| COLORADO SUPREME COURT |
| COLORADO SUPREME COURT OFFICE OF ATTORNEY REGULATION JOHN GLEASON, WILLIAM G. ROSS, JUSTICE MICHAEL BENDER, GREGORY HOBBS, NATHAN COATES, ALEX MARTINE |
| 27th of Jun, 2011 by User948137 |
Following is on the front web page of the Colorado Supreme Court, Attorney Regulation Commission: Attorneys Must Meet High Professional StandardsBecoming a licensed attorney requires many years of difficult studies and successful completion of a grueling state-administered bar exam. The Colorado Supreme Court has established high standards of ethics for attorneys. The standards are contained in the Court rules and the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct (Volume 12 Colorado Revised Statutes Chapter 20) and the Appendix to Chapters 18-20).The Court has also established procedures regarding the investigation of alleged unethical conduct. The procedures are designed to provide a thorough and objective review of the attorney's conduct, and to resolve the matter in a way that is fair to the complainant and to the attorney.To administer the procedures, the Colorado Supreme Court has appointed an Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel; a nine-member Attorney Regulation Committee, composed of both attorneys and lay persons; and an Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge. (No tax dollars are used to fund the attorney regulation process.) Ethics and Discipline When attorneys enter the practice of law, they take an oath to uphold the law and to follow the standards of ethics established by the Colorado Supreme Court. An attorney who violates the law and/or those standards is subject to discipline. In cases involving minor misconduct, an attorney may be admonished, censured, or placed in a diversion program. In serious matters, attorneys face suspension of their license to practice law or disbarment. But what happens when "The fox is watching the hen house?" Below, please find a letter that I just wrote the Colorado Supreme Court about the Attorney Regulation Commission and it's director John Gleason. I think it becomes quite obvious after reading that the above "Mission statement" of Mr. Gleason is nothing more than window dressing covering up a corrupt organization filled with cronyism, deceit and most likely monetary bribes. (See Allison Maynard's investigation into John Gleason which presents the strong probability that Mr. Gleason is accepting bribes via second mortgages on his residence; one of which corresponds with the events in this action.) Colorado Supreme Court 101 West Colfax Avenue, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202 CERTIFIED MAIL #03071790000012001333 Justice Michael Bender, Justice Gregory Hobbs, Justice Nathan Coates, Justice Alex Martinez, Justice Nancy Rice, Justice Alison Eid Justice Monica Marquez Re: Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation / John Gleason: June 28, 2011 Dear Sirs / Madams: I am writing this letter as a last resort to the fraud and corruption that has infiltrated the Office of
Attorney Regulation which, according to your home page, you have oversight and control. A succinct chain of events is best described in an E-mail to Mr. Kevin Hanks and Mr. John Gleason sent on May 16, 2011 concerning William G. Ross: ______________ Mr. Hanks,
First thank you for finally sending me this information (even if it is 17 years late) but this is
not the complaint I filed against William G. Ross. Following is a little bit of history of the situation with Mr. Ross from my notes: I purchased a property at 333 Havana Street from First Federal Savings through Fuller and Company in September of 2001. At the last moment; First Federal asked if they could have
the brother in law, William G. Ross of the president of bank, Malcolm Collier, do the closing. I called the president of Fuller, Don Kortz, Esq. and asked him what he thought. He indicated that Mr. Ross was a very competent attorney, worked in the bank, and because it was a simple closing that he believed it would be OK. I went to the bank on South Wadsworth and Alameda and gave Mr. Ross, in addition to the sales price, a cashiers check for $1,600 for the title policy per the title commitment from Stuart Title that indicated that there were no past taxes. I walked out of the closing and thought everything was taken care of. A year later, Don Kortz called me and asked me if I was interested in purchasing the Colorado Mine Company. I indicated I was and put it under contract. The bank approved my loan but insisted that I put up the 333 Havana Property as additional collateral. I said OK and they said they needed a copy of the deed and the title policy. It was then I realized I hadn't received copies and called Fuller who referred me to their escrow department. They indicated that they couldn't find the documents and would look into it and call
me back. The next day they called me back and said that they never received the documentation from William Ross and that I would have to call him to get the information. When I tried to call him, his phone had been disconnected that day. I couldn't get a hold of him and the bank kept telling me they didn't know where he was. At that time I just thought he screwed up the closing and filed a
