IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. _____________
ALISON MAYNARD and GERALD LEWIS,
APRIL MCMURREY, JOHN GLEASON, AND JAMES COYLE, employees of
the Colorado Supreme Court, Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, in their
individual capacity; the COLORADO SUPREME COURT, OFFICE OF
ATTORNEY REGULATION COUNSEL; WILLIAM LUCERO, the Presiding
Disciplinary Judge; THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT; and Mary Mullarkey,
Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr., Michael Bender, Nancy Rice, Nathan Ben Coats, Alex
Martinez, and Allison Eid, justices of the Colorado Supreme Court, in their
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, INCLUDING AFFIDAVITS
Alison Maynard, for herself (in the first person henceforth), and Gerald
Lewis, for himself, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 65, respectfully make this application for
preliminary injunction, and also ask for forthwith entry of a temporary restraining
order and that a hearing be set on their application for preliminary injunction at
such time as the court’s calendar will permit, while the TRO remains in force.
Factual Basis for Injunctive Relief: Alison Maynard’s Affidavit.
Alison Maynard, of age and duly sworn, states under oath as follows:
1. I am an attorney licensed in Colorado, emphasizing water and land use law,
and was in good standing continuously for 22 years, from my admission to the bar
on May 20, 1987, until July 23, 2009. I am a graduate of Cornell University,
College of Arts and Sciences, with a major in physics; worked as a geophysicist
before attending law school; and am the author of several scholarly law review
articles, mostly on water law. I have been engaged in private practice as a sole
practitioner since 1991, representing primarily citizens’ groups, homeowners’
associations, environmental groups, and individuals, often pro bono or on a
contingent-fee basis, against powerful developer and government interests.
2. I have done thousands of hours of pro bono work and was the Green Party
candidate for Colorado Attorney General in 2002. During my campaign, as well
as on other occasions, I have spoken out about public corruption in this state,
particularly in the land and water development arena, which I have uncovered
through the litigation I have done. My resume is attached as Exhibit A.
3. As detailed more fully in the complaint, in 2007-08 I exposed misconduct
of a Colorado Supreme Court justice, Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr., who has met with my
opponents outside the court proceedings in every appeal I have ever filed in that
Court. Hobbs is a former water development attorney and I have often been
litigating against friends of his who are also water development attorneys. I have
firm documentation in several of these cases that Hobbs has discussed the issues on
appeal ex parte with my opponents. In the case of the Animas-La Plata project, he
met repeatedly with my opponents, including opposing counsel David Robbins,
while the appeals were pending, as well as between our two trials in the water
court; accepted gifts and money and other favors from our opponents, including
Robbins and his wife, who are personal friends of his; and even made public
statements advocating for the project. I issued press releases calling for a “no”
vote when his retention was on the ballot in 2008, detailing this misconduct. In
connection with two recent matters I have found and exposed altered documents
and false statements made to courts and to Congress by powerful water attorneys
and judges who are friends of Hobbs’s.
4. Beginning in November 2006, I have been required to defend against a
series of disciplinary proceedings brought against me by the Colorado Supreme
Court’s Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC), which I contend
constitute political retaliation in the guise of ethics code enforcement. There have
been four of these, charging dozens of rule violations, and I have been convicted of
all of them which have so far gone to hearing. I have been denied due process in
these proceedings, as detailed in the complaint, and have been the victim of bad-
faith acts from the prosecution. I have also been the target of severe monetary
penalties and other sanctions imposed by certain district court judges in cases I
have been handling. The goal of the disciplinary proceedings and judge-imposed
sanctions appears concerted, to keep me from exercising my First Amendment
rights (or undermine my credibility when I do speak out); to punish me for my
speech by stripping me of my ability to practice law; and to destroy me financially.
5. In particular, I believe OARC is attempting to keep me from litigating
claims I brought on behalf of Gerald Lewis (and, previously, other persons) in case
03 CV 126, Summit County District Court, and case 08 CA 2249 in the Colorado
Court of Appeals, as well as to keep me from going to the United States Supreme
Court in opposition to the Animas-La Plata water project. I have already been
grievously injured in my business, livelihood, and reputation by the OARC’s
selective prosecution of me, and overt assistance to my opponents in litigation, and
presently face additional harm which is immediate and irreparable.
