This is so funny! Until I realize I don't have a job. Sigh.

Obviously written by a slacker tier-2 law grad with long hair and a moccasins.

Since when is inebriation excusable neglect? Every week when I skim through the disbarments hoping beyond hope to see someone I don't like listed, 90% of the attorneys get disbarred for failing to carry out their duties due to alcoholism.

Obviously not, impostor. Tier 2 grads can't afford wine. We drink colored water sweetened with sugar packets we stole from Denny's.

I like how she lectures Lat about what is newsworthy. Well, I would think that if this matter was SO important and newsworthy, she would have made an effort to meet the court deadline instead of getting wasted.

Lat, seriously, why not include her name? I agree with 10:29...if it's on a signed court filing, it's in the public domain. I would think her snippyness would only drive you to post her name along with a random photo from Google Images. Stop being such a tease!

Lat typically redacts the names of people who get themselves into such scrapes.

E.g., Cravath associate who gave out the number to a phone sex company for a drafting call:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/02/best_conference_call_screwup_e.php

E.g., Supreme Court clerk with the messy love life:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2006/11/the_messy_love_lives_of_suprem.php

Lat seems to leave names in only if someone else (e.g., The Recorder) previously published them:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/02/lawyer_of_the_day_m_todd_scott.php

Alison Maynard

"Well, I would think that if this matter was SO important and newsworthy, she would have made an effort to meet the court deadline instead of getting wasted."

uhhh...exactly...she draws emoticans on formal legal documents but can't laugh at her laughable conduct...

This attorney should be fired and reported to the state bar. Missed a filiing becuase you were drunk? Imagine telling a partner that one, much less a judge.

If this incompetent bafoon is the person defending our water rights, no wonder the government is running ram-shod over Colorado.

If people are so hell bent on getting the name, all the information you need is in the caption - go find it and publish it yourself.

Frankly, the name is irrelevant, its the use of the :-) on the pleading that is the hands down funniest thing I've ever seen in a pleading. . .

well, ok, maybe 2nd funniest - I still love the notice of appeal telling the court "your not going to get away with this shit".

http://www.denbar.org/docket/doc_articles.cfm?ArticleID=3294

Wow, this is unbelievable.

ALISON MAYNARD

Alison Maynard’s 15-year career as a lawyer has included work as a deputy district attorney in Cortez, city attorney for Craig and assistant attorney general for Colorado’s Water Unit. Her practice, since 1991, has emphasized water rights and land use law.

Maynard litigated against the Colorado Water Conservation Board for carving the instream flow in Snowmass Creek in 1992. She is litigating dispositions of state trust lands by the State Board of Land Commission-ers to real estate developers. She has fought subdivision approvals given by local governments in violation of law, as well as ballot stuffing in Castle Rock. Maynard is representing Colorado and New Mexico citizens challenging the water rights for the Animas-La Plata water project in Southwestern Colorado.

Maynard received her physics degree from Cornell University in 1976 and her J.D. from the DU Law School in 1986.

ALISON MAYNARD

Alison Maynard’s 15-year career as a lawyer has included work as a deputy district attorney in Cortez, city attorney for Craig and assistant attorney general for Colorado’s Water Unit. Her practice, since 1991, has emphasized water rights and land use law.

Maynard litigated against the Colorado Water Conservation Board for carving the instream flow in Snowmass Creek in 1992. She is litigating dispositions of state trust lands by the State Board of Land Commission-ers to real estate developers. She has fought subdivision approvals given by local governments in violation of law, as well as ballot stuffing in Castle Rock. Maynard is representing Colorado and New Mexico citizens challenging the water rights for the Animas-La Plata water project in Southwestern Colorado.

Maynard received her physics degree from Cornell University in 1976 and her J.D. from the DU Law School in 1986, and she's a really big fan of wine.

If 10:44 is correct, is this the same Alison "Sunny" Maynard that ran as the Green Candidate for Colorado AG? Frightening thought.

If 10:44 is correct, is this the same Alison "Sunny" Maynard that ran as the Green Candidate for Colorado AG? Frightening thought.

