How Local Judges' Crimes Have Kept Local Man From Seeing Two Of His Children For 17 Years

By John Wilkenson

I considered making the title of this exposé either, "How judicial crimes, faux 'oversight' by the Mesa County Commissioners, and a 'blackout' of the story by the Good Old Daily Sentinel enable rampant corruption at the Mesa County Department of Human Services" or "A Treatise on Men's Rights In Family Courts". But brevity and pithiness prevailed.

There is no nice way to say this: in my opinion, several former and current public “servants” deserve to do serious prison time for the egregious crimes -- yes, that includes felonies -- they have committed against my brother David in family court.

The real evil began in earnest when a despicable liar (my opinion) invented a horrible lie to manipulate the illegal result he -- ostensibly in collusion (my opinion) with then-Mesa-County-Attorney, Lyle Dechant -- wanted in family court. In the jurisdictionless legal-nullity Mesa County District Court (MCDC) case No. 96 JV 180, now-retired Judge Nicholas Massaro acted as his own "referral source" and, out of thin air, invented the bald-faced lie that my brother David has a "history of domestic violence". I am David's older brother, I am now 70, David is now 62, and, to this day, I have never seen Dave commit even one remotely violent act against another person. It's just not in his nature. I KNOW his character. So I don't care how many U.S.-Constitution-hating liars in black robes with cute little gavels make judicial "findings" to the contrary, Dave is a nonviolent nice guy to his core. I'd bet my life on it.

Merely for refusing to waive his legal and fundamental constitutional rights under the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments to demand that the various government entities obey such on-point controlling Colorado law as C.R.S. 19-1-104(6), C.R.S 19-3-308, C.R.S. 19-3-501, C.R.S. 19-3-505 and C.R.Juv.P. Rule 4.4(a), Everett v. Barry, 127 Colo. 34, 252 P.2d 826 (1953), In re Marriage of Pote, 847 P.2d 246 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993), In re Marriage of Redford, 776 P.2d 1149 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989), Molitor v. Anderson, No. 89SC13, 795 P.2d 266 (1990), Kane v. Kane, 391 P.2d 361 (1964), Holland v. Holland, 150 Colo. 442, 373 P 2d 523 (1962), McGonigle v. McGonigle, 112 Colo. 569, 151 P.2d 977 (1944), Tanttila v. Tanttila, 152 Colo. 445, 382 P.2d 798. (1963), etc., such persons as Judge Nicholas Massaro, Magistrate Jane Westbrook, and Magistrate Cynthia Cyphers resorted to violations of C.R.S. 19-1-104(6). C.R.S. 18-8-114 (Abuse of public records), C.R.S. 18-8-105 (Accessory to crime), C.R.S. 18-3-303 (False imprisonment), 18 U.S. Code § 3 (Accessory after the fact), 18 U.S. Code § 4 (Misprision of felony), 18 U.S. Code § 242 (Deprivation of rights under color of law), 18 U.S. Code § 241 (Conspiracy against rights), etc., in a flagrantly criminal Colorado-public-policy-violating attempt to intimidate Dave into waiving his legal rights to contest a self-evidently juridictionless legal-nullity child support order and the jurisdictionless legal-nullity relocating of two little American-citizen boys, Ben and Toby Wilkenson, to England with a profoundly mentally ill and violent English-citizen mother who has at no time and in no way EVER obeyed Massaro's final custody and parenting time order. To the contrary, she has engaged in the most severe long-term and ongoing parental alienation imaginable to destroy any possibility of a relationship between Ben, Toby and their father.

In my opinion, a big part of the problem lies in the fact that the local misandristic gender-feminist cultures at the Mesa County Department of Human Services (MCDHS) and the Mesa County District Court (MCDC) haven't got the remotest clue of how to handle seriously mentally ill women who make malicious false charges against men in family court situations. Nor do they have any apparent desire to do so. There's no money in it.

The way the "system" currently functions, any disordered and/or vindictive female (coached by misandristic gender feminists regarding syntax and which form to use) can fraudulently apply for a "temporary" protection and restraining order, commit serial first degree perjury (a class 4 felony) and fraudulently claim (with zero probative evidence) that she's "afraid for her life". The children will then be withheld from the innocent father for any amount of time the "system" desires -- (erring on the side of the ever popular political rubric of "safety", of course). Naturally, it's allegedly "against the best interests of the child" for that fraudulently lost parenting time to ever be subtracted from the serial-perjuring mother's parenting time and given back to the innocent father. Nothing ever happens to the serial-perjuring female in family court. There are no negative consequences for her. There's no money in prosecuting her. Even if she were prosecuted and jailed, it would only cost the "system" more money. Accordingly, the rights of the father and the best interests of the child are simply not a consideration. It's a totally unfair unequal-protection-of-law arrangement which is in direct opposition to the U.S. Constitution and the REAL best interests of the child.

