NEWS & COMMENT

---

Dec. 31, 2008 - Flag that flew over Fort McHenry during attack by the British in 1814 (and which was the inspiration for the National Anthem) is now referenced as the inspiration for judiciary pay raises

"The flag bears scars from the pitched battle, but it also shows blemishes, regrettably, from later neglect," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the annual year-end report on the federal judiciary. Likewise, he wrote, "the judiciary's needs cannot be postponed indefinitely without damaging its fabric."

Imagine how well that reasoning would go over if we tried it with our own companies' senior management. But wait! --like a Billy Mays' commercial (Oxi-Clean, Orange Glo, Mighty Putty, Zorbees, etc.)-- there's more!

"Failing to pay us more money undermines the judiciary's independence"

This sophistry is urged to hike federal trial judges' annual salaries to $218,000 and appellate judges (including Roberts) to approximately $280,000. Two years ago, Roberts argued that pay for federal judges is so inadequate that it threatens to undermine the judiciary's independence.

Adding insult to injury

Roberts shamelessly associated the continuing vitality of the federal judiciary to the success of the economic recovery that constitutes most of today's news headlines. "During these times, when the nation faces pressing economic problems, resulting in business failures, home foreclosures, and bankruptcy, and when Congress is called upon to enact novel legislation to address those challenges, the courts are a source of strength," Roberts prevaricated. Thinking us all fools, he exclaimed, "They guarantee that those who seek justice have access to a fair forum where all enter as equals and disputes are resolved impartially under the rule of law."

Several pages of Roberts' report concerned the cost-cutting measures he says the courts have undertaken to limit rent, personnel and information technology costs. Taken together, these measures are claimed to save up to $300 million through 2017. I wonder whether the technology costs including limiting courthouse access to pornographic and swingers' dating sites, so that judges (forced to subsist on such modest salaries) can spend a little more time on reading briefs, conducting hearings, writing orders and rendering judgments that are faithful to the law.

Read full story

Further reading: Mark Sherman, Federal Judges Call for Higher Pay, Associated Press (Dec. 26, 2008)

Similarly, a proposal by an influential Maryland commission that recommends salaries for those on that state's bench would give judges there a pay raise of nearly $40,000 over the next four years -- at a time when state workers are being furloughed and face imminent layoffs. Read full story. The proposed schedule of yearly pay increases would raise the salary of Court of the Appeals Chief Judge --now making $181,352-- to $220,210 by 2012.

"Failing to pay us more money threatens the Rule of Law and imposes a 'financial burden' on judges' families"

"Without the rule of law in Maryland, we have nothing, and it's just imperative we have good judges sit on the benches," said Chairwoman Betty Buck, a businesswoman who chairs the Maryland state chamber of commerce. "You're asking a lot for someone who understands the law to give up their way of life to become a judge. It is a financial burden on them and their families."

Sponsor a judge today!

KnowYourCourts.com urges every site visitor to visit and make a tax deductible gift to FeedTheJudges.org. As a sponsor, you will receive a picture of your judge, write letters to them, and receive updates of the judge you sponsor. Even more important, you will have the opportunity to pray for them by name.  A story of their plight can be provided upon request. Your Sponsorship can be made monthly, for a full year, or for as long as you choose. Because your sponsorship is a tax-deductible gift, you will receive a statement at the end of the year for your records.

Dec. 30, 2008 - Why votes cast for judges may be the most important votes of all

1/09/2008 Update (corroborating what I wrote last week): No Charge: In Civil-Contempt Cases, Jail Time can Stretch On for Years, The Wall Street Journal (Jan. 8, 2009)

[L]egal beagles and politicians controlled by large political contributors to both parties effectively control the appointment of judges or regulatory officials. No one . . . would ever suggest with a straight face that the invariable result is that only the very best people for the job are appointed to the judiciary or to head agencies. They are invariably appointed because their political masters can rely upon them to “play ball", when called upon to do so, at the expense of the citizenry. Colorado is a wonderful State, to be sure. I certainly enjoy living here. Yet, I have become all too aware of its imperfections in dealing year after year with the unfortunate consequences of its political system, legal profession, and judiciary being populated far too much by craven, unprincipled hacks. December 16, 2008 letter to the editor by Centennial attorney Mark E. Brennan.

On October 23^rd, infra, I wrote about an Op-Ed appearing in The Denver Post from a former Colorado Supreme Court justice (for whom I have little respect). I wrote that, notwithstanding my opinion of her usual posturing, I agreed with her statement that it is "troubling that many voters . . . cast their votes — either for or against [a judge] — with virtually no information."

Indeed, someone once said (who, I cannot recall) that the most important vote you cast is the one for your local judge[s]. As the former justice noted, judges are those "men and women with the power and responsibility to impact our lives in crucial ways," and I will provide a most compelling example of that, below.

The truth is, most Americans care little about the judiciary because the average American's interaction with the courts is occasional at most. The truth also is that anyone and everyone can become ensnared in the web of the legal system:

In this country we embrace the myth that we are still a democracy when we know that we are not a democracy, that we are not free, that the government does not serve us but subjugates us. Although we give lip service to the notion of freedom, we know the government is no longer the servant of the people but, at last has become the people's master. We have stood by like timid sheep while the wolf killed, first the weak, then the strays, then those on the outer edges of the flock, until at last the entire flock belonged to the wolf. We did not care about the weak or about the strays. they were not a part of the flock. We did not care about those on the outer edges. They had chosen to be there. But as the wolf worked its way towards the center of the flock we discovered that we were now on the outer edges. Now we must look the wolf squarely in the eye. That we did not do so when the first of us was ripped and torn and eaten was the first wrong. It was our wrong.

Gerry Spence, From Freedom to Slavery: The Rebirth of Tyranny in America (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993) at 5-6.

Before I get on with the substance of today's blog-entry (yes, we're not even there, yet), I must provide a quick lesson --sans citations-- on contempt jurisprudence. The lesson is not only for laypeople, but also for attorneys, as Colorado appellate courts have concluded that even seasoned attorneys are unclear on the subject.

In Colorado, as in most states, contempt proceedings are divided into the categories of direct contempt, which is conduct that is observed directly by the court, and "indirect contempt," which is conduct alleged to have occurred outside the presence of the court. The following, an actual hearing transcript excerpt, is an example of the former:

The Court: In this matter both applications are dismissed with costs. I publish my reasons.

Mr McQuillan: Thank you for being an arsehole and thank you for being prejudicial and thank you for being a cunt.

The Court: That’s enough from you.

Mr McQuillan: Hope you have a good fucking retirement you stupid fucking idiot. Thank Christ we are getting rid of a fucking cunt like you.

An example of an indirect contempt would be failing to comply with a valid order of the court, such as producing a document. This blog entry will be confined to discussion of indirect contempt.

In Colorado, as in most states, indirect contempt proceedings are divided further still into two distinct categories: One is "criminal" contempt, usually called "punitive" contempt proceedings; the other is "civil" contempt, usually called "remedial" contempt proceedings.  Punitive contempt proceedings (such as those that I have recently initiated against Madeline Wilson, now awaiting a decision from the magistrate's division), are designed to punish "by unconditional fine, fixed sentence of imprisonment, or both, for conduct that is found to be offensive to the authority and dignity of the court." Because the purpose is to punish, and the power to punish for contempt should be used sparingly, the contemnor's mental state of willful disobedience must be shown. An act is willful if it is done "voluntarily, knowingly, and with conscious regard for the consequences of [one's] conduct."

In contrast, remedial sanctions (which is the subject of this blog-entry) are intended "to force compliance with a lawful order or to compel performance of an act within the person's power or present ability to perform." Because the purpose is remedial, and for the benefit of another, it does not matter what the contemnor intended when he or she refused to comply. Unlike punitive contempt, remedial contempt does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Three elements must be present to sustain remedial sanctions for contempt: (1) the contemnor's knowledge of a lawful order of the court; (2) the contemnor's failure to comply therewith; and (3) the present ability to comply with the order. Remedial sanctions must be accompanied by a written order explaining how the contemnor "may purge the contempt and the sanctions" through compliance.

Remedial contempt proceedings theoretically carry the possibility of a person being imprisoned for the remainder of his or her natural life without possibility of parole and without a conviction or a jury trial. In theory, the contemnor holds the key to his or her jail cell by simply complying (or choosing not to comply) with the relevant order (or until the present ability to comply evaporates). Unfortunately, the finding of whether the three required elements are present is left entirely to the discretion of the judge under the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. In other words --in theory-- one can rot in jail until natural death for no reason other than that some judge merely believes that one has the ability to comply with an order.

Now, with the refresher course over, I'll introduce the subject of today's blog entry. It is the story of H. Beatty Chadwick's remedial contempt imprisonment, reputed to be the longest in U.S History. I've followed his story over the last three years, but cannot recall if I've written about him.

Chadwick, 72, has spent nearly 14 years in the Delaware County jail on a remedial contempt charge, as The Philadelphia Inquirer reports:

Neither the passage of time nor a battle with cancer has won sympathy for Chadwick from judges who believe he hid $2.5 million after his wife began divorce proceedings against him.

After a hearing yesterday, Delaware County Court President Judge Joseph P. Cronin Jr. turned down Chadwick's latest request for Christmas furlough, declaring him "a significant risk of flight."

Had the court let him out for Christmas, Chadwick could have cut off his electronic-monitoring bracelet and used his money and contacts to fly off in a helicopter, his ex-wife's attorney, Albert Momjian, said.

"He is a devious person," Momjian contended.

Chadwick's lawyer, Michael J. Malloy, who said he had worked for Chadwick free of charge for the last few years, said the idea of a helicopter's waiting to whisk his client off was ludicrous.

"At this point, everything about this case is irrational," Malloy said in an interview.

"We're one step away from The X-Files at this point. . . . He's going to beam himself to another dimension."

The court had ordered Chadwick to put $2.5 million into a court-controlled account. When he didn't, Judge Joseph Labrum found him in contempt in November 1994. "I didn't believe him then and I don't believe him now," said Labrum, retired since '95. "In my view, he has the keys to the kingdom. Let him use them and he gets out."

However, both parties retained a retired Delaware County judge, A. Leo Sereni, to look for the money four years ago. After 15 months and employing two forensic accounting firms, the search turned up nothing. Sereni recommended Chadwick's release. Sereni now believes that, because the purpose of Chadwick imprisonment was to compel his production of the money, "this court order is [now] unworkable and fruitless." A panel of three Delaware County judges dismissed Sereni's findings.

As one Philadelphia divorce lawyer, Lynne Z. Gold-Bikin, told The Inquirer, "If you kill your wife, you can get out after nine years. What is Beatty's maximum? To me, it's an illegal sentence." And Colorado attorneys have said the same to me, concerning Colorado's contempt jurisprudence.

For anyone with the fortitude and integrity to be honest (very few of us and still fewer of our legal community), Chadwick's life imprisonment is --put simply-- a debtor's prison and, what is happening in Delaware to Chadwick can easily occur right here in Colorado.

In fact, our Colorado Supreme Court --en banc-- has set the stage for it, insulting our intelligence by acknowledging that article II, § 12 of the Colorado Constitution does, indeed, prohibit imprisonment for debt, but holding that "one of the noted exceptions to that constitutional mandate is violation of a court order." Marriage of Nussbeck, 974 P.2d 493, 500 (Colo. 1999) (citing Harvey v. Harvey, 384 P.2d 265, 266 ((Colo. 1963) ("This constitutional provision against imprisonment for debt does not prohibit the punishment of a contempt in refusing to obey the lawful orders or decrees of a court; and in this case it appears that the petitioner is not imprisoned for a debt, but because of his refusal to obey the lawful order of the court with reference to the debt represented by the judgment in favor of his wife"))

I respectfully point out that this "exception" isn't in the Constitution's text.  Indeed, it is a non-existent clause inserted therein by judicial fiat (a/k/a "judicial activism").

Does not Chadwick's plight (the possibility of rotting in jail until natural death based on a mere belief that the money exists somewhere), which can easily be replicated in Colorado, combined with the intellectual dishonesty on the part of the judiciary at both the trial court and Supreme Court levels, persuade you that the most important votes you could have cast this past November could have been those for your state judges?  Time to wake up, folks.

Dec. 25, 2008 - The greatest Christmas gift is also the victory hard won

A small handful of visitors are familiar with the challenges and tribulations my family and I have endured over these last nine (9) years due to the treachery and lies of my ex-wife and her Denver attorney, Madeline Wilson.

I spent Christmas and will spend the next almost two weeks with my daughter, united for the first time with her baby brother and sister.  Although mother and Wilson did manage to separate me from my daughter during most of those nine years, their lies and tireless efforts to prevent all contact (except the monthly cashing of the child support checks) ultimately failed to overcome my determination and our love.  I would add only that their short-lived successes were possible because of my respect for the Rule of Law (i.e., I did not take the law into my own hands)).

Because neither mother nor her attorney share this respect for the Rule of Law, the second phase of my endeavors --accountability-- continues.

Dec. 23, 2008 - KnowYourCourts.com program note

Once again, I apologize for the delay in recent posts, `though there has been much to talk about and more exclusive stories are already in the works (including several --thankfully-- that have nothing to do with me).

During the last week, I had final exams and then, on Saturday, I took the grueling six-hour CISSP exam, for which I had been studying for many weeks. Because of the sheer length of the one-time sit-down exam and the voluminous material covered, I found it to be among the most difficult exam I've taken thus far, with the possible exception of the DLAB. I will have the results in one or two weeks. During the next several months, I will be preparing to sit for the CCE and also the CHFI exams during January and February, as time permits.

Meanwhile, I'm heading to Texas early this morning to enjoy the greatest Christmas present of my life, which is to have all three of my children together for the first time. During this time, I'll have limited access to email and Web site administration, but will post entries as time permits.

Dec. 19, 2008 - KnowYourCourts.com blogger and pro se litigant, Sean Harrington, no match for small-time divorce lawyer's high-powered attorney

In what can only be described as the classic sockdolager, acclaimed Denver attorney Brett Huff (prestigious Seventeenth Street firm of Huff & Leslie, LLP) cleaned KnowYourCourts.com blogger, Sean Harrington's, clock.

Huff, in what may be an unprecedented case, has been representing small-time divorce lawyer Madeline Wilson in her own client's case (Marriage of Harrington).

Last week, Huff responded to Harrington's allegations -- not by addressing them, but by filing a most clever Motion to Strike. Harrington filed a response, inept as any contrived by a pro se litigant.  Without wasting any time --only about ten days-- Huff soundly defeated all of Harrington's meritless arguments with a legal brief Reply that --difficult as it may be to believe-- outdid even his original Motion.

In the noble literary traditions perpetuated by Learned Hand, Benajamin Cardozo and Bruce Selya, Huff's stylistic flourishes and legal acumen is truly astonishing.  Here's a teaser:

Harrington proves in his Response to Madeline Wilson’s Motion to Strike that he is going to continue his vendetta against Wilson, no matter what forum, no matter how baseless, or how inappropriate – just as he is doing here. His litigious purpose is vexatious with the goal of harassing and increasing the costs of the litigation . . . As is the case with many of Harrison’s [sic.] filings, his response brief is rife with false, impertinent and scandalous accusations . . .  Wilson does have legal standing because Harrington is . . . attempting to hoodwink the Court into entering sanctions against her.

What's more, Huff clearly is working from a cutting-edge legal research program or has top-rate staff, because he cited numerous controlling cases in support of his legal theories that I am ashamed I hadn't even heard of.   Read his Reply Brief here.

Dec. 19, 2008 - KnowYourCourts.com blogger Harrington participates in Public Citizen lawsuit re: harmful chemicals used in children's toys

I am a named Public Citizen member participant in Public Citizen v. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, (S.D.N.Y). The press release is here. Yesterday, a brief with my declaration attached was filed (here).

Dec. 19, 2008 - Judge reprimanded for "threat" to news publisher

Hat-tip to a Denver area journalist/reporter and frequent site visitor for calling this story to my attention

I have previously written about this story (See July 11, 2007 post here).

As reported by The Boston Globe, soon-to-be former Superior Court Judge Ernest B. Murphy was publicly reprimanded by the state's highest court for writing threatening letters to the publisher of The Boston Herald after winning a $2 million libel verdict against the newspaper.¹

In a 12-page decision, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that Murphy "plainly crossed the line" by writing two letters to the publisher on court stationery demanding that the newspaper drop its appeal of the verdict and hand him a check for $3.26 million.

For a sitting judge to state with repeated emphasis that he knows with complete certainty what will happen in a case is a misuse of the power and prestige of judicial office . . . The judge's use of an official court stationery envelope to mail the message exacerbated the misuse.

The sorry-ass whiner, Murphy, has agreed to leave the bench (with his hard-won fortune) because of an unspecified disability. He has been on a taxpayer paid leave of absence for a year-and-a-half, because, he said, he suffers from post-traumatic stress as a result of his long legal battle with The Herald.

?!?!?

Yeah, I think I'll call sick into work on Monday and explain to my clients and disability insurance carrier that I can't work any more because of PTSD resulting from nine (9) years of battling Colorado's divorce industry cabal and because my family (daughter) was stolen from me in bad faith. That'll go over about as well as a fart in an elevator.

________________________
¹ After the verdict, Murphy wrote two letters to Herald publisher Patrick Purcell on court stationery, demanding that the newspaper drop its appeal of the verdict and hand him a check. Murphy warned in the letters that it would be a "BIG mistake" for Purcell to share the letters with his lawyers and wrote, "You have a ZERO chance of reversing my jury verdict on appeal." The Herald did not settle the case because of the letters, but published excerpts from them in December 2005, about the same time Murphy launched an unsuccessful effort to have the newspaper's assets frozen until his case was resolved. During a hearing in November, Purcell testified that the letters were intimidating and looked like ransom notes.

Dec. 18, 2008 - Another blogger exposes bogus Ph.D.

Followers of this blog will understand the relevance.

From The Wall Street Journal:

One person to come out of the mess looking good is Dorte Toft, a 64-year-old free-lance journalist and blogger . . . A former computer programmer, Ms. Toft . . . wrote a blog challenging [Stein] Bagger's extraordinary [corporate] growth figures.

But, she says, virtually no one wanted to listen to "an old woman."

Mr. Bagger, she says, went to great lengths to conceal his deceptions. Earlier this year, she began to question Mr. Bagger about boasts that he had a Ph.D. from San Francisco Technical University. She asked how that was possible when no such university exists. Mr. Bagger came up with an elaborate plan.

On the pretext of developing talking points for college employees to answer phone queries about academic records, he hired Vicki Lang, an American artist and actress living in Copenhagen, to play the role of an official at San Francisco State University, an institution that does exist. "If I'd thought about it, I might have said: 'Oh, this sounds strange,' but I was just happy to have a job," recalls Ms. Lang.

He wrote a script for a dialogue between himself and Ms Lang, who, as a university official, would explain that his nonexistent college had been folded into San Francisco State and confirm that he had a Ph.D. in international business. Mr. Bagger then told Ms. Lang he'd like to test the script over the phone on the afternoon of Oct. 29. He called Ms. Toft, the skeptical blogger, to his office for an interview at the same time.

When Ms. Toft showed up and started asking questions, Mr. Bagger announced that he would call San Francisco to prove that he was telling the truth about his Ph.D.

Dec. 17, 2008 - Weld County D.A. accuses judge of predetermining outcome of case

With the possible exception of Carol Chambers, not many D.A.'s have the principled courage to identify judicial impropriety. “The problem is not that too many lawyers are publicly criticizing judges. Unfortunately, too few lawyers are willing to do so, even when a judge has committed serious ethical violations and should be held accountable.” Monroe H. Freedman, The Threat to Judicial Independence by Criticism of Judges: A Proposed Solution to the Real Problem, 25 Hofstra L. Rev. 729, 729 (1997)

In a matter concerning a Weld County tactical campaign targeting identity theft, the judge "put a halt to any further arrests in the coordinated effort between [the D.A.]’s office and the Weld County Sheriff’s Office to methodically arrest the suspects," according to The Greeley Tribune.

“The people are concerned that the order in connection with comments the court has made to deputy district attorneys appearing in factually connected cases, create the possible appearance that the court has already formed and expressed an opinion on the merits of the issue it has raised,” D.A. Ken Buck wrote in his response Tuesday to the judge’s concerns. “The people object to the court intervening in this matter and causing prejudice to the people.”

Ordinarily, you might expect me to applaud Buck's temerity. However, I find improperly zealous prosecution as execrable as capricious and arbitrary judicial conduct. In this matter, into which I have not taken the time (that I don't have, presently) to investigate, it is not clear whether the judge is the hero for applying the Rule of Law in spite of alleged prosecutorial misconduct, or whether the D.A. is the hero for publicly identifying alleged judicial intellectual dishonesty.

Perhaps, you can be the judge and write me which one, if either, is the most accurate?

Dec. 16, 2008 - KnowYourCOurts.com exclusive - former federal judge's law license could be in peril

The extended deadline for the filing of an Answer in an attorney disciplinary matter styled 08-01164 (in re Nottingham, initiated by KnowYourCourts.com blogger, Sean Harrington) has passed. Michael H. Berger, the attorney for former federal judge Edward W. Nottingham who had sought and was granted the extension, has filed no Answer on behalf of his client, a spokeswoman for the Attorney Deregulation Council confirmed today. The agency has not announced its intentions in light of Nottingham's apparent default.

Often, accused attorneys do not participate in the disciplinary process. If the agency decides to pursue formal proceedings, their cooperation --including offers in mitigation-- are not necessary to a determination. Although the agency would not have access to the Tenth Circuit's files, it would be able to conduct its own investigation, interviewing witnesses, subpoening records, among other activities. As John Gleason once told The Glenwood Springs Post, "This is an office of the [Colorado] Supreme Court. We do anything we need to do," he said. "If we need to subpoena records, we subpoena records, and if we need to depose people, we depose people."

Dec. 13, 2008 - A note to readers and site visitors

In the grip of a nameless possession
A slave to the drive of obsession
A spirit with a vision
Is a dream with a mission.

I want to take this opportunity to mention how abundantly blessed I have been by people I have met through their discovery of this site and also how arrantly dependent the success of this Web site is on the contributions of site visitors, authors and concerned citizens. Said differently, this resource would be nothing without those contributions. A vision without a means is, well, just a vision.

In the grip of a nameless possession
A slave to the drive of obsession
A spirit with a vision
is a dream with a mission...

But, there is a "but."

