My Testimony to the Colorado General Assembly’s Interim Committee on Judicial Discipline

(REVISED) TESTIMONY OF ALISON MAYNARD

RE: PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES REGARDING JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

August 13th, 2022

[8/23/22: This revised version contains a couple corrections I made after submitting my original testimony. I may make a few more after I find necessary documents, so haven’t yet provided the revised version to the committee. The two versions are substantially the same. One big difference is the info I added about Nancy Rice.]

            I was admitted to the Colorado Bar on May 20th, 1987, and practiced law continuously in Colorado through June 2009, moving out of the state in 2011. 

            I offer my testimony because, although changes to the constitutional provisions dealing with the Commission on Judicial Discipline (CJC) are a start at reforming the system, unspeakable harm can be done to litigants by a judge before the wheels of a disciplinary process even begin to turn.  The initial appointment process is fraught, since judicial candidates are selected for reasons other than merit, and as a consequence pursuing agendas other than a just result, as I will show.  Since the constitutional amendment doing away with election of judges in 1966, persons have been inserted into judgeships by operation of a crony system whereby neither the public, nor even the bar, has any opportunity to vet the applicants.  Equally problematic is the selection process for employees of the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel and Presiding Disciplinary Judge, by which I mean a process based, again, on impermissible criteria rather than merit.

            Most of my testimony proposes broader constitutional changes, therefore.  The most efficient remedy is simply to reinstate the pre-1966 Constitutional language requiring elections, since a piecemeal attempt to repair what’s wrong by focusing only on judicial discipline is, to be crude, putting lipstick on a pig. 

            What I detail below the one substantive comment about the judicial disciplinary system proposal presently before you which I make in this paragraph, a system I agree is dysfunctional, primarily concerns conduct of a narcissist and dirty trickster who should never have been placed on the Colorado Supreme Court, Justice Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr.  I complained to the CJC in 2008 about Hobbs’s violations of the Canons of Judicial Conduct, which included meeting ex parte with my opponents in active litigation, setting up ways to come into contact with them—and with my lower-court judges–which appeared innocent, to tell them what to do in my cases, taking gifts from them, and more.  The Commission, then with director Rick Wehmhoefer, interviewed Hobbs, then decided not to proceed further at that time, basically telling me, “Let us know if he does this again.”  He did do it again, and I complained again, in 2011, only to see my complaint dismissed.  I believe the new director at that time, William Campbell, denied my complaint on his own, without even referring it to the Commission, since he does not reference a meeting date or reason for dismissal.  These documents are in this folder.  (My links are safe.)

My background. 

            I am a 1976 graduate of Cornell University, College of Arts & Sciences, where I went on a National Merit[1] Scholarship, majoring in physics.  I traveled and worked overseas for three years after graduation, then settled in Denver, where I became employed as a junior geophysicist.  The oil industry went “belly up” in the early 1980’s, and I was laid off in February 1983.  I had taken the LSAT [2] in 1981 as a lark, scoring in the 98th percentile, so decided to go to law school, and was granted late admission at the University of  Denver College of Law.  I graduated in 1986, was admitted to the Colorado Bar in May 1987, and practiced law in Colorado until June 2009.

I was (and continue to be) a highly competent litigator.  My specialty was water law, a natural given my scientific background, although I also did land use, civil rights, and election contests.  I took on many cases in the public interest[3], becoming the Green Party candidate for Colorado Attorney General in 2002, and was a member of the Colorado Bar Association’s Ethics Committee and the Marsh Inn of Court.  I donated over 3,000 hours of pro bono legal services. However, beginning at the end of 2006, I found myself defending against what was to become a seven-year witch-hunt by the Colorado Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC).  I was never the subject of a client complaint, however–which meant, according to OARC’s own policies, no prosecution could even be initiated; but the OARC “waived” that requirement.  It also ignored its own policy of not pursuing an attorney while the litigation is ongoing. The OARC prosecutor from 2006-10, a woman named April McMurrey (née Seekamp), now holding the position of Deputy Regulation Counsel, is both dishonest and incompetent, having (to this day) never litigated a case in a real court, or represented a real client.  She trumped up imaginary violations of rules of civil procedure, casting them as ethical violations, colluding closely with my litigation opponents, notably Victor Boog and Rebecca Alexander. Although Seekamp’s charges were baseless, even nonsensical, I was convicted of almost all of them. Her purpose was to force my withdrawal from the cases, and she got that for my opponents, too, causing my clients hideous harm.  This is how OARC “protects the public.”

