Order on Motions — United States v. Joseph (Dkt. 207, D. Colo.)

Summary

An order on motions in United States v. Francis F. Joseph, Criminal Action No. 21-cr-00083-RM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, dated February 18, 2026 (Document 207). Senior United States District Judge Raymond P. Moore rules on two pro se motions: a Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 205) and a Motion to Release Grand Jury Proceedings (ECF No. 206). The order describes the motion to appoint as based on conversations about bankruptcy and civil proceedings involving Springs Medical Associates and Eric Papalini, including a Colorado bankruptcy case, No. 20-17026. It finds both motions premature, frivolous and without legal basis and denies them without requesting a response from the government.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case No. 1:21-cr-00083-RM                Document 207          filed 02/18/26   USDC Colorado   pg 1
                                                  of 3




                            IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                               FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
                                  Senior Judge Raymond P. Moore


Criminal Action No. 21-cr-00083-RM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

           Plaintiff,

v.

FRANCIS F. JOSEPH,

           Defendant.


                                           ORDER ON MOTIONS


           This matter is before the Court on two pro se motions of Defendant (“Joseph”). The first

is his Motion to Appoint Counsel (hereinafter the “Motion to Appoint”) (ECF No. 205). The

second is his Motion to Release Grand Jury Proceedings (hereinafter the “Grand Jury Motion”)

(ECF No. 206). The Court has not requested a Response from the government as it deems none

to be necessary for a proper resolution. For the reasons set forth below, these motions are

DENIED.

           The Motion to Appoint is based on phone conversations Joseph allegedly had with (i) his

bankruptcy lawyer about various adversary proceedings related to Springs Medical Associates

and pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado and (ii) the lawyer for the

trustee about proceedings against Eric Papalini (“Papalini”) both in a Colorado bankruptcy case

(No. 20-17026) 1 and in a civil case filed in the Middle District of California. In these




1
    Joseph misnumbers the case in the Motion to Appoint as 20-17926.

Case No. 1:21-cr-00083-RM           Document 207        filed 02/18/26     USDC Colorado          pg 2
                                             of 3




conversations, Joseph was allegedly told that Papalini had filed certain matters with the court

“under seal” and subject to a protective order. Joseph was told that these documents would not

be provided to or discussed with him without a court order. Stymied, Joseph proclaims that

counsel should be appointed, “Given the totality of post-verdict facts that have developed and

that are developing and the need for an evidentiary hearing on these complex issues.”

       To say that Joseph is putting the cart before the horse would be putting it mildly. His cart

is so far ahead that the horse cannot even catch up at full gallop. All that is pending before this

Court is a Rule 33 motion for a new trial. Briefing is not yet complete. No hearing has been set.

No hearing has even been determined to be necessary. Joseph is not entitled to counsel in any

pending matter. And the Court will not appoint counsel to fish through the records of other

courts for Joseph in the hopes that Joseph will find something that he considers to be useful.

       The Grand Jury Motion is wholly without proper basis, and it does not develop a proper

basis through Joseph’s theatrical use of grossly oversized fonts. Joseph seeks post-conviction

disclosure of grand jury materials to answer two questions: (i) “What did Papalini tell the Grand

Jury to get Dr Francis Joseph indicted and under what authority of Springs Medical Associates

(SMA)?” and “Why wasn't Papalini prosecuted?” Neither of these inquiries is relevant to any

matter currently pending before this Court. Moreover, Joseph’s mere desire to put these matters

before a trial jury is insufficient to overcome the presumption of grand jury secrecy. And again,

no determination has yet been made as to whether any new trial will or will not be ordered.

       Both the Motion to Appoint and the Grand Jury Motions are premature, frivolous and

without legal basis. Accordingly:




                                                  2

Case No. 1:21-cr-00083-RM     Document 207         filed 02/18/26   USDC Colorado    pg 3
                                       of 3




      It is hereby ORDERED:

      That the Motion to Appoint (ECF No. 205) and the Grand Jury Motion (ECF No. 206)

are DENIED.

      DATED this 18th day of February, 2026.

                                                   BY THE COURT:



                                                   ____________________________________
                                                   RAYMOND P. MOORE
                                                   Senior United States District Judge




                                               3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cod.205364.207.0.pdf

Size

195,665 bytes

SHA-256

d2c75b4038861e241c1eb17acac3780954b9fe3eb5b16f7ecb5e6e859a162f45

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cod.205364.207.0.pdf

Original

archive.org