It is absolutely crucial to understand that, as noted by the wonderful documentary "Divorce Corp", as a matter of public policy, men/fathers simply have no constitutional (or any other legal) rights in family court, notwithstanding all the wannabe-clever propaganda lies of the "father-as-cash-cow", "woman-as-victim" misandristic gender-feminist community.

The de facto elimination of men's constitutional rights as a matter of public policy began in earnest with the so-called Family Support Act of 1988 and progeny. According to a Congressional Research Service publication titled, "CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Child Support Enforcement Program Incentive Payments: Background and Policy Issues", "P.L. 105-200, the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, established a revised incentive payment system that provides incentive payments to states based on a percentage of the state’s CSE collections and incorporates five performance measures related to establishment of paternity and child support orders, collections of current and past-due support payments, and cost-effectiveness. P.L. 105-200 set specific annual caps on total federal incentive payments and required states to reinvest incentive payments back into the CSE program. The exact amount of a state’s incentive payment depends on its level of performance (or the rate of improvement over the previous year) when compared with other states. In addition, states are required to meet data quality standards. If states do not meet specified performance measures and data quality standards, they face federal financial penalties."

Bluntly put, that's a self-evident recipe for local government corruption and misandry.

The actual mechanics of unconstitutional seizures, restrictions, extortions and intimidations work as follows:

The MCDHS Child Support Enforcement Unit (CSEU) is the entity which interacts with the local courts and the disputing mothers and fathers with children to make and enforce an order of child support obligation in each case. They can also modify and/or terminate the courts' orders on their collection process. They have enforcement jurisdiction over the child support orders which have been ordered by the courts to go through the Colorado Family Support Registry (CFSR).

The Denver-based Family Support Registry (FSR) is the entity which implements that seizure of the money (and/or property) and restricts/suspends driver's licenses, passports, and professional and recreational licenses. Based on the case reporting of the CSEU,the FSR interacts with other state and federal agencies/entities to actually order the taking or restricting of things.

The law makes the FSR immune from any liability or prosecution for the seize-and-restrict actions they take/order against any person (aka "obligator") who is alleged by the local CSEUs to owe child support. After all, they are only acting on what has been reported to them by the local CSEUs.

The local CSEUs actually take or restrict nothing. By making reports and supplying information to the FSR, the CSEUs in effect order/direct the FSR to take the actions it takes.

The FSR, based on information/reports it receives from the CSEUs, interacts with other state and federal agencies and corporations such as banks, motor vehicle departments (DMV), the FAA (pilots' licenses), bar associations and other professional licensing agencies which are required by law to obey the instructions of the FSR and are immunie for doing so.

So, if your driver's license is seized, it was seized by the DMV based on orders received from the FSR which were, in turn, based on reports/information received from the local CSEUs.

In other words, the local CSEU misandrists aren't doing the actual seizing/restricting. They're only doing the reporting/informing. Both the FSR "orderers" and the DMV-type "seizers/restricters" are by law immune from liability/prosecution.

Fathers are always referred back to the "reporting/informing" CSEUs who (of course) routinely hide in their guarded fortresses and refuse to discuss specific cases with fathers because they aren't doing the actual seizing/restricting. In the event the misandristic gender feminists in the local CSEUs just happen to deliberately feed the FSR false information for the purposes of filling the county's coffers with matching Social Security funds, the "cash cow" men/fathers are methodically butchered by the cold-hearted, unaccountable, un-transparent and immune "system". From a purely misandristic point of view it's really quite a clever (and blatantly unconstitutional) little screw-over scam.

Bottom line: men/fathers are NEVER allowed to face their accusers in open court with due process (per the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments) prior to having their property and freedom seized/restricted.

Lawyers are afraid to confront the evil because 1) too many of them profit from it, and 2) the judges will jerk their chains and facilitate loss of their licenses to practice law.

