Friday, January 22, 2010

Death and Emails on the Colorado River

On January 15, 2009, Susan Greene, a Denver Post columnist, wrote "Tapping Mexico for Water," reporting on a ceremony between Interior officials and Mexican diplomats, who shook hands and smiled for cameras in Washington "after pledging cooperation on the Colorado River." This is because "parched communities in Nevada, Arizona, and California have been eyeing water south of the border." In other words, these communities want to steal even the little bit of Colorado River water which currently trickles into Mexico under our treaty, and they found somebody from Mexico to sign it over to them. The deal appears totally one-sided, favoring U.S. development interests, although undoubtedly American taxpayers will foot the bill for the proposed desalination plant in Mexico.

Greene then reported that "water talks between the two countries were set back dramatically in September when the main U.S. and Mexican envoys on the issue were killed, together, in a plane crash."

This was stunning news. I googled until my computer spewed steam, finding nothing, so wrote a letter to Greene, as well as to the Denver Post. I asked what the names of these envoys were and what they had been negotiating. I said that my clients, whose number one concern is the Colorado River, knew nothing about such "negotiations" with Mexico. There is a group which we know meets about Colorado River compact issues, but it has no website and does not hold public meetings, so we have never been able to get information. I asked Greene how she knew these things--who told her? Were the envoys who were killed about to sign an agreement that Mexico should get real wet water, to restore the desiccated Colorado River Delta?

The "lead negotiator" on the deal--after the deaths of the envoys, presumably--was Jim Lochhead, who is not a governmental official. He is a water attorney with Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber & Schreck, which represents real estate developers. In fact, Brownstein has the Colorado River sewn up since its mergers with the Schreck Law Firm in Las Vegas and the Hatch & Parent water law firm of California. Thus, it's disingenuous to say the "parched communities of Nevada, Arizona, and California" have been eyeing this water. Instead, it is a far more logical conclusion that Brownstein has been eyeing it, and now has made a deal to send all the water its way.

Brownstein is easily linked to the mob. After you google--and gag--at what comes up on Brownstein and his "client" Larry Mizel, try googling Mr. Schreck of Las Vegas; whew.

Greene did not respond to my email, and the Denver Post did not publish my letter. Remembering my emails, I just searched for them in my gmail account, and they are gone. On one attempt, I got the advice, "The conversation no longer exists." But I certainly did not delete them and it was only a year ago. The Denver Post's publisher, William Dean Singleton, has been reported by Pete Brewton, a former Houston Chronicle reporter, to be "best friends" with Larry Mizel, the guy who ripped off Silverado with Brownstein's help.

Through more googling, I learned that John Keys, the former Bureau of Reclamation commissioner, also died in a plane crash "on May 30." It's not clear what year, but I am guessing 2008. The only place that item appeared was in a Bureau employee newsletter. Google brings up not a single newspaper article in the entire United States about this incident.

Alison Maynard

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Who I Am

My name is Alison Maynard and my nickname is "Sunny." I have been a lawyer specializing in water rights and land use for 24 years. I have represented citizens' groups, environmental groups, and individuals, however--not real estate developers--and many times I have taken cases on a low- or no-fee basis, to provide access to legal representation to persons and causes who otherwise would not have it. I received my A.B. in physics from Cornell University, College of Arts & Sciences, in 1976, and J.D. from the University of Denver College of Law in 1986. Here's my resume, if you want to know more.

I was the Green Party candidate for Colorado Attorney General in 2002 and my Democratic opponent was Ken Salazar. I ran because, through the litigation I have done, I know of some enormously bad acts by public officials in the Romer Administration, one of whom was Salazar. I saw them secretly carving up public lands and water rights to give pieces to developers, so I made these campaign issues.  Like one of my heroes, Ralph Nader, I was excluded from almost every forum and debate; but in the few I got to speak at, I drove some points home, many of which I will now post on this blog. They're still important, particularly given Salazar's ascendancy to Secretary of Interior. 

