Document Library

Get-FileHash -Algorithm SHA256 master-case-file.pdf

shasum -a 256 master-case-file.pdf

CC3C77DA 546B8D4B 57ECEBC5 68A8AF64 0FB52F57 A6DD110E 6A351D1A 39091539

— or browse by court below —

• Colorado Supreme Court · Cert Stage

  No. 2026SC236 · On certiorari to the Court of Appeals

  Petitioner's Filings

  • 2026.04.17 Motion for Extension of Time to File the Petition 35-day extension granted; new deadline May 28, 2026. PDF 
  • 2026.05.28 Petition for Writ of Certiorari 25 pages, 3,800 words. The lead filing in this Court. PDF 
  •   Petition Source (Editable .odt) For amicus reference and citation parity. ODT 

  Amicus Materials

  •   Cert‑Pool Memo (1 Page) Sixty-second screening artifact — questions presented, operative facts, panel errors, statewide stakes, the ask. View On Web → PDF 
  • 2026.06.04 Amicus Brief Draft (Unsigned) 20 pages, 3,149 words. Compliant with C.A.R. 29 and 53. PDF 
  •   Amicus Draft (Editable .odt) Modify, rebrand, and sign — or use as a base for an entirely new brief. ODT 
• Colorado Court of Appeals · Merits Appeal

  No. 2025CA327 · Opinion by Judge Yun (Grove and Schock, JJ., concurring)

  Notice and Designation

  • 2025.02.24 Notice of Appeal PDF 
  • 2025.02.24 Designation of Record PDF 

  Briefing

  • 2025.06.30 Plaintiff‑Appellant's Opening Brief PDF 
  • 2025.06.30 Request for Oral Argument PDF 
  • 2025.08.04 Defendant‑Appellee's Answer Brief PDF 
  • 2025.09.08 Plaintiff‑Appellant's Reply Brief PDF 

  Decision & Rehearing

  • 2026.02.19 Court of Appeals Opinion (Affirmed) Opinion by Judge Yun, Grove and Schock, JJ., concurring. Not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(e). The decision below. PDF 
  • 2026.03.05 Combined Petition for Rehearing PDF 
  • 2026.03.05 Motion to Exceed Word Count PDF 
  • 2026.03.26 Order Denying Petition for Rehearing PDF 
• Colorado Court of Appeals · Attorney Fees Appeal

  No. 2025CA1351 · Parallel appeal of $36,124.50 fee award against Plaintiff

  Notice and Designation

  • 2025.07.22 Notice of Appeal PDF 
  • 2025.07.22 Designation of Record PDF 

  Briefing

  • 2025.11.26 Plaintiff‑Appellant's Opening Brief PDF 
  • 2025.11.26 Request for Oral Argument PDF 
  • 2025.12.31 Defendant‑Appellee's Answer Brief PDF 
  • 2026.01.21 Plaintiff‑Appellant's Reply Brief PDF 
• Jefferson County District Court · Trial Court

  No. 2023CV226 · Hon. Christopher C. Zenisek

  Initial Pleadings

  • 2023.11.21 Plaintiff's Simplified Civil Complaint PDF 
  • 2023.11.21 Cover Sheet PDF 
  • 2023.11.21 Civil Summons PDF 
  • 2023.11.21 Order Granting IFP Motion PDF 
  • 2024.02.20 Affidavit of Service PDF 
  • 2024.02.08 Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint PDF 

