Saturday, September 15, 2012

The Selective Prosecution of Alison Maynard, part I

People who have googled my name will find out not only that I was forced to defend, for five years, against a slew of groundless disciplinary proceedings brought by the Colorado Supreme Court's Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, but will see the entries by David Lat of "AbovetheLaw.com," mocking me for the only thing I actually did wrong, a peccadillo I self-reported.  I backdated a brief by four days (in a case which had been pending for over 50 years, Animas-La Plata), because I had been denied a last extension I needed.*  I then voluntarily self-reported what I had done to the court a few days later, after I had learned the brief had been accepted as timely filed--and was suspended for a year. 

Compare this opinion published in 2012 by the Colorado Supreme Court, which concluded Attorney F. deserved no public discipline for violating Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) and 8.4(c), which proscribe conduct involving "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation" and  "prejudicial to the administration of justice."

Attorney F, a deputy district attorney, had a chat with her witness, the mother of the victim, during a break in the testimony.  The mother went back on the stand and "corrected" what she had testified to earlier.  The defense attorney asked the mother whether she had had a discussion with the deputy DA, and the mother lied and said, "No."  The defense attorney also asked Attorney F. during the break whether she had spoken to the mother, and Attorney F. lied and said, "No."  Attorney F. did not correct these lies until the next day (when she realized the victim's advocate had been present while she coached the mother).

So my case is in some respects similar, except the date on which I mailed the brief was immaterial to the issues before the court (unlike the mother's testimony); and I had no witness to my misrepresentation.  I came forward because I did not want to be making oral argument to the Court about the frauds committed by my opponents and three judges (in the Animas-La Plata water case), while knowing I had made a misrepresentation, myself.  Instead of being unethical, I was scrupulous to a fault.

Attorney F. had the public censure originally imposed (a much less severe sanction than a suspension to begin with) wiped off her record.  Her name was not even published.  The Court explains its "policy" of not publishing attorneys' names under certain circumstances, apparently to distinguish the string of cases in which they have dragged my name through the mud.  Another striking contrast is that Attorney F. actually got her issues decided on appeal.  The Supreme Court did not decide mine.  I showed that, as a matter of law, I could not be convicted of the offense of making a false statement, because I had retracted it in the same proceeding in which it was made.  I also showed that my statement was not material, since the date a brief was filed has no bearing on the issues before the court.  These are affirmative defenses based on sound principles of law.  The Court did not even mention them, issuing a one-line affirmation of the hearing panel's order.  It did the same thing in Mark Brennan's case.  Mark was also wrongfully, and outrageously, suspended for the "offense" of whipping the Denver City Attorney's butt in court. 

Clearly, both of us have been selectively prosecuted by the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel.  But for defending on this basis (as well as others) in the last of my disciplinary cases--in which I was suspended for a year and a day for the grievous offense of beating billionaire Gary Magness and his lawyers at Baker & Hostetler in court--I have been required to undergo a mental evaluation before I can be readmitted, since believing that I am being selectively prosecuted is evidence that I must be mentally impaired. This condition was stuck into the opinion without notice or any opportunity to defend, in violation of the procedural rules and fundamental due process.

This is, of course, what the OARC goons know better than anyone:  that all it takes to destroy you is to just keep piling more crap on.  

*The reason I backdated the brief was because the Supreme Court had suddenly put the same deadline on me in two cases, saying "No further extensions," both on pain of dismissal.  I could not comply in both cases:  the amount of work was significant.  Justice Greg Hobbs, close friends of the attorneys opposing me in these cases, had publicly advocated for the Animas-La Plata water project and engaged in ex parte communications with my opponents.  He participated in both orders, but later lied to the director of the Commission on Judicial Discipline when I grieved him, saying he had recused. See the above link.


I note, additionally, that I was seeing the complete 18-box file in the case for the first time on appeal, because it was not available to me while the case was in the trial court.  It had been sent out for microfilming, and I got an order from the trial judge preserving my right to bring up additional issues on appeal, once I had been able to review the file.  Finally, when I was denied that last four-day extension, I had had an extension of 34 days altogether.  The motion of the United States for its own 30-day extension on its answer brief was automatically granted, in contrast. 








2 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete