Please understand how very, very grateful I am to the readers and supporters of this site (including
financial supporters, who help to defray Web site fees and costs), and of the many people who
inexplicably regard me as an inspiration to their own situations.
However, I find it repeatedly necessary to reply to many e-mails explaining that I cannot give
legal advice. Although, if time permits, I am happy to engage in academic discussions about the
law, I am not admitted to practice in Colorado or any other state. If was to engage in unauthorized
practice of law (UPL), I would be prosecuted by the Office of
Attorney Regulation Counsel, which would appreciate any pretext to come after me, and
all of my e-mails (including those e-mails where writers unambiguously ask for legal advice) could
be discoverable. In addition, it would jeopardize my ability to feed my family, and waste all the
money I've spent on law school, because I would be prevented from being admitted to the bar, if I
so chose to apply.
And, because the OARC is a lawless agency, the actual truth of the matter, or even the fact that I
posted this Notice publicly, would not aid me in any way from the many thousands of dollars that
would be required to defend such an action or from a capricious result.
Therefore, if you send me requests for legal advice, you are showing a profound lack of respect and
regard for me and my family, who depends on me.
In addition, even if I was qualified to give legal advice, and did not care about the UPL laws, I do
not carry legal malpractice insurance and could not be responsible for the adverse consequences of
following my wayward advice.
Finally, even if I was admitted to practice, when I receive e-mails asking me for free advice in
some given situation, which requires considerable time in understanding the facts and the law as
applicable to a given situation, it's an implicit statement that my time isn't worth anything. I
am totally strapped for time right now with law school, family, a full-time job, a business to run,
and keeping this site updated. I haven't even posted any entries to another blog I write for
(here) in two months, despite the fact that there's plenty
to write about.
If you're reading this and wondering, "What is legal advice?," consider any question that asks me to
apply the law to a particular set of facts, as legal advice.1 This includes me reading
your motions or briefs to tell you if it looks decent or will be effective, and includes asking me
what to file or when to file it.
Although the definition of UPL is ambiguous, varies from state to
state, and affords the bar association monopolies too much discretion in prosecuting UPL, you cannot
circumvent the prohibition by sending me e-mails with disclaimers that my response will not be
considered legal advice by you, or asking me to evaluate and opine about hypothetical situations,
which are actually analogous to your situation. I've seen all the tricks and if I receive such an
e-mail disguised as seeking legal advice, I will respond curtly by requesting that you refrain from
asking me for legal advice, or I will not respond at all.
That said, I do want to continue to hear from you and to hear about your situations. And, although
this Web site does not offer legal advice, there are many dockets posted here and you may find some
that are similar to your situation and you can see for yourself how pro se parties and
counsel handled those cases and what the resulting outcomes were.
______________________________ 1 This interpretation, and any statements appearing in this or any other blog entry on
this site, is not legal advice and you should not act (except, perhaps, to seek licensed counsel) or
refrain from acting (except not to ask me for legal advice) based upon my interpretations, or
statements, or any inferences that you might draw therefrom.
Feb. 4, 2010 - Colorado divorce lawyer, Ann Gushurst, on CFIs: "For all we know, Elmer
Fudd’s recommendations could –in terms of outcome– equal those made by the best trained
CFIs in Colorado."
Thank you, Ann. I could not have said it better, myself.
Her comment appears in the latest issue of the Colorado Bar Association's Family Law Section's
newsletter, and is entitled, "CFIs and the Work They Do – One Attorney’s Opinion":
Last year, the Boulder IDC hosted its annual presentation with a theme of “expertise, ethics and helpfulness to the courts: the promise and perils in the role of the CFI”. For those of you outside the front range, you should know that this annual conference is one of the best attended CLEs in the front range, and that because topics tend to focus on child-related issues, it gathers some of the most child-friendly and child-interested attorneys and mental health practitioners in the field.
Keynote speakers Jonathon Gould, Ph.D and Bill Austin, Ph.D, were nothing if not controversial. Sitting in a room literally filled with attorney-CFIs, they presented the proposal that attorneys were really not qualified to be CFIs most of the time because of their lack of understanding of scientific principles and affiliated psychological research.
As may be imagined, the proposition that attorneys should largely stay out of the CFI role garnered quite a bit of disgruntled reaction from the audience. I admit, with some amusement, that it was kind of interesting to see so many unhappy attorneys in one place at one time. The whole audience seemed to squirm.
For those of you not familiar with scientific principles (and I mention this because one of the presenters suggested that a lack of appreciation for their position was likely attributable to lack of understanding of scientific principles by us non-science types), they are basically this: one uses empirical, measurable data (i.e. objective) to test hypotheses in carefully structured experiments to see if a prediction of what will happen is borne out by the results of the experiment.
Now, there are two main problems with this method as applied to human behavior. First, because human behavior is so complex, it is often very difficult to conclude what ‘cause’ is responsible for any given behavior. Did the brother hit the sister because his father abused him last night, or because the sister hit him first – or both?
Second, many psychological studies (and the vast majority used as resources in the field of divorce) are actually not experiments: they are studies of what has happened. One simply doesn’t abuse a child, for example, to see what the outcome will be. One can, however, study abused children and draw conclusions about the effects of abuse.
As a result of both of these inherent problems, many would claim that psychology and sociology (the ‘social’ sciences) are not properly classified as being science in the first place. I actually was a science major and my physiology and physics professors were quite adamant that, in their opinions, psychology really wasn’t a science (which argument I always enjoyed discussing with my mother – who has a Ph.D. in child psychology).
But the doctors’ premise – that scientific principles should guide CFI work – was itselve inherently unscientific. The argument that only mental health professionals should make recommendations on parenting time would be reasonable IF one had some sort of research showing that children do much better after Mental Health professionals made recommendations on parenting time (as opposed to attorneys, say). The sad fact is that no long term studies of the outcomes of CFI reports exist PERIOD. For all we know, Elmer Fudd’s recommendations could– in terms of outcome – equal those made by the best trained CFIs in Colorado.
In other words, no one has yet scientifically studied whether having “attorney” or “mental health” CFI reports makes any long term difference to children. Without this critical piece of information – i.e. the existence of some kind of reproducible result – it is hard for anyone to make a credible claim that CFI work even remotely approaches a scientific standard.
But aside from the rather entertaining occurrence of an entire room of insulted attorney-CFIs, the presentation raised other questions that remain unanswered. For example, what do we do with the reality that the psychological testing upon which CFIs so regularly rely, does not have the ability to diagnose most major personality disorders (you know, some of the behavior that really damages children)? What about the fact that many CFIs still rely on psychological tests such as the Rorschach which, because it does not give reproducible results, is not regarded as a scientifically valid test under the Daubert principle in Federal court?
Going one step further, do we really know what the best interests of children are long term? Is a relationship with both parents outweighed by the damage done when two parents are forced into a co-parenting relationship they cannot handle without endless conflict? What about when one parent is a complete nut case and is focused on destroying the well-being of the other parent – should they get parenting time?
Even if Mental Health CFIs know the research better, does that mean they make better recommendations? It seems to me that research is often like statistics (as in lies, damn lies, and statistics), in that it can be used to support any conclusion. For example, numerous studies exist linking long term well-being of children (as measured by attendance at college and meaningful relationships with both parents) to reliable financial support, and yet I have yet to see an analysis of how a parent is hurting children by withholding financial support. Not even when a parent requests a move out of state to get better income is this a factor I have ever seen analyzed in a CFI report (although, it can be a non-negative factor in “well at least the proposed move is not made for bad motives”).
And mental health CFIs are just as human as attorneys. Sometimes they don’t like clients. They sometimes have biases (if you don’t believe me, think about how often it is that it just happens to be in the best interests of children to stay in Colorado if their parents file for divorce here… must be the water…)
I don’t disagree that we should be using what we know about human behavior to fashion parenting recommendations. A general knowledge of developmental psychology is a very good thing in formulating recommendations for children (and maybe our Judges should be required to have that, hmmm?) I also think that understanding dysfunctional behavior is helpful as well. However, I would note that I have had several cases where a mental health evaluation failed to “spot the loony” despite psyche testing administered by a Ph.D.
And, it occurs to me there are times when attorneys are better suited to CFI work. Sometimes, a hard decision is needed and sometimes there is no “right” decision. When one has a conflict that is simple yet intractable, such as Mom lives here and Dad lives there, and they need to figure out which school the kids should attend, do we really need to know which parent is the bigger narcissist? Many smaller problems are much better suited to attorney CFIs who are simply looking for a reasonable resolution – or resolution they can afford. The cost factor was not addressed well, but the price tag of some CFI work has, in the front range, risen to regularly exceed $10,000 per case.
There is no “one size fits all” and both attorney CFIs and mental heatlh CFIs have a role to play in, my humble opinion. And perhaps we need to all look at the research that – in study after study – points to conflict between the parents as the greatest predictor of detrimental outcome of divorce for children. Despite overwhelming data on this point, CFIs routinely ignore when one parent is deliberately attempting to dis-regulate the other (unless it occurs in front of the children). Rarely, in recommendations, is there reference to dis-regulating behavior or financially abusive behavior, even though we know (though extensive scientific research) that both are extremely bad for the children. If CFIs really were following the research, one would expect references to these concerns.
But back to the presentation, and the roomful of unhappy attorneys. I will admit that the most amusing part of the presentation for me was the admonition that CFI work be approached with humility, which caveat was accompanied by a seemingly almost total lack of same in the presenters (one of whom proclaimed that it was important to get “it” right, and that, by gosh, he always had). But the presenter was right (even if unable to follow his own advice) in that we are kidding ourselves if we think that any third party – whether attorney or psychologist - will be able to figure out what should happen with children when those who know and love the children best - their parents - refuse to do so.
To see what another Colorado CFI (Bill J. Fyfe) thinks about Daubert, see his attorney's October 20, 2009 brief (and my subsequent reply) here.
