The Weaponization of Civil Settlements: A Pro Se Litigant’s Fight Against Prosecutorial Overreach
How a Civil Case Dismissed With Prejudice Became the Basis for a Criminal Prosecution—A Legal and Constitutional Crisis
By Dr. Abass Y. Bamba
Abstract
In the American legal system, the doctrines of Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel, and Issue Preclusion exist to protect individuals from repetitive and abusive litigation. These doctrines ensure that once a dispute is resolved, it cannot be re-litigated. Yet, my case presents a dangerous distortion of justice—a civil case that was settled and dismissed with prejudice has been resurrected as a criminal prosecution.
This is not just an error in legal interpretation—it is prosecutorial misconduct, a violation of due process, and a threat to the fundamental principle that settlements bring finality. This article exposes how criminal prosecutors, judges, and even defense lawyers have ignored the binding effect of a civil settlement, opening the door for unchecked abuse of power.
While lower courts may ignore the law, this case will be dismissed on appeal—because legal doctrine and precedent demand it.
- A Civil Settlement That Should Have Ended All Litigation
- The Civil Case Was Resolved With Prejudice
The original dispute was civil in nature. After extensive discovery, depositions, and negotiations, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which led to a dismissal with prejudice. Under fundamental legal principles, this means:
✅ All claims were permanently resolved
✅ The parties agreed that there would be no future litigation
✅ The State and all parties were barred from re-litigating any aspect of the dispute
A settlement is a contract, binding on all parties—including the government. Yet, the Attorney General’s Office ignored the finality of this agreement, using the confidential and same material from the civil case as the foundation for a criminal prosecution.
This is not just an abuse of process—it is an attack on the very concept of settlement agreements. If this precedent stands, no civil settlement will ever be safe from being repurposed into a criminal prosecution.
- Why Res Judicata, Issue Preclusion, and Collateral Estoppel Apply—Despite Criminal Lawyers’ Misunderstanding
Many criminal defense attorneys fail to grasp how the doctrines of finality apply to this case. They focus on Mens Rea, assuming that criminal and civil cases operate in separate legal silos. This is a fundamental mistake.
- Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion)
Res Judicata bars all future claims arising from the same facts after a case is settled with prejudice. In my case:
- The civil case covered the exact same underlying facts as the criminal prosecution.
- A settlement was reached, ending the dispute permanently.
- The State (acting through its agencies) was involved in the civil proceedings and therefore is barred from re-litigating those facts in any capacity—civil or criminal.
Yet, the Attorney General’s Office ignored this, repackaging the same dispute into criminal charges.
This is not legally permissible. If a party could repurpose a resolved civil matter into criminal charges, settlements would become meaningless.
- Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion)
This doctrine prohibits re-litigating specific issues that have already been decided. In my case:
- The key factual issues were resolved in the civil case—meaning they cannot be re-examined in a different proceeding.
- The government (through its agencies) participated in the civil case and had its opportunity to litigate.
Collateral Estoppel bars the prosecution from making factual claims that contradict the civil settlement.
- Why Criminal Lawyers Are Getting It Wrong
Many criminal defense lawyers I’ve spoken to dismiss these doctrines, believing that criminal cases are exempt from claim and issue preclusion. This is wrong for several reasons:
Civil and criminal cases can be linked when they arise from the same set of facts.
A settlement with prejudice prevents the government from re-litigating those facts, even in a criminal context.
If criminal prosecution could override settlements, then no corporate defendant, financial entity, or individual could ever rely on settlements for finality.
This is why civil settlements involving major corporations, government entities, and individuals are treated as legally binding in all future proceedings—including criminal cases.
Criminal defense lawyers are failing to see this connection. They remain trapped in a Mens Rea framework, instead of recognizing that the legal system already resolved the underlying dispute.
If they understood this, they would be arguing for immediate dismissal, rather than trying to negotiate within a case that should have never existed.
III. The Implications: No Civil Settlement Will Ever Be Safe
If the Attorney General’s strategy succeeds, this case will create a dangerous precedent:
Every civil settlement could become a ticking time bomb for criminal prosecution.
Government agencies could ignore legally binding agreements.
Defendants would be forced to fight the same allegations twice, even after settlements.
This would undermine the entire concept of finality in the legal system and create an environment where no one—whether an individual or corporation—could ever trust a settlement to be truly final.
The business world, legal practitioners, and civil rights organizations should be deeply concerned.
