I decided simply to cut and paste the email I just wrote to Human Rights Alert about the latest crooked conduct in the federal courts in Denver. If you've already read "Fear and Loathing in the Tenth Circuit," you can jump to the bottom.
***
I have one for you, Joseph.
In my case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, as you may remember, the chief judge irregularly "transferred" the case to Judge John Kane, who struck the complaints and all motions in the case, six days after he came on. In his order he ordered the magistrate to hold a "status conference" to decide if our complaint could be amended, to tailor it to something over which Kane could "have jurisdiction." (There was no motion to amend in front of him.)
I filed a request for writ of mandamus with the 10th Circuit over the nonrandom transfer of the case to Kane--it was illegal--and combined it with an interlocutory appeal, all filed on May 6, 2011. On May 11, 2011, the magistrate held this status conference, and on July 18, he issued a bogus report finding (of course) that there was just no way he could permit us to file an amended complaint, no way he could tailor this case into one that Kane would have jurisdiction over. So, like the toady he is, he wrote a post-hoc rationalization of Kane's order striking our case.
My petition for writ was ignored by the Tenth Circuit, when I filed it in May 2011. Thus, I filed a MOTION in the case in August asking again for that writ, and the clerk opened a NEW CASE with my MOTION, demanded a second $455 docket fee, and, when we didn't pay it, dismissed that case.
In the meantime, I have recently filed the reply brief in our appeal, and realized, for the first time reading the other side's answer brief, that this bogus magistrate's report from July 18, 2011--filed in the district court over two months after our appeal was filed--had been placed in the record (and of course the Defendants are relying on it). I'll bet it was put there by Kane.
I realized this case is "pretense litigation," as you put it: this magistrate's report purports to be a decision on the merits, and an adjudication, when it is nothing of the sort. No motions or briefing were done, no evidence taken; in fact, disclosures were illegally "stayed," discovery never permitted to open, and no scheduling order entered in this case for the 19 months it was on file. All the magistrate had in front of him were "status reports" Kane ordered each side to file. No one would know to read this magistrate's report that, in fact, it is the result of a sham process, instead of the regular unfolding of a case required by the rules of civil procedure. This was an "adjudication by status conference."
I filed a 35-page objection to the magistrate's recommendation, by the way, pursuant to statute (28 U.S.C. Sec. 636), and my objections were NOT put into the record. So what is going on is cherrypicking by the district court (probably Kane himself), salting the record with something that makes it look like we got due process. The magistrate's report is nothing but a forgery, because it purports to be the result of an adjudication when it is not.
In fact, I have already had that magistrate's opinion quoted to me, as if it constituted a final and regular order, by the executive director of the Commission on Judicial Discipline, in response to my most recent complaint about Colorado Supreme Court Justice Greg Hobbs. Someone provided it to him as if it were a final judgment. And of course he does not know it is not and he probably won't believe me when I tell him it is a sham.
The word for this is, indeed, "forgery." The main thing that will save us, if anything does, is the statute governing appeals from magistrates' recommendations, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636, because we filed objections to this magistrate's recommendations which were never ruled on.
I moved to correct the record simultaneously with filing my reply brief, to exclude this magistrate's report, but think I may just send a copy of my objections in as a supplement, on my own. They have deliberately kept my objections OUT and put that magistrate's report IN, even though it was issued two months after the appeal was filed (and is not a final judgment).
Crooked as hell.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
When Charlie Bit Harry
There was this article in the New York Times on Feb. 10, 2012, about the phenomenal success of a video UK parents Howard and Shelley Davies-Carr put on YouTube of their baby Charlie biting the finger of their slightly older son Harry. Howard says he uploaded it for a friend in Colorado to apprise him of his sons' progress. (Other stories, interestingly, refer to the Coloradan as the boys' "godfather.") It has made hundreds of thousands of dollars for the parents, and celebrities out of the family.
The reference to Colorado perked up my ears. There are thousands of videos of children doing funny things online. This one is unremarkable. Howard says simply, "Videos are videos. They're either popular or they're not." He can't explain why this one should be such a massive hit.
But wait a minute: Howard is "a 43-year-old information technology consultant." So he's a computer fundi. Also, a Linda Davies-Carr shows up as the program manager at Lloyd's Banking Group. I doubt very much that this phenomenon was the result of random "hits," therefore.
I've been unable to find out who the godfather is. What I do know, however, is that the Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber law firm is in Colorado, and one of their lobbying clients is Google, which owns YouTube. The Colorado "godfather," with his bud Davies-Carr, might have just cooked up a little scheme to make everybody a lot of money, by "nonrandomizing" the Google and YouTube search engines. I have blogged about Google's manipulation of my own web presence.
Steve Farber, a partner at BHFS, was responsible for bringing the Democratic National Convention to Denver in 2008, where Obama was nominated. Another phenomenon--no one could explain how Obama just "took off."