Feb. 4, 2010 - judges seeking reform of judicial disciplinary process not well received by
their peers
On January 12 (below), I noted that the The Pittsburg Tribune-Review,reported
that Joan Orie Melvin was sworn in as a Pennsylvania supreme court associate justice, pledging to
make it her mission to "remove the stealth nature of the judiciary"
and calling for sweeping reforms of the state's court system.
"In the wake of unethical back-room deals, pay raises, public corruption and
scandals in the judiciary, people are demanding reform," said Melvin. "
It is my mission to remove the stealth nature and the mystery from the judicial branch of
government by bringing reform, accountability and transparency. Let the sunshine in."
Melvin not only campaigned on the issue of judicial corruption, but also criticized the high court
in the past for approving the legislative and judicial pay raise of 2005.
But, in an opinion
described as "extraordinarily pointed and blunt," that states's state supreme
court Chief Justice, Ronald D. Castille, attacked Melvin. "Appellate judges rarely do that," the
Pittsburg Post-Gazette
quoted Professor John M. Burkoff of University of Pittsburgh's School of Law.
Among other things, Castille remonstrated Melville for her unwarranted or displaced criticism of
the judicial disciplinary system:
At bottom, whatever merit and internal 'logic' the [opinion's] view of the judicial
disciplinary system as it presently exists might have as a political tract, a 'what-should-
be editorial,' or as an outline of one idiosyncratic view of the way that judicial
investigations should operate, it is a demonstrably off-point response to the dispute
actually presented to this Court, the plain constitutional language that actually exists,
the obvious complexities involved, and our precedent interpreting the constitutional
language.
Click here for a copy of
the 33-page opinion in In re Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, PICS No. 10-0113.
To the extent that appellate courts will stray from the issues before it to make public policy
statements in dicta or even to overrule precedent or create new exceptions, I find it interesting
that the Chief Justice took such exaggerated umbrage at Melvin's decision to express her views
regarding the Luzerne County kids-for-cash scandal.
However, Castille wrote something else that caught my eye, as follows:
Our task is different from that of the litigant, the politician, or the editorialist, and
it is inevitably less understood and often less popular. Our sworn task is to apply the
law; and in so doing we cannot ignore, rewrite or torture settled language and
propositions, and then apply that construct retroactively without affording the parties an
opportunity to be heard, in order to reach a perceived favored conclusion.
What he's saying here is that appellate courts should not resolve cases on issues that were
not raised by or briefed by the parties. Indeed, the purpose of the appellate briefing process is
for the parties' counsel to inform the court concerning the existing law (or, ocassionally, public
policy). Therefore, appellate courts should not make pronouncements on issues without the benefit of
briefing by the parties, especially in Colorado (and most states), where "staff attorneys prepare
the initial 'recommended disposition' in most [] appeals." Marie Avery Moses, An Appellate
Primer for Family Law Practitioners, 30 Colo.Law. 3 (March 2001).
Feb. 2, 2010 - guest commentary re: Denver Post article, "Designs for new Colorado
Justice Center released"
by Dale Kim Thorup, another proud “disgruntled litigant”
In today’s Denver Post, reporter Mike McPhee
heralds the State’s unveiling of plans for a new [in]justice center that will engulf two city
blocks in downtown Denver.
Although taxpayers are being asked to share the brunt of the State’s budget deficit, it seems this
does not apply to the State courts, judges, administrators, and [non]regulating agencies.
Ironically, but not coincidentally, this parallels the way statutory laws and the Constitution are
applied to citizens but not to the Caesars of the Colorado [in]justice system.
Typically, one obvious legal system apologist attempted to dismiss as “unsuccessful litigants” those
who criticize the State and its courts, writing:
This improvement is long overdue and being paid for by those who use the courts,
especially frequent litigants like our friend Pete [Smith, another poster]. The plans were
finalized before our recent economic issues and payment is spread out over the long term to
try to minimize the immediate costs. Without Courts, society functions quite differently.
Over the last 5 years the courts have borne a large share of the state budget cuts,
reducing staff, hours of service and increasing caseloads. Justice delayed is justice
denied and those who get on here and complain about the delays in cases need to understand
that some investment in the infrastructure is necessary.
Of course facts are irrelevant to that small group of unsuccessful litigants who get on
here every day and posts the same rants about the courts and the same attacks on all
lawyers judges and everyone else . . .
By the way Pete a fee is hardly "confiscatory" if you are not forced to pay it. File fewer
lawsuits and you pay less.
Pete Smith (I have absolutely no idea who that could be, do you?) rejoined:
What's the matter? Does the disinfectant of truth and dissent sting your eyes?
What about those judges who were caught falsifying affidavits (regarding how they were spending taxpayer-
subsidized time) and, unlike you or me, were allowed to quietly go away without being held
accountable? Is that somehow remedied by an improved infrastructure?
And what about those you mention, who complain about "delays in cases," like when judges
refuse to rule on motions for six or nine months or 2½ years (e.g., click
here for 3/22/2007
order deciding 8/16/2004 recusal motion) or 4½ years (e.g., click
here) or even ten years
(click here for 2005 order
deciding 1996 recusal motion), all in violation of C.R.S. § 13-5-135?
Or how about secret memos from
a judge's division clerk to the judge, discussing the refusal to rule on the motion, and
noting that, sometimes, when you ignore the litigant long enough, he just goes away?
Or the fact that the Colorado Commission for the Abolition of
Judicial Discipline refuses to ever process a complaint under 13-5-135 (90 day time
limit on judgment) and, as a result, § 13-5-136 (withholding of judge's salary) has never
been enforced in this state (not even once)? Such disregard for valid statutes passed by
the representatives of the people of Colorado, by the way, is a profound lack of respect
for the will of the General Assembly by the judicial branch.
Would you argue that persons filing these motions were due less "justice" than others, and
the law was properly disregarded or bent to prejudice them?
By the way, how many lawsuits has your friend, Pete [Smith], filed? How many lawsuits have
been filed against Pete? You don't know, do you? Assume the assume is 110 --does this mean
[his] commentary is any less valid? Assume the answer is 0 --does this mean [his]
commentary is any less valid?
Under your reasoning, the victim who is saved by a cop from the mugger should pay a $150
fee, because he is using a "service" provided by the Executive branch. And the person who
writes his Senator should pay a $60 fee, because a staff assistant must read the e-mail,
and the writer is therefore using a "service" provided by the Legislative branch.
And, by your reasoning, the person paying the $150 fee for the cop's intervention or the
$60 fee for the Senator's assistant's form-letter-response has no grounds to complain if
the cop is a friend of the mugger and let's him go, or if the Senator's assistant scribbles
in crayon at the bottom of the form letter, "On behalf of the Senator, we are very busy
and do not want to be bothered by you about this issue again.".
All I'm saying --a point that could hardly be argued by a reasonable person-- is that we
should get the benefit of the bargain.
And you certainly can't blame me (or the "disgruntled litigants" as you allege) who post on
this or other forums for our profession's poor public perception. Our very own CBA past-
president warned us about this back in 2001, yet nothing's changed since then. See
Laird Milburn, Professional Reform, 30 Colo.Law. 7 (2001) at 51 (sounding an alarm bell regarding the
public's declining respect for the legal system and citing 1994 ABA survey regarding public
mistrust of lawyers); see also2006 Harris Interactive® poll (finding lawyers as the least trusted of
the 22 occupations included in the survey); American Bar Association, Justice in
Jeopardy: Report of the Commission on the 21st Century, Judiciary 10 (2003); American
Bar Association, Public Perceptions of Lawyers Consumer Research Findings (2002).
Finally, I have seen some good work and fealty to the "rule of law" come out of our Court
of Appeals. But, I have not yet met a state or federal district court judge or magistrate
in Colorado that wasn't corrupt, biased, lazy, incompetent, or who exercised judgment
rather than will. I know there are some out there, but I just haven't encountered any, yet.
Not one.
The corruption by certain lawyers and judges in this state --which I alluded to, but did
not discuss in my original comment-- is indefensible, and the fact that you are
taking up for them or, alternatively, suggesting that it's a figment of our collective
imagination, is without merit.
Jan. 31, 2010 - Attorney under fire: the "OARC goes after you if you
try to stand up to the racketeers who control this state, and, in
particular, if you expose misconduct of a judge . . . [The OARC] is not
protecting the public from corrupt attorneys . . . It is protecting corrupt
attorneys--particularly corrupt judges--from the public"
On this site, I have repeatedly alleged that Colorado's
Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel
(OARC) willfully and knowingly disregards the Rules of Professional Conduct and will not prosecute
dishonest lawyers, with four exceptions: (1) if the attorney is in arrears on child support
(this is an automatic computer-generated suspension); (2) if the attorney has a fiduciary
relationship with the complainant (e.g., co-mingling, misappropriation, or embezzlement
of the client, estate, or trust funds); (3) for any other violation of the rules of professional
conduct, but only if the case is high profile; and (4) as a political favor
or the attorney has criticized the judiciary (in which case,
whether the respondent lawyer is dishonest or incompetent is irrelevant).
By way of example, OARC's Matt Samuelson on January 12
summarily dismissed a
complaint against Mike Luchetta, concluding that the complaint "does not
set forth facts, which if proven, would constitute grounds for the imposition
of discipline by the offices of the Supreme Court of Colorado." (citing Rule
251.9). Yet, Samuelson, on the previous page, set out each of the complainant's
contentions:
You assert that Mr. Luchetta filed a notice of income withholding with an erroneous amount of child support, that the notice included arrearages that were not ordered by the court, served a different notice of income withholding on your employer, that he lied to the court in order to pursue a contempt citation against you that resulted in the court finding you in contempt and sentencing you to serve jail time, and that Mr. Luchetta and others in his office made false statements to the principal at your daughters' school in order to obtain visitation for their client that was in violation of court orders.
I don't know about y'all, but it sounds like the complainant certainly did state
facts, which if proven, would constitute multiple grounds for the imposition
of discipline.
So why was the complaint dismissed? Well, because Samuelson disregarded the
obligatory "shall" language of Rule 251.9 and made up his own rule. Or, more
accurately, he applied John Gleason's unwritten
agency rule, which is to dismiss opposing
parties' complaints, by telling them they need to first obtain findings from a civil or
criminal court that the attorney's conduct was a violation of the rules.