One would think I should have gotten an award for my dedication to my clients and exposure of corruption.  Instead, I have been subjected to an onslaught of groundless and retaliatory disciplinary proceedings against my license for over four years, as well as huge monetary sanctions imposed summarily by courts.  The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel has trumped up this string of charges, and smeared me with untruthful material.  Its mission is not to correct ethical missteps, but to discredit me, and destroy me financially.  What appears to have really set them off is some blogging I've done about judicial corruption, characterizing what I have been litigating against as "asset stripping enabled by judges."  Hoo-boy, are we not supposed to talk about that! At bottom, I believe, is a Colorado Supreme Court justice--Romer appointee, natch--named Greg Hobbs. He has met with my opponents (repeatedly) in every appeal I have brought to his court. I believe he is, in fact, telling the judges in my lower-court cases, as well as OARC, to do this to me.

I have brought a racketeering/civil rights suit, which lays out what I've been through, at least as of August 2010; and then a suit I was forced to bring in April 2011 because of the latest sanctions, this time imposed  by a Denver District Court judge.  Here is the complaint.

These suits have the federal court in a tizzy.  Eight judges and five magistrates have recused--and, although the first one has been on file since August 2009, nothing has happened.  Disclosures, scheduling, discovery, everything has been "stayed," without an ounce of authority. The State is fighting disclosures because I am insisting on the judges' emails--particularly Hobbs's.
 The latest development is a "transfer" of the case to Judge Kane, who struck my complaints and sanctioned me groundlessly about six times in the first week he was on the case. (He came on on March 29, 2011).  You can read about it all in my "Motion to Recuse Judge Kane", filed April 15, 2011. He is closely associated with the same Democratic cabal whose corruption I have exposed.

This will give you a taste of what's going on in this state.  It doesn't bear any resemblance to the American judicial system we learned about in 8th grade civics.  It looks a lot more like the Soviet Union.






Is Ken Salazar reading my emails?

Gee, it appears he is, although I haven't sent him any!

The New York Times on Jan. 12, 2010, had an editorial discussing a press conference Ken Salazar, present Secretary of the Interior, gave about his decision to conduct more rigorous review of proposed oil and gas leases on public lands. It was entitled, "No More 'Candy Store'" and said in pertinent part:

"The bureau [of Land Management], he declared bluntly,would no longer be a 'candy store' for an oil and gas industry that (mixing his metaphors) had been allowed to act like 'kings of the world' during the Bush years."

This is most interesting, because on Oct. 30, 2009, I sent an email out to two friends (who said they did not forward it), in which I likened Ken Salazar, Tom Strickland, and Anne Castle--now occupying the top three jobs at the Dept. of Interior--to "kids in a candy store." The context of my email was big water rights owned by the federal government. What I see is that this stricter review is not about the environment. It is about who gets the water, the oil companies (who generally fund Republicans) or the real estate developers (who fund Democrats).

I had sent an earlier email talking about the fact that, if the oil shale leases Shell Oil was granted in NW Colorado were nullified, its big senior conditional water rights for oil shale development would also probably be cancelled, for inability to show diligence. If Priority #1 goes away, Priorities Nos. 2 through 20,000 benefit from an increased water supply. Probably the juniors are water rights owned by developers represented by the Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber & Schreck law firm. Tom Strickland is a former partner of the Brownstein firm and that firm RAN--I mean, it RAN--Ken Salazar's campaigns for Colorado Attorney General and the Senate. As for Anne Castle, she is a real water lawyer--who also, of course, represented developers--with Holland & Hart. Basically, the Brownstein firm, with its recent mergers with the Schreck law firm in Las Vegas and Hatch & Parent in California, has the Colorado River sewn up,

I speculated that these appointments to the top three jobs at Interior were very likely payback to Brownstein partner Steve Farber for bringing the Democratic National Convention to Denver, where Obama was nominated.

Anyway, I used the term "candy store" referring to Ken Salazar, the federal government, and leases to public lands for oil development, the same context he used it in. Hmmm.