I defended against seven bogus disciplinary cases from 2006-10 along with three disability cases alleging I was mentally disabled, in both of which types of proceeding clients testified for me as character witnesses.  See these affidavits of people who know me, for example, attesting such things as that I am one of the smartest and most dedicated attorneys they have ever known.  The siege from 2006 to 2010 resulted in my being suspended three times for a year and a day each time, I firmly believe to keep me from going to the United States Supreme Court to appeal the Animas-La Plata case, as well as to get me off other politically charged cases and simply get rid of me.  Although I had complete defenses to all of the charges, my defenses are never mentioned in the opinions which issued.  In the last one a condition was slapped on, in grievous violation of the rules—after I had just overcome an order to show cause why I should not be sent to a mental evaluation–that I must submit to a mental evaluation before I could be readmitted to practice.  I refused to do that and have never sought readmission to the Colorado Bar.  I moved out of Colorado in 2011, and presently live in Texas. 

            In 2019, incredibly, the siege against me resumed.  I had helped a retired professor named James Fetzer defend against a defamation lawsuit brought against him in Wisconsin by Leonard Pozner, the putative parent of a child killed at the Sandy Hook school shooting.  I helped Prof. Fetzer for about three months without compensation, doing nothing in a representative capacity in the court—and thus, under Wisconsin’s rule and statute, did not engage in the unauthorized practice of law.  I nevertheless found myself again the subject of disciplinary proceedings, in Colorado, alleging that I had violated Wisconsin’s rules of professional conduct by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.  These rules, which I did not violate, apply only to attorneys licensed in Wisconsin, which I also am not!  This was another case, brought by another incompetent OARC “lawyer” who has never litigated a real case or had a real client, named Jacob Vos.  Despite a host of open-and-shut jurisdictional defects, including violations of federal law, I was disbarred by default by William Lucero in 2021. 

            These campaigns against me constitute sheer First Amendment retaliation.  Although the latest round was brought nominally because of Sandy Hook, in reality it was because of my blog, where since 2010 I have exposed criminal conduct within the Supreme Court.  In particular, I have had four blog posts about John Scott Gleason, who headed the OARC for 15 years and was in the office for 25, establishing that he has no undergraduate degree and has lied about it for almost 50 years; was court-martialed when in the military; never filed an application for the position he was hired to at OARC or underwent a background check; took bribes, evident from a series of large mortgages taken out against his property which were released shortly afterwards; and more.  In 2021, I discovered equally damning things about William Lucero, the presiding disciplinary judge (PDJ)[4], among other things that he had continued as PDJ even though passing the constitutionally mandated age for retirement of a judge (72) in February 2019.  That means his disbarment of me (and 26 other attorneys I’ve located) is void on its face.  But the Supreme Court does not like my blogging, and especially does not like my identification of the Catholic attorney- and judge-generating machine I have identified operating in the state, described below, so it summarily affirmed the default judgment of disbarment, deciding none of my issues on appeal.

The crony system of selecting judges and judicial employees. 

