D.W. an employee at Evolving Systems Inc, located in Englewood, CO, from 1997 to 2002 He is an electrical engineer and computer programmer.
Throughout the course of his employment at ESI Inc, D.W. has admitted to bringing 2 pre-school aged children to his ESI office at ESI Inc in Englewood, CO world headquarters premises and engaging in what he has described as "perverted" acts and "a form of sexual abuse" of the children.
D.W. has described these incidences in written letters - some typed, some handwritten, all signed. These letters were admitted into evidence, with D.W.s own sworn testimony re same, in the Denver Distrct Court. At that Denver District Court hearing, D.W. was found by the Distrct Court to have perpetrated child abuse "by his own admission, both at home and at work, engaged in what he described as perverted sexual activity".
D.W. has also made statements, to which he has sworn, to multiple professional evaluators including his own hired non-expert evaluator as well as to and expert court-ordered sex offender evaluator and polygrapher. D.W. tested "deception" on ALL polygraph questions related to the sexual abuse of a child on ESI Inc premises by the Denver Distrct Court qualified and ordered sex offender evaluator.
D.W. also made sworn video taped statements to law enforcement. D.W. described exposing children to pornography accessed by way of the ESI computer/internet network, on ESI Inc world headquarters premises in Englewood, CO. He described engaging in sexual activity during these incidences.
Denver District Court findings re the abuse of children by ESI Inc employee/top programmer D.W. on ESI Inc headquarters premises, Englewood, CO: Denver District Court Judge R.M., ORDER Dec 12, 200- : “Respondent has, by his own testimony, committed child abuse as C.R.S. 18-6-401 defines it. The evidence is CLEAR, both at home and at WORK, the Respondent has engaged in what he defined as perverted sexual activity while ( J.A.W and J. M.W) children were around him, near him, close to him, in the same house with him, etc. Pursuant to C.R.S. 18-6-401, the court asked Respondent if he thought any of those activities put (J. A.W. and J.M.W.) in a situation that posed a threat of injury to his psychological health, and he said yes”.
Denver District Court Judge G.R., FINDINGS Jan 4, 200- : “Judge R.M. made a specific finding of child abuse against (D.W.). And that specific finding was based on (D.W.s) own admission that he had viewed pornography on a computer while (sexual activity) at the same time and while at the same time the children were in or around him.
Judge R.M. Dec 12, 200- order reflects that (D.W.) himself described this or characterized this as part of ‘perverted sexual activity’' ... (D.W.) was ordered to undergo a sex offense specific evaluation … That written report reflects that (D.W.) told the evaluator that he could not be sure that J— (child) was shielded from viewing either the pornography on the computer or his own (sexual activity). ... (D.W.’s) responses on a polygraph which was administered as part of that (sex offender specific) evaluation indicated that he answered deceptively certain questions which dealt with the issue of whether or not he had sexually assaulted J—- (child). ... (Another, D.W.’s 2nd commissioned polygraph) also indicated deception in the answers to some of the questions.”
Denver District Court Judge G.R. Jan 10, 200- : “There were several experts who opined that J— (child) was acting in a manner indicating that he had been sexually abused. The Respondent (D.W, ESI Inc employee) had indicated that he was deceptive on certain questions relating to that very issue in two polygraphs that he took.”
Denver District Court, before Judge M.C., Sept 12, 200- :
Q (By Ms. ———-) Mr. ——–, in that interview (with police), you made a statement, I believe, at one point that the periods of time for which you viewed pornography with J—- (child) — during the periods of time when he would have been with you could have been as long as two hours, is that true?
A I don’t see that that would be different from what I might have said.