After I saw that NY Times editorial, and emailed a few friends about this coincidence, my computer went kerflooey. I could not even get into WordPerfect. It has just spent four days in rehab.

Alison Maynard

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

What really happened in Animas-La Plata

I wrote the following for Wikipedia, but then got into a battle with the project proponents, who kept replacing the true--if somewhat sarcastic--story I had posted with their "official version." I will shortly be adding links to documents to support what I have said, in this blog.

The long and the short of it--if you've googled me--is that I have been ridiculed mercilessly on the web by my opponents in this case, apparently to divert attention from the very real multibillion-dollar frauds they have committed, along with lies to Congress, to the water court, and to the public.

Wiki says:

"The Animas-La Plata water project is being built to fulfill the water rights settlement of the two Indian tribes that live in Colorado--the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe."

Well, yes, that's what the promoters of this billion-dollar boondoggle say. Unfortunately, there was no consideration for the "settlement," because the Utes never had a valid claim for water.

The Utes' reservation was extinguished by an Act of Congress in 1880. During the 20th century, they were permitted by acts of Congress to sue the government several times to recover for the property interests disposed of from their reservation, recovering, by 1950, over $1 billion (in 1998 dollars). In that year (1950), they signed several consent judgments agreeing that this was the last time they would come to court. They agreed they would never seek any more compensation for their extinguished property interests and that the 1950 judgment was res judicata.

However, the very next year, 1951, they were back in court with more claims for compensation. The Court of Claims approved their application, with one lone dissenter, Judge Skelton, who was outraged by it. He said:

     "I cannot agree with the reasoning of the majority nor with the result they reach. In my opinion, the            Indians in this case, along with other Southern Ute tribes, were paid $31,938,473.43 in 1950 for the identical land involved here, together with other lands. This was the largest judgment ever awarded by this court since it was established in 1855. The attorneys who represented the Indians in the recovery of this tremendous judgment received an attorney fee of $2,800,000. [See Confederated Band of Ute Indians v. United States, 120 Ct.Cl. 609 (1951).] As will be seen in the following pages, the same Indians and the same attorneys are before the court again in this case asking that they be paid again (twice) for the same land, and the opinion of the majority is going to allow them to get this double payment. This results, in my opinion, in a shocking giveaway of millions of dollars of public money of the United States, and I cannot agree to it."

   191 Ct.Cl. at 32.

The United States Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Brennan, agreed with Judge Skelton and reversed the Court of Claims in a 1971 opinion, United States v. Southern Ute Tribe or Band of Indians, 402 U.S. 159. True to form, however, the Utes--through their Anglo attorneys--were back in court the very next year, 1972, with more claims arising from their extinguished reservation, this time for reserved water rights.

   So now we look at the so-called Animas-La Plata Project (ALP), which is now being built to “settle” those claims for reserved water rights, claims which were prohibited because of the 1880 Act of Congress, the 1971 Supreme Court opinion, and the Utes' own agreement in 1950 that they would never come back to court again to seek more compensation for their lost property interests. In other words, the American taxpayers are being required to fork over a billion dollars to build a water project to "settle" nonexistent claims. And ALP is not even a "project"--it's only a hole in the ground. There are no plans to take the water anywhere: the original irrigation project was completely scrapped, also by an Act of Congress and the consent of the interested parties themselves, since taking irrigation out was the only way they could get it funded. We the taxpayers will be paying for this boondoggle for years, with interest, until a use for the water is discovered. And then we will have to build them a distribution system, which will be untold billions more, money never factored into the original cost. Anomalously for a Bureau of Reclamation project, all project costs have been transferred to the American taxpayer! That’s because, since there is no use for the water, there are no water users to pay for it.

