In case you’re wondering about the outcome, our tipster states: “Amazingly, the Judge granted the motion.”
We contacted the attorney responsible for this court filing, to verify its authenticity. She responded: “Can I ask what your interest is, please, and how you acquired these?”
We’re taking that as a “Yes, they’re authentic.” We gave the lawyer in question an opportunity to deny authenticity — or to deny her use of a smiley-face emoticon in a court document — and she did not.
We responded to her message, explaining that they were forwarded to us by tipsters (whose identities we always keep confidential, unless they request otherwise).
In her next email, she had a little more to say. We reprint her comments after the jump.
The attorney in question, whose name we redacted, had this to add:
Why don’t you read the response we filed to the bills of costs filed in the case? It was filed March 5. It details considerable abuses of the judicial system by the federal government, State of Colorado, Southwestern Water Conservation District, and two Indian tribes. It is THAT conduct which is newsworthy for being “above the law,” my friend. Basically, these entities have been conducting a criminal racket respecting water in Southwestern Colorado, called the Animas-La Plata project.
I have no problem if you report on the pleading I’m attaching, therefore. I do have a problem if you purport to report on anything else.
We skimmed the response, and nothing in it jumped out at us as being particularly interesting or funny. If we wanted to be reading documents with titles like “Response In Opposition To Bills of Costs,” we’d still be practicing law.
But if you would like to read it, you can locate it using the docket information that appears on the motion. If you find anything funny or noteworthy in it, feel free to let us know.
UPDATE: For more information about Maynard, plus an update about her motion, click here.