Sorry, here's the link: http://web.greens.org/news/index.php?location=3:1:7§ion=&startId=15

Alison Maynard -- consider yourself reported to the bar!

I'm shocked at the reactions from readers. More examples of oppression of tier 2's.

Low Level Lackey,

That's funny! Do you have a link to that notice of appeal???

It's the emoticon that gets me.

A lawyer gets drunk and misses a deadline? Negligence, to be sure, but no big deal. Mistakes happen. Just fess up and accept the consequences.

A lawyer who uses an emoticon in a court filing? In my opinion, that is inexcusable, a per se example of incompetence. I wonder whether she was still feeling the effects of her inebriation when she wrote her pleading, forgetting the proper decorum of a legal filing and trying to be all "best-friends-forever" with the judge about her wine story.

she must have been drunk from the wine when she drafted this motion.

OK. I withdrew the motion last night--even though the court had granted it--and filed another one. Because the motion was withdrawn, it is considered as never having been filed.

I'll append after my signature our response to the bills of costs. The editor of this publication doesn't see anything remarkable about it--I guess, then, that he has an agenda, just like the persons and entities we are opposing in the water court, which is directed at killing the messenger, instead of dealing with the message on the merits.

What our response to the bills of costs details is that the federal government, State of Colorado, two Indian tribes, and a second law firm on behalf of the original applicant got into this case in April 2003, which had a one-day trial set for May 2003. They got the trial vacated and proceeded to conduct huge amounts of harassing discovery against my client, who had no burden whatsoever in this water application, and hire an expert who gave testimony which was incompetent as a matter of law (since it had nothing to do with the project under consideration), running up $50,000 in costs, which now they are trying to make my client pay.

My client is Citizens' Progressive Alliance, a group of courageous citizens who are trying to protect the water resources in the State of Colorado, as well as protecting the public fisc, which the other side is busy draining for its speculative water projects, like Animas-La Plata. I am working for nominal fees as CPA's attorney. Until this frivolous motion I filed seeking an extension, which is the subject of so much disdain on these pages, everything in the case I had filed was well-grounded and really strong lawyering. I mean, get this: the judge who granted the original ALP water rights was the very attorney who filed the application! In other words, he filed the application as the attorney, then ascended to the bench and granted it. There has been nothing but corruption throughout the history of this water project.

Most of my efforts for the five years the case was pending were directed at fending off ridiculous motions filed by the other side, the ones who now have served as this publication's "confidential source." Throughout, the other side never had any argument, or one scrap of law, supporting their case on the merits. Their case was wholly frivolous. Their efforts were directed at running up my clients' costs, in order to drive it out of the case. What we are fighting here is a racket, participated in by several governmental entities and two Indian tribes.

So, I had a tiny lapse in judgment. I am embarrassed about it, but have now corrected it. The ones who readers of this publication should be demanding be disbarred are the attorneys on the other side. Read my response, which follows my name below. (I don't know how to attach the formatted version.)

Alison Maynard
***
Citizens’ Progressive Alliance, through its attorney undersigned, hereby responds to “Applicant’s Bill of Costs,” which totals $15,493.64; as well as the bills of costs filed by the State of Colorado ($19,689.12); Southern Ute Indian Tribe ($7,871.25), and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe ($6,816.), dated Dec. 15, 2006, and asks that these bills be denied in their entirety. Should the court not deny them outright, CPA asks for a hearing and the right to do discovery: the total of these parties’ bills, for just this one diligence case, is $49,870.01.

1. Costs cannot be awarded when to do so would be manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. Pastrana v. Hudock, 140 P.3d 188 (Colo. App. 2001). Any award in this case would fit that description. As the court will recall, this case was filed in August 2001 and originally involved only the Southwestern Water Conservation District, as applicant, and Citizens’ Progressive Alliance, as opposer. It was set for trial in May 2003. Up until one month before the scheduled trial date, there had been no discovery, and the SWCD had never designated an expert. It had disclosed only a handful of documents and was represented by only one lawyer, at Maynes Bradford Shipps & Sheftel. It was an extremely simple case which was set for a one-day trial.

