Showing posts with label Colorado Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Colorado Supreme Court. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

It's the Water, Stupid: the Ascendancy of Nancy Rice (and Greg Hobbs and Rebecca Kourlis), and Related Topics

Nancy Rice, presently chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, was a Denver District Court judge in 1992 when I first had contact with her.  This post is a quick exposition of why Gov. Romer plucked her out of Denver District Court, for placement directly on the Colorado Supreme Court.

It had to do with the Snowmass Creek instream flow (ISF) water right.

In around October 1992 I had been tapped by a nonprofit legal foundation called the Land and Water (LAW) Fund of the Rockies to represent Aspen Wilderness Workshop pro bono in AWW's contest against the Colorado Water Conservation Board's sudden vote to "not enforce" the decreed instream flow water right for Snowmass Creek.  It did this because the Aspen Skiing Company wanted 40% of the stream to make snow with.  I was available, having been canned by the Colorado Attorney General's office in July 1991 at David Robbins's behest.  And I was a water attorney.  I was also involved with a LAW Fund attorney at the time, Bruce Driver, so I was known to them.

The ISF case had been filed in Denver District Court by Stewart McNab, who, with LAW Fund director Kelley Greene, had already been denied a temporary restraining order.  He could not continue on the case, because his law firm had been informed it had a "conflict" with the Ski Company.  Had I been the one to file this case initially, I would have filed it in water court, and I still wanted to transfer it there; however, I was required to subordinate my independent judgment to that of the LAW Fund's board of directors, per my agreement with them. The case stayed in Denver District Court--and to my chagrin was assigned to Courtroom 7, Judge Nancy Rice.

"To my chagrin," because I had, in January 1992, filed my original complaint against Lois Witte and Linda White over that very canning from the AG's office.  That case had also been assigned to Nancy Rice in Courtroom 7.  We'd had no proceedings in it, because I had been hoping to negotiate a settlement.  Failing that, in September, I amended to add the top dogs in the Attorney General's office, as well as other claims.  So both these politically sensitive cases, one in which I was the plaintiff and one in which I was the lawyer, were before the same judge, a very embarrassing situation for me.

This was my first exposure to the manipulation of case assignments in Denver District Court.  There were 19 district court judges then.  The odds of two unrelated cases being assigned to the same judge were .0029, meaning it was extremely probable that the second assignment was not done randomly.

But I didn't need to calculate the odds, because Judge Rice herself admitted the assignment was not random.  In December, she informed the parties in the Snowmass Creek case that, although she was being transferred to another courtroom (per the Denver court's year-end "rotation" of judges), she was taking the ISF case with her because it had been "personally assigned" to her.

There is no such thing as a "personal assignment" in a neutrally operating judicial system.  I should have moved for recusal right then and there.  And I should have filed a complaint, but I didn't.  Although I was relieved to have the cases before two different judges, the damage to my client in the Snowmass Creek case was already done.  Judge Rice knew extremely embarrassing facts about Aspen Wilderness Workshop's attorney which AWW did not know, itself, at the time.

CWCB moved for summary judgment, and so did we.  I had co-counsel on the original brief, Reed Zars, who moved to Wyoming in early 1993, so I was solo on the case after that point, even after moving to Craig, Colorado, myself at the beginning of March to take up the position of city attorney.  I came back to Denver to do the argument on cross-motions for summary judgment in front of Judge Rice, a hideous experience.  She never once made eye contact with me, although I was standing about 15 feet in front of her for at least half an hour.  She looked down at papers on her desk the entire time. I addressed my argument to the court reporter down below, therefore, who was at least looking at me.

Judge Rice proceeded to grant the CWCB's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all seven claims in our case.

In 1998, Gov. Romer rewarded her with appointment to the Colorado Supreme Court.  Judges are selected in Colorado by the governor, after three names are submitted to him by a committee.  That's why we end up with such terrible ones, unqualified people and people with conflicts, whom the public never has any opportunity to vet.  Romer--a real estate developer (see depo page 31)--in 1996 had also appointed Greg Hobbs to the Supreme Court.  Hobbs is a water lawyer who had written an amicus brief in the Snowmass Creek Supreme Court case arguing that the CWCB had no trust responsibility to the ISF water rights, despite taking the exact opposite position in a published article some years before.  And in 1995 Romer had appointed Becky Kourlis to the Supreme Court.  Kourlis had been the district court (and water) judge in Craig, so had firsthand knowledge about the contempt proceedings I was subjected to as Craig City Attorney beginning in Sept. 1993.

