintiffs and their attorney in contempt for
any conduct which interferes with the court's administration of justice, is derogatory to the
dignity of the court, or tends to bring the judiciary into disrespect. Losavio, 512 P.2d 266. The
Plaintiff’s have continually brought disrespect to the court; first by bringing suit under the wrong
statute; presenting fraudulent documents to the court that they knew or should have known
were fraudulent and most egregious in not following the Court’s order of February 2 nd and in so
doing created a civil contempt. This was followed by a second violation of the building code in
doing demolition without a permit and then trying to hide it by not allowing the Defendant to
exercise his rights under the Stipulated Order.
28. The Supreme Court recognizes the contempt power as absolutely essential to the duties
imposed upon the court. Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 450, 31 S.Ct.

11
There are parties [occupants using the storage lockers for work] without proper fire provisions and without
proper restroom facilities.

Page | 4
 492, 55 L.Ed. 797 (1911). The dual purpose of the contempt power is to vindicate the dignity
and the authority of the court and to preserve its viability. See Bd. of County Comm'rs v.
Nineteenth Judicial Dist., 895 P.2d 545, 548-49 (Colo.1995);  Thrap v. People, 192 Colo. 341,
558 P.2d 576, 578 (1977). In the Plaintiff’s and their attorney intentionally violating the Court’s
order so they could again violate Arapahoe County Building Codes at the expense of the
Defendant defies the dignity and authority of the court to preserve its viability.
29. A court's discretionary power to hold parties in contempt is necessarily broad because of the
contempt power's broad purpose of ensuring that the court's functions remain unimpeded.
Mainland v. People, 111 Colo. 198, 139 P.2d 366, 367 (1943). More specifically, the purpose
of the contempt power is to maintain the dignity and authority of the court and to preserve its
functionality. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 895 P.2d at 548-49;  Thrap, 558 P.2d at 577. The Court
has the ability and authority to hold the Plaintiff and their attorney in contempt of court for these
outrageous and egregious actions. Their sole purpose in violating the Order was a further
attempt by the Plaintiff to violate Arapahoe County Building Codes so they they would not have
to spend money on fire code upgrades, storm water upgrades and ADA requirements including
a handicap bathroom instead of the present san-o-let that sits in storm water because of an
illegal retention wall that was again built without a permit in hopes no one would catch it.
30. The Plaintiffs attitude since purchasing the property has been to bully the Defendant and the
other Tenants in order to build without a permit so they wouldn’t have to spend money on ADA
requirements which is so ironic because ADA requirements are not based on getting a building
permit, but instead, by beginning any new construction with or without a building permit. That
said, the Plaintiffs are currently in violation of ADA requirements for new construction or
additions.
31. The Defendant reserves his right to remove this suit or file an additional suit to US District Court
against the plaintiffs for civil violation of civil rights violations under ADA.
III. CONCLUSION
32. The Plaintiffs and their counsel have willfully and wantonly violated a plethora of statutes, rules
and requirements affecting the Defendant since they purchased the property on December 27th,
2017 including:
 Fraud on the Court by filing a fraudulent lease agreement where language had been
inserted after the Defendant signed.
 Inducing the Defendant to move his cars for one day out of their normal spots into a
single spot where he could not work on them or have access to them in an effort to get
him to leave.

Page | 5
  Failure to wait the 30 days required by the statute before beginning any legal action.
 Failure to serve the Defendant in accord with the prevailing statute.
 Harrasing and then threatening the Defendant on January 9th with 6 phone calls
followed by Mr. Franzen finally stating, “You better watch your back or you could end up
dead.”
 Filing a frivolous and vexatious lawsuit in violation of the Professional Rules of Conduct
for Attorneys.
 Violating ADA requirements when they began new construction in early January.
 Constructing a new addition without an Arapahoe County Building Permit.
 Continuing camouflaged construction after the Arapahoe County Building department
had issued a stop work order.
 Unauthorized blocking of storm water with a retaining wall with no building permit.
 Refusing to communicate with the Defendant after signing a stipulated order.
 Flagrantly, with willfull and malicious intent, committing contempt on the court at the
expense of the Defendant in a further attempt to construct without a building permit.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant would request the Court of the following:
1. I request that the Court find that the Plaintiffs in remedial contempt of this Court’s Order.
As described above, I attest that the responding party (1) did not comply with the Order;
(2) knew of the Order; and (3) has the present ability to comply with the Order. As a
result, I request this court impose the following sanctions:
Payment of my costs and fees in connection with this contempt proceeding;
Payment of a fine and/or imprisonment until the Plaintiffs, who have the present ability to
comply, performs the act(s) ordered;
I request that the Court find that the Plaintiffs and their attorney are in punitive contempt
of this Court’s Order. As described above, I attest that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the
responding party (1) had knowledge of the Order; (2) had the ability to comply with the
Order; and (3) willfully and wantonly refused to comply with the Order. I request this
court find that the conduct of the Plaintiffs to be offensive to the authority and dignity of
the Court, and, to vindicate the dignity of this court, to impose a fine or fixed sentence of
imprisonment, or both.
2. Find the Plaintiffs in Contempt of Court since February 2, 2018 and award the Defendant
$500 per day for loss of business until such time as the Plaintiffs give Defendant
absolute access to his property and cars for 30 days free rent so that he can plan and
remove the property.