2. Right before trial, however, the other four parties in this case moved to vacate the trial and consolidate this case with their reserved rights cases, 02 CW 85, etc. Even though they did not have party status in this case, their motion was granted. A second law firm, Hill & Robbins, came in to represent the Applicant. CPA thus found itself fighting a dramatically different case from that it ever had notice of, and that which was originally set for trial. It suddenly found itself opposed by the United States Department of Justice and two federal agencies; the Colorado Attorney General’s office and two state agencies; and two Indian tribes, with their two law firms. These attorneys filed numerous motions; drafted “scheduling orders” for the express purpose of circumventing the time requirements in the rules in order to delay the resolution of this case, so that the trial did not take place for another three years; and conducted extensive discovery against CPA, none of which had any bearing on the question of diligence. These attorneys also hired an “expert,” Leo Eisel, who wrote a report which had nothing to do with diligence, or even with the Animas-La Plata water project, yet whose enormous charges they are now demanding CPA pay.
Importantly, almost all the costs were incurred after the original trial was vacated, in May 2003, through December 2006. CPA in fact attempted to avoid a trial altogether, because of the cost, proposing to stipulate to diligence as a matter of fact in order that an appeal could be taken of the questions of law which had been decided. They refused and forced CPA through a week-long trial. Throughout, the Applicant’s and other parties’ main strategy has been the unethical one of running up CPA’s costs in order to drive it out of the case. This simple diligence case turned into a SLAPP suit. The court should not reward this behavior.

3. As the court is aware, CPA is a grassroots group. It has no funding other than small voluntary contributions from its members. Its mission in filing a statement of opposition in this case was not the profit motive or to further any private concern, but to protect the rivers, and to protect the public interest generally from an economically wasteful and environmentally destructive water project. Effectively, CPA was a private attorney general, and costs should not be awarded against it for that reason, as well.

4. The costs claimed by the SWCD, State of Colorado, and two Indian tribes are unnecessary and unreasonable, in many instances not even meeting the guidelines set by case law. In particular, the claims made by the State of Colorado and the two tribes are 100% frivolous. None of these entities filed as a co-applicant, which they were required to do if they had an interest in the water right. Dallas Creek Water Co. v. Huey, 933 P.2d 27 (Colo. 1997). Because they filed statements of opposition to the application, they may not claim they are entitled to costs when the application succeeds, since, by definition, they were not the applicant and are not prevailing parties. State officials’ efforts on this project were irrelevant to the question of diligence, which is concerned solely with the work done by the Applicant; as to the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes, they did not even put on a case, at all. The cost claims of these three entities must be denied outright, therefore.

5. As to the categories and amounts of costs claimed in the respective bills filed in this case, CPA responds separately to the SWCD’s bill (which at least was filed by an entity which can claim to be the prevailing party), from the bills of those entities frivolously claiming they are also entitled to costs.

B. THE COSTS CLAIMED BY SWCD ARE NOT RECOVERABLE.

1. The costs claimed for SWCD’s expert were unreasonable and unnecessary.

The SWCD has claimed all its costs associated with Leo Eisel’s work, including significant costs he and nine different assistants--including a “bus ops mgr,” accountant, drafter and “designer,” as well as a temporary agency--incurred over An 18-month period. There is no indication, from the bills, what any of these people actually did, nor even what project they were working on. In Perkins v. Flatiron Structures, Inc., 849 P.2d 832 (Colo. App. 1992), the court held that fees for the expert’s assistants should not have been allowed because they were not authorized by statute. Here, at a minimum, because there is no indication what these people did, the court has an inadequate evidentiary basis for drawing any conclusion about the necessity of the services they provided, or the reasonableness of the charges incurred. Compare AWDI, infra. CPA cannot be required to pay for any of it.

[C]osts includes only those items usually taxed as costs and does not include any and all expenses which [a litigant] may see fit to incur in preparing for and presenting his side of the case.

Denver Urban Renewal Auth. v. Hayutin, 40 Colo. App. 559, 564-65, 583 P.2d 296 (1978). In Leadville Water Co. v. Parkville Water Dist., 164 Colo. 362, 4365 P.2d 659 (1967), the Supreme Court said:

We cannot subscribe to the proposition that a party to any litigation shall have a free hand in the employment of expert witnesses and charge his adversary with the costs so incurred. There is no such unbridled authority.

