Notice Of Motion For Judicial Review Of License: Fill & Download for Free

In federal (US) law there are really two (last) steps or series of steps. Let me explain.Everyone is probably familiar generally with a bill passing through both houses of congress and eventually signed by the President or the veto being overrode by Congress. That’s the easy part. Upon either of those last two steps, the bill becomes a law.Once the bill becomes law, you have the four corners of the bill, and its language, and the federal register that addresses “how the bill became law.” The federal register helps to define ambiguous statements or key portions of the law to help discern the basic intent of congress. It helps answer a question, “What did they mean when they said X.”Here’s an example. Most people are familiar with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits unlawful discrimination on the basis race, color, ethnicity, national origin and religion which are all pretty easy to see and understand. Plus we can refer to the Federal Register and see what Congress debated when the law was being passed to help us see what they mean. But the bill/law also added Sex. Sex based discrimination seems logical on its face, but it’s important to note that sex based discrimination was rampant in 1964. It was and still is a part of everyday life. Yet unlawful “sex” discrimination was added to the bill and passed into law, if you review the federal register you find almost no mention of what constitutes sex discrimination. It was thrown in at the end, without any discussion. There’s nothing to help discern the intent of Congress. Most people have never heard of the Federal Register and wouldn’t know how to access it and use it, other than lawyers.The final series of steps go on under the radar. Once the bill becomes law, it must also have some means of being enforced. Otherwise the “law” is nothing more than a “suggestion.” Generally that means that a federal agency, from the Justice Department (a new criminal law) to the Department of Agriculture (law for soybeans payments) must be tasked with enforcement authority, that’s either contained in the bill/law or is not. Further to enforce a law, the individuals, be it prosecutors/law enforcement, or other agency officials must have guidance on how to implement the law. That guidance is usually found in the Code of Federal Regulations. The CFR on any particular bill/law tends to be more of a living document that evolves over time.Going back to our Civil Rights Act example. A brand new agency was created, the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). Regulations would tell us, that a complaint must be filed. Notice must be given, and investigation is to take place, guidance as to what’s impermissible and what’s permissible, an administrative enforcement procedure was developed, and finally a mechanism for judicial review was established. All of these additional steps are in large part found in the CFR. They are not likely to be found in the bill/law, they evolved over time while the government tasked with enforcement developed rules and regulations to take the bill/law from a “suggestion” to a series of steps to guide “enforcement.” These rules and regulations are sometimes much more important than the language of the law itself, and are much more detailed.Another example. Congress passes and the President signs a bill, legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes, and taxes marijuana at 25%. Seems simple.Its not. The Justice Department must now go and figure out how to change its rules and regulations on the criminal side. They might have to decide what’s “recreational use.” It then must solve the riddle of how marijuana is distributed, and how it’s distributed for “recreational use.” Further how is the tax implemented? Is it a growers tax, handled by the Department of Agriculture? Is it an IRS tax. 25% of what? Wholesale value, retail value (unconstitutional by the way), or do you need a federal license? The Courts might need to get involved, do they expunge prior record? If so, then under what circumstances? Is it automatically expunged, do you need to file a motion with the Court? With the three agencies each having a part to play, who coordinates the effort?Bottom line. Law + regulations is the final step.