And that is, I can't be or do what some people want me to be or do. For example, I receive many, many  requests --emails and lengthy phone calls-- every week from people who are seeking [free] legal advice. The fact is, as I've told every one of them, I can't give legal advice. Even if I thought it didn't matter that I don't have attorney malpractice insurance (because I am not an attorney) or that my knowledge has its limits or that it's prohibited by law, if I were to engage in the practice of law by giving legal advice, I would jeopardize my future application for a law license (I am a law student). I would also eventually disappoint someone, who would then have no recourse against me for acting or refraining from acting based on something I advised. For all of these reasons, if you write or call me, please do not ask legal questions that ought to be directed to a licensed attorney. It matters not if you cannot afford or choose not waste any more money on a lawyer --it's a risk that's not fair to me or my family to be asked to undertake.

Additionally, I point out that running this Web site is fun and gratifying, but also is a great deal of work. Sometimes, such as just last week, I received (but asked for) a mailing containing over 300 pages of evidentiary material, all of which needs to be scanned in, separated, named, categorized and identified for importance/relevance. As noted above, these contributions are essential for the continued success and effectiveness of this site.

Sometimes, however, I receive requests that I simply cannot fulfill. Yesterday, I received an email seeking "help exposing corrupt Australian judiciary." Not long ago, I received a very kind letter praising my challenges to the OARC, and inviting me to assist with problems in the state of Maryland. And, recently, I received a second of two six-page single-spaced letters from a woman, describing her divorce and custody tragedy in minute detail, writing, "Please, Mr. Harrington, I need help." ¹

The reality is, between law school, final exams (next week), a six-hour professional certification exam I'm preparing for, a professional life (work), blogging for another site, pending litigation in two states, and family (including small children), I scarcely have time to administer this site and keep up with the events in Colorado. I certainly cannot substitute as someone's attorney or save anyone from a divorce legal quagmire that's taken me nine years to escape from myself. Moreover, I have no way to evaluate the truth or falsity of claims of a person I haven't met.  And I have no plans to expand this site beyond Colorado.  From what I hear, almost every state is as bad or worse, including Nevada, Massachusetts, California and Texas.

The best I can do to help and to contribute is what I/we already do. And that is to illuminate, elucidate, explicate, delineate, bloviate, excoriate, and make available here what is not available elsewhere and what was never previously available.

Tough times demand tough talk
demand tough hearts demand tough songs
demand --

________________________
¹ The letter does contain mention of an attorney, Greg Quimby, who I will be writing about in the near future, as I have the time and opportunity to sort through the information recently provided to me by other sources.

Dec. 12, 2008 - New Mexico attorney echoes Colorado attorney's concerns about lawless attorney regulation system

An attorney in New Mexico has published a Web site that echoes the concerns expressed by Mark Brennan, featured my December 11 post (infra):

---

The disciplinary board is the most powerful state agency in New Mexico This is a web page in progress and represents one attorney's experience with the disciplinary board. The purpose of this web page is to let other attorney's who get caught up in disciplinary proceedings know that the issues they enc0unter with Ms. Farrara's disciplinary board are systemic and not just some imbroglio that is specific to their case. The reason for this web page is my concern that any part of the legal system that caters to individuals, and not the law, undermines the profession as a whole. If this is what they do to attorneys, what hope does the public have of finding justice in New Mexico courts. The goal of this web site is threefold. First, I want to tell my story. The opinion filed by the court in my case contained matters not discussed in the initial hearing, contrary to law, never applied to anyone else or were made up. Exculpatory evidence was ignored or ruled inadmissible. I will simply feel better telling my story. But let me make one thing perfectly clear: I never for a moment felt that I did anything that deserved sanctions. In fact, as to the the foreclosure case, I am very, no, extremely proud of my efforts to help homeowners who had their homes sold below market market value, were served with deficiency judgments, and then had the bank sell the home at fair market value at a substantial profit. Second, I want to hear from other attorneys about other cases and what really happened. In my experience, these little vignettes produced by Virginia Farrara's disciplinary board are like the hypotheticals in bar exams; interesting legal concepts for discussion in the ethics portion of a CLE class, but their connection to reality is less then tenuous. This is not to say that there are not some attorneys out there that should be caught and punished for wrongdoing. But they were not caught and punished for violating any rules, they were punished by individuals higher up on the food chain using the rules for their own ends. There are quite a few other violators that simply walked because the rules only apply to cases chosen by the disciplinary board. Third, I am hoping to look at some of the cases decided by the board. Not for what they said, but the context. Who filed the complaint, were they solo practitioners, etc. Most attorneys won't care as they have never been through anything like this themselves. But the little guy will. I think a pattern will clearly emerge demonstrating that the board picks and chooses who it will punish and it is usually the little guy. The disciplinary board is a good idea gone bad.  The sole purpose of the agency, a wholly owned subsidiary of the the New Mexico supreme court, is to punish attorneys who do things the disciplinary board picks them to be punished for. In my opinion, there are several problems. The first is that most of the board is picked by the supreme court and not by any democratic process that would allow for accountability. The disciplinary board is self contained and untouched by the profession as a whole. The second is that the disciplinary board is the kingdom of one person, Virginia Farrara. The problem with having one person doing this job for so long is that it appears that Ms. Farrara has decided that she, not the rules governing professional conduct, will determine who will is sanctioned. And there is the strong impression that who is sanction depends upon who files the complain and who the complaint is filed against, not the rules governing professional conduct. Having a few people decide who is going to be punished, and not the rules governing professional conduct, is the crux of the problem with the disciplinary board in New Mexico. Some would not call it a problem, it is just a good old boy network. My experience and in talking to others is that the disciplinary board is used by the chief disciplinary counsel (sometimes referred to as "The Red Queen" in reference to Alice in Wonderland's "verdict first, then the evidence") is that the disciplinary board is used to reward friends and punish enemies.  Consider the following: The disciplinary board wins 100% of its cases. It never, ever, ever loses. Look at any case. Costs are awarded to the prevailing party. Costs are always awarded to the disciplinary board. The victims of the disciplinary board over the last fifteen years are, with few exceptions, solo practitioners. Apparently, by working in a firm, you can do no wrong. A Specification of Charges is brought against an attorney's depending upon who files the complaint and who the complaint is filed against. (Under Rule 17-102, the board has a duty to investigate all complaints, not just pick and chose.)  I filed a complaint against someone and Ms. Farrara advised me that she talked to the judge and nothing was going to happen because the judge found nothing wrong. She also advised me that I was not a party or a judge and could not file a complaint. (Under Rule 16-803, regarding reporting professional misconduct, it is the duty of an attorney to report misconduct. The comments to the rules note that the conduct must reflect a substantial violation.  This does not refer to the amount of proof to support the allegation, but the seriousness of the possible offence.)  There is no practical appeal after the supreme court finds you guilty of something. Most agency decisions are appealable to a New Mexico district court. Not disciplinary decisions. The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine means you can only appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. Good luck. The supreme court has no objection to the disciplinary board garnishing your client account to collect its fees - alleging that a violation of the rules governing client accounts renders the funds your funds. A complaint by a judge is found by a hearing panel to be a judgment, and the judges cannot be deposed to find out what they really think. I was sanctioned for following the example in a case in which the head of the panel that sanctioned me was the attorney who filed the case. And lastly, the supreme court seems determined to retain control over the disciplinary board but has admitted that the kangaroo court might need some work. What is the role of the disciplinary board?  The disciplinary board’s duty is to enforce the Rules of Professional Conduct.  Ostensibly, the rules of professional conduct are for “the protection of the public, the profession and the administration of justice, and not the punishment of the person disciplined.”  Preface Rules Governing Discipline, at 656.   But don’t you believe it.  It is called the disciplinary board because it punishes attorneys.1 The preface to the Rules of Professional Conduct makes it clear that the license to practice law is not given as a right, but, like a driver’s license, is “a conditional privilege, revocable for cause.”  This means they can take it away from an attorney much easier then they can take someone’s home or personal property. Taking away your license is easy because they control the people who take your license and you have no recourse Grounds for discipline are violation of the rules of professional conduct, the provisions of a court rule, statue or other law whether or not in the course of an attorney-client relationship.  This means that you can be sanctioned by the disciplinary board for non-attorney activity.  If they don't like you, you are gone. The disciplinary board is not there to help attorneys.  Its function is to control and punish, not help.  The disciplinary board makes it quite clear that, unlike the real estate commission, it does not issue opinions, advise or offer guidance for ambiguous situations.  That option is referred to yet another supreme court committee whose opinions are not only non-binding, but you rely on their advice only at great personal risk.  In fact, in my experience, if you rely on guidance and advice from the disciplinary board, which I did, the board will ignore its own previous position and sanction you for doing something it allowed another attorney's to do. (this was done by simply not letting its advice and past practice into evidence). __________________ 1 There are also some legal shenanigans here.  By making the sanctions imposed on attorneys “remedial” rather then “punitive”, it avoids the defense of “double jeopardy” if there is another civil or criminal proceeding against the attorney for the same conduct for which he was sanctioned.

Dec. 12, 2008 - jurist found to be paranoid, mercurial, boorish, Quixotic, combative, disrespectful, dismal and a deliberate liar

You readers do know that "jurist" means a learned lawyer and is not a synonym for judge, right?

For those that knew that already, shame on you for assuming that this was yet another article about Madeline Wilson. In fact, this article, from The Business Times Online, is about Nevada judge Elizabeth Halverson:

Elizabeth Halverson, a district judge in Nevada, recently appeared before a disciplinary tribunal charged with 14 counts of misconduct. Her lawyer noted that “she is not perfect” but, after considering the evidence, the commission went a bit further, finding her to be paranoid, mercurial, boorish, Quixotic, combative, disrespectful, dismal and a deliberate liar.

The full published findings against Halverson included that she fell asleep in front of juries, yelled profanities, had improper contact with jurors, blamed others for her own inadequacies, had improper contact with the media, breached court security by hiring her own private security personnel, lied under oath, and had her bailiff massage “her feet, neck and shoulders, or some combination of those body parts”. She was also found to have repeatedly referred to members of the court staff as “bitches” and “dumb f**ks”.

During the hearing, testimony from her bailiff was especially damning. Breaking down in the witness box, he choked, “I can’t stand what she did to me”. The bailiff testified that Halverson made him pick dirt off her judicial robes, cuddled him when he chauffeured her to judicial events and periodically instructed him to take off her shoes and rub her feet. He also testified that she had once asked him to shoot her husband, saying it would be okay as she would be able to dispose of the body.

At one point, the disciplinary hearing had to be suspended when Halverson was rushed to hospital suffering from severe injuries after her husband smashed her on the head with a frying pan; he later pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon and will serve up to ten years in prison.

When the hearing resumed, Halverson’s defence was less than a tour de force. She had a row with the first lawyers she hired, fired them, and then sued the Judicial Discipline Commission. That, though, did not avert her disciplinary case. At the hearing, eight of her witnesses did not arrive to give testimony; she blamed all her judicial mistakes on lawyers; and she sought to explain the foot massages as something her bailiff did out of the goodness of his heart. The result? The tribunal deposed Halverson from the bench and barred her from judicial office for life.

The article was written by law professor Gary Slapper. All I have to say is, don't let the door Slapper on the ass on her way out.

Dec. 12, 2008 - pay raise for federal judges hidden in bailout plan

While the rest of us are suffering from lost revenues, diminished sales, going without a bonus and, in many cases, without any paycheck or prospect of even finding a job in the near future, federal judges would have received --along with members of Congress-- a salary increase amounting to about $5K per year.

full story

Dec. 11, 2008 - KnowYourCOurts.com exclusive - Accomplished Colorado trial lawyer persecuted by Attorney Regulation Counsel in retaliation for prevailing against the the wrong defendant

This fireside chat is about my favorite and your favorite bureaucracy, the exalted Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Deregulation Council: our Defender of Truth, Justice and the American Way; our Protector of vulnerable widows and orphans from incompetent and dishonest attorneys.

But, as I'll explain later, one capable attorney --a modern day Lord Erskine-- doesn't see it that way at all: he suggests the agency is a complaisant instrument of political retribution.

 

Lord Erskine for the defense of the Dean of St. Asaph, Sir William Jones, in a trial for seditious libel for having written a tract on general principles of government and recommending parliamentary reform.  Camp. VIII, 272-279.  After a long series of contentious exchanges between Erskine and Justice Buller over how the language of the jury's verdict should be recorded, the following occurred (Camp. VIII, 277; small capitals in the original):   Buller, J.: "Sir, I will not be interrupted."   Erskine: "I stand here as an advocate for a brother citizen, and I desire that the [record be complete]."   Buller, J.: "Sit down, Sir; remember your duty or I shall be obliged to proceed in another manner [i.e., with imprisonment for contempt of court].   Erskine: "Your Lordship may proceed in what manner you think fit; I know my duty as well as your Lordship knows yours.  I shall not alter my conduct."   Campbell continued:  "The learned judge took no notice of this reply, and, quailing under the rebuke of his pupil, did not repeat the menace of commitment.  This noble stand for the independence of the Bar would of itself have entitled Erskine to the statue which the profession affectionately erected to his memory in Lincoln's Inn Hall.... The example had had a salutary effect in illustrating and establishing the relative duties of Judge and Advocate in England."

 

The account that follows may elucidate why trepidation and indecisiveness (or else covert advocacy arrived at by treachery and parlor tricks) has been substituted for the valor of Lord Erskine's overt championing of the client's cause.

In today's legal profession, a lawyer's first client is the judge, whereas the client by title simply pays the bills. And see Monroe H. Freedman, The Threat to Judicial Independence by Criticism of Judges: A Proposed Solution to the Real Problem, 25 Hofstra L. Rev. 729, 729 (1997) (“The problem is not that too many lawyers are publicly criticizing judges. Unfortunately, too few lawyers are willing to do so, even when a judge has committed serious ethical violations and should be held accountable”); see also Alan Prendergast, "Bench Pressed," The Westword, February 11, 1999 ("Most attorneys are loath to criticize the federal bench, since the judges are appointed for life and tend to have long memories.")

If you're a practitioner who subscribes to The Colorado Lawyer, then you've probably read the OARC's flattering self-appraisal or Alex Rothrock's summary description of the theoretical policy and procedure.  If you're an average lawyer of average intelligence, you may fear the regulation system, but assume that an attorney has nothing to fear from OARC so long as he or she achieves the best possible result for his or her client.

If you're an average member of the public, you've possibly read reports by The Glenwood Springs Post or Denver9News, containing interviews by the agency's long-time head, John Gleason, that attorney dishonesty is not tolerated in this state. Maybe you believe those reports, until presented with evidence to the contrary.

If you're Dale Kim Thorup, you know better: The OARC won't investigate your claim that your ex-wife's attorney was sleeping with her during the pendency of your divorce case, even after the attorney married her a few months after the divorce.

If you're me, you know better: I was told to go pound sand when I provided direct (as opposed to indirect or circumstantial) evidence that a certain attorney provided substantial aid, encouragement and legal advice in tortiously and unlawfully concealing the whereabouts of my child; lied about knowing the physical location of the parent-client hiding the minor child; lied under oath about giving legal advice to the parent-client living in another state; lied under oath about being "assaulted in court"; lied about faxing documents that were never faxed; lied to disciplinary authorities; repeatedly and deliberately misled the tribunal; advised the client to light candles, burn incense and send my spirit away; and fabricated bizarre and exotic claims of death threats, among other things.

But, I digress.

If you're Mark E. Brennan, a highly capable plaintiff's lawyer in Centennial, you know better: He seems to have good reason to suspect that OARC is not above allowing itself to be used by those with friends in very low places to take retribution against their enemies.

Why should readers care?  Put bluntly, "Where law is honored and respected, societies flourish; where legal systems are trumped by political or economic elites and stifling bureaucracies, the people live in misery and are impoverished." ¹

Brennan's saga is explicated in detail by Alan Prendergast (The Westword) in his article, Blackburned,² and is a classic fable of the "little guy" prevailing against "those who have all the wealth and power at their disposal." ³ Alan Prendergast summed it up this way:

The . . . fiasco is only part of a twisted saga of perjury, cover-ups and discrimination claims that led to [plaintiff] winning a $1.2 million judgment from a federal jury two years ago. It was one of the largest awards ever entered against the city -- but it was tossed by Judge Robert E. Blackburn, who declared that [Brennan] must have improperly inflamed the jury with his sarcastic, confrontational style of litigation.

Brennan selflessly devoted years to representing a 27-year-veteran Denver firefighter in Civil Service Commission and federal court proceedings challenging the the firefighter’s unlawful termination on the pretext he shoplifted a cookbook from a Safeway store.

In early 2004, Civil Service Commission Hearing Officer John Criswell found after an extended hearing that the City failed to prove the firefighter, Bill Cadorna, shoplifted the cookbook. He found that, as Cadorna contended when first accused of shoplifting the cookbook by a fellow firefighter, a Safeway clerk had given Cadorna permission to take a copy of the cookbook without paying for it to make up for one Cadorna had bought, but lost, on a previous visit to the store.

In what some have characterized as an apparent favor to the City, Criswell --the same Civil Service Commission Hearing Officer who found that Denver cop James Turney deserved no punishment whatever for his killing of mentally disabled Paul Childs-- complied with the City’s insistence that Cadorna be denied reinstatement because he was over age 50 and had retired following his termination.

The Denver Civil Service Commission upheld Criswell’s decision, in reliance upon an obvious misstatement of fact by Criswell in his decision that Cadorna retired “prior to dismissal”. All the evidence showed Cadorna retired after his dismissal. The Commission’s own records verified that Cadorna had not retired until after his dismissal. Yet, to avoid reinstating Cadorna, the Commission concluded that, since Cadorna had retired before he was fired, there was no dismissal to be appealed. Huh?

Brennan told Cadorna in 2003 he would not litigate Cadorna’s claims in federal court if that became necessary, as he did not want to become mired in years of federal litigation. However, when Cadorna was still unable to find other counsel in 2004, Brennan prevented Cadorna from losing his claims under statutes of limitation by suing the City in federal court for age discrimination and other civil rights violations. When numerous other expert employment attorneys declined to take over the case because they regarded it as a “loser”, Brennan did not abandon Cadorna. Brennan forged ahead.

After federal Judge Robert E. Blackburn, no friend of employment plaintiffs, and normally inclined to dismiss employment claims, denied summary judgment on Cadorna’s age discrimination and substantive due process claims, the case went to trial in June, 2006.

At the end of a two-week trial, the jury found the City guilty of willful age discrimination, and awarded Cadorna $610,571.00 in back pay. Judge Blackburn imposed judgment for liquidated damages in the same amount because the jury found the City’s discrimination against Cadorna was willful. The judgment therefore totaled $1.22 million, one of the largest ever against the City of Denver.

Brennan recalls how mystified he was that the City made no effort whatever before trial to settle the case, even though the evidence against it was very strong. In retrospect, Brennan says he suspects they had reason to believe even before trial that their “back was covered”, whatever the outcome.

And, sure enough, Blackburn set aside the jury's verdict. Why? On the basis of Brennan's alleged misconduct (`though neither the City nor the judge had sought or ordered a mistrial for alleged misconduct during trial).

I say "alleged," because --if you believe the jurors (discussed below)-- Blackburn's maneuver was, in all probability, based on an ulterior motive. Additionally, Brennan notes that Blackburn has developed a reputation for deep-seated hostility to civil rights plaintiffs (quite similar, now that I think about it, to former judge Edward Nottingham's reputation concerning employment cases),⁴ but adds that Blackburn seemed at the close of trial to feel that justice had been done.

Brennan says he believes that, although Blackburn did not conceal his hostility to Brennan and his client during trial, it was only well after trial that Blackburn decided to overturn the verdict, for reasons unrelated to the truth or the law. “Cui bono?”, Brennan asks.

Obviously, the City has lots of friends in low places. Just after Blackburn ordered a new trial, OARC Chief John Gleason served Mark Brennan with a Notice of Investigation.⁵

What of Brennan's alleged misconduct? In response to Gleason’s demand that he explain why he should not be disciplined for prevailing against the City, Brennan requested that Investigating Attorney, Kim Ikeler, interview the jurors. Ikeler and his assistant, Janet Layne, did. Here are notes from interviews with seven of the eight jurors (the eighth wasn't interviewed):

• Brennan did a great job . . . Don't think [his behavior was] out of line . . . thinks City got to Blackburn . . . Don't think it was 100% the judge's decision . . . think somebody (city) got to him . . . City attorneys not very good. [Asked, "Was Brennan abusive"?]: Not at all!



• [Asked, "Was Brennan abusive, obstreperous?" Answer]: Seemed arrogant, interrupted a lot, judge got upset a couple of times. [Asked, "Was Brennan trying to disrupt [the] trial?"]: No. [Asked, "Should the Supreme Court [OARC] do anything to Brennan for the way he acted?"]: No



• thought [Brennan's] behavior was normal . . . Didn't believe the reason[s] given for overturning [the verdict] . . . No intent to disrupt; [Brennan] did not interrupt proceedings; [Asked, "Should the Supreme Court [OARC] do anything to Brennan for the way he acted?"]: No



• [Brennan] not abusive or obstreperous. Not belligerent . . . Did not disrupt.



• Brennan - thought he was good. Would hire him . . . pushed limits a couple of times. Not abusive, belligerent. Behaved professionally . . . Not trying to disrupt. Just trying to prove his point.



• Brennan - total advocate for client . . . Not abusive. Not disruptive . . . did not intend to disrupt . . . Never yelled at judge . . . maybe occasionally obstreperous. Very passionate . . . good advocate . . . Would hire Brennan if needed an attorney . . . Blackburn: process obsessed . . . Thinks somebody got to judge



• Didn't think disruptive; not intentional at all . . . just trying to win case . . . appreciated his spark; behaved prof[fessionally]. Did a good job rep[resenting] client. Not abusive, obstreperous, disrespectful.

On January 31, 2008, Ikeler and Layne met with Brennan to discuss the results of their investigation. Ikeler, a senior attorney in OARC, explained that, although OARC could not endorse some of Brennan’s theatrics or methods, neither did its investigation reveal clear and convincing evidence of misconduct. Ikeler explained that he would recommend dismissal of the matter for lack of evidence.

So, then, would it surprise you to learn that, on February 15, 2008, Ikeler called Brennan and informed him that Ikeler’s superiors had ignored the recommendation of dismissal, and directed Ikeler to issue a March, 2008 Report of Investigation, requesting that the Committee authorize a complaint against Brennan? ⁶

Would it surprise you to learn that, in the February 15 Report of Investigation in which he requested Brennan’s prosecution, Ikeler forgot to mention that, in their January, 2008 interviews, supra, the jurors all supported Brennan, and that Ikeler failed to state his legal opinion that there was insufficient evidence to support Brennan’s prosecution?

Would it surprise you to learn that in May of 2008, the OARC served Brennan with a citation?

Would it also surprise you to learn that Brennan's February 18, 2008 Response to Ikeler’s Report was stricken (considered not filed), because it was 24 pages in length [supposedly exceeding "Committee guidelines" that they be limited to five pages, which Brennan says are not published or written anywhere]? ⁷ Would it surprise you to learn that OARC did not apply this alleged rule to its own Report of Investigation (which was over 20 pages in length)?