Most men/fathers forced into family court situations don't understand what's going on, who to blame, or what to do about what's happening to them. So, barring billionaire financial status capable of hiring a team of politically-connected world-class lawyers and expert witnesses, it's virtually impossible to successfully oppose the evil in lawless courts which are by deliberate design (my opinion) an integral part of that same evil.

In my opinion, what needs to happen is a giant class action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the whole evil scheme. The cause of action would be unequal protection of law resulting from unconstitutional gender-based discrimination which should rightfully be subjected to strict scrutiny. The suspect class would be men/fathers who de facto have no constitutional or other legal rights in family court.

Contrary to all the wannabe-clever public relations lies, the prime directive of MCDHS and its CSEU is not the best interests of children. It is to maximize the matching funds obtained (often fraudulently in my opinion) from Social Security so all the professionals (judges, lawyers, bureaucrats, politicians, DHS case workers, etc) involved with the local "therapy" culture can make money. I've heard that figure is around $18 million annually – not exactly chump change to a small community such as Mesa County. And I suspect that's only the tip of the iceberg in plain view.

In a nutshell, the mechanics of David's situation were as follows:

A seriously mentally ill, chronically drunk driving – at least four DUI convictions, three of them involving injury accidents, and one of those injuring two police officers -- domestically violent, alcoholic, foreign-citizen woman (who has assaulted at least one police officer) endangers her husband and children. When husband naively goes to the “system” seeking intervention in defense of himself and his children, misandristic gender feminists within the system try to destroy husband.

Various Human Services employees and various Mesa County District Court employees made horribly wrong and potentially career-ending “mistakes”. But instead of just following the rules, admitting their mistakes and correcting the situation, the judicial officers in question, Nicholas Massaro (“Massaro”), Jane Westbrook (“Westbrook”) and Cynthia Cyphers (“Cyphers”) completely ignored both Colorado and United States constitutions and made various illegal (jurisdictionless legal-nullity) orders. Those lawless manipulations didn’t work out as planned, so the “Three Criminal Stooges” (my opinion) committed various criminal acts (knowingly falsifying the register of actions, the record on appeal, generating various phony documents, and an 18-day false imprisonment) trying to cover up their illegal behavior.

There are two underlying but controlling interests which control what happens to families through the family "law" system in Colorado and Mesa County. Both of them are self-serving and have nothing whatsoever to do with the health, safety and welfare of children or their parents. The primary concern is the monetary interests of all the "government" and "professional" individuals and entities involved in the socialistic therapy culture other than the parties. Then, of course, there are the misandristic gender ideologues who tend to gravitate to the family law systems -- (in an attempt to find personal healing, don't ya know) -- where they can be handsomely paid to implement their sick ideologies on the rest of society and can wield the greatest possible power and control to "make a difference" on the American culture.

David's case has proven beyond reasonable doubt that rule of law and constitutional rights are not a consideration with what happens in America's family court systems. From the paperwork Dave filed in U.S. District Court, it has become crystal clear that even the federal courts could not care less about the constitutional rights of men/fathers. In the history of Dave's case, various Colorado judicial officers and employees have selectively and extensively falsified the court record to cover up their lies, manipulations and violations of law. Then, when found out, some person/s at the Colorado appellate courts destroyed the entire written record of the case -- (under the pretence of "getting lost in the mail") -- to cover up the judicial felonies. In addition to being a serious deprivation of rights, that's prima facie obstruction of justice. That's serious stuff. But the federal courts don't care.

For Dave, the hideously acrimonious divorce aspects of his saga are long since over. For some 17 years he has been illegally and irreparably deprived of a relationship with his two sons, Ben and Toby (who went to England at ages 4 and 3, and by now, at ages 21 and 20, probably think of themselves as British citizens with a "bad", or even dead, father). The glaring systemic problem which remains is that, from a legal point of view, the judicial crimes committed against David are STILL ongoing and continuous because they are being given ongoing and continuous accessory-after-the-fact status by a corrupt CSE system which continues to illegally deprive David of his driver's license and passport, and to illegally try to collect fraudulently1 claimed (and illegally created) arrearages. In other words, the original judicial felonies perpetrated against David are STILL being "accessorized" after the fact -- (in prima facie violation of C.R.S. 18-8-105 and 18 U.S. Code § 3) -- as I speak by a corrupt MCDHS and an evil-enabling board of county commissioners who disingenuously (my opinion) pretend they can't do anything about the evil.

