~Discovery~


Judge William Lucero

1560 Broadway, Suite 675

Denver, CO 80202

Telephone: (303)866-6658

Facsimile: (303)825-2833

Dear Judge Lucero,

Please accept my apology for sending this material direct to you and by-passing the normal methods of lodging a complaint.

The reason I must deliver this material directly to you is that I have contacted Matthew Samuelson, Stephen Fatzinger and John Gleason. I have also been present when Pamela Hadas and Chas Clements contacted these gentlemen. Mr. Samuelson, Mr. Fatzinger and Mr. Gleason have consistently refused to accept grievances against Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Registration Number 22625. It appears that these gentlemen are shielding and protecting Attorney Miller from scrutiny for some reason. (See Exhibits 28 & 29) Additionally, although Attorney Miller was sanctioned by your organization and required to reimburse Harold Brown $5000 and receive counseling from Ted Burello, there is no disciplinary record of that event.

Therefore, I sincerely trust that by sending this material directly to you, an actual investigation can be instituted and Attorney Miller’s criminal activities can be addressed in a lawful manner. I have a great deal of hard-copy evidence to support all the allegations I lodge herein, some of it is attached as Exhibits, so if there is any question about proving any element of any allegation contained herein, I would sincerely appreciate the opportunity to provide proper evidence. I trust that you will not lightly dismiss this sincere complaint as lightly as your underlings have.

Rule 241.12. Complaint

(2) Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 241.11 (a)(2), (a)(3), or (a)(4) by any complainant in the complainant's own name.

Pursuant to C.R.C.P. Rule 241.9 (1),

Steve Douglas Gartin requests the Grievance Committee to initiate an investigation of the above listed party, Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire, a lawyer B.A.R. #22652.

Pursuant to C.R.C.P. Rule 241.8

"…or because he has engaged in conduct which poses an immediate threat to the effective administration of justice, the Supreme Court may order the lawyer's license to practice law immediately suspended."

Steve Douglas, Gartin recommends and requests the immediate suspension of the license to practice law of the above listed party, Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire for reasons enumerated below.

Rule 241.9. Request for Investigation (b) (1)

The above listed attorney, Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire is subject to the jurisdiction of the State Supreme Court of Colorado; the lawyer, Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire, is before the Colorado Bar as Number 22652.

Rule 241.9. Request for Investigation (b) (2)

The allegations herein, when proved, will constitute grounds for severe disciplinary action and criminal sanctions against Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire.

Rule 241.12. Complaint

(b) Service of Complaint. The Disciplinary Counsel shall promptly serve the respondent, Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire, as provided in C.R.C.P. 241.25 (b), a citation and a copy of the complaint filed against the respondent.

Rule 241.6. Grounds for Discipline

Misconduct by a lawyer, individually or in concert with others, including the following acts or omissions, shall constitute grounds for discipline, whether or not the act or omission occurred in the course of an attorney-client relationship:

(1) Any act or omission which violates the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct;

Rule 1.1.Competence

      A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller is proud and vocal about his refusal to read statutes, case law and legal material. He possesses only a copy of the C.R.S., nothing else. Attorney Miller commissioned, me, Steve Gartin, and Chas Clements, to do his legal research on-line through Lexis-Nexis and Dr. Pamela Hadas to read the material and provide him with pertinent sections relative to the case at hand. While the "Team" was in place, Attorney Miller excelled and he won cases.

Since he alienated his Team, Attorney Miller consistently presents the wrong statutes, inappropriate stare decisis and inaccurate arguments in all of his cases. The case most egregious was 00CR3371, wherein his original "artistic" concoction and unfounded "Motion for Forgiveness" filed 16 March 2004 and argued before the Honorable Stephen Munsinger on 8 April 2004 quoted inapplicable statutes, unworkable legal theories, legal impossibilities, inaccurate facts, blatant lies and really bad poetry. Attorney Miller’s incompetence was apparent to all parties present, including Judge Munsinger, who denied Attorney Miller’s motion out-of-hand.

Rule 1.3.Diligence

      A Lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to that lawyer.

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller agreed with Marleen Langfield, Deputy Colorado State Attorney General, on 14 March 2002, to prevent his client Steve Gartin from filing new, or maintaining any current litigation during the period from 8 April 2002 until 8 April 2004. As a concession to his client, Steve Gartin, Attorney Miller agreed to pursue all legal matters Steve Gartin had in progress at the time of the "probation agreement."