Denver District Court, Judge M.M., Dec 12, 200- hearing, ESI Inc employee/programmer D.W.'s letters entered into record, and confirmed by D.W. in testimony in Denver District Court, Judge R.M., Dec 12, 200- :
“I asked the System Administrator at ESI if there was any way that I could have the internet disabled for me. There wasn’t.” “I again started this cycle of viewing pornography .. It was much worse this time in the frequency of it and I was barely trying to fight against the temptations. J—- (child) came with me many times to work during this time period.” “… times that J—- was here at work with me. I didn’t ever get much work done when J—- was with me … I viewed the pornography with J—- was there in my office … I usually spent most of the time with him … times were abusive to him … “I hurt (J—–, child) with pornography. Pornography is so satanic. It is just a doorway to hell. It’s not like it was just some subtle things I have done. I just opened the door to the devil and let him walk right in … and when those demons come back, they bring seven of their friends and the latter state is worse than the first.”
The use of computer/internet pornography to facilitate child sexual abuse and sexual exploitation is PROBATIVE. 10th Circuit, U.S. v Reaves, 2001: “The Committee (H.R. Rep. No 104-90, at 3-4 (1995) notes with particular concern the fact that pedophiles may use a child’s fascination with computer technology as a lure to drag children into sexual relationships.
In light of these significant harms, it is essential that those who are caught and convicted for this conduct be punished severely. H.R.Rep. No. 104-90, at 3-4 (1995), reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 759, 760-61 (emphasis added). Significantly, Congress’s concerns were not limited to a pedophile’s ability to use a computer to directly contact increased numbers of children via the internet.
Instead, Congress emphasized a broader concern with the ability to exploit a child’s general fascination with computer technology. Thus, it appears Congress was not merely interested in punishing specific ways of using a computer to lure young victims. Rather, Congress wanted to punish more generally the fact that the perpetrator used a computer at all.
Defendant … showed those images to his victims on his computer in order to entice and lure the children into sexual relationships for the purpose of producing sexually explicit materials. Unfortunately, this form of solicitation is not uncommon. Congress has found that. The Sixth Circuit concluded that “[i]n using the computer to desensitize his victims to deviant sexual activity, he was using it to solicit participation in that activity. ”
University of Denver Law Review, 2002, (70 Denv. U.L. Rev. 379), “In the early 1990’s the percentage of cases involving the use of a computer (inc adult pornography) in the sexual abuse of children doubled to include over 1/3 of all cases.”
In 2004, the Colorado Legislature passed House Bill 04-1016, making exposure of obscenity to a minor as an offense for which registration with the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board became mandated.
EVOLVING SYSTEMS INC, Englewood, CO headquarters management, with D.W., covered up lead ESI Inc programmer D.W.’s, child abuse and pornograhy on their premises, facilitated by their internet/computer systems, while ESI Inc was initiating it's IPO.
ESI Inc then continued the cover up and further, even worse, engaged in active, calulcated retaliation and coordinated violation of my civil and human rights to obstruct an investigation into D.W.s actions.
ESI Inc refused and falsified disclosure (discovery) in the investigation of ESI Inc lead programmer D.W.’s abuse of children at ESI Inc headquarters while ESI Inc was a defendant in a lawsuit involving claims of fraud regarding their IPO.
ESI Inc lead programmer D.W., while employed with ESI Inc, engaged in repeated, documented, court-found acts of deception and obstruction, with his lawyer, in the investigation of D.W.’s assault of children at ESI Inc’s CO headquarters (while ESI Inc was a defendant in a lawsuit alleging fraud in ESI Inc’s IPO)
ESI Inc kept D.W. employed AFTER D.W.’s admissions regarding child abuse on ESI Inc world headquarters premises and AFTER the District Court finding of D.W.’s child abuse – which abuse included promoting obscenity to a minor and indecent exposure ON ESI Inc’s CO headquarters premises – for 2 more YEARS.
ESI Inc's lead programmer D.W.s lawyer was suspended by the Colorado Supreme Court ethics board for a year and settled multiple lawsuits invovling his filing false reports with law enforcement, inappropriate and unethical sexual predation of a vulnerable female client - all in another case involving a young child. (CO ETHICS BOARD decision and lawsuits available online)
ESI Inc lead programmer D.W. had the child victims/witnesses and their mother followed – aka STALKED, including 2 incidences of in-person intimidation by his unethical, predatory lawyer, in violation of a restraining “no contact” order ag D.W. re the children.
Evolving Systems, Inc. Reviews
In development ....
The facts are:
D.W. an employee at Evolving Systems Inc, located in Englewood, CO, from 1997 to 2002 He is an electrical engineer and computer programmer.
Throughout the course of his employment at ESI Inc, D.W. has admitted to bringing 2 pre-school aged children to his ESI office at ESI Inc in Englewood, CO world headquarters premises and engaging in what he has described as "perverted" acts and "a form of sexual abuse" of the children.
D.W. has described these incidences in written letters - some typed, some handwritten, all signed. These letters were admitted into evidence, with D.W.s own sworn testimony re same, in the Denver Distrct Court. At that Denver District Court hearing, D.W. was found by the Distrct Court to have perpetrated child abuse "by his own admission, both at home and at work, engaged in what he described as perverted sexual activity".
D.W. has also made statements, to which he has sworn, to multiple professional evaluators including his own hired non-expert evaluator as well as to and expert court-ordered sex offender evaluator and polygrapher. D.W. tested "deception" on ALL polygraph questions related to the sexual abuse of a child on ESI Inc premises by the Denver Distrct Court qualified and ordered sex offender evaluator.
D.W. also made sworn video taped statements to law enforcement. D.W. described exposing children to pornography accessed by way of the ESI computer/internet network, on ESI Inc world headquarters premises in Englewood, CO. He described engaging in sexual activity during these incidences.
Denver District Court findings re the abuse of children by ESI Inc employee/top programmer D.W. on ESI Inc headquarters premises, Englewood, CO: Denver District Court Judge R.M., ORDER Dec 12, 200- : “Respondent has, by his own testimony, committed child abuse as C.R.S. 18-6-401 defines it. The evidence is CLEAR, both at home and at WORK, the Respondent has engaged in what he defined as perverted sexual activity while ( J.A.W and J. M.W) children were around him, near him, close to him, in the same house with him, etc. Pursuant to C.R.S. 18-6-401, the court asked Respondent if he thought any of those activities put (J. A.W. and J.M.W.) in a situation that posed a threat of injury to his psychological health, and he said yes”.
Denver District Court Judge G.R., FINDINGS Jan 4, 200- : “Judge R.M. made a specific finding of child abuse against (D.W.). And that specific finding was based on (D.W.s) own admission that he had viewed pornography on a computer while (sexual activity) at the same time and while at the same time the children were in or around him.
Judge R.M. Dec 12, 200- order reflects that (D.W.) himself described this or characterized this as part of ‘perverted sexual activity’' ... (D.W.) was ordered to undergo a sex offense specific evaluation … That written report reflects that (D.W.) told the evaluator that he could not be sure that J— (child) was shielded from viewing either the pornography on the computer or his own (sexual activity). ... (D.W.’s) responses on a polygraph which was administered as part of that (sex offender specific) evaluation indicated that he answered deceptively certain questions which dealt with the issue of whether or not he had sexually assaulted J—- (child). ... (Another, D.W.’s 2nd commissioned polygraph) also indicated deception in the answers to some of the questions.”
Denver District Court Judge G.R. Jan 10, 200- : “There were several experts who opined that J— (child) was acting in a manner indicating that he had been sexually abused. The Respondent (D.W, ESI Inc employee) had indicated that he was deceptive on certain questions relating to that very issue in two polygraphs that he took.”
Denver District Court, before Judge M.C., Sept 12, 200- :
Q (By Ms. ———-) Mr. ——–, in that interview (with police), you made a statement, I believe, at one point that the periods of time for which you viewed pornography with J—- (child) — during the periods of time when he would have been with you could have been as long as two hours, is that true?
A I don’t see that that would be different from what I might have said.
Denver District Court, Judge M.M., Dec 12, 200- hearing, ESI Inc employee/programmer D.W.'s letters entered into record, and confirmed by D.W. in testimony in Denver District Court, Judge R.M., Dec 12, 200- :
“I asked the System Administrator at ESI if there was any way that I could have the internet disabled for me. There wasn’t.” “I again started this cycle of viewing pornography .. It was much worse this time in the frequency of it and I was barely trying to fight against the temptations. J—- (child) came with me many times to work during this time period.” “… times that J—- was here at work with me. I didn’t ever get much work done when J—- was with me … I viewed the pornography with J—- was there in my office … I usually spent most of the time with him … times were abusive to him … “I hurt (J—–, child) with pornography. Pornography is so satanic. It is just a doorway to hell. It’s not like it was just some subtle things I have done. I just opened the door to the devil and let him walk right in … and when those demons come back, they bring seven of their friends and the latter state is worse than the first.”
The use of computer/internet pornography to facilitate child sexual abuse and sexual exploitation is PROBATIVE. 10th Circuit, U.S. v Reaves, 2001: “The Committee (H.R. Rep. No 104-90, at 3-4 (1995) notes with particular concern the fact that pedophiles may use a child’s fascination with computer technology as a lure to drag children into sexual relationships.
In light of these significant harms, it is essential that those who are caught and convicted for this conduct be punished severely. H.R.Rep. No. 104-90, at 3-4 (1995), reprinted in 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. 759, 760-61 (emphasis added). Significantly, Congress’s concerns were not limited to a pedophile’s ability to use a computer to directly contact increased numbers of children via the internet.
Instead, Congress emphasized a broader concern with the ability to exploit a child’s general fascination with computer technology. Thus, it appears Congress was not merely interested in punishing specific ways of using a computer to lure young victims. Rather, Congress wanted to punish more generally the fact that the perpetrator used a computer at all.
Defendant … showed those images to his victims on his computer in order to entice and lure the children into sexual relationships for the purpose of producing sexually explicit materials. Unfortunately, this form of solicitation is not uncommon. Congress has found that. The Sixth Circuit concluded that “[i]n using the computer to desensitize his victims to deviant sexual activity, he was using it to solicit participation in that activity. ”
University of Denver Law Review, 2002, (70 Denv. U.L. Rev. 379), “In the early 1990’s the percentage of cases involving the use of a computer (inc adult pornography) in the sexual abuse of children doubled to include over 1/3 of all cases.”
In 2004, the Colorado Legislature passed House Bill 04-1016, making exposure of obscenity to a minor as an offense for which registration with the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board became mandated.
EVOLVING SYSTEMS INC, Englewood, CO headquarters management, with D.W., covered up lead ESI Inc programmer D.W.’s, child abuse and pornograhy on their premises, facilitated by their internet/computer systems, while ESI Inc was initiating it's IPO.
ESI Inc then continued the cover up and further, even worse, engaged in active, calulcated retaliation and coordinated violation of my civil and human rights to obstruct an investigation into D.W.s actions.
ESI Inc refused and falsified disclosure (discovery) in the investigation of ESI Inc lead programmer D.W.’s abuse of children at ESI Inc headquarters while ESI Inc was a defendant in a lawsuit involving claims of fraud regarding their IPO.
ESI Inc lead programmer D.W., while employed with ESI Inc, engaged in repeated, documented, court-found acts of deception and obstruction, with his lawyer, in the investigation of D.W.’s assault of children at ESI Inc’s CO headquarters (while ESI Inc was a defendant in a lawsuit alleging fraud in ESI Inc’s IPO)
ESI Inc kept D.W. employed AFTER D.W.’s admissions regarding child abuse on ESI Inc world headquarters premises and AFTER the District Court finding of D.W.’s child abuse – which abuse included promoting obscenity to a minor and indecent exposure ON ESI Inc’s CO headquarters premises – for 2 more YEARS.
ESI Inc's lead programmer D.W.s lawyer was suspended by the Colorado Supreme Court ethics board for a year and settled multiple lawsuits invovling his filing false reports with law enforcement, inappropriate and unethical sexual predation of a vulnerable female client - all in another case involving a young child. (CO ETHICS BOARD decision and lawsuits available online)
ESI Inc lead programmer D.W. had the child victims/witnesses and their mother followed – aka STALKED, including 2 incidences of in-person intimidation by his unethical, predatory lawyer, in violation of a restraining “no contact” order ag D.W. re the children.
This report is in process ....