I know of one case (which I can talk about only on the condition of anonymity) where the father is supposed to be getting child support from the mother (who now works for Mesa County), but CSEU won't collect from her. Instead, in the not-too-distant past, CSEU illegally collected from the father ostensibly so they could report to the federal government that they had collected the child support money and, in so doing, subsequently collect the matching Social Security funds. Then, after reporting that they had collected the child support money (for the purposes of matching Social Security funds), they refunded the father's illegally taken money.

Another individual I have heard about -- (again, I can only speak about on the condition of anonymity) -- where CSEU has created multiple accounts concerning the same case, ostensibly (my opininon) to be able to tell the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) officials that they have collected on six different accounts when they have in fact collected on only one account. So they ostensibly (my opinion) collected six times the money in matching Social Security funds they were supposed to. One anonymous whistle blower said there are hundreds of such cases. In my book, that's Social Security fraud. No wonder local lawyers and politicians don't want to confront this stuff: Mesa County might lose millions of dollars in fraudulently obtained loot.

There is little doubt in my mind that, should the proper law enforcement authorities ever choose to investigate the matter, they would find that there exists a level of Social Security fraud being perpetrated by the MCDHS CSE unit which would completely dwarf the recent airport scandal by comparison.

* * * * * * * * UPDATE * * * * * * * *

Kevin King of sent a CORA (Colorado Open Records Act) request to Mesa County asking to examine the records in Dave's case, ostensibly to discover evidence proving that the MCDHS CSE unit has been committing Social Security fraud for years by fraudulently collecting matching funds on a non-existent child support order in David's case. The "county" sent this response denying King's request.

You will notice that the "county" -- (a real person with a real name typed that response and is accountable for it) -- said "Other than the child support enforcement files, which are confidential except to the parties involved..." That looks as if David could request his own information, pursuant to C.R.S. §26-13-102.7, particularly since parts (3) and (4) say:
"(3) In addition, an individual about whom information is gathered or transmitted pursuant to this article or section C.R.S. 14-14-113, shall have the right to access such information relating to him or her in order to verify the accuracy of the information and the lawfulness of the processing of such information."
"(4) Any individual about whom information is gathered or transmitted pursuant to this article or section C.R.S. 14-14-113, shall be entitled to civil damages in a court of law against any person or entity who knowingly violates the provisions of this section."

But let's see what happens when Dave makes a CORA request for his own information. A lawyer who was representing Dave already asked MCDHS for the information, and, not only did MCDHS refuse to give it to him, they even stopped talking to that lawyer about his other clients who were involved with MCDHS. The MCDHS CSE unit is a lawless, misandristic gender-feminist loose cannon. The MCDHS CSE unit knows full well they have been fraudulently collecting matching Social Security funds for a non-existent order. That's why somebody at the Colorado Court of Appeals destroyed the entire written record of the case: to cover up (my opinion) the original judicial crimes (including both misdemeanors and felonies).

You may notice that, in their response to King's CORA request the "county" also disingenuously said, "As for court cases, those records would be with the Mesa County District Court." Obviously, the "county" -- à la such persons as former county attorney Lyle Dechant2, who (according to an anonymous source) allegedly instructed MCDHS employees to not talk to ANYONE about David's case -- knows full well that some "go to" person/s at the Colorado Court of Appeals destroyed the entire written record of the case, under the pretense that it got "lost in the mails" was "accidentally" destroyed.

The records did not "get lost". That didn't happen. Dave talked to a postal worker who steered him to the postal experts at Mail Managers. They told Dave that they particularly remembered the package in question because it was a big parcel. They tried to track the package on their postal service tracking computer and it didn't come up. The entire tracking record was missing. They told Dave they had never seen that, or even heard of that -- (the entire record going missing) -- happening before.

A couple of months ago I ran into one of Dave's lawyers who is now retired. After asking me how Dave was doing, he said, "Boy, your brother really got f*cked. I told them [MCDC and MCDHS] that woman was crazy."

I have emailed notice of this story to Daily Sentinel reporter, Gary Harmon. Gary has known about this case for years, and has been given (by Dave) much, if not most, of the paperwork in the case. Prior to Jay Seaton's tenure as owner, somebody at the Daily Sentinel -- (ostensibly someone in power, like George Orbanek, Denny Herzog and/or Bob Silbernagel) -- decided to spike this HUGE public interest story about judicial felonies. In my opinion, when they did that, they were acting as de facto accessories after the fact -- (see C.R.S. 18-8-105 and 18 U.S. Code § 3) -- to the judicial crimes in question. Hopefully it will eventually come out which specific named person/s at the Sentinel are responsible.