Status of the Disciplinary Proceedings.
6. The disciplinary proceedings against me have the following status:
a. Case 07 PDJ 067/08 SA 181 (the “ALP matter”): the Colorado Supreme
Court summarily affirmed the disciplinary hearing board without deciding any of
the issues I had brought to it on appeal, upholding a one-year suspension (with all
but 60 days stayed, subject to two years’ probation) effective July 23, 2009;
b. Case 08 PDJ 059/09 SA 187 (the “Spring Creek Ranch matter”): the
disciplinary hearing board imposed a one-year suspension, which I appealed on
July 20, 2009, to the Colorado Supreme Court. Thus, there is no final order in this
case. Both the hearing board and Supreme Court have recently denied me a stay
pending appeal. I was apprised of the effective date of the suspension (July 31,
2009) after the fact, on August 3, 2009, so the suspension is presently in effect;
c. Case 09 PDJ 028 (“the Magness matter”): this case is set for hearing before
the disciplinary hearing board on Sept. 22-23, 2009.
d. A previous case, a petition seeking immediate suspension of my license for
“mental disability,” was filed against me in 2007 concerning the same facts as (b),
but was denied in October 2007. It concerns most of the same transactions and
events which are the subject of 08 PDJ 059.
Nature and extent of injunctive relief sought, against OARC, McMurrey,
Gleason, Coyle, and Lucero.
7. Immediate injunctive relief is requested, as follows:
a. enjoining the hearing in 09 PDJ 028, set for Sept. 22-23, 2009, as well as
pretrial proceedings, which include oppressively burdensome disclosures presently
due from me, going back 11 years, which are unrelated to the charges yet the
subject of a motion to compel, as well as a response to a summary judgment
motion I must make;
b. enjoining publication of the suspension imposed in 08 PDJ 059, where I
have been wrongfully denied a stay pending appeal, as well as enjoining
publication of the suspension imposed in 07 PDJ 067, where I was denied due
process in my appeal; or, if publication has been made, mandatorily enjoining the
Supreme Court to retract or correct the notices, making publication of the
retraction in the same places as the original publication;
c. enjoining the suspensions themselves, both in 08 PDJ 059 and 07 PDJ 067,
as well as the costs award in 08 PDJ 059, which is oppressive ($2,576).
I will suffer irreparable and immediate injury if the injunction is not granted.
8. I will be irreparably injured and harmed if an injunction is not immediately
granted in the form requested herein. I am facing this fourth hearing in September,
where, among other abuses, OARC has dredged up material from a prior grievance
filed against me by a client homeowners’ association which did not want to pay a
bill over six years ago. I was exonerated at the time, and OARC expunged its own
file. However, opposing counsel McMurrey has obtained the grievance documents
from my former clients and intends to call them as witnesses, to testify to the same
false accusations which I debunked six years ago. This is sheer harassment,
intended to prejudice the hearing board.
In addition, two of the charges against me are predicated on my not having a
particular legal entitlement, while the very question of that entitlement is before the
Colorado Court of Appeals. The hearing board is thus going to preempt the court
which has jurisdiction to decide the underlying legal questions (and this is already
exactly what happened in 08 PDJ 059).
I will be harmed because I am having to defend against false testimony and
rehashed allegations, as well as because the hearing board has no power to decide
the questions it is about to decide.
9. I will be permanently and irreparably harmed further because I have been
wrongfully denied a stay pending appeal of the one-year suspension recently
imposed in 08 PDJ 059. Thus, I will be denied the fruits of my appeal, even if it is
ultimately successful, because I may very well have served the suspension in full
before it is decided; and my appeal could then be simply dismissed, as moot.
I note further that, in 08 PDJ 059, I was sanctioned in large part for bringing
a RICO case in federal court in 2003, and withdrawing it before making service on
the defendants when Judge Matsch told me he would not exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over my state law claims. Everything I did in that short-lived suit was
authorized: by the federal rules of civil procedure; a federal statute; and a federal
judge. However, I have been suspended for a year because Defendant McMurrey
decided I should not have exercised this remedy provided by an Act of Congress,
and the hearing board agreed. I am entitled to injunctive relief against imposition
of this sanction under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
The hearing board’s opinion is invalid on its face.
