By Pia Varma and “staff writer” Grok

https://substack.com/profile/81316296-laissez-faire-lounge

When Tyler James Robinson surrendered on September 12, 2025, most expected a swift, transparent prosecution. Instead, in Judge Tony Graf’s courtroom, cameras have been restricted, hearings sealed, and key evidence—including footage of Robinson’s surrender at the Washington County Sheriff’s Office—has reportedly vanished. Some now openly question whether the man in the defendant’s chair is even the real Tyler Robinson. Discrepancies between pre-arrest photos and the booking mugshot, combined with the missing video, have fuelled speculation of identity deception, despite official documents and DNA confirming his identity (born April 16, 2003).

Are these the same guy?

For a growing number of Utahns who have faced the Fourth District courts and other court districts in the state, the Robinson case feels like the same playbook they endured: a system that doesn’t just prosecute—it buries. “They purposely layer accusations to make you look unhinged,” one man who spent over a decade fighting Utah County prosecutors told me on condition of anonymity. “Charge stacking. Labeling you vexatious. Psychological warfare. Incarceration is big business here—private prisons, probation services, court-mandated programs all profit when cases drag on.”

His words mirror the experience of long-time State and county delegate, Mark Stewart Allen, who, under newly appointed and inexperienced Judge Graf, was branded a “vexatious litigant” after years of alleging systemic retaliation in Utah’s Fourth District. After reviewing Allen’s documents as a non-lawyer relying only on common sense, the patterns are unmistakable: withheld exculpatory evidence, docket tampering, misuse of federal VOCA funds, perjury, custodial interference, and political weaponization of the justice system by prosecutors past and present—including former Utah County Attorney David Leavitt and the current team of Jeff Gray and Lauren Hunt (all involved in Tyler Robinson’s trial)—under judges and county leaders and police who refused to correct or amend to make accurate the court and police records. This is a big deal!

The case that nearly destroyed Allen began in 2016 with an ex parte temporary stalking allegation filed by a woman (identified here as Koehler). The police camera shows Koehler downplaying her relationship with Allen as “barely a friendship.” However, evidence tells the opposite story.

Koehler sent hundreds if not thousands of texts and emails spanning 3 years, many of which included unsolicited videos and also sexually aggressive emails from Koehler to Allen include her explicit admission of assaulting him and blaming it on the blue moon of August 2012. In June of 2014, Koehler transported his minor daughter across state lines without court consent, sabotaged his custody arrangements effectuating illegal custodial interference, and she created fake social-media accounts to monitor him—behavior she openly admitted to David Leavitt who laughed it off in 2020. She also repeatedly inserted herself into Allen’s family and personal life, contacting relatives, employers, and friends in an effort to isolate and discredit him. She was brazen enough to demand overnight stays at one of Allen’s daughter’s homes while she traveled to and from Oregon. The stalking narrative was inverted. Koehler meddled in the lives of Allen, and any injunction would have cut both ways. Koehler violated the spirit and letter and reasons for injunction, and nearly got away with it.

Allen, decades earlier an LDS mission companion of Leavitt’s brother, managed to show David a short video laying out the evidence. Convinced the accusations were baseless, Leavitt dismissed the felony charge. But the dismissal did not end the matter.

GRAMA records obtained by Allen reveal Leavitt exchanged at least 72 messages with Koehler over the following year—communications that continued even after Koehler, in her recorded statements, called her attorney Albert N. Pranno a “narcissist” who “let her down” by failing to file required paperwork, which should have ended her involvement in the case. According to the GRAMA documents, the first message from Koehler to Leavitt was a screenshot of one of Allen’s social media posts, which Allen alleges she obtained through cyberstalking him via the fake accounts she had already admitted creating. Leavitt referenced these exchanges to a small group of citizens after his 2022 debate with Jeff Gray and Adam Pomeroy, as captured in video footage posted on Adam Bartholomew’s YouTube channel and per accounts from attendees. Allen and legal observers contend this ongoing contact amounted to improper ex parte involvement, raising serious questions under Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8 about a prosecutor’s duty to maintain neutrality in a case he had already deemed meritless.

Records later obtained by Allen reveal that as early as August 2016 — and again in a January 2019 declination email from Deputy County Attorney Randy Kennard to Provo police — prosecutors inside Leavitt’s office had concluded the underlying civil stalking injunction was legally invalid: Allen had timely requested a hearing, the August 4, 2016 docket entry read “Trial Cancelled: Case Settled,” and no judge ever issued a continuation order, stripping the court of further jurisdiction.

Kennard explicitly wrote that Koehler had never applied for a protective order and that the State therefore lacked authority to prosecute. Despite this internal acknowledgment — and despite Koehler’s own recorded admissions that reversed the victim/perpetrator roles — Leavitt’s office refiled a felony stalking charge in September 2021. Allen and some legal observers contend this violated Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8, which bars prosecutors from pursuing charges without probable cause.

Allen further alleges the refiling was retaliatory, triggered when his expungement application exposed the earlier jurisdictional defects to the court. The case, he says, became a funding mechanism: federal VOCA dollars flowed to victim-advocate programs by keeping a meritless prosecution alive, turning him into “a commodity so they could make payroll.”

Recorded statements later surfaced of Leavitt telling Koehler, “Screw Allen… I have my own form of justice, and I will inflict it… My dog is bigger in the fight.” Charges were eventually dismissed a second time, but the damage lingered — until Allen placed the exonerating evidence, including the Kennard correspondence, into the public court record (docket 211401656). That filing, he says, “flipped the script.”

Yet, still a state and county delegate, now Allen is championing 2025 legislation for mandatory court cameras and independent docket audits, Allen points to publicly posted evidence — police body-cam footage he says captures possible crimes by his original accuser and misreporting and false arrest by police, WebEx recordings that critics allege contain prosecutorial misstatements, and courthouse security video that directly contradicts the statewide AOC security director’s trespass claims — as proof the system retaliates hardest against those who document its flaws.

The Trespass That Wasn’t

Nearly bankrupt, nearly broken, and having fought to clear his name to get a job – due to the wrongful prosecution and lingering effects of false records, Allen peacefully entered the Utah County Fourth District Courthouse on June 25, 2025, simply to obtain certified records for potential federal civil-rights claims in long-dismissed cases. He waited politely, asked a clerk a question, and made an audio-only voice recording of the interaction on his phone (legal under Utah’s one-party consent law)—he did not record images or video, despite the subsequent official accusation—and then left.

The next day he electronically filed a transcript of the conversation, in which the clerk suggested records may have been destroyed and blamed the Attorney General’s office. Twenty minutes later, Chris Palmer, Director of Security for the Utah Administrative Office of the Courts, issued a criminal trespass notice banning Allen from all eleven Fourth District courthouses for one year and circulated his personal information to four sheriff’s offices and court houses. Palmer’s letter, emailed and cc’d to other 11 courts and 4 county sheriff departments falsely accused and claimed Allen had been “using an electronic device to record images within a judicial workspace” and that his behavior “was disruptive to staff, patrons and court operations.”

After Allen objected to and openly accused the court of misconduct and double-jeopardy prosecution at an improper post-dismissal hearing on May 1, 2025, Judge Lunnen (Graf’s predecessor) retaliated by personally drafting and filing a vexatious-litigant motion against Allen — an action Utah judges are expressly forbidden from doing because it makes the judge both accuser and adjudicator.

He retired and Judge Tony Graf—who now presides over the Tyler Robinson murder case—took over, finished the filing and entered it into the system, formally designating Allen a “vexatious litigant” under Rule 83, stripping him of the ability to file anything further without prior court approval.

Security footage Allen later obtained and posted online shows no disturbance whatsoever. (See videos below) He had also requested whistleblower protection which the court ignored. The trespass order came one day after he flagged possible VOCA fraud and docket tampering. In short: he asked for public records. They locked him out of every courthouse in the district and, within a week, Judge Graf branded him vexatious. In actuality, one could argue the Utah Court System has been vexatious.

A Familiar Playbook

Former defendants describe the same tactics across multiple administrations:

• Stack charges until a plea feels like mercy
• Withhold Brady material (38 documented violations in Allen’s files alone)
• Slap the “vexatious litigant” label under Rule 83 to block future filings
• Weaponize contempt and trespass powers to silence record requests

“They don’t want a trial,” one ex-defendant said. “They want you broken before you ever see a jury.” Another Utah resident summed it up: “The favorite weapon is clerk ‘errors’—backdated entries, deleted filings, documents that never make the docket. All it takes is a keyboard and the delete key.”

The Leavitt Legacy and the Judge Who Replaced the Prosecutor’s Badge with a Robe

Tony Graf spent years as a deputy under David Leavitt—the same David Leavitt publicly accused (never charged) in 2022 of ties to an alleged ritualistic child sex-abuse ring alongside therapist David Hamblin. Those Hamblin charges were dismissed with prejudice in March 2025 after prosecutors withheld victim journals and the court found irreparable conflicts stemming from Leavitt’s tenure.

He also boasted about brokering a controversial adoption of a Northern Cheyenne baby girl by allegedly striking a deal with tribal leaders: promising to import buffalo from Ukraine in exchange for waiving protections under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), a maneuver that skirted federal safeguards for Native children and sparked a 2018–2019 federal investigation into potential bribery and improper custody transfers.

Separately, Leavitt’s nonprofit, the Leavitt Institute for International Development—which has received substantial USAID funding—shows missing IRS Form 990 filings for 2020 and 2021, raising questions about transparency during his Ukraine aid efforts. These activities coincided with Leavitt’s close ties to former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, forged during the 2004 Orange Revolution.Enter Greg Skordas, former Utah County prosecutor turned KSL legal analyst and local “fixer.” Sources say Skordas once represented a father whose children were having flashbacks of ritual abuse similar to the Hamblin victims—and got the memories dismissed as unreliable. Skordas has repeatedly called the ritual-abuse probes “debunked baloney.” Now, in eerie parallel to Leavitt’s “my dog is bigger” threat, Skordas—who helped select Tyler Robinson’s defense team—publicly declared on air, “The prosecution has a good case, but I have no dog in this fight.”

Less than six months after the Hamblin dismissal, Graf—former Leavitt deputy attorney and Jeff Gray deputy attorney turned robed judge—is presiding over Utah’s highest-profile murder case while simultaneously signing trespass and vexatious-litigant orders against citizens who criticise the office he once served, and his former boss.

When Transparency Becomes the CrimeIn the Robinson case, Graf has curtailed cameras and is considering a total ban—moves that clash with First Amendment precedents.In Allen’s world, requesting WebEx recordings of his own hearings is treated as a security threat.Both men—one accused of murder, the other of nothing more than persistence—face the same reality: in parts of Utah’s Fourth District, demanding public records can itself be treated as a crime.

The Money Trail

Utah’s incarceration ecosystem is profitable. Private prisons, probation companies, and treatment programs all benefit from prolonged cases. Federal VOCA grants intended for victims can be shifted into general prosecution budgets. When a citizen raises credible VOCA irregularities and is immediately banished from every courthouse, the question is no longer “Is something wrong?” but “Who are they protecting?”

A System That Punishes Sunlight

Mark Stewart Allen is not asking for sympathy. He is asking for cameras in court statewide, he’s asking for his own public records. Zoom screenings and court videos, which shows more evidence of misconduct by prosecutors. Graf’s predecessor, Judge Lunnen, had from May 1, 2025 until July 30th to do the right thing and release Webex videos. He chose to hide them.Graf took over and followed suit. Constitutional rights attorneys should label this 42 USC 1983 Federal Deprivation of Rights litigation against Lunnen, Graf, State Prosecutors who’ve admitted to prosecuting a “case which shouldn’t even be a case of record…it was an exact duplicate of the prior case (which was dismissed).”

Tyler Robinson should have the same: an open trial, all evidence on the table, cameras rolling. Until that becomes the rule rather than the exception in Utah County, every defendant—and every citizen who dares speak up—walks under a shadow. As one exhausted voice told me: “They don’t have to prove you’re guilty anymore. They just have to make you look crazy long enough for everyone to stop listening.” In the Beehive State, that strategy appears to be working—one sealed hearing, one missing video, one trespass notice, one broken life at a time.

Footnotes

[1] Public comparisons on X of pre-arrest photos vs. Utah County Jail booking mugshot, September 2025
[2] Multiple reports that Washington County Sheriff’s Office surrender footage “does not exist”
[3] Trespass notice signed by Chris Palmer, June 26, 2025
[4] Vexatious-litigant order signed by Judge Tony Graf, June 30, 2025
[5] Recorded statements in Allen’s documentation
[6] 2022 victim statements and 151-page affidavit
[7] “The Lost Children” documentary (2017); federal ICWA probe 2018–2019
[8] IRS nonprofit records for Leavitt Institute
[9] Hamblin case dismissal with prejudice, March 2025
[10] Greg Skordas comments, KSL-TV, October 2025
[11] Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia (1980); Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (1984)

Playlist 40 minutes chronological order-

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLROvWUH7YwlN_e8aGggirRycQ6pyVvT9s

1. Angle 1: https://youtu.be/Yo-eJM8Ykjk
2. Angle 2: https://youtu.be/KpN7Sxcy-F8
3. Angle 3:https://youtu.be/R4adxCQkNvo
4. Angle 4: https://youtu.be/9c4Gj83dLPw
5. Angle 5: https://youtu.be/7NJDY7Q3-DA
6. Angle 6: https://youtu.be/hRYkozYyHfs
7. Angle 7: https://youtu.be/xS7ixkqwOWg
8. Angle 8: https://youtu.be/VzAfSQa-Rd4  

Note:. The recordings show only public areas. There was no disturbance as alleged. There were no video records as alleged.

——

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

IF CITIZENS CAN’T TRUST THE SECURITY DIRECTOR FOR THE STATE OF UTAH COURTS, WHO CAN THEY TRUST?

Does the State of Utah own AOC Court Security Footage Impeach the State Security Director for issuing a trespass against a citizen making legal whistleblower filings?

Public Review: State Trespass Notice vs. Whistleblower Filings

Introduction: On June 25, 2025, a pro se litigant and state delegate submitted filings requesting that certain court records be preserved after identifying evidence of potential misconduct, including docket tampering, premature record destruction, and possible misuse of federal VOCA funds.

During the interaction at the public counter, the court clerk made admissions regarding record-keeping irregularities and potential obstruction. The following day, the litigant electronically filed a transcript of that interaction along with other pleadings to ensure preservation of the records.

Within 20 minutes, the State of Utah Security Director issued a trespass notice electronically barring the litigant from entering state facilities.

Security Footage from the State of Utah Court Security Footage. State of Utah’s Security Director Impeached by his own AOC’s security cameras, you decide?

All available camera angles have been collected for public review: Playlist 40 minutes chronological order. Ironically the AOC security footage impeaches Security Director for the State of Utah Courts.

Who set in motion the false accusations and are the instant messages and emails preserved to identify and prosecute the real criminal/s.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLROvWUH7YwlN_e8aGggirRycQ6pyVvT9s

bad fruit.jpg EXHIBIT C1 Jeopardy Violations, Federal VOCA Funding (64)

AAOC SECURITY FOOTAGE IMPEACHES CHRIS PALMER TRESPASS ALLEGATONS, BUT DOES NOT IDENTIFY WHO THE CRIMINAL WAS USING THE KEYBOARD TO MAKE FALSE ALLEGATIONS

Angle 1: https://youtu.be/Yo-eJM8Ykjk

Angle 2: https://youtu.be/KpN7Sxcy-F8

Angle 3: https://youtu.be/R4adxCQkNvo

Angle 4: https://youtu.be/9c4Gj83dLPw

Angle 5: https://youtu.be/7NJDY7Q3-DA

Angle 6: https://youtu.be/hRYkozYyHfs

Angle 7: https://youtu.be/xS7ixkqwOWg

Angle 8: https://youtu.be/VzAfSQa-Rd4

Note:. The recordings show only public areas. There was no disturbance as alleged. There were no video records as alleged. Who is the real criminal? Should the FBI Civil Rights Division Investigate?

 

 

EMAIL THREAD ON NECESSARY OBLIGATION OF SHERIFF DEPARTMENT TO ESCALATE TO FBI CIVIL RIGHT DIVISION SLC UTAH

---

---

Documents ● Trespass Notice (PDF):

2025.06.26 Trespass order – Mark S Allen

● Transcript of Clerk Interaction (PDF): [Link]

JCC update Treena Hansen June 25th 2025

Exhibit B Treena Hansen Conversation June 25th 2025

Viewers can compare the issued notice with the recorded events.

Interactive Viewer Guide We encourage viewers to evaluate the materials carefully and consider:

1. Which clip occurs inside a judicial area? (None)

2. Which clip shows prohibited behavior or disruption? (None)

3. Which clip shows video recording of the individual by staff? (None)

Public Consideration: You watch the video.

You review the documents.

You decide:

● Should the State of Utah Security Director be immediately placed on administrative leave pending investigation as the accusations don’t match the footage?

● Should the State Legislature or the Administrative Office of the Courts require a full forensic review for the chain of accusations and who really initiated the complaint?

● If the complaint originated by the clerk of Judge Lunnen or Graf does this then elevate to federal retaliation against a whistleblower for VOCA abuse and possibly Obstruction of Justice?

● OTHER OBSERVATIONS This release is intended for public transparency and awareness. It does not constitute a legal judgment or accusation.