As Matt Drudge likes to say, "developing . . ."

Under construction . . .

(NOTE: Article 2, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution says in pertinent part: “Freedom of speech and press…every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, ... and in all suits and prosecutions of libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.” The foregoing exposé is 100% political speech aimed at exposing judicial criminals and correcting a serious systemic problem. While the material is the author’s 1st-Amendment-protected opinion, it is also the truth, so help me God. See also the legal disclaimer for this website.)

Interested persons can read the full story at:
David E. Wilkenson vs. Colorado: A Saga of Criminal Judicial Behavior In Family Courts — Part 1 and
David E. Wilkenson vs. Colorado: A Saga of Criminal Judicial Behavior In Family Courts — Part 2

Individuals interested in helping implement radical (and effective) reform of America's lawyer-enriching corrupt and lawless family court systems should check out the website.


Child Support Enforcement Program - "Excerpted from the 2000 House Ways and Means Green Book, 'Child Support Enforcement Program'"

The Child Support Enforcement Process - "Excerpted from the 2000 House Ways and Means Green Book, 'Child Support Enforcement Program'"

Analysis of Federal-State Financing of the Child Support Enforcement Program - Congressional Research Service

Child Support Enforcement Program Incentive Payments: Background and Policy Issues - Congressional Research Service

Child Support In The United States - Wikipedia - (NOTE: always verify everything you read in Wikipedia. That said, it still remains an extremely useful gateway to online research.)

Congressional Research Service - Wikipedia

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - Wikipedia

Office of Child Support Enforcement - Wikipedia

Social Security - Wikipedia

Many records on state judicial branch employees would be off limits under proposed new rules - Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition

Family Civil Liberties Union


Courts are saying that "regular citizen" bloggers have all the same 1st Amendment free-speech protections that so-called professionally trained "journalists" who work for the institutionalized establishment media do.

Freedom Of Speech, Permissible Tailoring And Transcending Strict Scrutiny, 144 U. PA. L. REV. 2417, 2445 (1996) - by Eugene Volokh - Volokh's Twitter

The First Amendment and Restrictions on Political Speech, by Roger Pilon - Cato Institute

It's Perfectly Legal To Film The Cops - Huffington Post

NYPD cops receive memo reminding them they can be filmed while on duty - NY Daily News

Illinois Supreme Court strikes down eavesdropping law as too broad - Reuters

Know Your Rights: Photographers - ACLU

Supreme Court Requires Warrant for Cell Phone Searches by Police - ACLU - See Riley v. California, No. 13–132. Argued April 29, 2014—Decided June 25, 2014.

How To Talk To The Police 101, by John Wilkenson

A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, by John Perry Barlow

What stops free flow of information is dangerous, by John Perry Barlow

Pierce v. U.S., 252 U.S. 239 (1920) - “The fundamental right of free men to strive for better conditions through new legislation and new institutions will not be preserved, if efforts to secure it by argument to fellow citizens may be construed as criminal incitement to disobey the existing law merely because the argument presented seems to those exercising judicial power to be unfair in its portrayal of existing evils, mistaken in its assumptions, unsound in reasoning or intemperate in language.” ~ Justices Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissenting.

Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957)

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 390 (1969) - “The very “purpose of the First Amendment [is] to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail.”

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) - "Though I doubt if the 'clear and present danger' test is congenial to the First Amendment in time of a declared war, I am certain it is not reconcilable with the First Amendment in days of peace." ~ William O. Douglas

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)

Thomas again calls for overruling of Buckley v. Valeo - First Amendment Center

See also the Legal Disclaimer page for this website for a more in-depth discussion.


1. David has paid roughly $100,000 in child support over the years. That's roughly $10,000 more than would have been collected if Ben and Toby's mother were not seriously mentally ill, and if Colorado law had been being followed.

2. Some criminal investigator needs to talk to sitting MCDC Judge Valerie Robison about what Lyle Dechant's orders to her (regarding Dave's case) were when she was the Assistant Mesa County Attorney -- because she was the one who wrote the termination order which Magistrate Westbrook signed that terminated the Title 19 juvenile case (96 JV 180) as well as the 5/6/97 jurisdictionless legal-nulity [see C.R.S. 19-1-104(6)] child support order which MCDHS' CSE unit has been fraudulently collecting matching federal funds for.