Monday, January 20, 2020

Gettin' Inta Trouble Again!

The First Amendment keeps getting me into trouble, darn it.  There are these people who strut around with hankies in their pockets calling themselves "Colorado Attorney Regulation Counsel."  On the one hand, they pursue less than 7% of all the complaints filed with their office:  legitimate complaints filed by clients about their attorneys.  On the other, they have an obsession with me personally, since I have this intolerable (to them) habit of identifying criminal conduct committed by judges as well as attorneys.  Because their function is not to protect the public, as they sanctimoniously assert, but to protect the criminals, they have to get rid of the persons--well, ME; I'm the only example I know of!--who have knowledge of the system, such that they must be taken seriously, and are exposing it and even fighting it.

So the latest is that they sent me a Request for Investigation filed by Jacob Zimmerman and demanded I respond.  You may remember Zimmerman, whose misrepresentations to the court I mentioned in a starred note to "The Goons Who Stalk Me."  In retaliation he is trying to get the Colorado Supreme Court to go after me for the unauthorized practice of law (UPL), for assisting my friends Jim Fetzer and Wolfgang Halbig in the harassing and oppressive lawsuits filed against them by Leonard Pozner and his minions.  This is what I mean about First Amendment retaliation.  I went through it in spades from 2006-10--punished for practicing my profession as a lawyer, and being good at it--and here it is starting up again.

Zimmerman's RFI is linked to above.  Because I feel my response to it sets forth everything you need to know about this, I am posting it verbatim here.



ALISON MAYNARD

Jacob M. Vos, Esq.
Mr. Matt Gill
Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel
1300 Broadway, Suite 500
Denver, CO   80203

Jan. 15, 2020

Re:  Request for Investigation filed by Jacob Zimmerman, #19-2387; BY EMAIL ONLY

Dear Mr. Vos and Mr. Gill:

Your packet, which was sent me to me via email, contains your demand that I respond to certain allegations, saying that they are contained in a letter dated Sept. 4, 2019, from Jacob Zimmerman, along with a “supplemental letter” from him dated Oct. 29, 2019.  The supplemental letter dated Oct. 29, 2019, was not provided to me.

Colo RPC 5.5, “Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law,” states in pertinent part:

(a) A lawyer shall not:
(1) practice law in this jurisdiction without a license to practice law issued by the Colorado Supreme Court unless specifically authorized by C.R.C.P. 204 or C.R.C.P. 205 or federal or tribal law[.]
“In this jurisdiction” means Colorado.  Given this clear language, even if all the other elements of Rule 5.5 are met, you cannot pursue this charge.  The activities I am accused of as constituting unauthorized practice of law (UPL) are not alleged to have taken place in a Colorado court, nor do I reside in Colorado.  UPL Rule 228 confirms this interpretation, saying:

Jurisdiction.  The Supreme Court of Colorado, in the exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction to define the practice of law and to prohibit the unauthorized practice of law within the State of Colorado, adopts the following rules, which shall govern proceedings concerning the unauthorized practice of law.

You are subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct yourselves—at least Mr. Vos is--and both of you are charged with enforcing them.  Your requiring me to respond to a charge that you know is barred constitutes a willful violation of those rules, and sheer harassment.   

As to the violations you allege I have committed of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which govern attorney conduct--as opposed to the UPL charge—those do not apply, either, since my license is already suspended.  You cannot have it both ways.  On the one hand you assert

Messrs Vos and Gill
Jan. 15, 2020
Page 2


UPL charges against me, which means I am not an attorney, while on the other you threaten to discipline me for violating the rules of professional conduct, which apply only if I am an attorney.   For the foregoing reasons, you must forthwith dismiss this grievance. 

You must dismiss it also because the underlying disciplinary orders relating to me are void, as I will explain.  I will start with my background, which includes being a National Merit finalist and scholarship winner, which paid for my college education at Cornell University, College of Arts and Sciences, one of the most selective colleges in the country, and an LSAT score in the 98th percentile, meaning my reading comprehension and analytical skills are in the top 1% of college graduates who were applying to law school in the same year.  I was admitted to the Colorado Bar in 1987 on the strength of my high Multistate score alone and was the Green Party candidate for Colorado Attorney General in 2002.  Possibly my most important and relevant qualification is work experience as a geophysicist, and an undergraduate degree in physics, both of which uniquely qualified me to practice in the area I specialized in, which was water law.  These credentials intimidated my opponents.