Attorneys are at the top of the totem pole and there is no dealing with them. Records will either be falsified or ignored. Between your equity and taxpayer’s money they will get at it at maximum speed at all times. There is absolutely nothing else they do….I was going to write a book that was going to usher in an era of equality and wellbeing in a tax-free society. Then I realized those making billions per minute are going to kill me for it. Here’s the unwritten chapter:2. Nice to Meet You, My Name is Mr. JackalThe Supreme Court's Regulatory Agencies/MechanismsSince the courts have declared that attorneys are unregulated, what is the role of the regulative agencies, fashioned by the Supreme Court? It is the Jackal and Hide phenomena - the courts keeping up appearances. This chapter is a _____ review of the systematic attempt to by judges and attorneys to avoid all forms of discipline, responsibility and liabilities.The Attorney Regulation CouncilThe Supreme Court's Attorney Regulation Council declares that it promotes professionalism and protects the public including all consumers of legal services. They claim that protection of the public is an objective of the Supreme Court. In contradiction to law books and the latest rulings from Appeals Courts, they claim attorneys must stay within the bounds of the maliciously written CRPC. When you call, you are greeted by the friendly and helpful Rose. She will help you prepare your complaint so you can fax it to the office for review.Most people don't know about the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct - CRPC. They derive their complaints from common misconceptions originating from DORA regulated professions. When I pushed further, Rose offered that "If you want to know whether an attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct then I should file a complaint."Does Rose know that attorneys are not subject to CRPC? Does she know that they have been declared by the courts as an entirely unregulated profession? What about the Rules of Unscrupulous Conduct? How are complaints delt with and how does the board decide what to investigate and how?It is my position that the Attorney Regulation Board of the Supreme Court is mainly concerned with keeping up the Jackal/Hide duality. They merely fog the public's mirrors. Much like the courts themselves, they like to present statistics that are misleadingly believable. They get so many complaints, they investigate so many of them and so many get approved.There is one valid point of contention between a principal and an attorney whicht the Attorney Regulation Board can investigate, however: did the attorney provide a consultation? Did the attorney file a Motion for Dismissal from the case upon being fired by the principal or before making independent decisions contrary to the principal's directions?Any regulated profession would serve the principal written disclosures describing the type of consultation offered. The principal would then sign the disclosure to indicate that they have understood and agreed to the consultation and that they authorize their agent, the attorney, to proceed. Not so with self-regulated professions.The question of whether an attorney offered consultation remains a matter of hearsay. It's the attorney's word against the complainant's. And those are attorneys who decide regarding who told the truth. Who is to say that a few muffled syllables don't constitute valid legal consultation? Who is to say that the client's silence didn't constitute a valid oral agreement? Do consultations have to be provided in a language the principal understands anyway?Judges treat GALs as if they were independent, unregulated judges of their own right, free from any duty to conduct hearings or consider evidence. They let GALs wield arbitrary and absolute power - both contrary to the US Constitution. The Board openly admitted to me that they won't regulate GALs in any way. "GALs can do anything," they say. This is contrary to the constitution, it is contrary to the role of a GALThe main function the Attorney Regulation Board fulfills, other than keeping Mr. Hide hidden, is psychological. The Board allows people time to heal from their wounds. The public feel heard, they feel as if they have found a resource. By the time the complaint is denied the victim has completed the first stages of grief and is ready to face the dire financial, social and other consequences of the crimes they have endured.When one files a complaint with the Board, their complaint is either dismissed or the Board presents the attorney with a list of questions derived from the complaint. The constituent gets a copy of the list. If a constituent touched a point of actual regulation the Board twists the language of the complaint to derive a question that does not touch any real point of regulation. They hope the complainant won't notice the difference or, if they do, that they won't decipher the underlying malicious intentions.The attorney is given twenty-one days to file their Response. The complainant is then given 10 days to file an Answer to the Response. The complaint stage is then over. The Board may take a few days or a few months to come to their resolution. By that time the constituent has done some of their grieving and some of their denial and is ready and prepared to pay the price, financial or otherwise, of the crimes perpetuated against them.The Judicial Review CommitteeThere are two separate committees "in charge of" or "deputized to authorize" judicial misconduct. Their structure and jurisdictions were created by the Supreme Court to facilitate sale of justice and other unconstitutional and counter-statutory misconduct.The Supreme Court's Commission on Judicial Performance does not oversee cases of bias or abuse of discretion. They do not respond when judges violate the constitution or statutes. Instead, they hear cases of failure to perform judicial duties, misuse of resources, and judicial misconduct.Basically, a person can report when a judge schedules hearings that they know would take two hours for eight hours. The judge takes the rest of her day off. That is six hours. The public can also report that a judge only provides prisoners with provisions such a health care when the judge can get kickbacks from the vendors they