And yet, a [former] chief federal district judge,
Edward "Fast Eddie" Nottingham
has already denounced Samuelson's scheme:
[M]y understanding of the Colorado rules of attorney conduct is that upon the filing of a complaint, they do whatever investigation they need to have done, and they make whatever findings they need to have made, and they issue whatever orders they need. They don't need a recommendation from this court. You know, if that is what
[Samuelson] said, he's wrong. (12/14/2007 transcript at 5)
Indeed, there's a fair amount of anecdotal evidence to support each of
my four prosecution theories (supra), including
the most seemingly-incredulous one, the "political favor" prosecution.1
OARC gets around 5,000 presumptively legitimate complaints a year about lawyers, and goes forward on only 50 of them--one percent. Yet I have been the obsession of a prosecutor there, April (Seekamp) McMurrey, full-time for over three years now, and she is closely supervised by Gleason and Coyle. She has told the defendant in one of my cases that "the Supreme Court is going to get Maynard" and that "the Supreme Court is tired of Maynard filing these cases."
What have I done? Well, I have exposed huge frauds at work in this state which have been enabled by judges. It's asset-stripping: the wrongful transfer of water rights, land, bank accounts--and, in one case, an historic building--from the true owners to development interests. After I have lost in the district court (in front of a judge who rubberstamps the deal), I have appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, where I have written compelling briefs, yet seen that Court issue one-line summary affirmations which it then does not publish. My issues are not even mentioned, let alone determined. They won't let me win. And it's clear the other side--the developers--know the outcome in advance, because they do not even bother to respond to my issues. Their briefs are a joke. The appellate process is there only to give the appearance that due process has been afforded when, in fact, it has not.
So I can say, from experience, that OARC goes after you if you try to stand up to the racketeers who control this state, and, in particular, if you expose misconduct of a judge, although maybe sometimes it will go after an attorney when there's been a lot of press about something heinous. In my case, there isn't. There is not the slightest whiff of moral turpitude in anything I have been charged with, nor is it my clients who are complaining. Instead, the complaints have been filed by attorneys opposing me in pending litigation, seeking an advantage which OARC should never be giving them, but instead has been only too happy to. I have been required to get off the case and divulge my litigation strategy and views of the evidence to defend myself, a result not even my opponents dared hope for in their wildest dreams.
I have defended against EIGHT groundless complaints over the past three years, including two intended to get me determined "mentally incapacitated." It's like the Soviet Union under Stalin, where political dissidents are committed to mental asylums simply for disagreeing with the government.
OARC has further authorized the posting, on two websites (Statebillnews.com and LawWeek), of its latest complaint. They posted it under the heading, in red capitalized letters, 'DISCIPLINE!" But it's not discipline: it's only a complaint. This matter hasn't been to hearing yet, although I've had it hanging over me for two years, and they didn't bother to post either my answer--which completely debunks the complaint--or the order dismissing one of the three charges. Thus, it is libel per se. (The charge I got dismissed, by the way, required the word "clients" to be construed to mean "former clients"--the opposite of its plain meaning. McMurrey said she was arguing for an "extension of the law.")
This posting is more evidence that this office of "attorney regulation" is not interested in protecting the public, or in correcting ethical mistakes. It is interested in discrediting and destroying lawyers who have spoken out about what is going on in this state. It has shown it will resort to any maneuvers it can come up with to achieve this result. I have seen both Coyle and McMurrey lie outright to the PDJ, and I have strong evidence that ex parte communications are taking place between them. OARC is nothing but the hatchetman of the same interests I have been litigating against. In Animas-La Plata, for instance, where the developers have stolen the water out from under 6,000 other people, with the indispensable assistance of the judge. In Spring Creek Ranch, where the judge rubberstamped the takeover of my clients' homeowners' association by persons who proceeded, as "directors," to convey the subdivision's plan for augmentation to the adjacent developer (who was paying them), and to run up bogus liens on my clients' properties, which they then foreclosed on in front of the same judge. In Eulipions, where Dan Muse threatened the board of my clients' nonprofit, forcing them to step down and appoint cronies of Wellington Webb to the board, who then conveyed the historic building Eulipions owned to other people, pocketing the proceeds. And then there are the carve-ups of public property I have litigated over the past 20 years, by Roy Romer, Ken Salazar, and Wellington Webb, giving big chunks to their developer cronies (or, in Romer's case, to his own family trust).
As for my complaints to OARC about other lawyers, they have never gone anywhere. OARC has never even investigated a single one. This office is not protecting the public from corrupt attorneys, therefore. It is protecting corrupt attorneys--particularly corrupt judges--from the public.
_________________________ 1 For example, Law Week's Matt Masich reported in December that the former
director of Colorado Ethics Watch, Chantell Taylor, accused two attorneys, Mike Coffman and
Andy McElhany, of using (or attempting to use) the OARC as "a pawn in a person or party's
political game." Another attorney, Kenny Padilla,
accused the City and County of
Denver of using the OARC grievance process to obtain a tactical advantage in ongoing
litigation. (See ibid at ¶ 5). And The Rocky Mountain News
reported that Carol Chambers accused an Arapahoe County judge of retaliating against her
for complaints she filed against certain judges. Soon after, Chambers was being
persecuted by the OARC under the guise of ethics
code enforcement in what some bloggers had described as a "show trial" immediately prior
to the 2006 election. Chambers alluded to selective prosecution in her
public
statement.
Jan. 28, 2010 - A reasonable inference? A
certain Colorado attorney needs to lay off the booze a little
In June, 2009, Patrick N. Smith was publicly censured for pleading guilty in Douglas County to DUI,
but failing to self-report his conviction to the OARC. SeePeople v. Smith,
No. 09PDJ062.
Six months later, Smith has been suspended
from the practice of law for 120 days. According to the Conditional Admission of
Misconduct, not only did Smith fail to competently represent a client in a criminal
proceeding, but he also testified while intoxicated during a hearing regarding
his ineffective assistance of counsel.
Jan. 29, 2010 - Colorado lawyer, Norman Beecher, disciplined for having an intimate
relationship with client, but hearing board accepts lawyer's claim that he slept
with client in her bed platonically.
Yeah, right. Does Mr. Beecher need some blue-pill help or does
his story ("the parties stipulated") strain credulity? The
opinion and order
was issued in February, 2009 (nearly a year ago), but was just posted on the
PDJ's Web site (the PDF
document was created 12/18/2009). Yet, in other cases (hint, OARC v.
Brennan) the OARC contacts the media with the decision before the respondent attorney
has received notice of the same by mail.
Of particular note, Denver District Court Judge Federico Alvarez, a Commission on
Judicial Discipline member, testified as an expert in these proceedings and opined
that most parties to a divorce action are extremely emotionally vulnerable, thus,
they are dependent upon legal counsel’s professionalism and detachment to avoid
issues not legally germane to the proceedings. I made a similar argument in my
Reply
Brief, filed last week in my pending
appeal. I also note that, like Madeline Wilson did in my case, Hearing Board found that Beecher "placed the integrity
of the judicial proceedings in jeopardy" by using legal proceedings that served no
substantial legal purpose.
Jan. 28, 2010 - KnowYourCOurts.com exclusive - guest commentary: "Death and Emails on
the Colorado River"
Death and Emails on the Colorado River
A guest article by former Colorado water law attorney, Alison "Sunny" Maynard
On January 15, 2009, Susan Greene, a Denver Post columnist, wrote "Tapping Mexico for Water," reporting on a ceremony between Interior
officials and Mexican diplomats, who shook hands and smiled for cameras in Washington "after
pledging cooperation on the Colorado River." This is because "parched communities in Nevada,
Arizona, and California have been eyeing water south of the border." In other words, these
communities want to steal even the little bit of Colorado River water which currently trickles into
Mexico under our treaty, and they found some Mexican stooges to give it to them. The deal appears
totally one-sided, favoring U.S. development interests, although undoubtedly American taxpayers will
foot the bill for the proposed desalination plant in Mexico.
Greene then reported that "water talks between the two countries were set back dramatically in
September when the main U.S. and Mexican envoys on the issue were killed, together, in a plane
crash."
This was stunning news. I Googled until my computer spewed steam, finding nothing, so wrote a letter
to Greene, as well as to The Denver Post. I asked what the names of these envoys were and
what they had been negotiating. I said that my clients, whose number one concern is the Colorado
River, knew nothing about such "negotiations" with Mexico. There is a group which we know meets
about Colorado River compact issues, but it has no Web site and does not hold public meetings, so we
have never been able to get information. I asked Greene how she knew these things--who told her?
Were the envoys who were killed about to sign an agreement that Mexico should get real wet water,
to restore the desiccated Colorado River Delta?
The "lead negotiator" on the deal was Jim Lochhead, who is not a governmental official. He is a
water attorney with Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, & Schreck,
which represents real estate developers. Brownstein
has the Colorado River sewn up since its mergers with the Schreck Law Firm in Las Vegas and
the Hatch & Parent water law firm of California. Brownstein
also has unequivocal mob links. (After you Google --and gag-- at what comes up on
Brownstein and his "client" Larry Mizel, try Googling
Mr. Schreck of Las Vegas; whew.)
Greene did not respond to my email, and The Denver Post did not publish my letter.
Remembering this exchange I just searched for these emails in my gMail account, and they are gone.
On one attempt, I got the advice, "The conversation no longer exists." But I certainly did not
delete it and it was only a year ago. The Denver Post' publisher, William Dean Singleton, has
been reported by Pete Brewton, a former Houston Chronicle reporter, to be "best friends" with Larry
Mizel, the guy who ripped off Silverado with Brownstein's help.1
Through more Googling, I learned that John Keys, the former Bureau of Reclamation commissioner,
also died in a plane crash "on May 30." It's not clear what year, but I am guessing 2009. The only
place that item appeared was in a Bureau employee newsletter. Not one newspaper in the entire
United States reported on this incident.