10. I will also be immediately and irreparably harmed by the publication in The
Colorado Lawyer which is about to be made of the two one-year suspensions
which have already entered against me in 07 PDJ 067 and 08 PDJ 059. (Such
publication has already apparently been made on the Supreme Court’s website.)
There is not the slightest hint of moral turpitude in what I did, nor was it my clients
who complained; to the contrary, my clients testified as character witnesses for me.
My reputation and career will be irreparably damaged by this publication, which is
nothing but defamatory, due to my having been denied due process, as well as
because of the selective prosecution of me by OARC, as further detailed in the
If publication of these unwarranted disciplinary opinions is not enjoined, I
will lose the friendship and respect of those friends and colleagues in the bar who
do not know what is going on. I have spent the past three years (actually four,
since the first baseless ruling of the water court in late 2005) in a state of extreme
anxiety and black despair because of these proceedings, and I should be granted
the right to challenge the propriety of these proceedings before publication is
made. My professional reputation, which, prior to this onslaught, was very good,
will be irreparably damaged, as will my ability to earn my living. I have already
been ridiculed on the web, and the ridicule will only intensify. No one knows,
seeing these endless disciplinary opinions coming down, that I have been denied
due process, and am being retaliated against.
11. I will also suffer immensely, if publication is not enjoined, even if I try to
move to a new field: I have, in fact, tried to prepare myself for a new career in
biology, by taking the prerequisites at UCD. I applied to three graduate schools
this past year, but I was not admitted. In one case, I was told that, although my
qualifications were much better than that of other applicants, the professor had
found a posting ridiculing me on AbovetheLaw.com, placed there by my
opponents in the Animas-La Plata litigation. If publication of actual disciplinary
sanctions–the two one-year suspensions imposed on me already--as well as
information about all three proceedings brought against me, is not enjoined, I will
suffer irreparable injury, including likely not getting into graduate school in this
new field ever, as well as being unable to continue as a lawyer.
12. I have already suffered significant economic injury, having paid $74,000 in
legal bills and lost my home. There are still clients who want me to work for them,
but I may not be able to do so for 18 months or longer, if an injunction is not
13. Although the charges levied against me, and sanctions imposed, in all cases
have been excessive and unwarranted, I have, in all cases to date, cooperated fully,
and the hearing boards have so found. However, cases 08 PDJ 059 and 09 PDJ
028, in particular, have been brought in bad faith.
Grounds for my allegations that the disciplinary proceedings have been
brought in bad faith.
14. I have been informed that, of approximately 4,400 complaints about
attorneys filed with OARC each year, it proceeds on only 54 of them. I have been
April McMurrey’s full-time project for almost three years, however (and Gleason
and Coyle have monitored these cases closely, Coyle even attending a deposition
and some court proceedings).
15. As Gerald Lewis testifies in his affidavit, Robert (“Bob”) Swenson, a
defendant in the Spring Creek Ranch case I brought on Lewis’s behalf, told Lewis
in December 2008 that the “Supreme Court” had told him it was “going to get
Maynard” and that it was “tired of Maynard filing these cases.” Swenson was
regularly communicating with McMurrey as she prepared her disciplinary case in
08 PDJ 059 against me.
16. In an “investigative deposition” April McMurrey took of me in November
2008 in the matter which became 09 PDJ 028, at which time I was in good
standing as an attorney, she asked how many cases I was handling. When I asked
who wanted to know, she indicated it was “trial counsel,” although she herself has
handled the trials against me. Thus, her prosecution of me is being directed from
17. At this deposition, she also began inquiring into a contract I had with my
clients the Barillas, showing she believed I might have violated the contingent fee
rule with it, although the Barillas are not the ones who complained about me (in
fact, I put $300,000 into their bank account, because I won the case); the contract
was not the subject of any of the charges against me; and the contract was entered
into over six years ago. OARC has a five-year statute of limitations.