contract. So prisoners will be denied generic drugs, but will be provided with all kinds of expensive plastic surgeries.The structure of the Committee is also purposeful. Out of ten members a majority of six members are either attorneys or judges. Two members are county court judges; two are district court judges; two are lawyers. Four citizens not serving as attorneys or judges at the time are elected by the Governor. The Governor himself may be an attorney. Two of the current members are electives at the Capitol. They are to supervise the judges who supervise them.The ten members serve without compensation except for reimbursement for travel and additional expenses. Not only are the lay members a minority, not only are they likely to believe whatever the attorney section of the Committee wishes them to, but they are also unlikely to find out about most or all of the complaints. Only one member, the Executive Director, a judge, gets access to all complaints. The Director makes the call as to whether to involve the lay part of the Committee.The Supreme Court's Committee on Judicial discipline is separate. The Committee derives its authority from the Colorado Constitution and the Colorado Rules of Judicial Discipline. This committee is meant to investigate abuse of discretion and constitutional violations. However, there is nothing to state that judges have to lose their jobs or licenses over confirmed violations. Instead, the judge receives "recommendations." Very likely, the constituent who dared file the complaint suffers retaliation.The Judicial Review Committee is free to recommend that the Supreme Court impeach a judge. However, justices declared the six participating attorneys to be free of liabilities. So they don't have to. To avoid publicity, a judge may retire to moot an investigation against her by the legislature. Such investigation follows a Motion for Mistrial Investigation, which is the only way to get the executive and legislative branches involved. Such involvement triggers the immediate appearance of the righteous Mr. Jackal. Mr. Hide remains in hiding until a new judge is appointed in her stead.Innocent constituents who look at the website don't notice that there is, in reality, lack of regulation of judges. Only someone who has studied the system for years can understand the mirage created by the Supreme Court.MagistratesQuite confusingly, all of the Magistrates I encountered were excellent and law abiding. Magistrates are supervised by the Chief Judge of the particular Judicial District. The Chief Judge is appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.Magistrates acts as assistants to the Judges and derive their authority from them. Each judge has a Magistrate associated with her division. A ruling issued by a Magistrate can be disputed with the corresponding Judge. When a Magistrate gives rulings on Permanent Orders or Final Orders, then the next step is an Appeal.The Supreme Court issues the Colorado Rules for Magistrates. There is a limited list of disputes that Magistrates can hear. Magistrates can, however, conduct all other proceedings as long as the parties agree.In my case, the Magistrate refused to sell justice, so the attorney objected to having the case heard by her. I later heard that attorneys advise clients to avoid that Magistrate in advance.Perhaps this is the secret: the Supreme Court doesn't need to let Magistrates off the hook because a case can always be transferred to a corresponding judge who is prepped for sale of justice.The Court Improvement CommitteeThe Court Improvement Committee implements and oversees how the courts handle cases involving children, specifically neglect and dependency cases. The Committee claims that it is interested in the safety and wellbeing of children and their families. Apparently they need half a million dollars of taxpayers' funds to achieve such improvements.It used to be that GALs, appointed automatically at the request of an attorney, had to pretend that one of the parents is dangerous to the child in order to justify their artificial appointment. They avoided professional evaluations by a DORA regulated psychiatrists or any type of evidence. In the midst of confusing divorces children were confronted with a manipulative and abusive GAL who separated them from the less affluent parent permanently. I read about a couple of cases when a child committed suicide. The papers naively, or defensively, claimed that the "system is insufficient" or that it "let down" the children. The reality of the situation is that the children as well as the less affluent parent were stripped of their civil rights and legal entitlements third-world-style. The children were exposed to malicious greed and life-threatening corruption from ruthless GALs. "Divorced from Justice" by ___________ describes the case of a mother who's husband was sexually exploiting her daughter. The husband got sole custody of the girl. At some point the mother saved her daughter's life by hospitalizing her. She got incarcerated for it. So this is how the Court Improvement Committee improves profits for the courts.These days GALs no longer have to pretend that there is any reason for their appointment. As a result, children are no longer separated from the less affluent parent and I haven't read of any other cases of suicide. The judge treats the GAL as an independent, all powerful and arbitrary judge who can rule the case as she pleases. One mother wrote me claiming that the "stupid GAL is spending" all of her child's healthcare savings.In Nazi Germany the Child Welfare Unit engaged in systematically exterminating disabled children. Our Court Improvement Committee is not much different. Statutes were passed in many states allowing mercy killings, and I have no doubt that was how the Nazi system worked. An American GAL today has the power to arbitrarily order mercy killings for anyone while preventing them from being heard in the court or elsewhere.The people who send me questionnairesThe Supreme Court Advisory CommitteeLaw Committee, the Character and Fitness Committee, the Board of Continuing Legal and Judicial Education, the Attorney Regulation Committee, the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, and the Board of Trustees for the Attorneys’ Fund for Client Protection.

