I was excited when my friend and co-researcher Anne sent me this announcement:
Supreme Court announces Presiding Disciplinary Judge vacancy
Committee sets date to select nominees
The Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Advisory Committee has opened the application period for candidates for the position of Presiding Disciplinary Judge. The vacancy will be created by the retirement of the Hon. William R. Lucero. The vacancy will occur on May 31, 2022. To be eligible, applicants must have been admitted to the practice of law in Colorado for five years. The annual salary for this position is $178,452….
Lucero turned 72–the retirement age for judges mandated by the Colorado Constitution–on Feb. 14th, 2019. So the Supreme Court finally woke up, three years after the fact, and realized it had this goon acting in its name who was constitutionally disqualified, yet had been disbarring and suspending attorneys hand over fist. This man not only disbarred me in 2020 (by default, since he didn’t have any legal justification), but disciplined 27 other attorneys I’ve found, after Feb. 14, 2019, eleven of those with disbarment.
I am the one who brought the age disqualification to the Supreme Court’s attention, in my opening brief filed June 16th, 2021, along with a motion with exhibits filed August 3, 2021, detailing the crimes of Lucero, along with the former head of the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, John Gleason–who sicced the ignorant and unethical April McMurrey full-time on me for four years. I have four blog posts about Gleason. Neither of these men ever even filed an application to the powerful position he held. This is huge: it means they were pre-selected, in violation of the Colorado Constitution. They avoided merit selection, the comparative analysis of candidates required by the Colorado Constitution for state employees, never even undergoing background checks, let alone evaluations for character and fitness. Both Gleason and Lucero exercised immense power for years, in Lucero’s case 18 (and in Gleason’s, 25). I put the first of my four blog posts about Gleason up in 2010, and one about Lucero, in which I remarked on the Catholic takeover of the courts, also in 2010. Lucero further never filed financial disclosures once in these 18 years, which even Supreme Court justices do, as required by the Canons of Judicial Conduct as well as statute and case law. Lucero never even filed an application with the Denver District Attorney’s office, where he worked earlier. Yeah, this Pueblo State College grad was surely the best person for these jobs!
With both Gleason and Lucero I further made a compelling case of bribe-taking, based on mortgages taken out against their properties which were paid back only a short time later. These are indeed reprobates, the more revolting because they purported to pass judgment over me, and many other attorneys undoubtedly far more moral and competent than they.
I am finding other people similarly unqualified within this “regulatory system” that gives a pass to attorneys working to further organized crime while systematically destroying the careers of those who would expose the corruption. I’ve just realized McMurrey fits the same mold, since she was taken into the office as an “intern” while in law school. That’s why I can’t get her application, either: there isn’t one, as she has recently admitted. Certainly, I have found the institution top-heavy with Catholics. In fact, it appears there is a “Colorado Judicial Project” run out of Notre Dame Law School, since so many Notre Dame grads have suddenly appeared in Colorado, thence to be inserted into positions of great responsibility within the judicial system. This is not due to random chance–and it is not due to competence. These people are not upholding the law. They are there because they obey, and I maintain the ones they obey are masters within the church.
I told the Colorado Supreme Court that Lucero’s decision disbarring me was void because he was constitutionally disqualified (along with other compelling reasons, such as there being no case against me.) The Court didn’t care. It published the decision for the world to see before the appeal was even before it, not even granting me the stay pending appeal I was entitled to under the Court’s own rules. And then it summarily affirmed Lucero’s order of default, not deciding a single one of my issues, each of which on its own was enough to throw the thing out. This collection of subhuman reprobates calling themselves a “court” even enacted a rule that exempts them from deciding appeals of disciplinary actions, on its face violating the constitutional right of appeal! Their arrogant rubberstamping of sheer calumny proves the purpose of the proceeding had no relationship to protecting the public interest, and proves that these judges have no regard whatsoever for law or facts. The publication of this opinion everywhere on the web when a search is done on my name–rather than simply posted on the Attorney Registration site for the information of those looking for an attorney–triply underscores that their sole purpose is to discredit me. They need not only to ruin my career as a lawyer, but all my personal relationships, and they have succeeded in that wicked effort.
For the record, its affirmation of the lower court in a single line was done not only in my disciplinary cases–where the Court now has that convenient little rule–but in substantive cases I filed while still in good standing, important cases, such as Animas-La Plata and Spring Creek Ranch, which I briefed in good faith and in which I had compelling arguments. Not a single issue decided in those cases. We got just a single line of affirmance with an imperious wave of the hand. Like this:
The saddest thing about this is that Lucero routinely twisted the law and the evidence in every case involving me–his modus operandi is to invent some pretext to hang the discipline on, while providing so much blather it looks like he’s seriously considered the issue–yet it wasn’t these abuses which led to his “retirement,” but only his age. Look at his obscenely high salary, too, wouldja?
A few days ago I copied a number of people on my charges about the corrupt attorney regulatory system in Colorado–the same people Lucero published his opinion disbarring me to by email. I don’t know them, but they are powerful people in the Department of Justice, Denver Post, legal newspapers, the Colorado Bar Association, even the IRS. (Yes, IRS. Do they now suspect I have unreported income? I have no income at all!) So far these people have taken no action to investigate, despite my telling them about the abuses and despite their power and professed duty to investigate–or at least report on what I am telling them, such as that I have been disbarred by a man who was disqualified from sitting on my case*, and the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed although knowing it was void. Met with silence.
I should mention that it was no mean feat finding out Mr. Lucero’s date of birth. There are many other William Luceros in the Denver area and he does not come up in whitepages under his real name. He comes up under “Wm R. Lucero,” which shows he’s hiding. His family history was an enigma, since his parents divorced and both remarried and had more children. I was able to confirm the accuracy of the connections my friend Anne and I had earlier found when this interview of Lucero’s half-sister came out at the end of February 2021 (and frankly, what that showed me is that the family is plugged in to the New World Order, not only the mother’s “death from COVID,” to make you tremble with fear, but that Lucero’s sister was chosen to give an interview about it to Colorado Public Radio. The honoring of his mom looks like another plum tossed to Inquisitor Billy. See my motion for a full list of these plums.)
*In the interest of full disclosure, the Constitution says that the mandatory retirement at age 72 applies to judges of a court of record. The presiding disciplinary judge is not a court of record. He is an administrative law judge (ALJ). However, the Colorado Court of Appeals has held that ALJ’s are subject to the same requirements as bona fide judges. That case, Kilpatrick v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 356 P.3d 1008 (Ct. App. 2015), dealt expressly with the filing of financial disclosures, which Lucero also never did in the entire 18 years he held the PDJ position.