Nothing is random. Everything is manipulated.
(That goes for the New York Times article, too, which undoubtedly caused another big spike in the dollars being raked in from the Harry & Charlie video.)
The reference to Colorado perked up my ears. There are thousands of videos of children doing funny things online. This one is unremarkable. Howard says simply, "Videos are videos. They're either popular or they're not." He can't explain why this one should be such a massive hit.
But wait a minute: Howard is "a 43-year-old information technology consultant." So he's a computer fundi. Also, a Linda Davies-Carr shows up as the program manager at Lloyd's Banking Group. I doubt very much that this phenomenon was the result of random "hits," therefore.
I've been unable to find out who the godfather is. What I do know, however, is that the Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber law firm is in Colorado, and one of their lobbying clients is Google, which owns YouTube. The Colorado "godfather," with his bud Davies-Carr, might have just cooked up a little scheme to make everybody a lot of money, by "nonrandomizing" the Google and YouTube search engines. I have blogged about Google's manipulation of my own web presence.
Steve Farber, a partner at BHFS, was responsible for bringing the Democratic National Convention to Denver in 2008, where Obama was nominated. Another phenomenon--no one could explain how Obama just "took off."
Nothing is random. Everything is manipulated.
(That goes for the New York Times article, too, which undoubtedly caused another big spike in the dollars being raked in from the Harry & Charlie video.)
Friday, December 30, 2011
BOYCOTT GOOGLE
I earlier wrote about the manipulation of my Google presence ("Googling 'Alison Maynard'"). When my name is googled, the same two malicious AbovetheLaw.com posts come up, over and over, along with numerous bad addresses. This blog (which has my name all over it) does not come up until page 17. I've revised the earlier post to reflect that two days after I posted it, I googled my name, and on the first page appeared an image of that very post ("Googling 'Alison Maynard'") with a colored rectangle around the bit about "pimply women," and a big arrow pointing to one woman's photo. After I revised my post to make it clear I did not mean any particular woman, the image with the colored rectangle and arrow immediately disappeared from the google results.
***Update Jan. 21, 2012: I have just googled "The Real Colorado"--AND THIS BLOG DOES NOT COME UP AT ALL. I WENT THROUGH ALL 35 PAGES OF RESULTS!***
When I wrote the blog post about John Gleason and his string of second mortgages, the name that Google gave it in the search bar was "Gleason's Greasin'." This was not the name I originally gave that post, although I later adopted it. I've also seen the title in the address bar change for other posts--in real time, while I am working on the post--and wondered. I have actually SUED Law Week for defamation for what came up when my name was googled in 2009: the results said "DISCIPLINE!" in red capital letters, with a link to the latest OARC complaint against me, which Law Week had published. That's gone now, too. But I printed it out.
Not a single one of my blog posts about "Brownstein, Hyatt" comes up in google, nor any of Stew Webb's, and I went through all 37 pages. I found only one article in the slightest bit negative about this firm, by Tim Carney with the Washington Examiner. The rest is just breathless slavish praise (although lots of redundant address information comes up for them, too.) Finally, I googled "Greg Hobbs," and none of my blog posts about HIM come up, either. I went to the end, page 27.
This indicates manipulation of the results within Google itself.
Google has connections with the CIA. It is also a "lobbying client" of the Brownstein, Hyatt law firm. Norm Brownstein is a former CIA counsel deeply involved with organized crime. See the remarkable book by Pete Brewton, The Mafia, CIA & George Bush.
When, by the way, did computers start being sold with Google search bars built into the operating system? This looks like anticompetitive activity. There are other search engines out there. Remember altavista?
I am starting my own grassroots campaign to boycott Google, and raise awareness. The impression everyone has is that computerized "bots" and web crawlers give you the search results on Google, and it's entirely neutral. This is not the case: there are human trolls directing what comes up, dripping snot on their keyboards as they ruin your life--and they have ruined mine--and then taking a fat paycheck from the banksters.
***Update, Jan. 19, 2012: Alex Jones is complaining about Google's censorship, too:
http://www.infowars.com/google-is-already-using-sopa-like-censorship/
***Update Jan. 21, 2012: I have just googled "The Real Colorado"--AND THIS BLOG DOES NOT COME UP AT ALL. I WENT THROUGH ALL 35 PAGES OF RESULTS!***
When I wrote the blog post about John Gleason and his string of second mortgages, the name that Google gave it in the search bar was "Gleason's Greasin'." This was not the name I originally gave that post, although I later adopted it. I've also seen the title in the address bar change for other posts--in real time, while I am working on the post--and wondered. I have actually SUED Law Week for defamation for what came up when my name was googled in 2009: the results said "DISCIPLINE!" in red capital letters, with a link to the latest OARC complaint against me, which Law Week had published. That's gone now, too. But I printed it out.