complaint with the Colorado Supreme Court who then transferred it to the Office of Attorney Regulation. It was then that John Gleason called and informed me that Mr. Ross had been previously suspended from practicing law and they would investigate the case. Over the next two years I would call Mr. Gleason and he assured me that Mr. Ross was still being investigated. Then in 1994, Mr. Gleason called me and indicated that they had suspended Mr. Ross' license for 3 years. I was incensed that they did this without any dialog with me. Stuart Title refused to issue the title policy unless I signed an addendum that I had to pay any past taxes due on the property even though the title commitment indicates that there were no taxes owing. I asked Mr. Gleason about the funds given Mr. Ross for the title commitment and he indicated that I would have to go after him
civilly for those funds and the damage William Ross did in not getting the title policy which was in excess of $400,000. Mr. Gleason ended by indicating that he would send me a copy of the Supreme Court decision in my case. I have had the same mailing address since 1983 and never received it. What you mailed me can't be the decision that Mr. Gleason was talking about because it doesn't
mention my complaint against William G. Ross even though it was being investigated at the exact same time. I would therefore request that you look into this and let me know what happened to my complaint
and the consequences thereof. Sincerely dated this May 16, 2011, /s/ Peter Coulter ________________ Attached, please find the complaint and decision of the Supreme Court that the OARC sent me on May 5, 2011. Of empirical note here is the paragraph where John Gleason has told the Court that Mr. Ross did not respond to the complaint[1]. That necessarily means that Mr. Ross never responded to my complaint which was filed at the exact same time, yet Mr. Gleason insists that he did in this E-mail forwarded to me on June 13, 2011: _______________ Hello again Mr. Coulter, I did get a response from Mr. Gleason. He said the matter in which you are requiring into did have a resolution. Pursuant to the rules of the Colorado Supreme Court, the resolution in this matter is not of public record, and cannot be disclosed to any party other than Mr. Ross himself. All of the material previously provided to you is the only public discipline for Mr. Ross and there is no further information we can provide. Thank you, Kevin Hanks
Legal/Trial Assistant
Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel ________________ Mr. Gleason refers to a Supreme Court Rule that provides the resolution in this
matter is not of public record and cannot be disclosed to any party other than Mr. Ross himself. I have asked Mr. Gleason for a cite of this Supreme Court Rule on 3 separate occasions with no response as follows: ________________ 1.) June 17, 2011 ???? Mr. Hanks, What are you talking about? The reason I contacted the OAR was because I never received any
"material". How could there have been a "resolution" when the OAR told the Supreme Court that William G. Ross failed to respond at all to a complaint that was filed at the same time as mine? Is it Mr. Gleason's position now that Mr. Ross failed to respond to one complaint but did respond
to another (mine) that happened contemporaneously? And you now indicate that Mr. Gleason has stated a rule of the Supreme Court concerning
non-disclosure. I would therefore request a cite of the rule Mr. Gleason is referring to. Thank you for your time and consideration in these matters. Regards, /Peter Coulter _________________ 2.) June 23, 2011 Mr. Hanks, Mr. Gleason: I am still waiting for the Office of Attorney Regulation and Mr. Gleason's cite of the Supreme Court
Rule of non-disclosure concerning my complaint of William G. Ross in light of the fact that according to the initial documentation you forwarded me, Mr. Ross never even responded to the OARC. Again, I would ask for either a copy of the resolution or the Supreme Court rule that prohibits the OARC from disclosure to me, the complainant. Thank you for your time and consideration in these matters. Sincerely, /Peter Coulter ________________ 3.) June 28, 2011 Mr. Hanks / Mr. Gleason: Peter Coulter here again. I am again writing you to get a cite of the Supreme Court Rule that you are speaking of that leaves me, the victim, completely in the dark as to what your prosecutions were in regards to William G. Ross and his actions toward me. I again would request a response please. Thank you for your time and consideration in these matters. Dated this June 27, 2011. /Peter Coulter ________________________ I think that it is quite clear from the documentation and correspondence presented that Mr. Gleason made a deal with Mr. Ross (or his attorneys) and the OARC buried my