__________________________ 1 Brownstein has been extensively involved with Larry Mizel (indicted for fraudulent
campaign contributions, for which he shook down subcontractors to his building company, MDC
Holdings), Kenneth Good (for whom Brownstein set up 100 trusts), Marvin Davis, Charles Keating,
Bill Walters --read up on this a little. The list goes on and on. These are all notorious crooks.
And see Pizzo, Stephen; Fricker, Mary; and Muolo, Paul. Inside Job: The Looting of
America's Savings and Loans. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989. See also Pete Brewtown,
The Mafia, CIA, and George Bush. New York: S.P.I. Books (Shapolsky Publishers), 1992 at
p. 266 (discussing Norm Brownstein's links to Edward DeBartolo, an Ohio shopping center magnate
"who has been plagued with allegations of organized crime connections"). But that's the least of
it: the involvement of Brownstein and Farber in the savings and loan debacle of the late 1980's
was extensive, with Brownstein "representing" Silverado S&L, which cost taxpayers, all by itself, a
billion dollars. All that money went out the door into the pockets of Brownstein and his clients,
who got big loans without posting collateral, so they never got paid back. (Every commentator I
have read who has analyzed the S&L debacle has concluded it was orchestrated by organized crime).
The front jacket of Brewton's book says Mafia associates (and CIA operatives) defrauded Silverado
Savings. Also, the Brownstein firm has also controlled --and I do mean controlled-- the elections/
appointments of numerous major public figures in Colorado and Denver for years, even running
Ken Salazar's campaigns for attorney general in 2002 and the Senate in 2004.
Jan. 28, 2010 - I need a barf-bag: Denver Post quotes John Gleason today,
"Attorney misconduct is not something the court takes lightly"
Thanks, Denver Post, for again giving Gleason and his specious
OARC agency some more
advertising space
that, not only is free, but also false.1
Denver Post staff are regular visitors to this site and, thus, are aware of the
issues with OARC and the documentary evidence, but
continue to portray the agency
as one that protects the public. I'm not a conspiracy wingnut (e.g., believing
that The Post is improperly aligned with the Mullarkey Court or run by
Brownstein,
Hyatt, Farber, & Schreck), but what else should we infer?
________________________ 1The Gazette did the same last year (here), despite paying lip-service to me
about its awareness of the problems with and well-founded
criticism of the OARC. See my
February 10, 2009 entry about that here.
Jan. 27, 2010 - KnowYourCOurts.com exclusive - OARC grievance page now lists
complaints by attorney name
Click here and click on the pull-down menu on the left.
Jan. 25, 2010 - "Throw the bums off the Colorado Supreme Court" Matt Arnold and
ClearTheBenchColorado.org getting some press coverage
On Friday, The Westword ran a story suggesting that some in Colorado, including The
Denver Post and John Suthers, Colorado's Attorney General, are either taking notice of Arnold's
message or in silent agreement with him or both.
Fending off criticism that his campaign is a thinly-veiled assault on liberal dems, Arnold told
The Westword, "I think our rules and our institutions are good ones,
and I'm not advocating for direct election of judges . . . I think the intent behind our current
system is to try to take some of the politics out of the judiciary branch, and that's good. But
it's clearly failed to work, because we weren't able to take the politics out. What we have is a
bevy of justices on Colorado's highest court who are substituting their personal agendas for the
rule of law, and that damages all of us, irrespective to our political persuasion -- and that has
to stop."
Jan. 21, 2010 - KnowYourCOurts.com exclusive - Law Week agrees to change certain
publication policies in response to miffed attorney's complaint
Hey, who said Don Knox, the editor-in-chief for State Bill Colorado and Colorado Law
Week, isn't a thoughtful guy?
It must be a slow news-day when I am reporting on what another legal blog/media-outlet is doing
administratively. But, I have an excuse: I have a life outside of KnowYourCourts.com. For
example, today I presented to a roomful of software developers and managers on "Regulatory
Compliance in the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC)," covering such topics as HIPAA, GLBA, SOX,
and PCI-DSS.
Anyway, as I understand it, former water law attorney, Alison
"Sunny" Maynard, wrote to Don Knox, complaining that the subheading "Discipline" above links to
her yet-to-be-decided attorney discipline proceedings was libelous per se. Knox responded,
thus:
Ms. Maynard:
Thank you for your e-mail, which I just received. I've just arrived at work this
morning. I've read some, but not all of your e-mails -- yet. But I want to let you
know that I've considered this issue thoroughly, albeit quickly, and have taken
steps that address some and, perhaps, all of your concerns.
First, some background: When we began posting discipline actions sometime in 2008,
we posted discipline actions only at
www.statebillnews.com. Two things have
changed.
1. We now post them to www.lawweekonline.com.
2. The attorney discipline office, at our standing request, has been sending us
additional information, including information about some (though not many) pending
cases.
I disagree with your contention that the word "discipline" is libelous because the office that gives us the information is the Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, and so that's a shorthand referencing that specific office. However, on the Law Week site, where these things are now posted, I've changed the button to say "Regulation." In the coming days, I will change the titles on all posted cases to this new name.
Secondly, I've removed your pending case from the State Bill site (which, by the way, publishes Colorado legislative and regulatory news). I did this at your request. I will consider re-posting the information at the Law Week site under the "Regulation" title and, if I do that, I would be happy to post the answers you've submitted. Can you send them to us in electronic format -- Adobe PDF?
I see also that you have a disciplinary case that proceeded to a conclusion. It is still on the State Bill site, under a Discipline heading. I feel that's an appropriate heading given the circumstances. Please let me know if you don't agree, and why, and I will consider what you send me.
As a newspaper for lawyers, Law Week covers many items of interest to attorneys and others, including disciplinary information. However, discipline cases make up just a fraction of what we publish. We are far more likely to post a case opinion or news of lawyers moving among firms than to publish sanctions.
Thank you for your time and for your e-mail.
Sincerely,
Don Knox
Editor
Law Week Colorado and State Bill Colorado
DENVER
Gosh, do you supposed my friend
John Gleason would enter into a standing agreement with
KnowYourCourts.com to forward
updates and notices from his office? Nah, I don't think so.
He's too busy taking calls from Madeline Wilson's
lawyer, Brett Huff, to figure out ways to prevent me
from availing myself of the First Amendment's pesky
Petition Clause.
Jan. 20, 2010 - KnowYourCOurts.com exclusive - "In a documentary on how to
complicate a simple divorce, this case would earn an Academy Award"
So begins the Reply
Brief I'll be filing in a few days in the pending appeals court case of Marriage of
Harrington, No. 09CA0751.
Jan. 15, 2010 - Woe to you disgruntled litigants !
Woe to all you disgruntled litigants. Some of you file vexatious litigation, others start up
Webzines and blogs, and others, well, others find less creative ways to vent their spleen.
"Judges and prosecutors regularly deal with disappointed parties in civil lawsuits and hardened
criminals. The government needs to do a better job of protecting them." So begins a New
York Times editorial, "Judicial
Security"
Jan. 14, 2010 - KnowYourCOurts.com exclusive - Going through a divorce w/ kids in
Colorado or representing a client who is? Why you ought to care what I write about.
For years, I've been railing against the profit-driven
Colorado divorce industry on this site (most
recently, with my January 13th entry
(in re Bill J. Fyfe)
and January 4th (in re
David Kieffer), below.
Today, I get this e-mail:
1/14/2010
Sean,
I know you don't give out legal advice, but read this....[attachment]
Are his fees protected from me filing Bankruptcy? That totally sucks if it's true.
I am going to jail, because I can't afford to pay the fucker.
The attachment is a demand
letter from divorce industry expert (DIE) Richard Spiegle, stating, in pertinent part:
I demand payment in full in the amount of $2,686.67 by 12:00 noon on
February 8, 2010 or the Court will be informed that you are in contempt of its Order [and
you will be going to jail -- Don't bend down to reach for the soap!] . . . Any fees
incurred by my attorney will be due and owing in addition to the balance stated above
pursuant to . . . the Child and Family Investigator Agreement . . .
signed by you . . .This is also a reminder that this debt is in the nature of child support
and is not dischargeable in Bankruptcy.
Although I deleted the billing statement attached to the demand letter (to protect
the privacy of the family), the original total for these court-ordered
"services" was $10,746.67. Shocked? In the case of
Marriage of Yates, the bill was in excess of $43K, affirmed by our Court of Appeals.
In October, I received an e-mail regarding Spiegle from the same fellow:
10/15/2009
Sean,
When you sued [M]r. Fyfe for fraudulent billing,
did you win? The total on our last CFI -- Dr. Spiegle, was 14K, and we figured out
he was charging $210 per hour and some of his assistants were billing $360.00 per
hour based on minutes for each task. He also put down fictional numbers for time
talked to our collateral contacts and we have proof he didn't talk to them for as
much time as he put on the bill.
Some surprising facts if you run the numbers on his billing:
Dr. Spiegle made $3.29 per minute on our case averaged out.
Dr. Spiegle charged $3.50 per minute to do anything or $210.00 per hour.
He billed out one of his assistants for some of the tasks at $6.00 per minute
or $360.00 per hour.
Dr. Spiegle charged for 3.5 hours at our home, because he got lost on his way
and was here less than two. He showed up late because in his words, "my assistant
gave me the wrong directions" and then left early. Why is that our fault and why are
we paying extra for it? He is overcharging $210.00 solely because he got lost!
He billed our friend [name omitted] for 18 mins, however she didn't talk to him
more than 5 mins or so. We will get her phone records to prove it. So basically
he or his office is making up these numbers and fraudulently billing both parties.
This is a serious violation of ethics etc. Not only should we be be outraged at this
fraudulent, unethical and inflated billing, [my ex-wife] should be outraged as well.
Of course, like Kieffer and Fyfe, Spiegle fails to realize that, by compelling parents to
execute a private contract and voluntarily submitting to the law of contract, he likely has
waived his quasi-immunity for whatever conduct falls within the ambit of the contract, and
has the same liability for a contract breach (e.g., for failure to substantially perform)
that he thinks he the parents have. I'm just waiting to see if a Colorado attorney ever
comes along --not another divorce industry maggot-- who has the
wit to recognize
the contractual cause-of-action and who has the temerity to bring it. Don't hold your breath,
but do ask your attorneys to show cause why you
should be compelled to enter into a private contract of any
kind with the DIE, when there already is a court order in place.