  MSJ & Cross‑MSJ Briefing · The Procedural Heart of This Petition

  • 2024.07.25 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment No affidavit, no receipt, no business record. Conclusory argument only. PDF 
  • 2024.09.19 Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's MSJ Unambiguously pointed out Defendant's lack of evidence to support its conclusory allegations. PDF 
  • 2024.09.19 Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's MSJ — Exhibit #14 News Articles Condemning Receipt Checkpoints — public criticism of retail receipt checkpoint policies. PDF 
  • 2024.09.19 Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's MSJ — Exhibit #15 Westminster Police Records Request — showing zero Best Buy calls for service on November 25, 2022. PDF 
  • 2024.10.10 Defendant's Reply in Support of MSJ First introduction of the Mahmoud Abu‑Shaweesh affidavit and the receipts. PDF 
  • 2024.10.10 Defendant's Reply in Support / Response to Plaintiff's Cross‑MSJ Exhibits Mahmoud Abu‑Shaweesh affidavit and 2:20pm store receipt — the heart of this petition. PDF 
  • 2024.09.19 Plaintiff's Cross‑Motion for Summary Judgment PDF 
  • 2024.09.19 Plaintiff's Affidavit of the Event Sworn statement attached to Plaintiff's Cross‑MSJ. PDF 
  • 2024.09.19 Transcript of Plaintiff's Body Camera Footage 12‑minute detention, fully transcribed. PDF 
  • 2024.09.19 Plaintiff's Cross‑MSJ — Exhibit #2 Westminster Police Records Request — showing zero Best Buy calls for service on November 25, 2022. PDF 
  • 2024.10.10 Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Cross‑MSJ Included the same manager affidavit and receipts attached to Defendant's Reply in Support of MSJ;
    the exhibits nevertheless mutually contradicted each other outright, warranting granting of Plaintiff's Cross‑MSJ. PDF 
  • 2024.10.31 Plaintiff's Amended Reply in Support of Cross‑MSJ PDF 
  • 2024.10.31 Plaintiff's Amended Reply — Exhibit #1 The store's nationwide policy implementing email‑only receipts. PDF 
  • 2024.10.28 Plaintiff's Second Affidavit Filed with Cross‑MSJ reply — addresses authorized use of credit account by Plaintiff's brother. PDF 

  District Court Order & Reconsideration Briefing

  • 2024.11.19 Order Granting Defendant's MSJ & Denying Plaintiff's Cross‑MSJ · Dismissing Case PDF 
  • 2024.12.03 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration PDF 
  • 2024.12.03 Plaintiff's MFR — Exhibit #1 The store's nationwide policy phasing out plastic bag use. PDF 
  • 2024.12.24 Defendant's Response to MFR PDF 
  • 2024.12.31 Plaintiff's Reply in Support of MFR PDF 
  • 2025.01.06 Order Denying Plaintiff's MFR PDF 
  • 2025.01.21 Plaintiff's Second Motion for Reconsideration PDF 
  • 2025.02.07 Defendant's Response to Second MFR PDF 
  • 2025.02.14 Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Second MFR PDF 
  • 2025.02.18 Order Denying Plaintiff's Second MFR PDF 

  Attorney Fees Briefing · The $36,124.50 Award Below

  • 2024.12.31 Defendant's Motion for Attorney Fees Filed pursuant to § 13‑17‑102, C.R.S. following grant of MSJ. PDF 
  • 2025.01.21 Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Attorney Fees PDF 
  • 2025.01.28 Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees PDF 
  • 2025.03.18 Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Attorney Fees Subject of the parallel attorney‑fees appeal in COA 2025CA1351. PDF 
  • 2025.04.10 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Attorney Fees Computation Filed out of time without prior approval, but nevertheless granted absent any legitimate reasons provided by Defendant. PDF 
  • 2025.05.01 Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's MFEOTTF Attorney Fees Computation PDF 
  • 2025.05.05 Order Granting Defendant's MFEOTTF Attorney Fees Computation PDF 
  • 2025.04.16 Defendant's Affidavit Re: Attorney Fees PDF 
  • 2025.04.16 Defendant's Exhibit A — Attorney Fees Computation The line‑item billing computation underlying the $36,124.50 award. PDF 
  • 2025.06.03 Order Modifying Defendant's Computation of Attorney Fees Final fee award of $36,124.50. PDF 
• Consolidated Briefing Compendiums