Complaint against Mr. Ross which was much more serious than the case presented by Mr. Gleason with more devastating consequences. It is not an isolated incident in regards to two other Complaints that I have filed with OARC (concerning Magistrate Edward Burns) and the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline (concerning Judge Charles Pratt) concerning the theft and concealment of a jury trial request and fee, counter and cross-claim that these two conspired on in a concerted effort to violate my due process right and commit Treason on the Constitution. The response of these two departments of the Supreme Court was silence. They didnt even have the respect to respond just as Mr. Gleason is doing once again here. The most ironic thing here is that back in 1997-1998 when the Colorado Supreme Court had a public hearing asking for comments about new rules for the OARC; I was the only lay person amongst 50 lawyers to speak. My concern then, which has come to fruition now, is that Mr. Gleason is the gatekeeper of the OARC and he solely decides which cases make it before the
Court based on a biased and bribed influence that is then kept secret behind closed doors. In ending, I sadly state that I have no trust in the Supreme Court of Colorado either as you seem to look the other way to these criminal actions of those under your direction. As such, I really feel helpless except to reveal it to the world via indelible web sites so that others with more influence and persuasion may review and make an effort to correct these travesties and the world will be able to view your true agendas and behavior. Heres hoping a couple of you still have enough conscience to do something about this. Sincerely dated this 28th day of June, 2011, /s/ Peter Coulter P.O. Box 3094
Vail, Colorado 81657
E-mail [email protected] cc: Kevin Hanks Office of Attorney Regulation via. Email [email protected] John Gleason Office of Attorney Regulation via Email [email protected] _________________ If it is business as usual; I am not expecting any response from the Colorado Supreme Court. Why should I? As I have stated before, the Colorado Judicial Branch operates as a "country club" where you have to go along to get along. I am sure that the corruption is so rampant that even the honest attorneys and judges have a difficult if not impossible effort to stay clean and still survive and put food on the table. But the Colorado Supreme Court and the justices thereof have no excuse. Everyone else takes their examples and direction from them. It is so ironic that in Justice Benders acceptance speech in front of the legislature (as chief justice) he stated that his first order of business would be to visit the various districts and make sure ethics were being followed. I haven't seen it yet; and it is hypocrisy to believe that he can profess ethics around Colorado when his own chambers are in complete denial while the Colorado Supreme Court turns it's head. I will close this discussion with a quote by one of our founding fathers: "Nothing destroys the credibility of a government faster than its failure to provide fair and equal justice for its people." "When one undertakes to administer justice, it must be with an even hand, and by rule; what is done for one must be done for everyone in equal degree." (Thomas Jefferson as quoted in W. Cleon Skousens The Making of America, p 241) |
|
|
|
|
I wrote a long comment here yesterday but it didn't get posted.
Kay Sieverding |
|
|
|
I was criminally prosecuted without the Rules of Criminal Procedure being followed. This can be confirmed by the Registry of Actions which I included in a PACER filing in the District of Colorado 02-cv-1950 which was received by the court on 4/13/2009. That includes 1) form signed by Colorado Prosecutor P. Elizabeth Wittemeyer saying "although probable cause exists, it would not be in the best social or economic interests of the public to persist in the prosecution of this case. The victim concurs in this decision". That violates the Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 41 which requires a hearing in open court when a criminal charge is dismissed. Following that is a motion from my attorney requesting an oral hearing to determine whether there was probable cause. That was denied. Following that is a criminal summons and complaint which by law is only supposed to be signed by a police officer. PO0004988. That is signed solely by Jane Bennett who was not a police officer. Following that is a police report stating that Jane Bennett insisted on signing the criminal summons. She was married to the president of the city council at the time. Following that is the Registry of Actions. It shows that the criminal investigation was initiated by the summons and complaint that Jane Bennett signed. It shows an arraignment was scheduled but vacated and not rescheduled. It shows court Order "The court cannot make any findings on probable cause because the Court has not received any information in this case". Following that is an advertisement in the Wall Street Journal by Chris Wittemyer for a new ski area near Steamboat with "preliminary approval" for 1000 units, a village, a ski area, and a golf course. I think Bennett helped Wittemyer get this approval as an award for prosecuting me. Following that is a newspaper article with a highlighted statement by the Routt County Assessor "There are many illegal buildings in Steamboat; enforcement of the regulations is lax".