Page | 6
 3. Award the Defendant $500 per day plus triple damages for fraud on the court by
submitting a fraudulent lease agreement that had been altered after the Defendants
signature, denying Defendant access to his possessions and denying him to run his
business from January 1 forward.
4. Submit the Plaintiff principal, John Franzman, to jail for threating the Defendant with
death on February 9th.
5. Report the Plaintiffs to the ADA for criminal prosecution.
6. Report Mr. Vedra to the OARC for his egregious actions and for violating the rules of
professional conduct by filing a frivolous, malicious and vexations lawsuit.
7. And for such further relief, including punitive and exemplary damages, incarceration and
fines as the Court determines appropriate and/or necessary.
Respectfully submitted this 15th day of February, 2018,

/Peter Coulter, Defendant

151 Summer Street #654
Morrison, Colorado 80654
Email 18C31775@gmail.com
Phone 303 549-5349

Subscribed and affirmed, or sworn to before me in the County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado , this
___________ day of _______________, 20 ______.

My Commission Expires: ____________________

___________________________________ Notary Public/Deputy Clerk

Certificate of Service
I certify that on October 30, a copy of the above Motion to void power of attorney and all orders and
findings of the district court or alternatively for leave and remand to the district court pursuant
to C.R.C.P. Rule 60 was served on each of the following by hand delivery, faxed, first class mail or
EMAIL.:

Name of Person to Whom Relationship Address Manner of

you are Sending this Service*
Document
Daniel Vedra, ATTORNEY FOR Dan@VedraLaw.com E-MAIL &
Esq. 4425 Santa Fe LLC
1435 Larimer St 1st
Suite 302, Denver, Colorado Class
80202 Mail
cc:
Arapahoe County Building Department
Cunningham Fire District
Southeast Storm water District
Office of Attorney Regulation
Real Estate Commission
/Peter Coulter

Page | 7
TYPEWRITTEN TRANSCRIPTION OF 2/2/2018 STIPULATED ORDER IN CASE

#18C31775, Arapahoe County Court, 4425 Santa Fe v. Peter Coulter

The parties agree as follows:

EXHIBIT F Typewritten
Defendant confesses to possession of the premises transcript of stipulated order
dated Feb 2,2018 and written
And Plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment for possession by Plaintiff’s attorney, Mr.
Vedra. Original in court file.
And the issuance of a writ of restitution. Defendant

shall have up until 5:00pm on February 23, 2018

to remove all personal property from the premises. If

Defendant does not remove all personal property by said date,

Plaintiff may execute the writ of restitution. Defendant shall

Have reasonable access to the premises by contacting Plaintiffs

Manager, Dominic. If Defendant removes all personal property by

Feb 25, Plaintiff shall move to vacate the judgment for

possession and dismissing the action with prejudice. All property

removed by Feb. 23 shall be free and clear of Plaintiff’s liens.

Franzman shall not contact Defendant.

/Peter Coulter /Daniel Vedra /Judge Michael J. Roche

Page | 8
 Exhibit I. Sanolet
EXHIBIT G illegally used for
Defendants cars have occupants of AA
been blocked by either storage and not
Plaintiffs cars or this in compliance
Defendant’s trailer with tires on it with ADA. Also
cars 2/12/2018 since January 9th when standing storm
the Arapahoe County water because of
Building Department placement of
issued a STOP WORK non-permitted
order for doing dam wall.
construction without a
permit.

Plaintiff’s lock.

EXHIBIT H. 40 YD DUMPSTER
HIDDEN BEHIND BUILDING FULL OF
CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION
WITHOUT PERMIT FROM
PREMISES PUT ON PROPERTY
AFTER STOP WORK ORDER WAS
ISSUED AND STILL ON PREMISES
ON 2/12/2018 AND REASON THEY
DID NOT WANT DEFENDANT ON
PROPERTY TO DISCOVER THEIR
SECOND VIOLATION OF BUILDING
CODE.

Page | 9