  All briefs and exhibits in each phase, bundled into single PDFs for ease of review
  • 192 pages 13.5 MB MSJ & Cross‑MSJ Briefing All briefs, responses, replies, and exhibits, both parties' affidavits, the body camera transcript, and the Order dismissing case. Includes Plaintiff's Cross‑MSJ Reply, § IV — the first written rebuttal of the “targeter / baiter / lawsuit scammer” characterization. PDF 
  • 52 pages 15.3 MB MFR & Second MFR Briefing Both motions for reconsideration, all responses, all replies, the exhibit attached to the first MFR, and both Orders denying both.
    Includes Plaintiff's MFR, § II, the centerpiece six‑page direct refutation of the “lawsuit scammer” framing. PDF 
  • 83 pages 2.8 MB Attorney Fees Briefing The complete District Court attorney‑fees briefing — motions, responses, replies, affidavits, computations, and orders.
    Includes Plaintiff's Response, § II (“Plaintiff Did Not File a Frivolous Lawsuit in Bad Faith”). PDF 
  • 170 pages 3.7 MB Merits Appeal Briefing & Petition for Rehearing Opening, Answer, Reply, Petition for Rehearing, and Order affirming judgment in 2025CA327.
    Includes Plaintiff's Opening Brief, § III (“The District Court Mischaracterized Plaintiff's Actions as That of Unlawful 'Entrapment'”). PDF 
  • 130 pages 3.5 MB Attorney Fees Appeal Briefing All merits briefing in the parallel attorney‑fees appeal of 2025CA1351. PDF 
• Evidentiary Materials

  The body camera footage, transcript, and key exhibits in their native form
  • 2022.11.25 Plaintiff's Body Camera Footage (12 min) The complete twelve‑minute detention, hosted directly on this site. Watch 
  • 2024.09.19 Body Camera Transcript Full transcript filed with Plaintiff's Cross‑MSJ. PDF 
  • 2024.09.19 Plaintiff's Affidavit of the Event PDF 
  • 2024.10.28 Plaintiff's Second Affidavit Authorized‑user statement re: brother's purchase. PDF 
  • 2024.10.10 The Manager's Affidavit — Defendant's MSJ Reply‑Only Exhibit Solicited 1 year, 10 months, and 13 days after the incident, never produced during discovery, and filed for the first time in Defendant's MSJ reply — depriving Plaintiff of any opportunity to respond on the same procedural footing. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals nevertheless relied on it to grant Defendant's MSJ, in direct contravention of Suncor's evidentiary‑production rule. Internally irreconcilable with the receipt below: if Plaintiff “stole and immediately left,” he made no purchase at 2:20 p.m.; if he made a purchase, “stole and immediately left” is false. PDF 
  • 2024.10.10 The Receipt — Defendant's MSJ Reply‑Only Exhibit Timestamped 2:20 p.m. — one minute after the body camera shows the detention had already begun, with Plaintiff standing outside the store surrounded by three employees. Reflects a purchase by Plaintiff's brother, an authorized user of his credit card, not purchase by Plaintiff. Introduced for the first time in Defendant's MSJ reply, yet relied upon by both lower courts to manufacture a “cardholder = purchaser” inference that is “blatantly contradicted by the record” under Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). PDF 
• The YouTube Video · Defendant's MSJ Exhibit

  A response to attorney commentary about the prior Walmart litigation — never mentions Best Buy

  Why this entry exists. Defendant attached this YouTube video to its opening MSJ as Exhibit material, and the District Court relied on it as the primary basis for its initial "shopkeeper's privilege" finding — before any affidavit or receipt was even submitted by Defendant. The Court of Appeals carried that reliance forward in its Opinion. Because the video features so prominently in the lower courts' reasoning, amici reviewing this case are entitled to the video itself, in full context.

  Five points to keep in mind while watching:

  1. It was published on November 16, 2023 — nearly a year after the Westminster Best Buy incident on November 25, 2022. It cannot, by basic chronology, depict or describe what happened that day.
  2. It does not mention Best Buy. Not once. The entire video discusses Mr. Montgomery's prior Walmart litigation.
  3. It is a response to an attorney's online commentary about the prior Walmart cases. It is conversational reply, not strategic disclosure of a "scheme."
  4. It describes a years‑long practice, not specific‑occasion conduct. Generalized statements about how Mr. Montgomery shops — using whatever registers are open, declining bags he doesn't need, declining searches when asked — are not, and as a matter of evidence law cannot be, proof of what he actually did at one particular store on one particular day.
  5. The "free lawsuits" phrase is used in the inverse sense the Court of Appeals attributed to him: that overzealous retailers hand out meritorious lawsuits when they detain customers without legal basis. It is a critique of the chains, not a description of fabrication.