TRESPASS NOTICE [REDACTED] DOWNSTREAM HARM NOTED

From:

Administrative Office of the Courts
Chief Justice Matthew B. Durrant
Utah Supreme Court Chair,

Utah Judicial Council
Ronald B. Gordon, Jr.
State Court Administrator

Neira Siaperas
Deputy State Court Administrator

To: [REDACTED INDIVIDUAL FALSELY ACCUSED]

 

(EDITORS NOTE: THE AOC SECURITY FOOTAGE IRREFUTABLY IMPLICATES CHRIS PALMER – HEAD OF SECURITY FOR FILING A FALSE TRESPASS NOTICE BELOW AND DEFAMATION PER SE AND UNLAWFUL DISSEMINATION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION TO AT LEAST 15 DATABASES OR ENTITIES, FLAGGING THE STATE AND COUNTY DELEGATE FOR REPORTING COURT DOCKET TAMPERING, PREMATURE RECORD DESTRUCTION AND FEDERALLY FUNDED LAWFARE. THE EDITOR BELIEVES THE SECURITY DIRECTOR SHOULD FACE A JURY TRIAL AND BE DISCIPLINED PER THE JURY FINDINGS)

Subject: Official Notification of Trespass Order [REDACTED INDIVIDUAL ACCUSED] This letter serves as official notification being served to you, of a trespass order for all Utah District and Juvenile State Courts within the 4th Judicial District of Utah.

This includes Wasatch County District and Juvenile Courthouse, 1361 S. Hwy 40, Heber City UT 84032, Utah County, Provo District and Juvenile Courthouse, 137 N Freedom Blvd, Provo UT, 84601, Spanish Fork District and Juvenile Courthouse, 775 West Center, Spanish Fork UT, 84660, American Fork Juvenile Courthouse, 75E, 80 N, American Fork UT, 84003, Juab County, Nephi District and Juvenile Courthouse, 102 E. 200 N, Nephi UT, 84648, and Millard County, Fillmore District and Juvenile Courthouse, 765 S. Hwy 99, Fillmore UT, 84631. On June 25ᵗʰ 2025, you created a disturbance within the Provo Courthouse by using an electronic device to record images within a judicial workspace.

This is a violation of Utah Rules of Judicial Administration 4-401.02. In addition your behavior was disruptive to staff, patrons and court operations. Therefore, you are now trespassed from all Utah District and Juvenile State Courts within the 4ᵗʰ Judicial District Court of Utah for a period of one year.

The order is as follows: [REDACTED INDIVIDUAL ACCUSED] is hereby trespassed from all 4ᵗʰ Judicial District and Juvenile District Courts of Utah for the duration of one year beginning June 26ᵗʰ 2025, and continuing until June 27ᵗʰ, 2026 except for the following reasons:

1. [REDACTED INDIVIDUAL ACCUSED] may enter any 4ᵗʰ Judicial District or Juvenile District Court of Utah within 15 minutes of a (calendared) scheduled hearing which requires his presence and must proceed directly to the courtroom of the hearing. [REDACTED INDIVIDUAL ACCUSED] may utilize the public video court terminals for a scheduled virtual hearing of which he is required for attendance.

1. [REDACTED INDIVIDUAL ACCUSED] may not patronize any judicial clerical spaces, or customer service counters and must depart immediately at the conclusion of the hearing.

2. All filings or communications with any member of the Utah State Courts shall only be conducted in accordance with Utah Courts rules for filings and submitted via 3rd party delivery service or filed by a Utah Bar licensed representative. Furthermore, Clerks have been notified that they may refuse any direct calls for the duration of this order. You may contact Bryson King, legal counsel for the Utah State Courts, with questions or for assistance with your case(s).

If you enter upon any of the courthouses indicated in this letter without a calendared hearing or fail to act in a peaceful manner you will be referred to law enforcement for charges of criminal trespass pursuant to Utah Code 76-6-206.

If you have questions, please feel free to contact me, 801-578-3835, chrisp@utcourts.gov [Signature] Chris Palmer Administrative Office of the Courts Court Security Director CC: Bryson King, Associate General Counsel, Administrative Office of the Courts Mark Urry, 4ᵗʰ District Court Trial Court Executive Shelly Waite, 4ᵗʰ Juvenile District Court Executive Utah County Sheriff Wasatch County Sheriff Juab County Sheriff Millard County Sheriff Footer:

The mission of the Utah judiciary is to provide the people an open, fair, efficient, and independent system for the advancement of justice under the law.

450 South State Street / P.O. Box 140241 / Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0241 / 801-578-3800/ Fax: 801-578-3843

---

State of Utah vs Mark Allen September 20th 2024, Utah County, Utah

TRANSCRIPT 211401656 September 20th 2024 1:30pm

Webex https://utcourts.webex.com/utcourts/j.php?MTID=m49ae94e928f5c624fc5fd9c55fa7d3b5

Judge Lunnen: Good afternoon, everyone. This is Judge Lunnen. Let me see if we
can have Mr. Peterson turn on his video. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. We’re going to
address State of Utah vs. Mark Allen, a, case number is 211401656. We have um
Mr. Dustin Parmley here who was counsel of record for Mr. Allen. We have Craig
Peterson on behalf of the Attorney General’s office, and Mr. Allen’s present, um I
actually asked for this hearing…

Judge Lunnen: Mr. Allen has been filing a number of pleadings in the docket and
I’m seeing all of those pleadings but the pleadings that have been filed are being
filed in a closed case. Because the case number I have which was the old criminal
case, a, it’s been dismissed.

(Editor commentary…..false statement by judge, case can’t be closed as the expungement will be upon Allens motion and he has filed for historic preservation, the judge has administrative obligations to preserve records, all filings made were to preserve records. Lunnen is in my view expert at inversion of truth and gaslighting, but you be the judge, this case was done without jurisdiction, and the state made an appearance and asked for the hearing without standing, ie, it was unlawful unless the judge held it to preserve records and to produce court webex videos which would self incriminate the court)

Judge Lunnen: And the problem Mr. Allen, is the reason I wanted to have you
come is to explain that anything you file in that case I can’t consider because its
closed. You’ve filed for example a number of documents one in particular theres
been a petition under 42 U.S.C. § Section 1983. That can be filed in State Court
although you ought to talk to an attorney because the remedies in state court are a
whole lot less than they are bases on immunity differences it better to file
something like that significantly in federal court, because the federal statute 42
U.S.C. § Section 1983.

(Editor note. In this very hearing the judge will deny knowing anything about the case he has presided over for three years, that inverts what he has said here on its face)

Judge Lunnen: I am not an expert on that but, the biggest problem that I have now
is you are kind of wasting your time filing these in a case that has been dismissed
because I have no jurisdiction to enter these any of these on the record frankly due
to differences in immunity.

Judge Lunnen: You’d have to open a civil case and file those pleadings in a civil
case, um and generally 1983 actions are not filed in State Court anyway, they can
be umm, but as I said the remedies are different. Mr. Parmley let me let you speak.

Mr. Parmley: Thank You Your Honor, I filed a yesterday a Motion to withdraw as
counsel because the case has been dismissed. These filings have been submitted by
Mr. Allen without consulting our office, and a frankly they go far beyond the scope
of representation and services we provide with the public defenders office We we
move to withdraw at this time.

Judge Lunnen: I’ll grant your motion to withdraw.

Mr. Parmley. Thank you Your Honor.

Mr. Allen: Thank you Dustin. I appreciate your help.

Dustin: Thanks Mark

Mark: Your Honor, if I may ….

Mr. Peterson: Your Honor, may I interject for a second?

Judge Lunnen: A sure

Mr. Peterson: Okay let me, I’m going to kind of give you the low down on why I
think we are here. Umm,

Mr. Peterson: This case was tied to another case, that case number was
191400132, and this was the case where the Court may recall it where originally
criminal charges were filed initially filed against Mr. Allen in 2019. That case was
dismissed with conditions, so basically almost a diversion type of agreement. Then
in 2021, David Leavitt’s office decided that Mr. Allen had violated those conditions
when he filed a motion to expunge or something along that nature that had a lot of
allegations involving the victim. So they refiled the 2019 case and when they
refiled it they didn’t file it under the old case number, they filed it under the new
case, under this case number 21.

Mr. Peterson: Back in 22, a Mr. Parmley referred in 2022 Your Honor said that
“Mr. Allen basically had immunity on the pleadings, and there was no basis for the
refile in 21″ and so you dismissed the case, did it without prejudice and at that time
reminded Mr. Allen that he still had the obligation to obey the Orders, or the
agreement of the 2019 dismissal. That part you are aware of.

Mr. Peterson: What you are not aware of and this is where I am a little troubled
that we are here is on October 10th of 2023, so last year in October. We, Mr. Allen
and I went before Judge Brady and the reason we were before Judge Brady is
because he was the judge who was assigned to that original case, the 191400132
case. And at that time, a Motion was made to consolidate the two cases, this one
211401656 into 191400132 because they were defacto the same case.

Mr. Peterson: And then the Motion was once that consolidation happened
191400132 would then be expunged, the certificate, the Petition for expungement
would be granted and I stipulated to that.

Mr. Peterson: What happened is, the case, 191400132 got expunged prior to this
case getting merged into it. So this case is a bit of a dangling chad and I think part
of the frustration is I am understanding and from Mr. Allen is, this case shouldn’t
even be a case of record anymore, you shouldn’t even, there shouldn’t be a file even
to file these things under because it should have been expunged back in October of
23.

(Editor Note: In my opinion-  Utah Attorney General Prosecutor Craig Peterson is the one frustrated as Allen has put into the record all of the prosecutorial misconduct and transcripts which implicate the AG’s office and Leavitt and others from using VOCA funding to make payroll, more than 200 civil right violations endured spanning 9 years and Craig Peterson has an obligation to unharm llen rule 3.8 of Prosecutors and obligation to report Leavitt and voCA recipients, he is the one frustrated and withholding exculpatory evidence and frustrated as he got caught. He should report that Katie Fox, Bethany Warr and Lorie Hobbs earned $500,000 in VOCA funding, now admitted a duplicate case which should have never been, YET WAS PURSUED WHILE “VICTIMS ADVOCATES” DESTROYED A LIFE AND LIVELIHOOD AND BENEFITTED FROM LAWFARE)

Judge Lunnen: I do have a Motion to expunge that’s filed now for Mr. Allen that
he filed that actually I could grant, there is no reason why I can’t except it sounds
like we have a little complication with it being consolidated.

Mr. Peterson: Well it, the other case was expunged prior to consolidation and and
because it was expunged that motion and order don’t exist anymore. They are gone.
and so the State would on the record today stipulate to the expungement of this
case.

(EDITORS NOTE: STATE AND JUDGE ARE ANXIOUS TO EXPUNGE AND SEAL RECORDS, NOW THEY ARE KNOW COMPLICIT IN FEDERAL MISUSE AND TRIPLE JEOPARDY PROSECUTION, NOW THEY AVOID THE OBVIOUS OBLIGATIONS TO SELF REPORT AND UNDO THE HARM, INSTEAD THEY WORK TO BURY EVIDENCE AND SEAL ACCESS.)

Mr. Allen: Your Honor…..

Judge Lunnen: Hang on one second Mr. Allen. I do want you to speak and …

(EDITORS NOTE THE LAST THING HE WANTS IS TO PRODUCE WEBEX HEARINGS AND CERTIFIED RECORDS 0/33 COURT VIDEOS HAVE BEEN PROVIDE, 0/33 CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPTS)

Mr. Allen: Thank you.

Judge Lunnen: I just want to clarify some things for, so a, as I said I now have a
motion to expunge that Mr. Allen has filed in this 2021 case, and I am prepared to
which I could grant it, it sounds like you have no opposition.

Mr. Peterson: Correct.

Judge Lunnen: The only thing I need to wait on Mr. Allen is because there is an
alleged victim in this 21 case, I have to wait by law 60 days to make sure they don’t
have an objection to the expungement, or the prosecutor needs to tell me, that they
have checked with the (alleged) victim and the (alleged) victim doesn’t have any
objection to the expungement. And so that 60 days runs up on October 13th.

Judge Lunnen: Ahh and so my intent is, if there is no objection to it I am to grant
the expungement in the 2021 case of the one that we have here (211401656) but
the main reason that I wanted to hold this hearing was to try to help you not waste
your time filing more documents in this case, and that is a 1983 action, you filed a
Coram Nobis and really a Coram Nobis has been uhh done away with in the State
of Utah by statute, its the same thing as a post conviction relief act claim, which is
a civil action and it has to be filed by a party to address by Habeas Corpus their
conviction, in this case, you don’t have a conviction and so it, it can’t be filed in this
case and Utah doesn’t recognize Coram Nobis anymore because it was amended by
the post conviction relief act.

 

Judge Lunnen: Umm, in the past that was a valid claim, that was a valid petition,
but it had to be filed civilly in a different proceeding you couldn’t just file it in the
old criminal case and obviously you can’t file a post conviction relief act case when
there is no conviction. Ahh its only filed where there is conviction filed in the
record. And so, uhh, I didn’t want you waste your time and money filing more
documents when I have no jurisdiction or authority to even look at those or
respond to, or allow them to have any meaning in this case because its dismissed.
Go ahead.

Mr. Allen: I appreciate that and Attorney Peterson and Judge Lunnen I did not put
that flurry of papers into the record with any ill intent, there’s a criminal
investigation that is going to start in reference to false police reports from 2017 and
2018, so I’ve petitioned the Court to toll the expungement pending the investigation
of criminal allegations.

Mr. Allen: I did have a choice to file in Federal Court but I was hopeful that
Attorney Peterson would like to do a conference, there is some evidence that he
has not seen, there’s still 11 pieces of evidence that I should be getting next week,
but this document here that came from your court in December of last year says
there was never any protective orders, so the mere fact that I have to appear again
is a due process violation. Mr. Peterson came in at the tail end of a legal train
wreck as you have yourself Your Honor and I apologize for wasting the Courts
time, I’ve been made homeless, there were 30 prosecutors in Leavitt’s office that
got fired.

Mr. Allen: I think they ought to have an opportunity to be heard to help fill in the
blanks, so that’s the reason why I’d like to have my expungement tolled pending
the criminal investigation. I’ve also filed a motion to ask for injunctive protection
against those who have demonstrated ill intent. David Leavitt refiled the, he
dismissed the 191400132 case after he had viewed a 33 minute video that I don’t
think Mr. Peterson or any other prosecutors have viewed, it’s got some sensitive
412 evidence and I was sexually assaulted by my accuser and the State’s witness,
and that demonstrates such.

 

Mr. Allen: So the refiling of the 211 case was not a diversion, that’s a false
premise, it was done in retaliation and I have evidence that demonstrates such and I
will be presenting to a special investigator, I don’t want to go to the DOJ or the
U.S. Attorney for the State of Utah, but I could, but my goal first between now and
October would be to meet with Mr. Peterson, you’ve got people in your office who.
I think are really good and honest people. Carl Hollan is a good man. He recused
himself early on because he realized there had been some criminal and due process
violations by Leavitt.

Judge Lunnen: … and …When you say “in your office” remember Mr. Peterson is
with the Attorney General’s Office. I think… is Carl Hollan at the AG’s office now?

Attorney Peterson: He is Your Honor. He’s with our office now, he’s been with us
for a few years now.

Judge Lunnen: Of course the point I was trying to make to help you is I have no
jurisdiction to respond to any of the pleadings you are filing in a closed criminal
case and they can’t even be considered, but you want to file a civil complaint you
can do that including a 1983 action but it has to be filed and you can request there
be no fee, in other words,,,

Mr. Allen: I understand Your Honor. What is still I believe in your jurisdiction is to
Dismiss with Prejudice my case, this one should have never existed but if it gets
expunged then we are covering up criminal evidence that will have to be opened
back up same as 191400132 case.

 

Mr. Allen: However, I’ve also filed a motion to toll the expungement due to an
ongoing criminal investigation into false police reports from 2017 and 2018. I
would prefer to wait on the expungement until the investigation concludes.

Judge Lunnen: Do you want to withdraw your Motion to Expunge?

Mr. Allen: I don’t want to withdraw, I just want to toll it pending a criminal
investigation by P.O.S.T. and by the State AG’s Office and potentially by the U.S.
District Attorney for the State of Utah.

Judge Lunnen: Have you filed anything to stay my ruling on the expungement?

Mr. Allen: I did I filed a Motion to Toll pending criminal investigation by a third
party.

Judge Lunnen: Was that just filed recently?

Mr. Allen: That was filed within the last two weeks, I believe.

Judge Lunnen: Alright I don’t have any problem not signing the Motion to
Expunge if that’s what you want to do, umm..

Mr. Allen: I’d like to toll it so that, what happened is, this is all been a train wreck
and Craig I am sorry that you have had to waste anytime on it. Carl Hollan works
in your office, Bethany Warr works in your office, The Governor now has Katie
Fox works out of his office. I would hope that we could have Tyson Downey
appointed as a Special Investigator to try and undo the damage which has been
done to some of your team members. There’s 30 other prosecutors out of which I
think 28 are good people, they were harmed by Leavitt’s misconduct. I filed the
first Bar complaint him and so now he is living in Scotland, that’s why I filed asking
for a bench warrant so that we can undo the collective cumulative damage.

Judge Lunnen:)…and You filed the Request for a Bench Warrant in this court in
this my case this 21 case and its assigned to me that’s been dismissed and so the
problem is I have no authority to issue a bench warrant. I’ll hold off on signing the expungement order if that’s your request.

Mr. Allen: I understand. My hope would be to have a conference with you Craig
and also Justin Seitzinger and maybe Jeff Gray and show you the video evidence of
potential criminal conduct, provide the posting,

Mr. Allen: I believe there is probable cause for a bench warrant and I also believe
that you and I are on the same side of the Constitution and that we are on the same
side of the Utah Constitution and the Code of Ethical Conduct and the Judicial
Rules of Conduct, I think we are all three on the same side and I would like to have
a Conference with you so that you can understand the opportunity we have to
restore justice to Utah County and the State without me having to come at you as
an adversary. When I worked with Stephen Covey….

(EDITORS NOTE: MY OPINION AND I HAVE SINCE LEARNED THAT THE STATES COURT AND AOC AND ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR STATE OF UTAH AND JUDGES PROTECT THE JUDICIAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX NOT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION NOR DO THEY REPORT, NOR DO THEY FOLLOW RULE 3.8 OF A PROSECUTOR TO UNHARM WHEN THEY ADMIT TO WRONGDOING OR HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF WRONGDOING)

Judge Lunnen:…Hang on one second..this is a conversation that I probably should
not participate in, remember you have Mr. Peterson who is part of the Executive
Branch, I am part of the Judicial Branch and so any conversations that you might
have with Mr. Peterson about investigations I should probably not participate in at
all.

Mr. Allen: That’s fair enough. Craig would you be willing to do a conference
between now and October 13th?

Mr. Peterson: … and the short answer is no and I’m in kind of the same position
that Mr. Parmley was in. My appointment was limited to the prosecution of the
case and the minute the case was dismissed, I’m out!

(EDITORS NOTE, CRAIG PETERSON WAS OUT UNTIL HE WAS NOT. HE FILED FOR THE MAY 1 2025 HEARNG, LACKING JURISDICTION AND WITHOUT STANDING, POSSIBLE DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS IS WHY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE IS FRUSTRATED, THEY GOT CAUGHT DOING A DOUBLE JEOPARDY, HANDED OFF A “STINKER OF A CASE” BY DAVID LEAVITT’S TEAM  AS DANIEL BURTON AAG HAD STATED IN A RECORDING”

[RECORDING DANIEL BURTON]

A1-0001 State of Utah admissions to 18 USC 1519 June 17th 2025

 

CONTINUING

Mr. Allen: Okay, That’s fine.

Mr. Peterson: I don’t have any other involvement in the case ….. other than to say
the State has no objection and will stipulate to the expungement.

Mr. Allen: Well I’d like to continue to have the expungement tolled pending a
criminal investigation by a third party and I believe that the Court has an obligation
to report the misconduct of potential 1983 and 1985 (violations) as well as to the
Utah Bar.

Mr. Allen: I believe Craig, with all due respect I know its painful, but I believe
you’ve got an obligation to report and I didn’t want to make any other people
participants in this case, I was trying to have a conference with you so that we
could try and put out the forest fire that I have endured for 7 years.

Mr. Peterson: Well, that’s my point – I am limited to the prosecution of this case, I
have no other authority, I have nothing else to do with anything so, I … I’m not a
good resource.. for you.

[UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY DID CRAIG PETERSON THEN REQUEST THE MAY 1 2025 HEARING?)

Mr. Allen: I understand, but you do have an obligation to the Ethical Code of
Conduct which has been violated and Your Honor with all due respect you do as
well and so does Judge Brady, theres been….

Judge Lunnen: I disagree and I’ll tell you why Mr. Allen that I disagree. Uh

Officers have, yes we are all lawyers and have a Code of Ethics, and we have

ultimate obligation to report criminal conduct, but its only criminal conduct where

we know the facts and we believe based on those facts that there is criminal

conduct that has occurred and right now I know nothing about anything and I

doubt Mr. Peterson does either about the allegations you are making because I

wasn’t even around during the time you are, and neither was Mr. Peterson.

[EDITORS NOTE. JUDGE LUNNEN HAS PRESIDING FOR 3 YEARS OVER A CASE WITH NO JURISDICTION, NOW HE CAN’T DENY KNOWLEDGE AND DISMISS THE CASE WITH PREJUDICE AS THAT WOULD BE JUDICIAL CANON VIOLATIONS TO PROSECUTE WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OR TO DISMISS WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE}

Mr. Allen: I totally agree… {THEY DID NOT READ FILINGS, PROSECUTED WITH ZEAL, GOT CAUGHT KNOWING NOTHING]

Judge Lunnen: … Generally we have a duty to report criminal conduct, I agree,
but it’s only criminal conduct when we have knowledge that criminal conduct has
occurred… and I don’t know any of the facts in your case, nothing!

(Judicial Canon violations?) How can a judge agree to a dismissal with prejudice and or preside over a case for 3 years and yet claim no knowledge?

Mark Allen: Well, I started my conversation saying you are both coming in at the
tail end of a legal train wreck, so I know you are only seeing the tip of the iceberg
and the tip of the iceberg was provided by your office that just said “look there was
never any protective order there was never any stalking injunction (Exhibit Dec
20th 2023 letter from Court).

 

 

 

MARK ALLEN: So I have survived 4 court cases that were predicated
upon Constitutional violations. So I get it that you don’t …. You are coming in late
in the game. I’ve been prosecuted late in the game, so I would stipulate to the case
being Dismissed with Prejudice and tolled, toll the BCI expungement so the
records can stay open and then I meet with P.O.S.T on Monday and I filed a
complaint with the AG’s office. The AG should be protecting me. The Constitution
is a shield to protect me. I sounds to me that we are all on the same team.

Judge Lunnen: I have more hearings today and everything you’ve told me, there is
nothing I can act upon, you are preaching to the choir so to speak. I have nothing I
can do, you could talk to me all day long and tell me about all these things, I have
no authority – like Mr. Peterson because this case is closed – its the only case that
involves you that I have any jurisdiction on and right the only jurisdiction I have,
the only authority I have is to either grant or deny or stay – as you are asking me to
do, your Motion for Expungement, beyond that I don’t have any other authority to
act on this case.

 

Mark Allen: Does that mean you don’t have authority to dismiss it with prejudice?
Its been dismissed without prejudice, but can you not dismiss it with prejudice
because it was a duplicated, it was a civil rights violation, I’d like to clean that up
first but I would like to stay the expungement so that the criminal investigation and
the complaint that I made to the AG’s office can be looked at, and then if I have to
go to the federal filing I will but my goal is not to be adverse to you Craig because
you have got good people working in your office, but you have been party to, you
are at the back end of the train wreck of legal weaponization that I believe you
understand now.

Mark Allen: So Your Honor with that I would like to have the case DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE, THE EXPUNGEMENT CERTIFICATE TOLLED, pending a
criminal investigation by P.O.S.T, and the AG’s office that has been submitted
through formal channels.

Judge Lunnen: Did you file a Motion to Dismiss it with Prejudice?

Mark Allen: I have Your Honor within the last two weeks.

Judge Lunnen: Alright, maybe what we need to do is to have a hearing on that,
we can ….

Mr. Peterson. Your Honor I can tell you the State won’t have an objection because
the without prejudice was specific to the 191400132 case…

Judge Lunnen: Right

Mr. Peterson: … and that case has been expunged, doesn’t exist anymore, so any
agreements therein are gone, so it, it’s sixes at this point Your Honor and I have no
objection to the status being Dismissed with Prejudice at this point.

 

Judge Lunnen: Well, based on that being on the record I will do that. I’ll just sign
the pleading if it’s correct – the pleading that Mr. Allen has filed I will Dismiss the
Case with Prejudice.

 

Mark Allen: Thank you and let’s just keep the Certificate active for the
expungement so I don’t have to go through that process again pending the criminal
investigation, if that’s alright.

 

Judge Lunnen: I’ll hold it (the BCI expungement certificate) until I hear back
from you. In the meantime I am going to file an Order to Dismiss the case with
Prejudice. Have you submitted an order with it?

Mr. Allen: I did, I submitted a proposed order …

Judge Lunnen: I’ll sign the Order.

 

Mr. Allen: Alright…. And Craig … Thank you, I think honestly we are all on the
same side but you came in at the 3 seconds left in the 4th quarter and Your Honor,
the same for you- I totally respect your position, this case honestly the stack of
evidence is 7 feet tall. And it took 4 years through GRAMA for me to find
exculpatory evidence that was withheld.

Mr. Allen: Last week I found there is 11 more pieces of exculpatory evidence that
was withheld so I am going to aggregate that and I will give it to a special
investigator and I hope that the AG’s office in collaboration with me in a different
case to protect my civil rights and maybe help restore some of the black eyes that
were given to some of your good prosecutors. We had 30 people fired out of Utah
County and some of them are really fine people.

Judge Lunnen: So, Again, I don’t want to participate in these conversations
because basically you are talking about alleged evidence which I should not
participate in.

Mark Allen: Understood I’ll stop there. Let’s close out and say I appreciate the
judicial integrity and thank you Craig for your time today and I didn’t put things
into the record to frustrate or cause any consternation, its just because prior records
have been sealed and as such outside eyes can’t see the hell I have been put
through.

Judge Lunnen: Alright, well thank you for appearing today Mr. Peterson. Thank
you Mr. Allen – I’ll sign that Order to Dismiss with Prejudice and this case will be
closed with Prejudice.

Mr. Peterson: Thank you.

Mark Allen: Just continue to toll it until you hear back from me so that outside
eyes..

Judge Lunnen: …The expungement – yeah, I’ll hang onto it until I hear back.

Mark Allen: Alright …Thank you very much Your Honor.

Judge Lunnen: I will make sure it has been stayed.

Mark Allen: Thank you both very much I appreciate it.

Judge Lunnen: Thank you.

[EDITORS NOTE: THE JUDGE MOVED THE GOAL POST AFTER THE FACT AND THEN IS ADEPT AT GASLIGHTING- ENDING WITH RETALIATORY MOTION TO RULE ME VEXATIOIUS FOR REQUESTING COURT WEBEX PUBLIC HEARINGS. CRAIG PETERSON HAS OBSTRUCTED OBTAINING RECORDS AND HAS OBLIGATION TO REPORT DAVID LEAVITT AND LANCE BASTIAN AND CHRISTINE SCOTT AND LAUREN HUNT, AND MARIANNE O BRYANT AND ADAM AND AMY POMEROY AND OTHER PROSECUTORS WHO WITHHELD THE RANDY KENNARD FORENSIC AUDIT DEMONSTRATING JURISDICTION WAS ABSENT AFTER 8-4-2016 WHICH MEANS ALL POLICE REPORTS AND EFFORTS TO ARREST WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE OF OFFICER MALMGREN IN PROVO CITY CAUGHT HIM ON HIS LAPTOP FILING A FALSE POLICE REPORT AND ADVANCING PROSECUTION WITHOUT MERIT.]

 

---

DENIAL BY LUNNEN OF CONTRACT LAW, FALLS OUTSIDE SCOPE OF IMMUNITY, HEARINUG ITSELF WAS DONE WITHOUT LAWFUL JURISDICTION.

MAY 1 2025 HEARING TRANSCRIPT WITH NOTATIONS

MINUTE 00:00 – 00:59

JUDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 00:00 “Alright. Let’s see if we can begin our next hearing, counsel. And, Mr. Allen, if you’d turn on your audio and your video, we’ll see if we can begin.”

JUDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 00:08 “Okay. Well, this is a little unusual because I’m announcing a case that has been closed, with prejudice. But, the Attorney General’s Office has asked for a hearing, and I thought it was appropriate because there have been a number of filings that have been filed by Mr. Allen.”

JUDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 00:24 “So we’re addressing State of Utah versus Mark Allen. The case number 211401656. We have Mr. Craig Peterson here on behalf of the State, the Attorney General’s Office. Mr. Mark Allen’s here appearing on his own behalf.”

JUDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 00:34 “Mr. Peterson and Mr. Allen, again, this case is closed with prejudice. And so I’m gonna start by addressing Mr. Allen.”

JUDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 00:41 “Mr. Allen, you filed a number of pleadings in the case. I can’t receive them. This case is closed with prejudice. I don’t have any authority to issue any rulings.” J

UDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 00:48 “So any document that you file with a motion in this case, I can’t even look at it. The only thing I can do with it is set it aside. I can’t even file it in a closed case.”

JUDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 00:55 “And so I’m setting this hearing today. I don’t want you to interrupt me now. I’ll give you a chance to speak.” J

UDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 00:59 “I’m setting this hearing today to let you know that you can’t keep filing matters in a closed case. And anything you file from here on forward is gonna go basically in a trash can because I can’t file it in a closed case. I can’t.”

VIOLATION (Minute 00:00 – 00:59): By convening a hearing in a case dismissed with prejudice, Judge Lunnen exceeds judicial authority. The hearing lacks jurisdiction and violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (due process). The threat to discard all future pleadings undermines Allen’s First Amendment right to petition and meaningful access to courts.

Statutes Violated: 18 U.S.C. § 242; 18 U.S.C. § 1519; 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Judicial Canons Violated: Canon 1 (Upholding the integrity of the judiciary), Canon 2A (Promoting public confidence), Canon 3B(6) (Ensuring the right to be heard)

Case Law: ● Goldberg v. Kelly , 397 U.S. 254 (1970) – Due process requires notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard ● Bounds v. Smith , 430 U.S. 817 (1977) – Right of access to courts ● Pulliam v. Allen , 466 U.S. 522 (1984) – Judges are not immune from injunctive relief for constitutional violations

MINUTE 01:00 – 01:59 JUDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 01:00 “There’s no authority for me to file matters in a closed case with prejudice. That means it cannot be reopened. Go ahead.”

MARK ALLEN – Timecode 01:32 “By what authority did you allow this status hearing to take place then?” J

UDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 01:36 “To ask you to please stop filing.”

MARK ALLEN – Timecode 01:42 “No. But it was Mr. Peterson. By what authority is he making an appearance today?”

JUDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 01:47 “It’s Mr. Peterson. I don’t because he saw the filings. I noticed the filings. I decided that I…”

MARK ALLEN – Timecode 01:53 “He requested the hearing, Your Honor. Not you. I would like to read a statement into the court if I could uninterrupted.”

JUDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 01:57 “Go ahead.”

VIOLATIONS (Minute 01:00 – 01:59)

● Post-dismissal appearance by the State and judicial discretion: Judge Lunnen’s admission that he permitted the hearing at the State’s request after a dismissal with prejudice directly contradicts jurisdictional limits. Once a case is dismissed with prejudice, no party — including the State — may trigger further proceedings without violating double jeopardy and due process protections.

Statutes Violated: 18 U.S.C. § 242; 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Case Law: ○ Ex parte Lange , 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163 (1874) – a court cannot impose additional burdens after a case is resolved ○ Arizona v. Manypenny , 451 U.S. 232 (1981) – post-dismissal prosecution triggers federal review ○ Dennis v. Sparks , 449 U.S. 24 (1980) – no judicial immunity when acting with knowledge of improper process

● Chilling constitutionally protected speech: Judge Lunnen’s response “To ask you to please stop filing” directly undermines Allen’s First Amendment right to petition the court. Statute: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Canons Violated: 2A, 3B(6)

Case Law: United Mine Workers v. Illinois State Bar Ass’n , 389 U.S. 217 (1967); Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez , 531 U.S. 533 (2001)

● Verbal Contract Formation (Judicial Estoppel & Due Process):

At Timecode 01:57, Judge Lunnen explicitly tells Allen, “Go ahead,” after Allen requests uninterrupted time to read his statement. This grants Allen an enforceable judicial expectation of procedural fairness. Later interruptions violate this implied contract. Statutes Violated: 18 U.S.C. § 1519; First and Fifth Amendments

Case Law: ○ Patterson v. Illinois , 487 U.S. 285 (1988) – reliance on judicial assurances

○ Morrissey v. Brewer , 408 U.S. 471 (1972) – procedural fairness is fundamental to due process

MINUTE 02:00 – 02:59 MARK ALLEN – Timecode 02:00
“It’ll be about 5 minutes.
Before we proceed further today, I need to place several critical points clearly and explicitly on the record. I’m requesting uninterrupted time to read my statement. First, the State has stipulated to dismissal with prejudice. Once the dismissal with prejudice has been entered, jurisdiction ends.” “If the State’s appearance today is strictly to view this administrative status hearing solely to support the signing of previously submitted orders, including the dismissal to dismiss which has remained unsigned since September of 2024, then I have no objection.” “If the State is making an appearance to make an apology for three years of wrongful prosecution and double jeopardy violations, I will give Mr. Peterson a couple of minutes to speak to that narrow issue at the conclusion of my statement.” “Any attempt beyond this narrow scope is left as a violation of both state and federal law, constituting continued harassment and civil rights violations.” “Second, it must be explicitly stated and recognized that there never has been a valid stalking injunction issued against me.” “Despite this awareness of facts in the record, multiple prosecutors including but not limited to Attorney Albert Pranno, Lance Bastian, Craig Peterson, and Lorie Hobbs—”

JUDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 03:06 “I mean, I am gonna interrupt you…”

VIOLATIONS (Minute 02:00 – 02:59)

1. Protected Speech and Record Preservation Interrupted Allen clearly invoked his right to place evidence on the record after receiving permission from the judge. This invocation is protected under:

○ First Amendment (right to petition for redress and speak in open court),

○ Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (due process),

○ Judicial Canons requiring the right to be heard and fair proceedings. The judge’s later interruption breaches this agreement and suppresses protected speech.

2. Statutes Violated:

○ 18 U.S.C. § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law

○ 18 U.S.C. § 1519 – Obstruction of a record relating to a federal investigation

○ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Civil rights deprivation 3.

Canons Violated: ○ Canon 1 – Upholding the independence and integrity of the judiciary ○ Canon 2A – Avoiding the appearance of impropriety ○ Canon 3B(6) – Right to be heard 4.