         Under Sec. VI, Art. 24, of the Constitution as adopted in 1966, judges are appointed by the governor.  As to Supreme Court appointments, a nominating commission proposes names to the governor, a proposal which is far from independent, since most of the commission members themselves are appointed by the governor.  Art. VI, Sec. 24(4).  Vacancies are filled by the governor based on only three names submitted to him by the nominating commission.  Colo. Const. Art. VI, Sec. 20.  There is no vetting of candidates by the bar, let alone the public.  The candidates’ records, backgrounds, and conflicts are never disclosed.  Although there is a retention election after a first two-year probationary period, then again after four, six, or ten years in the case of district court judges, Court of Appeals judges, and Supreme Court justices, respectively, only rarely is a judge not retained, since the public has so little information about a judge’s record and most people have no contact with the judicial system.  The retention election is meaningless as a mechanism for accountability, therefore.   

         I am a victim of this crony system, primarily because of the appointment of a sociopath, Greg Hobbs, to the Colorado Supreme Court in 1996, the reason for the unconscionable siege against me.  Very little information about Hobbs was available to the public as of the time of his first retention election in 1998, so he easily bought himself another 10 years.  A self-proclaimed “water law expert,” Hobbs stalked me for 20 years, from 1989 to 2009, as the competitor he apparently most feared for that title, not only directing justices in his own Court but judges in lower courts where I had cases pending to rule against me*–as well as sanction me simply for functioning as a lawyer—but, beginning at the end of 2006, driving the four-year vicious and unwarranted slew of disciplinary proceedings I have described, without ever a client complaint.  In particular, I am certain Hobbs instructed personnel at OARC to “get Maynard”—an actual quote from Seekamp to a litigation opponent—as a way to force my withdrawal from Hobbs’s friends’ cases.

Records which would support these contentions (judges’ emails), which I sought over a 15-year period via Open Records requests; subpoenas in the disciplinary proceedings; and federal court suits I brought[5], were wrongfully denied me.  These emails, which were public record, have since have been destroyed, a result of there being no oversight of Colorado Supreme Court operations.

          The crony system is how employees of State Judicial who are not judges are selected, as well.  Persons hired to almost every other office in state government are subject to the requirements set forth in Colo. Const. Art. XII, Sec. 13 of merit and fitness, and compared against a field of candidates based on objective criteria without regard to race, creed, color, or political affiliation–but employees of the judicial system are exempted.  This loophole is a major source of the corruption in the Judicial Department.  Employees undergo no assessments of competency, character, and fitness, resulting in shockingly unfit persons, such as Gleason, Seekamp, and Vos being installed in these positions of enormous public trust.  Openings in the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, for example, are not advertised (or, in the case of John Scott Gleason, the one advertisement for an OARC position I found, were fraudulent, that having a due date for applications which expired before the ad was even published).  I have found not one employee in OARC who ever even filed an application for the position he or she holds. “No application” means these judicial employees are subjected to no background investigations and compared to no other applicants, the opposite of what the public expects of state employees.  Like judges, OARC employees are pre-selected and simply inserted into their positions.

          You will then ask, “On what criteria were they pre-selected?”  There is compelling evidence the principal criterion has been “creed,” in violation of the constitutional proscription, since every judicial employee whose creed I can determine has been Catholic and there is a disproportionate number from Notre Dame University (including Hobbs and Vos).  The people selected have no habit of independent judgment, nor conscience or sense of morality.  The primary selection criterion is that they obey.  It is likely that the constitutional change in 1966 which did away with election of judges was planned specifically to salt the judiciary with people of this creed, in order to enable communications—and instructions–concerning court cases to take place via nonpublic channels, since I have seen the same apparent takeover of the courts by Catholics in four other states I have cursorily examined, as well as in the federal system.  In the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, seven of the nine justices are Catholic.  I have identified a judge- (and attorney-) generating machine which operated in Colorado in the mid-1980’s, and maybe still today, which I charge involved systematic alteration of answers on selected persons’ bar exams by Catholics on the Board of Law Examiners [6], similar to the RICO cases involving teachers who erased wrong answers and blacked in the right ones to raise students’ scores on standardized tests in El Paso and Atlanta. 

         The insertion of people who are at best only minimally qualified is a disturbing hallmark of the Colorado system.  As a quick example, the Colorado Supreme Court as constituted between 2006 and 2010 contained several people who had had no prior experience as judges (Gregory Hobbs, Mary Mullarkey, Nathan Ben Coats, Michael Bender, and Allison Eid).  Also—importantly, in my case–after Justice Rebecca Kourlis (someone who was qualified as not only a judge, but the water judge for Water Division 6) stepped off the court in 2006, there was only one justice left who had had any experience in water law, yet I have been told that 40% of appeals the Colorado Supreme Court handles are water cases [7].  Thus, the Court was left with this narcissist, the self-proclaimed “water law expert,” Greg Hobbs, who caused the other justices to defer to him and used them as proxies when he did not want his fingerprints on his bad acts.

            So the first problem the Colorado General Assembly must address is that of the private selection of judicial employees based on factors other than merit, especially the constitutionally prohibited factor of creed, along with the lack of opportunity for the public to vet judges’ backgrounds and records, really at any stage of the process, but particularly before initial ascendancy to the bench.  The original constitutional language providing for election of judges should be restored.  It was good enough.  There was great opposition within the bar to this constitutional change at the time, as I found reviewing old issues of The Docket (and I note that one of the legislators who sponsored this constitutional change in the early 1960’s, Roy Romer, became the governor who then appointed Hobbs, Mullarkey, and Bender to do his bidding [8].  Romer is a real estate developer who had severe undisclosed conflicts of interest while holding office [9].)

         Judges should not be prohibited from campaigning for election; to the contrary, the candidates’ records must be opened for public review and discussion.  Financial disclosure laws (if enforced; and they weren’t while I was in Colorado) should take care of litigants’ right to be free of a judge with conflicts.

Supreme Court’s brazen violation of constitutional and statutory provisions.

Destruction of records:  I have routinely been denied records I was entitled to over the years, meaning judges’ emails—and given different excuses about why I can’t get them, the latest being that the judges’ laptops were sent to surplus and none of their emails remain in the system. 

           Sometime after my earliest requests for these records were made, the Colorado Supreme Court decided that it was not bound by the Colorado Open Records Act.  It enacted its own rules to govern production of records, called P.A.I.R.R. 1 and P.A.I.R.R. 2.  These rules have no provision for retention of records:  no schedule nor any procedures or criteria permitting destruction.  (For that matter, CORA does not, either.)  A person at the State Archives, Mr. Paul Levit, told me that, although Archives has made recommendations to the Supreme Court about retention of records, he does not have any knowledge that the Court has implemented them.  (It has not.)  Mr. Levit intimated that sending the laptops to surplus without taking records such as emails off them would be illegal [10]. 

         The arbitrary destruction of the judges’ computers and emails (which I suspect are recoverable and that I am being lied to—I have several times asked that I be given contact info for the Court’s IT person, to see if a search can be done in the system, but my request has been ignored) is contrary to laws and rules requiring their production on request.  I get the response “the record does not exist” without being able to discover whether it did exist at one time, and what happened to it.  State Judicial is arbitrarily destroying official records and there is no check on its activities.  The Colorado General Assembly needs to take this matter in hand!

Denial of constitutional right of appeal:  I had four cases—not disciplinary appeals–in two of which the Colorado Supreme Court summarily affirmed what the trial court did, deciding none of my issues, after hundreds of hours on my part spent in good faith on the briefs, as well as thousands of dollars in transcript costs and docket fees.  In one of these the Court decided only one of four jurisdictional issues, and in a way contrary to all case law on the subject in 50 states and the federal system.  And it said simply, “We do not reach the other issues,” although it is required to deal with jurisdictional challenges.  This was a water case decided by Justice Bender, whose background was in criminal law, who I believe was taking his cues from Hobbs, as he did on another occasion I know of.