Throughout my career as a lawyer, and to the present day, I have been committed to truth and justice, and 100% dedicated to my clients, as they will all attest.  I have never been the subject of a client complaint. 

I moved out of Colorado in May 2011, however, due to a four-year witch hunt conducted by your office at the behest of a combination of corrupt attorneys and judges who needed to discredit me, and remove me from practice, to keep me from going to the United States Supreme Court over two cases involving billion-dollar thefts of water and land I had uncovered—and to keep themselves from going to prison.  OARC’s attorneys colluded with this cabal and took their marching orders from them.  Not one of these grievances—filed by my opponents in active litigation—should have gone forward, per OARC’s own policies.  But your office decided to “waive” the policy that a complaint from a client is required, as well as other rules and policies which were instituted to protect my due process rights, in order that it could “get Maynard” (a direct quote from April McMurrey[1]).  OARC’s aggressive and unethical assault on me forced my withdrawal from these cases—the outcome my opponents desired--causing my clients permanent and indescribable harm.  Gerald Lewis, now 82, has slept in his truck usually in a Walmart parking lot since 2009 because his home was taken by the thugs we were litigating against, with the imprimatur of crooked judges.  Two other clients died after being stripped of everything they owned, and oppressed in Colorado’s corrupt judicial system.  So when I hear that OARC “protects the public” I am afraid I know that the opposite is true.

A key driver of the siege against me was Supreme Court justice Greg Hobbs, a former water attorney whose recusal I obtained in three cases between 1996 and 2008 for discussing my cases


Messrs Vos and Gill
Jan. 15, 2020
Page 3


ex parte with my opponents (his friends) while the cases were pending in his court; publicly advocating for the Animas-La Plata water project, which I was fighting; taking money from my opponents; and other unethical activities.  I have repeatedly attempted to obtain records of Hobbs’s communications concerning me and my cases not only with OARC personnel, but with my lower court judges and the federal court, since there can be no doubt he was telling them what to do and how to rule (meaning, to rule against me).  I am entitled to these records, as not only the attorney on the case but the person in interest, but have been unlawfully denied them.  I was even denied them when I subpoenaed them during the disciplinary proceedings.  My subpoenas were quashed on groundless motions for “protective order” filed by April McMurrey, who did not even represent the judges.  Of course it is inconvenient to the prosecutor if the defendant is given the ability to defend.  I note, even so, that I had complete defenses to her charges, but my defenses are never mentioned in the opinions which issued.  Also not mentioned is the several hundred hours of pro bono legal services I testified to donating, even though pro bono work is supposed to be a factor in mitigation.

I made a political effort to have Hobbs unseated, during his retention election in 2008, making the man mad as a hornet.  He is a narcissist.  But the real problem, as I’ve mentioned, is that his cronies should have gone to prison for the Animas-La Plata water project, which he publicly advocated for, as well as for documents forged by a water attorney friend of his and judicial misconduct in the Spring Creek Ranch matter in Summit County.  Hobbs put the kibosh on that effort by taking me out of practice and ensuring that I was permanently discredited. 

As far as my eligibility to be readmitted—as of October 2011—goes, one reason I have not filed—and will never file--a petition to be reinstated in Colorado is that my readmission was illegally conditioned on my submitting to a mental evaluation.  In the course of the last disciplinary proceeding (instituted by billionaire Gary Magness’s attorney because she was mad she lost—I prevailed in four appeals and got a big judgment for my clients), Judge Lucero sua sponte issued an order to show cause why I should not be sent to an “Independent Mental Evaluation.”  He suspended the disciplinary proceeding while the disability proceeding was litigated, and the order to show cause was discharged.  (Please read these six affidavits[2] which were submitted in conjunction with my response to the show-cause order, which obviously proved to Judge Lucero I did not need a mental evaluation.)  The disciplinary proceeding then resumed and, when the opinion came out about three months later, the condition that I submit to an IME before I could be readmitted was irregularly stuck into it.  I appealed but Lucero had transferred the show-cause disability pleadings into a separate new case he created, which, of course, I did not appeal because I had prevailed.  I tried to supplement my appeal of the


Messrs Vos and Gill
Jan. 15, 2020
Page 4


disciplinary opinion with the record of the closed disability case I had prevailed in, so I could show the condition was violative of the only process that took place on this issue, and was denied that right.  I thus abandoned the appeal in disgust and moved out of Colorado.  I will never submit to this unfounded requirement that I submit to an IME before I may be readmitted.  I have chosen to remain a pauper, instead, all the more resolved to expose judicial corruption wherever I see it, in Wisconsin, Florida, Connecticut—and especially Colorado, where I know the most about it.

