Sei sulla pagina 1di 13


Upon the Petition of ) EQUITY NO CDDM046901
Petitioner, ) REQUEST FOR
and concerning ) PROTECTION, RECUSAL,
Respondent pro se )

COMES NOW Colleen A. Collins (Tasseff), the Petitioner pro se in the above
captioned equity and files with the Court a Resistance to Respondent’s
Application for modification and also REQUESTS PROTECTION,
RECUSAL, AND CHANGE OF VENUE. Petitioner states in resistance:

1. Petitioner prays the court for relief from Respondent’s threats of sanctions,
incarceration and contempt, inflicting intentional emotional distress.


15, 2007 REMAINS ACTIVE. She prays the court for immediate protective
watch due to fear for her safety. According to various sources, Respondent’s
behavior has caused reason for alarm not only to Petitioner, but to his former
benefactors at the Homeless Shelter where he had been residing, and employed
as a grant writer until his recent eviction.

3. A lawsuit brought by Respondent against the shelter via the Iowa Civil
Rights Commission was posted on respondent’s “blogspot”: “HomelessT”, as

Thursday, March 11, 2010

More Fun Stuff!

In the State of Iowa, County of Linn, before the Iowa Civil Rights Commission

Comes the Application of





a 501 (c) 3 Corporation,



COMES NOW Homeless T, the complainant pro se, and pursuant to the Code
of Iowa 16.15 applies to the Civil Rights Commission for a prompt
investigation and finding of probable cause to bring action against the
Respondent, the Bleak House Shelter in Linn County, Iowa. In support of his
application, Complainant states:

1. He was evicted without notice from the homeless shelter because of his
marital status on December 23, 2009. To wit, he was denied continued lodging
at the BleakHouse Shelter, Inc., and made to depart the premises on threat of
police action for trespass, because he would not swear nor affix his signature to
a criminal complaint for harassment lodged by the Respondent against
Complainant’s wife (whom Respondent has never met, and who lives in a
different city than Complainant). Respondent explicitly demanded that
Complainant endorse Respondent’s criminal complaint against Complainant’s
wife, or leave the premises—or be removed by police.

2. Complainant was also discharged without notice from his employment at the
shelter during the same transaction.

3. Complainant was readmitted to employment and resident status at the shelter

only following supplication by the Complainant to the Respondent after
Complainant’s absence from the shelter for several days.

4. Complainant thereafter was sponsored by Respondent to train and receive a

license/account to normalize the shelter’s reporting and to improve funding
prospects. Respondent signed a minimum data set agreement, but Respondent
would not allow its implementation because Complainant’s services as the
license-holder would be required on an ongoing basis.

5. On Friday, February 26, 2010, Complainant was assaulted over a broken

feeder on a printer with a fit of abuse from Respondent that included thrown
objects, sexual name-calling, and defamation of his wife and his own person.

6. On March 1, 2010, Complainant was fired from employment by a one-

sentence note that offered no explanation.

7. As of the current date, March 10, 2010, Complainant anticipates that

Respondent will refuse to accept Complainant’s rent fees, which fall due on
Friday, March 12, 2010, and again attempt eviction with no notice, again under
threat of criminal charges for trespass. Respondent has mentioned nothing as of
yet and assiduously avoided Complainant, but Complainant avers that
Respondent will attempt to get him off the premises.

8. Complainant avers that Respondent’s personal prejudices dictate the

management of a non-profit 501(c)3 corporation that serves a public segment
fallen to the bottom of the socioeconomic scale, and Respondent’s management
style is practiced without regard for, and often in violation of, law.

WHEREFORE, the Complainant pro se prays the Civil Rights Commission to

proceed timely with investigation and determine probable cause to initiate
necessary remediation and recompense. Complainant prays for relief as

a. Respondent be made to comply with legal practices regarding the civil rights
of the shelter’s homeless clientel.

b. Complainant be reinstated to his internship in Grant Writing at the shelter.

c. Remuneration be made by Respondent to Complainant for personal

suffering, in an amount sufficient to give pause to Respondent’s autocratic
management of a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation .

Dated: March 11, 2010

Respectfully submitted,


HomelessT, Complainant pro se

Original to Civil Rights Commission

4. Petitioner believes following incident (see below) cited on Respondent’s
“blog-spot” exhibits both adverse publicity and a conflict of interest which
prejudiced the divorce proceedings. Therefore, she prays the court for a change
of venue and retrial by jury. Adverse publicity of this incident has been
accessible on the Waterloo/Cedar Falls Courier website since April 23, 2007
and has sparked interest on various legal forums on the Internet.
WATERLOO -- A former community college instructor who was shocked by
a police Taser has pleaded to misdemeanor charges stemming from a
disturbance at a convenience store. Homeless T, 55, of Waterloo, entered an
Alford plea to a charge of interference with official acts causing injury, which
alleged he pulled away from an officer who was escorting him from the store.