I remember Al Knight, an editorial writer for the Rocky Mountain News, analyzing these judicial appointments to anticipate how Hobbs and Kourlis would rule in criminal cases.  He did not seem to realize the common denominator in their appointments was their rulings or activities in water cases. Forty percent of what the Colorado Supreme Court does is water, since appeals of water cases go directly to the Supreme Court from the water court, bypassing the Colorado Court of Appeals.  Sec. 13-4-102(1)(d), C.R.S.

I realized as soon as these three Supreme Court appointments were made that cases seeking to keep water in the streams, or cases I was to bring personally, would never be successful again--as indeed was the case.  I further believe Greg Hobbs was personally involved in the disciplinary vendetta I was subjected to from 2006-11, because I had exposed substantial criminal acts by his buddies who are water attorneys.  Was Nancy Rice also involved in the vendetta? Well, she certainly did not stop it.

As for the appeal of the ISF case after Rice dismissed it, I had to file that with the Colorado Court of Appeals, but then succeeded in getting direct review by the Colorado Supreme Court.  However, as mentioned, since September 1993 I had been defending against this onslaught of contempt proceedings in Craig, another hugely embarrassing situation to admit to my client (and which, I have realized since, was exploited by the water developers to get me off the ISF case.  See my June 20, 2015, comment to the post linked to above.)  Beleaguered, I volunteered to withdraw, and the LAW Fund found another pro bono attorney--unfortunately not a water attorney.  She did not understand the key concept of res judicata, which in a water case means that decreed water rights cannot be collaterally attacked.  Although the appeal to the Supreme Court (901 P.2d 1251 (Colo. 1995)) was successful on other issues I had identified and developed, such as that a water decree could not be administratively modified and that the CWCB had a trust responsibility to the ISF, the legislature changed all that after the Supreme Court's opinion came down, transforming the instream flow right into an inferior water right.  It can now be modified (read:  reduced, since the ISF can't be increased this way) administratively by the CWCB whenever any developer, like the Aspen Skiing Company, wants to take it.  They only skip off to court later, hand-in-hand, to get a rubberstamp.  This legislation was drafted by Greg Hobbs in 1996, right before he became a Colorado Supreme Court justice, himself. I wrote a critical examination of it in a law review article, and later got Hobbs recused from a second instream flow case I brought to the Colorado Supreme Court.

So I won that battle, therefore, but lost the war:  Kourlis wrote the opinion and held against us in that case.

An additional insult:  the Colorado Water Congress, which exists for the purpose of facilitating the removal of water from streams, held a panel discussion with four attorneys in early 1993 about the Snowmass Creek instream flow case.  The case was the biggest thing around at the time and caused quite a buzz.  Did the CWC invite me, the plaintiff's attorney, to participate?  Of course not--it invited David Robbins to "represent the environmental interest."  David was not on the case and had nothing to do with it, although he had been in the Attorney General's office in 1975 when the original ISF was adjudicated.  And he is no environmentalist.  The other three on the panel were, of course, water developers just like him. 

One last disagreeable realization I had is that the (undeserved) contempt proceedings against me in Craig were likely prolonged at Romer's behest, to get me off the ISF case.  Yet another weird coincidence in the string of weird and harmful coincidences I have endured in my life was that the City of Craig had a private water attorney working for it, Jim Lochhead, when I came on board, even though its new city attorney--moi--was a water attorney.  Lochhead thus came in as "conflicts counsel" for the city when the contempt proceedings were initiated against me.  The judge responsible for initiating the contempt, Mary Lynne James, had dismissed the City almost immediately, as I showed him; however, Lochhead treated the case as still "live" against the City, filing motions and so forth for several months, causing me even more embarrassment with my employer.