I complained to OARC about these events; their response is that they wouldn't accept more complaints from me. |
|
|
|
The reason that I was criminally prosecuted is that I complained that Kevin and Jane Bennett violated the zoning by claiming that a detached two story building with over 2000 square feet and central heating and plumbing was a two car garage and by converting an old stable that was 5 feet from the front property line and therefore "nonconforming" to a "guest house". These buildings are not on the Routt County property tax rolls for 701 Princeton Ave but can be seen from the street. I have photos, plans and building permits. I lived next door and these buildings really affected my property. Jane Bennett called the police and there is a police report showing that I stood on the street in front of my home in the middle of the afternoon and yelled about the Constitution and the zoning. Nothing is specified on the police report that was a possible crime by me and the police didn't even interview me. Thus I had a legally valid claim for "First Amendment Retaliation in a Non Employment Context". This meets the requirements that the Supreme Court specified for the tort in 2006 in Hartman v. Moore. Although I was not imprisoned, I spent over $3, 000 on legal bills. Then my reputation was damaged by the Steamboat Pilot publications, which did and do not acknowledge that not only were the charges dismissed, but there was no written probable cause statement and no warrant or police signed criminal summons and complaint. The Steamboat Pilot publications also do not acknowledge that Kevin Bennett told the city council that all he built was a garage, that the city manager called it a garage when he refused to compare it to the ordinances, and that the planning services director claimed it was a garage, when legally it was not a garage, only a building that included a garage plus other space.
On the basis of the bogus criminal charge a restraining order was issued ordering that I stay 30 feet from Jane Bennett at all times. Of course, I never had any desire to be near Jane Bennett but the 30 feet included my own property. She followed me around Steamboat calling the police every time she saw me. She filed a police report saying she followed me through a store trying to take my picture to show that she was near me and therefore I should be arrested. There was no statutory basis for this restraining order and abbreviated procedure was used, which is only allowed in a domestic relationship restraining order. In fact, Randall Klauzer used the domestic relationship forms to get the restraining order and Judge Garrecht ruled that I had "molested" Jane Bennett by complaining about their violations of law. The law clearly meant "molest" to indicate sex which was impossible since we were never alone and never had any physical contact at all. Garrecht and Klauzer used a definition of "molest" meaning "to annoy". Of course, Jane Bennett was "annoyed" by the fact that she and her husband spent about $100K on buildings that violated the zoning and I, as an adjoining neighbor, objected to that and to them taking of 6000 square feet of public land including the end of Princeton Ave through what was, in my opinion, criminal extortion using Bennetts' power as president of the city council.
I was told I would be criminally prosecuted in Steamboat Springs municipal court because my employee trimmed a tree blocking an entrance into our property without a trimming permit unless I came to an agreement with the Bennetts that involved giving up our rights to the end of the Princeton Ave. and selling them land for $1. However, the city never issued a trimming permit to anyone and didn't even have a trimming permit form. And Bennett trimmed the same old willow tree the same week.
Matt Samuelson of OARC, Gleason's subordinate, didn't think there was any problem with these events.
In 2009, the Steamboat Pilot revealed that Kevin Bennett was a convicted drug dealer. I'm not saying that ex cons should never be able to "move on" but I think it is wrong that that was kept secret from the public when Kevin Bennett was the highest elected official in Steamboat Springs and controlled the police budget and promotions. However, the city attorney and the police apparently did know because he had NCIC records and there is a reference to them on his attorney's legal bills. Which brings us to the question as to whether the rumors that the Steamboat Police were selling drug evidence were correct. Recent FBI reports show that some law enforcement officials do sell drug evidence. |
|
|
Post your Comment
|
|
|