Important also, for purposes of informing you what brought us to this pass, is that the former head of your office, John Gleason--who led the four-year disciplinary siege against me--has lied for over 45 years about having an undergraduate degree.  I have proved he does not have one.  I have made a strong showing also that he was not regularly admitted to the Colorado Bar, but “just given a bar ticket,” as well as that he got his initial job at OARC via a runaround of the merit selection process, since he did not possess a single one of the published qualifications and closed on a new house before the deadline had run on applications.  In fact, he never filed an application.  It does not exist.  Somebody preselected this unqualified individual for this job.  I have further established with more than reasonable certainty that Gleason was not honorably discharged from the military (in fact, there are indications he underwent a court martial, but the records which would prove it have been denied me) and took bribes in return for official acts, including the extended disciplinary campaign he mounted against me.  Mr. Gleason is the subject of four of my blog posts, which you can access through this link[3] and connecting links.  So I request you please tell me why Gleason is not being pursued for “engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.”  I request you further please tell me why you consider the disciplinary opinions entered on me to be valid, since the man prosecuting me was a lawyer impersonator. 

I add to my charges of OARC corruption April McMurrey, née Seekamp--who I see is now “Deputy Regulation Counsel”-- the person who made prosecuting me her full-time project for four years for such grievous disciplinary offenses as relying on Acts of Congress, the rules of civil procedure, and the orders of a federal judge approving what I did in litigation.  See here.[4]  She had (probably still has) never litigated a real case in a real court representing real clients, herself, which meant everything she did not understand—such as standard rules of civil procedure I relied on--she alleged as an ethical violation.  And she is a liar.  In one case, she filed a summary judgment motion alleging that I had filed two motions to recuse against the same judge without supporting affidavits.  When I responded I showed that the two motions were supported by seven affidavits between them, attaching not only the affidavits but the court docket showing the affidavits were filed with the motions.  Her motion for summary judgment was denied.   At my disciplinary hearing, McMurrey made the same charge all over again, knowing

Messrs Vos and Gill
Jan. 15, 2020
Page 5


it was false.  I also remember McMurrey and James Coyle standing before Judge Lucero together on June 2, 2009, telling him I was suspended on that date.  They did this to keep me from filing an opening brief in the Court of Appeals on behalf of my client Gerald Lewis, because they were working for our opponents.  After that hearing I went directly to the Office of Attorney Registration to obtain a certificate of good standing, which I scanned and emailed to the PDJ.  I have numerous other examples of the dishonesty, incompetence, and willful violations of rules and substantive law committed by attorneys from your office.  April McMurrey holds her present position not because she is a moral or ethical person, but because she obeys.  

The reason I am bringing these matters up in this letter is to invite you to file a petition to vacate and nullify all the disciplinary opinions entered against me, since all were groundless and violative of rules and my constitutional rights.  Once again, there was no client complaint against me.  My clients were testifying for me as character witnesses.  There is also the blatant violation of the Supremacy Clause the prosecution in 08 PDJ 059 represented.  Please read my brief on that [5],[6].   Listen to this interview [7]  for more examples, still only a fraction of what took place. What your office should do at this point is file a petition with the PDJ or Colorado Supreme Court directly asking that all the disciplinary opinions entered with my name on them be declared void, as they have been throughout, and removed from the web.  I have lived with this hideous smear campaign for 13 years and it was the result not of any unethical behavior on my part, but of a vendetta brought by severely compromised, powerful people.   

That said, and without waiving the jurisdictional challenge, I respond to your charges using your numbering on pp. 2 and 3 of your letter.

Aug. 9, 2019, Wisconsin Court of Appeals opinion and order:  Despite the statement in this Court of Appeals opinion that I drafted this brief, and the statement in James Fetzer and Mike Palecek’s brief which led to it, in fact I did not write this brief.  I had nothing to do with it.  Dr. Fetzer has other attorneys who have been helping him who have not wished to have their names disclosed, due to their fear of retaliation by the very powerful interests pushing the false Sandy Hook narrative, who include Jacob Zimmerman (a likely sayan or agent [8]) and especially Zimmerman’s vindictive client, Leonard Pozner [9], [10]