It should not be overlooked that, in addition to the fact that the DIEs do nothing to help
the children of these families, but instead use them to extort money,
the tens of
thousands of dollars that are extorted from these divorced parents
--already struggling to
start over--are the same dollars that could be going towards these kids' college educations
or even basic necessities (like food and a decent place to live).
Spiegle's CV is here, in case anyone wants to do some
research on his background. Maybe you'll turn up something, like we've reported about Colorado
Springs' Edwin Shockney.
Of course, I didn't give my e-mail contributor any advice, but I already
knew the answer. And the answer is nothing
less than the fruits of the lobbying efforts of the
divorce industry (which also successfully lobbied
for their immunity from accountability for
extortionate or malicious actions).
§ B1.3
One of the apparently least-understood (by parents) sections of C.R.S. § 14-10-116
is the final paragraph, in which the court is directed to "... enter an order for
costs, fees, and disbursements in favor of the child's representative.... The
order shall be made against any or all of the parties; except that, if the
responsible party is indigent, the costs, fees, and disbursements shall be borne
by the state." Simple enough, but the parents' feelings about the other parent,
as well as feelings about the CLR's advocating a position that is counter to that
parent's position, often results in a delay in paying an invoice, or an outright failure to comply with the court's order to pay for the CLR's services.
While Chapter D1 of this book ("Getting Paid as the Court's Appointee") examines payment issues in detail, it is important for the CLR to understand the legislative policy that the parents are required to financially support their child, particularly in this important resolution of their child's best interests. Payment issues are not between the parent and the CLR - they are between the parent and the court, which ordered the payment, and the legislature, which statutorily commanded the payment in the first place. The CLR should not be shy in appropriately bringing the issue to the court for consideration, which may result in payment from marital property before it is divided or a contempt proceeding against the delinquent parent. What will help the CLR's cause immensely is a comprehensive appointment order that deals with all concerns about payment,
including the notation that the court sees the CLR's fees to be "in the nature of child support," should a parent begin talking about filing bankruptcy.
§ D1.6
Debts in domestic relations cases that are in the nature of child support and maintenance are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. The fees of a guardian
ad litem are in the nature of child support and are, therefore, not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Because the CFI and CLR are the post-1997 guardians
ad litem of C.R.S. § 14-10-116, their fees are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Note that the divorce court and the bankruptcy court have concurrent jurisdiction over such dischargeability issues.
There are four types of bankruptcy filings the CFI or CLR may encounter: a Chapter 7 liquidation or a Chapter 11, 12, or 13 reorganization. Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 cases are the most common.
In a Chapter 7 filing in the District of Colorado, Proofs of Claim are not required unless a Notice of Possible Distribution is issued, which constitutes a determination that the trustee may have assets to distribute to creditors. In such a circumstance, the CFI or CLR should file a Proof of Claim, Form BI0 (Official Form 10), found at
www.cob.uscourts.gov/bindex.htm. If there are proceeds to distribute, the CFI or CLR will not be eligible to receive any of the distribution unless a Proof of Claim is filed. The CFI or CLR is generally exempt from the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), but depending on the action taken, he or she may be required to request relief from stay. This decision should be made on a case-by-case basis. Often, calling the debtor's bankruptcy counselor the trustee will clarify the issue. The CFI or CLR may continue to bill, write letters requesting payment, request judgment, garnish, or request contempt.
In a Chapter 13 filing, the CFI or CLR should file a Proof of Claim, or the fees may be discharged. Furthermore, if the CFI's or CLR's fees are not provided for in the Chapter 13 Plan, or the amount due is listed incorrectly in the "priority" section of the plan, the CFI or CLR should file an objection. The CFI or CLR does not have to attend the meeting of creditors. If funds are available and the CFI or CLR is properly listed in the plan, the bankruptcy trustee may distribute some of the funds to the CFI or CLR. In a Chapter 13 filing, the CFI or CLR cannot garnish wages during the first six months of the case, but may proceed to collect against other assets. After six months, the CFI or CLR may proceed against any assets.
The foregoing, with internal citations
omitted, is excerpted from The Role of the Child and Family Investigator and the Child's Representative in Colorado, First Ed. (Robert M. Smith ed., CLE in Colo., Inc., Supp. 2005). It maybe a bit dated, because the bankruptcy laws changed a couple of years ago
(but I didn't find that
issue addressed in the 2007 or 2008 update (I didn't purchase the 2009 update)).
The problem is, you divorcing parents with children are a transient minority passing
through the courts, easy prey like a salmon run for
grizzly bears. Your legislators don't
give a shit about you (I know, I've written them on your behalf and received not one response)
and the public doesn't care, because most of them
are too busy watching American Idol or texting their
friends. You will be financially devastated, you probably won't see
your kids, and whatever hope they had for a college education just evaporated like a fart in
a dust storm.
Jan. 13, 2010 - Easy Red Cross donation for Haiti quake relief via cell phone.
GIVE: To help with relief efforts, text "HAITI" to "90999" and $10 will be given automatically to
the Red Cross, charged to your cellphone bill.
One contributor wrote me, "I tried it from my cell, Verizon Wireless. I sent the text message
'haiti' to the 90999 number. Almost immediately I got a confirmation message back, it said to text
a 'Yes' to confirm the donation. I did that. I then got another thank you message. It also asked
if I wanted to get more cell updates, you can reply with 'stop' for no more messages."
Pretty quick, efficient system. Learn more here. Please consider
contributing.
Jan. 13, 2010 - KnowYourCOurts.com exclusive -
Colorado judges looking out for Colorado families
January 21, 2010 update: 1/21/2010 e-mail from Committee spokeswoman included below.
Earlier today, I wrote the former chair of Colorado Supreme Court's Standing Committee on Family
Issues. I blind-copied about 50 interested
recipients. My e-mail to her, her response, and a response from
one of the blind-copy recipients is below:
Dear Judge Montgomery:
In August of 2008, I forwarded you a memorandum regarding the unethical
conduct of Bill J. Fyfe in numerous
family law cases (acknowledged by your e-mail,
hereinbelow). The memo included allegations of extortionate coercion, abuses of
quasi-judicial power, and anonymous allegations of inappropriate advances toward
women (mothers in custody cases). Mr. Fyfe was also on the Board of Governors, along with one of the
judges who frequently appoints him, of a self-described lobbying group. A few
years earlier, several parents had even signed a petition to Chief Justice Mullarkey
about this same topic.
Rather than conduct any inquiry into the allegations, it appears that you invited
Mr. Fyfe to serve on the Supreme Court's Standing Committee on Family Issues, where
Mr. Fyfe has input in how CFI matters are handled by family courts (see an
article he wrote,
concerning his delight in serving on the Committee, attached hereto).
You should also be aware that Mr. Fyfe recently submitted a brief to the
Colorado Court of Appeals, where he claims that, his conduct
that occurred between the repeal of CJD 97-02 and the publication of CJD 04-08 means
that he was not subject to any accountability or ethical standards and, further,
that he was not subject to the standards of his profession (promulgated by the APA)
because, he argues, no Colorado law at that time required adherence to those
standards.
Candidly, Judge Montgomery, I believe it's a fair question to ask why Mr. Fyfe
should be "serving" the people of Colorado in defining CFI practices and family law
policy, when he has an established track record of only serving himself and the
"divorce industry."
As former Justice Sandra Day-O'Connor and others frequently point out, public
confidence in the judiciary seems to be diminishing and, when judges --who have been
made aware of this kind of behavior among divorce industry experts-- look the other
way or defend them or appoint them to elevated positions, the public should be
concerned that the judiciary may be more vested in the "industry" than it is in the
welfare of the families that appear in Colorado courts.
Although I am very disappointed, I have been very cordial in writing this
communiqué to you, and I respectfully request that you respond in kind, by taking a
few minutes to address my concerns.
. . . with kind regards,
Sean Harrington
http://knowyourcourts.com
Subject: RE: CCAFCC Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 10:38:25 -0600 From: lael.montgomery@judicial.state.co.us To: esoxlucios@msn.com
Mr. Harrington,
I have read your memorandum and reviewed your website. I agree with you that
supervision of child and family investigators appointed in family law cases is the
responsibility of the appointing judge. It is my intent to highlight that
responsibility in my presentation at the Family Law Institute training this month.
Sincerely,
Lael Montgomery
Judge
Boulder District Court
P.O. Box 4249
Boulder, CO 80306
303-441-1866
From: Sean Harrington [mailto:esoxlucios@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:54 AM To: montgomery, lael Subject: CCAFCC
Dear Judge Montgomery:
Please find attached hereto a memorandum in PDF format addressed
to you as Chair of the Standing Committee on Family Issues.
. . . with kind regards,
Sean L. Harrington
Immediately after sending the e-mail, one of the blind-copy recipients responded:
1/13/2010
My ex was in love/lust with Fyfe- she needed a rescue ranger. She told my young
kids during the long haul that she would MARRY Fyfe! When I brought it up in
testimony, Fyfe cockily smirked, acting like it was preposterous and [First Judicial
District Chief Judge] Brook Jackson never flinched, never looked up from his notes
and kept writing during my testimony. But of course, Jax didn't know what was about
to hit him when he heard from the kids' shrinks!
As always, I would testify, submit or do ANYTHING against Fyfe. I really should
have sued the bastard but after almost 3 years I was tired and broke!
As always, I so admire your tireless efforts.
This allegation reminds of a December 4, 2003 memorandum in a different
case, where Fyfe fended off similar allegations: "I did not have an
affair with [mother] . . . I did not provide mother with sexually explicit material, and my wife
does not maintain an apartment near [mother]"
And a short while later, Judge Montgomery responded, in effect passing the buck:
1/13/2010
Dear Mr. Harrington,
I am currently (and for the next several years will be) assigned to other than a
family law docket and for that reason tendered my resignation as chair of the
Supreme Court Standing Committee on Family Issues to the Chief Justice nearly a
year ago.