I called Kim Ikeler, today, to clarify this latter point. His response was about as clear as mud:

Well, the Attorney Regulation Committee does have a list of practices, and that includes the five-page limit. It's not published in the Rules. It comes from the Committee. . . [sound of thumbing through papers and regulations] . . . So, I'm trying to figure out whether that's confidential. I don't know. Doesn't say. I can't tell you what the list says or where you can get it. I just don't know.

Well, that's reassuring. Unable to find an answer, Ikeler had to transfer me to Gleason's desk. I left a voice-message, but am not holding my breath for a call back.

I find Brennan's Answer to this frivolous prosecution both concise and compelling. He argues:

This proceeding was initiated and is being pursued as part of a fraudulent and unlawful conspiracy by the Colorado Supreme Court, "Judge" Robert E. Blackburn, and the City and County of Denver to deprive Respondent of his property interest in his professional license, and liberty interest in his career and reputation, without due process of law, and to violate Respondent's right to equal protection of the law, in violation of the United States Constitution and the Colorado Constitution . . . [and] to deprive Respondent of his constitutional and civil rights, including but not limited to his right to free speech, and to take reprisal against Respondent for his successful representation of a disadvantaged person in a civil rights action against the politically and economically powerful City and County of Denver.

Brennan further argues, in his Motion to Dismiss:

Those who enforce the law in Colorado evidently deem themselves above it. [The] OARC, the Denver City Attorney, and Judge Blackburn appear to work from the same playbook, one written not by our Founding Fathers, but by the spiritual and intellectual descendants of Cardinal Wolsey. It is highly unlikely this tribunal will take a chance on offending the very powerful Judge Blackburn, before whom its members or their colleagues may practice frequently, or with whom its members may for other reasons wish to maintain cordial relations. It is likewise highly unlikely this tribunal will take a chance on offending the City of Denver or its many other friends in very high places, who populate the State judiciary or play a major role in deciding who populates the State judiciary.

. . .

As the outrageous conduct of the City of Denver, Judge Blackburn and OARC proves beyond any reasonable doubt, ours is a government of men, not of laws.

How many people here think Brennan's going to get a fair "trial?" Anyone?

Well, for starters, let's look at the fairness of the trial setting on its face. The prosecution in this case is the OARC, an office/agency of the Colorado Supreme Court. The investigation team is the OARC, an office/agency of the Colorado Supreme Court. And, according to the OARC's directions for filing pleadings, the, "The office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge acts as the 'clerk' for the Supreme Court."

So, in essence, the Colorado Supreme Court is both the titular plaintiff, judge and jury, and it has so far shown considerable indifference to the facts.

Earlier today, I spoke with Brennan's client, Bill Cadorna. When asked about his attorney's conduct, he said without hesitation, "Outstanding job. Mark's very passionate. Blackburn tried to shut him down every time he tried to question anybody. He'd let him get two or three questions in and then, 'Nope, testimony over.'" Cadorna continued, "He did a good job. And the jury agreed with him," noting "Even the jurors think there's a fix . . . I think there's a fix."

So there you have it. The client, who never received his jury award, doesn't feel Brennan did him any disservice. The jury verdict is in that Blackburn --not Brennan-- was the reason for the waste of the jurors' time and efforts. Seems only the City was prejudiced by Brennan's zealous and effective advocacy.

The lesson? If you represent the right people, you are virtually immune to scrutiny by OARC, no matter how massive your subversion of justice or breach of ethics.

But, if you zealously represent the little guy against a powerful, connected client, and win big, don’t expect your good deed to go unpunished.

_____________________

¹ Arundel & Kanis. (2008, December). Review of Legal Resources [Review of the book The Bramble Bush: The Classic Lectures on the Law and Law School]. 37 Colo. Law 12 at 66.
² I discussed the "Blackburned" article in my Feb. 12 entry here.
³ Excerpted from Brennan's closing arguments.
⁴ Nottingham also made certain that jury verdicts were disregarded so that prevailing plaintiffs would not collect their judgments. See, e.g., Settle v. Nottingham, 92-10-372-07. And see Affidavits of Stephen Phillips & attorney Jim Carleo (quoting Magistrate Judge Kristin Mix) ("The biggest problem with your case is that Judge Nottingham hates employment cases and there’s nothing you can do about it. It’s random. Now don’t get me wrong, he’s a fine judge, but he just hates employment cases. That’s why he will try to find any way in the summary judgment briefs to say there’s no material issues and grant summary judgment, and if he doesn’t, he will make it tough at trial, and you won’t win . . . I’m going to look you right in the eye and tell you that you’re gonna lose").
⁵ When Brennan inquired of Ass't Regulation Counsel Kim Ikeler who filed it, Ikeler declined to identify an individual complainant, noting that the OARC is entitled to pursue complaints of its own volition, without the necessity of a formal complaint. Thus, this would be one of the very few times --if not the first time-- they've ever done that in a non-criminal matter. Such selective prosecution is strong circumstantial evidence of a hidden agenda.
⁶ The Westword also recently reported, "The OAR[C] investigator [Kim Ikeler] is on record as having told Brennan that, in his opinion, the complaint didn't amount to much but that higher-ups in the office insisted that it be pursued."
⁷ See ¶ 14 of OARC's Response to Brennan's Motion to Dismiss

Dec. 08, 2008 - KnowYourCOurts.com exclusive - "180 days lockdown" for KnowYourCourts.com blogger, Sean Harrington

This is Part IV of a multi-part series profiling Colorado attorney child-and-family-investigator Madeline Elizabeth Wilson.¹

In a new filing today, another email in a stream of newly discovered evidence has surfaced. This time, it's a a communiqué from attorney-CFI Madeline Wilson disclosing the objective of her Master Plan (mu ha ha ha ha ha ha ha):

Put him in jail, give him some mental help. We cannot ask for attorney fees if we ask for jail time. I would like to see him go into lock-down for 180 days. I think Jane Tidball would do it.

For those of you who don't already know, 180 is the magic number, because it's the threshold number of days under which a party deprived of liberty is not entitled to a jury.² Thus, it's an opportunity for a lawyer to have the undivided attention of another lawyer (the judge) in arguing his or her cause in a relatively private setting. Secrecy and obscurity has always been essential to the divorce industry cabal in Colorado (until this Web site came along to expose an infitessimal fraction of what goes on behind these closed doors).

It has always been my opinion that Wilson despises our Constitution, including the Due Process, Petitioning and Confrontation clauses. It has also been my observation that her M.O. is to seek jail time for the parents of children in an effort to further her client's cases and heap hardship on the opposing party. In another case, Marriage of Stadnyck, she argued:

if he doesn't go to jail, he'll never understand that this is not a game. This is a serious matter and [] he has to do what the Court tells him to do.

In that same case, she appeared to suggest that the parent should skip a few meals  and she did suggest that he should take a job at Home Depot for $10 an hour in order to pay the Divorce Industry Expert (the CFI, Tom Meehan).

To help add some perspective to this topic, let's consider this latest chronicle of family court excellence: "Man jailed for not supporting kid who isn't his," concerning Walter Sharpe, who was mistakenly registered as the father of a child. More than $12K in child support was confiscated by the Government from him and he was imprisoned for four (4) terms of 180 days (as sought by Wilson, supra) for contempt.  For those of you who --like me-- aren't great with math, that's two years in "lockdown."  What country are we in?

If you've followed this blog for any length of time, you'll be not surprised to learn that the petitions this mistaken-identity-victim had filed for DNA testing were DENIED by the Dauphin County judge, Scott A. Evans, who couldn't be bothered.  Evans also ruled that the victim is not entitled to reimbursement for his erroneously garnished monies. Yet, it took The Patriot-News less than an hour to track down the real father, who's child has been living with him for the last four years. (Click here, but you may need to skip prompts for sending the article to your printer).

However, as I've occasionally pointed out, many judges really are "honorable" and labor to do the right thing (usually, you don't hear about them, because they're focused on their job, rather than publicity). One such judge might be Dauphin County President Judge Richard A. Lewis, who ordered a criminal probe of the matter. Lewis reviewed the case after reading about it in The Patriot-News last month.

You'll appreciate my reasoning, in that I hope Jack Berryhill, the new judge assigned to Marriage of Harrington, will take a similar approach in addressing recent developments in that case.

_________________________

¹ Part I was published Nov. 20^th 2008, infra; Part II on Nov. 23^rd; Part III on Nov. 28^th.
² See, e.g., People v. Shell, 148 P.3d 162, 175 (Colo. 2006) (en banc) (no jury entitlement in contempt proceedings); People v. Rodriguez, 112 P.3d 693, 709 (Colo. 2005) (en banc) ("Because the misdemeanor charges in this case are punishable by more than six months imprisonment, [defendant] is clearly entitled to a jury trial").

Dec. 03, 2008 - KnowYourCOurts.com exclusive - Rogue employee of the Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel compromises judicial computer systems network

On December 1, 2008, Louise Culberson-Smith of the Office of the Attorney Deregulation Council declined to examine evidence that was submitted with a complaint and, thusly, did not conduct any investigation despite the mandatory language ("shall") of Rule 251.9.

The reason cited was because the evidence was provided as URL links to PDF files and, "[We] did not attempt to access the exhibits cited in your faxes. Due to concerns about computer viruses and security issues, this office avoids accessing questionable or unsecure websites." Click here.

However, a review of the server logs for the site (KnowYourCourts.com) hosting those documents indicates that someone from the OARC (IP address 165.127.111.130 (judicial.state.co.us)) has clearly violated this policy and risked the entire computing resources of the judicial department by accessing the "questionable or unsecure" Web site, KnowYourCourts.com:

• 09/23/2008 (1 occurrence)
• 09/11/2008 (1 occurrence)
• 5/07/2008 (1 occurrence)
• 02/25/2008 (5 occurrences)
• 02/13/2008 (1 occurrence)
• 12/28/2007 (1 occurrence)
• 09/26/2007 (1 occurrence)
• 09/23/2007 (1 occurrence)
• 09/21/2007 (10 occurrences)
• 08/08/2007 (9 occurrences)
• 02/15/2007 (2 occurrences)
• 02/05/2007 (5 occurrence)
• 02/02/2007 (12 occurrences)
• 01/19/2007 (4 occurrence)

In fact, just two days after the date of Culberson-Smith's correspondence, a rogue or uninformed employee of the OARC accessed this site at 9:36 AM.

Of course, as a responsible citizen, I am duty-bound to report this violation of policy and compromise of state resources to the State Court Administrator's Office.

Dec. 03, 2008 - criminal libel charges for man who opined online about ex-wife and her attorney

And no, it wasn't me!

Larimer County D.A. Larry Abrahamson charged J.P. Weichel with the crime (C.R.S. § 18-13-105) over posts he allegedly made on Craigslist's "Rants and Rave" section. Reportedly, court documents reveal posts that suggested the ex-wife traded sexual acts for legal services from her attorney and mentioned a visit from child services because of an injury to her child.

Note that this law has seldom enforced since the 1800's.  Yet, it has been exhumed from obscurity by a district attorney for the purpose of protecting the reputation of a fellow attorney.

Acclaimed First Amendment attorney Steve Zansberg told The Daily Camera that prosecutors seeking criminal libel cases could have a "chilling" effect on free speech in Colorado, particularly over the Internet.¹

I may make some effort to obtain those records and clarify the nature of the statements.

So, now, I'm wondering why Dale Kim Thorup hadn't been charged in El Paso County for the statements he made about attorney Hal Lohse being intimate with Thorup's ex-wife (then, Deborah Thorup) during the divorce proceedings (notwithstanding that those comments were initially made in the context of First Amendment protected petitioning to the Attorney Deregulation Council). (You don't s'pose it had something to do with the fact that Lohse married her just a few months after the divorce was final?)

Dec. 5, 2008 - This story has been picked up by the Los Angeles Times, including interviews with David Lane and Mark Silverstein. Click here.

____________________________
¹ The Colorado Supreme Court in People v. Ryan, 806 P.2d 935, 940-41 (Colo. 1991) (en banc) recognized that this statute's "lack of an 'actual malice' standard threatens to deter a substantial amount of expression protected by the First Amendment, but rejected a trial court's declaration that the entire statute was facially invalid for overbreadth and thusly held that it was invald insofar as it reaches constitutionally protected statements about public officials or public figures on matters of public concern. However, it was left intact to the extent that it applied to private parties. Id.

Dec. 02, 2008 - KnowYourCOurts.com exclusive - Louise Culberson-Smith & John Gleason (Attorney Regulation Counsel) prove KnowYourCourts.com WRONG: Colorado attorney dishonesty is occasionally disciplined !!!

Wow!!! I never thought the day would come that I would write this story:

I'm a man, who admits when he's been wrong (and fortunately, it doesn't need to happen very often).

For those of you who follow this blog, you've doubtless read about my accounts of Denver attorney CFI Madeline Elizabeth Wilson (and see my Nov. 28^th, 23^rd, and 28^th entries infra).

As you may know, I've complained about this wretched woman for almost nine years (click here). And the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel --specifically, Louise Culberson-Smith and her boss, John Gleason-- have always told me to go pound sand. I even sued them both and my case was tossed out by Judge Naughty because he didn't have time --he explained-- to read my briefs (apparently, he was preoccupied). And Gleason --misrepresenting Rule 251.10(b)(2)-- even threatened to have me found in "contempt" of the Colorado Supreme Court if I dared file another complaint. And for this threat, Wilson praised God (see the Nov. 28^th entry, below).

Despite this long and tortured history, Gleason proved me wrong and he finally has lived up to his prior statements, that attorney dishonesty is not tolerated in Colorado.¹

You see, last week, I filed a complaint and supplement based on newly discovered evidence, which I pointed out proved by a clear and convincing standard that Wilson lied under oath. I also produced a number of emails that showed that she had aided and abetted (defined as providing "substantial encouragement or assistance") in the concealment of my daughter from me. I also alleged that Wilson had violated Colorado's Rule 3.7, which proscribes a lawyer from functioning as a witness, because she has (again) become a party and complaining witness in her own client's divorce case.

I encourage you to read the foregoing two documents before continuing with this story to provide you with context (they're both concise).

As you can guess, I expected that the OARC would contrive some new means to dismiss my complaint. After all, Culberson-Smith's previous exonerations of Wilson were among the most strained interpretation of any rules or statutes that I've ever read in my own nine years of reading court opinions, law review articles, briefs and case materials. Culberson-Smith was clearly resolved that nothing Wilson could do to me would ever be perceived as a rule violation.

However, on this occasion, the response I received from the OARC can only be described as an unforeseen "bombshell" !!

For the first time, in nine years, the agency is finally going to discipline Ms. Wilson!  Apparently, both Culberson-Smith and Gleason were able to set aside their personal disdain of me and they carefully and thoroughly examined the evidence I provided before arriving at any conclusion.  Finally, I've been vindicated -- Halleluiah!  I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't read it with my own eyes! And now, you can read it, too. The December 1, 2008 decision is here.

_______________________________
¹ See, e.g., Gleason's May 10, 2005 statement to The Glenwood Springs Post ("allegations of dishonesty are always taken seriously"; "if you have a case . . . that involves a lawyer's duty of honesty, those are all the kinds of cases that we investigate."; "if someone has a concern about any lawyer, all they have to do is call this office and we'd be delighted to conduct an investigation"); see also his October 23, 2008 statement to Denver 9 News ("if there is a public allegation against any lawyer, it will be investigated . . . The goal is to protect the public from lawyers who do not follow rules of ethics . . . Colorado is one of the most progressive states in the country of lawyer regulation. We take it very seriously").

Dec. 02, 2008 - KnowYourCOurts.com exclusive - story first featured on this site is picked up by Jay Marvin (AM760) & WorldNetDaily

On November 7^th (infra), I wrote about Wei v. Mukasey, (10^th Cir, Nov. 7, 2008), concerning the mother of four who is being deported back to China to face certain sterilization, fines and jail time, despite our asylum policy.

After I wrote about this story, I contacted a few friends who I knew would be concerned. They, in turn, contacted Mrs. Wei, her attorney and her translator and arranged for them to travel to Denver, today to participate in four or five radio interviews, including with Jay Marvin (click here and look for 12-02-2008 10:43am entry).  I am also informed that WorldNetDaily will be publishing an article and that other media outlets have expressed some interest in the story, `though I have no first-hand knowledge of the same.

My friend wrote this to me, just now:

On the way to the airport just a little while ago she told me that her brother has recently been sterilized. He and his wife had one child. After the child was born his wife was forced to accept an IUD. From that point on it was mandatory that she visit the local clinic every 3 months. When she did not show up for her appointment the authorities began searching for both Xiu's brother and his wife. They were able to stay in hiding long enough for their daughter to be born, but without healthcare and poor living conditions, their daughter died. Later Xui's brother was caught and forcibly sterilized.

The WorldNetDaily article is here.  LifeNews.com has this article and Colorado Right-to- Life has this article.

Dec. 01, 2008 - solemn contemplation for this holiday season

I realize that a number of persons who are not fans of this site regard our reports, exposés and rants as little more than insouciant rhetoric. However, I will take this opportunity to call attention to a tragedy that I believe illustrates that what we do here is a most serious matter:

Unfortunately, I've known or encountered many parents —mothers and fathers alike— who have been the victims of the same treatment that I have been subject to by Denver lawyer, Madeline Wilson. (See my Nov. 20^th, 23^rd, and 28^th entries, infra).

Unfortunately, not all parents (or children) survive this ordeal, as I was again reminded via email this morning:

[We are] sad to report the suicide early this morning of one of our members, a loving father, Gregory Eisenhauer.  Greg lived in Alpharetta, Georgia and is survived by his three young children, Katie, John Patrick and David. After a horrible three year court battle in Fulton County Georgia, Greg finally received the judge's decision on Wednesday the day before Thanksgiving. That decision stripped him of any decision making in his children's lives and relegated him to "visitor" status with approximately 15% parenting time. Greg was a pillar of the community, and despite the many false allegations perpetrated upon him (as is usual in these cases) he remained committed to gaining shared custody of his children. His former wife's attorneys, Nancy Lawler and Pilar Prinz, of Lawler Green Givelber & Prinz, LLC, in Atlanta did a brilliant job along with the aid, assistance and complicity of the Guardian ad litem, Susan Hurst; the Court Evaluator, Elizabeth King and the children's counselor Sandy Bastianello in breaking this father, financially and emotionally and casting aspersions on his good name. Greg was a wonderful, involved and loving father at all times. Judge Bensonetta Lane decided to rubber stamp the Court appointed evaluators rather than listen to the NPRA independent evaluators. Dr. Monty Weinstein and Karen Wagner testified as to Greg's fitness as a parent and the need to grant him shared parenting in the children's best interest. Please keep Greg and his children in your prayers. He will be truly missed.  There will be a memorial service for him with details to follow. Sincerely,      Dr. Monty Weinstein and Karen Wagner

Attentive readers may recall that I briefly discussed Monty Weinstein in my Nov. 13^th entry, infra.

There are a few readers who may be quick to callously indict Mr. Eisenhauer for a "selfish" act or conduct proving his mental instability. Because none of us have enough information about him to form a conclusion, I would rather reflect this holiday season on the cold reality that his single act of anguish is an irreversible finality that will devastate his children for the rest of their lives.

I shudder to think of the wailing that will be heard in the mother's house when they are told that they will, indeed, never see Daddy again and when, one day, they realize that they were at the center of the dispute.

Nov. 30, 2008 - "Fourth Estate" Sale!

By Ken Smith

If it were left up to Thomas Jefferson "to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, [he] should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." Sadly, it seems that we are on our way to testing that theory.

A small Internet-based publication is leading the way:

PasadenaNow.com, a small online paper started in 2005 with an ethos of "daily deadlines, plenty of shoe leather and a grueling schedule of personally attending dozens of community events every month", posted a job advertisement to the Bangalore edition of classifieds site Craigslist.org: "We seek a newspaper journalist based in India to report on the city government and political scene of Pasadena, California, USA."

Editor James Macpherson told the AP local political reporting could now be done from afar as staff stringers in India, who command lower salaries, could watch Pasadena City Council meetings on the internet.

"I think it could be a significant way to increase the quality of journalism on the local level without the expense that is a major problem for local publications," he said. "Whether you're at a desk in Pasadena or a desk in Mumbai, you're still just a phone call or e-mail away from the interview."

If you've ever had to deal with "James" or "Emily" from an Indian call center with an accent so thick that even an Australian can't hope to understand it, the problem should be apparent: To the average Indian, America is a totally alien culture. The reporter is likely to have as much difficulty understanding you as you will him, or have the requisite knowledge base to ask probing questions. At the end of the day, the best you are likely to get in the place of news is an endless stream of glorified press releases.

While this isn't problematic for a community paper -- which is little more than an endless stream of glorified press releases -- the concept has taken root further up the journalistic food chain. Maureen Dowd reports yesterday that

[i]n October, Dean Singleton, The Associated Press’s chairman and the head of the MediaNews Group — which counts The Pasadena Star-News, The Denver Post and The Detroit News in its stable of 54 daily newspapers — told the Southern Newspaper Publishers Association that his company was looking into outsourcing almost every aspect of publishing, including possibly having one news desk for all of his papers, “maybe even offshore.”[cite]

If you have ever been frustrated by a reporter who says things about you without even talking with you, or fabricates a "quote" from you out of thin air that you never would have said [and yes, this has happened to this author], you may be tempted to feel that this is just nature's way of serving karma. But there is a greater danger -- one that may not be quite as obvious.

Denver could go from being a two-newspaper town (three, if you count the Daily Camera) to a no-newspaper town in less than ten years. The implications for our Republic in are especially grave, as we are about the only Western-style democracy without a robust and publicly funded news source like the Australian Broadcasting Company or the BBC. Television news has become a pernicious form of infotainment; if the traditional newspaper model goes the way of the horse-and-buggy, the only place to get meaningful information will be from blogs like this.

Of course, there is an upside: The Post could hire Indian lawyers to write their legal news. India has the same common-law based legal system, and many core concepts translate well.

Nov. 29, 2008 - KnowYourCOurts.com exclusive - Purportedly, behaviors are being modified as a result of what we do here.

According to CFI Steve Gimpel, about whom I wrote about on November 10^th (infra), he corrected an erroneous misrepresentation found on a Web site that indicated that Gimpel is a family law attorney.

His statement was included in an Answer filed with Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Deregulation Council Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee. He wrote, "I was not aware of this oversight until I received an email from Sean Harrington on November 13, 2008.  Mr. Harrington runs the Web site www.knowyourcourts.com. Upon receiving the email, I immediately changed the profile."

I had emailed Mr. Gimpel seeking his comment, if any, to the complainant's allegations. Gimpel did not respond.