   There are numerous other problems, including egregious frauds committed by the project's attorneys in the Colorado water court, and lies to Congress. The frauds in the court started in the 1960's, possibly in the 1950's. The applicant for the water rights was the Southwestern Water Conservation District, whose attorney was a man named Bill Eakes. In 1963, Eakes filed the statements of claim for ALP water rights in the court, as the SWCD's attorney; in 1965, he argued them to the referee; then, in 1966, he became the judge and granted the claims. Thus, he signed decrees, as the judge, awarding the very water rights he had filed for as the attorney! And then he signed decrees granting diligence on these rights several years in a row (and there is strong evidence that the applications for diligence were forged and placed in the court file long after the fact, by him personally). This was, again, when the A-LP was strictly an irrigation project, dreamed up to benefit the Anglo landowners in the La Plata drainage--the Indians were not involved in any way--but it was never economically feasible, according to the Bureau's own studies. Eakes's prodigy, an attorney named Sam Maynes, sat down with Judge Eakes and a Bureau engineer in the water court later in private conclaves to change the decree as they saw fit, adding new structures and uses in order to try and get the project funded, never with any of the notice to the public which the law requires.

   The court records from these proceedings have been altered in numerous ways; many documents are missing which should be in the court file; transcripts are missing reporter certifications and pages; and other evidence is just gone. In fact, the file reveals that an adjudication held in the early 1950's, which should have been closed and in which a decree should have issued on the evidence by 1952--prioritizing water rights all of which would have been senior to the ALP--was irregularly reopened by Eakes when he became the judge. It is highly likely that a decree from the 1951 proceeding was issued, but later disposed of, in order that Eakes and Maynes could draft a new one in 1966 and insert an ALP water right into the existing priority list, thus giving it seniority over many other water rights it should not have had.

   In the mid-1980's, Maynes and his cronies had still failed to obtain Congressional authorization for the project, so this is when they joined forces with the Utes (who were Maynes's clients in other matters, anyway) and "settled" the applications for reserved rights by giving the Utes the Animas-La Plata project. This moribund and economically infeasible irrigation project was thus magically transformed into an "Indian Project." The Utes' reserved rights applications are the very ones discussed above: illegal on their face because filed in violation of the 1971 United States Supreme Court opinion and 1880 Act of Congress. Obviously, reserved water rights could not have survived the 1880 extinguishment of the reservation, since they are implied from a reservation of land. The proceedings in water court from 1972 to 1991 then were themselves violative of state laws and due process. There were over 100 objectors in the case who were just "blown off" by the powerful interests who were feeding at the ALP trough, with the blessing of the court. These 100 objectors never stipulated to any decree, yet a decree was entered. In fact, everything that happened in the court happened ex parte: these objectors were not served notice of any of it. They were just excluded. And not much is of record in the court case, anyway--the "settlement" was a secret backroom deal which the court, Judge Al Haas by that time, just signed off on, in 1991, when he got a letter from Colorado deputy attorney general Lois Witte saying the Big Guys have settled now so please sign our decree. This letter also was not served on the 100-plus objectors, nor is it in the court file. And, as mentioned, the “settlement” was only among about ten parties, the powerful development interests. The other 100 objectors were totally ignored.  They did not even get served a copy of the "decree," in order to thwart their appeal rights.  If you think that sounds like misconduct, of every attorney and party involved, as well as the judges, you are, of course, right.

   The biggest joke of all--a sick joke on the taxpayer--is that there is no use for the water. There is no "project," in other words: there is only a hole in the ground, Ridges Basin Reservoir (now called Nighthorse Reservoir, dubbed “Nightmare Reservoir” by locals). There has never been any distribution system proposed, because there is no way to use the water. In this "reserved rights case," no quantification of the amount necessary to fulfill the purposes of the reservation was ever done--at least, none was presented to the court, which makes this “project” different from every reserved rights case ever litigated in this country. There was only this "settlement" executed by the federal government, the State of Colorado, the Southwestern Water Conservation District, the Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy District, the two Ute tribes, and a couple other water districts, most of whom were represented by Maynes. (The Bureau of Reclamation in Durango even leases offices in a building owned by Maynes.) The settlement has no basis in any engineering anywhere. These interests hogged all the water in SW Colorado, from nine streams (never even thought of in connection with the original irrigation scheme), and gave it to the Ute Tribes. And this is an important point: this is almost all of Colorado's remaining allocation of Colorado River water, under the Compact. It has been given away to other sovereigns.