Not a single one of my blog posts about "Brownstein, Hyatt" comes up in google, nor any of Stew Webb's, and I went through all 37 pages. I found only one article in the slightest bit negative about this firm, by Tim Carney with the Washington Examiner. The rest is just breathless slavish praise (although lots of redundant address information comes up for them, too.) Finally, I googled "Greg Hobbs," and none of my blog posts about HIM come up, either. I went to the end, page 27.
This indicates manipulation of the results within Google itself.
Google has connections with the CIA. It is also a "lobbying client" of the Brownstein, Hyatt law firm. Norm Brownstein is a former CIA counsel deeply involved with organized crime. See the remarkable book by Pete Brewton, The Mafia, CIA & George Bush.
When, by the way, did computers start being sold with Google search bars built into the operating system? This looks like anticompetitive activity. There are other search engines out there. Remember altavista?
I am starting my own grassroots campaign to boycott Google, and raise awareness. The impression everyone has is that computerized "bots" and web crawlers give you the search results on Google, and it's entirely neutral. This is not the case: there are human trolls directing what comes up, dripping snot on their keyboards as they ruin your life--and they have ruined mine--and then taking a fat paycheck from the banksters.
***Update, Jan. 19, 2012: Alex Jones is complaining about Google's censorship, too:
http://www.infowars.com/google-is-already-using-sopa-like-censorship/
Friday, December 23, 2011
Assassination Techniques of the CIA and KGB
In his book Target Patton: The Plot to Assassinate General George S. Patton (Regnery Publishing Inc.: 2008), Robert K. Wilcox sets forth the evidence that General Patton was assassinated, the first step (the auto accident) probably having been staged by an OSS agent named Douglas Bazata on the orders of American General William "Wild Bill" Donovan (who was likely a British agent). (The second step was Patton's sudden death in the hospital two weeks later, when he was on the verge of being discharged.) Bazata--working for the OSS (later called the CIA)--has revealed his involvement in numerous assassinations, of Americans as well as foreign nationals.
At p. 209 Wilcox documents methods by which both the CIA and KGB assassinate political opponents. I quote from his book, below, as support for my "Log of Accidental Deaths," the implication being, of course, that arranging accidents and heart attacks is what the spooks do if they want to get rid of someone, and happens far more commonly than we suspect. Wilcox's footnotes are at the bottom.
"[A scenario such as introducing a harmful substance from a window into Patton's hospital room] is not far fetched in the clandestine world following World War II. Exploding cigars, poison needle umbrellas, even radioactive coffee have been publicly shown to have been weapons in the Cold War arsenals of the CIA and KGB.[11] World war II was an incubator for such grisly exotica, including biochemical assassination weapons. They were used surreptitiously by both sides. By the start of the Cold War, the Russians operated a "Special Bureau" with a lab for "undetectable means of exterminating human beings." [12] For instance, Soviet agents used an "atomizer" containing a bio-poison "which leaves no wound or other evidence of the cause of death.[13] "Natural killers" were created that could induce heart attack, "cerebral apoplexy," and other medical maladies leaving little or no trace.[14] For assassination, according to a formerly classified CIA study, "the contrived accident is the most effective technique. When successfully executed, it causes little excitement and is only casually investigated." [15] In a hospital, "drugs can be very effective," the study continues, "if the assassin is trained as a doctor or a nurse and the subject is under medical care. [It] is an easy and rare method. An overdose of morphine administered as a sedative will cause death without disturbance and is difficult to detect." Bazata told the Spotlight that a form of "refined cyanide" can "cause or appear to cause" embolism.
"[There follows a discussion of the Soviets' use of traffic accidents and hospitals as methods of murder. On pp. 222-23, Wilcox discusses the death of Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera, who:]
"...had been found dying outside the entrance to his apartment in Munich, Germany, in 1959. After autopsy, the death had been officially ruled the result of a natural heart attack. Little publicity was given to the death. But in a well-publicized trial in 1961, Stashinsky [a defected Soviet assassin] had testified he had been ordered by the KGB to assassinate Bandera, proof of Soviet assassination ams and methods that the outside world could not ignore. Stashinsky had killed Bandera with a specially designed gun that sprayed gaseous hydrogen cyanide in Bandera's face. The cyanide, a massive artery and vein constrictor, had induced heart failure. He had used the same "spray" gun two years earlier, Stashinsky confessed, to assassinate another Ukrainian leader, Lev Rebet--also thought to have been a natural death--and been told then that the weapon had been used successfully many times prior.
"On Patton?"
Notes:
11. Judyth Sassoon, "Biochemical Assassination Weapons," Encyclopedia of Intelligence, Gale Group, 2004. (http://www.espionageinfo.com/Ba-Bl/Biochemical-Assassination-Weapons.html.)
12. John Barron, KGB: The Secret Work of Soviet Secret Agents (Bantam Books, 1974), 419.
13. CIA memorandum entitled "Soviet Use of Assassination and Kidnapping," prepared in February 1964 for the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy and declassified in 1971; obtained at the UCLA Library.