I understand you to be telling me that you are disappointed that I asked Bill Fyfe
to serve on the Standing Committee after you sent me a “memorandum regarding the
unethical conduct of Bill J. Fyfe.” I asked Dr. Fyfe to serve based on my
perception of his qualifications and not in response to your allegations or in lieu
of any investigation into your allegations. In fact, I believe his appointment to
the Standing Committee predated your correspondence to me in August of 2008.
Sincerely,
Lael Montgomery
Judge
Boulder District Court
P.O. Box 4249
Boulder, CO 80306
303-441-3771
Notice that she didn't tell me who the new chair is. Apparently, he is
Stephen Schapanski, another judge.
Accordingly, I forwarded the e-mail to him for his review.
And then, on 1/21/2010, a spokeswoman for the Committee replied, thus:
Mr. Harrington,
As staff to Supreme Court Standing Committee on Family Issues, I am responding to your request for review of correspondence that you sent to Judge Montgomery on August 6, 2009. As posted on your website, Judge Montgomery responded to your memorandum on January 13, 2010. By this email, I acknowledge that your correspondence has been reviewed by Judge Schapanski and by committee staff, and will be considered at such time as the Chief Justice issues an order appointing members to the Committee.
Should you require more information about the Committee, please feel free to direct those inquiries to me personally.
Best Wishes,
Alicia Davis, J.D. alicia.davis@judicial.state.co.us
Judicial Programs Manager & Acting ODR Director
Colorado State Court Administrator's Office
101 W Colfax Avenue, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202
phone: 303-837-3630
fax: 303-837-2340
Jan. 13, 2010 - It's about the water.
In response to a New York Times editorial, No More 'Candy Store' about Ken Salazar's vision for Bureau of Land
Management, a former Colorado water law attorney, Alison "Sunny" Maynard, submitted the following
letter:
I have another take on the Interior Department's review of oil and gas leases.
It's about the water. In Colorado, oil companies own big, senior conditional water rights.
Those can be nullified if the leases are lost, meaning the next most senior water rights
benefit. I suspect those belong to real estate developers.
The Brownstein, Farber law firm in Denver represents developers, and ran Salazar’s
senatorial campaign. Salazar's deputies at Interior are Tom Strickland, a former
Brownstein partner, and lawyer Anne Castle. Could their appointments have had anything to
do with Steve Farber’s bringing the Democratic National Convention to Denver, where Obama
was nominated?
Interestingly, I emailed two friends in October about all this, remembering the federal
government owns water rights itself. I observed that these three at Interior was like
"kids in a candy store." Funny to see this very term used by Salazar himself!
According to
The Colorado Springs Independent, Salazar, through his 2002 attorney general
campaign spokesman in meanwhile, called Maynard a "flake."
On January 2, 2010, another attorney sent me an e-mail, entitled, "This is why OARC is
persecuting Sunny." The attorney explained that Maynard is being retaliated against for,
"having exercised [the] 1st Amendment rights to tell the truth about the whores [she
was] running against," and, attached to the e-mail was this article by Ken Freed:
She refuses to post my comment to her post. (I guess I'm one of the few legal bloggers out here,
who's not intimidated by competition or reluctant to post to other blogs, for fear that I will
give away readership or have a lower Google search ranking resulting from cross-links).
Jan. 12, 2010 - disbarred lawyers, columnists, and even judges are
hollering for reform,
while practicing attorneys continue to be disciplined for criticizing the judiciary
According to the
Pittsburg Tribune-Review, Joan Orie Melvin, sworn in Friday as a Pennsylvania supreme court
justice, pledged to make it her mission to "remove the stealth nature of the judiciary" and called
for sweeping reforms of the state's court system.
"In the wake of unethical back-room deals, pay
raises, public corruption and scandals in the judiciary, people are demanding reform," said Melvin.
"It is my mission to remove the stealth nature and the mystery from the judicial branch of
government by bringing reform, accountability and transparency. Let the sunshine in."
Similarly, the supreme court of Tennessee has suspended a notable Nashville attorney,
John Jay Hooker, from the practice of
law for allegedly filing frivolous litigation and criticizing sitting judges with language that
some believe could undermine public respect for the state's judicial system.
(The Order of Suspension described it as, "statements
with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity concerning judges")
In an interview with The Nashville Post,
Hooker confirmed that in the interest of reform, "Part of my goal is to undermine the confidence of
the people in the Supreme Court and to have the people rise up and want to do something about it."
In his arguments before the presiding disciplinary judge, Hooker, who has a long history of reform
activism, proclaimed:
I am 78 years old. One must grade their papers before the man upstairs does. I am here in
the twilight, the fourth quarter of my life, so I am not here for myself but for future
generations.
Meanwhile, Florida disbarred attorney Jack Thompson is complaining of state bar "corruption" to the
Florida Attorney General:
John B. Thompson, J.D.
5721 Riviera Drive
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
305-666-4366
amendmentone@comcast.net
January 12, 2010
The Honorable William Newton Shepherd
Florida Statewide Prosecutor
1515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 900
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Via Fax 561-837-5107 and e-mail william.shepherd@myfloridalegal.com
The Honorable William McCollum
Florida Attorney General
C/o Correspondence Section
400 S Monroe St Ste PL-01
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6536 Via Fax 850-410-1630
Re: Statewide Grand Jury Impaneled by Florida Supreme Court on 12/2/09
Dear Mr. Shepherd and Attorney General McCollum:
I write to inform you further of the central role that The Florida Bar plays in the corruption of state government, as indicated now by events in the last two days in the Hank Adorno fire fee case.
Briefly, Hank Adorno, former law partner to Raul Cantero, the former Florida Supreme Court Justice, got caught several years ago settling a class action on behalf of the taxpayers of Miami for $7 million, distributing it to only seven people, and keeping a $2 million fee. Adorno and his firm left in the lurch every other taxpayer in Miami, who were due up to $75 million dollars as members of the class that Adorno represented.
The Third District Court of Appeal, in affirming the trial court’s setting aside of the settlement from which only seven clients and the Adorno firm benefited, affirmed the finding of a breach of fiduciary duty. The Third DCA stated: "The original plaintiffs, together with Adorno & Yoss, then conspired to keep silent about the settlement terms, to the detriment of the other taxpayers." The Third DCA found a conspiracy to breach fiduciary duty to the detriment of the class. The evidence in the set aside case was irrefutable that the mails and wires were used, which gives rise, it would seem, to federal wire and mail fraud violations as a deprivation of honest services.
The Third DCA dropped this hammer on Hank Adorno: “Plainly and simply, this was a scheme to defraud. It was a case of unchecked avarice coupled with a total absence of shame on the part of the original lawyers. The attorneys manipulated the legal system for their own pecuniary gain and acted against their clients' interests by attempting to deprive them of monies to which they might otherwise be entitled.” You can read this entire Third DCA order at http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D06-1259.pdf.
In light of these findings and stern language coming from the Third DCA, The Florida Bar was forced to proceed against Hank Adorno, which was the last thing this highly-politicized integrated state bar wanted to do. The reason is explained by the ABA McKay Commission’s Report, which I have already shared with you.
What happened in The Bar proceedings? Hank Adorno got the best possible result while The Bar could claim to be going after him: First, then Miami-Dade Chief Judge Joe Farina acceded to Adorno’s request that the case be tried to a Broward judge instead of a Miami-Dade judge. This violates The Bar’s and the Supreme Court’s Rule that whereas any other circuit’s lawyers must be tried by referees who are judges in different circuits, all Eleventh Circuit lawyers are to be tried to Eleventh Circuit judges. Let’s call this exception the “Hank Adorno Rule.” Adorno had given Farina the maximum campaign contribution in the previous election cycle of 2008. Farina asked the Supreme Court to change the venue for his campaign donor Adorno, and the Supreme Court acceded to Farina’s request and chose Broward Chief Judge Victor Tobin to pick the Referee. First he chose Judge Linda Vitale, The Bar objected to her, and then Tobin chose Judge Jack Tuter. As you know, Judge Tobin is to preside over the Statewide Grand Jury, despite the fact that he received monies from the Scott Rothstein firm and sent out an e-mail asking Broward judges to extend special courtesies to Rothstein firm lawyers.
Judge Tuter this week found that Adorno breached his duty to the class but that he did not intentionally mislead the trial judge as to the nature of the settlement. Note that this finding is wholly at odds with what the Third DCA found.
What lawyers and others in South Florida are now asking themselves is this: How do you unintentionally commit fraud?
Here’s just as good a question: Why did The Florida Bar not draft and proceed with an Adorno Complaint that charged him with some of the most egregious things the Third DCA concluded he did? Instead, The Bar intentionally came up a soft complaint so that any sanction would be light. It was the equivalent of knowing someone had committed murder yet charging him with battery.
Adorno’s attorney, Bruce Rogow, who used to be an ACLU free speech advocate but is now making fraud a specialty, is ebullient, as Rogow informed South Florida that all Mr. Adorno deserves from The Bar is an apology his having gone through six years of distress. One can imagine the Third DCA might not agree with this assessment. Rogow is in effect flipping off that appellate court.
Disturbingly, The Bar now has announced that it is only seeking a suspension (length unknown) for Mr. Adorno. It also appears that The Bar is going to accept these tame findings of Referee Tuter and not Petition the Florida Supreme Court for Review of Tuter’s erroneous findings. Contrast what he has found with what the Third DCA concluded: “It defies any bounds of ethical decency to view class counsel’s actions as anything but a flagrant breach of fiduciary duty.”
This is one of the highest visibility lawyer ethics cases ever prosecuted, if you excuse the use of that term, by The Florida Bar. It arose out of the attempt of a politically-connected law firm to rip off all the taxpayers of Miami. The Third DCA, which has a bit more heft than Jack Tuter, unanimously concluded that Hank Adorno had acted out a had acted out a “scheme to defraud.” Not a negligent, unknowing, sloppy, inadvertent, unintentional breach of fiduciary duty, but rather what most folks would consider to be what Judge Cortina on the Third DCA called in his concurrence “reprehensible conduct.
