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 "," 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. 

Friday, August 31, 2012

Magness Family Values

It's about time I blogged about what happened between me and Slumdog Billionaire Gary Magness, and his high-priced lawyers at Baker & Hostetler, especially partner Rebecca Alexander. 

Although Gary shows up to court looking like a poor homeless feller--hair slicked back with a smirk on his face, chewing gum and slouching in his seat--in the immortal words of George W. Bush, don't misunderestimate him.  He owns everybody in sight.

Gary bribed at least one county commissioner (Steve Benninghoven) and one county official ("Development Services" director Don Stevenson) to permit him to bulldoze a road across my clients' property in the Woodside subdivision in Park County, Colorado, without notice, via secret meetings.  In fact, it's possible Gary installed those two people in office, precisely to grant this approval he had been unable to get legitimately.  Benninghoven owned a gunshop in Bailey and played poker with Magness's employees.  Suddenly, he's a county commissioner.  Benninghoven is the one who convened the secret meetings where it was decided this "road" should be created on my clients' property, and Benninghoven also lied to my clients, telling them they didn't need to attend a work session, to induce them to stay away.  At that work session approval was given for this "road," despite no public notice of this proposed act, and despite the fact that a work session is not a county commissioner meeting.  These acts indicate Benninghoven was on Magness's payroll.  Stevenson came from Florida to fill the job of Development Services director, which was specially created, apparently for him.  (It used to be called "Planning Director.")  Stevenson's wife Wanda even got a job at the county clerk's office, where crucial County Commissioner meeting minutes went missing. 

Gary Magness further paid off two deputy sheriffs, who came out to Woodside the day before the trespasses by Gary's goons, and sat on the property in their car watching a guy who had come to remove utility poles "because of the road that's going through."  The next day, when the bulldozers were tearing up the property and Magness's thugs were cutting the trees down, the sheriff was nowhere to be seen, despite nine 911 calls and the station being less than a mile away.  Throughout the bulldozing, Magness's thugs taunted my clients with "Where's the sheriff?  When's the sheriff coming?" while making threatening swipes in their direction with a running chain saw.

These trespasses occurred in 1997.  I represented George and Patricia Barilla, who owned the bulldozed property, as well as the Woodside Homeowners' Association, and got a preliminary injunction against Magness and the County in September 1997, after Magness's thugs made two entries on the Barillas' property with these bulldozers and chain saws.  At that one preliminary hearing in September 1997 I put on all the evidence necessary to win the case--and which did win it, but only after a veritable circus in the courts, involving four appeals.

I worked on a contingent basis for almost all of 11 years, and prevailed in all four appeals.  The first question you must ask is why so many appeals were necessary.  It's not because the issues were so difficult.  It's because the district court judge, Ken Plotz, was one of the people we believe Magness paid off, as both Pattie and George Barilla testified under oath.  Well, George tried to give such testimony, at the disciplinary hearing Magness's attorney got going against me to punish me for beating her in court, but was prohibited; see below.

So, I did this work for my clients, at great personal sacrifice with no compensation for 11 years, and ultimately put $300,000 into their bank account, which included damages as well as attorney fees.  Right:  the Barillas didn't pay ME fees, but because of the contract I had with them, they got two-thirds of every dollar I recovered, whether denominated as damages or fees.  Anyway, after I won the last appeal we were remanded to the district court, with a new judge (Barton) to determine damages and fees, and he set two trials.  I then found myself defending against an onslaught from Magness's attorney Rebecca Alexander, with the "law firm" of Baker & Hostetler.  (I put that in quotes because of its greedy and unethical participation in Russian money laundering, in addition to its greedy and unethical representation of the slumdog billionaire Magness.)  Alexander--who is using an alias in her practice!--ran to the court with groundless motions for sanctions twice, which the court denied, and filed two grievances over imaginary offenses with the Colorado Supreme Court's Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel.  Unfortunately, John Gleason, the head of OARC, has quite a different agenda than to "do justice."

For my dedication to my clients, and wonderful victory over the billionnaire, I spent the next two years being hauled by Gleason through disciplinary proceedings AT MAGNESS'S ATTORNEY'S REQUEST, and was suspended for a year and a day, with readmission conditioned on submitting to a mental examination (called an "IME"), as well as paying about $10,000.  The IME was imposed in violation of all rules, two months after I had overcome an order to show cause why I should not be sent to an IME.  (Look at the six affidavits at the end of that last link.)  In other words, I prevailed on this very issue, but the presiding disciplinary judge, William Lucero, stuck this condition in the opinion anyway, without notice or any additional process whatsoever.