14. Richard Camellion, Assassination: Theory and Practice (Paladin Press, 1977), 139.
At p. 209 Wilcox documents methods by which both the CIA and KGB assassinate political opponents. I quote from his book, below, as support for my "Log of Accidental Deaths," the implication being, of course, that arranging accidents and heart attacks is what the spooks do if they want to get rid of someone, and happens far more commonly than we suspect. Wilcox's footnotes are at the bottom.
"[A scenario such as introducing a harmful substance from a window into Patton's hospital room] is not far fetched in the clandestine world following World War II. Exploding cigars, poison needle umbrellas, even radioactive coffee have been publicly shown to have been weapons in the Cold War arsenals of the CIA and KGB.[11] World war II was an incubator for such grisly exotica, including biochemical assassination weapons. They were used surreptitiously by both sides. By the start of the Cold War, the Russians operated a "Special Bureau" with a lab for "undetectable means of exterminating human beings." [12] For instance, Soviet agents used an "atomizer" containing a bio-poison "which leaves no wound or other evidence of the cause of death.[13] "Natural killers" were created that could induce heart attack, "cerebral apoplexy," and other medical maladies leaving little or no trace.[14] For assassination, according to a formerly classified CIA study, "the contrived accident is the most effective technique. When successfully executed, it causes little excitement and is only casually investigated." [15] In a hospital, "drugs can be very effective," the study continues, "if the assassin is trained as a doctor or a nurse and the subject is under medical care. [It] is an easy and rare method. An overdose of morphine administered as a sedative will cause death without disturbance and is difficult to detect." Bazata told the Spotlight that a form of "refined cyanide" can "cause or appear to cause" embolism.
"[There follows a discussion of the Soviets' use of traffic accidents and hospitals as methods of murder. On pp. 222-23, Wilcox discusses the death of Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera, who:]
"...had been found dying outside the entrance to his apartment in Munich, Germany, in 1959. After autopsy, the death had been officially ruled the result of a natural heart attack. Little publicity was given to the death. But in a well-publicized trial in 1961, Stashinsky [a defected Soviet assassin] had testified he had been ordered by the KGB to assassinate Bandera, proof of Soviet assassination ams and methods that the outside world could not ignore. Stashinsky had killed Bandera with a specially designed gun that sprayed gaseous hydrogen cyanide in Bandera's face. The cyanide, a massive artery and vein constrictor, had induced heart failure. He had used the same "spray" gun two years earlier, Stashinsky confessed, to assassinate another Ukrainian leader, Lev Rebet--also thought to have been a natural death--and been told then that the weapon had been used successfully many times prior.
"On Patton?"
Notes:
11. Judyth Sassoon, "Biochemical Assassination Weapons," Encyclopedia of Intelligence, Gale Group, 2004. (http://www.espionageinfo.com/Ba-Bl/Biochemical-Assassination-Weapons.html.)
12. John Barron, KGB: The Secret Work of Soviet Secret Agents (Bantam Books, 1974), 419.
13. CIA memorandum entitled "Soviet Use of Assassination and Kidnapping," prepared in February 1964 for the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy and declassified in 1971; obtained at the UCLA Library.
14. Richard Camellion, Assassination: Theory and Practice (Paladin Press, 1977), 139.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Life Among the Sociopaths, Part II
This post is to provide links to my documents which establish violations of the Canons of Judicial Conduct by Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr., appointed to the Colorado Supreme Court by former Gov. Roy Romer in 1996. I will be adding to the documents in the near future.
I have grieved Greg twice (and see exhibits here and here) for his misconduct, but the Commission on Judicial Discipline has turned a blind eye. In fact, the letter I've linked to, from the Commission's director William Campbell, does not indicate the Commission was even provided my complaint when I renewed it in 2011, and I learned later, by email, that it was not. This, although the Commission informed me, in 2008, that I should renew my grievance if I believed Hobbs had engaged in this type of misconduct again. It at least interviewed him, and gave him a warning, in 2008. Campbell's letter contains other misrepresentations which I will dispose of when I upload the other documents.
The 2008 grievance linked to here establishes that in every appeal of mine Hobbs has ever sat on, he has met with my opponents ex parte (even in one case with my own CLIENT) to talk to them about the case. I showed, in the Animas-La Plata cases, that he had accepted gifts and money from my opponents, advocated publicly for the very project we were challenging in his court, and sat on boards and commissions with our opponents (one of which exists to fund development projects). I produced stunning evidence, the like of which one never normally gets, because how do you know what your judge is doing when he is not on the bench?