- The Prosecutorial Misconduct That Must Be Addressed
Beyond the violation of Res Judicata and Issue Preclusion, this case is filled with prosecutorial misconduct, including:
Using materials from a confidential civil settlement to construct a criminal case
Misrepresenting facts in an affidavit to obtain a search warrant (Franks v. Delaware violation)
Blocking access to electronic filing and denying IFP status to create procedural hurdles
Deliberately remanding the case to the wrong jurisdiction to prevent federal review
These tactics are designed to obstruct my ability to fight back—a strategy of psychological warfare, intended to make the battle as difficult as possible.
Yet, despite this, I continue to fight.
- The Lower Courts May Ignore the Law—But This Will Be Dismissed on Appeal
- The Lower Court’s Failures
The lower courts may refuse to acknowledge these violations, but this case will not survive on appeal.
Appellate courts have consistently overturned cases where:
- Res Judicata and Issue Preclusion were ignored.
- Criminal charges were based on prior civil settlements.
- Prosecutors engaged in misconduct to manufacture cases.
Once this case reaches a higher court, it will be thrown out—because it must be.
- A Call to Legal Scholars and Civil Rights Defenders
Where is the ACLU? The NAACP? The legal academics who claim to stand for justice?
This case is a direct assault on constitutional rights—yet they remain silent.
Their silence only strengthens my resolve. If they will not fight this battle, I will.
Conclusion: This Prosecution Must End—The Law Demands It
This is not just my fight—this is a battle for the integrity of the legal system. If settlements can be ignored, if prosecutors can recycle resolved disputes, then no one is safe.
This case will be dismissed—not by judicial favor, but by legal necessity.
The Attorney General’s strategy is legally unsustainable and will collapse on appeal.
This is a warning to all individuals and businesses—your settlements are not safe if this case is allowed to stand.
Justice is not optional. It is mandatory. And that is why this case must, and will, be dismissed.
Dr. Abass Y. Bamba
Pro Se Litigant & Defender of Justice
======
Understand Why They Are Coming After Me
On February 19, 2021, a water pipe burst at a construction site where I was building a single-family home. January and February of 2021 were among the coldest months in Colorado’s recent history. The insurance policy I had with American Zurich Insurance required me to “do my best” to prevent damage. At the construction site, I used a generator during the day and sourced backup electricity from a neighbor across the street when needed.
Despite my efforts, the insurance company rejected my claims I submitted. However, after an extensive discovery process and depositions, a settlement was reached on November 7, 2022, which was approved by the Federal Court, dismissing all claims with prejudice. Similarly, the state dropped its claims against the water mitigation company with prejudice.
The Settlement and What Followed
The settlement amount was $91,500, which was collected by the attorney who handled the civil case. He distributed a portion to the water mitigation company but kept the rest for himself. When I inquired about any remaining distribution, he told me there was nothing for me and that I could go wherever I wanted if I had an issue with it.
After months of hesitation, I decided to report his actions to the Attorney Regulation Office. That office claimed to have investigated the matter but found no wrongdoing. However, things took a turn after that. The confidential civil settlement information appeared to have been shared with the Attorney Regulation Office, which then seemingly passed it along to the Colorado Attorney General’s Office—all of whom work closely together under the same judicial system and building.
The Attorney General’s Office Gets Involved
On February 27, 2023, the Attorney General’s Office obtained a search warrant to access my Google emails and bank accounts. It appears they did not believe the checks I provided as proof were real—perhaps assuming that, as a Black man, I could not have been capable of writing those checks. However, once they verified the transactions, they began looking for other reasons to come after me.
On November 17, 2023, they obtained an arrest warrant against me using a flawed and illegal affidavit filled with material omissions—including failing to acknowledge the civil settlement with the insurance company and the water mitigation company. They portrayed the situation as if no civil settlement had ever been reached.
The Shocking Discovery of the Arrest Warrant
In April 2024, during a routine background check, I discovered that an arrest warrant had been issued against me. At first, I thought it was a mistake, a bad dream. I immediately called the Denver County Court for clarification.
To my disbelief, the warrant was related to the insurance matter I believed was resolved. The Colorado Attorney General, who is now seeking election as the next Governor, had filed criminal charges against me for “insurance fraud and check forgery.” Essentially, they repackaged a settled civil case into a criminal matter.
The arrest warrant stated that no bond was allowed and that I was considered “at large.”
Upon learning of this, I contacted the Attorney General’s Office and wrote to their criminal division, informing them that this matter had already been resolved. My email was ignored.