Nov. 28, 2008 - KnowYourCOurts.com exclusive - Practicing law or practicing wicca?  I'm having a hard time making out the difference.

This is part III of a multi-part series profiling Colorado attorney child-and-family-investigator Madeline Elizabeth Wilson. ¹

Two bizarre emails written by the attorney CFI to her client, Christy Ryan --which emails are included in pleadings filed in Marriage of Harrington and a complaint filed with the Office of Attorney Deregulation Council-- form the centerpiece of today's installment

By way of background, when Wilson took the case of Marriage of Harrington (now, transmogrified into Wilson v. Harrington), she was working for Sturniolo & Associates, a firm that advertises itself as Christian:

Tony [Sturniolo] is a Christian attorney, who stands firm to Christian principles.  He works at every possibility of reconciling marriages prior to exploring divorce, unless there is unresolved abuse.

Hmmm.  Doesn't that sound like the "platform" of another individual we know vocally purporting to be a Christian? Mark Hoffman, perhaps?   I can personally confirm that no efforts were made by this law firm to reconcile the Harrington marriage.   To the contrary, every effort was made to exacerbate the acrimony to create billable hours, consistent with any other divorce firm.²

You may recall Sturniolo's name from when he got his ass in a sling for advising one of the Columbine families to avoid hiring Jewish lawyers, writing "I do not want you to be led astray to a position that might be a poor witness to our Lord." (Click here).

I wonder if Sturniolo would feel that Madeline's Wilson's conduct in Marriage of Harringtonn and other cases --or the emails below-- would be a good witness to his Lord.

From: EsqMom@aol.com sent: July 19, 2005 8:37 PM To: cryan72@msn.com Subject: Prayer for Shelby message text: I have started a prayer chain for your sweet baby girl. I had a massage recently and told her a little about the case (protecting your identity of course). My massage therapist (who is a sweet Christian lady) thinks it is all about protecting Shelby and that we need to focus on her protection. She wanted you to light candles and pray for Shelby to be bathed in a protecting light to keep her safe and take away all the bad stuff she has experience and seen in her ten years. Beth (my therapist) is a little out there, but I know you would stop at nothing to protect your baby. Anyway, I have so many clients getting the attached post-card and I am asking them to pray for Sean and Shelby and you when they contact me to inquire as to "who the heck is this guy?" I hope you don't mind. I only give first names, even though it is public record. God bless you and Shelby, Love, Madeline P.S. See what the Attorney Regulatory Committee said to Sean. Thank God. Attachment : CherlondaPostCard.pdf (0.03 MB), 7-15-05.pdf (0.06 MB)

"Light candles" ? "Love, Madeline" ?

From: EsqMom@aol.com sent: June 8, 2006 6:30 PM To: cryan72@msn.com Subject: Fwd: Fw: MAXINE message text: I like the "black hole of need" the best. Just so you know, the message that "you" left was today (6/9/06) at 11:14 a.m. and said specifically "I will be here" and "I am returning your call." I assume you are sure you didn't leave this message. All I can say is that if it wasn't you and it wasn't "him" (boy Howdy, did it sound like you) it was the Universe calling and asking me to call you and tell you to stop praying for him because that keeps you connected to him and that's not good. I would never have thought of that had someone not told me that specifically. I have released him to the Universe and hope you will too. Seriously, light candles, burn some incense and send his spirit away and do not speak of him any more. May God Bless you and your girl as the big ELEVEN approaches.

That's cheeky: "light candles, burn some incense and send his spirit away and do not speak of him any more (but it's okay if you continue to receive and cash his monthly child support checks (and be unemployed for 7 months in 2005))."

I've looked through several of my family law books, including The Scientific Basis of Child Custody Decisions,³ Family Law in America,⁴ and the ABA Guide to Family Law, but I was unsuccessful in locating any references to candle lighting or "protective light."

I also noted that Wilson capitalized Universe (twice). Although the International Astronomical Union (IAU), which is the official authority on naming celestial things, has been vague about whether "the universe" should be capitalized, doing so is considered noteworthy.  Indeed, scientists and theologians took notice when the physicist John A. Wheeler capitalized the word in his works.⁵  Scholars now recognize this as an indication of belief in the anthropic principle,, which urges that the amazing coincidence of human existence made possible by highly restrictive range provided by Earth is proof that human existence somehow determines the design of the universe. This philosophical and religious view promotes the deification of man.

Indeed, the capitalization of universe, construed in harmony with the other parts of Wilson's email suggests that she intended to attribute to the universe the anthropomorphic qualities of a deity, which is inconsistent with Judeo-Christian doctrines.⁶  I, myself, am not a biblical or rabbinical scholar, but Colossians 2:8a does warn, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

I will provided updates on the pending litigation and OARC complaint.

_________________________

¹ Part I was published Nov. 20^th 2008, infra; Part II was published Nov. 23^rd
2 See, e.g., Grutman, R., and Thomas, B. (1990). Lawyers and Thieves. Simon & Schuster, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. (There are some attorneys who deliberately encourage acrimony, as the financial rewards for them are time dependent. In other words, the more involved the litigation process, the greater the profits for the attorney); See also Steven K. Berenson, A Family Law Residency Program?: A Modest Proposal in Response to the Burdens Created by Self-Represented Litigants in Family Court, 33 Rutgers L.J. 105, 122 n.13 (2001) (suggesting that litigants believe lawyers try to prevent amicable settlements and to drag out cases in order to increase their billable hours).
³³ Galatzer-Levy & Kraus. (1999). The Scientific Basis of Child Custody Decisions. New York: John Wiley & Sons
⁴ Katz, Sanford N. (2004). Family Law in America. Oxford University Press
⁵ See, e.g., Davis & Poe, "Responses to Anthropic Coincidences," last accessed November 28, 2008 from: http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%3D153259%26M%3D200170,00.html. ("Note that Wheeler capitalizes the word universe in his text"); see also Hugh Ross, "Design and the Anthropic Principle," last accessed November 29, 2008 from http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design.shtml (same).
⁶ G.h. Ritz, "Creation," last accessed November 29, 2008 from timeoftheend-faithandreason.net/ Creat001-1.doc ("Creation is the Universe (capitalized) . . . "); G.H. Ritz, "Creation," last accessed November 29, 2008 from http://timeoftheend-faithandreason.net/ Creat020.docc ("Do not accept Christ as the misguided milquetoasts of twilight spirituality recommend; instead become Christ and place the Golden Crown of responsibility upon your own head").

Nov. 26, 2008 - Apologies for missed blogging opportunities

I apologize to the small handful of visitors who follow this blog. Over the last few days, I was wrapping up several months of study and preparation to take the exams for the CSOXP certification. Yesterday, I passed the second of the two examinations with a 98%.

But, there's a never a dull moment and much has happened in the last week:

• cases like Timothy Masters not limited to Colorado. In Boston, an apparently fraudulently-convicted defendant sued the city, so hasty arrangements have been made to have him thrown out of the country. When a concerned judge questioned the temporal proximity, the City, citing Litekey v. U.S., has moved to have her thrown off the case. Read full story.



• ABA Journal, Ex-Court Exec Files Ethics Complaint Claiming Kozinski Disabled Anti-Porn Software. I wrote about this topic on October 10 (infra) and on a few other occasions.
  
  Several years ago, Kozinski wrote an open letter published in The Wall Street Journal vociferously assaulting the policy that would prevent judges and court staff from having access to inappropriate Web sites (you know, the kind of proxy-based filtering that every one of the rest of us in the real world is subject to, unless we own our own business). According to The New York Times, Mecham dropped the monitoring program because of the brouhaha, but not without stirring the pot with Kozinski. Mecham told The New York Times that Kozinski was ”advocating his passionate views that judges are free, undetected, to download pornography and Napster music on government computers in federal court buildings on government time even though some of the downloading may constitute felonies.” He also said Judge Kozinski had shown ”great interest in keeping pornography available to judges.”
  
  Kozinski had argued ”I don’t think we need bureaucrats in Washington looking over our shoulders for this kind of thing.” Sure you don't. As usual, the judiciary believes that it is above the standards of accountability that the rest of us are held to.
  
  Speaking of Sarbanes-Oxley (above), under a chapter sub-heading denominated Integrity and Ethical Values,¹ one paragraph reads:

  Removal or reduction of incentives and temptations. Individuals may engage in dishonest, illegal, or unethical acts simply because the owner-manager gives them strong incentives or temptations to do so. Removing or reducing these incentives and temptations can go a long way toward diminishing undesirable behavior.
  
  Temptations for employees to engage in improper practices include:

  • Nonexistent or ineffective controls, such as poor segregation of duties in sensitive areas, that offer temptations to steal or conceal questionable financial reporting practices
  • Senior management that is unaware of actions taken by employees
  • Penalties for improper behavior that are insignificant or unpublicized and thus lose their value as deterrents

  Quite frankly, judges have no business or expertise controlling the IT infrastructure. "Separation of duties is an important requirement for corporate governance. Some level of separation of duties should be mandatory at all companies, because self-monitoring introduces the possibility of no monitoring." ²



• Washington State Supreme Court Justice exercises his right to speak his mind and stand up for what he knows to be right and wrong: Judge shouts out "You tyrant" during Mukasey speech, The Seattle Times There's a huge amount of noise over this matter, so I'm not going to publish links to every story or op/ed I can find. You can locate the same through Google News search. Based on what I've read, this judge is an upstanding guy with a strong moral compass and an inability to contain himself on occasion.



• A former Pennsylvania Superior Court judge was found guilty of federal mail-fraud and money-laundering charges, notwithstanding that a state Supreme Court justice, an Erie County Common Pleas judge, the president judge of the Pennsylvania Superior Court and other judges all rushed to aid in his defense. See also:

• Erie Times News, Former state judge faces prison term
• Erie Times News, Joyce decision shows no one above law
• Erie Times News, Greed, arrogance sink Joyce, turning judge into criminal

___________________________
¹ Michael Ramos, How to Comply with Sarbanes-Oxley, Section 404: Accessing the Effectiveness of Internal Control, (John Wiley & Sons) 2006 at 43.
² Sanjay Anand, Guide for Finance and Information Technology Professionals, 2d ed. (Wiley & Sons) 2006 at 144.

Nov. 23, 2008 - KnowYourCOurts.com exclusive - Intimate portrait of a child-and-family-investigator

This is part II of a multi-part series profiling Colorado attorney child-and-family-investigator Madeline Elizabeth Wilson. ¹

KnowYourCourts.com blogger Sean Harrington --affectionately nicknamed "Psycho" by attorney CFI Madeline Wilson-- filed certain complaints against her with the State Bar of Texas Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel and in Texas district court, claiming that Wilson aided and abetted the concealment of his daughter and provided mother with legal advice in Texas (from Colorado) in the furtherance thereof. A nearly identical suit against an attorney was won right here in Denver by a pro se father, Rick Hall in Hall v. Hall-Stradley, 13 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1108 (Colo. Dist. Ct. 1986, Case No. 84-CV-2865).

Wilson, thus far, has effortlessly deflected these charges through a brilliant and time-proven legal strategy: the use of evasive or misleading statements (lying).

For example, in her November 14, 2007 statement to the Texas State Bar she wrote:

In no way did I "aid or abet" the mother in "concealment" of the child, as alleged by the Complainant once again in his grievance . . . I do not have my client's physical address. We communicate primarily by e-mail.

Yet, on mother's computer, a printer-spool file was found notifying Wilson just days after her arrival in Texas:

January 4, 2005 Madeline Wilson 501 S. Cherry St., Suite 610 Denver, CO 80246 Dear Madeline, I just wanted to write and update you on things here. We are in Texas now, staying with my mom to help take care of her. My mailing address here is P.O. Box 707, Decatur, TX 76234. However, if you have to include my address on anything sent to Sean, please continue to use the post office box address in Arvada. I am having everything forwarded to me here. If anything is urgent you can e-mail at the same address or call (940) 626-4978. I have been unemployed for approximately one month and cannot work until my nursing license is endorsed by the state of Texas. Although I initiated the process back in November, everything is still pending. I am sending a reduced payment of $10.00 and will continue to do so each month until I am employed. I am hoping to return to work imminently. The tax form you sent to me has been signed and returned. You may have received it by now. Also, I was not served any papers for court before leaving Colorado. I think that's everything. Please call me if you have questions. Sincerely, Christy Ryan
Times New Roman
HP DeskJet 640C Series #2
winspool

In her Answer to the State Bar of Texas, Wilson also stated:

I do not know what he is writing about regarding providing advice to a former client in Texas and concerning conduct and transactions in Texas. The only time I practiced in Texas was as a third-year bar student with St. Mary's University Poverty Law Clinic. I can only assume he is guessing I am providing legal advice to his former wife regarding the Texas case. Ms. Ryan is represented by counsel in Texas and I am not current on Texas Family Law and would not feel comfortable providing such advice. People often attempt to hire me to handle Colorado-Texas cases and I always refer them to others as I practice and stay current in Colorado.

Similarly, in this September 24, 2008 Affidavit, Wilson testified under oath:

I have not represented any Texas residents in litigation or transactions in the State of Texas . . . All of my actions undertaken in Ms. Ryan's representation occurred in Colorado.

And the October 6, 2008 brief to which the Affidavit was attached, states:

The allegations against Ms. Wilson relate solely to Ms. Wilson's representation of Ms. Ryan in and child custody proceeding -- all of which took place in Colorado, not Texas.

Yet, in this March 7, 2005 email, Wilson advised the mother (residing in Texas):

Sean, as Shelby's father, is entitled to all of the information he is requesting. The only thing I can think of for you to avoid it is to file for a restraining order in Texas. You are going to have to get him served which has been a problem for quite some time, but telling the Judge/Magistrate things like he has threatened to kill himself, how he threw the stuff in the front yard way back when [December, 1999] and that he has asked shelby if he wants him to kidnap her are all good things along with some of the pleadings he has sent that are threatening. You can tell them you "escaped" to Texas and he has lost all parenting time but that he has somehow stalked you to TX and you fear for life and Shelby's if all of that is true.

in another March 7, 2005 email, Wilson clarified:

Your restraining order needs to prevent Sean from having any contact with the school or the school from having to release any records. Tell them you fear he is going to locate you through the school records.

And in another March 7, 2005 email, Wilson wrote:

I think you should get a restraining order based on him faxing the school and all the things that happened before that. I wouldn't leave out the kidnapping threat and that now that he has found her you think he will that you need a protection order to give to the school so no one can pick her up but you. Give the school pictures of Sean AND his wife. I will have a better idea when I know how he found her school location if you know. Get the Restraining Order, ask for the longest possible time to serve him, I can recommend a process server where he is. Look at Dr. Fyfe's bill, it has Sean's physical address in St. Paul if I am not mistaken.

And in this March 14, 2005 email exchange, mother asked "would the [Texas] school still be required to release information i[f] Shelby was withdrawn?" to which Wilson answered, "I thought the information had already been released, oh, without your address. That is a School Law issue and I do family law."

And in this June 10, 2005 email, Wilson wrote:

I cannot advise you to avoid the phone contact as he would likely file contempt against you. I would monitor her phone calls, meaning be on the other line and take notes of what he says and, if he says anything inappropriate, you might request a restraining order. You can try the Texas restraining/protective order request again if you are feeling lucky, but it sounded hard from what you told me [Texas attorney] Marilyn [Belew] said.

In fact, a September 2001 special advocate report written by Natalie Van Note in case No. 99DR3717 (district court, Jefferson County, Marriage of Harrington) states:

It is this advocate’s observation that the restraining order has been used as a tool to effectively eliminate contact between father and daughter. The restraining order has been relied upon by Ms. Ryan and her attorney [Ms. Wilson] to create the illusion that Mr. Harrington is somehow dangerous to Shelby, when, in fact, this is not the case . . . restraining orders . . . have been used as a political tool to eliminate Mr. Harrington from his daughter’s life . . . [and they] . . . are a guise to retaliate against Mr. Harrington.

As the evidence reveals, nothing has changed in the strategy used by mother and her attorney during these last nine years, even after they were exposed.

If Wilson (or her attorney[s]) follow this blog, she just got herself a head start on contriving an explanation for Judge Jack Berryhill (district court, Jefferson County), Judge John Fostel (district court, Wise County), the attorney disciplinary agencies of both states and, possibly, in defense of a criminal charge of perjury in Texas (or in Colorado, where the Affidavit was executed).

________________________
¹ Part I was published Nov. 20^th 2008, infra.

Nov. 23, 2008 - Hoffman scandal makes front page news in The Gazette

Dennis Huspeni (The Colorado Springs Gazette) featured a story that ran on the front page, today, concerning Mark Hoffman (See our previous coverage in numerous entries infra). KnowYourCourts.com is mentioned.

Huspeni reports that, "A number of attorneys and judges [acted] surprised to learn Hoffman is not a licensed psychologist." If so, it's worth asking why did Magistrate Erler intervene in an all-out effort to prevent an investigation into Hoffman?

We've documented these chummy relationships here for some time, including, e.g., Judge Jane Tidball exceeding her jurisdiction on numerous occasions to help out fellow board member, CFI Bill J. Fyfe, and Judge Ken Barnhill devoting pages and pages in court transcripts detailing his praise and close relationship to CFI Tom Meehan and Judge Phil Roan's arrant adulation of  custody evaluator Kate McNamara (click here).

This story was also covered last week by Alan Prendergast (The Westword) in a blog entry entitled, KnowYourCourts busts a rogue shrink.

-- Sean Harrington

Nov. 21, 2008 - KnowYourCOurts.com exclusive - Nottingham's counsel requests and receives an extension until Dec. 8, 2008 to file Answer in attorney disciplinary proceeding styled "08-01164 Harrington v. Nottingham."

Click here.

You know, you gotta feel bad for Nottingham: I mean, the federal judicial gig is practically irrevocable, yet, they didn't appoint for him a three-judge team to oversee his "restoration," such as was provided to former megachurch pastor Ted Haggard (click here).

Haggard's three-pastor team was appointed to assess his spiritual, emotional and mental condition and requiring Haggard to acknowledge any addictions, come to an honest understanding of his sexuality and go through hours of counseling, Bible study, prayer and frank talks each week.  After some research, this author has determined that the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts does not have such a program, currently.

Well, that's probably okay. Reportedly, Haggard bailed from the "restoration" process, anyway, and has recently reappeared on the scene, to the sharp remonstrance of the restoration team.  Like my very favorite actor televangelist Bob Tilton, you can probably expect to see Haggard appearing on a cable program on your network soon.

Nov. 20, 2008 - KnowYourCOurts.com exclusive - Attorney-CFI tried to use her client to have KnowYourCourts.com founder "jailed and fined or both."

This is part I of a multi-part series profiling Colorado attorney child-and-family-investigator Madeline Elizabeth Wilson.

KnowYourCOurts.com has just obtained direct proof that Attorney child and family investigator (CFI) Madeline Wilson attempted to use her client --who was concealing a minor child in Texas-- to have the father, KnowYourCourts.com blogger, Sean Harrington, "jailed and fined or both."

The evidence is an email from Wilson to her client, Harrington's ex-wife, begging her permission to file a contempt Motion in her name, for the purpose of going after Harrington.  "Sean has really 'asked for it' by involving my children.¹ I need your permission to file this Motion for Contempt," Wilson wrote, assuring that the client would not be charged for any aspect of the personal vendetta. "[Y]ou would have to testify as to his contemptuous ways - I would prepare you, as usual . . . it will be easy as pie," Wilson wrote.

Her email included a communiqué sent to another attorney, Randy Dement, from whom Wilson was obtaining legal advice. In this email, she wrote, "I would like to hit a home run," but admitted that there was a conflict of interest because she was pursuing a personal matter under the guise of her client's case.²

It should come as no surprise. As Alan Prendergast (The Westword) recently conjectured, a handful of small-time attorneys are somewhat unhappy with Harrington. Moreover, I think we've established this is par-for-the-course for Colorado's divorce industry experts, who are relied upon by our courts to determine the placement and best interests of our children. As we've documented in our July 10, 2008 entry here, the Brodbecks went after Gordon Stadnyck for his role in exposing them. Stadnyck narrowly escaped jail time thanks to a plea deal brokered by his attorney, David Lane.

If you're wondering if the reason this woman is still practicing is because no one has filed a complaint, you'd be mistaken. Click here to see how our state's Attorney Deregulation Council has protected Wilson for years.

Harrington has filed cases in federal court and in Texas against the mother for unlawfully concealing his daughter from him for years and against her Colorado attorney, Wilson, for aiding and abetting in the concealment.

The federal case was thrown out by former judge, Edward Nottingham ostensibly because reading Harrington's briefs "would require the abandonment of all other cases." (Actually, we now have cause to believe that it would have required the abandonment of his alleged one-handed Internet surfing activities (click here)). The case in Texas remains pending.

______________________

¹ Wilson was referring to this facsimile sent by Harrington. She later told the St. Paul (MN) Police Department, the U.S. Postal Inspector, the Worcester County (MA) Sheriff Department and John Gleason (Attorney Regulation Counsel that this document constituted a death threat to her and her children. She also told the State Bar of Texas Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, "As a result of Mr. Harrington's threats, I have encouraged my children to change their names and move out of state" (click here).
² Wilson has formalized this unprecedented legal posture, by hiring another attorney, Brett Huff, to represent her in the  client's divorce case.

Nov. 18, 2008 - KnowYourCOurts.com exclusive - Bogus psychologist suspended and disciplined based on information posted on KnowYourCourts.com

Based substantially on information provided to and posted on KnowYourCourts.com, Mark. H. Hoffman has been suspended from the practice of psychotherapy and must submit himself to both a practice evaluation and mental status evaluation.

As part of the stipulated discipline, Hoffman admitted --as he must-- that he:

• acted outside the scope of a court order directing him to perform custody evaluation functions and provided substandard psychotherapy



• shared confidential information concerning at least three other clients



• breached professional boundaries while providing substandard psychotherapy by engaging in friendships and activities with clients that were outside the scope of his court ordered custody evaluator role



• used misleading advertising that involved the use of a protected title by advertising in The Colorado Lawyer as a "forensic psychologist."

Many of these activities were discovered and reported exclusively by KnowYourCourts.com staff and contributors.

Incidentally, this is the same guy that a Colorado magistrate, Robert Erler, defended and attempted to shield from disciplinary investigation.

Nov. 17, 2008 - Colorado blogs exposing "corruption" draw fire

The Fort Collins Coloradoan is running a story today about three boys "upset with the Larimer County justice system" who have created a Web site to air their grievances. As an example of Larimer County corruption, see this complaint submitted by an out-of-state attorney and hosted here on KnowYourCourts.com concerning the local divorce industry cabal.

The Coloradoan opines, "While claims of judicial unfairness are nothing new, the Web site is an example of how easily it's become to broadcast such claims," echoing similar sentiments by CBS4News that "[Ken] Smith and others have an ongoing crusade, using Internet web sites, against alleged misconduct by judges" (click here).