Lochhead was a member of the CWCB himself at the time.  He had been influential in getting the rest of the board to vote for slicing off 40% of the ISF off so the Aspen Ski Company could make snow in October.  He did this by lying about the water right the Ski Company would be using for its diversions, saying it was senior to the ISF.  It was not senior for the use of snowmaking, however, since it was not decreed for that use (and snowmaking, I argued in the later case, is not a beneficial use in Colorado law in the first place).  So did Lochhead purposely keep me twisting in the wind, to get rid of the case against the Colorado Water Conservation Board?

For all his good work in the service of water developers, Lochhead was appointed by Roy Romer to be director of the Department of Natural Resources in the spring of 1994.  Ken Salazar, who had also been on the CWCB helping trash Snowmass Creek, as Romer's director of DNR, went on to become Colorado Attorney General, senator from Colorado, and Secretary of Interior under Obama, in which  capacity he trashed a lot of other stuff, like the Gulf of Mexico.

Romer, for his part, took substantial campaign contributions in 1992-94 from persons associated with the Aspen Skiing Company, as I learned for the first time when I got these records in 1998.  They certainly look like a quid pro quo for his slicing off 40% of the ISF in Snowmass Creek.  I've been able to identify the following as associated with the Aspen Skiing Company:

Bob Maynard (no relation to me!)--president of the Aspen Skiing Company--$2,000, 8-10-93;

Marvin Davis (whose entities MKDG III and MKDG IV--"Miller Klutznick Davis Gray"--were partners in the Ski Company),  $25,000 to Romer on Feb. 12, 1993.  LOOK AT THAT:  $25,000!  No checks on campaign contributions in Colorado whatsoever.  There are many such contributions in these pages.

A. Steven Crown; James S. Crown; Lester Crown; and Susan Crown, partners of the Aspen Skiing Company at the time (and General Dynamics, with intimate mob ties), $4,000, 8-10-93*, **;

Suzanne C. Goodman (another Crown), $1,000, 4-1-93; 

Harris Sherman (Ski Company's lawyer, who went on to be Undersecretary of Agriculture under Obama), $2,000, 8-12-93.  I encountered Mr. .Sherman for the first time in Rice's courtroom during that summary judgment proceeding, by the way.  He came over to my table to talk to my client before we began, inserting himself between us to lean toward her with his back to me in a pointed snub, without introducing himself. 

There are several other skiing-related entities and their lawyers who gave money to Romer, as well, as those pages show.

Note:  I will link to my briefs as soon as I locate them.  It is possible I don't have them, since I turned my case file over to the attorney who succeeded me.
_____
*Well, well, well, another link that points nowhere, when it should point to the evidence of the Crown family's mob ties.  Well, here's another (and all would do well to examine Bollyn's other writings).

***

**Jan. 2019:  not only did that revised link to the Crown mob ties "go nowhere," it went to a Russian porn site.  I keep running into my links in this blog being altered or removed.  That has to mean that Google is involved.  Same thing with a link to my federal complaints in another post, as I discovered about a week ago, which went to a fake page purporting to be box.com, requiring a password.  I think the links themselves can only be switched if these goons are actually inside my account.  Or maybe they have the ability to intercept the link and switch the page it goes to.  Evil stuff afoot, and I do think Google is at the bottom.






Wednesday, June 3, 2015

John Gleason, Mob Plant

This is my fourth post about John Scott Gleason, who was employed by the Colorado Supreme Court's Office of Disciplinary Counsel from 1987 to 2013, becoming its head in 1998 to oversee the office's transformation to "Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel"--when all power was consolidated in himself--and implement significant changes in the attorney disciplinary process in Colorado.  These changes have had the effect of furthering official corruption in the state and denying its targets due process.

Even before I became the undeserving target of Mr. Gleason for five years--without, let's be clear, any complaint from a client, ever, in my 20-year history as a lawyer--I had serious questions about the operation he ran, since the office refused to investigate legitimate complaints I had both filed myself, and knew had been filed by others.  Let it be said, however, that Gleason was not the first to look the other way when presented with attorney misconduct, since one of his predecessors, Michael Henry, was also dirty.  Henry moved on to protect official corruption in various capacities within the City and County of Denver.  But I digress. 