Well, you say, I must have done something to deserve all this.  Well, no, I say:  my "offense" was that I beat the Billionaire and his Fancy Law Firm.  The OARC sicced an ambitious and dishonest prosecutor on me, April McMurrey (nee Seekamp).  I was her full-time project for four years (and maybe would still be today, but I left the state).  McMurrey has never litigated a case in a real court, never had a contract with a client, never even had a real CLIENT.  She was directed to "get Maynard."   I was ordered to turn over my attorney-client files to McMurrey, which she used unethically to root through looking for additional stuff to trump up, since they knew I had not done anything remotely like "cheat my clients."  Again, they had been instructed to "get Maynard."  When I realized that was what she was doing with the files I got mad and repossessed  them, leading to Lucero's order to show cause why I should not be sent to a mental evaluation.

This Magness matter was one of SIX bogus disciplinary cases McMurrey pursued against me from 2007 to 2009, three of which were dismissed and the other three of which were trumped up to result in harmful and undeserved consequences, like this one.  What McMurrey showed, in these cases, is that she doesn't know the law and doesn't know the rules of civil procedure.  Several of the "ethics violations" she pursued had already been before the district court via Ms. Alexander's motions for sanctions, and the court had denied them.  But, no, the disciplinary judge does not recognize the principle of res judicata.  Moreover, OARC has a policy that it will only go after such things if a judge himself sanctions an attorney.  Judge Barton did the opposite, but OARC waived its policy.  It also waived its policy prohibiting an opposing attorney to complain that the attorney being grieved violated her duty towards her own clients.  My clients never complained about me:  in fact, they had recommended me for a judgeship before I even won any money for them.   They never alleged I commited fraud.  If OARC had not "waived" this policy, which binds it in every other case that comes before it, I would not have a disciplinary record.  It "waived" this policy multiple times.

The other "ethics violations" cooked up by Alexander were centered on my raising legitimate issues over the fee award.  I was being hauled through disciplinary proceedings because I had raised these issues over my fees--which involved direct payment by Magness, not by my clients-- at the same time my appeal of these very issues was pending in the Court of Appeals.  You will wait a long time before you see any corporate lawyers disciplined for appealing a fee award (or for doing anything else, frankly).

In all of the cases OARC brought against me, I was punished for bringing issues to the court which in McMurrey's uninformed opinion I should not have brought, even though I had substantial authority to support what I did and she had no experience with such issues whatsoever.  She and her boss John Gleason are the whores of the big law firms.  For example, the charge that I "cheated my clients" depended on McMurrey's (and Alexander's) interpretation of my contract with my clients, when she and Alexander were complete strangers to the contract; the Barillas themselves never alleged I cheated them; and a disciplinary panel has no jurisdiction to interpret a contract!  If the Barillas had brought a case against me for breach of contract or fraud in court, I would have been able to get such spurious charges dismissed immediately, since not a single element required to be proven for fraud was present, most glaring being the lack of standing of Rebecca Alexander to decide I breached the contract I had with my client.  And again, I won the Barillas' case and put $300,000 into their bank account.   I also had U.S. Supreme Court precedent authorizing me to do what I did, in claiming fees still due to me from Magness directly even after the Barillas settled their own claim with Magness, but neither McMurrey nor Alexander knew about that authority.   So because they don't know the law, I must be suspended from practice:  stripped of my right to earn a living and forced to spend everything I was paid for my work in that case on my defense.

Rebecca Alexander had been so afraid of the attorney fee hearing in district court that she and her client Gary Magness bribed a witness, an attorney named Michael Schaefer, to give false testimony against me.  She also lied to the court, as did Schaefer.  But do you think the OARC cares about attorneys who lie to the court or bribe witnesses?  You bet your sweet bippy it doesn't, not when such people have been Anointed by a Billionaire.  My grievance against Alexander reciting these serious charges was dismissed out of hand.  My grievance against Schaefer was also thwarted because McMurrey advised him to register inactive, to avoid discipline from her own office!  All of this unethical conduct by the very people supposed to be the bellwethers of ethics is circumstantial evidence that Magness bought McMurrey's boss, too.  That would be "Greaser" Gleason.  I grieved McMurrey, but a grievance against an OARC employee goes to an "advisory panel" that shunts the grievance right back to Gleason, McMurrey's boss.   Or, rather, let's refer to him as her pimp, since she was performing sick duties that put money into Gleason's own pocket.