In an email sent to KnowYourCourts.com last week, the President of the Colorado Association of Psychotherapists expressed his disapproval of the same:

Clients can become unhappy because they did not achieve the results from therapy they had hoped for. Divorces can be ugly matters, especially if children are involved. Sometimes clients are unwilling to accept that and make accusations against their therapist or counselor. Sometimes they embark on a campaign to discredit the therapist or counselor. The Court of Public Opinion is an inappropraite [sic.] venue in which to air their complant [sic.]. Email campaigns, blogs, chat rooms, social networking sites, and other web sites are also inappropriate venues from which to do so.

Frankly, I find it disquieting that The Colaradoan included the subjective statement in the article. Judges are keenly offended by criticism in any media. See, e.g., Russ Bleemer, Judges told to ignore rights in abuse TROs, 140 N.J.L.Rev. 281, 294-95 (1995) (judge discussing judiciary's collective fear of being "tomorrow's headlines"); Adam Liptak, A bit of thin skeen peeks out of the robes, The New York Times (May 7, 2007) ("lately, more and more, they seem to be saying their work should be above criticism"); Tony Mauro, Press Frets as More Judges Sue for Libel, Law.com (June 22, 2007).

It's no secret that judges perceive the "New Media" as a threat. See, e.g., Natalie O'Neill, Blogger Rumpole Ruffles the Courts, The Miami New Times (August 12, 2008) ("Miami's criminal courthouse is abuzz with talk of a mysterious, irreverent blogger called Rumpole, an anonymous watchdog — and also a public defender — who keeps tabs on the justice system from the inside . . . [lawyer] blogger Sean Conway understands why Rumpole wants to stay on the down-low. A Florida Bar committee recommended [Conway] be reprimanded for writing that Circuit Judge Cheryl Aleman is an 'evil, unfair witch.' . . .'‘it's disappointing that lawyers feel they have to blog anonymously,’ he says. ‘But the bar is waiting to shoot them down with snipers.")); Mark Cohen, "Judges wary of the 'unshaven blogger'" (Minnesota Lawyer Blog 02/26/2008) ("[T]he pernicious blogger...has struck fear deep into the hearts of some of the state's judiciary. One of the judges' concerns I have heard raised about cameras in the courtroom is the specter of the 'unshaven blogger' coming in with cell phone camera at the ready. Apparently the judges are worried about being made to look sinister or downright ridiculous by a slip of the tongue or out-of-context snippet of dialogue winding up as a video posted on a blog or YouTube"); Jordana Mishory, "Some Fla. Criminal Defense Lawyers Take Aim at Beleaguered Judiciary Via Web Log" Law.com (May 11, 2007) ("The Web site has angered many Broward judges and lawyers. Last week at a news conference, Broward Chief Judge Dale Ross blamed the blog's organizers for trying to 'undermine' the judiciary"").

And, a few months ago, Denver's U.S. attorney issued his assault in the Perspective section of The Denver Post, complaining about “faceless bloggers, who observe no known code of ethics.”

Attempts by judges to silence dissent has not gone unnoticed: According to an exposé by Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D., "Many people have trouble believing harrowing tales of human rights abuses now taking place in American family courts and wonder why, if they are true, we do not hear more about it. Perhaps because in many jurisdictions it is a crime to criticize family court judges or otherwise discuss family law cases publicly. In other words, censorship works." Baskerville alleges the following:

• In March of 2006, Kevin Thompson received an order prohibiting distribution of his book, Exposing the Corruption in the Massachusetts Family Courts. Read Fox News coverage. The judge also impounded the records of Thompson's custody case, reinforcing the secrecy in which family courts (including those in Colorado) often operate.



• Phillip Dean was jailed for placing signs and placards in his yard, which criticized an Alabama divorce judge and stated, "Our Courts are a Joke."  The incensed judge's order stated, in pertinent part:

  the Court finding that the signs are of such a disparaging nature as to constitute direct contempt of court, it is ORDERED that the Sheriff of Jackson County arrest the defendant . . . Following his arrest, the defendant shall not be entitled to bond.

  Read the Associated Press story or The Huntsville Times story.



• Alice Tulanowksi of New Brunswick, New Jersey, was placed under a gag rule in 2000, though judges and the New Jersey Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts were left "free to discuss the intimate details of Alice's case" in public.



• Stan Rains of Victoria, Texas, in 2001 was gagged "from speaking, writing, or publishing his opinions" about why he was cut off from his daughter for more than two years, according to court documents. The order covers private conversations and discussions with mental health professionals and his minister. Issued with no evidentiary hearing, the order followed an article Rains published in Fathering Magazine. Rains was also prohibited from criticizing a city council candidate who was a divorce lawyer. The order precluded Rains from photographing death threats written on his mother's car.



• The former husband of singer Wynonna Judd was arrested and jailed for talking to reporters about his divorce.



• A California judge shut down the Web site of "The Committee to Expose Dishonest and Incompetent Attorneys and Judges" in 2001. Read The Toledo Blade article An archived copy of the site may be available here. David Palmer was later exonerated of charges that the Web site constituted the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). Read the USA Today article



• In 2005, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott formally asked a federal court to punish Charles Edward Lincoln, for criticizing the state's family courts. Abbott termed the criticism, which consisted in filing some court papers, "bloodless terrorism."

Here in Colorado, KnowYourCOURTS.com has received reports from several parties alleging that judges have either retaliated for talking about the divorce case or the judge or have been ordered to take down a Web site:

• One contributor, who has asked us to maintain his anonymity because of his pending custody case, informed us that he was threatened or intimidated by a family judge in relation to his Web sites, http://bigdogtk.blogspot.com and www.edbudd.150m.com



• Another contributor, who also asked not to reveal her name out of fear of retaliation by Judge Roxanne Bailin, sent us an email, where she alleged that Bailin had ordered her to remove her Web site ( http://infaithsname.com), which was critical of the judge and Bill J. Fyfe. She also alleged that Fyfe initiated that the Boulder district court case be sealed, so that no one could learn what had transpired in that case.



• All of the trial exhibits in Bizub v. Paterson (district court, El Paso County) concerning allegations against Marlene Bizub, which should fall under SLAPP jurisprudence, have been sealed. Although the order states that the parties agreed on this, Ms. Paterson recently told KnowYourCourts.com that she had not knowledge of and did not authorize her attorney, Maria Sinel, to enter into any such stipulation.

Nov. 14, 2008 - MGM Mirage CEO Resigns Amid Questions about M.B.A.

Those of you who follow this blog already know why this story is relevant.

According to The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), Chairman and Chief Executive, J. Terrence Lanni, "one of the gambling industries most powerful figures," resigned amid questions about his academic credentials raised by WSJ.

A corporate biography of Lanni on MGM Mirage's Web site indicated that Lannio holds an MBA in finance from the Univ. of Southern California. USC officials, responding to an inquiry from WSJ, told the company that it had no record that Lanni had earned a master's degree in business administration from the school. As recently as yesterday, company officials said Lanni had earned the degree. But USC disagrees. "No [MBA] degree was conferred."

In apparent mitigation, Lanni said he took a series of classes toward an MBA, but didn't finish because he went to work, instead. But, he said he was awarded an honorary MBA from USC sometime in the 1970's.

The WSJ quoted a USC spokesman as saying, "The official records of the university of honorary degree recipients show that the last honorary MBA that we've awarded was in 1933 -- that we've only awarded five [5] in our history."

Nov. 13, 2008 - President of Colorado Association of Psychotherapists (CAP) lashes out at accuser for identifying individual falsely claiming CAP membership

In response to an inquiry I placed with CAP regarding the blog entry posted yesterday, I received an email from Ed Robb, which I've posted hereinbelow in its entirety with some bold-emphasis added. My comments and analysis immediately follow it.

I'm assuming you are in some way acquainted with Brian Kinney. I don't know what experiences Brian may have had in Colorado, with the Boulder Court system, or with Steven Gimple [sic]. If he feels he was ill-served by any or all of them, he needs to avail himself of the various avenues open to him, whether it be filing a complaint with the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, agencies in Boulder, or the Colorado Attorney General's office, or seeking personal legal representation.

I have no doubt that there are individuals misrepresenting their credentials in Colorado as well as in all states. The media commonly reports that. That's as old as mankind. Lawyers, law students, roofing contractors, physicians, therapists, contractors, you name them, all have been caught falsely representing their education, experience, and training, and when they have, the legal system has dealt with them. And it is the legal system that must deal with them.

The Colorado Association of Psychotherapists (CAP) is an organization of like-minded people with the purpose of ensuring that the legal environment in Colorado continues to allow us the right to practice. We don't provide accreditation or licensing of our members, and while claiming to be a CAP member when one is not is dishonest, it is not falsely representing one's education or training.

If we receive a request from DORA, the Attorney General's office, or other credible legal authority regarding the misuse of CAP membership we respond to them. We have not received any such request nor received any information from those agencies that anyone, especially Mr. Gimpel, has claimed false membership in CAP. As we have not received any such information, we have no reason to believe Mr. Gimpel has falsely claimed membership in CAP nor any of his education, training, or experience. If he has, it is an issue between the State of Colorado and Mr. Gimpel.

CAP cannot, and will not, be a party to any of Brian Kinney's activities, whether directly or indirectly. His disagreement with Mr. Gimpel is between himself and Mr. Gimpel.

As I explained to Ed, I am not acquainted with Brian Kenny. I've never met him, in fact. However, I can certainly understand why Robb would suggest that Kenny, who had the arrant audacity to question Gimpel's credentials, should pursue any one of the "various avenues open to him," such as taking his grievance to DoRA. This is because Robb knows that DoRA won't and can't do anything with it:

Colorado mental health professionals serving in some court-appointed roles are generally seen as being exempt from grievances. This relates to a provision in the mental health statute (C.R.S. §§ 12-43-101, et seq.) that states: "The provisions of this article shall not apply to mental health professionals acting within the scope of a court appointment to undertake custodial evaluations in domestic relations cases in the courts of this state or to mental health professionals acting within the scope of a court appointment to undertake domestic and child abuse evaluations for purposes of legal proceedings in the courts of this state."

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) at § A1.7.6

I can also understand why Mr. Robb suggests that complainants should take up grievances with the courts (which --as Robb omits-- is his domain). As we've amply revealed on this site, judges not only conceal such allegations,¹ they even resort to writing memoranda in defense of psychologists who have been accused of misrepresenting credentials (see, e.g., recent memo of 4th J.D. magistrate Rob't Erler in re Mark H. Hoffman, alleged Ph.D.)²

Next, Robb explains that his organization exists to preserve the "right to practice." Someone forgot to tell Robb that the practice of psychotherapy, medicine, psychiatry, law and psychology is not a "right" but a privilege in this state, just like a license to operate an automobile upon the public byways.

Finally, amidst all the vitriol directed toward the complainant (Brian Kenny), Ed Robb posits that claiming to be a CAP member is, indeed, dishonest, but it is not the same as falsely representing one's education or training. Well, that's comforting: Apparently, it's okay for a divorce industry expert --the credibility of whom the placement and future of children is based in our courts of law-- to be dishonest, so long as the dishonesty doesn't concern the expert's education or training. Sounds a lot like this pronouncement from DoRA, exclaiming that "the terms 'Ph.D.' or 'doctor' are not protected terms in Colorado. While it is unethical to make representations to the public that you are a Ph.D. or doctor if you graduate from a college or university that is non-accredited, it is not illegal unless the representations you make are false."

So, I want to get this straight: As an expert witness, I can be dishonest in my proffered curriculum vitae and Rule 26 disclosures, so long as I don't misrepresent my education and training. And, if I do decide to be unethical with respect to my education and training, I need only avoid "protected terms" and make certain that my assertions are technically true?

I'm just asking, here . . . because I've always wanted to be called "Doctor," and, so, if it's okay for me to be awarded a doctorate by a diploma mill or a friend who's proficient with PhotoShop,^TM I'd like to do so. I feel better now, knowing that it's legal.

______________________
¹ "Concealment" is usually affected with the good ol' DENIED rubber ink stamp. The Motions are never discovered, because domestic relations cases are now off limits to the public.
² I write "alleged Ph.D." because, in light of recent stories posted here on KnowYourCourts.com, it's becoming increasingly difficult to discern whether a divorce industry expert's purported Ph.D. was legitimately issued by an accredited institution. Until established with clear and convincing evidence, Ph.D.s should be characterized as "alleged."

Nov. 13, 2008 - "retire, resign or be removed from the bench"

Those are the choices for a judge who: (a) engages in misconduct; and (b) is closely scrutinized by the media. Both of these elements must be present. See e.g., Tony Kavaleski's investigation into Colorado judges who were caught falsifying affidavits. Judges Arends and Martinez quietly disappeared from the scene shortly thereafter, presumably retired (and, thus, rewarded with taxpayer-funded pension).

By the way, in my line of work and --for that matter-- most private and public sector jobs, only the first element (a) need be present to be terminated forthwith. Little or no "procedural due process" or "full and fair opportunity to litigate" and the like is afforded.

But, the juristocracy is held to a much lower standard. Last year, The Rocky Mountain News shed light on the fact that "in 41 years, the commission has never recommended to the state Supreme Court that a judge be removed because of misconduct. Instead, judges often choose to retire or resign when there's an investigation pending against them. Once judges leave, the commission loses its power to discipline them, and the record of their misconduct remains private."

Last week, a woman emailed me:

My ex-husband is politically connected and has lots of money and that's the real reason I can't see my kids. He paid Judge Bromley but it cost her her job. She retired in July 2007 to avoid an investigation of taking bribes. I know it's true because I am the one that filed a report with the FBI.

And so today, we learn of another judge putting the "ho" in "Your Honor.":¹ Former New Jersey municipal judge Richard Sasso was told that he needed to "retire, resign or be removed from the bench" because of reports that Sasso refused to provide his driver's license to run a tab at a "Go-Go bar" last year, then tried to pull rank by citing his judicial status and threatening to make problems for the manager. Sasso reportedly then refused a request to leave the bar, was physically removed and called the police chief of a town in which he routinely heard cases for a ride home, according to a seven-count complaint filed with the state's Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct.

Full article text

_____________________________
¹ Hat-tip to the David Lat of Above the Law blog for the phrase.

Nov. 13, 2008 - Fellow jurists defend judge charged with faking injury

If you've been following this polemic-blog for a while, the title of this entry (actually, the title of a Pittsburg Post Gazette article, upon which this epitome is based) shouldn't surprise you.

Former Pennsylvania Superior Court judge, Michael T. Joyce, is charged with money laundering and mail fraud, alleging that he was never really injured and continued to scuba dive, inline skate and play golf after a low-speed car accident in 2001.

Nevertheless, a state Supreme Court justice, an Erie County Common Pleas judge, the president judge of the Pennsylvania Superior Court and other judges testified that they observed the former judge grimacing in pain following the accident.

You know, I am often observed grimacing in pain while reading articles like these, but I'm still waiting for my $440K payout.

Further reading:

Fellow jurists defend judge charged with faking injury

Judges testify in colleague's fraud trial

Nov. 13, 2008 - New York lawyer blasts Colorado judge in formal complaint

Peter Lomtevas, an attorney from New York, filed a formal complaint with Chief Judge Phelps (17^th Judicial District) concerning Judge Katherine Delgado.

Lomtevas apparently was laboring under the impression that ordinary constitutional procedural due process protections are applied in domestic relations cases in Colorado. He expressed his dismay, writing, "there was no swearing in, no foundation for qualifications, no voir dire, no cross exam, no report." If he had only visited this Web site in advance, we could've saved him the surprise.¹

Lomtevas also observed that attorneys were permitted to give unsworn testimony in violation of lawyer-as-witness Rule 3.7 (also alleged on this Web page here); decisions about parental fitness were being based upon whether mother had paid a divorce industry expert (DIE) (also alleged on this Web page here); the judge testified from the bench; the judge advocated advocated for one of the parties; and the judge offered psychological analysis from the bench. Lomtevas noted that the judge berated him for writing "'motions' [that] make no sense." According to Lomtevas, Delgado bellowed, "You need to use Colorado legal terms, not New York legal terms," explaining that she does not have time to go to New York law books to figure out what Lomtevas was writing.

Lomtevas has just arrived at a conclusion that a number of other attorneys have arrived at in perceiving Colorado courts, like those of Nevada and a handful of other states, as suggestive of "The Wild, Wild West." Lesson #1 in these courts: Don't proceed pro se no matter how much you know the law, because you will be disallowed from prevailing for that reason alone. Lesson #2: If you're an out-of-state attorney, you (and your client) will be disparately treated, depending on the judge; and #3, stop using New York expert Monty Weinstein in Colorado cases. It didn't help in Marriage of Samora or in Stadnyck v. Trimbath. Here in Colorado, judges are part of the local and systemically symbiotic divorce industry.

Also, nobody told Lomtevas that chief judges in Colorado have no real disciplinary authority over district judges; the authority is administrative in nature, not unlike the relationship between the chief judge of a federal court and its district judges. So, Lomtevas would be lucky if he received any response. Of course, he could always waste another hour of his client's money by filing a formal complaint with Colorado's Commission for the Abolition of Judicial Discipline and obtain the same outcome.

Finally, nobody filled in Lomtevas about how business is done in the Adams County court system.

---

11/14/2008 update: I stand corrected about Monty Weinstein, mentioned supra. It has been called to my attention that Weinstein has helped to win at least one case here in Colorado. See Marriage of Wright (father liberated from indefinite CASA supervised visitation). Also, to my amazement, Chief Judge Phelps agreed to respond to Lomtevas' complaint  --click here (note, however, Phelps never responded to my memo in re Fyfe, distributed to the chief judges in the districts where Fyfe "practices").

---

____________________
¹ See, generally Russ Bleemer, Judges told to ignore rights in abuse TROs, 140 N.J.L.Rev. 281, 294-95 (1995) (title self explanatory); David Heleniak, The New Star Chamber, 57 Rutgers L.Rev. 3 (Spring 2005) at 1009 (discussing lack of constitutional principles present in domestic relations cases); Ronald Standler, Federal Court Jurisdiction in Family Law Cases (May 2004) (hover pointer here for excerpt (requires JavaScript)); Rinat Fried, Another Bad Day in Family Court, (hover cursor here for excerpt).

Nov. 10, 2008 - More "mendacious commentary" 

I'm thinking about renaming this blog to medaciousCommentary.com. Has a ring to it. I felt like telling Elvin Gentry, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." ¹

Gentry's quip concerned last week's article concerning his client, Ed Shockney, (accused of asserting a bogus Ph.D. and providing false academic credentials), Janet West-Watt (attorney who falsely testified in a criminal trial that she had a Ph.D. in psychology); David Kieffer (admonished by the State Grievance Board for giving false testimony about holding a faculty position) and Mark H. Hoffman (unlicensed practitioner who has been advertising in Colorado and Nebraska as a "forensic psychologist").

Today, we bring you a report concerning another Colorado divorce industry expert (DIE), Steve Gimpel.

According to a complaint filed against him with the American Psychological Association (APA)² and Colorado's Division of Regulatory Agencies, Gimpel has engaged in "fraudulent misrepresentation" by "holding himself out to the public as a Family Law Attorney & a psychologist, when --in fact-- he is neither." Complainant appears to be questioning Gimpel's profile on the Colorado Chapter of the American Family & Conciliation Courts (CCAFCC) Web site (archived here, in case it is abruptly modified after publication of this article). Gimpel is not listed with the Colorado Supreme Court as a licensed attorney (click here).

In addition, an undated copy of Gimpel's curriculum vitae indicates that he is a member of several professional organizations, including the Colorado Association of Psychotherapists (CAP). However, in a November 10, 2008 memo, CAP President Ed Robb wrote,  "Our Treasurer and our administrator checked CAP's records and found no record of Steven Gimpel." Robb concluded that, "it is unfortunate that Mr. Gimpel has indicated he is a member of CAP," and that, "by doing so, he has misrepresented . . . his membership in our association."

Complainant may also be referring to CRS 12-43-216 and 12-43-306, which provide that an unlicensed person may not refer to himself using the words “psychologist”, “psychology”, or “psychological,” except that he may call himself a “School Psychologist” if he is actively working under the authority of a school at that time. In his complaint to DoRA, complainant contends, "According to Colorado Statue [sic.] C.R.S. 6-1-707, People claiming to hold certain titles or degrees, must actually have such titles or degrees." [emphasis in the original].

11/13/2008 update:

Only one day after this article appeared, the CCAFCC revised it's profile on Gimpel. Compare the link (here) with our cached copy (here).

In response to an inquiry, KnowYourCourts.com received a reply from Ed Robb. This wil be the subject of a separate blog entry.

__________________________________
¹ Memorable quote from The Princess Bride
² In it's response, the APA contended that Gimpel is not an APA member and, therefore, has not "jurisdiction" over him. Even if it did, we have already established that the APA ethics board is a sophistic illusion (click here).

Nov. 7, 2008 - Where discretion lies, does the Rule of Law leave room for mercy and compassion?

A quality of justice
A quantity of light
A particle of mercy
Makes the color of right

Gravity and distance
Change the passage of light
Gravity and distance
Change the color of right

I spend a great deal of time reading decisions. On occasion, these decisions invoke sentiments of outrage, laughter or, rarely, great sorrow.

For example, I recall a decision written by former judge Nottingham in Adams v. Warren Analytical Laboratory, a premises liability and nuisance attraction case. The factual background was that a grandmother who worked at Warren brought her two granddaughters, ages 1 and 5, to work with her because her daughter was in the hospital. In the mere blink of an eye, the 5-year-old's hand became caught in a meat grinder resulting in injuries that required amputation just below her elbow.

Any readers here have small children at home? Then you know the feeling in my gut as I was reading this. Not caring how the case turned out (I stopped reading at that point), all I could think about was that child's horrifying moments and hours and days and how it must have affected her life. These thoughts invariably lead me to think of the children in Iraq and other war-torn countries who, not only are missing limbs, but have lost one or both parents and siblings.

I had a similar feeling today, while reading today's Tenth Circuit decision in Wei v. Mukasey. This was a case where a Chinese citizen, who neglected to submit her asylum application timely, was denied the opportunity to reopen her asylum proceedings by reason of technical procedural defect. More importantly, the Tenth Circuit, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard, could have found in her favor without violating the Rule of Law and creating unwelcome precedents that invite abuse. Additionally, this could have been accomplished through an unpublished decision. Instead, the Circuit court elected to publish this decision, seemingly heralding the lack of humanity.