Indeed, Cortina points out that Adorno entered into a non-disclosure agreement as to the settlement to hide it from public view, thereby obstructing the state’s public records laws, Chapter 119.
Judge Cortina further opines that only someone who was “gullibly inclined” would have found Adorno to be credible in any of this (apparently that would include Jack Tuter).
Finally, Judge Cortina writes this: “More unethical and reprehensible behavior by attorneys against their own clients is difficult to imagine.”
Thus, the author of what Judge Cortina considered to be conduct so unethical that it would be difficult to think of something worse, is to get, at best a suspension, because of a lay down by The Florida Bar.
This is being done, it seems, because of who Hank Adorno is and whom he knows, just as the poll of Florida Bar members done by Miles McGrane found to be the case.
What is the Board of Governors doing in furtherance of their duty, as set out in Bar Rules, to oversee the disciplinary process, telling its Bar prosecutors to do about Referee Jack Tuter’s bizarre findings, made possible by Vic Tobin’s appointment of him as Referee? Apparently nothing.
The bottom line is this: If the Statewide Grand Jury wants to get to the bottom of why government officials are for sale in this state, then it needs to look at the disturbing ways in which The Florida Bar protects the guilty and targets innocent whistle-blowers.
I demand yet again, on my own behalf and on behalf of more than 20 other citizens, to appear before the Grand Jury to explain how and why The Florida Bar has become, as the ABA McKay Commission and US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas predicted it would become: a racket that corrupts the government of the State of Florida. Hank Adorno ripped off the largest city in Florida. He is slated to get a slap on the wrist. He should be disbarred, and anyone with an ounce of brains and a speck of decency knows it.
Regards, Jack Thompson
Copies: Third District Court of Appeal
Bruce Rogow
Media
Others
Jan. 10, 2010 - KnowYourCOurts.com exclusive - Dialogue with Colorado Bar
Association President, Dave Johnson
A few months ago, CBA Pres. Dave Johnson invited dialogue regarding the relationship between the
bench and bar (see my Nov. 25th entry, below). The upshot appears to be that Johnson
considers KnowYourCourts.com to be a refuge for
disgruntled litigants, who shouldn't be taken seriously, but that there are others in the Colorado
legal community who are unhappy with the Commission on Judicial Discipline and the bench & bar
relations, and that he intends to include their comments in his upcoming May article.
1/10/2010
Sean:
Thank you for your comments. I did run the google search and the state website for
the Commission on Judcial [sic.] Discipline came up first on the first several slots. So,
I guess a lot of it depends on the nuances of cyberspace. I would disagree that
Judge Bailin is trying to misrepresent anything. I have received comments from
several people like yourself who are not happy with the current system and plan to
include them in part 2 of the article in May. Dave Johnson
12/04/2009
Thanks for the information, Sean. Will take a look at the website. The concern,
which I am sure you know of, is that anonymous comments to websites generally are
disregarded as the work of the disgruntled litigant or lawyer and many are just
griping and not constructive. However, in this electronic age we should be able to
figure out a way to use this form of media to help our system operate. Dave
Johnson
Jan. 7, 2010 - three years ago today. . .
Three years ago today (give or take a few days), I started this Web site. Although I/we have
a number of accomplishments to our credit, the real satisfaction comes in the many e-mails I
receive, expressing gratitude or telling me that the Web site has provided hope and inspiration.
As of today, the Web site hosts 2,476 PDF files.
Jan. 5, 2010 - Musings about about Rebecca Love-Kourlis
The Denver Post, who --as I mentioned in my Dec. 31st entry below-- is unable or unwilling
to criticize its land-tenant (the judicial branch, as discussed in my Nov. 7th entry, below), just
ran a flattering article, Citizens of the
West: Tom and Rebecca Kourlis.
Rebecca Love-Kourlis is a former Colorado supreme court associate justice and is the Director of
the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) at the University of Denver.
I have discussed the IAALS previously, most recently on Nov. 20th (below), where my present opinion
on the organization is explicated briefly.
Apparently, I am not alone. A Denver-area attorney1 wrote me today about The
Post article:
The New York Times had an article about the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System last week and I've been meaning to write a letter.
My impression, reading Rebecca Kourlis's writings as a justice, is that her institute's goal is to make it impossible for injured persons (meaning, plaintiffs who sue well-funded defendants) to have access to the legal system. This is the kind of "advance" she wishes to see in the American legal system: more hurdles to tort plaintiffs in bringing their claims, as well as the removal of governmental restrictions on real estate development. See, e.g., her dissents in A.C. Excavating Yacht Club, arguing that the economic loss rule should bar an HOA from asserting tort claims; Vigil v. Franklin, arguing that landowners sued by a worker injured on their property should be able to maintain common law defenses to the premises liability statute; and Board of County Comm'rs of Larimer County v. Conder (arguing that developers' property had been "inappropriately downzoned" by the master plan).
The goal of doing away with the election of judges in other states, based on the Colorado "success story," I see as an important part of this plan. Colorado is not a success story. The appointment of judges here is done under a veil of secrecy, completely removes all opportunity for the public to be heard, and has resulted in people holding judgeships who were never vetted by the bar and are plainly beholden to the political interests which put them in office. Even after their appointment, almost no information is available about them. I have tried to get letters of recommendation written on behalf of judges when they applied for their judgeships and found I am barred by statute. I have asked Attorney Registration for information about past law firm employment, and been told they "do not keep old records." The Commission on Judicial Discipline also is prohibited from revealing information about complaints filed against judges. All of this information would be highly relevant to assessing whether a judge has a conflict in a case, as well as fundamental to assess a judge's performance, but we are denied it.
The retention election, after a judge's appointment by the governor, is a meaningless exercise: the judges are always retained, with only two exceptions I can think of, where the power structure (with their lapdog The Denver Post) turned public opinion against them.
While there are obvious problems with electing judges, and letting them campaign and accept campaign contributions, those could be removed in one fell swoop with publicly funded elections. But there is never any discussion of this option, in this state.
________________________ 1 Alison "Sunny" Maynard
Jan. 5, 2010 - KnowYourCOurts.com exclusive - Bid to make over and reform
nation's oldest and largest legal reform organization thwarted by board
Jan 6, 2009 Update: statement from HALT's attorney in response to this article appended
infra; minor factual corrections made to article; statement from Roger Gordon, former
Executive Director of HALT, appended infraKnowYourCourts.com has obtained exclusive documents that reveal an effort to
"reform" HALT, the nation's oldest and largest legal reform organization, has been
averted by the organization's board of directors.1
On September 19, I reported that HALT, under the leadership of its new Executive
Director, Roger Gordon, had taken on a new name, the Center for Legal Empowerment,
Accountability, and Reform (CLEAR).
Oddly, the
HALT.org Web site did not change right away. In fact, CLEAR was designated
then as a "project of HALT." According to Gordon, the transition to a more "collaborative"
trade organization was intended to be gradual, so as not to alienate the preexisting
HALT base, but reach out to a broader audience (e.g., legal document preparers,
alternative legal solutions providers, and their consumers).
Over time, Gordon brought in people to fill key staff positions, including Tom Gordon
(no relation) as senior counsel & policy director and Dave Magee as IT director.
But the transition, Gordon's vision, and Gordon's efforts to demand fiscal and
managerial oversight were apparently not well received by HALT's board.
In a classified document obtained by
KnowYourCourts.com, Gordon charged that the organization "spent over $4 million in
public funds in seven years and has little to show for it." The document reveals that
Gordon suspected certain board members of conflicts of interest, failures to exercise financial
oversight, and possible imprudent uses of public funds, and that he retained ethics and
governance counsel to undertake a second, more comprehensive independent audit. Pages 3 through
6 of the document outline numerous specific factual assertions that, if true, are disturbing.
According to a confidential grievance filed
with the District of Columbia Office of Bar Counsel, the board retained an attorney who,
on December 28, seized Gordon's offices, directed Gordon's staff to leave, changed the
locks to the offices, and took possession of the computer network.
Although, as of this moment of this writing, the HALT Web site has not yet been changed
back to halt.org and, instead, points to clearLegal.org2 (which lists Roger Gordon as the
executive director), Gordon is effectively fired, and
Theresa (Terri) Rudy replaces him as the interim Executive Director.3
_______________________________ 1 The board members are: Conrad Martin (Chair, Executive Director, Fund
for Constitutional Government, Washington, DC), Danielle Brian (Executive Director,
Project on Government Oversight, Washington, DC), Katherin S. Broderick (Dean,
UDC David A. Clarke School of Law Washington, DC), Louise A. Clark (President,
Government Accountability Project, Washington, DC), Catherine Elias-Jermany
(Executive Director of the National Self Help Law Project, Lakewood, CA), and Sally
Greenberg (Executive Director, National Consumers League, Washington, DC). 2 I have cached the clearLegal.org page here (may
require IE browser to view). 3 Rudy, who had been with HALT for 27 years, was terminated by Gordon in December
because, according to Gordon, she was being paid a $50K annual salary for working three days a week
and declined requests to work full time. The board wanted to give her a $65K severance, Gordon said.
January 6, 2010
Mr. Harrington,
Thank you for contacting me to obtain another perspective on the material you
posted. I apologize for the delay in providing you with a substantive response.
There is certainly need for clarification and correction of errors. This could
have been avoided had you contacted me or HALT before publishing the information
you received (I assume) from Mr. Gordon or someone acting on his behalf. However,
I appreciate your desire to be truthful, and your recognition of the need for more
than one perspective, and am happy to do what I can to provide HALT's perspective
on the events of which you wrote.
To be clear, I have been retained to provide legal counsel to HALT, including both
its Board of Directors and staff. Consequently, being bound by my ethical
responsibilities to HALT, and in accordance with HALT's purposes, wanting to
facilitate the resolution of any dispute with Mr. Gordon, I cannot provide you with
all of the information to which I am privy.