An investigator later reached out to me by phone, and I explained the situation. I even emailed him, requesting that he share the affidavit and name of the judge who issued that I can see how ot quash that warrant. He refused, stating that I had to be arrested first before accessing those records—an unlawful move, given that the alleged offense was a Class 5 felony, which should have only required a summons, not an arrest warrant.
The Unlawful Arrest and the Legal Battle
On April 30, 2024, I was arrested at my home in broad daylight—handcuffed and humiliated. I spent the night in custody and was released on a PR bond on May 1, 2024.
On May 17, 2024, I filed a motion to dismiss the case.
On May 23, 2024, I made my first appearance before a criminal judge and was assigned a public defender. I attended three or four hearings with that attorney before requesting her removal, as she was doing nothing to help me.
On December 5, 2024, a so-called “conflict-free” attorney was assigned to my case. However, she refused to:
File any motions such Franks hearing, bill of particulars, motions to dismiss, on my behalf.
Failed to share any defense strategy with me.
Acknowledge any of my legal arguments.
It became clear that she was acting as an extension of the prosecution.
Fighting for a Fair Trial
Recognizing the unfair treatment, I filed a Notice of Removal from state court to federal court on January 17, 2025. The federal court assigned a judge (a Reagan-era appointee who previously worked in Colorado’s appellate courts).
However, despite the federal case being active, the state court scheduled an arraignment hearing on January 30, 2025, violating the removal process.
Strangely, the federal court remanded the case that day of January 30, 2025 to the wrong court—Denver County Court, which does not handle adult felony cases. This jurisdictional error rendered the case legally unsustainable. An identical remand order was issued in January 31, 2025 as well.
On February 7 and February 11, 2025, the federal court denied my reconsideration for removal and closed the case. However, it never issued a proper corrective order remanding the case back to the State district court.
On February 14, 2025, I filed:
A motion to dismiss the case, arguing that both state and federal courts have lost jurisdiction due to the procedural errors.
A motion to officially remove the court-appointed attorney, as she was working against me, not for me.
The Current Situation
As of February 18, 2025, this is the state of my case:
The state court lost jurisdiction on January 17, 2025, when the case was removed to federal court.
The federal court closed the case but failed to properly remand it back to the correct jurisdiction.
The Denver District Court never regained subject matter jurisdiction, making any further proceedings invalid under 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(3).
Despite all this, a hearing is scheduled for February 27, 2025—orchestrated by the court-appointed attorney in collusion with the court and prosecution.
I have made it absolutely clear that she is NOT my attorney and does not represent me. A motion has been filed to ensure that this is reflected in the record.
This is the reality of what I am facing—a system working against me, ignoring the facts, and attempting to turn a settled civil case into a criminal one for political gain.
I will not stop fighting for justice. This case must be dismissed.
America’s Judicial System: The One I Didn’t Know About
I always believed that the justice system was built on fairness, due process, and the rule of law.
But what happens when those who are supposed to uphold the law twist it to serve their own agenda?
What happens when gatekeepers of justice become enforcers of oppression?
I am living that reality right now.
A Civil Case Turned Criminal – With No Due Process
It started with a confidential civil settlement—resolved and closed.
But the Attorney General decided that wasn’t enough. Instead of respecting the law and the agreement, they found a way to repackage confidential settlement material and transform it into the foundation of a criminal case.
🔹 They trashed legal procedures.
🔹 They ignored constitutional due process.
🔹 They used a broken system to obtain an illegal search warrant and an unjust arrest.
How? By bypassing every legal safeguard meant to protect the innocent.
The Federal Court – Where I Thought Justice Might Exist
When I saw the injustice unfolding in state court, I thought:
“Maybe the federal court will see through this abuse.”
I was wrong.
The federal system had its own gatekeepers.
When my case was moved, two judges—both with deep ties to the state—were immediately assigned.
And then, presiding over my case was an 84-year-old senior judge, a relic of the Reagan era. I once thought wisdom came with age, but I’ve learned that bias can grow old too.
The Court-Appointed Lawyer – An Extension of the Attorney General
When they assigned me a lawyer, I had no choice.
The duress they imposed had left me financially powerless.
For someone who had built a multimillion-dollar business from the ground up before COVID-19, being forced to rely on a court-appointed attorney was humiliating.
I expected legal representation.
Instead, I got an enforcer of the prosecution’s strategy.
🔹 She refused to fight.
🔹 She refused to challenge the system.