In effect, Mrs. Wei, who had her fourth American-born child in January of 2007, has been ordered deported back to China, where guaranteed forced sterilization will be awaiting her. If she had not filed this latest petition, perhaps she may have been deported where forced abortion (murder of her American-born unborn child) would have awaited her, according to the family-planning policy of her home-province and memoranda that Chinese officials had mailed to her mother in China, concerning Mrs. Wei's particular situation. Wei's asylum petition was based on 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), which provides, in pertinent part, that “[A] person who has a well founded fear that . . . she will be forced to undergo” an abortion or sterilization “shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.” Apparently, the lower tribunal's decision rested solely on the fact that Wei's first petition for asylum was untimely and its rejected her production of new documents and evidence demonstrating that Chinese officials intended to sterilize her and abort her American-conceived unborn child upon arrival in China.

Without regard to Mrs. Wei's agenda or the reasons for her dilatory application (it may well have been that she couldn't find an attorney willing to take her case at the time or that she was simply unaware of the procedural rules), it is fortunate that her fourth child is born and no longer in immediate danger of death. However, one of the consequences of this decision is that four small children, including one that is probably still nursing, will be abandoned by their mother as a result of her impending deportation.

We don't expect judges to violate the Rule of Law, the antithesis of this Web site's stated platitude, but is it too much to expect that discretion could be exercised with compassion and mercy and to serve pragmatic ends that are "in the interests of justice"?

As a blogger who often analyzes judicial misconduct matters --and especially when reading through Chief Judge Henry's Orders of Dismissal of every one of scores of misconduct complaints that are filed-- it is wondrous to see how flexible is the discretion¹ judges exercise to interpret the facts and the inferences to be drawn therefrom when defending the judiciary's immunities and exonerating fellow judges and, yet, how that discretion is lacking when forced sterilization awaits a woman upon deportation and her children --apparently-- will grow up without a mother.

______________________________

¹ See, e.g., Monroe Freedman, 128 F.R.D. 409, 439 (1989) ("Frankly, I have had more than enough of judicial opinions that bear no relationship whatsoever to the cases that have been filed and argued before the judges. I am talking about judicial opinions that falsify the facts of the cases that have been argued, judicial opinions that make disingenuous use or omission of material authorities, judicial opinions that cover up these things with no-publication and no-citation rules") (excerpted from speech to the Seventh Annual Judicial Conference of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (May 24, 1989)); Gennaioli & Shleifer, Judicial Fact Discretion (October 2006) ("Judicial fact discretion is defined as misrepresentation in a judge's decision of facts revealed in a trial . . . judges engage in fact discretion to promote their own agenda");  Hon. Richard Posner, Judicial Behavior and Performance: An Economic Approach, 32 Fla. State Univ. L. Rev. 1259 (2005) ("one expects that personal factors —such as political or ideological concerns personal to the judge rather than embodied in the law, the kind of intellectual laziness that consists of acting on intuition rather than on analysis and evidence, and the delights of tormenting the lawyers that appear before them— will play a larger role in federal district judges’ decisions"); Mark Tushnet, Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts (1999) at 155-56 (Judges typically embrace a desired result and then select whichever theory plausibly permits them to reach that result); Karl Llewellyn, The Common Law Tradition: Deciding Appeals (1960) at 133 (discussing judges "manhandling of the facts of the pending case, or of the precedent, so as to make it falsely appear that the case in hand falls under a rule which in fact it does not fit, or especially that it falls outside of a rule which would lead in the instant case to a conclusion the court cannot stomach"); William L. Reynolds, Who are the Juristocrats? Guerrila Warfare Among the Courts (March, 2005) ("judges . . . manipulate the fact-finding and opinion-writing processes in various ways . . . they twist or thwart the controlling authority in order to reach the desired result."); Hon. Terry Lewis, "Judicial Independence, judicial accountability and activist judges", The Tallahassee Democrat, (Nov. 21, 2007) (discussing judicial conduct, "demonstrating a willingness to ignore legal precedent and principles in order to reach a desired result"); Hon. Patricia M. Wald, The Rhetoric of Results and the Results of Rhetoric: Judicial Writings, 62 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1371, 1374 (1995) ("I have seen judges purposely compromise on an unpublished decision incorporating an agreed-upon result in order to avoid a time-consuming public debate about what law controls. I have even seen wily would-be dissenters go along with a result they do not like so long as it is not elevated to a precedent").

Nov. 6, 2008 - KnowYourCourts.com receives cease-and-desist letter from subject of yesterday's article, spryly characterized as "mendacious commentary"

The following threat letter from Elvin L. Gentry has been added to the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse C&D Database:

In response to your e-mail messages [and our telephone conversation], I present the following information and observations.

For approximately ten years, [Jane Doe] has been on a malicious campaign to malign any therapist she does not like or who does not agree with her, including in particular Dr. Shockney and Marlene Bizub. Anyone who she thinks has "crossed" her becomes the target of her malevolent lies. She has become obsessed with professionally injuring these two respected professionals. (As you are probably aware, her behavior has caused her to be banned from certain judges' courts.)

As a result and at great expense, Dr. Shockney has been continuously harassed by [Jane Doe]'s officious intermeddling in affairs that are none of hers. She has arrogated unto herself authority and expertise which she does not possess. Her ongoing diatribe is full of inaccuracies and outright lies and she has often tried to support them with the same documentation, only some of which you have provided as links in your article. She has tried to besmirch his reputation with various entities including the local District Attorney, the regulatory board, the news media and in civil courts. Each time, his credentials have been examined by these entities and verified. He has been exonerated by these entities on every occasion. Apparently, you and your publication are the latest of entities which she is attempting to use to meet her malicious ends. If your "News and Comment" article is published then you will have become yet another victim of her prevarications. Of course, that is your decision to make.

Your article is replete with misleading innuendoes [sic.] and misinformation and is defamatory as well as potentially damaging to Dr. Shockney's professional career -- whether or not anyone credits it.

Having cooperated fully with the official organizations named aboved [sic.], Dr. Shockney is under no compulsion to respond again to such mendacious commentary by supplying you with information which has already been tested and not found wanting, There will be no response other than this one. You have no authority to demand to inspect his credentials and Dr. Shockney has no duty to supply them, especially for such dubiously legitimate purposes. To the extent that his refusal to supply you with such documents might then "to augment the suspicions" of others we will simply add that augmentation to any list of damages which we might choose to pursue.

You may "share this particular story" with anyone you please. If they choose to act to Dr. Shockney's detriment, we will simply add them to a list of potential defendants. You, of course, are entitled to proceed as you deem appropriate under the circumstances. We, of course, may do the same.

Regards,
Elvin L. Gentry

In response, I wrote:

Mr. Gentry:

Thank you for your letter.

I construe your letter to be a reasonably credible threat of litigation. Therefore, without waiving any objection I would have to Colorado courts exercising jurisdiction over me in the absence of minimum contacts, I note that the duty to preserve evidence attaches to both me and your client. Accordingly, I request that you send a preservation memorandum to your client to take reasonable steps to preserve all potentially relevant data.

Second, I note that your email alleges that the KnowYourCourts.com article is "replete with misleading innuendoes [sic.] and misinformation and is defamatory as well as potentially damaging to [Mr.] Shockney's professional career." However --while I am not going to show my cards at this early stage-- I note that, in accord with C.R.S. § 13-25-125 (Colorado's equivalent to a retraction statute) you have failed to identify what information is defamatory.

Indeed, all that was required was for you to furnish whatever evidentiary documents were in your client's possession to demonstrate that the information I have received was substantially false or erroneous. This certainly was not a duty or an obligation, but had you done so and I published the article, anyway, you might have had a case. However, you expressly declined to do so. Even after the article was published, you did not allege whether the evidentiary documents furnished to me had been fabricated, fraudulent or issued by the respective authors in error or as a result of some mistake. Instead, you made conclusory assertions that your client has been defamed and, ironically, you made desultory statements about a woman you believe is my confidential source and, which statements themselves may have been defamatory (e.g., "The lady --in my judgment-- is unbalanced"). Given the opinion you have of [Doe], I doubt you would want to provide her with a cause of action against you, where you have no privilege because there is yet no extant litigation.

As I trust you are aware, the "false light" tort has been expressly rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court. Further, because the article concerns a matter of public concern, your client's burden shifts to the clear-and-convincing standard and, in addition, your client must prove that the statement[s] was published with actual malice (i.e., with actual knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard for whether the statement is true). Proof that the publisher or author was negligent in ascertaining the truth of the statement is insufficient in such cases. In light of the facts more fully set forth hereinabove, I do not believe that your client can establish by the clear-and-convincing standard that I proceeded with actual malice in reporting the information that was supplied to me. Finally, there is the entire subject of reporters' privilege and the Electronic Communications Decency Act, inter alia, which would apply to this matter.

You are not the first attorney, who has threatened to sue me or the Web site or resorted to other tactics to browbeat us into self-sensorship [sic]. Although I am sure that you would appreciate the extra business, if your client decides to pursue an action against KnowYourCourts.com or me, please be aware that, unless he prevails through the appellate courts, he will be liable for the entirety of my attorney fees under § 13-17-201 and costs under § 13-16-122 and Rule 54.

In closing, if you or your client have any extrinsic credible information that would clarify the article or establish that any of the documents, assertions or alleged-innuendos contained thereon are false, please forward that to me forthwith and I will promptly update the article with clarifications. Obviously, the Web site's purpose is not furthered by providing false information to the public and we welcome opportunities to correct information that we make available.

Nov. 5, 2008 - We seem to have a false credentials problem here in Colorado - Part Deux

Does this story title sound familiar? That's because I've already written about it on October 8^th (infra) concerning People v. West-Watt (attorney who falsely testified in a criminal trial that she had a Ph.D. in psychology); David Kieffer (admonished by the State Grievance Board for giving false testimony about holding a faculty position) and Mark H. Hoffman (unlicensed practitioner who has been advertising in Colorado and Nebraska as a "forensic psychologist," that has been alleged to be in violation of C.R.S. 12-43-216 and 12-43-306).

Yesterday, more information has been called to our attention, this time concerning "Edwin A. Shockney, Ph.D., LPC" (hereinafter, "Mr. Shockney"), an individual who's worked numerous criminal and insurance cases in Colorado's state courts.

According to this undated Curriculum Vitae, Shockney claims that he:

attended Ball State University ('68-'70) for premedicine

attended Indiana University ('70-'72) for premedicine

graduated in '72 from Indiana Technical College's "School of Medical Technology"

obtained a B.A. in humanities/counseling from State University of New York (SUNY) in 1985

obtained a Masters degree from Crossroads Graduate School of Divinity in 1987

obtained a Ph.D in clinical psychology from the prestigious "Berean Christian College and Graduate School" in 1991

According to this C.R.C.P. 26 disclosure, Shockney:

obtained an A.S. from Ball State University

obtained a B.A. in humanities/counseling from Indiana University

obtained a M.A. in counseling/psychology from SUNY

In addition, Shockney's application for license to the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies Division of Registrations also attests that he obtained the Masters and doctorate degrees mentioned above. But, notice that his CV and Rule 26 disclosures don't match. For example in the former, he claims he earned a B.A. from SUNY, whereas in the latter he claims he earned a M.A. from SUNY.

To put it charitably, the following memoranda raise questions about Shockney's claimed credentials:

This memo from Ball State University establishes that Shockney attended for six months between '68 ~ '69 and earned no degree

This enrollment verification from Indiana University attests that he attended off-and-on as a part-time student between '73 - '77 and earned no degree

This memo from Indiana Tech indicates that "Mr. Shockney has never attended Indiana Tech" and "Indiana Tech has never offered a degree in Medical Technology in its history as a University."

This enrollment verification from SUNY concludes that the school's archives contain no match for "Edwin Allen Shockney" with a 10-09-1950 d.o.b. as having attended the institution or received a degree therefrom.

This memo from Crossroads College states that, "I cannot find that [Mr. Shockney] attended Crossroads College . . . at any time."

These articles of incorporation indicate that Mr. Shockney formed a Colorado non-profit corporation in 1996, named "Berean College," some five years after his claimed 1991 doctoral degree from that entity.

This memo from the Accredation Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities states, "Berean College is not accredited by the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities . . . They have not applied, and we have no information on them"

Although, it appears that Shockney hadn't obtained a M.A. (as set forth in his proffered documents), and although it also also appears that he may have formed a corporation to award himself a Ph.D., KnowYourCourts.com placed several calls to Mr. Shockney in an effort to obtain clarification. Shockney declined to return calls, but his attorney, Elvin Gentry, told KnowYourCourts.com that these matters have already been presented to the local district attorney and the state's grievance board and that his client has been cleared. When asked if he could provide evidence of Mr. Shockney's degrees and accreditations, Gentry replied, "I am not in a position to do that and even if I was, I wouldn't."

Of course, because Colorado's State Grievance Board exists to protect the public and regulate the profession, there should be nothing to worry about. Click here and search for Shockney's name to see what the Board did, when confronted with this information in 2005.

If these allegations against Shockney are true, the problem is an obvious one: According to a four-year-old list of testimonials, Shockney has participated in numerous criminal and insurance cases and, according to this Web site, "[Mr]. Shockney has testified in over 160 court proceedings as an expert witness," which --combined-- could amount to tens of millions of dollars. In addition, if true, the allegations may require a new trial under Rule 59(a) for all persons who were found guilty in part based on Shockney's testimony.

Nov. 5, 2008 - post election comment

Congratulations to Carol Chambers, a rare individual to stand up to dishonest cops and judicial sloth & incompetence, notwithstanding the negative reviews by The Post and The Rocky

Congratulations to Scott Storey

Congratulations to County Judge Archuleta. Now start cleaning out your desk, please.

Nov. 3, 2008 - After eleven month investigation, Tenth Circuit closes misconduct case against Denver federal magistrate, calling it "a close call"

However, this Order of Dismissal contains dubious findings (we've come to expect nothing less from Denver's federal judicial cabal).

In summation:

The complaint alleged, among other things, that magistrate judge, Michael J. Watanabe, was a member of and a speaker for a lobbying group, the Metropolitan Denver Interdisciplinary Committee (MDIC) of which several defendants had cases inexplicably assigned to him for dismissal.   Circuit Chief Judge Henry claims that the lobbying group described itself in its self-serving response (that we'll never have access to or an opportunity to respond to) as a "charitable group . . . [whose] primary activity is providing monthly education lunches."

Sure it is.

The following quotation from the Family Law Section Executive Council 2/13/2004 meeting minutes certainly convinces me of Henry's Columbo-like detective work:

Beth Henson mentioned that special advocates, child legal representatives, and mental health professionals are being sued for working in special advocate cases. She mentioned more than a few people who have been subjected to lawsuits. The MDIC and others are working on legislation and other ideas to try to relieve this situation. It was suggested that an immunity statute would help. The Executive Council advised Beth that, if we could help in some way, we would be glad to lend support.

In addition, Henry pointed out that non-random assignment of cases of MDIC defendants to Magistrate Watanabe doesn't concern misconduct on the part of a judge and, therefore, need not be addressed.

Finally, Chief Judge Henry noted that, because the named MDIC-member defendants suits were concluded prior to the exact date of the luncheon, no impropriety could be discerned.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that magistrate judge, Michael J. Watanabe, received compensation, including meals incident to his speaking engagement. Based on Watanabe's response (which we are not privy to) and the lobbying group's confidential response, we are to believe that, not only did he speak for free, but apparently he was the only attendee at the luncheon who did not eat.

---

Before I continue, allow me to offer some analysis of the "conspiracy" that Henry spoke of (his word; not mine). We're not talking about a collusion in the sense of labor union bosses meeting with judges in a cigar-smoke-filled back room (although certainly happens and we've gathered evidence of it). We're talking about an industry that is in systemic symbiosis with the Colorado's family courts, from which Watanabe came (Watanabe is a former state judge).

Specifically, “Judges rely extensively on the recommendations made by these appointees.” Colo. D.o.R.A. 2003 Sunset Review at 41; and see March 23, 2005 memo from 4th Judicial District magistrate Robert Erler (“The Court values the education and experience that psychologists have that makes them uniquely qualified to do custody/parenting time evaluations.”); see also Galatzer-Levy & Kraus, The Scientific Basis of Child Custody Decisions (Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1999) at 4 (“the position of the court’s supporting services is so significant, that court-appointed special masters, mental health professionals and third-party neutrals’ opinions are almost always adopted by the courts”); Elrod, Counsel for the Child in Custody Disputes: The Time is Now, 26 Fam.L.Q. 53, 59-62 (1992) (The guardian ad litem fills a void for the court. Without the guardian ad litem, the trial court has no practical means to ensure that it receives the information it needs to make informed decisions).

And, just as judges need these divorce industry experts (DIEs), DIEs rely on the courts for their livelihood. See, e.g., March 31, 2004 transcript of proceedings, testimony of DIE Marlene Bizub ("I've been a therapist for 18, almost 19, years. I've worked in the court system almost exclusively for the past five or six years").

The result of this is that we have:

DIEs calling judges at their homes on Sunday evenings (here) in violation of Standard 18 of Chief Justice Directive Standard 04-08, which provides "The special advocate shall have no private or ex parte communications with the court");

DIEs holding private or social conferences with the judge and casually discussing confidential details of the case with other judicial officers present (Click here for audio file of DIE Mark H. Hoffman)

Judges prohibiting telephone contact between a parent and his child because the parent hadn't yet paid the DIE in full (Click here (read the pages leading up to p. 138 to discern the underlying reason))

Judges violating the "law of the case" and private contracts in order to accommodate DIEs venal whims, resulting in three appeals (in one case alone) resulting in reversals. See 04CA1161, 04CA1986 and 07CA0379.

DIEs telling (or intimating to) parents that, if they want to see their kid[s] again, they'd better not challenge the DIE, because he knows every judge in the county. (Click here (id. at 1-2, n.1).

Fortunately, some mental health professionals in Colorado are not cut out to be a part of the divorce industry judicial cabal. For example, in this report, one custody evaluator is quoted at length about:

"how disenchanted she has become with the legal system . . .[which] . . . convinced her that custody litigation was not about the truth. . . although she has worked in the field of custody evaluation for 15 years, completing more than 400 evaluation and enjoying a good reputation, she elected to quit this type of work . . . she expressed disillusionment with the legal system and mental health professionals . . . because of what she perceives to have been ethical violations of the most acreages [sic.] kind. [She] stated that 'money changed hands in this case that allowed the outcome that did not reflect the best interests of these children. I can't be a part of the system that can be bought and sold.' "

---

An affidavit attached to the complaint¹ alleged, among other things, that magistrate judge, Michael J. Watanabe, pressured two non-lawyer litigants to drop their case because, "Pro se litigants NEVER win in this court." Henry wryly observed that, although this was a "closer call," it may, in any event, be a true statement. We're certain that it is. (Click here for statement by Magistrate Schlatter regarding pro se statistics in the U.S. Court for the District of Colorado).

An affidavit attached to the complaint alleged, among other things, that magistrate judge, Michael J. Watanabe, told a litigant that her claims against or about a Colorado state judge could not be true as the judge could not have engaged in the alleged conduct because he had "personally trained" her (Julie Marshall). Henry, who conceded that he must take the allegations at face value as true (see Misconduct Rule 11(b)) concluded that a contention that the "opinion demonstrated bias for the defendants . . . is both illogical and fails to demonstrate any misconduct." I guess I'm not very bright, because I'm still trying to figure out how it's illogical.

Finally, Henry concluded that allegations of conduct that is "offensive" and "insulting" does not constitute misconduct, because without more "examples" or "supporting allegations," no reasonable inference of misconduct would lie.

Yes, of course, Judge Henry, we know that findings (or, often, merely suggestions) of misconduct will only be found when a federal judge:

"attempt[s] to cause Person A to engage in contact between Person A's mouth and [the respondent judge's] penis by forcing Person A's head towards [respondent judge's] groin area"

"repeatedly commit[s] perjury by signing false financial disclosure forms under oath . . . [which] concealed the cash and things of value that he solicited and received from lawyers appearing in litigation before him [and ] denie[s] a motion to recuse based on his relationship with lawyers in the case . . . [and] . . . failed to disclose that the lawyers in question had often provided him with cash."

"may have made false statements in his initial response to the allegations regarding [inappropriate] computer use . . . [when] the Special Committee had learned from news reports of allegations that [the respondent judge] had solicited prostitutes"

Otherwise, as the former Chief Judge of the Seventh Circuit, Richard Posner, reminded us:

A federal judge can be lazy, lack judicial temperament, mistreat his staff, berate without reason the lawyers and litigants who appear before him, be reprimanded for ethical lapses, verge on or even slide into senility, be continually reversed for elementary legal mistakes, hold under advisement for years cases that could be decided perfectly well in days or weeks, leak confidential information to the press, pursue a nakedly political agenda, and misbehave in other ways that might get even a tenured civil servant or university professor fired; he will retain his office.²

__________________________________
¹ from the order: "Other misconduct claims are implicated by an attached affidavit from a third party complaining about the judge's conduct in connection with a copyright infringement case brought by the affiant." It wasn't a copyright infringement case; it was a civil rights case. Because the affiant had, however, been involved in two unrelated cases concerning infringement of her works, this demonstrates that Henry did some digging into her past or has some personal knowledge of her outside the four corners of the complaint.
² Richard A. Posner, Overcoming Law, Harvard Univ. Press, 1996 at 111.

Nov. 3, 2008 - The briefs are in to the Colo. Supreme Court on First Amendment case with potentially broad impact for anyone intent on protesting in Colorado

The case is St. John's v. Scott, et al.

Oct. 31, 2008 - Update re: Nottingham attorney discipline proceedings

After being cited by 9News, CBS4News and The Pueblo Chieftain, I have received a number of inquiries regarding the attorney disciplinary proceedings concerning the former federal chief judge Edward Nottingham.

For the record, let me make something very clear: As I have said to several journalists who've asked, I harbor no malice towards the former judge. I do not want to wake up tomorrow morning to learn that he harmed himself in some way. I do not want to read in the paper six months from now that he's been admitted to a rehab clinic for alcoholism (or whatever). Moreover, as an individual who's life has been adversely disrupted by divorce, I can understand the tumult that he may have been going through. I can also only imagine the self-disappointment and depression that may accompany being divorced three times, followed by the resignation of a prestigious office and the creation of a stained legacy all attributable to sophomoric transgressions.¹

That said, I do believe that accountability is required by the Rule of Law. Equally as important as accountability is that those who are licensed to practice law must be held to the Rules of Professional Conduct (by our specious Attorney Deregulation Council) in the interest of promoting respect for the legal profession (which sorely needs it) and protecting the public.

I have posted documents from the proceedings here. But, before you go off reading through those documents, I'd like to point out a few salient facts:

Louise Culberson-Smith has been designated as my OARC "handler" over the last nine years, appointed to dispose of whatever correspondence I may file, even `though I have sued both her and John Gleason. See 05-cv-01858 (D.Colo.) and 06-1418 (10th Cir.) (dismissed for lack of standing, without acknowledging my "procedural injury" arguments).