Here is the motion I filed for post-trial relief after the disciplinary opinion came down, so you can see how speculative and groundless the charges against me were.  I will shortly link to other briefs and papers.  The opinion does not mention any of my evidence or defenses.  It says nothing about my having worked 11 years without pay, or the wonderful victory I obtained for my clients, not even as factors in mitigation.  Not mentioned was the fact that it was not my clients who grieved me or ever said I had cheated them, but my opponent in the litigation, the unethical big firm lawyer, because she was mad she lost the case.  (In fact, she billed her client Magness for her time spent on the grievance, showing it was a joint venture.)  At the disciplinary hearing I testified to thousands of hours of pro bono legal services I have rendered--no mention of that in the opinion, either, even though such activity is also a factor in mitigation.  One of the three judges on my hearing panel, a person named Barbara Laff, slept through the hearing.  She even snored.  Well, why should she stay awake?  She knew the fix was in. Turns out she is married to a judge, so we can properly conclude it all "stays in the family"--the crime family known as the Colorado Judicial System.

As for George Barilla, I asked him on the stand what he believed was going on with Judge Plotz's bizarre rulings and delays in Park County, accounting for the 11-year ordeal of this case--which, during the hearing, I realized was being used to imply I was incompetent--and his answer--that he believed Plotz was bribed by Gary Magness--was interrupted by Judge Lucero.  Lucero would not let him finish his statement.  Lucero also would not let me put April McMurrey on the stand to ask her about her selective prosecution of me, including advising Schaefer to register inactive to avoid discipline from her office; coaching Rebecca Alexander at Alexander's deposition; or willfully violating numerous policies of her office in order to "get Maynard."  Lucero also excluded important documents I designated for the record on appeal, in order to defeat my appeal of his irregular rulings, particularly the outrageous condition, imposed in violation of all the procedural rules that exist for such a serious condition, that I submit to an IME before I may be readmitted.

I appealed the disciplinary case to the Colorado Supreme Court, even though by that time I had a racketeering and civil rights suit going against all the principal actors in this vendetta, including several Supreme Court justices; so the justices obviously had a conflict.  That did not stop them from dismissing my appeal on a pretext. (And, of course, the federal suit was dismissed on a pretext, as well, after six judges and eight magistrates voluntarily recused, because of their friendships with the defendant state judges.)

And that is not even the end!  I filed a suit for abuse of process and civil rights violations against McMurrey, Alexander, Schaefer, and Magness, in Denver District Court, in 2010, for using the disciplinary process as a litigation strategy and bribing witnesses.  The judge was Michael A. Martinez.  He's in Courtroom 1.  I'd had this crook Martinez earllier, on an election contest, where he ignored the evidence and simply invented "facts" to justify Denver's violation of three constitutional provisions, a state statute, and its own ordinances, in the special election of January 2007.  So I knew what he was.  Marc Flink with Baker & Hostetler filed a motion to dismiss, improperly supported by 28 exhibits.  Schaefer's attorney, Susan Stamm, followed suit.  NO exhibits are permitted to be considered in conjunction with a motion to dismiss.  ZERO.  But Martinez doesn't care about the rules or the law--and he obviously got a telephone call telling him how to rule, or a nice little slug into his bank account--so he granted the motions to dismiss and, in the same breath, socked me with an attorney fee award PAYABLE TO THE BILLIONAIRE, which, several months later, he determined at $100,000.  I did not get one minute's worth of due process in this matter, either, obviously.   I appealed that judgment, and had filed my opening brief, when Janice Davidson, Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, dismissed my appeal on a pretext. 

The chief judge of the Court of Appeals has no power to dismiss an appeal, and the appeal was not even ripe until the fees were determined, but nobody cares.  Her dismissal stands.  So I now have this bogus $100,000 judgment against me, which Flink is eager to collect.   

I made Michael A. Martinez a defendant in a federal court suit, by the way, 11 CV 901, along with the Magness parties--and would have made Janice Davidson a defendant, too, but "senior judge" Judge Kane was irregularly put on the federal case, combined it with my pre-existing federal case, and then dismissed everything in one lump, threatening me with sanctions with every breath, simply for filing these cases, all of which were not only well-founded, but stunning.  Kane lied, saying I had moved to recuse the 5 federal judges and 8 magistrates--but these recusals were all voluntary, by the judges themselves.  I moved to recuse Kane for bias, and of course that motion went nowhere. 