"I removed my arm from the grasp of a Waterloo police officer," Homeless, a
former communications teacher at Huck Finn Community College, wrote in a
written plea filed with the court.

As part of the Alford plea, Homeless didn't admit any wrongdoing but
acknowledged there was a strong possibility he would be convicted if the
matter went to trial. A trespass charge was dismissed as part of the pleadings,
and Associate Judge Nate Calhoon granted a deferred judgment, meaning
the offense will come off Homeless T's record if he successfully completes a
year of self probation. He was ordered to pay a $625 civil penalty plus
court costs.

Homeless T has said the use of the Taser on him was unwarranted. Police
said they were called to a dispute between HomelessT and the clerk at Rats
Kiwk, W. Ninth St., at about 3:30 a.m. April 23. They were leading him from
the store when he turned around and continued to argue with the
employee. Homeless allegedly began to struggle when police attempted to
place him under arrest, and he was shocked with a Taser, police said. One
officer said he injured his left elbow and twisted his shoulder during the scuffle.

Homeless said the clerk refused to accept his returnable pop bottles and then
declined to sell him a bottle of cream soda. He said police asked him to leave
and took him by the arm, and he turned to ask the clerk's name so he could
write the company. That's when officers "swarmed" him, he said. "The
cops were as high as kites," he added.

HFCC officials were not immediately available for comment as to the timing
and conditions of Homeless T's separation of employment from the college.
at 3:43 PM 1 comments

5. Respondent has been defrauding the court throughout this case. His
testimony is resplendent with perjury, deceit and prevarication and should
be summarily dismissed. Petitioner has provided the court with numerous
exhibits which clearly support the above statements but her defense has
repeatedly been ignored by the courts and withheld by her former
attorney, Robert Thompson during trial on December 3, 2008; violating
Petitioner’s Constitutional rights to due process.

6. Respondent’s urgency to modify the ruling to acquire petitioner’s share of

the TIAA-CREF pension fund and his “litigious” actions against a homeless
shelter are cause for concern. Petitioner fears that he may be deranged, or
desperate enough to harm her, or to hire one of his "homeless" acquaintances to
do so, thus securing his ultimate possession of all the marital assets.

7. It is petitioner’s knowledge and belief that respondent’s present wife has

also been charged with domestic abuse, is equally desperate and volatile, and
has an obvious vested interest in the contested funds.

8. It is of petitioner’s knowledge and belief that respondent attempted to admit

his present wife into a psychiatric ward for evaluation and, although this action
was denied by the court, it nonetheless offers additional reason for concern
regarding his state of mind.

9. As a result of the bizarre lifestyle respondent has chosen for himself over the
past few years petitioner lives in a state of measured paranoia and fears being
home alone.

10. Respondent has used his façade or self-infliction of homelessness and

joblessness to gain “loans” from various acquaintances, citing the “pension
fund” as their assurance of eventual reimbursement. Petitioner fears that
respondent’s debts have, by now, superseded his “award” and the modification
to obtain Petitioner’s share would be the best (and easiest) means of repaying,
if he were of a mind to, those debts.

11. It is petitioner’s knowledge and belief that the trial court abused its
discretion when arriving at a final ruling, failing to consider that the TIAA-
CREF fund was protected by ERISA LAW which demonstrates the trial
court’s lack of impartiality, knowledge concerning the complexities of
ERISA law, and coupled with its ultimate decision, acts as proof of the
district court’s abuse of discretion in handing down a decision that is not
supported by the evidence, gender-biased, and punitive in nature. Therefore,
petitioner claims Judge Jon Fister and Judge Thomas Bower abused their
discretion in these proceedings and Petitioner, in all due respect to the court,
prays for a recusal fearing additional prejudice and threats of incarceration.
She also contends this abuse of discretion that has been evident throughout
this case and culminated in the district court’s final decision (which
Petitioner tried to appeal, but dismissed not by reason of “content” but by
her lack of legal knowledge concerning the “form” of appellate procedure.
This should set grounds for a new trial.