Messrs Vos and Gill
Jan. 15, 2020
Page 6


I was on a hiking/camping trip in North Dakota when this brief was prepared, came home late at night on July 2nd, 2019, and was sick for a couple days.  I’ve understood the brief was filed electronically around 3:00 a.m. Saturday, July 6th.  I have attached a printout from my VISA credit card statement to show that I bought gas in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Kansas, at
the end of June and stayed in a motel (in Salina, KS) on July 1st, 2019.  (I’d originally planned not to come back until July 6th but my trip was cut short because of storms.)  It would not have been possible for me to draft this complicated brief and, indeed, I did not.  I did not even review it before it was filed.  I did not draft Dr. Fetzer’s answer, either, which Mr. Zimmerman attaches.  I had nothing to do with either of these documents.

I note, by the way, that Mr. Zimmerman probably also filed his grievance in Wisconsin, since a Wisconsin court is where he is accusing me of “engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.” Of course Wisconsin has no jurisdiction over me, either, as its disciplinary authorities have undoubtedly already told Mr. Zimmerman.  In any event, this article [11] indicates Wisconsin does not enforce actions for the unauthorized practice of law.  Hopper v. Madison, 79 Wis. 2d 120, 256 N.W. 2d 239 (1977), holds, and cites several United States Supreme Court cases supporting its conclusion, that certain informational services about legal rights, given by nonlawyers, constitute protected speech under the First Amendment.  So even if OARC had jurisdiction over me, which it doesn’t, you would need to overcome the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.  In particular, you would need to overcome the small problem that it is not the person or persons I am alleged to have advised who are complaining about me, but their opponents.  The primary purpose of the laws controlling the unauthorized practice of law is "to assure that the public is not put upon or damaged by inadequate or unethical representation." Littleton v. Langlois, 37 Wis. 2d 360, 364, 155 N.W.2d 150 (1967).   You are not hearing from any member of the public damaged by inadequate or unethical representation.  Quite the opposite.  I have

Messrs Vos and Gill
Jan. 15, 2020
Page 7


not represented anyone at any time, in any court, nor have I ever told anyone I can represent them.  I have informed everyone I meet that I am suspended from the practice of law (listen to the interview at n. 7, for example), so cannot represent them, and I have not been compensated for any activity which could even colorably be called the practice of law since June 2009, when I was removed from practice.  If anyone asks me for my opinion or help on a legal matter concerning them in which I have experience, I will give it, but with those stipulations.  And I tell them they need to hire an attorney. 

a.       You say, “To the extent you engaged in the practice of law, please explain how you determined you were authorized to do so.” 

Why do you have an “a” without a “b”?  Anyway, as I’ve said, I did not draft this brief, nor did I have anything to do with the answer filed by James Fetzer, so I have not “engaged in the practice of law” as alleged, even though you do not define what you mean by that. 

1.                  Statement that I have “provided legal services to Wolfgang Halbig in his lawsuits with Leonard Pozner” made by James Fetzer in contempt hearing in Wisconsin Circuit Court: 

To my knowledge, there has been only one lawsuit between Pozner and Halbig, where Pozner sued Halbig in a frivolous case in Florida Superior Court which Pozner finally dismissed after he was ordered to sit for a video deposition.  I was not involved, in any way, in this lawsuit, although I did review the pleadings after the case was over and write about it for my blog [12]If you review the online court docket, which is linked to in my blog post, you will see that Halbig was represented by two different attorneys at different times during the course of this suit.  You will also get to see several of the profane epithets Mr. Pozner is prone to use on Sandy Hook researchers.  This is a dangerous man. 

Thus, Dr. Fetzer’s statement that I had “assisted Wolfgang in his lawsuits with Leonard Pozner” was incorrect.  There has been only one such lawsuit and I did not assist Wolfgang in it.  I only wrote about it after the fact.

But you’re on a fishing expedition, I see, and ask me whether I have written any briefs for Wolfgang Halbig apparently other than in the lawsuit Pozner brought against him.  Let me just remind you of your authority, which you inform me is spelled out in Colo. RCP 251.10, “Request for Investigation.”  This rule says, “The Investigator shall expeditiously conduct an investigation of the allegations made against the attorney in question.  These would be the


Messrs Vos and Gill
Jan. 15, 2020
Page 8


allegations made by Jacob Zimmerman.  That one is not in there.  Maybe it is in the letter you forgot to attach.

1.      The blog post “The Official Oppression of Wolfgang Halbig Continues” you reference is the version posted on Memory Hole Blog run by Prof. James Tracy.  You say “Please explain whether it was accurate to identify yourself as a ‘Colorado-based attorney’ while your license is currently suspended."