In the mid-1980's, the SWCD got Congressional funding and EPA approval for the project, now as an "Indian water rights settlement," by agreeing that there would be no irrigation. Yet the sole purpose of the original project was irrigation: thus, the only possible use for the water was removed by an Act of Congress. Representatives of the SWCD, including their attorneys Sam Maynes and David Robbins, appeared before Congress and swore that they were dropping the use for irrigation, in order to get the funding. However, despite their statements to Congress–and despite never even stating, in an application they filed for diligence on their water rights in 2001, that they were seeking diligence on the use for irrigation--David Robbins assured the water court that they had never meant to give it up, and diligence as to irrigation was decreed. Congress and the EPA were lied to, in other words. These people never had any intention of giving up irrigation.

   Another incredible oversight on the part of the ALP attorneys is that they lost the water right for Ridges Basin Reservoir due to their failure to file for diligence on it in 2001. But never mind. As has been typical conduct for them, they created one out of thin air--a total fiction, as to which there was no public notice and no adjudication. They just slipped it into the diligence decree they drafted, so magically there was diligence on that, too, and the court signed it. It is a fraud, and here are the attorneys responsible for it: David Robbins, Susan Schneider, Scott McElroy, Jennifer Hunt, Eve McDonald, and Dan Israel.

   Beginning in 2001 and 2002, Citizens' Progressive Alliance contested both the diligence proceedings, and applications to "change" the reserved water rights, in good faith in the water court. Its members include a number of senior water rights owners in Colorado and New Mexico who have had their rights simply stripped away by the ALP deal. CPA has been the subject of sheer harassment by the other side for eight years. The proponents just played games in the court to buy time while they dug their hole. The water court, Judge Gregory Lyman by that time, ceded all control over case management to these project attorneys named above and smiled on the proponents’ attorneys’ misconduct. CPA could not even get any disclosures out of them, as the rules require. The rules didn’t apply to the ALP proponents, in Lyman's court. They were permitted to draft numerous "scheduling orders" exempting themselves from all deadlines and other requirements imposed by the rules, so they could get their project built before any of CPA’s claims were ever decided. CPA never even GOT any disclosures: a billion dollar water project, and the United States’ attorney, Susan Schneider, disclosed not a single person with knowledge of it, nor a single document other than a handful which were already publicly available. When CPA's representatives met with project attorneys two years into the case, after CPA finally got the court to set a date for the proponents’ disclosures, Susan Schneider told CPA flat out, "You're not getting anything." And she was right: CPA didn't get anything. CPA's attorney Alison Maynard [yours truly] moved to compel and for sanctions, and her motion was not only denied, but Judge Lyman warned her she would be subject to sanctions, herself, if she ever moved for sanctions again!  So much for enforcement of the rules. CPA didn't get any.  Lyman also threatened me with sanctions if I used the word "Orwellian," at one point.  So much for the First Amendment!

Jennifer Hunt, Robbins's associate, also waited until the last day in the period in which discovery was open--it was open for CPA all of two months--to disclose five new witnesses. Sharp practice, to say the least. At the reserved rights trial, CPA had an EPA official ready and willing to testify about the violations of environmental laws and the stipulations the applicants had made to Congress, and how it came to pass that his own disapproval of the project was overridden, and Judge Lyman would not let him testify.

   In addition, CPA knew, from other sources, that the practicably irrigable acreage of the reservation had been quantified by both the State of Colorado and the federal government many years earlier, but despite FOIA requests; a FOIA suit in New Mexico; open records act requests in Colorado; and demands for production of documents pursuant to Rule 34 in the water cases, CPA never got ANY of these reports--and they are strictly factual, as engineering. There is nothing confidential about them.

   After being jacked around for five years in the water court, only to see Lyin' Lyman rubberstamp everything the other side asked for and deny CPA everything IT asked for, CPA went to the Colorado Supreme Court, where it saw its diligence appeal get dismissed on a pretext and no opinion whatsoever issue on the reserved rights appeal, 07 SA 100. In 07 SA 100, the Court just issued a one-line order "affirming the decision of the Division 7 water court." Shucks, I bet you thought the Supreme Court had a duty to determine the issues brought to it on appeal, or at least to mention them! And heck, CPA showed the blatant violation of a United States Supreme Court decision!  And heck, we showed the judge who granted the initial decree had been the attorney who filed the very application!  But the Colo. Supreme Court didn't think it worthwhile to decide, or even mention, any of those issues. And it didn’t publish this embarrassing excuse for an appellate opinion, either, showing it knew, itself, it was doing something highly irregular, basing its decision not on the evidence or the law, but on impermissible considerations it wasn't about to disclose. It just swept the case under the rug. Obviously, if the Colorado Supreme Court mentioned the little problems CPA had identified, it would then have to decide the issues in CPA's favor--like the 100 objectors in the case who never stipulated to the "decree," and were never served anything else in the case, just blown off by the development interests and the court; like the fact there is no use for the water whatsoever, and the "project" is totally speculative; and that the Utes and their attorneys, particularly the United States Department of Justice, and the Colorado courts are brazenly thumbing their noses at a United States Supreme Court decision and Act of Congress.

   And then there is this string of fraudulent court decrees the ALP attorneys have caused to be entered, treating the water court as their own private playground. Janice Sheftel, and of course her mentor Sam Maynes, kept adding new uses into every diligence application, uses which were never the subject of public notice or any prior diligence decree. Nothing but fraud, all the way around, and Judge Lyman and the Colorado Supreme Court not only looked the other way, they actively enabled it, and acted like CPA had brought no issues to them for determination, at all.

   The Colorado Supreme Court has some other serious problems; notably, CPA got three justices of the seven recused from its reserved rights appeal. One in particular, Greg Hobbs, has made public statements advocating for the Animas-La Plata project. He has repeatedly accepted gifts and money and other favors from the Southwestern District and its attorney David Robbins (who is his good friend) and engaged in numerous ex parte contacts with them while our appeals were pending, and before. While CPA did get him recused in the reserved rights case, he did not recuse himself in the diligence case--instead, he unlawfully participated in the order dismissing CPA's appeal. CPA’s attorney has since found herself, for the last 2-1/2 years, having to defend against never-ending groundless disciplinary charges brought against her, as well as unwarranted sanctions imposed by other courts she is practicing in--to the tune now of over two hundred thousand dollars--which she believes Hobbs is behind. In other words, she believes she is being retaliated against for exposing the corruption in this project and in the courts, and for exposing Hobbs's misconduct in particular.

   So: a huge boondoggle, and at the bottom of it corruption in the Colorado courts. In addition, the Southwestern Water Conservation District is itself nothing but a racket. It is a money-laundering enterprise. It has no customers, does not supply water to anyone, has no works, no pumps or pipelines (although it now does have this big hole in the ground American taxpayers paid for). The SWCD exists only to tax and speculate in water rights. It brings in about a million dollars a year in tax money and it will not reveal where this money goes (although it does have two law firms working for it, both of whom had attorneys present during our trials, billing the SWCD between $1,000 and $2,000 per hour). It has shown CPA bills from lobbyists, such as Ray Kogovsek in Pueblo, which say simply "Lobbying: $25,000," with no itemization--no indication whatsoever how many lunches Kogovsek bought for which Congressional reps. And it's not simply that $25,000 buys a lot of lunches--it's a MILLION BUCKS A YEAR buying lunches. Or buying something else. Sure wish we knew what--but, of course, we can make an educated guess.

Far better to have elected judges

There was an article in the New York Times on Dec. 24, 2009, about the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver, headed by Rebecca Kourlis, a former Colorado Supreme Court justice.