First, to review my earlier findings:  I  have firmly established that Gleason has no baccalaureate degree from an undergraduate college, and that he made false and misleading statements in online bios implying that he did.  Since then he has lied outright about having a degree from Bowling Green State University.  In the online bios and other settings he also stated that he had significant experience as both a criminal prosecutor and civil litigator before coming to OARC, when he had no such experience, at all.  Nada.  We could get additional confirmation of these facts from his application for employment with OARC, except the Supreme Court won't give it to me.  Never mind that that application, along with the rest of his personnel file, is a public record:  the OARC has withheld it in violation of law, and since then the Supreme Court itself decided that such withholding--despite the baldfaced violation of law that action represents--is hunky dory.  This is a strong admission that merit did not figure into the decision to hire John Gleason.  Something else was much more important.  I suspect there is no application on file, at all.

I've pointed out that Gleason closed on his new house in Highlands Ranch in September 1987 before the ad for the position he was hired to at OARC was even published in The Colorado Lawyer.  This is more strong evidence that he was preselected for the office.  Gleason has, by the way, stated in a sworn affidavit filed in response to my records request in Oregon that he started work at OARC in October 1988, apparently to make it appear his house purchase was unrelated to the OARC job.  Unfortunately for him, his start date, even if it really was in October 1988, is not dispositive of the issue.  The ad ran only once, in the September 1987 issue (with an August 25, 1987, deadline); also, my notes from the 1988-89 Colorado Legal and Financial Directory, which places him at OARC, say the book was stamped "Received August 1988" by the library.  So he was at OARC, or had at least been assured that would be his address, before the directory's cut-off date, which was April 1988. 

I've pointed out that the law school Gleason attended requires an LSAT score only in the 25th percentile for admission, and expressed strong doubt that anyone who scored that low on the LSAT would be able to pass the Colorado Bar Exam.  I questioned whether someone just "gave him a bar ticket," therefore.  I now have support for that thesis.  On the Board of Law Examiners when Gleason was admitted to the Colorado Bar in 1985 were two powerful lawyers, James Lyons and John Moye.  While there were others on that board I would also be suspicious of, these two were co-owners of the Bar/Bri Bar Review course at the time--a course I even took myself (in Spring 1987) to prepare for the bar exam.  This is a clear conflict of interest.  These two men had access to the actual bar exams before they were administered, and even oversaw the grading.  As for the bar review course, it is the more odd, because Moye and Lyons were not exactly unemployed when they had this business on the side:  both were partners in powerful law firms pulling down big bucks.  Bar/Bri focuses solely on the Multistate Bar Exam (MBE), a standardized multiple choice test.  At the time I took the Colorado Bar Exam, 1-1/2 years after Gleason reportedly did, if your MBE score exceeded 150, you passed automatically.  They did not even grade your essays.  That is how I was admitted, myself.  The Bar/Bri sample exams were dead ringers for the MBE, as I recall. 

Lyons and Moye are part of what can aptly be called the Irish Catholic Mafia which runs Denver, as well as the State of Colorado.  I've previously written about Catholic control of the bench in Colorado, which is also the case with the U.S. Supreme Court.  (Ditto for law enforcement.)  I will do more on Moye and Lyons in future.  Suffice it at this point to express an opinion--shared, I know, by other members of the Colorado Bar--that these two do not necessarily have awesome lawyering skills.  They are better characterized as "fixers."  I suggest that Moye and Lyons concocted a plan to protect white-collar crime within the Colorado bench and bar by installing the compromised John Gleason as Colorado Attorney Regulation Counsel, and that they figured out how to get him admitted without actually passing, or maybe even taking, the bar exam.  Of course, they also had to install their puppet Mary Mullarkey as Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, so she could sign the paper elevating Gleason to top dog at OARC. Maybe, now I think about it, they installed ALL the judges, ensuring their loyalty by means we can only guess at (as I have, in Billy Lucero's Inquisition).  Maybe it was a quid pro quo for getting them a pass on the bar exam.

Many other things about Gleason's background raise serious red flags.  His online bios (Exhibits 1 and 2) fail to mention, for example, that he spent nine years in the Ohio Air National Guard (a coveted spot for a man who was draft-eligible during the Vietnam War, as we know from George W. Bush's achieving a similar cushy placement).  When I learned of his service--again, not a word of which appeared in those bios--I obtained a few records from the Ohio Air National Guard, but--just as in Colorado--have been denied others, without any legal basis.  One I did get is this letter dated March 7, 2014, which for "Duty Status" states "Discharged," without saying "honorably" or "dishonorably."  In addition, it says Gleason's service lasted from Sept. 17, 1968, to April 10, 1978, but how can this be?  He started work at the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Department in Colorado on November 19, 1977.  Did he go AWOL?  Shades of Dubya!  In addition, the last page of the letter, listing his duty postings, ends on Nov. 11,1972, yet I had asked for all his duty postings, so it should have ended April 10, 1978.  That's six years unaccounted for of the 9-1/2 years he was in the service.  Lastly, and most intriguing, is the entry, "Transcript of Court Martial Trial:  Not in File."  I have spent over a year trying very hard to get that transcript, or even confirm it exists.  Although I've had indications it does, I have been stonewalled in my attempts to get it.

This could very well be because, as Gleason stated in one interview, he received "top secret" military training.  This sounds like CIA.  CIA works hand-in-hand with the Mafia (see Pete Brewton's book, George Bush, the Mafia, and the CIA); I have come to believe the Mafia also serves as the enforcement arm of the Vatican, as well.  In other words, I hypothesize that Gleason went through a court-martial, and they made a deal to sweep it under the rug in return for his taking on the future role of High Poobah of the Colorado Bar Moral Police, in which he would use his power unethically ever after to protect criminal conduct by attorneys and judges.  This devil's bargain would explain why I cannot get records.

It's also weird that Gleason was a medic in the military.  He never breathed a word of this, either, prior to his application for the job in Oregon (the equivalent position to the one he held in Colorado, which he was hired to in early 2013, and kept for a year).  An acquaintance has suggested the court martial may have been for a drug offense, which would make sense if he were a medic.

There is other evidence that Gleason was not honorably discharged.  In his file at the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office, where he worked from 1977 to 1982, there is no certificate of honorable discharge.  There is such a certificate in the personnel file of his boss, former sheriff Ed Nelson  (pp. 38-41 of 130), reminding us of the simple fact that anyone with a service record employed by law enforcement--not to mention the Colorado Supreme Court--MUST PROVE HE WAS HONORABLY DISCHARGED.  Not Gleason, though.  Another pass.  Ed Nelson's file also contains an FBI report, copy of his driver's license, photos, and a completed application responding to much more intrusive questions about his past, such as credit history, criminal convictions, health, etc., than Gleason was required to answer. 

Gleason claims, on his Oregon job application, that he was honorably discharged, but says it occurred in 1977.  He has to say that because his service, in Ohio, should have ended before he started his new job with ACSO in Colorado on Nov. 19, 1977.   I'll bet he was not happy to see I have these records from the NPRC saying he was discharged April 10, 1978.   Guess that's what comes of not actually having a certificate of honorable discharge in one's possession:  he doesn't even know the date he supposedly mustered out.  (Oregon told me, by the way, that they did no background investigation of Gleason before hiring him!) 

It behooves us to turn to Pat Sullivan for a moment:  he was Gleason's supervisor at ACSO and gave him positive reviews, which are in Gleason's file.  On the sudden death from heart attack of Sheriff Nelson, who held office only a short period, Sullivan acceded to the position of sheriff, a job he then held for 20 years.  He was lauded all over the place; the new Arapahoe County Justice Center was named for him; and his ACSO personnel file is stuffed full of commendations, including one from Bill Clinton.  (Interestingly, it also lacks the documents in Ed Nelson's file:  no dates of military service are even given, no certificate of honorable discharge is in the file, almost no meaningful questions are on the application).  The testimonials in Sullivan's file were obviously solicited by the creep himself--and "creep" is what the people of Colorado finally learned they had in Sullivan when he was arrested in 2010 for offering to trade meth for gay sex, and his male lover's body was found floating in the Platte River.  One intriguing story claimed Sullivan had coerced jail inmates with offers to bond out in return for sex.  The Denver Post, true to form, whooshed all of this off the front page as soon as it could, and Sullivan got probation, true to form for "Colorado law enforcement."  So when you see the commendations Sullivan (and others) made of John Gleason which are in Gleason's file, take them with a grain of salt.  These guys create false testimonials to put in each other's files.  This is what keeps them in power. 

And that leads to the fact that, at least since 2007, Gleason has moonlighted as CEO of a large youth sports organization he founded, called "Warriors Youth Sports."  This would seem a full-time job in itself--yet here he was also "working 60- to 70-hour weeks" for the Oregon State Bar, not to mention as Attorney Regulation Counsel for the Colorado Supreme Court before then.  I was contacted by a parent of a child involved in this organization who was angry about the expensive uniforms, which could only be bought at the shop run by the "nonprofit" Warriors (which owns a big field house).  [In fact, I see that Warriors was NOT incorporated as a nonprofit:  5 shares of stock were issued!]  The parent told me Warriors had put on a fundraiser in November 2013 featuring illegal gambling.  I agreed it looked illegal, and brought it to the attention of three different law enforcement agencies.  Again, nothing happened.  More important than the gambling is the implication this kind of access to youth has, given the abundantly documented pedophilia within the Catholic Church and its cover-ups of sexual misconduct--and murder--by priests.  As ugly as I know it seems to say so, that Gleason is running this youth sports organization sets up the possibility that he is a procurer of children for Church higher-ups, another reason he has been protected and, indeed, celebrated. 

In the OARC job Gleason also not only decided which attorneys to go after, and which to be given a pass, but advised the Commission on Judicial Discipline and the Attorney Regulation Advisory Committee.  All discipline connected with not only attorneys, but judges, was in Gleason's discretion, therefore.  So when I complained to the Attorney Regulation Advisory Committee about Attorney Regulation employee April McMurrey, the lying Nazi whore Gleason sicced on me for four years, my complaint went to a shill named David Stark, who referred it right back to--you guessed it--John Gleason, McMurrey's boss.  Another clear conflict, of course.  Complaints about judicial misconduct go to the JDC, which then also turned to Gleason for "legal advice"--and of course he would almost always advise that there's nothing to go forward on, because he was there not to protect the public, but to protect the criminal enterprise.  You might call John Gleason a keystone species.  The whole Ecosystem falls apart if you take him out.

A last word on the man has to do with his childhood, again not as he has represented.  Gleason referred to his youth as "hardscrabble" in one interview, and said he was a "hard kid to raise."  "Hardscrabble" sounds like poverty.  Yet his father was an executive with La Choy foods who traveled to China shortly after Nixon's visit in 1972, and many times afterwards.  One obituary reported that 10 men and women came from China to attend John Gleason's mother's funeral in 1992, in Bryan, Ohio.  This suggests not only that the father caused money to flow into Chinese pockets, but also that he may have been CIA.  In fact, I did a FOIA on Customs and Border Patrol for records of James Gleason's entries into the country, and only one comes up, from 1982.  CBP says the records are only "partially releasable."  So all these trips to China in the 1970's must be classified.  (I also did a FOIA to the CIA, which responded "Nanner, nanner, we don't have to tell you," saying the fact of existence or nonexistence of an agency relationship is itself classified.) Consider also John's cushy placement during the Vietnam war, suggesting his pa had clout.  John's wedding announcement, from 1968, says they had 400 guests at a buffet dinner reception, also a sign of money.

One might hope that the Colorado Supreme Court would realize how corrupt its having elevated this unqualified man and pathological liar, John Gleason, to the important and sensitive post of Attorney Regulation Counsel appears--and truly was--and clean house, but its members have shown they are not the solution.  They are the problem.  The procedures implemented under Gleason do not protect either the public or the target attorneys, as I will be discussing in detail in future.  "Clean house" means to get rid of Gleason's acolyte and successor James Coyle, as well as the other ethically challenged employees of that office.  Coyle, like Gleason, is a liar, scofflaw, and abuser of power, too.

I will in future write about Gleason's bizarre caper in Arizona, where he was imported by the Arizona Supreme Court--outrageously--to remove the threat of prosecution corrupt judges there faced from the county attorney, by DISBARRING that POPULARLY ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL, Andrew Thomas, along with two of his deputies, so he could no longer do the job the citizenry elected him to do. 

As I found out myself, you don't make use of RICO when Gleason's around.  Gleason trumps Congress.



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.