🔹 She refused to give me the discovery material I am legally entitled to.
Why? Because she isn’t there to defend me. She is there to keep me under control, to ensure I never challenge the narrative they created.
What Happens When the System is Rigged Against You?
They know I have no money right now—because their actions branded me a potential criminal when I am not.
They know I am fighting alone.
They know they have the power to drag me through courts, bankrupt me, and exhaust me.
But what they didn’t count on was resistance.
🔹 I filed my motions.
🔹 I exposed their contradictions.
🔹 I forced them to reveal their bias.
They didn’t expect me to fight back.
They didn’t expect me to challenge every flaw in their process.
And now, they are stalling.
And now, they are scrambling for an extension.
Because the truth is simple:
💡 If my handwritten contract is valid in one part, then it is valid in full.
💡 If they selectively enforce the law against me, then the entire process is fraudulent.
💡 If they deny me access to discovery and reject my IFP application based on my home’s value, then they fear what those documents contain.
This is Not Just My Fight – It’s a Fight Against a Broken System
Today, it’s me.
Tomorrow, it could be you.
This is the judicial system they don’t want you to see.
This is what happens when due process is just a slogan, not a practice.
But I refuse to be another victim.
I refuse to be silent.
I will fight—not just for myself, but for anyone who has ever been crushed by a system that fears truth.
🔹 If you stand for justice, stand with me.
🔹 If you believe in fairness, share this.
🔹 If you refuse to let corruption go unchecked, help me expose it.
Because silence is their greatest weapon.
And I refuse to be silent.
#JusticeForAll #JudicialCorruption #FairnessNotFavoritism #ExposingInjustice
==================
Defendant Abass Y. Bamba Seeks Dismissal Amid Jurisdictional Errors
02/ 14 / Latest Update
Denver, CO – Dr. Abass Y. Bamba, a long-time Colorado resident and business leader, has filed a motion to dismiss his criminal case, citing significant jurisdictional and procedural errors. Representing himself, Dr. Bamba argues that these errors have rendered the current proceedings invalid.
Jurisdictional Concerns
The motion outlines a series of events leading to the current jurisdictional confusion:
Case Initiation and Transfer: The case began on November 17, 2023, in Denver County Court. During a bond hearing on May 1, 2024, the presiding judge announced the transfer of the case to the State District Court, recognizing its jurisdiction over adult felony matters. The following day, May 2, 2024, the Attorney General filed the charging documents in the State District Court, effectively terminating the County Court’s jurisdiction.
Federal Court Involvement: On January 17, 2025, Dr. Bamba filed a notice of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1455(a), moving the case to federal court, where it was assigned case number 25cr00018. Subsequently, on January 30 and 31, 2025, the federal court issued remand orders directing the case back to Denver County Court. Dr. Bamba contends these orders were defective, as the County Court no longer had jurisdiction; the correct venue was the State District Court.
Denial of Reconsideration and Case Closure: A motion for reconsideration was filed on February 7, 2025, addressing the jurisdictional errors in the remand orders. The federal court denied this motion and, on February 11, 2025, issued an order closing case 25cr00018 without rectifying the prior defective remand orders. This oversight has resulted in a jurisdictional void, leaving no court with proper authority over the case.
Legal Implications
Dr. Bamba’s motion emphasizes that subject matter jurisdiction is a fundamental legal requirement that cannot be waived or overlooked. Citing precedents such as Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506, 514 (1868), he underscores that without jurisdiction, a court “cannot proceed at all in any cause.” Similarly, in Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998), it was affirmed that “Without jurisdiction, a court cannot proceed at all.”
Colorado law aligns with this principle. In Adams County Dept. of Soc. Serv. v. Huynh, 883 P.2d 573 (Colo. App. 1994), the court held that lacking subject matter jurisdiction necessitates dismissal, rendering any orders or judgments void and unenforceable. Further, City of Boulder v. Public Service Co. of Colorado, 996 P.2d 198 (Colo. App. 1999), reaffirmed that objections to subject matter jurisdiction are non-waivable and can be raised at any stage.
Conclusion
The procedural errors, particularly the defective remand orders and the subsequent closure of the federal case without proper jurisdictional direction, have created a legal limbo. As no court currently holds valid jurisdiction over the matter, Dr. Bamba asserts that the only viable resolution is the dismissal of the case with prejudice. This action, he argues, would uphold the integrity of the judicial process and prevent further jurisdictional confusion.
Note: This article is based on information from Justice4YaYa.org.
.