I did not identify myself as a “Colorado-based attorney”:  James Tracy did.  The statement says “Editor’s Note:” before it and he is the editor of his blog, not I.  Are you going to punish me for
someone else’s speech?  My “conduct” did not include making that identification, so of course it did not violate Colo. RPC 5.5.   Because I did not write it, nor did Dr. Tracy even consult with me about it, I have no responsibility to correct it.  I don’t remember if he even asked me if he could post that article on his blog:  it was on my own blog originally.  I am, in fact, scrupulous about how I identify myself and have made a big issue out of the groundless and retaliatory campaign your office conducted against me, while colluding with my opponents in active litigation.  Listen to the interview at n. 7, which, again, describes one portion of the siege.

You say in your introduction that you are alleging violations of Rule 8.4, Colo. RPC (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).  None of Mr. Zimmerman’s allega-tions, or your questions, describe any conduct which might implicate that rule.  The same with Rule 3.4(c) (disobedience of an obligation under the rules of a tribunal).  What obligation of the rules of a tribunal am I disobeying?  I am not working as an attorney.  I am a poor person who has been wrongfully prohibited from earning a living in my profession for nearly 11 years.  I am not representing anyone before any court.  I have not signed my name to anything.  I have not drafted any documents such as wills or contracts which have legal consequences.  I have a First Amendment right to express my opinion on a legal matter--which I always do with the qualifications noted above--in areas in which I have expertise.  Mr. Zimmerman complains about me because I identified his own misconduct.  And he complains because I am knowledgeable about Sandy Hook and my “take” on the cases filed against my friends has been highly competent.  I have done investigations on their behalf, such as FOIAs, which have helped them considerably.  It is only because I am concerned about your trashing me even further on the web that I’ve decided to respond to the present RFI rather than blowing off what is really just hot air, since you have no jurisdiction.   You say an investigator will contact me.  Don’t.  If I don’t ignore your screeds altogether I may very well file for injunctive relief in the state where I now live.  At the least I plan to post your RFI and my response to it on my blog.  I’ll probably do some interviews, too.  And I’ll be posting the grievance I file against Mr. Zimmerman.



Messrs Vos and Gill
Jan. 15, 2020
Page 9


Finally, you demand I respond to the RFI by certified mail.  But you served the RFI itself on me by email.  I am not eager to again experience an onslaught of envelopes marked “CONFIDEN-
TIAL:  COLORADO SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY REGULATION COUNSEL,” an integral part of your campaign of humiliation and harassment, so I am using email for my response.  It pales in comparison to OARC’s continual violations of its own rules.  At any rate, that way you can just click on my links. 

                                                                        Sincerely,

                                                                       
                                                                        s/ Alison Maynard

Attachment:

VISA credit card statement, end of June and beginning of July 2019




[6] This federal lawsuit was dismissed without a single one of the rights guaranteed litigants under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure being afforded. 
             [9] As for fear of retaliation, I suggest you read the two-part post by a guest author about Abe Dabela, a Connecticut attorney who was communicating with Wolfgang Halbig about representation in the Sandy Hook matter.  Mr. Dabela was found shot in the back of the head—twice—in his overturned car in Connecticut.  The Redding, CT, police chief declared his death a “suicide.”  I have also recently posted on my blog an updated older article about other deaths and disappearances of persons having knowledge of the Sandy Hook hoax. 
[10] Jacob Zimmerman, by the way, has made material misrepresentations to the Wisconsin court in this case, which will shortly be the subject of a grievance to the Wisconsin authorities.  Please be advised in advance that drafting a grievance against an attorney does not constitute "engaging in the practice of law.”  Specifically, Mr. Zimmerman presented an affidavit to the court signed by his client Leonard Pozner attesting that two certified copies of “Noah’s” death certificate were what he uploaded to his Google Plus page, where the public could access them.  However, in his deposition Pozner testified that the uncertified copy published in James Fetzer’s book—which Prof. Fetzer has claimed is a forgery, a statement Pozner claims is defamatory—is the one he put on that page.  Under Connecticut law no one can be in possession of an uncertified death certificate save an approved genaeological researcher.  Prof. Fetzer’s statement that the death certificate he published is a forgery is true, not defamatory, in other words.  Zimmerman’s whole case is based on misrepresentations to the court.




No comments:

Post a Comment