You may find it even more interesting that it was Nottingham who dismissed my case against Culberson-Smith and Gleason. Despite this obvious conflict-of-interest, Culberson-Smith continues to handle (or, rather, dispose of) every complaint that I file, which handling has been specifically approved by the Attorney Regulation Committee. See decision concerning my complaint (in re: Culberson-Smith). Indeed, I've uncovered quite a nest of cronyism there.

Culberson-Smith is particularly nasty to deal with. Check out this stream-of-consciousness memorandum sent to her just a few days ago (by a different complainant). And, on this page, I have many of her responses to several different complainants.

____________________________
¹ However, all may not be lost. Nottingham may serve as a prominent example for judges, who do not have short memories, that they perhaps ought to retain a sense of humility and respect for the office and also that their appointments are not untouchable. Nottingham might even have a future on the lecture circuit, advising judges on how to avoid self-destructive practices.

Oct. 30, 2008 - Tenth Circuit dismisses pending complaints against Nottingham but appears to confirm that he used federal court computer[s] to view pornographic Web sites and provided misleading statements during the investigation

That might explain why Nottingham claimed he didn't have time to read legal briefs, as alleged in the Harrington complaint. Nevertheless, because of Nottingham's resignation, Harrington's complaint has been dismissed, according to an order by Chief Circuit Judge Henry posted on the Tenth Circuit's Web site.

In another order, the chief judge separately dismissed all other pending claims against Nottingham. This order reveals that, based upon a computer forensics investigation, "Nottingham may have made false statements in his initial response to the allegations regarding computer use." (We have Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski to thank for this situation (click here)). The Order states that the Judicial Council has concluded that his resignation was in the interest of the judiciary.

Earlier this week, the Tenth Circuit executive mailed Harrington a Judicial Council Order affirming a partial dismissal that had been reported in the news in March. Although this latter Order appears identical to any other Order (as found on the 10th Cir. site) affirming dismissal and makes no mention of Nottingham's resignation, the Order was dated one day before his resignation became effective.

In addition to this temporal proximity, consider that --as of yesterday-- nineteen (19) complaints in 2008 have been dismissed, appealed and affirmed as dismissed. Throwing out the outliers, the average time between a dismissal and an Order affirming dismissal is forty (40) days.¹ Yet, Harrington's appeal remained pending for 232 days -- nearly six times the average. Thus, it appears highly probable that his resignation was also the reason for this dismissal (rather than the merits).²

In other news, Deborah Sherman (9News) has posted an article, Nottingham officially off the bench (although we've been referring to him as "former judge" and "Mr. Nottingham" for over a week, now. Also, an essay by law prof Carl Tobias appears today in The Denver Post, Restoring resources to the U.S. District Court (that should have been called "Restoring Integrity to the U.S. District Court") and The Louisville Courier-Journal yesterday reported Louisville native is chief federal court judge in Colorado.

¹ It's impossible to know precisely when the appeal was filed, but because it must be timely filed within thirty (30) days of the order of dismissal, that would mean the average number of days between the filing of an appeal of a dismissal and the Order affirming dismissal is less than 40 (probably more like 20 days or about three weeks).
² Otherwise, I conclude that the Judicial Council is committed to disregarding meritorious complaints concerning on-the-bench judicial misconduct and that it will always take a sex scandal and nothing less to remove a despotic tyrant from the federal bench in Denver.

Oct. 28, 2008 - Newest federal judge, Christine Arguello, "jumping right into work"

That's the title of Robert Boczkiewicz's latest piece appearing in The Pueblo Chieftain. She was sworn in Tuesday afternoon (one week ago) to little fanfare and was asked to take over a trial that former chief judge Edward Nottingham was set to start next week.

We wish Judge Arguello (pronounced Ar-Gway-Yo) the very best of luck and hope that she is able to ward off the dread disease, gavelitis, that she refrains from becoming a despotic tyrant, and that she reveres the First Amendment's Petitioning Clause guarantee of access to the court for all, without regard to station-in-life (or the federal courts' ceaseless docket problems).

Oct. 28, 2008 - Did the Office of Attorney Deregulation Council --a department of the Colorado Supreme Court-- misrepresent its purported investigation against Nottingham?

That's the question that "KnowYourCourts.com-wants-to-know" is now asking.

According to the agency's October 23, 2008 memorandum to the complainant (me), "we are in contact with the Tenth Circuit regarding this matter." That statement, construed in harmony with the agency's April 21, 2008 memorandum (stating, "This matter is subject to reopening once we receive and review the results of the 10^th Circuit's investigation") suggests the agency already has access to the Tenth Circuit's findings and conclusions or has made future arrangements for the same.

However a reliable source from within the agency has confirmed that no such channel of communication has been opened. Moreover, Victoria Parks, Deputy Circuit Executive for the Tenth Circuit confirmed to me today the state has no more access to the confidential file pursuant to Rule 23 than does any other member of the public --which is precisely none.  Thus, unless Chief Judge Henry takes the extraordinary step of releasing the findings, the OARC will have to do it's own investigation from scratch.

It seems we have multiple ironies in this ongoing saga: Not only is Nottingham now regarded by many to be on par with the defendants who shuffled through "his" courtroom over the years, but the state's most elevated office in charge of enforcing ethics rules can't avoid straying from the truth in a simple four-sentence memo.

I have more to say about our Attorney Deregulation Council on this page, where I've posted a new entry.

Oct. 27, 2008 - Law Week Colorado says new U.S. Judge "shows a calm temperament"

That's how we characterize America's juristocrats, these days: by their idiosyncrasies and whether they're show a calm temperament or whether they're a despotic tyrant.

This weeks's Law Week Colorado features an article, "New U.S. Judge Has First Days in Court: Brimmer Shows a Calm Temperament" describing Phillip Brimmer's handling of a case concerning a supervised release violation in which he imposed the maximum possible sentence in light of the convict's history of non-compliance and alleged drug use.

Oct. 27, 2008 - Nacchio and Nottingham to be cell mates?

An editorial appearing in The Denver Post and captioned, "'I' is for irony, cellmate" poses the intriguing but laughable prospect that Nacchio and Nottingham have equal chances of jail time because Nottingham could be facing "obstruction-of-justice" charges for allegedly directing a prostitute to mislead federal investigators about the nature of their relationship.

However, a reporter I spoke with last week told me that he had spoken to at least three persons from the Justice Department and that he had a clear impression that an indictment was unlikely and that they felt --within the realm of prosecutorial discretion-- that the resignation and public humiliation was sufficient.

Meanwhile, I received an uncharacteristic response from Colorado's Attorney Deregulation Council, informing me that my complaint was now pending investigation in collaboration with the Tenth Circuit (and, apparently, notwithstanding Tenth Circuit misconduct Rule 23 regarding confidentiality). The text of the memo from Louise Culberson-Smith states, in pertinent part:

[T]he Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel has reopened the above-referenced request for investigation. Please be advised that we are in contact with the Tenth Circuit regarding this matter. Consequently, we do not need any additional information from you at this time.

I'm sure that the response has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Gleason's office has received several inquiries from the media. I'm sure that all of the other responses I and others have received from the OARC over the years is because we all have a propensity for filing frivolous, groundless complaints.

Oct. 23, 2008 - "Attorney Deregulation Council to reporter: Colorado is one of the most progressive states in the country for lawyer regulation"

Evidently, a few news organizations followed up today on my pending complaint against the former judge, Ed Nottingham. See Denver9News,  The RockyMountainNews, The Westword.  When interviewed, John Gleason reportedly said:

If they are admitted in Colorado, if there is a public allegation against any lawyer, it will be investigated . . . Colorado is one of the most progressive states in the country for lawyer regulation. We take it very seriously.

What a crock of shit . . . are you reading this, Gleason? If by "progressive" you mean crafting a system to do away with meritorious complaints so as to avoid investigating, yes, it's quite progressive.

In fact, it was only after KnowYourCourts.com came along and started posting complaints and the OARC's embarrassing responses that Gleason changed his tune and began claiming that he wants "more information available to the public about lawyers who have complaints against them or are facing discipline." (Click here). I guess, if it's going to be exposed anyway, he'd rather have it exposed on his terms (rather than mine). But then, as I'll explain below, it's pretty hard for him to make such information "available to the public," when no record of such information was ever created.

Colorado's Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel --or, as I call them, the Attorney Deregulation Council-- has among the most abysmal records in the nation, according to H.A.L.T. In 1998, they revamped their system to do away with written complaints and replaced it with a call center. Why? To exhort the vast majority of complainants to go pound sand and ensure that there's no paper trial of either the complaint or the rejection. After several years, they then boasted in a self-serving "report" published in The Colorado Lawyer how remarkably efficient their process was in handling complaints and in dismissing complaints of rules violations they deemed "minor"  (discretion that Rule 251.9 does not afford, I note).

Meanwhile, Gleason has no oversight and reports to himself, as czar over a self-regulation system where lawyers are protecting lawyers but no one is protecting the public.

In fact, Gleason threatened to have me thrown in jail back in 2005 under "the contempt remedy afforded in C.R.C.P. 251.10(b)(2) and/or injunctive relief from the Colorado Supreme Court" if I filed dared to exercise my First Amendment petitioning right again. Click here and scroll down. A few days later, I filed another complaint.

The handful of folks that follow this blog and know me or know of me know that I don't draft frivolous crap. In fact, out of the fifty complaints that have been filed of, disposed of and posted on the Tenth Circuit's Web site as of today, only two (those ending in -02 and -06) remain pending, and they were both submitted by me.  I've won 3½ out of the last four appeals that I've filed in state court. Given that the usual rate of appeals is 20% reversal (30% if you're really good), I'm doing okay and have made judicious (no pun intended) selections of issues that I felt needed to be appealed. I even prevailed on a Tenth Circuit Petition for Rehearing, which are granted statistically even less that a cert. petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

With that in mind, browse through a couple of the complaints (here) I've filed against small-time divorce lawyer Madeline Wilson (esp. those filed in recent years, as I've caught more of a clue). Take note of the spurious, vitriolic and disingenuous answers contrived by Louise Culberson-Smith (affirmed by Gleason). Are these the kind of folks we want "protecting" the public and regulating the profession?

A few months ago, an attorney I respect from Centennial, Colorado wrote me:

the attorney regulation system does indeed exist in part to preserve the illusion of an ethical profession, but certainly does not protect the entire profession, and is, indeed, sometimes used as a means of punishing those who challenge the established order. Those who most greatly abuse their authority and power to advance the interests of the rich and powerful are largely immune from ethics enforcement, unless (as in the case of Eliot Spitzer) they cross the even more rich and powerful.

I have little to add.

Oct. 23, 2008 - "Colorado judges need your attention, too"

So begins this Denver Post editorial by former Colorado Supreme Court justice Rebecca Love Kourlis and, for once, I agree with her on that contention, alone. She observes:

There are 103 judges seeking retention around the state — men and women with the power and responsibility to impact our lives in crucial ways . . . As a former Colorado trial judge and member of the Supreme Court, I have a unique perspective on this issue. My name appeared on the ballot twice, and given the enormity of the authority that rests with the courts, I find it troubling that many voters may have cast their votes — either for or against me — with virtually no information.

Unfortunately, everything she writes after the foregoing quote, is specious. She asserts that all the Kool-Aid^TM information voters could possibly want is already available, "thanks to the state's robust judicial performance evaluation program," and found in "the state ballot information booklet (or Blue Book) and on the Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance Web site."

Nothing could be further from the truth, as this page exemplifies with clarity.

Moreover, how comfortable do you feel about having the State spoon-feed to you the evidentiary basis as to why you should retain nearly all of them?

The Colorado Civil Justice League just put up a cheat sheet Web site, www.ColoradoJudges.org. But, guess what? It's based on the same information that you'd find from the Judicial Performance Commissions Web site. My review of of the judge's entries there also indicate that they've elected to not include alternative sources of information (such as this site) but have elected to include news-articles that are found on the Web.

For some helpful information, may I recommend the following? here  here  here  here

Oct. 23, 2008 - "[former] Judge Naughty's Accuser is hell on lawyers"

So begins this article about me by Alan Prendergast on his Westword blog. combining elements of the story I reported on October 15 (infra, re: Madeline Wilson) and the pending complaint that I filed in re Edward Nottingham with the Attorney Deregulation Council.

Oct. 22, 2008 - U.S. Court for District of Colorado Public Notice re: Nottingham adds insult to injury

You know, it was almost moving to read that Nottingham authorized the statement that “He is deeply remorseful for his actions. He is also embarrassed and ashamed for any loss of confidence caused by those actions and attendant publicity and sincerely apologies to the public and the judiciary.” Almost.

But the U.S. Court for the District of Colorado added insult to injury by posting a Public Notice that contained patently false adulation of Nottingham. They ought to be embarrassed not only for his conduct off the bench, but also for his conduct on the bench (which, as found here, was covered up by the Tenth Circuit for the last nearly twenty years).  I've taken the liberty to mark up the notice.  Just hover your cursor over the highlighted text.

Oct. 22, 2008 - Law Firm admits that Adams County Court employee violated law[s] in course of collections proceedings

A law firm representing a nationally-known collections agency has filed an answer with the State of Minnesota admitting that its client, Lorna Hein, lead collections investigator for the Adams County Colorado Court, knowingly violated the law by garnishing an individual's wages in another state without complying with that state's legal requirements. Even after being confronted with the violation, the attorneys concede, Hein advised the collection agency to execute and complete the collection.¹

This is not the first time the law-indifferent collections investigator has been in trouble. In 2003, the Colorado Attorney General filed suit against Hein for violating the Colorado Consumer Protection Act by running one or more pyramid schemes that involved several employees of the Adams County Court. See District Court, Adams County, People v. Hein, No. 03-CV-1005. According to a spokesperson for the Attorney General's office, Hein entered into a Stipulated Judgment and was ordered to pay $9,150 in civil penalties and disgorgement of illegal proceeds (restitution).

• Colorado Attorney General Press Release, Attorney General Files Civil Suits Against Adams County employees involved in pyramid schemes
• EyeWitnessNews3, Attorney General targets Adams County: Civil suits filed against numerous court employees and Adams County Deputy
• The Denver Business Journal, Adams County Justice Center Employees sued for pyramid schemes, "Named in the civil lawsuits are persons who were most active in promoting both schemes, Salazar said, including: . . . Lorna Hein"
• ABC 7 News, Attorney General settles with illegal 'gifting club' defendants

Hein's latest antics may result in problems for her entire department: Hein was the primary signatory on a a contract between the county and the State of Colorado that provides access to state databases as necessary to execute collections. Hein was required to execute a certification attesting that her collection activities would be in compliance with the contract. The contract requires that:

Contractor shall perform Services under the Agreement in conformance with all requirements of state and federal law relating to debt collection, including but not limited to the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act at C.R.S. 12-14-101 et seq. and the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act at 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, and any rules and regulations promulgated thereunder . . . Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations related to performance under the Agreement

According to a complaint filed with the attorneys general offices of Colorado and Minnesota, Hein misrepresented a Colorado statute concerning restitution that would have given her access to the Colorado state database, but has been using that access for the purposes of collecting non-restitution debts on behalf of the county.

______________________
¹ According to one of the collection agency's employee's affidavit:

On May 29, 2008, I contacted Lorna Hein, a collection investigator with our client's office, the Adams County District Court in order to get further clarification. Ms. Hein advised me that . . . that the client was continuing with the garnishment. Ms. Hein further advised that the client would not provide [the garnishee] with a refund and requested that we direct all further calls regarding [garnishee's] account to the client directly.

Oct. 22, 2008 - Attorney General confirms pending investigation against unlicensed psychologist affiliated with Focus on the Family

Nate Strauch, a spokesman for the Colorado attorney general's office confirmed that an investigation is pending against Mark H. Hoffman, who has held himself out as a forensic psychologist. Strauch revealed no additional details, noting that "the case has yet to reach resolution." A complaint against Hoffman alleges that he is, in fact, unlicensed and prohibited by Colorado from representing himself as a psychologist.

We have reported previously about the methodologies employed by Mr. Hoffman in his practice. Click here.

At least one new story (here) and a Focus on the Family tract (here) indicate some connection between Hoffman and Focus on the Family, although that connection is not yet clear.

Oct. 22, 2008 - Colorado custody evaluator claims state's ethics guidelines and standards weren't applicable to him

In a document filed in District Court, Jefferson County on Monday, Bill J. Fyfe, a court-appointed custody evaluator, didn't deny the charges of unethical conduct against him, but instead argued that the practice standards and guidelines weren't formalized at the time and, therefore, did not apply to him:

Chief Justice Directive 04-08 . . . is inapplicable to this case because it became effective on September 1, 2004, months after Dr. Fyfe completed his report and resigned . . . Indeed, under the prior version of C.R.S. § 14-10-116.5, special advocates were required to comply with Chief Justice Directive 97-02, not Chief Justice Directive 04-08.

Chief Justice Directive 97-02 was repealed in May of '04; Chief Justice Directive became effective in September of '04. Thus, by this reasoning, Mr. Fyfe was governed by no practice standards or guidelines at the time he wrote and delivered his recommendations in June of 2004.

It's comforting to know that our Colorado courts appoint persons like Mr. Fyfe with this kind of mentality to determine the "best interests" of our children.

The document may be found near the top of this page.

Oct. 22, 2008 - Accused of indecent exposure, Miami-Dade judge also resigns

The Miami Herald reports that "Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Douglas J. Chumbley resigned Thursday after he was accused of exposing his genitalia in a Starbucks bathroom stall at the University of Miami."

Well, I also have been know to expose myself in bathroom stalls -- nearly every time I use one, in fact. I assume this former judge was accused, more specifically, of exposing himself to other persons in proximity. Sounds like an effective way to get a new set of dentures.

Oct. 21, 2008 - Nottingham gone like the proverbial fart-in-a-dust-storm

STATEMENT ISSUED ON BEHALF OF JUDGE NOTTINGHAM

In a letter to President Bush today, Judge Nottingham has resigned his commission as a United States District Judge for the District of Colorado. He has done so because it is in the best interest of all concerned. It is in the public interest and the interest of the federal judiciary because it will terminate his judgeship and begin to restore public confidence in an institution which he profoundly respects. He is deeply remorseful for his actions. He is also embarrassed and ashamed for any loss of confidence caused by those actions and attendant publicity and sincerely apologies to the public and the judiciary.

Judge Nottingham also believes that the resignation is necessary for him to begin taking the necessary steps to put this matter behind him. Therefore, beyond this statement, neither he nor any of his representatives will have further public comment.

I had planned to celebrate my Five year anniversary this evening. Now, we have another reason to celebrate. In addition, Chief Circuit Judge Robert H. Henry has issued the following announcement:

In response to complaints of judicial misconduct lodged in August 2007, the Tenth Circuit Judicial Council initiated misconduct proceedings against Judge Edward Nottingham. As additional allegations developed and subsequent misconduct complaints were filed, the Judicial Council expanded the initial misconduct proceedings.

The Judicial Council, through its appointed Special Committees, conducted a thorough and extensive investigation, interviewed many witnesses, considered voluminous documentation, and conducted two hearings. At this critical time in the investigation of these multiple complaints of misconduct, Judge Nottingham has stepped down, effective immediately, as Chief Judge of the District of Colorado, has ceased judicial duties, and has resigned his commission as a United States District Judge effective Wednesday October 29, 2008. The Council will have no further statement until Judge Nottingham's resignation is effective.

Further updates will be posted here.

Oct. 17, 2008 - Roxanne Bailin, 20th J.D. chief judge, should go

Bailin should go for cronyism and despotism.

Evidence? Of course:

Back in 2004, David Arsberger filed this Motion to remove Bill J. Fyfe from the case, because of a number of alleged unethical practices. In support, Arnsberger proffered this email between Fyfe and Arnsberger's ex-wife, which established that Fyfe was conspiring with her against Arnsberger and, thus, not serving as a court-appointed neutral. The probative value of the email is not something that reasonable minds might differ over. Nevertheless, Bailin denied the Motion without comment.

More recently, I submitted a complaint to Bailin about Fyfe. I never received a response. Presumably, she's still assigning cases to this character, although she didn't hesitate to reprimand a divorce industry dissident and strike him from the rolls of appointees used by the courts.

If I could uncover this type of cronyism is just one case, how many other cases is it taking place? Perhaps a better question is, if this happens in just one case, should we tolerate having such a judge on the bench at all?

Oct. 17, 2008 - We are reminded that we have a "constitutional crisis" concerning our federal judiciary

Yes, folks, it's true. And it's not news. Our Chief Justice, John Roberts, warned us that we have a looming Constitutional Crisis:

Is it because the Breyer Report found that "roughly 30 percent of all high profile disciplinary cases were mishandled"? Nope.

Is it because, as The Houston Chronicle recently reported, we are witnessing an unprecedented number of federal judges under publicized disciplinary proceedings (actually, from five down to four, with Nottingham's departure)? Nope.

Is it because the Supreme Court has misapprehended the Privileges and Immunities clause?  Well, maybe, but that's for another discussion.

It's because, "As Roberts Warned, 'Underpaid' Federal Judges are Leaving." Some call it a "Constitutional Crisis." And, as the blog on the Wall Street Journal headlines, "Fed Up with Stagnant Salaries, Judge Says See Ya Later."

My response to all that: Don't let the door hit you on the backside on your way out.  The reader comments to the WSJ blog sum it up pretty well.

Oct. 17, 2008 - For all of you JeffCo voters, Vote No on Judge Jane Tidball

Until visits to this site had been eclipsed by the news of Fast Eddie (1,500+ unique visitors in one day on that topic alone), we had been receiving a great deal of traffic from responsible JeffCo voters, who were reading up on their candidates in advance using Google searches on --for example-- Judge Tidball.

For the reasons more fully set forth on our Tidball page, I would like to encourage voters to Vote NO on this judge, regardless of your party affiliation.

Where else, other than this site, can you really find out what's going on with the individual decisions (and despotism) in the courtroom? Unless, that is, you're comfortable with the Kool-Aid that they're serving up over at the Colorado Commissions on Judicial Performance Web site?

My personal opinion and experience is that Tidball is every bit as much of an imperious petty tyrant at Nottingham, but that it would never be called to your attention because it is unlikely that she'll be implicated in a sex-scandal.

While I'm on the soapbox, I point out that there are a number of judges in this same category, but we'll never hear about them (and voters won't express an opinion about them), because their antics are mostly unseen except to those with the bad fortune of appearing in court. For example, as I've asked many times before, what ever happened to the Colorado state judges who were caught falsifying affidavits? (click here)? (Hint: not a damn thing).

Oct. 16, 2008 - Nottingham stepping down. Good riddance, sir!

2:33 p.m. An anonymous source has informed KnowYourCourts.com that disgraced judge, Ed Nottingham is stepping down. Updates will appear here as they are received.