18. McMurrey, as authorized by her superiors Gleason and Coyle, has engaged
in a “fishing expedition,” going through cases I have handled and, without basis,
demanding that I produce documents to her which are unrelated to any of the
grievances pending against me. She is looking for additional things to trump up. I
am presently under an obligation to respond to discovery and make disclosures in
09 PDJ 028 which go back 11 years, and are on their face irrelevant to any of the
charges in that case. It is an extraordinarily oppressive demand and the copies
alone will cost me hundreds of dollars. (I have already incurred several thousand
dollars’ worth of bills by taking three depositions in that case.)
19. After the order issued from the hearing board in 08 PDJ 059, I moved for
an extension to file for post-trial relief under C.R.C.P. 59, which was granted.
Thus, the order was not final. Before the due date came for filing this motion,
McMurrey sent me a harassing email telling me I was suspended and had failed to
comply with the rules governing suspended attorneys. At a hearing I convened
immediately before the PDJ, Defendant Coyle also appeared and supported the
bad-faith position of McMurrey. The PDJ agreed I was not under suspension and I
obtained a certificate from the Colorado Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney
Registration showing I was in good standing on that date, as McMurrey and Coyle
However, it is apparent that, because of this exercise, the PDJ understood he
was “not supposed” to grant me a stay pending appeal. As discussed, he then
denied me that stay, even though at the hearing referenced above he had said I was
entitled to it.
20. One of the grounds on which I have been disciplined in 08 PDJ 059 is that I
filed two different motions to recuse Judge Lass, the Summit County district court
judge, in 03 CV 126. Although I supported those motions with a total of seven
sworn affidavits, including two deposition transcripts, McMurrey told the PDJ, in a
motion for summary judgment, that I had filed no affidavits. I pointed out her
misstatement and supplied the affidavits in my response. Then, during the hearing,
McMurrey again told the hearing panel that I had filed no affidavits, and again did
not include the affidavits with the motions in her exhibit book, even though the
register of actions–another of her exhibits--showed the affidavits had been filed
with the motions to recuse.
21. McMurrey also filed objections to my motions for extension to file for
post-trial relief in 08 PDJ 059, but deliberately did not serve her objections on me.
(She served them on my former attorney, who had withdrawn.)
22. In 08 PDJ 059, McMurrey named two district court judges, Lass and
Ossola, as her own witnesses, so I asked the PDJ for the right to take their
depositions. McMurrey responded by saying she “decided not to call them, after
all,” and the PDJ then prohibited me from doing so. I believe she listed them for
the purpose of sheer harassment.
23. The petition to have my license summarily suspended for “mental
disability,” signed by “James Coyle for April McMurrey,” was supported solely by
the affidavit of Victor Boog, the attorney opposed to me in the litigation. Boog is
not a mental health professional–he testified to my “paranoia” based on a
dictionary definition. Thus, the affidavit was frivolous on its face. Boog lied in
several ways in it, as well, as I showed; thus, the petition was dismissed, but the
very filing of it was done in bad faith.
24. McMurrey, Gleason, and Coyle pushed 09 PDJ 028 straight into public
proceedings without even offering any opportunity for informal disposition
beforehand, although they provide other attorneys that right.
25. One of McMurrey’s charges in this complaint (09 PDJ 028) was frivolous
on its face, and I obtained dismissal of it for that reason. She alleged I had
breached my duty to my “clients,” but, to state a claim, “clients” was required to be
construed to mean “former clients,” since my representation of them had ceased
well before the conduct complained of. This shows, again, that any pretext will do,
as well as that OARC’s strategy is to simply pile on charges, and initiate
proceedings regardless of their merit, so that it can use the mere fact that numerous
proceedings have been brought against me as grounds for sanctions.
I moved for Rule 11 sanctions against McMurrey based on her inclusion of
this frivolous charge, and Judge Lucero denied the motion.
