Showing posts with label John Moye. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Moye. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 16, 2016


With a blood moon risin’, another scary big money issue was thrust upon Denver residents--and approved by ghost voters--at the November 3, 2015, election. I speak, of course, of the National Western Stock Show initiative, which will pump nearly $1 billion into the private bank accounts of people already so rich it makes one heave. We are told it passed by 65% to 35%. I’m here to tell you that’s as phony as the goblins and ghosts who came to your door on Hallowe’en (and no less beggary).

It passed because, although every real Denverite you will ever find opposed this ballot issue, Denver elections are rigged to deliver lopsided outcomes. Let there be no doubt: Denver voters really, really love this tax!

The outcome of mail ballot elections is easily co-opted, the reason they are favored by the beneficiaries of big money issues such as bonds and taxes; and in Denver, there are no checks against graft. Take a look at these five mail ballots received at one resident’s address, for example. None of those people, his former roommates, lives there anymore. I communicated with one who now lives in Alaska, where she registered to vote in 2012. Although the Denver resident who received these ballots was too upstanding to vote them, other people have no such scruples; and if you believe election officials can separate real ballots from forgeries--or even care--you may well deserve all the tricks the ghouls play on you.

I have special knowledge about Denver’s mail ballot elections, since I represented former election commissioner Jan Tyler (pro bono) in a 2007 court case contesting the special election held by mail ballot on Jan. 30, 2007. This election amended Denver’s Home Rule Charter to abolish the Denver Election Commission, vesting power over elections not simply in the clerk and recorder, but in an appointee of the clerk and recorder over whom the clerk & recorder has no supervisory power!  Denver residents were not even aware this election was taking place, because there was no published notice of it (see p. 6). There was also no publication of the text of the charter amendment itself. These omissions were brazen violations of the Colorado Constitution, Denver Charter, Denver ordinances, and state laws governing charter amendments, and meant this amendment was--and continues to be--void on its face.

On Dec. 26, 2006, a published notice did appear, but only of a hearing on Council Bill 831 to be held that evening—the day after Christmas!--at 6:00 p.m. The text of this bill was not even published, despite false certificates saying it was (pp. 39-40 of 47; and Exhibit D), made by officials whose signatures are not legible, undoubtedly because they knew they were pulling a fast one. Moreover, this notice appeared in only The Daily Journal, which is not the “newspaper of general circulation” required by law (pp. 10-11). Quite the opposite:  The Daily Journal caters to the construction trades and is available literally nowhere. In our case, nonpublication of the charter amendment, as well as of the calling of the special election on a date only 35 days away—when Denver ordinance prohibits any special election to be held within 60 days of the call--were central issues. Either one on its own meant the election was void, as the court cases I cited established. The single subject requirement was also violated: Denver City Council purported to exempt itself, in the body of Council Bill 831 (which became Ordinance 851), from its own law (§3.3.5(B), D.R.M.C.) requiring each legal effect of the bill to be expressed in the title.  That exemption was not expressed in the title.  (And see this one, where the City Council did away with restrictions on the use of public funds to promote  candidates shortly before then, again not expressed in the title.)

The manner in which the Jan. 30, 2007, special election was conducted also overwhelmingly militated for throwing the result out. The amendment was approved by 36,934, out of 54,481 votes reported cast—68% for and about 32% against, another ridiculously lopsided outcome--while 133,000 ballots were wholly unaccounted for and an additional 50,000 ballots were returned as undeliverable (pp. 12-14 and 74-76).  Contrast this travesty with a polling place election, where every single ballot is accounted for.  Ironically, even though thousands of mail ballots can be unaccounted for with gay abandon, it remains a criminal offense to remove a single ballot from a polling place (Sec. 31-10-1512, C.R.S.)

Even the U.S. Postal Service complained to the Secretary of State about the gross mismanagement of this 2007 election.  USPS said it processed 310,000 ballots, which was 22,611 ballots more than the number of voters the Denver Election Commission said were registered for the Jan. 30 election and 36,122 more than were registered for the Nov. 2006 election. Exhibit C to our amended complaint.  Thus, the DEC knowingly sent out a flood of bogus ballots.  To whom did these spurious ballots go?  Were they voted?  Under the direction of John Gaydeski, the staff ran this election like the Keystone Kops, chasing in circles waving nightsticks (pp. 68, 71-77)

The Jan. 30 election was the more suspicious because of the debacle of the November 2006 polling place election which preceded it.  The electronic registration system broke down (they said), and thousands of voters were made to stand in line for up to four hours, many leaving in disgust without voting.  This screw-up—followed directly by the “solution” of the January special election by mail ballot--looked, even then, like a set-up, manufactured to make Denver residents so fed up with the Election Commission they would scrap it, and bombard them with so much propaganda about the superiority of mail ballot elections that they would get rid of their time-tested, reliable polling-place elections, as well.  Both Denver newspapers shamelessly pushed this “solution” to the imaginary problem.  In fact, a blue-ribbon panel convened to study the DEC the prior summer had concluded no changes were needed.

There’s more.  John Gaydeski--even after resigning in the wake of the November  2006 debacle--magically reappeared to mess up the Jan. 30, 2007, special election, too.  The clerk and recorder in Nov. 2006, Wayne Vaden, was kicked upstairs to a “consulting contract” with the City paying $150/hr.  The DEC’s “technology chief,” Anthony Rainey, placed on administrative leave for two months after November 2006, collected over $14,000 during that period before leaving for real on Jan. 21, 2007.   Over and over, we see those officials responsible for election fraud castigated to a limited degree publicly, and then quietly compensated--handsomely--after it all blows over.  

Given the handling of Jan's complaint by the Denver judge, Michael A. Martinez--and Martinez’s subsequent elevation to Chief Judge of the Denver District Court--we can conclude Martinez was one of those same beneficiaries (and benefactors) of city bosses.  He ignored this case, initially filed by Jan before the election and amended after I came on on March 9, 2007, sitting on our request for injunction and cross-motion for summary judgment and response to Denver’s motions to dismiss for two months.  The hearing he held on June 7 he then specifically said was NOT on our request for injunction.  It was on Denver’s motions to dismiss, variants of which the city filed three times, primarily based on insufficient service of process.  This, although Denver was in the case vigorously defending, with two attorneys who filed motions on a wide variety of subjects, and called witnesses.  This meant the defense--even if it had merit, which it didn't--was waived.  

So, let’s focus on what’s important here, eh, Judge?  

After three hours of hearing on June 7, 2007, Judge Martinez held service was proper!  However, in a sweet syrupy voice he went on to hold that there was “no jurisdiction” to rule on our request for injunctive relief, and that the city council was “immune from suit” (around 5:34) because the judicial branch has no power over the legislative (city council).  This was clear error.  I had provided him several cases where ordinances, as well as elections, were invalidated for failure to follow procedures specified by law.  The courts in these cases called them “pretend elections.”  Injunctions against the implementation of completed legislative acts do not constitute “judicial interference with legislative authority,” as any first-year law student knows.  Martinez even concocted an excuse for nonpublication which the City had not dared make, based on two blizzards which shut Denver down in the last days of December 2006.  He regarded it as more important to let this hastily and ill-conceived greed-train barrel through unimpeded, than to uphold the Colorado Constitution.

The most damaging blizzards suffered by Denver residents over that Xmas/New Year's holiday thus were from bogus mail ballots, as longtime editorial writer Vincent Carroll wryly noted in two columns in the Rocky Mountain News.  He received three ballots for unknown people at his home.  I tried to get one of his columns into evidence, and Judge Martinez excluded it as hearsay (pp. 69-70), even though C.R.E. 807 permits hearsay which has substantial guarantees of trustworthiness.  Jan and I did not know Vince Carroll.  He was not trying to benefit Jan’s case.  Unlike in the Nov. 2015 election to feed the Stock Show piggies, we did not have other evidence of a voter's receipt of multiple ballots.

In short, we did not just get a pretend election in Denver, in 2007. We got a pretend hearing, too.

A case can be made that we were also before a pretend judge.  Martinez was admitted to the bar in 1987 and started his career on the bench as a magistrate in the 17th Judicial District (Adams County), sometime before 1997.  His admission to the bar and appointment to the bench may come back, again, to Notre Dame grad John Moye, who sat on, and chaired, the Board of Law Examiners from 1981-91 (and, incidentally, represents the National Western Stock Show!)  In his capacity as a bar examiner Moye had access to the bar exams before as well as after they were given, and oversaw their grading, even while running a bar refresher course.  During the same period, Moye sat on the 2nd Judicial District nominating commission, which is Denver.  I have seen, but now cannot find, a reference that he instituted a loan program for law students, as well.
In other words, a great number, if not all, of the Catholic lawyers and judges in Colorado, particularly Hispanics under cover of affirmative action, may owe their careers to John Moye.  As a “good businessman,” he is the type to call in his chits.  While there are other powerful operators in Denver, the official positions he held link Mr. Moye to the flood of judges having thinly veiled contempt for the law, along with dispiritingly poor legal ability, in the Colorado judicial system since the 1980's.  See these previous posts, as well as my four posts on John Gleason, who I've shown was just given a "bar ticket" in 1985, since he has no undergraduate degree.  Michael A. Martinez's role is to legitimate politically expedient outcomes such as Denver's rigged elections, law be damned.

I had later encounters with Martinez which buttress this view.  I filed a complaint in Denver District Court in 2010 alleging the collusion of Rebecca Alexander, the attorney for Gary Magness—the billionaire against whom I got a sizable judgment--with April Seekamp, the disciplinary prosecutor who pursued me for over four years, on instructions from Gleason, without a client complaint.  As in the present matter, Martinez dismissed my case in blatant violation of the rules, in the same breath slapping me with a $100,000 attorney fee sanction, an obvious punishment for exposing this corruption.  His subsequent elevation to Chief Judge of the Denver District Court ­makes it abundantly clear how much his patrons value Martinez's protection of their rackets.
            *This is being published way late, obviously.  I wanted to review the audio of the court proceedings first.  It took me awhile to get that, and even longer to play it, because listening to it disgusts me all over again.  Not like anyone would have been able to contest the NWSS election even if this had been published sooner, however.   They would be in Denver District Court undoubtedly before Michael A. Martinez, themselves.

           **3-24-16:  Just googled "Trick or Treat Denver," and in 27 pages of Google results this post does not come up.  Then I saw that the option to comment had been removed--a box was checked that I had never checked.  I think it is fixed now!

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.