Greg was previously a water lawyer who represented development interests. He has remained rabidly committed to these interests since his appointment to the bench and has consistently and stubbornly refused to remain sequestered as a judge must. It is clear he believes the Canons of Judicial Conduct do not apply to him. He lashes out with extraordinary vindictiveness against anyone who stands in the way of his buddies the development attorneys. I am Exhibit 1: my trying to obtain the recusal of Hobbs in the Animas-La Plata diligence case (where he did NOT recuse, contrary to what Campbell's letter says), and then filing this grievance against him, has led to the ruination of my career as a lawyer. I have endured five nonstop years of harassing and groundless disciplinary proceedings.
I note that the Commission has a rule that all grievances against judges are confidential. This provision was also put into the Colorado Constitution (Art. VI, Sec. 23(3)(g)). (I don't know the year, since I do not presently have access to the Session Laws.) I am deliberately not respecting these proscriptions, since on their face they violate my rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
I have grieved Greg twice (and see exhibits here and here) for his misconduct, but the Commission on Judicial Discipline has turned a blind eye. In fact, the letter I've linked to, from the Commission's director William Campbell, does not indicate the Commission was even provided my complaint when I renewed it in 2011, and I learned later, by email, that it was not. This, although the Commission informed me, in 2008, that I should renew my grievance if I believed Hobbs had engaged in this type of misconduct again. It at least interviewed him, and gave him a warning, in 2008. Campbell's letter contains other misrepresentations which I will dispose of when I upload the other documents.
The 2008 grievance linked to here establishes that in every appeal of mine Hobbs has ever sat on, he has met with my opponents ex parte (even in one case with my own CLIENT) to talk to them about the case. I showed, in the Animas-La Plata cases, that he had accepted gifts and money from my opponents, advocated publicly for the very project we were challenging in his court, and sat on boards and commissions with our opponents (one of which exists to fund development projects). I produced stunning evidence, the like of which one never normally gets, because how do you know what your judge is doing when he is not on the bench?
Greg was previously a water lawyer who represented development interests. He has remained rabidly committed to these interests since his appointment to the bench and has consistently and stubbornly refused to remain sequestered as a judge must. It is clear he believes the Canons of Judicial Conduct do not apply to him. He lashes out with extraordinary vindictiveness against anyone who stands in the way of his buddies the development attorneys. I am Exhibit 1: my trying to obtain the recusal of Hobbs in the Animas-La Plata diligence case (where he did NOT recuse, contrary to what Campbell's letter says), and then filing this grievance against him, has led to the ruination of my career as a lawyer. I have endured five nonstop years of harassing and groundless disciplinary proceedings.
I note that the Commission has a rule that all grievances against judges are confidential. This provision was also put into the Colorado Constitution (Art. VI, Sec. 23(3)(g)). (I don't know the year, since I do not presently have access to the Session Laws.) I am deliberately not respecting these proscriptions, since on their face they violate my rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Googling "Alison Maynard"
I googled my own name last night and all that comes up are the two defamatory screeds posted about me in 2007 on AbovetheLaw.com by the cockroach David Lat. They come up over and over for the first five pages. (I did not look beyond that.) THIS BLOG does not even come up!
Also coming up are photos of unattractive women, different ones since 2007, at one point a whole slew of pimply women supposedly named Alison Maynard inviting you to join them on Facebook, one knocking back a martini. A lot of money is being poured into keeping this false picture of me in the forefront, and pushing my blog down. This would explain why I do not get much traffic on this site. People are being prohibited from finding out about it. I feel sorry for two other female attorneys, in the UK and Australia, who are named "Alison Maynard." They're being harmed by this smear campaign, too.
Several listings also come up for a business address I haven't had for 11 years, and addresses I have never had, including one in Quantico, VA (where they transformed my P.O. box number into a zip code). Even without the ridicule, the false contact information was enough to destroy my law practice. Together they most definitely did.
In 2002, when I ran for Colorado Attorney General--my opponent was Ken Salazar--I had a stellar web presence. Here's one of the things still online (which also does not come up when "Alison Maynard" is googled.) Some newspaper articles about my career are here; here's my issues statement from 2002--which sets forth a few of the reasons Mr. Salazar was unfit--and here's my resume. I have handled a great deal of litigation in the public interest--which means, in Colorado, fighting the corrupt governmental officials who were installed by the Mizel/Brownstein developer cabal. I do mean "installed," because they also control elections. And I do mean Ken Salazar, as one of several of their stooges. So, I did get some favorable press before 2002, mostly from local newspapers. Many of those newspapers have since been bought up by William Dean Singleton, who is "good friends with Larry Mizel" (see "The Dysfunctional Denver Post"). Many of my cases involve speculative water development; read about Animas-La Plata (ALP) and AWDI.
It was in one of my two ALP Supreme Court cases, the diligence case, that I backdated my brief by four days, and then VOLUNTARILY REPORTED TO THE COURT what I had done shortly afterwards. This is the subject of Lat's screeds.