“A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness of course
requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases.” In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133,
136, 75 S. Ct. 623, 625, 99 L. Ed. 942, 946 (1955). Parties have a right to a neutral and
detached judicial officer. State v. Mann, 512 N.W.2d 528, 532 (Iowa 1994). When a
judge has demonstrated a blatant lack of regard for the law, other courts have found the
judge abused his discretion in not recusing himself. See Allen v. Rutledge, 139 S.W.3d
491, 498-99 (Ark. 2003) (holding when coupled with the overall biased tone of the judge;

Demanding Petitioner to final ORDER; ignoring ERISA law in which the TIAA-CREF
pension fund is governed, failing to acknowledge Iowa Code relating to rulings based on
insufficient evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and fraudulent testimony are
means to deem the final ruling unenforceable; whereby Petitioner was denied due
process and her Constitutional rights were violated.

12. Aida Del Valle, the assigned consultant for Respondent’s TIAA-CREF
fund, failed to acknowledge/nor had knowledge that the plan was protected by
ERISA law when evaluating the QDRO. Hence, the plan administrators are
lacking knowledge of FEDERAL provisions within the laws of ERISA. The
court needlessly humiliated and threatened Petitioner with incarceration;
demanding her to sign documents in ERR which is in violation of her
Constitutional rights and ERISA law.

12. Petitioner was denied due process in the Order to Show Cause hearing
of June 24, 2008. She was disallowed to submit evidence in her defense and
was coerced into signing a QDRO (while her appeal was in process), or
else: go to jail. Under duress and with reluctance, petitioner signed the
document. Neither the trial court nor petitioner’s attorney acknowledged,
or was aware that the TIAA-CREF pension fund was governed by ERISA
law, stated as follows:
Sec. 1140. Interference with protected rights

It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge,

fine, suspend, expel, discipline, or discriminate
against a participant or beneficiary
for exercising any right to which he is entitled
under the provisions of an employee benefit plan,
this subchapter, section 1201 of this title,
or the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act [29
U.S.C. 301 et seq.], or for the purpose of
interfering with the attainment of any right to
which such participant may become entitled under the
plan, this subchapter, or the Welfare and Pension
Plans Disclosure Act. It shall be unlawful for any
person to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, or
discriminate against any person because he has given
information or has testified or is about to testify
in any inquiry or proceeding relating to this chapter
or the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act. In
the case of a multiemployer plan, it shall be
unlawful for the plan sponsor or any other person to
discriminate against any contributing employer for
exercising rights under this chapter or for giving
information or testifying in any inquiry or
proceeding relating to this chapter before Congress.
The provisions of section 1132 of this title shall be
applicable in the enforcement of this section.

(Pub. L. 93-406, title I, Sec. 510, Sept. 2, 1974, 88

Stat. 895; Pub. L.

109-280, title II, Sec. 205, Aug. 17, 2006, 120 Stat.

References in Text

The Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act,

referred to in text,
is Pub. L. 85-836, Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 997, as
amended, which was
classified generally to chapter 10 (Sec. 301 et seq.)
of this title, and
was repealed by Pub. L. 93-406, title I, Sec. 111(a)
(1), Sept. 2, 1974,
88 Stat. 851 (Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974),

effective Jan. 1, 1975. Such section 111(a)(1) also

provided that the
Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act should
continue to apply to any
conduct and events which occurred before Jan. 1, 1975
(see section 1031

of this title). For complete classification of the

Welfare and Pension
Plans Disclosure Act to the Code prior to such
repeal, see Tables.
This chapter, referred to in text, was in the
original ``this Act'',

meaning Pub. L. 93-406, known as the Employee

Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974. Titles I, III, and IV of such Act are
principally to this chapter. For complete
classification of this Act to
the Code, see Short Title note set out under section
1001 of this title

and Tables.


2006--Pub. L. 109-280 inserted before last

sentence ``In the case of
a multiemployer plan, it shall be unlawful for the
plan sponsor or any

other person to discriminate against any contributing

employer for
exercising rights under this chapter or for giving
information or
testifying in any inquiry or proceeding relating to
this chapter before


Secretary authorized, effective Sept. 2, 1974, to

regulations wherever provisions of this subchapter
call for the
promulgation of regulations, see section 1031 of this

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access

[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2007]
[CITE: 29USC1141]

[Page 469-470]


[Page 469-470]





Subtitle B--Regulatory Provisions

part 5--administration and enforcement

Sec. 1141. Coercive interference

It shall be unlawful for any person through the use

of fraud, force, violence, or threat of the use of
force or violence, to restrain, coerce, intimidate,
THE PLAN, this subchapter, section 1201 of this
title, or the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure
Act [29 U.S.C. 301 et seq.].
Any person who willfully violates this section shall
be fined $100,000
or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.
(Pub. L. 93-406, title I, Sec. 511, Sept. 2, 1974, 88
Stat. 895; Pub. L.
109-280, title VI, Sec. 623(a), Aug. 17, 2006, 120
Stat. 979.)