In particular, costs are not taxed when incurred in bad faith. Kinderman v. Hersch, 53 Colo. 561, 129 P.228 (1912). Leo Eisel was a cost incurred in bad faith, the proof of which is shown most readily by the fact that the SWCD’s attorney was going to trial originally without an expert. It is also shown by the subjects of Eisel’s testimony. He did not know anything about a single one of the structures or water rights as to which diligence was sought, and did not know anything about the limitation at Teft which was one of the key points in CPA’s opposition. His opinion was only that “delays are normal in big water projects.” This was nothing more than a subjective observation which had no probative value as to any fact in issue in the case, having no connection with the Animas-La Plata Project and no relevance to any of the standards required to prove diligence, which by law are project-specific. His testimony was not even of a technical nature. Sec. 13-33-102(4), C.R.S., says:

Witnesses in courts of record called to testify only to an opinion founded on special study or experience in any branch of science or to make scientific or professional examinations and state the result thereof shall receive additional compensation, to be fixed by the court, with reference to the value of the time employed and the degree of learning or skill required.

Although Eisel possesses technical qualifications, the opinion he expressed was not founded on “special study or experience in any branch of science,” nor the result of scientific examination. The time he spent had no value, standing in stark contrast to the type of expert testimony found compensable in American Water Development, Inc. v. City of Alamosa, 874 P.2d 352, 389 (Colo. 1994), for instance, where experts testified to the complex geologic and hydrologic features of the San Luis Valley, including the movement of underground water and the effect of pumping underground water on surface streams and waters tributary thereto; and discussed the bases for their competing computer models, testifying about the models’ design, operations, and results achieved by use of the model.

[W]hen an expert is hired to testify but ... his testimony is inadmissible, the expert’s services cannot be characterized as reasonably necessary. In such circumstances, courts do not award fees.

Clayton v. Snow, 131 P.3d 1202; accord Perkins, supra. Although the court let Eisel testify, his testimony was inadmissible, because it had nothing to do with the project.

The SWCD (and other parties) also have claimed not only for Eisel’s trial testimony, but for his (and his assistants’) charges over an 18-month period prior to trial. There is no authority saying that the trial preparation time of an expert is compensable. See Short v. Kinkade, 685 P.2d 210 (Colo. App. 1983) (compensability for trial preparation of an expert expressly not addressed.) That case said, “Costs allowed under Sec. 13-330-102(4), C.R.S. 1973, are circumscribed by a rule of reason and totally within the discretion of the trial court.” There is also no authority for compensating the assistants, as a cost, although the SWCD has claimed that without any discussion.

The burden of showing that such expenses are reasonable and necessary is on the applicant, who has fallen far short of meeting that burden. CPA cannot be required to pay for Leo Eisel and his army of assistants, which in this case is in an amount of $6,640.06 for the SWCD’s share alone.


2. The docket fee and electronic filing charges may not be recovered as costs. Maynes, Bradford, Shipps & Sheftel claims $324.32 for the docket fee it paid in 2001, as well as the publication cost. CPA should not be required to pay for either. First, “publication cost” is not an includable cost under the statute (Sec. 13-16-122(1), C.R.S.); more important, the SWCD was obliged, by law, to file this suit and publish its application in order to continue its conditional water right. It had to do these things regardless of whether or not CPA got in the case. It should not be permitted to lay this charge on CPA.

The itemization of Hill & Robbins for the costs says $209.33 is for “docket fees ... and electronic filing charges.” Because Hill & Robbins only got into the case in 2003, it did not pay any docket fee; and the statute authorizes only “any docket fee ... or any other fee or tax required by statute to be paid to the clerk of the court.” Electronic filing fees are not a “fee or tax required by statute ...” Because there was also no order mandating electronic filing in this case, this cost was unnecessarily incurred. None of this $533.65 ($324.32 + $209.33) may be awarded, therefore.

3. CPA cannot be required to pay for the attorneys’ and their contractors’ meals, hotels, airfare, and other expenses, for 3-1/2 years, or for any period of time.