My ALP opponents gleefully communicated my admission to him and he put it on the web, where it still is five years later. He never bothered to post the brief I wrote, in which I laid out fraud after fraud of my opponents in ALP, including judges, for 40 years. People need to read this brief, which I will shortly post, as well as my brief in the companion ALP reserved-rights case, to appreciate the connection between the frauds committed by these powerful people, and what has rained down on me since I exposed them. Neither of the ALP cases resulted in a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court. They were both wrongfully buried, without an opinion; and I became the target of unending disciplinary proceedings, groundless charges of mental incapacity, and huge monetary sanctions slapped on me summarily by courts, the latest of which--imposed without any due process whatsoever--is $100,000. I have been stripped of everything I own, as well as my ability to earn a living.
I continue to be ridiculed on the web. Enough already! I have paid my debt to society--far more than I ever owed (which was nothing).
For what it's worth, here's my explanation for what I did. I was suddenly given the same short deadline in my two ALP appeals, by the Colorado Supreme Court, both on pain of dismissal. I could not possibly meet it in both cases. Behind these orders was a conflicted justice named Greg Hobbs, who had publicly advocated for the very water project we were challenging in his court (ALP), as well as met secretly with our opponents. In 2008 I sent out press releases entitled "Vote 'No!' on Hobbs" when he was up for retention, documenting his conflicts--I also grieved him--and the disciplinary vendetta against me redoubled in intensity and fury.
Wouldn't you think it was time Lat shelved his stupid article, laid off the "search engine optimization," and canned his stupid website? What does it take for a cockroach to realize there are no crumbs left in the kitchen?
***Update, Dec. 28, 2011: I googled my name not long after I had posted this article. On the first page of results appeared an image of this very article, and the reference to "pimply women" had a green border around it with an arrow pointing to one of the pictures. This is proof positive that some troll, whom I envision as a hunchback with a single eye in the middle of his forehead, is monitoring my posts and manipulating the search engines to do me maximum harm. Maybe he is within Google itself.
I revised the text of this post, and just checked back: the image of the blog post--with the colored border and arrow--is no longer there! I wish I'd taken a picture.
***UPDATE Jan. 21, 2012: I just googled "The Real Colorado"--and THIS BLOG DOES NOT COME UP AT ALL!!! I WENT THROUGH ALL 35 PAGES OF RESULTS!***
Also coming up are photos of unattractive women, different ones since 2007, at one point a whole slew of pimply women supposedly named Alison Maynard inviting you to join them on Facebook, one knocking back a martini. A lot of money is being poured into keeping this false picture of me in the forefront, and pushing my blog down. This would explain why I do not get much traffic on this site. People are being prohibited from finding out about it. I feel sorry for two other female attorneys, in the UK and Australia, who are named "Alison Maynard." They're being harmed by this smear campaign, too.
Several listings also come up for a business address I haven't had for 11 years, and addresses I have never had, including one in Quantico, VA (where they transformed my P.O. box number into a zip code). Even without the ridicule, the false contact information was enough to destroy my law practice. Together they most definitely did.
In 2002, when I ran for Colorado Attorney General--my opponent was Ken Salazar--I had a stellar web presence. Here's one of the things still online (which also does not come up when "Alison Maynard" is googled.) Some newspaper articles about my career are here; here's my issues statement from 2002--which sets forth a few of the reasons Mr. Salazar was unfit--and here's my resume. I have handled a great deal of litigation in the public interest--which means, in Colorado, fighting the corrupt governmental officials who were installed by the Mizel/Brownstein developer cabal. I do mean "installed," because they also control elections. And I do mean Ken Salazar, as one of several of their stooges. So, I did get some favorable press before 2002, mostly from local newspapers. Many of those newspapers have since been bought up by William Dean Singleton, who is "good friends with Larry Mizel" (see "The Dysfunctional Denver Post"). Many of my cases involve speculative water development; read about Animas-La Plata (ALP) and AWDI.
It was in one of my two ALP Supreme Court cases, the diligence case, that I backdated my brief by four days, and then VOLUNTARILY REPORTED TO THE COURT what I had done shortly afterwards. This is the subject of Lat's screeds.
My ALP opponents gleefully communicated my admission to him and he put it on the web, where it still is five years later. He never bothered to post the brief I wrote, in which I laid out fraud after fraud of my opponents in ALP, including judges, for 40 years. People need to read this brief, which I will shortly post, as well as my brief in the companion ALP reserved-rights case, to appreciate the connection between the frauds committed by these powerful people, and what has rained down on me since I exposed them. Neither of the ALP cases resulted in a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court. They were both wrongfully buried, without an opinion; and I became the target of unending disciplinary proceedings, groundless charges of mental incapacity, and huge monetary sanctions slapped on me summarily by courts, the latest of which--imposed without any due process whatsoever--is $100,000. I have been stripped of everything I own, as well as my ability to earn a living.
I continue to be ridiculed on the web. Enough already! I have paid my debt to society--far more than I ever owed (which was nothing).