Plans Disclosure Act should continue to apply to any

conduct and events which occurred before Jan. 1, 1975
(see section 1031 of this title). For complete
classification of the Welfare and Pension
Plans Disclosure Act to the Code prior to such
repeal, see Tables. Amendments
2006--Pub. L. 109-280 substituted ``$100,000'' for
``$10,000'' and
`10 years'' for ``one year''.

The Order to Show Cause hearing of June 24th, 2008 is in violation of the above
information and also denies petitioner opportunity to present evidence in
support of her affirmative defense. Transcript attached as Exhibit A.

13. Petitioner was also denied due process in the divorce trial. Fraudulent
testimony and false financial affidavits submitted by Respondent were
uncontested by Petitioner’s counsel and thus were used as the basis for the trial
court’s final ruling, judgment and decree. If Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure can
be relied upon, a final ruling based on insufficient evidence, fraudulent
testimony, counsel who was both ineffective and in violation of multiple codes
of professional ethics would be reasonably deemed unenforceable.
14. Petitioner’s inability to afford appellate counsel resulted in the death of
her pro se appeal. Iowa Legal Aid only offers assistance in “criminal” cases .
Petitioner’s former counsel (against whom she filed a grievance for multiple
violations of professional conduct) nonetheless suggested that she find an other
attorney while aware of her dire financial situation and the fact that legal aid
would not be available. Hence, petitioner had no recourse but to proceed “pro

15. Petitioner’s unfamiliarity with proper “form” in appellate procedure

resulted in the dismissal of her appeal. Factual content was considered
secondary to form and therefore, the merit of her case was not even considered
(despite much ongoing debate in legal circles about holding pro se litigants to
the same standards expected of professionals).

16. Full transcripts of all hearings (totaling nearly $1000.00, and paid for by
Petitioner) went unseen.

17. Respondent’s false accusations are redundant and hypocritical and

petitioner prays for relief through “the Clean Hands Doctrine”. Furthermore,
Petitioner has already defended herself against these same accusations in
previous court filings.

Clean Hands Doctrine Law & Legal Definition

The clean hands doctrine is a rule of law that someone bringing

a lawsuit or motion and asking the court for equitable relief must be
innocent of wrongdoing or unfair conduct relating to the subject matter of
his/her claim. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant may claim the
plaintiff has "unclean hands". However, this defense may not be used to put in
issue conduct of the plaintiff unrelated to plaintiff's claim. Therefore, plaintiff's
unrelated corrupt actions and general immoral character would be irrelevant.
The defendant must show that plaintiff misled the defendant or has done
something wrong regarding the matter under consideration. The wrongful
conduct may be of a legal or moral nature, as long as it relates to the
matter in issue.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner resists Respondent’s AMENDED
APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION of a final order where Petitioner was
denied the opportunity to defend herself during trial due to ineffective
assistance of counsel. A conflict of interest concerning respondent’s various
charges where State sovereignty prejudiced this case, and requests the Court
for a change of venue and recusal of the judges that chose to ignore Petitioner’s
testimony and evidence throughout this case which has caused irreparable harm
to Petitioner and her children.
Having no prior exposure to the judicial system until filing for a divorce, her
naïve perception that once her evidence had been presented to the court, her
interests would be protected. Contrarily, Petitioner was treated like a criminal,
humiliated by the court, misrepresented by negligent counsel, threatened with
incarceration, forced into the responsibility to pay Respondent’s COURT
ORDERED financial obligations throughout this case; dismissing Respondent
from contempt charges, forcing Petitioner to comply with an inequitable “final
order”, releasing Respondent from any financial obligation to her, or go to jail.

Petitioner can only surmise that the cruel treatment she was forced to endure
was driven by respondent’s litigious threats against the State’s interests and in
the final analysis, a serious miscarriage of justice.

Dated: March 18, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

Original to court Colleen A. Collins (Tasseff)
Copy to Thomas Tasseff Po Box 316
Dike, IA. 50624

I hereby certify this document was served upon all attorneys of record for each
party to this action and all concerned parties unrepresented by counsel, in the
following manner: by US Mail to respondent Thomas G. Tasseff PO Box 43,
Traer, IA. 50675
On March 19, 2010 by Colleen A. Collins (Tasseff)_________________