Suffice it to say that on December 31, 2009, the Board of Directors of HALT
terminated Mr. Gordon's employment as Executive Director. The Board both recognizes
and agrees with the importance of expanding HALT's outreach to a broader audience,
and transitioning the organization's identity from "Help Abolish Legal Tyranny" to
the more positive "Center for Legal Empowerment, Accountability, and Reform."
However, in the most general terms, because Mr. Gordon was not fulfilling his
responsibilities as Executive Director, the Board decided that Mr. Gordon is not the
individual to lead that expansion and transition.
I can also say that the reasons Mr. Gordon's employment was terminated are unrelated
to the allegations made by Mr. Gordon in the "classified" document you posted.
Correction: Ms. Rudy has been with HALT for 27 years, not 23.
Clarification: The Board unanimously appointed Ms. Rudy to be the Interim
Executive Director.
Clarification: You state: "According to Gordon, the transition to a more
'collaborative' trade organization was intended to be gradual . . ." I don't
understand why (either) you or Mr. Gordon referred to a "trade organization." HALT
is, and always has been, an educational organization that is exempt from federal
income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. In contrast, a
"trade association" is designed to advance the common business interests of its
members, and is classified as exempt from federal income tax under Section
501(c)(6) of the Code.
Mr. Harrington, I hope this information helps you to understand HALT's perspective
on the events of the last two weeks. There are numerous inaccurate or untrue
statements in the documents your received and posted, but it would not serve any
good purpose for me to detail them at this time. Most importantly, HALT's Board of
Directors continues to be fully committed to advancing its mission of ensuring
simple, affordable, accountable justice for all by improving access and reducing
costs in our civil justice system, and to doing so in an increasingly collaborative
way, both within the organization, and in concert with others who share its
interests. If you have additional questions, I will do my best to try to answer
them.
Charles M. (Chip) Watkins
Webster, Chamberlain & Bean
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 785-9500, ext. 34
Fax: (202) 835-0243 cwatkins@wc-b.com
Late in the day on January 5th, Roger Gordon, the former Executive Director for HALT, provided
KnowYourCourts.com with a statement (click here to
download PDF file).
Jan. 4, 2010 - KnowYourCOurts.com exclusive - Colorado divorce industry's latest
strategy to combat the KnowYourCourts.com problem: coerce new clients to
sign contract agreeing not to share information with KnowYourCourts.com
> From: drdkieffer@aol.com
> Date: December 28, 2009 5:37:10 PM MST
> To: [recipient list redacted]
> Subject: information posted on knowyourcourts.com
>
> [name redacted]:
>
> Well wishes to you and your family. I have just received a copy of
> your posting on the above website. It is not flattering but I
> understand that child custody issues impact parents deeply. I am
> asking you remove the posting as you signed a CFI contract that
> forbids such activity. The contract
directs complaints first to me
> and then to the appointing Judge. The contract allows me to seek
> civil remedy against any parent who tries to air complaints in other
> venues (such as the above noted blog in question). The other
> complaintants [sic.] are from cases up to 15 years ago and they are the
> reason I now have parents sign the contract (attached).
>
> Please take care of this in a timely manner. I have no ill will
> against you and will not take further action if the material is
> removed in a responsible fashion.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> DK
Kieffer, by the way, was admonished for "testif[ying] falsely
under oath about holding a faculty position" by the State Grievance Board (which is significant, given that they
usually run interference for the DIEs).
The use of public information forums, i.e.: Internet; newspaper; radio; etc.
for the purpose of airing grievances or complaints against the C.F.I. is strictly forbidden.
The appropriate conflict resolution procedure is outlined above. Any party who
willfully chooses to disregard this conflict resolution procedure will be liable for
payment of [M]r. Kieffer's attorneys fees should he choose to retain legal counsel to
respond to the complainant.
I'm flattered, but not surprised, to learn that Mr. Kieffer has been checking this Web site
regularly. What Mr. Kieffer
apparently fails to realize, however, is that the parent who emailed me did not "use" a "public
information forum." Rather, the parent expressed an opinion to me via e-mail (which was the
parent's First Amendment right to do so), and I, as a publisher, elected to publish the parent's
e-mail. Unfortunately for Mr. Kieffer, I have not executed a contract with him to forfeit my First
Amendment rights and --fortunately, for the contributor-- contributors have no control over what
material I choose to republish, and I am not bound to honor any agreement Mr. Kieffer may have with
his clients (or victims, depending upon one's perspective).
It should not be overlooked that Kieffer even attempts to hamstring the parent from complaining to
the court: His contract requires parents to submit their complaints only to Mr. Kieffer, who
--at his discretion-- will determine whether they should be forwarded to the judge who appointed
him. His contract further provides:
Disagreement with Dr. Kieffer's recommendations or methods is not a valid reason for
forwarding a complaint to the Appointing Court Judge or any other third party once the case
has reached a conclusion.
Yet, whereas Kieffer forbids a parent from discussing his or her dissatisfaction with others,
Kieffer's contract reserves the right to him to unilaterally declassify information:
No family member should assume any information provided to the C.F.I. is confidential.
[M]r. Kieffer may disclose any and all information provided to him as necessary to
responsibly act as an advocate of the minor child. Further, the C.F.I. may be required to
testify regarding his findings and opinions. No written or verbal communication with
[M]r. Kieffer within his role as C.F.I. is
confidential
Accordingly, under the protections afforded under the Electronic Communications Decency Act and
the First Amendment, the posts will remain. I encourage other parents to continue to provide
their complaints to me anonymously or otherwise. I also encourage parents to work with their
attorneys to review, strike out, and reject this provision in Kieffer's Contract for Services.
On behalf of KnowYourCourts.com, I will personally submit a complaint about Mr. Kieffer's
coercive conduct to the state regulatory board, to the Chairperson for the Supreme Court's Standing
Committee on Family Issues, and to each of the chief judges in the district courts where Kieffer
conducts his "business."
Perhaps readers of this blog might like to send Mr. Kieffer
an e-mail, letting him know what they think of his policy?
In my opinion, because Kieffer operates under quasi-judicial authority, his coercive attempt to
censor parents is a "prior restraint" on speech that is fairly attributable to the state. And,
even if a court ruled otherwise on that point, I also believe that Kieffer, by entering into a
contract, has volitionally submitted himself to the law of contract, which constitutes a knowing
waiver of any quasi-judicial immunity he may have had over conduct that falls within the ambit of
the contract (the contract is enforceable not only by him against the parent[s] (as he is attempting
to assert through his e-mail, hereinabove), but also by the parent[s] against him, in a collateral
proceeding).
__________________________ 1 As I've explained elsewhere on this site, when a DIE presents a parent with a contract,
the parent has no practical choice but to acquiesce to whatever coercive or extortionate terms are
therein provided. This is because, once the DIE has been appointed, the DIE threatens the parent
to report any "non-cooperation" to the court, as Bill Fyfe did
with me in my case (Fyfe wrote me in a Nov. 13, 2003 e-mail, "If you cannot do this, I will
report to the court that I cannot work with you because you won't agree to my procedures").
Under the threat of receiving an adverse parenting time recommendation, most parents, who don't know
their rights, submit to this coercion. Even parents represented by counsel
are usually advised by their attorneys not to object, because their attorneys know the judges are
in fraternity with the DIEs and, thus, such objections are fatal to that parent's cause.
Jan. 4, 2010 - the Emperor's New Clothes: Has a liar been appointed new Chair of the
Commission on Judicial Discipline?
I think it's a fair question: Two months ago, Roxanne Bailin, the Chief Judge of the Twentieth
Judicial District (Boulder), authored an article appearing in The Colorado
Laywer, heralding "the 'New' Commission on Judicial Discipline.
First, let's begin by establishing the credibility of the author. Do that by click on this link
(here) and following some of the links.
When you return, let's conduct a cursory review of the article:
First, she gives us an overview of the purported duties and objectives of the Commission for the
Abolition of Judicial Discipline. It's the same rhetoric that we read each year in the Commission's
Annual Report, so we expect that.
Next, she reveals the Commission's intent to publish a Web site for the purpose of managing the
public's perception. I would venture to say the objective of the Web site is misinformation
(propaganda). Yet, this announcement is where things get interesting; she claims:
[A]n Internet search for "Colorado Judicial Discipline" produces simply a page developed by
the Judicial Branch that advises the public about the purpose of the Commission and how it
works and who it comprises. . . Beyond that, the search result provides no other information
or guidance.
By my standard, I call Judge Bailin's statement a misrepresentation. In lay-parlance, we just call
it a lie. But, it's easy to understand why she'd be annoyed that the Judicial Branch's Web site
competes with mine.
Bailin goes on to inform us that the new Web site will provide a downloadable
complaint packet, and information to deter "members of the public [who] often mistakenly file
complaints with the Commission." Let's not kid ourselves: the mission of the JDC has always
been to protect judges (not discipline them) and, now, their "new" charter is to promulgate
misinformation to reduce its workload in issuing go-pound-sand letters to complainants.
I'd like to also add that, while KnowYourCourts.com and others have been able to abolish gag
rules in Texas (see Dec. 17th entry, below) and Louisiana, Colorado is one of the few remaining
states that has unconstitutional gag rules on complainants who dare to file a complaint against a
Colorado state judge.
Don't you feel much better knowing that Judge Bailin is now the Chair of the "new" Commission on
Judicial Discipline?
Similarly, the supreme court of Tennessee has suspended a notable Nashville attorney,
A few months ago, CBA Pres. Dave Johnson invited dialogue regarding the relationship between the
bench and bar (see my Nov. 25th entry, below). The upshot appears to be that Johnson
considers KnowYourCourts.com to be a refuge for
disgruntled litigants, who shouldn't be taken seriously, but that there are others in the Colorado
legal community who are unhappy with the Commission on Judicial Discipline and the bench & bar
relations, and that he intends to include their comments in his upcoming May article.
I think it's a fair question: Two months ago, Roxanne Bailin, the Chief Judge of the Twentieth
Judicial District (Boulder), authored an 
)