For what it's worth, here's my explanation for what I did. I was suddenly given the same short deadline in my two ALP appeals, by the Colorado Supreme Court, both on pain of dismissal. I could not possibly meet it in both cases. Behind these orders was a conflicted justice named Greg Hobbs, who had publicly advocated for the very water project we were challenging in his court (ALP), as well as met secretly with our opponents. In 2008 I sent out press releases entitled "Vote 'No!' on Hobbs" when he was up for retention, documenting his conflicts--I also grieved him--and the disciplinary vendetta against me redoubled in intensity and fury.
Wouldn't you think it was time Lat shelved his stupid article, laid off the "search engine optimization," and canned his stupid website? What does it take for a cockroach to realize there are no crumbs left in the kitchen?
***Update, Dec. 28, 2011: I googled my name not long after I had posted this article. On the first page of results appeared an image of this very article, and the reference to "pimply women" had a green border around it with an arrow pointing to one of the pictures. This is proof positive that some troll, whom I envision as a hunchback with a single eye in the middle of his forehead, is monitoring my posts and manipulating the search engines to do me maximum harm. Maybe he is within Google itself.
I revised the text of this post, and just checked back: the image of the blog post--with the colored border and arrow--is no longer there! I wish I'd taken a picture.
***UPDATE Jan. 21, 2012: I just googled "The Real Colorado"--and THIS BLOG DOES NOT COME UP AT ALL!!! I WENT THROUGH ALL 35 PAGES OF RESULTS!***
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Fear and Loathing in the Tenth Circuit
I really must document some of the shenanigans being pulled by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, where I filed a petition for extraordinary relief on May 6, 2011. "Extraordinary relief" means a writ of mandamus or prohibition. This is case 11-1207.
On August 3, 2011, I mailed a "Motion for Writ of Prohibition and Mandamus"(attached to which is this Exhibit A, our motion to recuse Judge John Kane) to the 10th Circuit, because the Court had ignored my petition, and PACER--the public access electronic filing system--has never shown my motion has been filed. Because I had sent it by regular mail, it could not be traced. Thus, I remailed the motion on August 14 and paid for delivery confirmation this time. The court has now admitted it received it each time. But it refuses to file it in the case!
The motion has never been docketed in case 11-1207. Instead, the court clerk opened a new case on August 5, 11-1363, and put my motion into THAT case. She then demanded a second $450 docket fee on threat of dismissal. I didn't pay--and she dismissed it. I filed an objection to what was going on in case 11-1207, which was referred to the "panel on the merits" on Sept. 6. It is now Oct. 28 and there has been no disposition of my objection, let alone my motion or petition.
This is too bizarre for words. And it's not a complete account of the runaround we've received, not by a long shot. We were initially required to file the petition not even with the Tenth Circuit, but with the district court. Judge Kane held it up, because we had asked for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This is case 11-1207. It is, of course, Judge Kane's orders we are appealing in the 10th Circuit, yet here he was prohibiting the appeal from going forward. This is his specialty: holding plaintiffs hostage so they never get their trial. As I revealed in our motion to recuse Judge Kane in the district court, I was an intern for him while a student in law school and drafted opinions actually disposing of cases, which he signed without change, so part of the picture with Kane is laziness. Another part is strong personal loyalty to the power elite, several of whom happen to be defendants in our case.
Kane ultimately found that neither my co-plaintiff Jerry Lewis nor I qualified as paupers, for different reasons. Never mind that both of us have been stripped of our homes, all our savings, and our livelihoods by the Defendants. I finally paid the $455 docket fee out of exasperation, out of the $3,000 I had left to my name, or our appeal would have been dismissed.
What our petition for writ of mandamus is challenging is the nonrandom transfer of the case to Kane, who is best buds with the Defendants. The chief judge, Wiley Daniel, took our case out of the computerized random assignment process to "transfer" it to Kane, who came on like a bull in a china shop and immediately struck our complaints and all motions, which had been on file for two years. The rogue judge then directed the toady magistrate, Michael Hegarty, to trump something up to get rid of us, and Hegarty has recently done that. Never mind that he had no jurisdiction, since our appeal in the Tenth Circuit was pending. But they don't care about the law. This is the court. They're above that, see.
When our petition was transmitted by the district court to the Court of Appeals on May 10, the clerk--or SOMEONE at the district court, maybe Kane again--buried it at the bottom of 101 pages of extraneous paper. Eighty-eight pages of crap were put on top of our 13-page petition before the whole thing was docketed as "civil complaint." Only the 13 pages at the bottom are our petition.
And then, it is not even available on PACER via the docket which comes up first. You must PAY to access the "full docket" before you can even see a link for this 101-page thing they have labeled "civil complaint." So I have linked to it on this blog, where people can find it without paying and without plowing through 101 pages of impertinent paper.