Case Law:

○ Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez , 531 U.S. 533 (2001) – Courtroom speech on legal proceedings is protected ○ Morrissey v. Brewer , 408 U.S. 471 (1972) – Due process applies where liberty or property is at stake

○ Patterson v. Illinois , 487 U.S. 285 (1988) – Defendants are entitled to rely on assurances from the court ○ Bounds v. Smith , 430 U.S. 817 (1977) – Access to the courts is a fundamental right

5. Statement Identifies Pattern of Prosecutorial Misconduct Allen’s reference to Prosecutors Pranno, Bastian, Peterson, and Hobbs directly pertains to claims of Brady violations , double jeopardy, and retaliatory prosecution. Suppressing

this statement may constitute judicial cover-up or complicity .

Relevant Principles:

○ Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963) – Suppression of exculpatory evidence violates due process ○ Imbler v. Pachtman , 424 U.S. 409 (1976) – Prosecutors enjoy immunity only if actions are within legal bounds

MINUTE 03:00 – 03:59

JUDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 03:06 “I mean, I am gonna interrupt you…”

MARK ALLEN – Timecode 03:09 “This is for preservation of the record, Your Honor.”

JUDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 03:11 “Going into the facts of a case that has been closed. It doesn’t make any sense for you to read this into the record. It’s closed with prejudice.”

MARK ALLEN – Timecode 03:16 “I’m not asking for it to be reopened, Your Honor. I’m asking for administration.”

JUDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 03:18 “Have you turn off his sound, Shawn. Thank you. I’ve turned off your sound because you continue to interrupt the court. All of the things that you’re requesting, I can do nothing with because this case is closed with prejudice. Now what you can do is file a separate action and file any of the things that you have filed. You’re allowed to do that, but I can’t receive them in this case, and I’m not gonna receive your statement about facts in that case when the case has been closed. And so, I’m just letting you know that anything you file in this case, I cannot rule on. It cannot be served. I cannot issue subpoenas. I have no jurisdiction, as you indicated earlier, to do anything on this case. And so it’s gonna stay in that closed case status with prejudice.” “Now if it was done without prejudice, someone could refile another case and it could be reopened. But this case is closed with prejudice. If you want to follow up with a separate case and request subpoenas and all the things you’re requesting in many of these motions, you have that right to file it. And if it gets assigned to me, I’ll rule on them. But I’m not gonna entertain

statements about a case that is closed and facts about a case that’s closed. It’s not going to happen.” “So I’m gonna reiterate: if you continue to file matters in this case, I’m not going to entertain you. In addition to that, I’m gonna have to look at Rule 83 and decide whether or not I should file a vexatious litigant status. Now I honestly wonder about that because I think, how can you be a vexatious litigant in a case that’s been closed? So I’m doing a little research on it, but I’m trying to get you to understand: I’m not your enemy. I can’t do anything on any of the motions you filed before this court in this case. You can unmute, Mr. Allen.”

VIOLATIONS (Minute 03:00 – 03:59)

1. Suppression of Record Preservation Allen’s statement, “This is for preservation of the record,” invoked a procedural right aligned with due process, federal oversight, and an ongoing DOJ investigation. The judge’s abrupt interruption and muting directly suppress this exercise, constituting obstruction of justice. Statutes Violated: ○ 18 U.S.C. § 1519 – Obstruction of federal evidence preservation ○ 18 U.S.C. § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law ○ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Civil rights violation

2. Judicial Canons Violated:

○ Canon 1 – Integrity and independence of the judiciary

○ Canon 2A – Avoiding impropriety

○ Canon 3B(6) – Right of parties to be heard

3. Case Law:

○ In re Murchison , 349 U.S. 133 (1955) – Due process requires a fair and open hearing ○ Morrissey v. Brewer , 408 U.S. 471 (1972) – Right to be heard must be meaningful, not formalistic

○ Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. , 556 U.S. 868 (2009) – Judicial neutrality is essential ○ Hamdi v. Rumsfeld , 542 U.S. 507 (2004) – The right to present evidence to a neutral decision maker is fundamental

4. False Claim of Jurisdictional Limitation

Repeating “the case is closed” without acknowledging the active stay on expungement and the judicial obligation to complete administrative duties is a misstatement of law and fact. The judge still had a ministerial obligation to sign the previously stipulated order.

Case Law:

○ Ex parte Lange , 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163 (1874) – A court loses jurisdiction once a final judgment has been executed, but must complete administrative acts

○ Pulliam v. Allen , 466 U.S. 522 (1984) – Judicial immunity does not shield judges from injunctive relief or prospective duties

5. Retaliation and Threat of Sanction

Threatening to investigate or designate Allen as a vexatious litigant in response to his filings—made to preserve judicial misconduct and prosecutorial abuse—constitutes retaliation and a chilling of constitutional rights.

Case Law:

○ White v. Lee , 227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000) – Retaliation for protected legal advocacy violates the First Amendment

○ Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez , 531 U.S. 533 (2001) – Courts may not suppress arguments critical of government conduct

MINUTE 04:00 – 04:59 (VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT)

JUDGE LUNNEN – continuing from prior monologue: “…anything you file in this case, I cannot rule on. It cannot be served. I cannot issue subpoenas. I have no jurisdiction, as you indicated earlier, to do anything on this case. And so it’s gonna stay in that closed case status with prejudice.” “Now if it was done without prejudice, someone could refile another case and it could be reopened. But this case is closed with prejudice.” “If you want to follow up with a separate case and request subpoenas and all the things you’re requesting in many of these motions, you have that right to file it. And if it gets assigned to me, I’ll rule on them.” “But I’m not gonna entertain statements about a case that is closed and facts about a case that’s closed. It’s not going to happen.” “So I’m gonna reiterate: if you continue to file matters in this case, I’m not going to entertain you.” “In addition to that, I’m gonna have to look at Rule 83 and decide whether or not I should file a vexatious litigant status.” “Now I honestly wonder about that because I think, how can you be a vexatious litigant in a case that’s been closed? So I’m doing a little research on it, but I’m trying to get you to understand: I’m not your enemy.” “I can’t do anything on any of the motions you filed before this court in this case.” “You can unmute, Mr. Allen.”

VIOLATION SUMMARY (Minute 04:00 – 04:59)

1. False Claims of Lack of Jurisdiction Over Ministerial Acts Judge Lunnen states multiple times that he cannot act, rule, serve, or issue orders, but this is a misrepresentation. He had an administrative obligation to sign the previously agreed upon and stipulated order of dismissal. Refusing to do so violates due process and judicial ethics .

● Statutes Violated:

○ 18 U.S.C. § 242 – Acting under color of law to deprive rights ○ 18 U.S.C. § 1519 – Obstruction by refusal to preserve or finalize court record ○ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Civil rights violation

● Canons Violated:

○ Canon 1 – Failing to uphold the judiciary’s independence
○ Canon 2A – Appearance of bias or impropriety
○ Canon 3B(6) – Denial of fair hearing or forum

● Case Law:

○ Pulliam v. Allen , 466 U.S. 522 (1984) – Judges may be subject to injunctive relief for constitutional violations

○ Ex parte Young , 209 U.S. 123 (1908) – No immunity where judge refuses to follow law ○ Morrissey v. Brewer , 408 U.S. 471 (1972) – Due process mandates meaningful opportunity to respond

2. Retaliation for Protected Filings By threatening to declare Allen a “vexatious litigant” for filing procedural motions to preserve misconduct evidence, Judge Lunnen retaliates against protected activity. This is viewpoint discrimination and chilling of legal redress , especially harmful when directed toward a pro se litigant. ● Case Law: ○ White v. Lee , 227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000) – Retaliation for protected expression violates First Amendment

○ Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez , 531 U.S. 533 (2001) – Suppression of government criticism in court is unconstitutional

MINUTE 05:00 – 05:59

MARK ALLEN – Timecode 05:10 “Your honor, you have not signed the dismissal from September of 2024, and I’m just merely trying to preserve the record for a DOJ federal investigation. So this has been elevated to the DOJ. It landed on Pam Bondi’s desk yesterday. My congressman’s watching it. If you don’t allow the preservation of records, where’s the chain of command on the Zoom recording screens?”

JUDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 05:35 “There’s no record to be laid in a closed case. And so I’m not gonna be—”

MARK ALLEN – Timecode 05:38 “I’m asking for preservation of the record so that it can be—”

JUDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 05:40 “I’m not allowing you to preserve a record on a case that’s closed. I’m denying that request. Now if you wanna raise that with the Attorney General’s Office of the United States, you’re welcome to do that.”

MARK ALLEN – Timecode 05:53 “I believe that’s a 18 USC 242 violation. Correct? And a 1519 violation. You’re aware of that?”

JUDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 05:58 “Mr. Allen, I’m not responding to that, and it’s an invalid question based on what we’re doing today. And so, Mr. Peterson, is there anything else I can add before we close this hearing?”

VIOLATIONS (Minute 05:00 – 05:59)

1. Denial of Record Preservation in DOJ Investigation Context Allen explicitly referenced a Department of Justice investigation and attempted to preserve the record in support of it. Judge Lunnen’s refusal to allow that preservation—especially of a Zoom-based proceeding—is a textbook violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519 , which criminalizes knowingly obstructing or concealing records relevant to a federal inquiry.

○ Statutes Violated: ■ 18 U.S.C. § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records ■ 18 U.S.C. § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law ■ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Civil rights deprivation

○ Canons Violated: ■ Canon 1 – Failing to uphold the judiciary’s integrity ■ Canon 2A – Conduct undermining confidence in the judiciary ■ Canon 3B(6) – Denial of the right to be heard

○ Case Law: ■ Gideon v. Wainwright , 372 U.S. 335 (1963) – Due process mandates equal access to the courts ■ Hamdi v. Rumsfeld , 542 U.S. 507 (2004) – Litigants must have an opportunity to contest government authority ■ Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. , 556 U.S. 868 (2009) – A judge must recuse or refrain from action where impartiality is questioned ■ Pulliam v. Allen , 466 U.S. 522 (1984) – Judges are not immune from declaratory or injunctive relief for constitutional violations

2. Suppression of Lawful Objection & Threats Lunnen’s refusal to address Allen’s reference to criminal violations under federal law (18 U.S.C. §§ 242, 1519) , and the dismissive comment that it was an “invalid question,” ignores judicial duties of acknowledgment when pro se litigants raise substantial constitutional objections.

This was not only an ethical violation but retaliatory suppression in a federally-relevant proceeding.

Legal Summary of Violations Covering Minute 05:00–05:59: ● Violation: Allen’s reference to an active DOJ investigation and attempt to preserve court records triggers protection under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (obstruction of a federal record). Judge Lunnen’s refusal constitutes direct interference with a federal process. Additionally, dismissing a pro se litigant’s question about criminal statutes as “invalid” violates due process and creates an appearance of retaliation.

● Statutes Violated: 18 U.S.C. §§ 242, 1519; 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ● Canons Violated: Canon 1, Canon 2A, Canon 3B(6) ● Case Law: Gideon v. Wainwright , 372 U.S. 335 (1963); Hamdi v. Rumsfeld , 542 U.S. 507 (2004); Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. , 556 U.S. 868 (2009); Pulliam v. Allen , 466 U.S. 522 (1984); White v. Lee , 227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000); Bounds v. Smith , 430 U.S. 817 (1977)

JUDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 05:58 “Mr. Allen, I’m not responding to that, and it’s an invalid question based on what we’re doing today. And so, Mr. Peterson, is there anything else I can add before we close this hearing?”

STATE PROSECUTOR CRAIG PETERSON – Timecode 06:06 “No, Your Honor.”

MARK ALLEN – Timecode 06:08 “This was a status hearing.”

JUDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 06:10 “I said it because I wanted to explain in person because you have—”

MARK ALLEN – Timecode 06:14 “You have not signed my order from September of 2024, Your Honor.”

JUDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 06:17 “And I’m not going to sign it.”

MARK ALLEN – Timecode 06:20 “Then how—”

JUDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 06:22 “This case is closed.”

MARK ALLEN – Timecode 06:24 “It can’t be closed without administrative judicial signature of my order. You told me we this was a contract. You made a contract with me. You prepare the order. I’ll sign it.”

JUDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 06:30 “I did no such thing. And we’re gonna close it to you.”

JUDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 06:34 “You understand it. Shawn, would you mute—mute Mr. Allen… this hearing today.”

JUDGE LUNNEN – Timecode 06:54 “Thank you for appearing. This hearing will be concluded.”

STATE PROSECUTOR CRAIG PETERSON – Timecode 06:57 “Thank you, Your Honor.”

Legal Summary of Violations Covering Minute 06:00–06:59:

● Violation: Judge Lunnen’s refusal to sign the order already stipulated in September 2024 violates the principle of finality and due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. His statement “I’m not going to sign it” is a willful refusal to complete a ministerial duty. This, along with his repeated false claims that the case is “closed,” contradicts the administrative status of the record and obstructs judicial transparency.

● Retaliation: Ordering Mr. Allen muted during a legal objection and denying his statement constitutes suppression of protected speech and retaliation under color of law.

● Statutes Violated:

18 U.S.C. §§ 242, 1519; 42 U.S.C. § 1983

● Canons Violated: Canon 1, Canon 2A, Canon 3B(6)

● Case Law:

Ex parte Young , 209 U.S. 123 (1908);
Pulliam v. Allen , 466 U.S. 522 (1984);
Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez 531 U.S. 533 (2001);
White v. Lee , 227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000);
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld , 542 U.S. 507 (2004);
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. , 556 U.S. 868 (2009)

---

Allen has had 3 cases dismissed, now Judge Lunnen and Graf have abused authority they said they did not have as the case was dismissed with prejudice, but Graf and Lunnen clawed back authority they did not have to punish for Allen seeking records to be preseved and audited by the DOJ, OIG, FBI Civil Rights Division.

Reward of $500 if anyone can obtain copies of the August 1 2019 court webex footage case 191400132 Provo 4th District Court or case 211401656 Public Records August 17, 2022, September 20th 2024, or May 1 2025 webex videos of case 211401656.
They hide evidence that implicates federal VOCA funding fraud in excess of $500,000 over three years, but prosec ution to make payroll persisted for 6 years. Now that they have been caught, they are 18 UC 4, 241, 242, 666, 1510, 1512, 1519 and maybe even Honest Services Fraud culpable, a jury trial for the court itself is needed by federal authorities.
Allen has survived three fraudulent prosecutions, he was the commodity to make payroll. Now it’s time for the real criminals to face a jury trial and the ghost accusers to be identified.

---

Supporting documents

9-12-2024 Filed- Motion for Writ of Mandamus

211401656 All transcripts numbered April 25 2025

JCC Filing MAY 1 2025 HEARING TRANSCRIPT WITH NOTATIONS – Google Docs

May 16th 2025 Motion to Preserve Record,

Recuaal, Posted May 21st 2025

Motion for Writ of Mandamus 160400655 May 22nd 2025

First error to be fixed Exhibit A, B XChange and CORIS Judgement Index Faulty.jpg

Diane Cruz – No Protective Order referenced by Kennard

Exhibit C Proposed Order for Ministerial Corrections and Reporting Order

EXHIBIT C1, Jeopardy Violations, Federal VOCA Funding EXHIBIT (64)

Click below for full evidence of backdating and docket tampering by ghost clerk or judge

Docket Tampering 211401656 August 6th 2025 page 1 of 8.jpg

 

 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1w_RS2glV9nTCjf6iDl8mpewoDTFEkZoS?usp=sharing

 

AUDIO RECORDING ERASED BY COURT IT, COVERED UP BY CLERKS

Recordng erased B2B EXHIBIT 5 FOURTH DISTRICT COURT NO RECORDING

 

 

JUDGE TONY GRAF

 

PRESS RELEASE

Is Judge Tony Graf’s Handling of a Rule 83 Motion Compatible With His Role in the High-Profile Tyler Robinson Trial?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Provo, Utah — As the Tyler Robinson murder trial proceeds under the direction of Fourth District Court Judge Tony Graf, significant questions are emerging about judicial transparency, due-process safeguards, and whether the public can expect a fair and impartial proceeding.

Judge Graf—who previously served as a prosecutor under David Leavitt and Jeff Gray before his 2025 appointment—recently advanced a Rule 83 “vexatious-litigant” motion in a separate matter involving a citizen seeking certified public records.

The central question now facing the public is straightforward:

Can a judge who appears to file, advance, and rule on his own Rule 83 motion—while presenting it as if the State of Utah were the movant—be trusted to conduct a fair and unbiased trial in one of Utah’s most closely watched homicide cases?

This situation raises broader questions essential to public confidence:

---

Key Concerns for Public Review

1. Transparency & Public Access

If a citizen seeking public records can be branded as “vexatious,”
what does this mean for members of the public, victims’ families, reporters, and observers seeking transparency in the Robinson trial?

2. Judicial Impartiality

When a judge appears to:

• originate a motion,

• label a citizen as vexatious for requesting records, and

• rule on the same motion—

does this align with the Utah Code of Judicial Conduct and constitutional guarantees of due process?

3. Courtroom Cameras & Public Trust

Given these concerns, should cameras remain in the courtroom so that the public can independently verify the fairness of the proceedings?

If transparency is ever essential, it is in a homicide case involving national media attention.

4. Recusal & Oversight

In light of these unresolved questions, should Judge Graf recuse himself from the Tyler Robinson case until a formal review is completed?

Furthermore, should the Utah Judicial Conduct Commission (JCC) examine:

• whether Rule 83 was properly invoked,

• whether the State of Utah was correctly listed as the movant, and

• whether judicial neutrality was maintained?