Read the Introduction to the Rules of Professional Conduct available from your local Supreme Court Law Library. They’ll email it to you for a fee.Attorneys are not supervised in any way and no one will “believe” a word you say. Any supervision is simply a cover up.Here’s a book I’ll never publish:2. Nice to Meet You, My Name is Mr. JackalThe Supreme Court's Regulatory Agencies/MechanismsSince the courts have declared that attorneys are unregulated, what is the role of the regulative agencies, fashioned by the Supreme Court? It is the Jackal and Hide phenomena - the courts keeping up appearances. This chapter is a _____ review of the systematic attempt to by judges and attorneys to avoid all forms of discipline, responsibility and liabilities.The Attorney Regulation CouncilThe Supreme Court's Attorney Regulation Council declares that it promotes professionalism and protects the public including all consumers of legal services. They claim that protection of the public is an objective of the Supreme Court. In contradiction to law books and the latest rulings from Appeals Courts, they claim attorneys must stay within the bounds of the maliciously written CRPC. When you call, you are greeted by the friendly and helpful Rose. She will help you prepare your complaint so you can fax it to the office for review.Most people don't know about the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct - CRPC. They derive their complaints from common misconceptions originating from DORA regulated professions. When I pushed further, Rose offered that "If you want to know whether an attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct then I should file a complaint."Does Rose know that attorneys are not subject to CRPC? Does she know that they have been declared by the courts as an entirely unregulated profession? What about the Rules of Unscrupulous Conduct? How are complaints delt with and how does the board decide what to investigate and how?It is my position that the Attorney Regulation Board of the Supreme Court is mainly concerned with keeping up the Jackal/Hide duality. They merely fog the public's mirrors. Much like the courts themselves, they like to present statistics that are misleadingly believable. They get so many complaints, they investigate so many of them and so many get approved.There is one valid point of contention between a principal and an attorney whicht the Attorney Regulation Board can investigate, however: did the attorney provide a consultation? Did the attorney file a Motion for Dismissal from the case upon being fired by the principal or before making independent decisions contrary to the principal's directions?Any regulated profession would serve the principal written disclosures describing the type of consultation offered. The principal would then sign the disclosure to indicate that they have understood and agreed to the consultation and that they authorize their agent, the attorney, to proceed. Not so with self-regulated professions.The question of whether an attorney offered consultation remains a matter of hearsay. It's the attorney's word against the complainant's. And those are attorneys who decide regarding who told the truth. Who is to say that a few muffled syllables don't constitute valid legal consultation? Who is to say that the client's silence didn't constitute a valid oral agreement? Do consultations have to be provided in a language the principal understands anyway?Judges treat GALs as if they were independent, unregulated judges of their own right, free from any duty to conduct hearings or consider evidence. They let GALs wield arbitrary and absolute power - both contrary to the US Constitution. The Board openly admitted to me that they won't regulate GALs in any way. "GALs can do anything," they say. This is contrary to the constitution, it is contrary to the role of a GALThe main function the Attorney Regulation Board fulfills, other than keeping Mr. Hide hidden, is psychological. The Board allows people time to heal from their wounds. The public feel heard, they feel as if they have found a resource. By the time the complaint is denied the victim has completed the first stages of grief and is ready to face the dire financial, social and other consequences of the crimes they have endured.When one files a complaint with the Board, their complaint is either dismissed or the Board presents the attorney with a list of questions derived from the complaint. The constituent gets a copy of the list. If a constituent touched a point of actual regulation the Board twists the language of the complaint to derive a question that does not touch any real point of regulation. They hope the complainant won't notice the difference or, if they do, that they won't decipher the underlying malicious intentions.The attorney is given twenty-one days to file their Response. The complainant is then given 10 days to file an Answer to the Response. The complaint stage is then over. The Board may take a few days or a few months to come to their resolution. By that time the constituent has done some of their grieving and some of their denial and is ready and prepared to pay the price, financial or otherwise, of the crimes perpetuated against them.The Judicial Review CommitteeThere are two separate committees "in charge of" or "deputized to authorize" judicial misconduct. Their structure and jurisdictions were created by the Supreme Court to facilitate sale of justice and other unconstitutional and counter-statutory misconduct.The Supreme Court's Commission on Judicial Performance does not oversee cases of bias or abuse of discretion. They do not respond when judges violate the constitution or statutes. Instead, they hear cases of failure to perform judicial duties, misuse of resources, and judicial misconduct.Basically, a person can report when a judge schedules hearings that they know would take two hours for eight hours. The judge takes the rest of her day off. That is six hours. The public can also report that a judge only provides prisoners with provisions such a health care when the judge can get kickbacks from the vendors they contract. So prisoners will be denied generic drugs, but will be provided with all kinds of