My protected speech and conduct as the probable motivation for the
26. The disciplinary proceedings constitute prior restraint on speech, as well as
official retaliation for my having exercised my First Amendment Rights, I believe
primarily because I have exposed the misconduct of a Supreme Court justice, as
mentioned, as well as because I have criticized the Court itself for failing to decide
appeals I have brought to it based on the evidence and the law. It has issued one-
line summary affirmations in two cases, despite extensive briefing of serious and
substantial issues; dismissed a third appeal on a pretext; and failed to mention the
jurisdictional issues I brought to it, as well as violated its own policies respecting
reliance on extrarecord materials in, two others. I also believe am being punished
for having attempted to take the depositions of judges to defend myself, and obtain
Examples of other speech or activities which I know OARC or the Supreme Court
wish to suppress are as follows:
a. In both the Animas-La Plata appeals I exposed frauds of a prior water judge
and several attorneys over a 50-year period, substantiated with numerous public
records. In the reserved rights appeal, 07 SA 100, I showed that United States
Supreme Court precedent and an Act of Congress were violated by the water rights
granted by the lower court, as well as the fact that all the orders and motions in
those cases, resulting in the 1991 “consent decrees” we were challenging, were
issued ex parte between the water judge and the handful of project proponents,
while 100 other party-objectors in the case were never served anything in the case,
and never signed off on the “consent decrees.” The other side did not even
respond to these arguments. In the diligence appeal, 06 SA 388, I showed that the
judge who had granted the water rights for the project in 1966, one William Eakes,
had been the attorney for the Southwestern Water Conservation District who filed
the statements of claim for those very water rights in 1963. I also showed that
there is no use for the water this project steals from approximately 6000 senior
water users, and that it is wholly speculative, requiring its denial under Colorado
I thus believe I am being punished not only because I have exposed these
frauds committed by attorneys and judges (who are friends of at least two of the
justices), and the fraudulent nature of this water project, but ultimately because the
Supreme Court knows that I know it does not decide cases based on the evidence
and the law, but on considerations known only to it, which per se are
b. I posted an article this past spring on Wikipedia about the travesty we
experienced in the courts in Animas-La Plata, including Greg Hobbs’s misconduct
and the Supreme Court’s failure to decide our issues on the merits. (The article has
since been suppressed by the “official version,” but is available under the “history”
tab; see the version on May 15, 2009.)
c. One of my disciplinary matters (the ALP matter, 07 PDJ 067/08 SA 281),
sprang from one of the two ALP appeals, the diligence appeal, which was
dismissed by the Court because I filed the brief four days late. Participating in the
dismissal order, as well as in the order denying me the last extension on the brief,
was not only Greg Hobbs, whose conflicts I have detailed above, but Justice Eid,
who is married to the then-U.S. Attorney Troy Eid. The United States was a party
to the case.
In my disciplinary matter, I had very strong defenses on appeal, which the
Court refused to decide, again issuing a one-line summary affirmation of the
hearing panel. Had my issues been dealt with, I believe I should have been
completely exonerated, or sentenced to diversion. Instead, I have been suspended
for a year in that matter alone, although all but 60 days were stayed.
d. In the Spring Creek Ranch water matters, the water attorney opposed to
me, Glenn Porzak, is also a friend of Justice Hobbs’s. I learned that Hobbs and
Porzak had been together at a water bar meeting in Steamboat Springs while our
appeal was pending in that case, and moved to recuse him. The opinions issued in
included references to statements or activities which were not in the record before
the water court, showing me that they must have come to the court via Hobbs’s ex
parte communications with Glenn Porzak. A sanction issued against me by the
water judge, which was groundless, was also upheld, again with Hobbs’s
e. A voting rights activist recently made a video of me talking about election
fraud I litigated against in the Town of Castle Rock in 1998-2000. It is posted on
google video (put in “mail ballots”); she also made numerous DVD’s of it and
handed it out to legislators this past spring. The persons who committed the
election frauds are powerful Democrats, as are five members of the Mullarkey
Court (including Hobbs and Mullarkey). It is possible I am being disciplined for
this video presentation, as well.
27. I was sanctioned in 08 PDJ 059 also for detailing offenses committed by
Judge Lass in the motions to recuse I filed. I said such things as that his rulings
were “preposterous”; that a wink he gave opposing counsel Victor Boog when
Boog was on the witness stand “showed a revolting level of cronyism”; and similar
things. I have thus been sanctioned for exercising my First Amendment Rights
28. In a nutshell, I believe I am being punished probably for my entire career as
a lawyer, because I have been a thorn in the side of these powerful water attorneys,
particularly David Robbins, for over 20 years. He has retaliated against me
severely on other occasions for having the audacity to oppose him in litigation.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT.
COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE )
STATE OF COLORADO )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ___ day of August, 2009, by Alison
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL:
My commission expires: