DISTRICT COURT, ARAPAHOE COUNTY COLORADO

7325 S. POTOMAC ST.

CENTENNIAL, CO 80112

Petitioner Anthony D. Locke

v.
Respondent PAULA R. HENRY

COURT USE ONLY

Case Number: 2015CV477

Division C1
MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE UNDER C.R.C.P. RULE 60(b)(2)(3)(5)

IMPERFECTIONS, DEFECTS AND WANTS OF FORM WAIVER

Due Process provides that the "rights of pro se (Sui Juris) litigants are to be construed liberally and held
to less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers; if court can reasonably read pleadings
to state valid claim on which litigant could prevail, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal
authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigants unfamiliarity with
pleading requirements" (Spencer v Doe, 1998; Green v Branson 1997;Boag V McDougall, 1982; Haines V
Kerner, 1972) Spencer v. Prison Health Services, Inc., 2012.
NOW COMES, Petitioner, Anthony D. Locke, Sui Juris, moves to MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER
C.R.C.P. RULE 60(b)(2)(3)(5) County Court Judgement in its entiretly due to fraud upon the court.
[t]his rule does not limit the power of a court: . . . (2) to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court. A
fraud upon the court within the meaning of C.R.C.P. 60(b) interferes with the judicial machinery by
depriving the person against whom the 13 judgment was rendered of an opportunity to defend the action
when he has a meritorious defense. See Southeastern Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. v. Cache Creek
Mining Trust, 854 P.2d 167, 176 (Colo. 1993) (internal quotation omitted). Where the relevant facts are
undisputed, an appellate court may make an independent determination as a matter of law. See People v.
Miranda-Olivas, 41 P.3d 658, 661 (Colo. 2001).

A fraud upon the court occurs where it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has
sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial systems
ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the
presentation of the opposing partys claim or defense.

birth mother made fraudulent misrepresentations to the court, birth father was deprived of his
constitutional right to due process, thus making the judgment terminating his parental rights void by
default. The requirements of due process take precedence over statutory enactments. In re C.L.S., 252
P.3d 556 (Colo. App. 2011).

result of a willful fabrication of evidence bearing on a material issue. Aspen Skiing Co. v. Peer, 804 P.2d
166 (Colo. 1991); In re Eisenhuth, 976 P.2d 896 (Colo. App. 1999).
a judgment rendered by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy is void. See In re
Marriage of Stroud, 631 P.2d 168 (Colo.1981). Hence, it has been said that the issue of a court's subject
matter jurisdiction "can be raised at any time." See In re Marriage of Finer, 893 P.2d 1381, 1384
(Colo.App.1995).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

certify

that

on

___________________that

true

and

accurate

copy

of

the

Motion

to__________________was served on the other party by placing it in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the following person_________________________________________________

_______________________________________
Petitioner or Defendant ANTHONY D. LOCKE, SUI JURIS,