expensive plastic surgeries.The structure of the Committee is also purposeful. Out of ten members a majority of six members are either attorneys or judges. Two members are county court judges; two are district court judges; two are lawyers. Four citizens not serving as attorneys or judges at the time are elected by the Governor. The Governor himself may be an attorney. Two of the current members are electives at the Capitol. They are to supervise the judges who supervise them.The ten members serve without compensation except for reimbursement for travel and additional expenses. Not only are the lay members a minority, not only are they likely to believe whatever the attorney section of the Committee wishes them to, but they are also unlikely to find out about most or all of the complaints. Only one member, the Executive Director, a judge, gets access to all complaints. The Director makes the call as to whether to involve the lay part of the Committee.The Supreme Court's Committee on Judicial discipline is separate. The Committee derives its authority from the Colorado Constitution and the Colorado Rules of Judicial Discipline. This committee is meant to investigate abuse of discretion and constitutional violations. However, there is nothing to state that judges have to lose their jobs or licenses over confirmed violations. Instead, the judge receives "recommendations." Very likely, the constituent who dared file the complaint suffers retaliation.The Judicial Review Committee is free to recommend that the Supreme Court impeach a judge. However, justices declared the six participating attorneys to be free of liabilities. So they don't have to. To avoid publicity, a judge may retire to moot an investigation against her by the legislature. Such investigation follows a Motion for Mistrial Investigation, which is the only way to get the executive and legislative branches involved. Such involvement triggers the immediate appearance of the righteous Mr. Jackal. Mr. Hide remains in hiding until a new judge is appointed in her stead.Innocent constituents who look at the website don't notice that there is, in reality, lack of regulation of judges. Only someone who has studied the system for years can understand the mirage created by the Supreme Court.MagistratesQuite confusingly, all of the Magistrates I encountered were excellent and law abiding. Magistrates are supervised by the Chief Judge of the particular Judicial District. The Chief Judge is appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.Magistrates acts as assistants to the Judges and derive their authority from them. Each judge has a Magistrate associated with her division. A ruling issued by a Magistrate can be disputed with the corresponding Judge. When a Magistrate gives rulings on Permanent Orders or Final Orders, then the next step is an Appeal.The Supreme Court issues the Colorado Rules for Magistrates. There is a limited list of disputes that Magistrates can hear. Magistrates can, however, conduct all other proceedings as long as the parties agree.In my case, the Magistrate refused to sell justice, so the attorney objected to having the case heard by her. I later heard that attorneys advise clients to avoid that Magistrate in advance.Perhaps this is the secret: the Supreme Court doesn't need to let Magistrates off the hook because a case can always be transferred to a corresponding judge who is prepped for sale of justice.The Court Improvement CommitteeThe Court Improvement Committee implements and oversees how the courts handle cases involving children, specifically neglect and dependency cases. The Committee claims that it is interested in the safety and wellbeing of children and their families. Apparently they need half a million dollars of taxpayers' funds to achieve such improvements.It used to be that GALs, appointed automatically at the request of an attorney, had to pretend that one of the parents is dangerous to the child in order to justify their artificial appointment. They avoided professional evaluations by a DORA regulated psychiatrists or any type of evidence. In the midst of confusing divorces children were confronted with a manipulative and abusive GAL who separated them from the less affluent parent permanently. I read about a couple of cases when a child committed suicide. The papers naively, or defensively, claimed that the "system is insufficient" or that it "let down" the children. The reality of the situation is that the children as well as the less affluent parent were stripped of their civil rights and legal entitlements third-world-style. The children were exposed to malicious greed and life-threatening corruption from ruthless GALs. "Divorced from Justice" by ___________ describes the case of a mother who's husband was sexually exploiting her daughter. The husband got sole custody of the girl. At some point the mother saved her daughter's life by hospitalizing her. She got incarcerated for it. So this is how the Court Improvement Committee improves profits for the courts.These days GALs no longer have to pretend that there is any reason for their appointment. As a result, children are no longer separated from the less affluent parent and I haven't read of any other cases of suicide. The judge treats the GAL as an independent, all powerful and arbitrary judge who can rule the case as she pleases. One mother wrote me claiming that the "stupid GAL is spending" all of her child's healthcare savings.In Nazi Germany the Child Welfare Unit engaged in systematically exterminating disabled children. Our Court Improvement Committee is not much different. Statutes were passed in many states allowing mercy killings, and I have no doubt that was how the Nazi system worked. An American GAL today has the power to arbitrarily order mercy killings for anyone while preventing them from being heard in the court or elsewhere.The people who send me questionnairesThe Supreme Court Advisory CommitteeLaw Committee, the Character and Fitness Committee, the Board of Continuing Legal and Judicial Education, the Attorney Regulation Committee, the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, and the Board of Trustees for the Attorneys’ Fund for Client Protection.