  Taken in full context, the video shows what Mr. Montgomery has consistently said he is: a passive rights‑auditor who shops, leaves, and says "no" when asked to consent to a receipt search. He is not a "steal‑faking," "baiting," "entrapping," "lawsuit‑scammer." Across more than a thousand shopping trips at three‑hundred‑plus merchants over a decade, he has been detained roughly ten times — a one‑in‑a‑hundred rate that is the opposite of what a fabrication scheme would produce.

  And of those ten detentions: zero convictions.

  A "lawsuit‑scammer" theory has a numerical premise built into it: to "induce" a payable detention, a person would have to manufacture conduct that looks enough like real shoplifting to give the detainer at least colorable probable cause. If that were what Mr. Montgomery was actually doing, his detentions would convert to convictions at roughly the rate that any other set of probable‑cause shoplifting detentions does. They do not.

  Published mainstream criminal‑justice statistics place the post‑arrest conviction rate for theft offenses in a wide but well‑documented band: approximately 37% of theft incidents that are pursued result in conviction; Pennsylvania retail‑theft prosecutions ran a 42% conviction rate from 2019‑2023; New York repeat‑offender retail‑theft cases convicted at 57% in 2023; and the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics reports a 68% conviction rate for felony defendants overall. Pick any number in that range as the baseline.

  Apply that baseline to ten detentions and the math is unforgiving. At the most defendant‑friendly end of the range — 37% — the probability that ten genuine probable‑cause shoplifting detentions would happen to produce zero convictions by chance is approximately (0.63)¹⁰ ≈ 1.0%. At the BJS felony baseline, it is approximately (0.32)¹⁰ ≈ one in 100,000. Mr. Montgomery's conviction rate across those ten detentions is 0%.

  A 0% conviction rate is not a feature of someone manufacturing real‑looking shoplifting for paydays. It is the statistical signature of someone who is being detained without a factual basis — which is the entire civil claim he was bringing in this case. Defendant's "lawsuit‑scammer" framing, the YouTube video Defendant attached, and the prior‑litigation footnote the Panel built on top of them, all collapse against a single arithmetic fact in the underlying record: the merchants who detain Mr. Montgomery cannot prove he stole anything, because he didn't.

  For a fuller treatment of why this video cannot serve as evidence of November 25, 2022 conduct — and for the diametric distinctions between the Walmart facts the video discusses and the Best Buy facts at issue here — see The Record.

  • 2023.11.16 Plaintiff's Walmart‑Litigation Response Video Published nearly a year after Westminster. Discusses the prior Walmart litigation only; never mentions Best Buy.
    Submitted by Defendant as an MSJ exhibit and relied upon by both lower courts. Watch on YouTube 
• Prior Litigation Defense · Primary Sources

  Companion to "The Record" · the Petitioner's distinguishing filings

  The Court of Appeals' opinion below leans on a YouTube video about Mr. Montgomery's prior Walmart litigation. The first two filings below are the most complete contemporaneous record of why that prior litigation has nothing to do with this Best Buy case — and why the prior cases were never adjudicated as frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith. Together they walk through the entire ten‑incident, four‑proceeding Walmart history and the diametric distinctions that make Best Buy structurally different. The third filing is the opposing counsel's active attack currently in flight in a fourth Best Buy case — the downstream weaponization the cert petition warned about, in real time. Start with the narrative on The Record →

  • 2025.08.20 Lakewood Best Buy (2024CV242) · Motion to Reconsider 16 pages. The most complete narrative of the entire Walmart litigation history and the diametric distinctions from the Best Buy fact pattern.
    Filed in the parallel Lakewood Best Buy case after the District Court labeled Plaintiff's prior litigation a "strategic misuse." PDF 
  • 2025.06.11 Northglenn Best Buy (2024CV132) · Combined Motion to Reconsider The "He just buys things, leaves, and says 'no'" passage. Addresses the IFP‑status revocation that resulted from the Westminster judgment, and articulates the passive‑auditing‑vs‑active‑entrapment distinction at length. PDF 
  • 2026.05.12 Westminster Best Buy (2024CV241) · Iron Spear's Motion to DismissACTIVE ATTACK Defense counsel's filing that openly weaponizes the Panel's affirmance: “the Colorado Supreme Court has refused to take up any of his claims.” Filed by Iron Spear Protection Group's counsel two weeks before the cert petition was due — the downstream bootstrapping the cert petition warned about, in real time. PDF