Rebecca Kourlis's writings as a justice reveal an agenda, which is to make it impossible for injured persons (meaning, plaintiffs who sue well-funded defendants) to have access to the courts. This is the kind of "advance" she wishes to see in the American legal system: more hurdles to tort plaintiffs in bringing their claims, for example, as well as the removal of governmental restrictions on real estate and water development. In numerous cases she has argued, in lone dissents, for the strengthening of landowners' defenses against tort liability; for ways to close the courthouse door against injured persons; and for loosening already loose restrictions on subdividers. In water cases, she avidly made the "notice" requirement, by which injured water rights owners are apprised of applications which might affect their rights so they can come into court and object, so broad, and including such vague, obscure references, as to effectively disembowel the requirement of notice.

The goal of doing away with the election of judges in other states, based on the Colorado "success story," I see as an important part of Ms. Kourlis's plan. Colorado is not a success story. The appointment of judges here is done under a veil of secrecy, completely removes all opportunity for the public to be heard, and has resulted in people holding judgeships who were never vetted by the bar and are plainly beholden to the political interests which put them in office.

Even after their appointment, almost no information is available about them. I have tried to get letters of recommendation written on behalf of judges when they applied for their judgeships and found I am barred by statute. I have asked Attorney Registration for information about past law firm employment, and been told they "do not keep old records." The Commission on Judicial Discipline also is prohibited from revealing information about complaints filed against judges. All of this information would be highly relevant to assessing whether a judge has a conflict in a case, as well as fundamental to assessing a judge's performance, but we are denied it.

The retention election, after a judge's appointment by the governor, is a meaningless exercise: the judges are always retained, with only two exceptions I can think of, where the power structure (with their lapdog The Denver Post) turned public opinion against them.

While there are obvious problems with electing judges, and letting them campaign and accept campaign contributions, those could be removed in one fell swoop with publicly funded elections. But there is never any discussion of this option, in this state.

--Alison Maynard

Whew, it's hot in here!

At long last, I've decided to step out of the looking glass and tell the real world some of the things that are going on in Colorado.

In a nutshell, it's public officials using their official powers to transfer property from the true owners to real estate developers (and other financial interests). The scariest and most powerful are the judges, who accomplish this asset-stripping by means of solemn orders which bear the sheen of legitimacy, as presumptively the result of learned deliberations on the law and full consideration of the evidence.

My experience is that the law and the evidence aren't playing much of a role.

I see, in a new light, the extensive security systems at the courthouse. Ever been to the federal court in Denver? There are at least five six-foot-tall U.S. marshals there full-time standing around at the detector taking people's cellphones away and examining their shoes. They're there to protect the judges against disgruntled litigants, see. What the marshals don't probably realize, themselves, is that litigants these days usually have every right to be disgruntled, because the courts have become the instrument by which innocent persons' property is transferred to the financial cabal, without right. I have uncovered many links between the persons who benefit from these orders, the persons who appoint the judges in Colorado, organized crime--and the CIA--which I will discuss in this blog. I'm referring to it now as the "Banking/Judicial Complex." 

I don't know how many times I've been denied discovery of my opponents' documents and witnesses, in blatant violation of the rules; had the judge threaten ME with sanctions--and even impose them--when I tried to enforce the rules; gotten nothing but a runaround, for YEARS, when I've tried to get a trial setting; and read orders which have no relationship to the evidence or the law.  And now, because I have exposed several big rackets going on in this state, involving attorneys as well as judges, I am the subject of disciplinary proceedings without end.


And, of course, it makes sense this is how an attorney--someone who knows how the system works--can be silenced. Go after her license so she can't make a living and loses her home defending herself.  Stigmatize and humiliate her, by requiring her to submit to a mental evaluation before you'll let her earn her living again. 

Never mind that what you're doing looks an awful lot like Stalin's favored method for dealing with dissidents:  put 'em in a straitjacket and send them to a mental asylum.

So this is my story. Stay tuned.