INTRODUCTION:

Do we live by the Rule of Law? Or the
Rule of the Big Stick? 

This website was created to elicit discussion over a conflict in law that the Colorado Supreme Court has – so far – either avoided addressing, or is simply refusing to address.  It’s not that they have refused to enter an order pertaining to the litigation – there is an order – but it is conspicuously silent regarding ANY of the arguments raised.  Because of that omission, I feel like a symbolic Rachel Corrie – she was a Peace Activist who stood in front of a bulldozer in an attempt to stop it from destroying a Palestinian home.  The Israeli soldier just bulldozed over her (twice). (See http://www.networkingtheinternet.com/zxm-rachel-corrie.htm or http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1248.shtml .   The Colorado Supreme Court is bulldozing over me.  Their order is 1 and ½ pages long and says nothing about the questions of law litigated between the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel and myself.   The decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge stated that he was not going to endorse my arguments because they had never been raised before.   Why have I not been given legal authority that rebut my arguments?  Because the statute I relied upon gave me the right to do what I did.  The Courts are ruling against me only with reliance upon the law of the Big Stick – not the Rule of Law.  They are protecting a monopoly at the expense of the quality of our (middle income) lives.  In spite of the danger of retaliation  I am persisting in this unconventional argument as an act of civil disobedience because I think the time is ripe and because the need is so great  -- the need for middle income people to have access to trained, professional help when they need to use the courts.  Yes, yes, yes, attorneys are there for those who can afford them – but I’m talking about those who earn too much to qualify for Legal Aid programs yet not enough to pay an attorney.   It’s all explained here in the “Conversation Between an Attorney and a Non-Attorney”.   The appellate briefs follow.  I welcome comments from anyone – professionals and pro se litigants – and I will convey those thoughts on this web page later.   And for those of you who are immediately asking why I didn’t take the issue to the Legislature – know this:  I did take the issue to the Legislature – my Reps told me that the Power of Attorney Act speaks for itself and it’s up to the Judiciary to apply it.  If they don’t apply it – WHAT THEN?  Thank you for your interest.  Linda Sanders (a Paralegal with over 15 years experience).  My email address is:  Legalbeaglette@comcast.net 

 

Our Supreme Court Justices - the guardians of our rights and liberties - who are bound by oath to enter rulings that are impartial and faithful to the law.