      As to attorney disciplinary appeals specifically, the Supreme Court has arrogantly institutionalized its denial of the right of appeal by enacting a rule (C.R.C.P. 242.37(c)), which says: “Disposition. The supreme court may resolve appeals under this rule by opinion or by order without opinion.” The Court thus has bestowed on itself the power to rubber stamp the PDJ’s screed, which means the ruination of an attorney’s career and reputation for all time.  I have had all of my disciplinary opinions which I appealed, showing they were contrary to law and the evidence,  be summarily affirmed with a single word, even before the Court adopted its rule relieving it of the requirement to decide appeals.   These opinions concerning me were issued for political reasons unrelated to ethics or competence.  No one reading them, or seeing them on the web where they are viciously splashed, would understand that none of my issues on appeal were decided or even mentioned [11]. 

          In other states whose disciplinary systems I have examined, publication is made only of opinions decided after appeal to the state’s supreme court.  It’s the supreme court’s opinion, only, which is published.  In Colorado, the opinions from this administrative judge known as the PDJ are published as if they have the same status as opinions of the state’s supreme court [12]No one knows that none of the subject attorney’s issues have been considered on appeal nor that this “opinion” has not been written by the court itself.  This procedure is not only unfair, it is directly opposed to the plain wording of the Colorado Constitution, which guarantees the right of appeal.  Colo. Const. Art. VI, Sec. 2(2).

   No audits.  I have understood that the various funds administered by the Colorado Supreme Court, particularly one called COLTAF (which exists to compensate persons wronged by attorney malpractice, and is funded by registration fees and fines imposed on attorneys), have never been audited.  This omission suggests much potential for abuse.  It must be investigated and addressed by the Legislature.

Judges stepping into senior judge program to avoid retention election.  The senior judge program has been abused.  I have seen judges retire to avoid a retention election, and then be appointed by the chief justice to the very case they had stepped off, thus immunized from removal by a vote of the people.  I experienced this with Judge Thomas W. Ossola of the Garfield County District Court, yet another corrupt judge. He fined me $16,000 for being “stubbornly litigious” even though I complied with his order to not bring up the jurisdictional defects in our opponents’ case, which was the basis of our protest in water court and we had the indisputable right to argue (and were right about).  His order was flatly illegal. There is no question in my mind that Hobbs had a hand in this travesty. I was then hauled through a disciplinary proceeding and doubly sanctioned with suspension because of the label “stubbornly litigious”.

Violation of constitutional proscription against accepting bribes or rewards.  I have numerous examples of what looks strongly to be bribery of judges or other personnel within State Judicial.  Bribery of officers is defined by Colo. Const. Art. XII, Sec. 6, to include the receipt not only of money, but of testimonials, rewards, or other favors to judges or others close to the judges.  I will simply list the persons I have evidence violated this proscription:

1.  John Scott Gleason and William Lucero:  I briefly outlined my charges against these two men above.  A full exposition of what I have found out, with exhibits, is in this motion I filed in 2021 with the Colorado Supreme Court [13].  Lucero has accepted many awards and testimonials, including the “Lifetime Achievement Award” of the Colorado Catholic Lawyers Guild.  What he did to merit that award we are never told. Both Gleason and Lucero have a long list of mortgages and “revolving loans” indicative of bribery and money laundering. The Denver District Attorney (who, I note, is always a Catholic) will not prosecute.

2. Judge Michael A. Martinez:  As a district court judge in Denver District Court, Michael Martinez behaved corruptly in both of the two cases I had before him.  In the first, an election contest against the City and County of Denver, which I brought on behalf of former election commissioner Jan Tyler in 2007–where I established multiple open-and-shut violations by Denver of the Colorado Constitution, state election laws, the city charter, and city ordinances–Martinez invented excuses for Denver which Denver itself had never asserted (e.g., that two blizzards in December 2006 excused it from giving published notice of the election, as well as the charter amendment being voted on).  He also made the inane ruling that he could not declare a city ordinance invalid.  In the later case, which was one I brought against OARC officials, as well as Gary Magness and his attorney Rebecca Alexander in 2010, where I charged them with conspiracy and other torts, the defendants’ attorney had made a motion to dismiss to which were attached about 50 exhibits, which Martinez struck because it did not comply with his rule limiting motions to dismiss to 10 pages.  So I thought he was going to be fair.  But this attorney turned around and refiled the exact same motion with all the same exhibits directly after his first filing had been stricken, and this time, incomprehensibly, Martinez not only entertained the motion, he granted it, dismissing the case before anything happened. He fined me about $100,000, without heeding any of my objections, mischaracterizing my complaint to make it appear I had omitted necessary boilerplate so that it was frivolous, when such language was clearly present.  There is no doubt in my mind that Martinez was told what to do, and the opposing attorney was instructed to refile his motion and assured it would be successful this time.

        I later learned this filth Martinez is now chief judge of the Denver District Court.  I regard his ascendancy as an obvious reward for doing what his Catholic higher-ups (who I surmise included Greg Hobbs, who spent a year in seminary and went to Notre Dame) wanted, and secretly communicated to him.   A few months ago I did an open records request on the Denver District Court to obtain all documents which had my name in them (other than bona fide filings in these two court cases), particularly specifying emails, and learned there are six such documents, which Martinez’s handlers (Nikolaus Zender and Jennifer Jantz) will not produce.  They thumbed their nose at my request, saying P.A.I.R.R. 2 does not require it [14]. They are wrong, even based on the plain terms of that rule, but I have no recourse.

  3. Judge David R. Lass, formerly a judge on the Summit County District Court, issued  a raft of insupportable orders in connected cases I had before him from 2002 to 2008, even winking at opposing attorney Victor Boog when Boog was on the witness stand foreclosing on his fraudulent liens, finally dismissing my client Gerald Lewis’s case in 2008 for “failure to prosecute”—when we had vigorously prosecuted for five years.  Shortly after getting rid of Lewis, Judge Lass retired and he and his wife took a three-month trip around the world.  Lass later was appointed as a senior judge within his district, so it appears this corrupt individual also avoided his retention election and is still (unconstitutionally) exercising power.

4. Judge Gregory Lyman:  Lyman was the water judge in Durango (La Plata County district court) before whom I was challenging the huge Animas-La Plata water project, which Greg Hobbs regarded as “his baby.”  See my motion to recuse Hobbs, alleging this conflict[15].  Lyman thumbed his nose at every rule and every statute I cited to him, even threatening to sanction me if I used the word “Orwellian” after I used it once in oral argument, while ignoring what I was pointing out–outrageous disclosure and discovery violations of the Justice Department—and later making me defend against a $69,000 attorney fee demand.

A case Lyman had decided having to do with the important issue of sheep wandering onto someone’s property (I’m being sarcastic) was given glowing press coverage in the Denver Post as I remember not long after he had signed the proposed decree drafted by our opponents, ignoring all of our serious issues, including creating a water right for an abandoned reservoir out of thin air.  He got attention for the sheep case because his controllers (who also control the press) could not directly praise him for dumping our A/LP case, knowing I was “out there.”  In addition, Lyman’s son, an actor whose name is Cody, has had a show in Denver called “Defending the Caveman.”  I cannot find out how long that show ran, but believe 15 or 20 years, a highly unusual gig for a small theater company.  I charge that this was another form of pay-off to Lyman for his absurd and oppressive rulings in A-LP, permitting our opponents to steal the water from 4,000 senior water users in Colorado and New Mexico.

5.  Justice Nancy Rice:  I had contact with Nancy Rice when she was a Denver District Court judge. My suit challenging the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s giveaway of the Snowmass Creek instream flow water right was in her court.  I had another case before her, as well.  Denver District Court has an unusual practice (on the face of it corrupt) of rotating judges at the beginning of each new year, putting them in different courtrooms, putatively so they won’t get bored doing the same type of case.  They leave their preexisting cases behind in the old courtroom.  Except Nancy Rice took the Snowmass Creek case with her when she got assigned to a new courtroom, saying that it had been “personally assigned” to her.  Well, there are not supposed to be “personal assignments” to judges.  Assignments are required to be random!  She left the other case I had before her behind, in her old courtroom.

When I finally appeared before Judge Rice for oral argument on cross-motions for summary judgment, in the spring of 1993, I stood at the podium in front of the bench, although she was elevated several feet above me.  She did not make eye contact with me once during my argument, which lasted half an hour.  She looked down at the bench the whole time.  I had to direct my gaze to the court reporter below, because she at least made eye contact.  A few months later, Rice issued an order dismissing all seven of our claims.  Three years later Gov. Romer rewarded Rice with a spot on the Colorado Supreme Court.  That is how I saw it at the time, and still see it.  A thank you for a job well done.

I would add that, years later, I attended a brown-bag CLE given by Justice Rice about the use of depositions in court.  She asserted that a witness could be given the transcript of someone else’s deposition to refresh recollection on the stand.  That doesn’t even make sense, and I have found no cases supporting that contention. It would sure help that side get its witnesses’ stories together!

        I could continue with this list simply as to judges who thumbed their nose at the law, leaving out the quid pro quo because it is very hard to discover the later reward, and maybe there was only blind obedience without a reward (or a threat), and maybe the judge simply knew what side his or her bread was buttered on.  I have the tie to a probable reward only in the above examples; but the inability of a judge to exercise independent judgment, whatever the reason, is enough to damn these people.  I have a great long list of judges thumbing their nose at the law and making up facts.  I also have a list of attorneys who were placed in some position of power over me, which they abused, and then given cushy governmental jobs (Barbara Kelley and James Lochhead).  I also have seen prominent articles in the Denver Post which I identified as a coded communication, telling the Supreme Court how it was supposed to rule in a pending case. (This was a case I got Hobbs recused from.) However, since I already submitted the original version of this testimony to the legislative committee, I will stop here. 

It is of utmost importance that the General Assembly take the arrogance and criminality of the Supreme Court in hand.  My recommendation is to revert to the Constitutional provisions requiring election of judges as they existed before amendment in 1966, or something of that ilk.  Although Colorado’s elections are corrupt, too (as I know having fought several election contests), at least if required to submit to a vote of the people judges’ records and histories, rather than their coziness with particular people, can be the basis for selection.

            Thank you for considering my evidence.


                [1] https://mega.nz/file/dggzgYKD#dBFOSeAa7_0icGnqHn4mW0XUgAItPqPHr0fmdmB9YA8

                [2] https://mega.nz/file/wkYByDpL#vBwOCu8n8LbS1awiyAruWoQ_8y5lj4KFqYMK5OU0tBo

                [3] See:  https://mega.nz/file/I5wTWagY#PvzD2NhafThylFN6IanMbhYMHUfp0cG0I1EhB6QwdY0,   https://mega.nz/file/5wJFgQhJ#KSseOSnsB1F7onncVBdzNMlJ_UiH2CBQnp9QCrwf07M, and https://mega.nz/file/s0BwiZjQ#w0aDOSSySzJIY4bR1sAF38MgB6kYjWy5A73-v9HE-E4

                [4] E.g.,John Gleason:  Mob Plant?” and earlier posts; “Billy Lucero’s Inquisition” and “Goon Gone.”

                [5] See cases -09 CV 2052, 10 CV 1850, and 11 CV 901 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, and 11-1207 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.  After the recusal of five federal magistrates and eight federal judges, the hack John Kane was nonrandomly assigned to the case, and “struck” the complaints.  I was not afforded a single one of the rights guaranteed litigants under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

                [6] See:  https://therealcolorado.org/index.php/2022/05/18/john-gleason-mob-plant/ (5th paragraph down) and connected posts.

                [7] This is because the Colorado Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction over water matters.  These appeals go directly to the Supreme Court.

                [8] Romer also appointed Kourlis and Rice, who did have experience as district court judges.   I have noted in my blog that Romer’s appointments of Hobbs, Kourlis, and Rice in 1996 I believe was in direct response to my litigating against the Colorado Water Conservation Board over its giveaway of the instream flow water right in Snowmass Creek to the Aspen Ski Company.  Hobbs and Rice had had direct contact with me in that context; Kourlis had had direct contact with me when I was Craig City Attorney. 

                [9] See https://therealcolorado.org/index.php/2022/04/08/history-of-the-romer-ranch/

               [10] https://mega.nz/file/4pJ2FRJD#IAB44tMGjVcPk-vQtgA2IDXAvR5J-y0az4Ci4QAa0gk

               [11] Apart from the absurd “opinions” in my own cases, I recently learned of one where an attorney was denied reinstatement, after suspension stemming from an altercation with his ex-wife, because he did not take any continuing legal education courses and did not work for a law firm during that period so that he could keep his legal skills up.  Suspended attorneys are expressly exempted from the CLE requirements, by rule, and prohibited from working at the practice of law during their suspension!  I asked this man if his ex-wife, the complainant, was Catholic, and he said, “Yes, she is VERY Catholic.”  So this is an obvious example of retribution carried out on the basis of the shared religion.  This attorney was told he could not apply for reinstatement for three more years!

            [12] While a three-person hearing panel may be stated as the author, one of those persons is not an attorney; and it is actually the PDJ’s staff attorney who writes these opinions.

             [13] The motion on its own is here; the motion with exhibits for downloading is here, at:  https://mega.nz/file/k85W2YjI#g-fyhOmJ72AZYZyEaSpjcxikWK5kpvm2bT7Sxv42D2U The Supreme Court disposed of this motion with the single word “Denied.”

             [14] I had the same thing happen in federal court when suing OARC et al. there.  While the federal courts are obviously not within the General Assembly’s purview, Phil Brimmer, the district court judge initially assigned to the case I filed over the OARC’s siege against me, 09 CV 2052, similarly struck the State’s motion to dismiss for exceeding his page limitation.  The State was then out of time to file a motion to dismiss.  All of a sudden, Brimmer stepped off the case, with no reason stated, and a magistrate came on, Kathleen Tafoya, who—without a motion for extension past the allotted time supported by affidavit as required by Rule 6(b)(2), or any motion from the State, at all—impermissibly countermanded Judge Brimmer’s order by permitting the State to refile its motion to dismiss out of time.  I believe Greg Hobbs, or possibly someone even higher than he in the church, or possibly some “national security” official, threatened Judge Brimmer to make him get off the case.  Recently I did a FOIA on the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, directly to Judge Brimmer, asking for all documents in the possession of the District Court which related to me and were not filed in any case I litigated, also asking Judge Brimmer directly why he recused in 2009.  I received a letter from a man named Edward Butler who denied any obligation to produce records, without saying if any existed which met my description, who I believed was mocking me.  These people know I have no recourse.  But I do have a small one, and that is this blog, in which their names are going to be tagged.

           Phil Brimmer is now chief judge of the U.S. District Court.  A reward to him for getting off my case without cause? 

             [15] https://mega.nz/file/4tgQnZIA#BO2uylzA_kQWnxE0mJjUiuwSX5Ppj3wtO5y3M6DlUG

*In the About section of this blog I have set forth a little bit of the evidence supporting my assertion that Hobbs stalked me. Drop down to “Update: May 21, 2022.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.