The SWCD is requiring CPA to pay for David Robbins’s, Jennifer Hunt’s, Leo Eisel’s, and all its other contractors’ meals, airfare, American Express charges, parking, hotel and motel, and the like, in the amount of $3,327.96, over a 3-1/2 year period. Although it says the court has authority to award travel expenses “necessarily incurred by the prevailing parties in the course of attending the trial in this case,” it is claiming expenses for several years longer than the week-long trial. It was not necessary that both Jennifer Hunt and David Robbins travel everywhere on behalf of their client, nor did both of them even perform at the trial–only Hunt examined witnesses. Moreover, all the “status conferences” to which both of them traveled were events they scheduled themselves, over CPA’s objection, at which endless new “scheduling orders” were discussed, to exempt themselves from the requirements of Rule 16. Nothing was being done by these attorneys to advance the case at these “status conferences”: they were wasteful exercises intended to delay resolution of the case so the project could be constructed before the court ever made any examination of diligence. CPA, for its part, diligently tried to obtain a resolution. It cannot be required to pay for any of this activity. All these charges were unnecessary.

4. The prerequisites for awarding the cost of computerized legal research were not met.
Costs of computerized legal research are awardable only if they were necessary for trial preparation. Pueblo Bancorp. v. Lindoe, In., 37 P.3d 492, 500 (Colo. App. 2001). The affidavits of David Robbins and Janice Sheftel say only that such costs ($289.46) were “necessarily incurred in relation to this case,” not that they were necessary for trial preparation. This cost must be excluded, therefore.

5. The photocopying charges are not recoverable. SWCD claims that it is entitled to recover its costs for photocopies, under Sec. 13-16-122(1), C.R.S., of $2,954.34, and that it can recover another $1,748.47 for copies of various hearing transcripts it ordered. It is entitled to neither. Sec. 13-16-122(1)(e), C.R.S., says fees may be recovered “for exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case.” None of the transcripts of pretrial hearings--not to mention of the trial itself, the expense of which is also claimed--fall into that category, since they were not obtained for use at the trial, nor were they used at the trial.

These charges of $4,702.81 must also be excluded.

C. THE OTHER PARTIES’ COSTS CLAIMS MUST BE DENIED IN THEIR ENTIRETY

1. CPA asks the court to deny the costs claims of the State of Colorado and the two Indian tribes, outright. If these entities had an interest in the water right, they were required to file the diligence application as co-applicants with the SWCD, by the August 31, 2001, deadline. Their failure to do so, if they had such an interest, would have constituted a jurisdictional defect for the application, requiring its dismissal with prejudice. That they filed, instead, as opposers is a per se admission that they do not have an interest in the water right. As a matter of law, they are not prevailing parties, despite the Assistant Attorney Generals’ offensive expenditure of state tax dollars to bootstrap the SWCD’s case. (The Tribes, in contrast, put on no case!) There is no authority for requiring one opposer to pay for the activities of other opposers in a water case. Their efforts, moreover, were wholly irrelevant, since the activities of the State are immaterial to the SWCD’s diligence, nor were its activities in any way connected with perfection of the water right in accordance with its decree.

2. These entities’ efforts being wholly unnecessary, their expenditures were unreasonable per se and their claims for costs must be denied outright. CPA incorporates by reference its response to the various categories of charges claimed by the SWCD, above, as to their unreasonableness, all the more adamantly in connection with the claims made by these other three entities. Should the court not deny these spurious claims outright, however, CPA asks for a hearing and discovery rights, and the opportunity to contest each of the charges, including filing a more detailed legal analysis of their unavailability. Also, if CPA has to put in more work responding to these charges, it will move for its fees pursuant to Sec. 13-17-101 et seq., C.R.S., for these entities’ substantially vexatious and substantially groundless filing, as well as Rule 11.

WHEREFORE, the charges being unnecessary and unreasonable, by all the claimants; it being manifestly arbitrary and unfair to award costs against CPA, particularly given the willful expansion of the case and long delays and wasteful expenditures deliberately incurred by the SWCD’s new counsel and the various intervenors; and the State of Colorado and two Indian tribes not even being prevailing parties, all the claims must be denied outright, as it is in the interest of justice. Should they not be denied in their entirety, CPA requests a hearing.

Dated this 4th day of March, 2007.

___________________________
Alison Maynard [signature on file]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Alison Maynard, hereby certify, by my signature above, that I have served the foregoing “RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO BILLS OF COSTS” on all parties by e-service this 4th day of March, 2007.

This is just amazing. Not that it excuses it, but I would think she HAS to be cozy with the judge and/or opposing counsel to even think about filing a pleading like this.

Ah, the danger of e-filing. If she's had to get the paper in by 4.30, drinky-drinky at dinner would not have been a problem...

UGH.

That bill of costs was BORING.

lady,

are you serious? if so, you're even more funny than i thought!

Tier of the lawyer's law school?

Well, since you are reading, Alison, could you answer us this:

Were you still drunk at 11.28 am on Saturday, March 4, or just hung over?

If her JD is 1986, how has she only had a "15-year career"? Does time move slower in Colorado?

"If her JD is 1986, how has she only had a '15-year career'? Does time move slower in Colorado?"

You must go to school with Loyola 2L. The date of the article was 2002, numbnuts.

She's tier 1 - Cornell. I knew it.

This is insane. She has seriously confused routine litigation procedures with the most insane thing I have ever seen in a pleading. And in attempt to obfuscate the issue she accuses Lat of having an agenda because he reports on her completely unprofessional and inexcusable behavior rather than arguments by opposing counsel that are at best routine and uninteresting. The nerve of her! She needs to take down her shingle and head back to Woodstock, clearly.

"She's tier 1 - Cornell. I knew it."

JD from DU Law.

You know why people won't give you a job? You can't even read a website bio right.

Best thread EVAR!!!

*sobs*

Maybe Alison will file her next pleading printed in purple ink! ;-)

What's the big deal? She used humor to lighten up the mood in a cse involving heated debates with unreasonable opposing counsel. Jduges and courts do appreciate senses of humor. See the link below for an example:

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/grinch.pdf

Perhaps the friend she took out for dinner for his birthday was in fact the judge himself? It might explain the casual use of the emoticon, and the blatantly honest statement that "the wine" caused the delay.

This was an amusing post, until Alyson got involved...Then it was a HILARIOUS post! If she had just kept silent, things would have been fine. Trying to defend yourself on a message board will never help your image...especially if you post a freakin long and boring bill of costs!

Even judges play the game: See Bradshaw v. Unity Marine Corp., Inc., 147 F.Supp.2d 668 (S.D. Tx. 2001).

http://mithras.blogs.com/blog/bradshaw.pdf

(Sorry for the typos in the prior post - hit "post" instead of "preview").

Alison,

It appears that you are unfamiliar with this website. It is a legal GOSSIP column, devoted to those things humorous, amusing, and largely non-substantive in the legal profession. You requested an extension of time because you got drunk, then included an emoticon in your filing. That is hilarious. You are also engaged in substantive representation in a water rights case. That is not funny at all. Given the nature of this website, please understand that our focus on the humorous rather than the substantive is not a reflection on the merits of your case. We just like funny court filings.

I'm gay.

What's the big deal? She used humor to lighten up the mood in a cse involving heated debates with unreasonable opposing counsel. Jduges and courts do appreciate senses of humor. See the link below for an example:

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/grinch.pdf

Humor is one thing. Emoticons are quite another. This looks like an e-mail I would send to another associate that I am friends with to explain why I have not gotten around to writing that memo that was due the morning after the firm holiday party.

11:05 AM: Here's the "you're not getting away with this s***" Notice of Appeal:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2006/09/best_notice_of_appeal_ever.php

The guy also calls the trial judge an "a**hole."

I agree with "A reader" - relax, Alison. This is funny stuff.

It is really a shame that she responded in such a humorless fashion. It makes me think that "No Big Deal" is completely off base with the theoretical explanation that "She used humor to lighten up the mood in a cse involving heated debates with unreasonable opposing counsel. Jduges and courts do appreciate senses of humor."