According to a separate source, the reasons are attributable to a breaking new scandal that has not yet been reported, but which is closely related to the earlier stories. I am told the story may feature interviews with one or more Senators. I promised that I would not divulge the add'l information until the scandal officially breaks later tonight or tomorrow morning. I note, however, that the office of the U.S. Senate Sergeant-at-Arms has visited our Nottingham page with increasing frequency over the last few days and weeks and there have been other indications that an investigation has been widening.

One such indication is that my Petition for Review of the partial dismissal against Nottingham has been pending since April, despite that such Petitions are almost always summarily dismissed as affirmed within a few days or weeks.

Meanwhile, Nottingham's pathetic spinsters are claiming that, he's "under the weather." Click here for CBS news story.

2:49 p.m. ~ Rocky Mountain News Judge Nottingham resigning amid misconduct complaints

3:20 p.m. The Denver Post ~ Chief U.S. Judge may step down

3:29 p.m. ~ Fox31 Judge Nottingham Resigning

[The allegations were] enough, evidently, to lead Denver's chief Circuit Court judge to "take under advisement" an ethics complaint that Nottingham had "brought disrespect to the judiciary." The ruling could lead to a court investigation.

That ethics complaint, of course, was mine.

In a more recent ruling, Nottingham inserted a picture of a pig wearing lipstick, to mock an attorney's arguments in the case. A Judge with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that was "in poor taste."

I found the order "featuring" the photograph while doing some legal research and passed it along to Ken Smith, who then included it in his ethics complaint, the subject of the misconduct ruling.

3:33 p.m. ~ Denver9News ~ Chief Judge expected to resign over new allegations

It was announced today that Judge Wiley Daniel will be taking over Nottingham's current criminal cases. It was also announced on Wednesday that Nottingham will be "out sick" for the rest of the week.

According to 9News, a prostitute who was rendered services to Nottingham for $250 to $300 an hour (about the rate of an average lawyer), filed a Complaint with the Tenth Circuit last week. What was her complaint --that he stiffed her on the bill (no pun intended)?

5:00 p.m. ~ Robert Bcozkewicz (The Pueblo Chieftain, Rueters) has informed me that Nottingham's secretary denies the news reports of the resignation, calling them "incorrect." Mr. Bcozkewicz has also conferred with Senator Allard's Chief of Staff, who has confirmed that the Senator is "aware of the rumors, but we're unaware of any action by Judge Nottingham"

:w!

7:00 p.m. ~ CBS News 4 ~ I am interviewed today by Rick Sallinger (video here). A previous interview of me on this same topic in March, 2008 is here.

7:57 p.m. ~ CBS News 4 ~ Controversy Has Trailed Colorado's Chief Judge. This article features some choice comments from his last ex-wife, Marci Jaeger.

9:38 a.m. 10/17/2008 ~ The Westword blog Denver Post balks at following partner 9News' lead on Nottingham resignation story

Along similar lines, I alerted Howard Bashman (the blog, How Appealing) about this story, yesterday, immediately after I posted it. I expected him to hat-tip KnowYourCourts.com as the blog calling the story to his attention. He later replied:

"I am sensitive to the fact that your blog is reporting information that the MSM has yet to confirm, which is why no hat tip is appearing as of yet. When the mainstream media catches up to you, I will amend my post to note that you were the first to report on the resignation."

Frankly, I'm not terribly bothered that he still hasn't mentioned us (or that we're not on his blogroll --maybe after I graduate from law school and pass the bar, I'll qualify). My reasoning is that: (a) How Appealing is a major source for stories that I eventually get around to blogging about and, therefore, find it invaluable; (b) because of a decent SEO strategy, when one queries Judge Nottingham, Judge Tidball, Bill Fyfe, David Kieffer, et al., this site comes up as #1 in most search engines (depending on use of quotes/no quotes/ first + last name, etc.) -- meaning that we don't need a lot of referring traffic to get our message across; (c) I wouldn't have had this story out as early as I did had not someone else from the MSM tipped me off in advance; and (d) life it too short to pine over intra-blog attributions.

10:12 a.m. 10/17/2008 ~ 9News ~ Prostitute: Federal Judge Asked Me to Lie

This page also provides access to a video segment that includes an interview with the former prostitute.

10:43 a.m. 10/17/2008 ~ CBS4Denver ~ Nottingham A No-Show For Cases

11:05 a.m. 10/17/2008 ~ Rocky Mountain News ~ It's no nonsense in his courtroom: Nottingham built reputation as tough but fair

Fair? Once you get beyond the facade of his performance before the media in cases like the recent Nacchio trial or where Michael Jackson was a defendant, you'll discover that his reputation certainly was not fair. Just read some of the complaints and the more comprehensive Westword articles going back nearly twenty years on our Nottingham page.

12:05 p.m. 10/17/2008 ~ Rocky Mountain News ~ If true, all kinds of legal codes were shattered

Ya think?

1:26 p.m. 10/17/2008 ~ The Pueblo Chieftain ~ Judge Nottingham's Office Denies Resignation Rumors

Riiiiight. I forgot. He's "Under the weather" this week.

4:20 p.m. 10/17/2008 ~ 9News ~ Government investigating allegations against Nottingham

Deborah Sherman reports that the Department of Justice is now investigating allegations brought forth by a woman who claims Chief Federal Judge Edward Nottingham asked her to lie.

Deborah called me earlier this morning, but that conversation was confined to the ethics complaint cited above. She did mention, however, that she is taking a step back to look at the "big picture" including who is going to replace Nottingham and, presumably, what standard of conduct we should hold both incumbent and prospective federal judges to.

4:21 p.m. 10/17/2008 ~ The Denver Post ~ Sen. Salazar Calls for Nottingham's Resignation

I've just learned from an investigative reporter that the committee appointed by Tenth Circuit Chief Judge Henry had completed its investigation and is believed to have produced a final report that Henry could have elected to make public under the misconduct rules. (However, if Nottingham does resign, that report will likely not become available).

10/18/2008 ~ The Daily Camera ~ Sen. Salazar renews call for judge to step down, incorporating interview with me

10/18/2008 ~ The Rocky Mountain News ~ Nottingham on the hot seat

10/19/2008 ~ The Denver Post ~ No word yet on resignation by Nottingham

A source purportedly close to Nottingham Jr. says he is contemplating resignation, but as of Saturday, the clerk of the U.S. District Court had not received any notification from Nottingham or the White House.

10/19/2008 ~ 9News ~ Chief judge takes off week from court

10/20/2008 ~ CBS4Denver ~ Nottingham a No Show in Federal Court Again

Oct. 15, 2008 - Nottingham swears in Brimmer as new judge; Davies selected to replace Brimmer as lead of Special Prosecutions Section of U.S. Attorney's Office in Denver

Source: LawFuel.com

United States Attorney Troy Eid announced today that Assistant United States Attorney Patricia Davies will head up the office’s Special Prosecutions Section. The position was vacated yesterday by Philip Brimmer, who was sworn in as a U.S. District Court Judge. Brimmer was sworn in by Chief Judge Edward Nottingham during a private ceremony. Prior to Brimmer’s departure, he met with Davies to ensure a smooth transition.

From March 1995 through December 1999, Davies was an Assistant United States Attorney for the Central District of California, where she prosecuted cases in the Public Corruption and Government Fraud Section. Davies joined the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado in January 2000, and subsequently worked in the Economic Crimes Section, where she was responsible for investigating and prosecuting a variety of white-collar crime, including cybercrime, mortgage fraud, securities violations, environmental crime, financial institution fraud, and other economic crimes. In October 2006, Davies joined the Special Prosecutions Section, where she worked as a cybercrime prosecution coordinator, as well investigating and prosecuting other complex criminal matters.

Prior to joining the United States Attorney’s Office in the Central District of California, Davies was an associate at the law firm of Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue in Los Angeles, California.

Davies received a bachelor of arts degree from Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, and a degree of juris doctor from the University of Chicago Law School.

“Patricia Davies is a national leader in prosecuting computer crime, and one of the most accomplished and ethical attorneys in Colorado,” said U.S. Attorney Troy Eid.

The Special Prosecutions Section is responsible for coordinating Project Safe Childhood child exploitation cases, as well as prison cases, capital cases, wildlife cases, identity theft cases, intellectual property cases, and cybercrime cases.

Oct. 15, 2008 - Nine-year-old Colorado divorce case is transformed into a bizarre Jerry Springer free-for-all

The case is mine, Marriage of Harrington. Just last week, things got weird when the court's own appointee retained counsel to explain his conduct.

No matter.

But, today, things got weirder: the ex-wife's attorney, Madeline Wilson, who is counsel-of-record in the case, retained counsel to represent herself in her client's own case. Seems like an admission of lawyer-as-witness, in violation of Rule 3.7, which would require withdrawal.

I can't say whether this is the first time ever in Colorado that this has happened, but I can express my belief that this case has become a Jerry Spring free-for-all

In Colorado, child custody cases are supposed to be "non-adversarial" courts sitting in equity without a jury. See In re Marriage of Lewis, 66 P.3d 204, 205 (Colo. App. 2003) (“All issues raised or presented in a dissolution proceeding are to be resolved by the court sitting in equity without a jury.”) (emphasis added); see also § 14-10-107(6).

It's for this reason that tort and contract claims are disallowed in Colorado from being joined with marital dissolution cases. See Wilson v. Prentiss, 140 P.3d 288, 291 (Colo. App., 2006); Mockelmann v. Mockelmann, 121 P.3d 337 (Colo. App. 2005); Simmons v. Simmons, 773 P.2d 602, 604 - 05 (Colo. App. 1988).

In addition to not being entitled to a jury or to prosecute contract or tort claims, a number of other ordinary and established adjudicatory procedures are abbreviated, including discovery. See, e.g., Colo.R.Civ.P. 16.2.

What kind of a divorce lawyer needs to hire a lawyer to represent herself against a non-lawyer in her own client's case? Answer: a divorce lawyer who's lost three (3) appeals in a row to that non-lawyer. Or, maybe, one who was a party to her client's fraud, as has been alleged in this case.

Oct. 13, 2008 - Judge receives public reprimand for a reference to his judicial office during a traffic dispute - Sound familiar?

A public reprimand was issued for a judge in South Carolina. During a traffic dispute, the other motorist asked what he was looking at. The judge answered, "I'm looking at you" and commented on the other motorist's driving. The other motorist responded that he didn't care about his opinion, to which the judge replied, "You might ought to care; you might run into me at some point." When asked why, he revealed that he was the municipal judge.

Anyone here pick up on the similarities found in this complaint regarding a certain Colorado judge, who --during a parking dispute-- allegedly announced that he was a federal judge and allegedly threatened to call the U.S. Marshals to his aid?

Oct. 13, 2008 - Experts call five ongoing probes of federal jurists unprecedented ~ "From nude photos to lying: Federal judges under scrutiny," newspaper Web site reports

They include Sam Kent, Tom Porteous, Ed Nottingham (yeah, I can call him "Ed" or even "Fast Eddie"), Manual Real and Alex Kozinski. The article appears in The Houston Chronicle.

The article further notes:

Only 18 of 1,484 complaints filed from September 2004 to September 2007 prompted formation of such judicial investigative committees, according to revised U.S. court statistics. Those committees, made up of judges from the same circuit, do their investigations in secret. Findings are reviewed by judicial councils, who can vote to do nothing, take action privately or, rarely, take public action. Even when discipline is public, allegations can be summarized with little detail.

Oct. 10, 2008 - misconduct complaint accuses prominent federal circuit judge of illegally disabling court software

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, faces a new misconduct complaint that accuses him of illegally disabling court software in 2001 that was intended to detect improper staff Internet downloads of movies and music --perhaps the same software that would have prevented Judge Nottingham from accessing AdultFriendFinder.com, which allegations have been widely reported by our local media.

As Pamela MacLean reports (here):

A potentially more serious problem for Kozinski is Sanai's resurrection of the 2001 internal bureaucratic fight over court monitoring of use of government computers to download movies and music.

[The] complaint includes among the 80 pages of documents, a scathing October 2007 letter from retired court administrator L. Ralph Mecham, who wrote to the head of the Judicial Conduct Committee for the Judicial Conference of the U.S., which sets policies for the federal judiciary.

Mecham, who managed the federal courts for 21 years, recounted the 2001 episode of Kozinski and former Circuit Executive Greg Walters disabling the monitoring software used for three circuits. His 16-page letter to committee chairman, Judge Ralph K. Winter, says Kozinski's action was considered by government lawyers "not only 'illegal' but constituted at least one felony" citing 18 U.S.C. 1361, destruction of government property.

Mecham wrote that although the 9th Circuit's then-Chief Judge Mary Schroeder knew of the issue, as did the circuit judicial council, no misconduct complaint was brought against Kozinski at the time.

"It is my strongly held view that this total absence of action is the worst example of failure by those responssible for disciplining judges that I have witnessed during my 21 years as AO director," Mecham's letter states.

MacLean's article is full of URL-links for inquiring minds.

Oct. 08, 2008 - We seem to have a false credentials problem here in Colorado

Truth is after all a moving target
Hairs to split, and pieces that don't fit
How can anybody be enlightened?
Truth is after all so poorly lit
It's just the age
It's just a stage
We disengage
We turn the page.

In People v. West-Watt 08PDJ076 (August 22, 2008), the Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved a Conditional Admission of Misconduct and suspended Janet M. Stanlee West-Watt (Atty. Reg. No. 22107) from the practice of law for a period of sixty days, all stayed upon the successful completion of a two-year period of probation with conditions, effective September 22, 2008.

West-Watt falsely testified in a criminal trial that she had a Ph.D. in psychology. Although she had been working on her Ph.D., West-Watt had not been awarded it at the time of her testimony.

Just yesterday, KnowYourCourts.com discovered that Mark H. Hoffman has been advertising in Colorado and Nebraska as a "forensic psychologist." (See this March, 2008 advertisement in The Colorado Lawyer and this August 2008 advertisement in The Nebraska Lawyer, citing the same "license number").

According to this court filing:

CRS 12-43-216 and 12-43-306 both state that an unlicensed psychotherapist may not in any way refer to himself the words “psychologist”, “psychology”, or “psychological.” The only exception to this rule, is that he may call himself a “School Psychologist” if he is actively working under the authority of a school at that time, but certainly, not in private practice.

What we're trying to figure out is why divorce industry judges and magistrates, like Robert Erler, are protecting Hoffman (click here). Could it be for the same reasons that we never learned what happened to the two Colorado judges (hint: nothing), who were caught falsifying affidavits (click here)?

Another character caught lying about his credentials was David Kieffer (click here for letter of admonition).

Other folks, that the courts like to use (in my case and Ken Scott's case, for example) is the good doctor Alan Levy (click here for his letter of admonition).

I don't know about you, but it makes me all warm and fuzzy to know that our bar association is so committed to making certain that our judiciary is not accountable (see my previous entry, infra).

Oct. 07, 2008 - Our Bar Association's plan to stymie accountability measures aimed at the judiciary

This month's Colorado Lawyer, the publication of the Colorado Bar Association, included in its President's [monthly] Message to Members is a pep talk, deceptively captioned "Fair and Impartial Courts," that outlined the plan toward stemming judicial accountability initiatives across the state and nation. None of this is really news (we've covered it repeatedly in varying degrees of granularity in previous posts):

One of the challenges our association did not have to address this year was a constitutional initiative directed at term limits for Colorado’s judges. Efforts had begun to place such a measure on the fall ballot. The CBA Board of Governors authorized an initial $250,000 to combat the measure. Ultimately, the proposal was abandoned by the proponents.

However, challenges to the judiciary are not going away. At a recent meeting of the National Conference of State Bar Presidents in New York, a number of such measures were discussed. In 2006, one initiative in South Dakota would have allowed losing litigants to complain to a special grand jury, which then could strip a judge of immunity and allow both civil and criminal proceedings against that judge.

The CBA must remain vigilant and be prepared to meet and respond to such challenges. One constructive effort is Our Courts, an educational program spearheaded by two Colorado Court of Appeals judges, Hon. Russell Carparelli and Hon. Steve Bernard, along with U.S. District Court Judge Marcia Krieger. The Our Courts program provides information to community leaders about the role of the judiciary and the Rule of Law. Our Courts is facilitated by sitting judges who describe and discuss how Colorado courts seek to provide fair and impartial justice. This community outreach effort must be expanded so that when—not if—another measure to undermine the judiciary is presented, more of Colorado’s voters will understand our judicial system.

I had the opportunity to address the State Judicial Conference on September 22 and reaffirm the CBA’s commitment to work with the courts on these issues. I strongly encouraged the judiciary to continue to assist the CBA in its public education programs, including Our Courts.

The following January, 2008 exhortation from Dave Johnson (past chair, bar association Family Law Section) is even more revealing:

Judicial Term Limits: There may be an issue on the November general election ballot. It would apply to all sitting judges and would limit them to 3 four-year terms plus the provisional term of 2 years. CBA will carry ball on fighting this. They are worried about financial aspect. It was so expensive last time. Do as much grassroots work as we can. Discuss it with colleagues, neighbors and friends. This is an attack on the independence of the judiciary. The next step is to make the judges elected—a political process. We will be asked to contribute to the war chest. The last time we got it defeated because it would have required the immediate retirement of judges. This bill would not impose immediate retirement requirements for current sitting judges, but would limit them to three terms after their retention election after 2010. The CBA is working with ABA to try to get in touch with funding sources. ABA won’t write checks, but they may have a list of people that might give $$. The CBA will be looking to out of state funding sources to lessen the financial burden on Colorado. Look for people gathering petitions —listen to them to see what they are telling people about the legislation— report back to Melissa at CBA so that we know. Write letters to the editors of local papers. Term limits are a popular concept with voters—until the consequences are explained. Can we raise money within the section—can we do a fundraiser? Can we take up a collection from the members? The CBA will probably form another nonprofit that members can give checks to.

Make no mistake about it, folks. This is a battle and it's politics at its core.

Oct. 06, 2008 - Colorado cert. petition filed in high-profile, high impact First Amendment case, today

The petition was filed in St. Johns v. Scott, et al., a case I covered in my Aug. 21 entry, infra.

Oct. 06, 2008 - More outrageous sound bytes

We've uploaded more outrageous sound-bytes to the Hoffman page. Additional audio files will be uploaded as time permits.

Just imagine a fellow appointed by the court to determine custody in your case, who arrives at the conclusion that you're suffering from a "spirit of lust" or a "spirit of masturbation," and, who then opines:

We all have thoughts of murder. We all have thoughts of rape. We all have thoughts of child molestations. . . . . . I'm sorry . . .Sooner or later, everybody does have . . . has those thoughts, it seems.

Such are among the "professionals" that our courts have authorized (and defended) to provide expert factual findings and recommendations concerning the best interests of and custody of children.

Oct. 06, 2008 - CFI Bill J. Fyfe might actually be held accountable?

For the handful of you who've been following this story, I drafted and filed a Summary Judgment motion (here), nearly four (4) years after the transactions at issue. Perhaps I'll finally have my day in court and, perhaps, "Dr." Fyfe will finally be held to account?

This is in a dissolution case that has lasted nearly nine (9) years. (The marriage only lasted seven).

Oct. 02, 2008 - Congress pass bill that bans gifts of honorary club memberships valued at more than $50 per year for the federal judiciary

The bill (S. 3296) passed the Senate on Sept. 25 and the House of Representatives on Sept. 29.

Hat-tip to Tony Mauro's Blog of Legal Times.

Oct. 01, 2008 - Attorney disciplined for criticizing the judiciary

No, of course this isn't "news," despite the fact that discipline or rules prohibiting criticism of the judiciary (or, alternatively, requiring "respect" for the judiciary) has been found to be unconstitutional.

The California Bar Journal reported:

[The attorney] was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on one year of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within a year. The order took effect May 4, 2008.

Koven stipulated that she failed to maintain the respect that is due the courts. She filed two petitions with the state court of appeal on behalf of a client, as well as a letter asking that the appellate justices recuse themselves on the ground of bias.

The request for recusal was quickly denied as frivolous, and both appeals also were denied. When Koven sought a rehearing, her petition contained numerous intemperate charges against the judges, including charges of bias, misrepresenting evidence and manipulating the outcome.

At one point, for instance, Koven wrote, “How convenient for this court to concoct a trumped up review of this issue that fits so snugly into its own predetermined perception of this litigant.” Elsewhere, she wrote, “. . . this court’s finding is a complete red herring. This court purposely concocted a flimsy excuse not to rule on the merits of this issue because it knew that to do so would have required it to reverse.”

Although Koven apologized to the court, admitting her statements were “improper” and “inexcusable,” she was found guilty of two counts of criminal contempt and fined $2,000.

In mitigation, she has no discipline record in 17 years of practice and she demonstrated remorse.

Hat-tip to Mike Frisch of The Legal Profession blog, who noted that, "This is an example of a pleading that many of us have written and filed in the trash can rather than with the court."

Oct. 01, 2008 - Colorado risk management Tips by attorney Denis Lane

Attorneys & CFIs out there, pay attention:

From Lane's Web site:

• Know the legal and ethical standards
• Stay current in your field: join a professional association.
• Practice with informed consent: respect patients' rights.
• Keep good records.
• Never sue a client.
• Don't allow clients to tape record sessions.
• Establish and maintain appropriate boundaries.
• Refer out when appropriate.
• Consult as needed.
• Maintain liability insurance.

[Emphasis added].

We'd wager that Mr. Lane has crafted at least one of these practice tips from personal experience. Check out the page we've put together one of his clients (here) and we think you'll agree why clients have been advised accordingly.

Although you may find --after reading (and listening)-- some of the quotes we've selected funny, what's really comical is that Lane (not to be confused with David Lane), who defends this practitioner-- calls his law firm Web site "centerForEthicalStudies.com."  We have to wonder, is that a borderline RPC Rule 4.1 violation or Consumer Protection Act violation for misleading advertisement?¹

Kidding aside, what's really sad is that Magistrate Robert Erler (4th Judicial District) intervened on behalf of this practitioner in his effort to prevent accountability. And the Dept. of Regulatory Agencies --as usual--did nothing.

Is our Colorado divorce industry scheme in the best interests of the children --or best interests of divorce industry practitioners?

___________________________
¹ For those of you who despise the First Amendment or believe that it should be curtailed to limit speech that is distasteful, offensive or critical, we emphasize that the footnoted comment is hyperbole and not intended to express an opinion of or sully the reputation of Mr. Lane, about whom we know very little. In fact, while we're on the topic, an attorney's duty of zealous advocacy to his client in our adversarial system of justice is a bedrock principle. An attorney should not be criticized because of who he represents, but should be expected to advocate for his client no matter who the client is and no matter what he has been accused of or convicted of or found liable for.

---

last updated: 04/12/2009

tipline@KnowYourCOURTS.com