The foregoing is, of course, just the tip of the criminal iceberg known as the judicial system. Because an administrative runaround--being charged a second docket fee to get a motion considered in your case--is something the public can readily understand, I have given a blow-by-blow of one of those runarounds here; but laypeople need to know this happens all the time, in general turning on interpretation of much more technical rules, however. This gets the Court where it wants to go, which is to aid the banking/developer/insurance cabal. Always. And gets it there in the way which will be least understandable to the public (and often even to lawyers). I have a website in progress where I have detailed more of this for several cases in which matters of great public importance were ground to bits in this maw, almost always resulting in the transfer of public resources to developers. I hope people will take the time to work through it.
What else can we do but publicize the takeover and subversion of our institutions? The takeover of the courts is most terrifying and evil, since they are the most powerful. I am afraid to even return to Colorado--afraid the next judge I appear before will trump something up and throw me in jail, like they did Richard Fine.
On August 3, 2011, I mailed a "Motion for Writ of Prohibition and Mandamus"(attached to which is this Exhibit A, our motion to recuse Judge John Kane) to the 10th Circuit, because the Court had ignored my petition, and PACER--the public access electronic filing system--has never shown my motion has been filed. Because I had sent it by regular mail, it could not be traced. Thus, I remailed the motion on August 14 and paid for delivery confirmation this time. The court has now admitted it received it each time. But it refuses to file it in the case!
The motion has never been docketed in case 11-1207. Instead, the court clerk opened a new case on August 5, 11-1363, and put my motion into THAT case. She then demanded a second $450 docket fee on threat of dismissal. I didn't pay--and she dismissed it. I filed an objection to what was going on in case 11-1207, which was referred to the "panel on the merits" on Sept. 6. It is now Oct. 28 and there has been no disposition of my objection, let alone my motion or petition.
This is too bizarre for words. And it's not a complete account of the runaround we've received, not by a long shot. We were initially required to file the petition not even with the Tenth Circuit, but with the district court. Judge Kane held it up, because we had asked for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This is case 11-1207. It is, of course, Judge Kane's orders we are appealing in the 10th Circuit, yet here he was prohibiting the appeal from going forward. This is his specialty: holding plaintiffs hostage so they never get their trial. As I revealed in our motion to recuse Judge Kane in the district court, I was an intern for him while a student in law school and drafted opinions actually disposing of cases, which he signed without change, so part of the picture with Kane is laziness. Another part is strong personal loyalty to the power elite, several of whom happen to be defendants in our case.
Kane ultimately found that neither my co-plaintiff Jerry Lewis nor I qualified as paupers, for different reasons. Never mind that both of us have been stripped of our homes, all our savings, and our livelihoods by the Defendants. I finally paid the $455 docket fee out of exasperation, out of the $3,000 I had left to my name, or our appeal would have been dismissed.
What our petition for writ of mandamus is challenging is the nonrandom transfer of the case to Kane, who is best buds with the Defendants. The chief judge, Wiley Daniel, took our case out of the computerized random assignment process to "transfer" it to Kane, who came on like a bull in a china shop and immediately struck our complaints and all motions, which had been on file for two years. The rogue judge then directed the toady magistrate, Michael Hegarty, to trump something up to get rid of us, and Hegarty has recently done that. Never mind that he had no jurisdiction, since our appeal in the Tenth Circuit was pending. But they don't care about the law. This is the court. They're above that, see.
When our petition was transmitted by the district court to the Court of Appeals on May 10, the clerk--or SOMEONE at the district court, maybe Kane again--buried it at the bottom of 101 pages of extraneous paper. Eighty-eight pages of crap were put on top of our 13-page petition before the whole thing was docketed as "civil complaint." Only the 13 pages at the bottom are our petition.
And then, it is not even available on PACER via the docket which comes up first. You must PAY to access the "full docket" before you can even see a link for this 101-page thing they have labeled "civil complaint." So I have linked to it on this blog, where people can find it without paying and without plowing through 101 pages of impertinent paper.
The foregoing is, of course, just the tip of the criminal iceberg known as the judicial system. Because an administrative runaround--being charged a second docket fee to get a motion considered in your case--is something the public can readily understand, I have given a blow-by-blow of one of those runarounds here; but laypeople need to know this happens all the time, in general turning on interpretation of much more technical rules, however. This gets the Court where it wants to go, which is to aid the banking/developer/insurance cabal. Always. And gets it there in the way which will be least understandable to the public (and often even to lawyers). I have a website in progress where I have detailed more of this for several cases in which matters of great public importance were ground to bits in this maw, almost always resulting in the transfer of public resources to developers. I hope people will take the time to work through it.
What else can we do but publicize the takeover and subversion of our institutions? The takeover of the courts is most terrifying and evil, since they are the most powerful. I am afraid to even return to Colorado--afraid the next judge I appear before will trump something up and throw me in jail, like they did Richard Fine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.JPG)