If her responses to this thread had evidenced any sense of humor, rather than a misguided belief that David Lat and his readers somehow hate water rights activists or are in cahoots with her opposing counsel, I'd be tempted to agree with "No Big Deal". But, from what I can tell, she doesn't have a sense of humor. Otherwise, she'd recognize that it is pretty funny that she included an emoticon in her filing.

I would have a lot more respect for her if she had responded to the comments on this thread with either a :-p or ))<>(( forever [for this last one you should see the movie You, Me, and Everyone we Know]

I hope the wine was organic and the meal was vegan.

dang it, left out a character in the last emoticon. should be:

))<>(( forever

( . ) ( . )

why won't deal breaker allow me to post the full emoticon...so bizarre. i give up there's a

http://csindy.com/csindy/2002-08-01/news3.html

;)

i demand a full investigation into how the opposing party spent those computerized research dollars.

Double Ds

( . ^ . )

http://www.media-visions.com/colorado/attygeneral.html

sense of humor?

Good show, old girl.

Good stuff all around, actually.

Aside - I really hated "Me You and Everyone We Know" - utter tripe.

Lat, you hit blawgosphere paydirt with this one.

http://www.westword.com/2002-07-18/news/minor-irritants/

she must be a blast after she gets drunk

http://csindy.com/csindy/2002-08-01/news3.html

The only thing worse than Ms. Maynard's inexcusably immature and childish filing (in an attempt to explain what can only be described as blatant malpractice) is her pathetic attempt now to defend teh indefinsible and shift blame to her opponent vis a vi the stupid bill of costs. This woman is out of her rmind.

I have never met (or even heard of) Ms. Russin, but it appears she interviewed Sunny and darned if she didn't get some good stuff!

Here's the link to her (weird) blog, followed by the money quotes:
http://www.photoairbrushing.com/krystle/maynard.html

Q: As a lawyer, how will you take your experience and use it if elected?
A: I will use my experience in land use and water law as Attorney General in much the same way I have used it in private practice: to protect citizens and the environment, rather than real estate developers and polluters. I have no conflicts of interest, and take the rules of ethics seriously. So will the attorneys I employ in the office.

I have been a criminal prosecutor, and researched both the Colorado and federal versions of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; I have also brought a civil antitrust suit. I will bring this experience, along with my land use and water rights background, to bear in instituting prosecutions or civil suits to combat racketeering, securities fraud, and antitrust violations in the state. The standard business practice of Qwest, as one example, has been to send fraudulent bills to consumers for years; 3,700 people have complained to the Colorado Attorney General about this “corporate citizen,” and their demands for prosecution ignored. Qwest is nothing less than a criminal enterprise which calls itself a phone company. All people involved in the racket should be prosecuted.

Q: Why should you be elected over other candidates for attorney general?
A: I am taking no campaign contributions from the dirty businesses which are harming our state, and this distinguishes me from both my opponents. I also have no ties to the law firm of Brownstein, Hyatt, and Farber, as both my opponents do - and this is a firm with well-documented connections to organized crime.

I would bet almost anything that the poster who suggested the "friend" she took out for his birthday was indeed the judge in the case. It makes perfect sense.

Lat, you got linked to Fark!
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2658791

More Maynard crazy-talk over here:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/03/lawyer_of_the_day_alison_mayna.php

Wow.

Opposing a bill of costs, huh? Guess that means you lost at trial.

Nice going.

You lawyers get your head so far up your asses you fail to see the irony in the fact that you got all bent out of shape at her using an emoticon in a court filing, then bent out of shape at her for being serious?

Lighten up, cocktards.

You guys get all emo about the emoticon....it's funny. Go buy a sense of humor with your next paycheck.

By the way, you went to a tier 1 law school huh? Good. I'll high 5 my son after he's done f**king your daughter. lol....ownd

The expression, sir, for which you are looking is "pwned."

Maynard has a sense of humor and is effective. Most of the commenters above are pompous and inflate her imaginary transgressions. Fie!

The better question is who did she take to dinner, and how did she get home?

Kudos to Tier 3 no debt beeeoch!! But really, if you are practicing water law in the 4-corners area....an emoticon in your pleading is the high point of excitement in a long and boring career.