---

The Larger Issue: Public Records and Integrity

The matter began with a citizen requesting:

• certified court records,

• WebEx hearing videos,

• and VOCA-fund-related documentation.

Instead of receiving the records, the requester was designated as “vexatious.”

This leads to the core public question:

If requesting public records can result in being labeled vexatious, is Utah’s judicial system functioning as a guardian of transparency—or as a gatekeeper against it?

---

Call for Action

In the interest of public confidence, the following steps are respectfully requested:

1. Cameras must remain in the courtroom

Utahns deserve to see the proceedings firsthand, without restrictions.

2. Judge Graf should recuse himself pending review

This preserves the appearance—and reality—of impartial justice.

3. The Utah Judicial Conduct Commission should open an investigation

A review is needed into:

• the Rule 83 filing process,

• docket handling,

• presentation of the movant,

• and compliance with judicial canons.

4. The Administrative Office of the Courts should review internal processes

To ensure no citizen faces retaliation for requesting public records.

---

A Question for the Public and the Media

If a new judge judge ( Tony Graf Jr. ) can brand an indigent citizen as vexatious for requesting webex public court records September 20th 2024 and May 1 2025 case 211401656, how can the public be assured that he will protect constitutional rights in a politically charged murder trial in the Tyler Robinson, Charlie Kirk case? In the autors view Judge Graf needs to be thoroughly investigated for his participating in the retaliation initiated by Judge Lunnen and clerks who inverted honest records requests, failed to respond and when asked multiple times to preserve records, for preservation subpoenas, the judges inverted the law to hide the records which include federal funding drawdowns without justification, to make payroll for the participants, and the judges have failed to report, the funding recipients failed to report and the court has attacked the whistleblower of the VOCA fraud. 

The people of Utah deserve answers. Judge Graf wore all the hats and clawed back jurisdiction which was absent, this goes against so many judicial canons and the U.S. Constitution. He should be put on administrative leave and reported to JCC.

Below is how the U.S. Constitution works. Judge Graf bypassed a hearing, acted without authority,and has continued the efforts to prevent public webex court videos from being released to the public as they would demonstrate how far off the tracks the judicial industrical complex is in Provo Utah and the 4th District Court and how the State of Utah Attorney General Office has knowledge and has failed to self report the misuse of federal VOCA funding.

IN UTAH – ALL PROVO CITY OFFICIALS ARE ON NOTICE, ALL UTAH COUNTY ATTORNEY PARTIES HAVE KNOWLEDGE AND THE FORMER AND PRESENT UTAH COUNTY ATTORNEYS DAVID LEAVITT AND JEFF GRAY RESPECTFULLY AND ALL UTAH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMELIA POWER GARDNER, SKYLER BELTRAN, BRANDON GORDON- HAVE OBLIGATION TO AMEND THE DATE ERRORS IN THE KENNARD ANALYSIS AND HAVE NOT DONE SUCH. ALL UTAH STATE SENATORS AND LEGISLATORS HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE WRONGDOING OF DAVID LEAVITT AND OTHER PROSECUTORS AND HAVE 18 U.S.C. 4 LAW TO FOLLOW, MANDATORY REPORTING AND 18 U.S.C. 666 REPORTING OBLIGATIONS AND MORE.  UTH ATTORNEY GENERAL DEREK BROWN HAS AN OBLIGATION TO REPORT TO THE OIG, DOJ, FBI CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION.

Diane Cruz – No Protective Order referenced by Kennard

Daniel Burton Records Deleted Prematurely?

Below are some documents filed via my court handler. The clerks for reasaons unknown clumped all filings into an omnibus filing- making it look poorly performed.

VOCA ledgers and drawdowns ignoring lack of jurisdiction and Court Petitions and Motions to preserve records, inverted by the Court for their failure to produce records which should only require one ask.

Any news outlet is challenged to obtain the Webex Court hearings 211401656 Provo 4th Distritc Court, Provo Utah via public records request – they will block you. Case dates 9-20-2024 and 5-1-2025. Those very records implicate multiple judges, prosecutors and clerks.

CONSOLIDATED RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO RULE 83 MOTION; – Google Docs

EXHIBIT A – Detailed RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO RULE 83 MOTION; MOTION TO STRIKE (212 pages)

EXHIBIT B Attorney Oath- Tony F. Graf, Jr. (1)

(PROPOSED) Ruling and Order to Dismiss with Prejudice Court Rulings and by Stipulation of the Parties [Remains unsigned and denied by Lunnen and covered up by Graf) 9-20-2024 Contracted with Judge. No Judicial Immunity for Contract Law Violations, his triggered retaliation by Lunnen who intiated Rule 83 Motion, then Judge Tony Graf acted as movant. State of Utah did not respond as they had no standing. Judge Graf committed fraud by misrepreenting that the State was a party to the Rule 83 Motion. See Docket for more information. Some files are too large to upload here.

EXHIBIT C WAS WITHHELD FROM BEING FILED IN COURT DOCKET BY THE JUDGE, THAT IS LIKELY NOT LEGAL. CLERK ALSO PUT THINGS OUT OF ORDER AND FAILED TO INCLUDE THE NOTICE TO SUBMIT FOR DECISION, LEAVING MY FILING HANGING. FORENSIC COMPUTER AUDIT REQUIRED.
(https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/10wRPE64H9xFgVXHzCDbtS1yB78hssnR_?usp=sharing)

EXHIBIT D-1 UCVLC 2018-2019 Billing Ledger (21)

EXHIBIT D-2 UCVLC 2019-2020 Billing Ledger (70)

EXHIBIT D-3 UCVLC 2020-2021 Billing Ledger (57)

EXHIBIT D-4 UCVLC 2021-2022 Billing Ledger (17)

Exhibit D-5 Fox Utah County Attorney 2021-2022 Billing Ledger (10)

Exhibit D-6 Fox CCJJ 2024-2025 Billing Ledger (11)

EXHIBIT E PROPOSED ORDER REQUIRING CERTIFICATION OF RECORDS & ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE – Google Docs

EXHIBIT F PETITION & MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATED NOTICE TO SUBMIT FOR DECISION

EXHIBIT F PETITION & MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATED NOTICE TO SUBMIT FOR DECISION

Timecard of Bethany Warr earning VOCA funding without State having jurisdiction since 8-4-2016

Timecards of Lorie Hobbs and Katie Fox absent.
Application for VOCA funding absent.
Ghost Court document (requested)
Zoom Screening 191400132 Hidden by Utah County Attorney
Zoom Screening 211401656 Hidden by Utah County Attorney and State Attorney General Office

25-149 Allen Records for Production Redacted

 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/tonygraf/

 

States witness under oath Aug 1, 2019 Perjury? You Decide
https://youtu.be/uaudo3KoBtQ

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QsmUZELndzq8lZopV9o5ZB4fvqdYiqR4/view?usp=sharing

What the Court failed to rule on

EXHIBIT C PROPOSED ORDER ON MINISTERIAL OBLIGATIONS, VOCA FUNDING

What filing contributed to being unconstitutionally branded by Judge Tony Graf of Utah 4th district Court Vexatious and  unconstitutionally Trespassed by head of security for Utah Courts Chris Palmer?

 

The statements and observations in this affidavit reflect my own experience and perspective based on events and records as I understand them. They are presented as opinion and interpretation of those events and not as adjudicated findings of fact. I acknowledge that all individuals named herein are presumed innocent and entitled to all constitutional and legal protections, including the right to a fair trial before a jury of their peers. In order to fully understand the decision-making, actions, and knowledge of the parties involved, it is appropriate that each individual be deposed under oath to clarify what they knew, when they knew it, and why exculpatory evidence—including the Kennard memorandum, admissions concerning the non-existence of a valid injunction, and any information relating to VOCA funding—was not disclosed to the defense, the courts, or other oversight bodies at the time it existed.

Affidavit of Mark Stewart Allen Re: Systemic Civil Rights Violations and Prosecutorial, Judicial, and Law Enforcement Misconduct

STATE OF UTAH
COUNTY OF UTAH

I, Mark Stewart Allen, being duly sworn, depose and state as follows:

1. Background: I am a resident of Utah and the named defendant in a series of criminal cases arising from alleged violations of a protective order and stalking injunction that, according to the official court record and subsequent analysis, never legally existed. These cases include 160400655, 171402280, 191400132, and 211401656.
2. Summary: The misconduct I have endured spans nearly a decade and implicates more than thirty officials across all branches of Utah’s justice system. These actors either knowingly or recklessly deprived me of my constitutional rights, pursued prosecutions based on non-existent legal orders, and withheld exculpatory evidence.
3. Brady Evidence Timeline: On January 15, 2019, Utah County Deputy Attorney Randy Kennard produced a legal memorandum confirming that the ex parte stalking injunction filed against me in 2016 was never finalized and did not meet statutory requirements. From that date through April 19, 2025, prosecutors and law enforcement officers withheld this exculpatory Brady evidence, resulting in 2,286 days of continued constitutional violations.

Bad Actors and Roles

Prosecutors:

• Lance Bastian: Repeatedly escalated charges against me without jurisdiction. Withheld Brady evidence. Appeared in media interviews implying guilt. Known to be an adversary of David Leavitt and filed a successful motion to disqualify Leavitt in another high-profile case. Participated in retaliatory prosecution.
• David Leavitt: Utah County Attorney. Oversaw and directed retaliatory filings. Knew of Brady evidence and failed to act. Encouraged use of media to discredit me. Was secretly recorded saying he would “screw Allen”, “I will inflict my own form of justice on Allen”, “I will show him who has the bigger dog in the fight”, and encourages even after confession by Koehler of a faulty / non existent stalking injunction for Koehler to cyberstalk Allen’s social media posts and to call him if she sees anything that concerns her.
• Albert Pranno: Failed to file any paperwork after arranging a settlement on Aug 4, 2016. Concealed recordings. Delivered audio evidence to prosecutors while hiding it from defense counsel and the courts. Withheld evidence from Judges Brady, Taylor, and the Court of Appeals- Judge Hagen, Judge Mortensen, Judge Ryan. As a small claims judge, the Judicial Conduct Commission has failed to sanction and should be audited by the federal DOJ agency.
• Amy Pomeroy, Adam Pomeroy, Carl Hollan, Christine Scott, Lauren Hunt, Sandi Johnson, Marianne O’Bryant, Chad Grunander, Randy Kennard, Bethany Warr: Appeared in court on multiple dates post-Kennard memo. All knew or should have known of the faulty injunction and withheld the Brady evidence. Some participated in stacking charges. All should have been aware of the Federal VOCA funding and drawdowns. All of these individuals should be deposed. 

Craig Peterson: Attorney with the Utah Attorney General’s Office. Took no action to correct Brady suppression despite full access to the Kennard memo. Failed to intervene or investigate repeated due process violations. As of April 2025, has withheld Brady material for approximately 1,735 days. Filed for a ‘status hearing’ scheduled for May 1, 2025, despite lacking standing—having already stated in court, ‘I am out.’ The case had been dismissed with prejudice, and he had no legal authority to act further. Peterson admitted in court that Case 191400132 and Case 211401656 were exact duplicates, affirming the due process violation. He has failed to report prosecutorial misconduct by David Leavitt, others, or himself. His actions appear calculated to delay accountability and to pressure the court into sealing misconduct evidence via premature expungement.

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983, §1986
• 18 USC §242

Possible State Violations:

• Utah Code §§ 76-8-306, 76-8-508.3

Possible ABA Ethical Violations:

• Rules 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 8.4

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments

Judges:

• Judge Jennifer Brown: Presided over Case 171402280, failing to identify that a related case had settled with no valid injunction.
• Judge James Brady: Held Order to Show Cause hearing in 2019 despite lack of jurisdiction. Judge Brady further ordered me to personally contact Alicia Koehler, citing that she had not received proper notice. At the time, Ms. Koehler was represented by Attorney Albert Pranno, who had never withdrawn as counsel in Case 160400655, making this directive inappropriate and procedurally improper. Ignored court docket entry of case being settled on August 4, 2016.
• Judge James Taylor: Oversaw 191400132 while multiple prosecutors appeared and withheld Brady evidence. Allowed Leavitt to toll the case despite constitutional concerns.
• Judge Robert Lunnen: As of April 19, 2025, Judge Lunnen has not signed the order of dismissal, despite the State having stipulated to dismissal with prejudice in open court. Although his role is now limited to administrative duties, he has permitted State Prosecutor Craig Peterson to schedule a status hearing—even after Peterson expressly stated in court, ‘I am out.’ This scheduling is procedurally improper, as the State has lost standing and the case has been dismissed. I, Mark Allen, do not want the expungement certificate processed at this time, as a federal investigation into the case is needed. Judge Lunnen and State Prosecutor Craig Peterson would benefit politically and legally from sealing the evidence of prosecutorial misconduct through premature expungement. The court’s continued allowance of State participation in a closed case undermines constitutional finality and exposes additional due process violations. Claimed “I know nothing about this case” despite presiding over 8 hearings.

Provo Prosecutors and Police:

• Stephen Schreiner & Roger Griffiths: Prosecuted me (Allen) in 171402280 knowing that no valid order existed.
• Captain Todd Grossgebauer: Named by Alicia Koehler in connection to her attempts to manipulate law enforcement. Oversaw reports filed using invalid orders.
• Officers Rhett Malmgren, James Kent, Josh Jennings, Julian Jackson: Filed false police reports claiming I had violated a protective order that was never issued. Jennings had personal ties to Koehler, and Jackson was recorded on bodycam being influenced by her statements and her connections to Provo Police Captain Todd Grossgaubauer.

Civil Attorney for Witness:

• Lorie Hobbs: Filed an ex parte motion to seal impeachment evidence on behalf of Alicia Koehler, which was granted by Judge Brady the same day without my knowledge.

State Officials:

• Daniel Burton (Governor’s Attorney): Claimed through GRAMA that records related to my prosecution had been expunged and no longer existed. This was knowingly false and obstructed preservation efforts.

Screening Prosecutors for Utah County:

Role Detail: Members of the prosecutorial screening team responsible for reviewing allegations, verifying legal foundation of filings, and ensuring constitutional compliance prior to prosecution.

Named Individuals:

• Dale Eyre
• Rhonda Gividen
• Barbara Finlinson
• Russell Smith
• Jared Quist
• Lauren DeMarco

Timeline of Misconduct:

• These individuals were collectively or individually responsible for reviewing filings related to Case No. 211401656, which was filed in direct contradiction to the record of Case No. 191400132—a matter already dismissed with prejudice.
• They had access to or were made aware of the Randy Kennard legal analysis dated January 15, 2019, which confirmed that:
  • No permanent stalking injunction was ever issued
  • No protective order ever existed
  • The court had no lawful jurisdiction to proceed
• Despite this, they failed to prevent the filing of a duplicate felony case based on a non-existent order.
• Specifically, Rhonda Gividen, acting under the screening authority of the State, is believed to have directly authorized the refiling of Case No. 211401656 based on this legally defective foundation.

Failure to Report or Investigate:

• None of these prosecutors alerted the court, defense, or bar authorities of the underlying legal flaws.
• None disclosed that the protective order referenced by police and prosecutors was not lawful or court-issued.
• They failed to intervene or halt unlawful prosecutions despite having both affirmative knowledge and constitutional responsibility to prevent color of law abuses.

Possible Cooperation Opportunity:

• These individuals may have acted under direction from David Leavitt, the former Utah County Attorney.
• If subpoenaed and deposed under federal authority, their testimony could help expose systemic misconduct.
• Prosecutors acting under command authority from a superior may be eligible for reduced personal sanctions if they cooperate in identifying those who engineered or ordered the unlawful prosecutions.

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Civil rights deprivation
• 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2)-(3) – Conspiracy to obstruct justice
• 42 U.S.C. § 1986 – Failure to prevent harm
• 18 U.S.C. § 242 – Criminal deprivation of rights
• 18 U.S.C. § 1512 – Obstruction of justice

Possible State Violations:

• Utah Code § 76-8-306 – Obstruction of justice
• Utah Code § 76-8-508.3 – Retaliation against a party
• Utah Code § 76-6-521 – Wrongful lien or misrepresentation

Possible ABA Ethical Violations:

• Rule 1.1 – Competence
• Rule 1.3 – Diligence
• Rule 3.1 – Meritorious claims and contentions
• Rule 3.8 – Special responsibilities of a prosecutor
• Rule 8.3 – Duty to report
• Rule 8.4 – Misconduct

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 1st Amendment – Retaliation for protected speech
• 4th Amendment – Seizure without legal process
• 5th Amendment – Due process denial
• 6th Amendment – Right to fair trial
• 14th Amendment – Equal protection violation

Requested Federal Action I respectfully request that the U.S. Department of Justice and the Civil Rights Division investigate each named individual above under the following federal statutes:

• 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Civil Rights Violations
• 42 U.S.C. § 1985 – Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice
• 42 U.S.C. § 1986 – Failure to Prevent Harm
• 18 U.S.C. § 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
• 18 U.S.C. § 1512 – Obstruction of Justice
• Bivens doctrine – For damages against federal officials acting outside the bounds of lawful authority

I further request emergency subpoenas be issued to:

• Zoom Inc. – To preserve meeting recordings for screening decisions in Case Nos. 191400132 and 211401656.
• Utah County Attorney’s Office & Governor’s Office – To preserve all case work product, communication, and internal notes.
• All involved Judges’ Chambers – To retain drafts, communications, and notes related to my hearings.

I affirm under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Some evidence has been withheld as of this date by Provo City, Provo Police, Utah County Attorney Office and the State of Utah Attorney General Office which could at a later date provide more clarity and identity who had knowledge and who acted wilfully. That information should be federally subpoenaed.

DATED this ________** day of April, 2025.**

s/Mark Stewart Allen
Affiant

Subscribed and sworn before me on this ___ day of April, 2025.

Notary Public
My Commission Expires: __________

 

Participants in lawfare against Allen.

 

1. Attorney for Ms. Koehler -Albert Pranno 160400655, 160400655 OSC, 20190395-CA
2. Attorney for Allen -Wesley Hutchins 160400655
3. Provo City Prosecuting Attorney Stephen Schreiner (Report 17PR17168 Case 171402280)
4. Provo City Prosecuting Attorney Roger Griffiths  (Report 17PR17168 Case 171402280)
5. Provo Police Officer Rhett Malmgren  (Report 17PR17168 Case 171402280)
6. Provo Police Officer James Kent  (Report 17PR17168 Case 171402280)
7. Provo Police Captain Todd Grossgebauer Case  (Report 17PR17168. 18PR32810 Case 171402280)
8. Provo Police Officer Josh Jennings (Report 15PR15168) 
9. Provo Officer Julian Jackson (Report 18PR32810 Case 191400132, 211401656)

 

1. Utah County Attorney David Leavitt Case 191400132, (10-15-2020) Had faulty and duplicated Case 211401656 refiled in retaliation against Allen in response to Allen informing the court of the ethical violations and systemic corruption under Leavitt’s leadership beginning Jan 2, 2019 throughout his tenure.
2. Utah County Attorney Randy Kennard Case 191400132
3. Utah County Attorney Amy Pomeroy Case 191400132 (December 19, 2019 Appearance, 3-12-2020 Appearance, August 13, 2020, September 17, 2020)
4. Utah County Attorney Lance Bastian Case 191400132 (4-30-2019 Amended False charges, 5-16-2019 Appearance. 9-5-2019 Appearance)
5. Utah County Attorney Carl Hollan Case 191400132 (4-18-2019 Appearance)
6. Utah County Attorney Christine Scott Case 191400132 (6-13-2019 Appearance, 8-1-2019 States Witness Lying under Oath)
7. Utah County Attorney Marianne O’ Bryant Case 191400132 (9-10-2020 Appearance)
8. Utah County Attorney Lauren Hunt Case 191400132 (10-3-2019 Appearance)
9. Utah County Attorney Chad Grunander Case 191400132 (9-21-2021 Appearance)
10. Utah County Attorney Sandi Johnson Case 191400132 10-14-2021 Appearance, 11-10-2021, 12-02-2021- 5-17-2022. 5-20-2023)
11. Attorney Lorie Hobbs on behalf of State’s witness, obstruction of justice, sealing impeachment evidence, granted immediately (same day) without notification to Allen by Judge Brady (Due Process Violation) Case 191400132
12. State of Utah Attorney General Office Bethany Warr  (May 20, 2023 Case 191400132, October 6, 2023 Withdrawal of Counsel for Koehler (State’s impeached witness)
13. State of Utah Attorney General Office Craig Peterson  Case 191400132 (September 15, 2023, October 15th 2023, October 31, 2023 All charges disposed. Motion to consolidate 191400132 and 211401656. November 6th, 2023 Double Jeopardy Admission
14. Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray notifications of  Case 191400132 and 2114016565 being double jeopardy. Failure to report his predecessor  David Leavitt
15. Judge Fred Howard 160400655 temporary ex-parte injunction issued, faulty after Aug 4, 2016.Attorney Lance Bastian had clerked for Fred Howard, and believed to have worked closely with Koehler via DCFS.
16. Judge Jennifer Brown Case 171402280 failed to identify the case160400655 had settled Aug 4th 2016.
    
    (Exculpatory Brady Evidence withheld from Judge Brown by Koehler, Provo PD, Provo Prosecutor Schriener and Griffith, Attorney Pranno. The  prior weaponized case by Koehler had settled Aug 4th 2016. Allen was told the case had been dismissed. Allen was relieved as he did not want to produce the evidence which would destroy Koehler and make her a target for her ex-husband, their marriage had a history of DV from both parties.
    
    Attorney Pranno, Ms. Koehler and others failed to inform the Court that  No Permanent Stalking injunction had ever been issued, No Protective Order had ever existed or ever been issued.
    
    The Court had NO JURISDICTION YET PROCEEDED! Police Reports 17PR17168 fraudulently reported Allen to have violated a Permanent Protective Order. Police Officers involved had close connections to Ms. Koehler (accuser). Koehler  worked within the 4th District Court and with Provo Police and with Utah County Prosecutors in her DCFS role, removing children from homes. Koehler’s own household was filled with DV and hypocrisy she was trying to hide. The Prosecution would proceed regardless. Koehler had insiders within all layers of prosecution. The deck was stacked against Allen and against Justice.
    
    Bottom line- No Stalking injunction ever issued, No Protective Order ever existed, Prosecution would proceed regardless, No Court ever issued a Permanent Stalking Injunction, No Court ever issued Protective Order.
17. Judge James Brady* 160400655 Order to Show Cause (2019) The Court had no Jurisdiction after Aug 4th 2016 Case 160400655 “Case Settled / Dismissed”.
    
    (Brady Evidence withheld from Judge by Attorney Pranno, Judge Brady failed to identify case had settled Aug 4th 2016, Court had no jurisdiction! Court Clerk Official Record missing entry of “Case Settled” Court Docket Entry August 4, 2016 “Case Settled” Notation. Court IT Department erased “settlement recording” Attorney Pranno violated Stipulation he would memorialize the “agreement”.
    
    (Exculpatory Brady Evidence withheld from Judge by Koehler, Provo PD, Provo Prosecutor, Attorney Pranno, ie prior case had settled Aug 4th 2016, No Permanent Stalking injunction had ever been issued, No Protective Order had ever existed or ever been issued. The Court had NO JURISDICTION YET PROCEEDED! Police Reports 17PR17168 fraudulently reported Allen to have violated a Permanent Protective Order. Police Officers involved had close connections to Ms. Koehler (accuser). She worked within the 4th District Court and with Provo Police and with Utah County Prosecutors in her DCFS role, removing children from homes. Koehler’s own household was filled with DV and hypocrisy she was trying to hide. The Prosecution would proceed regardless. Koehler had insiders within all layers of prosecution. The deck was stacked against Allen and against Justice.
    
    Bottom line- No Stalking injunction ever issued, No Protective Order ever existed, Prosecution would proceed regardless, No Court ever issued a Permanent Stalking Injunction, No Court ever issued Protective Order.

 

1. Judge James Taylor* Felony Case 191400132
   (Exculpatory Brady Evidence withheld from Judge Taylor by Alicia Koehler, Provo PD, Provo Prosecutors, Attorney Pranno for Ms. Koehler. Utah County Attorney David Leavitt, Utah County Prosecutors Lance Bastian, Carl Hollan, Adam Pomeroy, Amy Pomeroy, Christine Scott, Lauren Hunt, Marianne O’ Bryant, Sandi Johnson, Bethany Warr, Chad Grunanderm, Randy Kennard,
   
   The first weaponized case had settled Aug 4th 2016, No Permanent Stalking injunction had ever been issued, No Protective Order had ever existed or ever been issued. The Court had NO JURISDICTION YET PROCEEDED! Police Reports 17PR17168 fraudulently reported Allen to have violated a Permanent Protective Order. Police Officers involved had close connections to Ms. Koehler (accuser). She worked within the 4th District Court and with Provo Police and with Utah County Prosecutors in her DCFS role, removing children from homes. Koehler’s own household was filled with DV and hypocrisy she was trying to hide. The Prosecution would proceed regardless. Koehler had insiders within all layers of prosecution. The deck was stacked against Allen and against Justice. Judge Taylor allowed Oct 15th 202 David Leavitt to “toll” the case yet question if it was constitutional.
2. Judge Lunnen would rule in Allen’s favor that filing a document with the Court did not violate the 191400132 settlement as it was protected speech. Judge Lunnen would rule that case 211401656 should be dismissed with prejudice. Judge Lunnen does not like the transcript of the Sept 20th 2024 hearing in which he says “I know nothing about this case” which he had presided over for 8 hearings spanning 3 years. These statements might be considered ethical violations for Rule 1.1   Competence, Rule 1.3, Diligence, Rule 3.1,  Meritorious Claims and Contentions, Rule 8.3  Reporting Professional Misconduct, Rule 8.4 Misconduct (reference Court docket 211401656 and transcripts. Judge Lunnen as of April 2025 has failed to uphold contract law by refusing to sign the order of dismissal with prejudice as the transcript implicates the system and himself for due process violations. The hearing Sept 20th 2024, recognized a double jeopardy violation, but used other words to describe the due process violation.
3. Utah Attorney Daniel Burton, indicated via GRAMA request from Allen that case 211401656 has been expunged and all work product and or evidence no longer exists. This is false. A Federal Subpoena to preserve all work product, case histories for 191400132, 211401656, and to Zoom Inc, are needed to preserve the screening team meetings in both cases to identify who had knowledge that the Injunctions were faulty, yet decided to prosecute without court orders. The issuance of federal subpoenas to preserve evidence is URGENT.
   
   Provo City and Provo Police have withheld records.
   Utah County Attorneys office have withheld records.
   State of Utah has now withheld records, all obstructing justice.
   

Others. Katie Fox Victims Advocate, witness to the injunction being faulty, per recording and admission made by Ms. Koehler

Utah Bar Association Sanctions / Known Investigations

A- Attorney Wesley Hutchins (9 Investigations, 50 ethical violations, 36 month suspension), Allen would become the 10th victim of malfeasance and wilful negligence and faulty representation, misrepresentation etc.  (Sanctions Case 180907524 filed 10-18-2018 is on the thumb drive), His failed representation and misrepresentation added fuel to an Unconstitutional prosecution. He had family problems, son on drugs, divorce in process, had provided a handgun to his sons friend he would later come to learn was a felon. His world was crashing down and he harmed 10 citizens by faulty representation.

Hutchins is shown as being back in practice. Allen was not given notice by the Utah Bar that Hutchins was being reinstated. The Utah Office of Professional Conduct needs oversight and an audit.

B- Attorney Albert Pranno (2 known investigations, client death by suicide after Pranno spent clients frozen retirement funds Larry David Sagers. 12 month probation by the Utah Bar Association. Pranno is shown as being back in practice.

The Utah Office of Professional Conduct needs oversight and an audit.

C- Judge Keith Stoney hired in case 171402280 by Allen. Stoney was forced into retirement for lying to the Judicial Conduct Commissionm There were multiple investigations which were settled by his early retirement. The Utah Supreme Court was going to give him a free pass. Utah Supreme Court Sept 28. 2012 Case No 20110862. Th Judicial Conduct Commission sanctioned him. When hired. Keith Stoney misrepresented to Allen he had retired as a judge and would soon be closing down his law firm. He is still practicing as of 2025. Stoney failed to recognize that there was no stalking injunction, that police reports were faulty and that the 160400655 case had settled. His failed representation added fuel to an Unconstitutional prosecution.



The Utah Office of Professional Conduct needs oversight and an audit.

 

D-Former Utah County Prosecutor David Leavitt. 5 Known Utah Bar Complaints per comment Leavitt made on video captured by Adam Bartholomew after the Utah County Attorney Debate at Doterra 2022. Leavitt was sanctioned for statements made in the Jarrod Baum murder trial. Leavitt appeared before Utah Supreme Court to try and quietly get public reprimand into private admonition Feb 28th 2025. Utah Supreme Court Case 2023-1103 (Thumb Drive) This evidence puts the Utah Supreme Court, The Office of Professional Conduct and David Leavitt on trial, will Utah Judges go soft on David Leavitt as he is from a wealthy family, his brother worked in the Cabinet for President Bush. Is David Leavitt above the law? Federal investigation is needed for Color of Law, 18 U.S.C. 242, 42 1983, 1985, 1986 violations to name a few.

The State of Utah AG will not accept a complaint of criminal conduct against Leavitt. Derek Brown, State of Utah AG won’t meet with Allen. Leavitt has tremendous influence. Allen seeks federal crimes whistleblower protections against all named within this document and for a federal prosecutor to investigate the compiled evidence.

News media covered the Supreme Court case event. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Txx7a3EGVw

This demonstrates that David Leavitt has routinely used the court of public opinion as a lawfare tool, intentionally making media statements which have scattered wide and far like a wildfire. David Leavitt would weaponized the news media to vilify Allen in the public square.  Allen had agreed to a 6 month “no comment” period. Leavitt would alter the contract after the fact to beguile staffer Rhonda Gividen to refile new felony charges, Leavitt after the fact added “or filing” in an email to Allen’s attorney saying that Allen’s filing for expungement and court filings voided the 191400132 Settlement Terms, and Leavitt would then weaponize the courts and prosecute Allen for a case he was fully aware was illegal and unconstitutional.

Four Months after Leavitt’s  illegal gag order had expired, Allen would report the unethical conduct of Leavitt and his other prosecutors and Leavitt would retaliate by having Under Color of Law, subordinate Rhonda Gividen refile unconstitutional case 211401656, now after the fact recognized as faulty, First Amendment Violation, Due Process Violation, Civil Rights Violation, and in retaliation as double jeopardy. Leavitt wilfully and with knowledge of faulty injunction and that no protective order existed, attempted to silence Allen for exposing the layers of internal corruption under Leavitt’s leadership. Leavitt had been systematically eliminating attorneys – even merited employees who would not go along with his progressive policies. Exhibits on thumb drive include news articles, radio podcasts, investigative reports for many issues which should have federal scrutiny including adopting a indian child off the reservation in trade for buffalo – these stories are unbelievable, yet documented. The Fraternal Order of Police, Utah County Sheriff, Former Prosecutors all have statements of concerns for how Leavitt influenced the Utah County 4th District Court. Allen was caught in the middle of the chaos and internal coup between Lance Bastian and David Leavitt, both weaponized against Allen and both had their internal peers who wrongly prosecuted Allen with knowledge that no injunction had issued, and that police reports were faulty.  Leavitt was running for re-election and silenced Allen to protect his career.

The Utah Office of Professional Conduct needs oversight and an audit. Leavitt deserving a Federal Grand Jury. Some former prosecutors might be offered whistleblower protection in return for their depositions and testimony as to Leavitt’s unethical conduct, however there are multiple prosecutors who wilfully and with knowledge prosecuted Allen, this appears to have been standard practice and its unknown how many citizens have been harmed by the progressive practices Leavitt put into play in Utah County 4th District Court. Audit requested. 

 

 

1. Albert Pranno

Role Detail: Served as attorney for Alicia Koehler prior to his involvement in prosecuting Allen. Held judicial office as a small claims judge during the relevant period. Institutional Exposure: Though not an employee of the Utah County Attorney’s Office, Pranno’s actions impacted multiple cases under their jurisdiction. Institutional exposure arises in the failure to report his misconduct and in the acceptance and use of Brady material provided selectively. Liability under Monell may extend to the receiving prosecutorial entity if they failed to vet or disclose known misconduct. Individual possible Liability: Willful misconduct under 42 USC §1983 removes qualified immunity; knowingly concealing Brady evidence is not a discretionary function protected by immunity statutes. Role: Private Attorney / Former Counsel to Alicia Koehler; Acted in prosecutorial capacity without employment by Utah County
Timeline of alleged Misconduct:

• Aug 3–4, 2016: Secret deal with defense (Hutchins); no filings made. No settlement reduced to writing. Allen was not privy to the terms of the settlement, and his interests were not represented by Hutchins during the process. Audio recordings confirm that Hutchins did not state or defend Allen’s proposed settlement terms.
• Contract Violation: Pranno failed to uphold the terms of the verbal settlement agreement reached with Hutchins, and failed to file any memorialized version of that settlement with the court. This omission resulted in a faulty prosecution built on misrepresented jurisdictional authority. Pranno had over 30 months to self-report his failure to the Utah Bar and correct the record, but instead allowed the prosecution to proceed, constituting willful misconduct.
• Jan 2019: Provided audio recordings of secret “settlement” to Utah County Prosecutors in Case 191400132 but failed to provide to Allen’s defense team.
• April 2019: Appeared in Order to Show Cause hearing in Case 160400655 and cross-examined Allen while knowing exculpatory evidence was concealed. Did the same in Court of Appeals Case 20190395-CA by withholding known Brady material from Allen’s defense team. Had multiple opportunities in appellate filings to disclose the settlement recordings but chose not to, constituting willful misconduct to disadvantage Allen.
• 2019–2020: Filed multiple documents in Court of Appeals Case 20190395-CA but failed to inform the court of the existence of settlement recordings that would have implicated him and Hutchins.

Sanctions History:

• Sanctioned by Utah Bar for misconduct involving another client’s suicide and frozen asset violations.
• Received 12-month probation.

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983, §1985(2), §1985(3), §1986
• 18 USC §242, §1512(c)(2), §1001
• Fraud Upon the Court

Possible State Violations:

• Utah Code §§ 76-8-306, 76-8-502 to 76-8-504.6, 76-8-508.3

Possible ABA Ethical Violations:

• Rules 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, 8.1, 8.3, 8.4

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments

 

2. Wesley Hutchins

Due Process Failures: Hutchins’ failure to inform Allen of the hearing cancellation, his concealment of active disciplinary investigations, and failure to represent Allen’s terms during the settlement process constitute violations of due process. His ineffective assistance of counsel—by not challenging jurisdiction, not securing discovery, and failing to file objections—compounded Allen’s legal vulnerability. Hutchins also failed to self-report Pranno’s or his own misconduct to the court or bar, reinforcing the deliberate harm.

• Misrepresented to Allen the terms of the settlement, telling Allen the case was dismissed. Hutchins then disappeared and failed to remain available for clarification or representation. During this time, Hutchins was going through a divorce and had 9 ongoing Bar investigations. Allen would become the 10th documented victim of Hutchins’ ethical violations—a pattern of misconduct that Hutchins should have disclosed to Allen and reported to the court.

Institutional Exposure: Potential liability for contract-based malpractice under state and federal law; failure to disclose known conflicts and prior sanctions could implicate supervisory bar oversight. Individual possible Liability: Willful misconduct in breaching contract terms (settlement agreement); not covered by Utah Governmental Immunity Act as contractual and negligent conduct fall outside scope of protected duties. Role: Defense Counsel (160400655)
Timeline of alleged Misconduct:

• Hutchins communicated with Pranno about a potential resolution with Allen’s awareness, but misrepresented the terms of the settlement to Allen, stating the case had been dismissed. In truth, the docket showed the case was marked as “settled” on August 4, 2016. This distinction is crucial, as it undercuts any jurisdiction claimed in subsequent prosecutions based upon the temporary ex-parte order which expired upon the ‘Settlement’ and was not controlling, as Allen had requested a hearing, triggering the application of a different Utah statute—specifically Utah Code § 77-3a-101(6)(b)(iii)—which states that if the respondent requests a hearing within 10 days of service, the ex parte civil stalking injunction does not convert to a permanent order unless continued by the court. Per the analysis provided by Deputy County Attorney Randy Kennard, because Allen timely requested a hearing and Judge Howard did not extend the injunction, it was not valid or controlling. Hutchins failed to memorialize the terms, did not preserve Allen’s instructions, and disappeared following the event.
• Failed to notify Allen of his 9 open OPC investigations at time of hiring.
• Took no action to challenge court’s jurisdiction or secure discovery.
• Sanctioned by Utah Bar for 3 years; Allen not allowed to object to reinstatement.

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983 – Violation of civil rights through ineffective counsel and concealment of material conflicts
• 42 USC §1986 – Failure to prevent known civil rights violations
• 18 USC §242 – Criminal deprivation of rights under color of law
• 18 USC §1346 – Scheme to defraud Allen of honest services (via misrepresentation and concealment)
• 18 USC §1621 – Potential perjury through failure to disclose material conflict or obligations during settlement process

Possible State Violations:

• Utah Code § 76-8-306

Possible ABA Ethical Violations:

• Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 1.9, 1.16, 8.4

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 5th Amendment – Deprivation of due process through failure to ensure Allen was heard or informed
• 6th Amendment – Denial of effective assistance of counsel
• 14th Amendment – Equal protection and due process failures due to nondisclosure and unethical conduct

 

3. Keith Stoney

Role: Defense Counsel (171402280)
Timeline of Misconduct:

• Misled Allen, falsely claiming he retired voluntarily as judge.
• Actually forced to resign following a Judicial Conduct Commission investigation.
• Failed to challenge Brady violations or acknowledge docket showed case as “settled.”

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH

In re: HONORABLE KEITH L. STONEY

No. 20110862

Filed September 28, 2012

Original Proceeding in this Court

https://www.deseret.com/2012/9/17/20506808/controversial-judge-agrees-to-retire-pending-complaints-will-be-dismissed/

September 19, 2012

Utah: Utah Justice Court Judge Keith L. Stoney announced his retirement last Monday after making an agreement with the Utah Judicial Conduct Commission.[1] A group of Saratoga Springs residents have been calling for Judge Stoney’s removal for the past few years, comparing the judge to “Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde” and accusing him of violating civil rights and judicial procedure.[2] Much of the discontent came from 2010 after Judge Stoney jailed Elaine Damron of Saratoga Springs for 24 hours after she was caught recording a portion of a court hearing of her son. Damron argued that Judge Stoney had not given her the right of due process. In August 2012 the Damron’s record was cleared when 4th District Judge Claudia Laycock ruled that Stoney had violated Damron’s due process. Judge Laycock said, “Judge Stoney’s error was egregious and its consequences were severe.”[3]
https://ballotpedia.org/Judge_Stoney_announces_retirement_amid_complaints

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983, §1986

Possible State Violations:

• Utah Code § 76-8-306

Possible ABA Ethical Violations:

• Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 8.4(c)

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 6th Amendment

4. David Leavitt

Role Detail: Utah County Attorney; held supervisory and direct prosecutorial authority over Allen’s matters, including involvement in media statements and internal directives impacting prosecutorial conduct.

Institutional Exposure: State of Utah may face liability under color of law doctrines for Leavitt’s failure to enforce prosecutorial due diligence; Utah County Attorney’s Office liable for continued prosecution under false pretenses and supervisory failure to intervene. Leavitt’s decisions and directives influenced downstream misconduct across multiple prosecutors, exposing institutional actors to Monell claims.

Individual Liability: Misuse of elected authority, participation in Brady violations, and retaliatory prosecution constitute willful misconduct, not shielded by governmental immunity. Leavitt’s communications with Alicia Koehler, including encouragement to monitor and report on Allen, constitute retaliatory abuse of office. His secret meeting with Koehler (Summer 2020) included statements like “I’ll screw Allen” and “I have the bigger dog in the fight,” demonstrating bias, conspiracy, and potential defamation. These actions conflict with 1st Amendment protections and amount to bad faith prosecution, further removing qualified immunity.

Accusation and lawfare by nemesis and former Prosecutor Lance Bastian weaponized in this unlikely filing ORDER DISQUALIFYING DAVID Case No. 201402758, Nicholas Rossi trial.

Timeline of alleged Misconduct:

• Refiled charges post-dismissal (211401656), violating double jeopardy and due process.
• Failed to correct false narratives in news media and made public statements designed to destroy Allen’s credibility in the court of public opinion. Leavitt acted with knowledge that Koehler had lied to him and to the court, and that Pranno had withheld exculpatory evidence. His statements and media manipulation were done despite the gag agreement, demonstrating retaliatory intent and bad faith conduct in violation of prosecutorial obligations.
• Appeared in Oct 2020 hearing despite knowing Brady evidence was hidden. Efforts to entrap Allen after the fact by adding “or filing” to prevent Allen from getting evidence of misconduct into the record.
• Directed screening team to placate Allen instead of investigating misconduct.
• Under 5 known investigations; OPC seems to be going soft on Leavitt and that he might be above the law. Leavitt appeared before Utah Supreme Court (Feb 2025). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Txx7a3EGVw

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983, §1985(3), §1986
• 18 USC §242, §1001, §1503

Possible State Violations:

• Utah Code §§ 76-8-306, 76-8-508.3, 76-9-404, 76-9-509

Possible ABA Ethical Violations:

• Rules 1.1, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 8.3, 8.4

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 1st, 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments

 

5. Lance Bastian

Role Detail: Prosecutor; appeared in multiple hearings in Case 191400132. Publicly maligned Allen, escalated charges, and took lead role in prosecution despite jurisdictional flaws. Filed disqualification motion in unrelated Nicholas Rossi case to target Leavitt.

Timeline of alleged Misconduct (Allen Cases):

• Took a central role in trying to incarcerate Allen despite not being assigned to the case.
• Was one of the key figures promoting false legal theories, weaponizing expired injunctions and fraudulent reports.
• Repeatedly escalated prosecutorial threats and stacked unfounded charges, including fabricated domestic violence claims.
• Ignored internal knowledge that no protective order or injunction had ever been issued—violating basic prosecutorial duties.
• Had access to the Kennard memo (Jan 15, 2019) showing the stalking injunction had not been issued.
• Proceeded with felony prosecution in Case 191400132 despite knowing the court had no jurisdiction.
• Withheld exculpatory Brady evidence in discovery and motion practice.
• Allegedly worked with Alicia Koehler through DCFS and escalated charges based on false claims, including cohabitation and domestic violence.
• Participated in media appearances maligning Allen.
• Was not officially assigned to Allen’s case but took a lead role in prosecution.

Timeline of Strategic Conduct (Leavitt Disqualification):

• In 2022, filed a disqualification motion against David Leavitt in the Nicholas Rossi case.
• Alleged violations of Rule 3.6 (extrajudicial statements) and Rule 8.4 (misrepresentations).
• Claimed Leavitt made prejudicial public statements, weaponized the media, and presented misleading narratives to bolster a weak case.
• Cited past misconduct (e.g., Jerrod Baum press statements) to frame Leavitt as a habitual abuser of power.
• The motion was granted; Leavitt and his entire office were disqualified.

Lawfare Tactic Identified:

• Bastian used the disqualification motion and court docket to expose Leavitt in a high-profile forum.
• He leveraged legal filings to build a political and reputational case, weaponizing precedent to target Leavitt—ironically mirroring tactics used against Allen.

Potential Institutional Exposure:

• Utah County Attorney’s Office faces Monell liability for permitting unassigned prosecutors like Bastian to drive prosecutions. VOCA funding knowledge. Withholding Brady evidence. Prosecutorial rule 3.8 violation, proceeded with knowledge of the Kennard analysis and declination to file charges, took over / interfered with case assigned to Amy Pomeroy. 
• Failure to supervise his dual role and conflict of interest with Leavitt.

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983 – Civil rights violations through unlawful prosecution
• 42 USC §1985 – Conspiracy to obstruct justice and retaliate
• 42 USC §1986 – Failure to prevent rights violations
• 18 USC §242 – Criminal deprivation of rights
• 18 USC §1512 – Obstruction and suppression of evidence

Possible State Violations:

• Utah Code §§ 76-8-306, 76-8-508.3, 76-5-201

Possible ABA Ethical Violations:

• Rules 1.1, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, 8.4 (a)–(d)

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 1st Amendment – Retaliation against Allen for reporting misconduct, including Allen’s media coverage and protected speech
• 4th Amendment – Prolonged legal harassment and malicious use of prosecutorial process without valid underlying court order
• 1st Amendment – Retaliation against Allen for reporting misconduct
• 5th Amendment – Denial of due process
• 6th Amendment – Fair trial compromised by tainted prosecution
• 14th Amendment – Equal protection and selective enforcement violations

 

6. Carl Hollan

Role Detail: Utah County Attorney; made appearance in Case 191400132 on April 18, 2019. 

Timeline of Misconduct:

• Appeared after Brady material had been received by the County on January 15, 2019.
• Had knowledge that the stalking injunction had not issued, per Randy Kennard’s analysis.
• Failed to disclose exculpatory evidence and did not rectify the faulty basis for prosecution.
  
  Days of Brady Withholding: 93 days (Jan 15–Apr 18, 2019)

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983, §1985, §1986
• 18 USC §242, §1512(c)(2)

Possible State Violations:

• Utah Code §§ 76-8-306, 76-8-502, 76-8-508.3

Possible ABA Ethical Violations:

• Rules 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 8.4

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments

 

7. Christine Scott

Role Detail: Utah County Attorney; appeared June 13, 2019 and August 1, 2019 in Case 191400132. Timeline of Misconduct:

• Had knowledge of Kennard memo and did not intervene or disclose.
• Appeared in court after receiving Brady evidence and ignored contradictions in witness statements. Help up false document in court and insinuated it was a Protective Order, failed to correct witness who misled the court. 
• Failed to correct or clarify false statements made by the State’s witness on the record. Days of Brady Withholding: 149–198 days

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983, §1985, §1986
• 18 USC §242, §1512

Possible State Violations:

• Utah Code §§ 76-8-306, 76-8-508.3

Possible ABA Ethical Violations:

• Rules 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 8.4

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments
  
  Did recuse himself after the case was transferred to the State of Utah AG at Allen’s request. Carl Hollan is the only one to demonstrate any orientation towards due process, he may or may not have reported David Leavitt. He should be offered whistleblower protection if he would report on the screening process and how and who participated in the weaponized lawfare and how systemic it was to overcharge citizens and plea deal them under Leavitt’s tenure. 

8. Marianne O’Bryant

Role Detail: Utah County Attorney; appearance on September 10, 2020.

Timeline of alleged Misconduct:

• Participated in prosecution despite clear knowledge of expired injunction and withheld Brady evidence. Failure to report unethical internal conduct.
  
  Days of Brady Withholding: 604 days

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983, §1986
• 18 USC §242

Possible State Violations:

• Utah Code § 76-8-306

Possible ABA Ethical Violations:

• Rules 3.3, 3.4, 8.4

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments

 

9. Lauren Hunt

Role Detail: Utah County Attorney; appeared on October 3, 2019.

Timeline of Misconduct:

• Knew of defective injunction and failed to advise tribunal.
• Failure to report unethical internal conduct.
• Withheld Brady evidence known to the County since January 2019.
  
  Days of Brady Withholding: 261 days

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983, §1986
• 18 USC §242, §1512

Possible State Violations:

• Utah Code §§ 76-8-306, 76-8-508.3

Possible ABA Ethical Violations:

• Rules 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 8.4

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments

 

10. Chad Grunander

Role Detail: Utah County Attorney; Case 191400132.

Timeline of alleged Misconduct:

• Maintained prosecution despite receiving Brady evidence over 975 days earlier.
• Failure to report unethical internal conduct of Leavitt and others
• Failed to apply due diligence in evaluating the procedural history of the injunction.
  
  Days of Brady Withholding: 975 days

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983, §1986
• 18 USC §242

Possible State Violations:

• Utah Code §§ 76-8-306, 76-8-508.3

Possible ABA Ethical Violations:

• Rules 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 8.4

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments

11. Sandi Johnson

Role Detail: Utah County Attorney; appearances on October 14, 2021; November 10, 2021; December 2, 2021; May 17, 2022; May 20, 2023.

Timeline of Misconduct:

• Continuously participated in the prosecution while exculpatory evidence remained withheld.
• Failure to report unethical internal conduct pf Leavitt and known false prosecution Rule 3.8 violations
• Failed to take corrective action over a span of nearly 1,585 days.
  
  Days of Brady Withholding: ~1,585 days

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983, §1986
• 18 USC §242

Possible State Violations:

• Utah Code §§ 76-8-306, 76-8-508.3

Possible ABA Ethical Violations:

• Rules 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 8.4

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments

 

12. Lorie Hobbs

Role Detail: Attorney for State’s witness (Koehler); filed for sealing of impeachment evidence.

Timeline of Misconduct:

• Filed sealing request that was granted immediately by Judge Brady without notice to Allen.
• Failure to report unethical internal conduct. VOCA FUNDING RECIPIENT EST $150K
• Actively obstructed access to impeachment material.
  
  Institutional Exposure: Courts and Attorney’s Office may face liability for ex parte action and due process breach.

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983
• 18 USC §1512

Possible State Violations:

• Utah Code §§ 76-8-306, 76-8-508.3

Possible ABA Ethical Violations:

• Rules 3.3, 3.4, 8.4

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments

 

13. Bethany Warr

Role Detail: State AG’s Office; appeared on May 20, 2023 and filed withdrawal on October 6, 2023.

Timeline of Misconduct:

• Represented State while Brady violations remained unresolved.
• Failure to report unethical conduct of Ms. Koehler
• Did not act to correct gag order violations or report misconduct. 
• VOCA RECIPIENT EST 120K
  
  Days of Brady Withholding: ~1,585–1,735 days

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983, §1986
• 18 USC §242

Possible State Violations:

• Utah Code §§ 76-8-306, 76-8-508.3

Possible ABA Ethical Violations:

• Rules 3.3, 3.4, 8.4

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 1st, 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments

14. Craig Peterson

Role Detail:Craig Peterson: Attorney with the Utah Attorney General’s Office. Took no action to correct Brady suppression despite full access to the Kennard memo. Failed to intervene or investigate repeated due process violations.

As of April 2025, has withheld Brady material for approximately 1,735 days. Filed for a ‘status hearing’ scheduled for May 1, 2025, despite lacking standing—having already stated in court, ‘I am out.’ The case had been dismissed with prejudice, and he had no legal authority to act further.  Had Knowledge of unlawful prosecution in 2022 but persisted in prosecution, would admit in 2024 the state had duplicated case, failed to unharm Allen, possibly has destroyed records prematurely. Knowledge of Federal VOCA funding misuse.

Peterson admitted in court that Case 191400132 and Case 211401656 were exact duplicates, affirming the due process violation.

He has failed to report prosecutorial misconduct by David Leavitt, others, or himself. His actions appear calculated to delay accountability and to pressure the court into sealing misconduct evidence via premature expungement. Failure to report or to prosecute Ms. Koehler. 

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983, §1986
• 18 USC §242

Possible State Violations:

• Utah Code §§ 76-8-306, 76-8-508.3

Possible ABA Ethical Violations:

• Rules 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 8.4

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments

Timeline of Misconduct:

• Took no action to correct Brady suppression, despite knowledge of case background and Kennard memo.
• Did not intervene or investigate procedural due process issues.
• Days of Brady Withholding: ~1,735+ days

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983, §1986
• 18 USC §242

Possible State Violations:

• Utah Code §§ 76-8-306, 76-8-508.3

Possible ABA Ethical Violations:

• Rules 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 8.4

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments

 

15. Stephen Schreiner

Role Detail: Provo City Prosecuting Attorney (Report 17PR17168, Case 171402280) 

Timeline of Misconduct:

• Prosecuted Allen based on a protective order that never legally existed.
• Failed to verify jurisdiction before initiating charges.
  
  Institutional Exposure: Provo City Attorney’s Office and Police Department liable for unlawful prosecution and procedural failure to confirm court records.

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983
• 18 USC §242

Possible State Violations:

• Utah Code §§ 76-8-306, 76-8-508.3

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments

 

16. Roger Griffiths

Role Detail: Provo City Prosecuting Attorney (Report 17PR17168, Case 171402280)

Timeline of Misconduct:

• Continued prosecution despite known record errors.
• Failed to correct falsehoods originating from invalid protective order.

Institutional Exposure: Provo City Attorney’s Office and Police Department liable for unlawful prosecution and procedural failure to confirm court records.

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983
• 18 USC §242

Possible State Violations:

• Utah Code §§ 76-8-306, 76-8-508.3

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments

17. Rhett Malmgren

Role Detail: Provo Police Officer (Report 17PR17168)

Timeline of Misconduct:

• Initiated report and legal action based on non-existent injunction.
• Failed to verify court-issued order before enforcement.
• Created Police Report citing violation of a non-existent Protective Order
• Green Officer may have not been properly trained, a ex-parte temporary stalking injunction expires if a hearing is requested and other controlling statute requires a judge to modify, continue or revoke the ex-parte injunction. No Judge continued the exparte injunction.78B-7-701 Ex parte civil stalking injunction — Civil stalking injunction

Institutional Exposure: Provo Police Department liable under Monell doctrine for failure to train officers to verify protective orders.

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983
• 18 USC §242

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 4th, 5th, 14th Amendments
  
  
  
  18. James Kent

Role Detail: Provo Police Officer (Report 17PR17168)

 

Timeline of Misconduct:

• Relied on faulty police databases to build a criminal case.
• Failed to properly supervise Officer Malmgren and correct mistakes in police report, Allen’s name misspelled, No Protective Order. No Stalking Injunction.
• Failed to question validity of injunction language and to properly oversee Officer Malmgren report.
• Worked with Koehler via DCFS

Institutional Exposure: Provo Police Department liable under Monell doctrine for failure to train officers to verify protective orders.

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983
• 18 USC §242

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 4th, 5th, 14th Amendments
  
  
  
  19. Todd Grossgebauer

Role Detail: Provo Police Captain Grossgebauer  (Reports 17PR17168 and 18PR32810)

Timeline of Misconduct:

• • Failed to provide oversight or correct officer misconduct.
  • Potentially entered data into Provo Police Department System as favor to Koehler or had a role in this happening. No one can explain how this happened yet. Internal Affairs needs to be subpoenaed by the DOJ for all records, including the seizure of all emails between he and Koehler and anyone else in the Allen matters.
  • He is deceased, and after his death, the heat on Allen was significantly reduced.
  • Allegedly connected to Koehler and aware of prosecutorial weaponization of reports, Koehler called him a “good friend” and told officers that “Todd said, to take care of me. Allen has not threatened me, he is annoying and I need criminal charges”….

• Officers complied with authoring police reports stating Allen violated a non-existent Protective Order

• Attorneys would file “Informations” citing Allen violated a non-existant Stalking Injunction. It appears neither officers understand the difference between ex-parte temporary stalking injunctions, civil stalking injunction and criminal protective orders. 

Institutional Exposure: Elevated command liability due to supervisory inaction and coordination.

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983, §1986
• 18 USC §242

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 1st, 5th, 14th Amendments
  
  
  
  1. Ex‑parte temporary civil stalking injunction

• Issued the same day a sworn petition is filed—no notice to the respondent.
• Respondent has 10 days after service to request a hearing; if no hearing is requested it automatically converts to a full civil stalking injunction and runs three years from service. Utah LegislatureUtah Legislature
• Violation is a class A misdemeanor (first time) and can be charged as a felony on repeat.
• Severity: moderate—police may arrest on sight, but the respondent can force a quick hearing and the order disappears if the petition is dismissed.

2. Civil stalking injunction (final)

• Enters after an evidentiary hearing or by default when the temporary order ripens.
• Fixed life of three years (renewable).
• Triggers a federal firearm prohibition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8).
• Same criminal penalties for violation as the ex‑parte order. Utah Legislature
• Severity: high—lengthy term plus automatic loss of gun rights.

3. Cohabitant‑abuse, dating‑violence, and sexual‑violence protective orders

• Two stages: ex‑parte order (issued immediately) followed by a mandatory hearing within 21 days.
• Final order’s criminal provisions last three years; the civil relief (custody, eviction, etc.) expires after 150 days unless extended. Utah Legislature
• Violation is a class A misdemeanor, rising to a third‑degree felony on repeat.
• Severity: very high—broad remedies, immediate warrantless‑arrest authority, and a federal firearm ban.

4. Criminal protective orders

• Pre‑trial protective order (§ 78B‑7‑803): imposed at the defendant’s first court appearance for a qualifying offense; lasts until the criminal case ends or the judge removes it. Utah Legislature
• Sentencing or continuous order (§ 78B‑7‑804): entered at conviction; can run up to 10 years (sentencing) or be permanent (continuous). Utah Legislature
• Violations are new domestic‑violence crimes that stack on top of the underlying charges; firearm ban applies.
• Severity: highest—the order is embedded in a criminal proceeding and violations directly affect the defendant’s sentence.

5. “​No‑contact” condition of release (bail order)

• Simply a bail/bond condition imposed under Utah Code §§ 77‑36‑2.5 or Rule 6.
• Runs until the case ends or the judge modifies bail.
• A breach is punished as a bail violation (contempt or “bail jumping”), not as a separate protective‑order crime. Utah Legislature
• Severity: medium—police can arrest for violating bail, but penalties tie to bail statutes rather than the protective‑order ladder.

6. Temporary restraining order (TRO) under Rule 65A

• Available only inside an existing civil lawsuit; can be issued ex‑parte but may last no more than 14 days without a preliminary‑injunction hearing.
• Enforced through civil contempt, not criminal arrest statutes.
• Severity: low—effective for property or business disputes, but carries no automatic arrest or firearm consequences.

7. Specialized protective orders

• Workplace‑violence protective order (Part 10) and child protective order (Part 2) follow the same petition‑plus‑hearing pattern as cohabitant orders and carry the same criminal penalties and firearm ban. Utah Legislature
• Severity: high—identical enforcement power, tailored to specific contexts (employer/employee safety or protection of a minor).
  
  
  20. Josh Jennings

Role Detail: Provo Police Officer (Report 15PR15168) Timeline of Misconduct:

• Initiated foundational false report later used in Allen’s prosecution.
• Affiliated with Koehler through private/personal connections.

Possible Violations:

Institutional Exposure: Provo Police Department liable under Monell doctrine for failure to train officers to verify protective orders.

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983
• 18 USC §242

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 4th, 5th, 14th Amendments
  
  Relied on ghost document entered by Court but not signed by judge, ghost clerk needs to be identified.
  
  21. Julian Jackson

Role Detail: Provo Officer (Report 18PR32810, Case 191400132, 211401656) Timeline of Misconduct:

• Initiated charges based on expired and invalid injunction language.
• Body camera footage contradicts sworn police narrative.

Institutional Exposure: Provo PD liable for wrongful prosecution, data entry failures, and training deficiencies.

Possible Violations:

• 42 USC §1983, §1986
• 18 USC §242
• Utah Code §§ 76-8-306

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 1st, 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments

Role Detail: Attorney General’s Office; appeared on behalf of State of Utah.

Timeline of Misconduct:

• Took no action to correct Brady suppression, despite knowledge of case background and Kennard memo.
• Needs training to know the difference between an expired ex parte temporary stalking injunction, a civil stalking injunction, and a criminal protective order.
• Did not intervene or investigate procedural due process issues.
• Seemed to comply with Koehler’s inference of close friendship with Police Captain, review video evidence of the interaction and lawfare. (Thumbdrive)
  
  Days of Brady Withholding: ~1,735+ days

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983, §1986
• 18 USC §242

Possible State Violations:

• Utah Code §§ 76-8-306, 76-8-508.3

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments

22. Judge Jennifer Brown

Role Detail: Judge in Case 171402280. Timeline of Misconduct:

• Failed to identify that Case 160400655 had settled on August 4, 2016.
• Presided over prosecution based on non-existent protective order.
• Allowed case to proceed under false jurisdiction., likely unknown to her at the time.

Institutional Exposure: Judicial branch failure to verify jurisdiction, reinforcing systemic breakdown.

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983 – Acting under color of law to deny due process

Possible ABA Ethical Violations:

• Rule 1.1 (Competence), Rule 1.3 (Diligence), Rule 8.4 (Misconduct)

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments

 

23. Judge James Brady

Role Detail: Judge in Case 160400655 (2019 Order to Show Cause). 

Timeline of Misconduct:

• Proceeded despite the docket showing “Case Settled” on August 4, 2016. Hoodwinked or Biased?
• Exculpatory evidence and the court’s own entry were not considered.
• Clerk’s official record was missing; the court IT department erased the recording. Allen was ultimately penalized for multiple glaring court mistakes.
• The official docket shows “Case Settled” August 4th 2016, however the clerks official entries are missing the August 4th 2016 entry. 

Institutional Exposure: Court participated in erasing evidence; judge ignored jurisdictional limits.

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983 – Color of law violation of due process

Possible ABA Ethical Violations:

• Rule 1.1, Rule 1.3, Rule 8.3 (Duty to report misconduct), Rule 8.4

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments

24. Judge James Taylor

Role Detail: Judge in Case 191400132 

Timeline of Misconduct:

• Allowed prosecution based on expired injunction.
• Permitted Brady violations to persist throughout the case.
• Allowed “tolling” motion without confirming jurisdiction and allowed Leavitt to eventually violate Allen’s First Amendment Rights when he instructed subordinate Rhonda Gividen to refile duplicated case 211401656.

Institutional Exposure: Failure to safeguard due process and review court jurisdiction.

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983

Possible ABA Ethical Violations:

• Rules 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 8.4

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments

 

25. Judge Robert Lunnen

Role Detail: Presiding Judge in Case 211401656 

Timeline of Misconduct:

• Ruled in Allen’s favor affirming protected speech; dismissed case 211401656 with prejudice.
• However, stated “I know nothing about this case” after 3 years and 8 hearings.
• Has refused to sign the final dismissal order as of April 2025. Contract violation
• Has allowed a Post Dismissal Hearing to be scheduled by the Prosecutor who lost jurisdiction upon Dismissal. This is a due process violation.
• Upheld Allen’s claims of First Amendment Protection for the filing which triggered Leavitt to refile the case. That alone was the reason the case existed.
• Refused to delink Allen’s name from a faulty case
• Ordered fees waived for Allen to obtain a case history
• Denied fee waiver for Allen to obtain certified Court Transcripts which memoralized the prosecutorial abuse and his own exclamation “I know nothing about this case” after presiding for 3 years and 9 hearings.
• Ultimately agreed to Dismiss the Case with Prejudice
• The State admitted to the 191400132 case and 211401656 case being duplicated cases, ie, Double Jeopardy
• Moved to expunge the case to seal the case history. Allen moved to Toll or Stay the Expungement to Preserve Evidence for Federal Screening
• Has failed to make a decision on Motion to Preserve Evidence, Requests for Transcripts to be paid for by Court as per Allen’s indigency. Has responded promptly to the State Prosecutor who lacks jurisdiction.
• Has failed to respond to multiple Motions before the Court to preserve evidence pending a federal investigation for Color of Law 18 USC 242, 42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986 violations.
• Indicated he had lost jurisdiction since the case has been dismissed
• Allowed State Prosecutor who also lost jurisdiction to schedule a status hearing post dismissal for May 1, 2025.
• Under what jurisdiction does Judge Lunnen function post dismissal?
• Feigned ignorance and lack of Knowledge on the Allen case in hearing 9-20-2024 when Allen suggested he had judicial obligations to report the double jeopardy and civil rights violations and due process violations. 

Institutional Exposure: Delay and reluctance to formalize judicial action may obstruct constitutional remedy.

Possible Federal Violations:

• 42 USC §1983

Possible ABA Ethical Violations:

• Rule 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 8.3, 8.4

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 1st, 5th, 6th, 14th Amendments

 

26. Daniel Burton (Attorney for Governor of Utah)

Role Detail: Responded to GRAMA request from Allen. 

Timeline of Misconduct:

• Responding that case 211401656 had been expunged and no records existed.
• This was false; records still available and relevant.
• Risked destruction of material evidence subject to federal subpoenas.

Institutional Exposure: Office of the Governor may face scrutiny for obstruction if documents were improperly destroyed or concealed.

Possible Federal Violations:

• 18 USC §1512 – Tampering/destruction of evidence
• 42 USC §1983 – Denial of access to public records impacting constitutional remedy

Possible State Violations:

• Utah Code § 63G-2-801 (GRAMA penalties)
• Utah Code § 76-8-306 (Obstruction)

Possible ABA Ethical Violations:

• Rule 3.4, 8.4

Bill of Rights Violations:

• 1st Amendment – Right to petition government
• 5th, 14th Amendments – Due process and equal access to records

 

Summary of Misconduct by Alicia Koehler

Key Facts from the Spencer Thomas Letter:

• Koehler filed an ex-parte temporary stalking injunction against Allen to cover up her grooming of Allen and ***assault..
• Allen requested a hearing, but his attorney stipulated to the injunction without Allen’s consent and contrary to Allen’s documented instructions. However the injunction never issued as there was a controlling statute due to Allen requesting a hearing and the judge had to continue the injunction for it to remain valid, this never happened, additionally the onus was on the Accusers Attorney Albert Pranno to file the purported yet disputed agreement… and have the court continue the temporary injunction into a 3 year injunction, Pranno failed to do this which made the ex-parte injunction end with the  Settlement Agreement August 4 2016, he hid his omission for 3 years. That same attorney Attorney Wes Hutchins was later suspended due to 9 investigations, 9 harmed clients and more than 50 ethical violations noted by the Utah Office of Professional Conduct.
• Bodycam video shows Ms. Koehler lying to Provo Police, claiming she only dated Allen once. Provo Police who were connected with Koehler, created police reports citing Allen violated a Protective Order. The Court shows no injunction ever issued, no Protective Order ever issued.
• Allen provided documentation proving a longer relationship, contradicting her police statement. Including Koehler admission of sexually assaulting Allen and also removal of Allen’s minor daughter across state lines. This was done in violation of a divorce decree and without the courts knowledge. Koehler’s conduct of removal of a minor out of state has potential severe consequences. Koehler had committed mortgage fraud with her husband and feared getting caught. Koehler weaponized the law to silence Allen as to her crimes. She was well connected and nearly got away with it. She may have received a cash payout from Leavitt after filing a 1983 action against him which would be federal fraud and lawfare as she had admitted and had knowledge her case was faulty, as well as that Allen posed no threat to her. Her vivid imagination coupled with having been in what she would describe as a very abusive marriage to Russ Koehler left her mind to play tricks on her as described in her dreams and in her court filings.
• Koehler referenced knowing Captain Todd Grossgebauer, suggesting insider influence and collusion.
• Used her DCFS role to influence law enforcement and prosecution.
• Lied about the nature of her relationship with Allen and provided false sworn statements.
• The case was pursued despite an invalid legal foundation and contrary to the facts known to police and prosecutors.
  

Crimes Listed in the Letter (Utah Criminal Code):

Spencer Thomas outlines 11 statutory violations committed by Koehler:

1. § 76-8-306 – Obstruction of Justice
2. § 76-8-502 – False Material Statements
3. § 76-8-503 – False or Inconsistent Statements
4. § 76-8-506 – Providing False Info to Law Enforcement or Government Agencies
5. § 76-8-510.5 – Tampering with Evidence
6. § 76-8-511 – Falsification or Alteration of Government Records
7. § 76-5-107 – Threat of Violence
8. § 76-5-303 – Custodial Interference
9. § 76-6-1203 – Mortgage Fraud (specific to an issue not detailed in letter)
10. § 76-8-501 – False Statement
11. § 62A-4a-411 – Failure to Report (possibly relating to DCFS conduct or child protection violations)

Additional Federal and Civil Concerns

1. Weaponization of the Legal System (“Lawfare”)

• Used stalking injunction to gain strategic legal advantage.
• Deliberately concealed or altered evidence to support false charges.
• Filed a federal lawsuit against Leavitt while simultaneously using lawfare to shield her own role in manipulating prosecutions.
• Manipulated police and prosecutors through DCFS connections and personal associations.

2. Media Manipulation

• Spencer Thomas refers to her use of media and connections as a means to control narrative and bias prosecutors.
• Leavitt and Bastian continued prosecution even after being presented with documentation contradicting Koehler’s claims.

3. Collusion with Law Enforcement

• Namedrop and friendly references to Captain Todd Grossgebauer.
• Requested “favors” from Provo Police based on her DCFS role.
• May have violated both DCFS internal policies and color of law standards under federal statute.

Recommended Federal Oversight and Inquiry

❗Federal Prosecutors should investigate:

• Whether Koehler conspired with state actors (Provo PD, prosecutors, DCFS) under 42 U.S.C. § 1985.
• Whether Koehler’s false statements were knowingly used to create false probable cause in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 and § 1519 (falsifying records).
• Whether her DCFS role was used to target Allen or others unlawfully.
• Whether her texts, emails, and DCFS records show additional influence, fabrication, or suppression of evidence.
• Whether her filing of a federal lawsuit against Leavitt was part of a tactical maneuver to appear as a victim while deflecting from her role in launching false criminal charges.

Federal oversight of Utah Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches should include a Constitutional Analysis, the Bill of Rights and Due Process Violations seem to be systemic federal VOCA funds need to be audited. 

END