The Denver judges are told how to rule.  (And we can extend that to certain federal judges, such as Kane).  That's why they hold their vaunted positions.  In fact, I will go so far as to say that Courtroom 1 at the Denver District Court, and the post of Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, are the regular channels for Mafia contact with the courts (although not the only channels).  Klaus Hume was Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals before Davidson, and John McMullen was in Courtroom 1 of the Denver District Court before Martinez.  I have substantial evidence of ex parte communications of my litigation opponents with Hume and McMullen, too, in an earlier case, that of Eulipions.  And now the corrupt Michael A. Martinez is the chief judge of the Denver District Court, his reward for "ruling the right way."

Don't doubt me about the Mafia's influence on the courts, by the way--or the CIA's.  Here's a little more about Magness Family Values.  Bob Magness, Gary's dad, along with an associate named Larry Romrell founded and ran a company called Capcom which was indicted for money-laundering in connection with the BCCI crime scandal in the late 1980's--but the Dept. of Justice never did anything on the case.  BCCI was a CIA asset.  BCCI involved the bribery of numerous governmental officials worldwide, including many members of Congress, with drug proceeds and millions stolen by Manuel Noriega, laundered through Capcom. (BCCI would have been a lot huger scandal but for DOJ's corruption.  The only one who prosecuted was the Manhattan DA, Robert Morgenthau.)  Here's an excerpt from a book about this by Joel Bainerman; and here are some other materials not on the web.

The Arab who started BCCI ("Bank of Credit and Commerce International"), Abedi, may even have been ON Magness's Hidden Valley Ranch--the very property in Park County which would have been benefited by the road across the Barillas' property.  (See the Denver Post cartoon chronology in the above links.)  Bob Magness died in 1996.  Although Bob Magness always got a pass from reporters, who questioned whether he was "duped," since he's such a nice guy, a far more supportable conclusion, given his control of Capcom, is that bribing government officials is standard business practice with the Magnesses:  a family tradition.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Fear and Loathing in the Tenth Circuit, Part Deux

First read "Fear and Loathing in the Tenth Circuit."
When writing our reply brief recently, I saw, from the other side's brief, that the magistrate's report of July 18, 2011--filed in the district court over two months after we docketed our appeal--had been placed in the appellate record (and of course the Defendants are relying on it). This is wholly improper. The record closed when the appeal was filed.

The report itself is evidence of "pretend litigation": it looks like a decision on the merits, when it is not. All the magistrate had in front of him were "status reports" Judge Kane ordered each side to file, when he came on the case and struck our complaints and all motions on file. No one reading this magistrate's report would know that it is nothing but a post-hoc rationalization of what Kane had already done off the cuff, to make it look like the result of a legal analysis. They would not know Magistrate Hegarty had no motions or briefing in front of him and took no evidence. (Neither, of course, did Kane.) They would not know that we never got any disclosures; were prohibited from doing discovery; and that no scheduling order entered, ever, for the 19 months this case and its companion case were in the district court, in blatant violation of the rules.

We've just been held hostage all this time. So now we have ascended, in the federal court, to the sophisticated scam of "adjudication by status conference." Pretend litigation.

I filed a 35-page objection to the magistrate's report, by the way, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636, and my objections were NOT placed in the record!  Obviously, it is Kane salting the record with things that make it look like we got due process, while leaving out our objections, which show we did not. I have, in fact, already had the magistrate's forgery thrown in my face by the director of the Judicial Discipline Commission, William Campbell, when I regrieved Greg Hobbs in 2011. Campbell angrily said, "You've already had this issue decided against you by a federal court."

No, Mr. Campbell, we haven't: nothing was decided, and the magistrate's report somebody gave you (wonder who) is a forgery. The term "forgery" is apt because this report purports to be the result of an adjudication, when it is nothing of the sort.

The main thing that will save us from these shyster tactics in the federal court, 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 earlier recommendations which were never ruled on. We also filed these objections to the July 18, 2011, forgery which haven't been ruled on. There's a boatload of precedents saying our objections have to be ruled on. The Circuit Court of Appeals cannot consider a magistrate's report.

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.)