Those matters encompassed:

a) the Appeal of 97M811, Appellate Case #01CV1311

b) the voiding of unlawful restraining orders

c) the sealing of all sealable cases

d) the re-establishment of family relations

e) the purging of inaccurate information in CCIC/NCIC records

In addition to the matters which Attorney Miller willingly and vocally accepted, Judge Munsinger, on 8 April 2004, ordered Attorney Miller to file a 35C Motion in case 00CR3371.

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller has deliberately and intentionally defaulted on each and every commitment he made, or was ordered to litigate. Every matter in which Complainant’s legal affairs were entrusted to Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, he has neglected or abandoned. The official court record reflects that ultimate fact, and will be provided if that evidence is required in the course of your investigation.

      Rule 1.4.Communication

      (a)A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.

      (b)A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller deliberately and intentionally refused to provide a copy of the "Motion for Forgiveness" to his client, Steve Gartin, who asked repeatedly, and documented those requests with multiple witnesses, for a copy of the "Motion."

(see Exhibits #1, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9)

      Rule 1.6.Confidentiality of Information

      (a)A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, and except as stated in paragraphs (b) and (c).

      (b)A lawyer may reveal the intention of the lawyer's client to commit a crime and the information necessary to prevent the crime.

      (c)A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceedings concerning the lawyer's representation of the client.

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller did, on or about 16 May 2004, contact Deputy Colorado State Attorney General Marleen M. Langfield, Esquire and divulge privileged attorney/client information. The fact that the information was false, does not mitigate the fact that Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller deliberately violated Rule 1.6. (See Exhibit #21) There was no issue of sub-paragraph (b) ~ no crime could have been prevented. Attorney Miller had already committed the crime. Attorney Miller violated Rule 1.6 in order to gain an advantage in a civil action #04C1779. (See Exhibit #19 page 2)

There was, however, the issue of a civil action that had been filed and served upon Defendant Miller, to-wit: 04C1779 ~ a complaint for breach of contract wherein Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller is accused of violating his fee-splitting agreement with Steve Gartin. Although Attorney Miller’s violation of Rule 1.6 serves no lawful purpose, it is germane to note that Attorney Miller lured Plaintiff Steve Gartin into Boulder County Court on 6 June 2005 in order to effect his arrest in case #04CR2541, a case instituted in retaliation for having filed a civil suit for breach of contract six days prior to Attorney Miller’s Rule 1.6 violation pursuant to his unlawful and fraudulent contact with Deputy Colorado State Attorney General Marleen M. Langfield, Esquire, who Attorney Miller knew harbored an invidious discriminatory animus against Steve Gartin. The ultimate fact that Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller lied to Marleen Langfield and Judge Leland Anderson is violative of Rule 4.1 and provides further evidence of his criminal intent and also provides criminal sanctions against Attorney Miller for lying to public officials.

      Rule 1.9.Conflict of Interest: Former Client

      (a)A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents after consultation.

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire did not consult with his client, Steve Gartin before joindering with the adverse party, Deputy Colorado State Attorney General Marleen M. Langfield in the exact same matter, to-wit: 00CR3371, except at adverse interests.

      (b)A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously represented a client,

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire acted first as Defense Attorney, then as the solitary witness for the prosecution.

      (1)whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire abandoned his client, then presented false testimony against him.

      (2)about whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rule 1.6 that is material to the matter; unless the former client consents after consultation.

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire did not request, nor receive consent for his treachery from his former client, Steve Gartin.

      (c)A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former law firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:

      (1)use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as Rule 1.6 or Rule 3.3 would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the information has become generally known; or

      (2)reveal information relating to the representation except as Rule 1.6 or Rule 3.3 would permit or require with respect to a client.

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller deliberately and intentionally lied to Steve Gartin and to Chas Clements about a fraudulent and unconstitutional "probation agreement" that prevented either party from seeking First Amendment Redress of Grievance from abusive government agents during the pendancy of the two-year probation period.

Attorney Miller often stated this stipulation in the presence of Attorney Caroline Stapleton, Investigator Frank Pugliese, Para-Legal Dr. Pamela Hadas, and clients Chas Clements and Steve Gartin.

Attorney Miller advised that anyone connected with Steve Gartin who filed suit against governmental tortfeasors would result in an all-out offensive against Steve Gartin at the hands of Gary Clyman, Donald Estep and Marleen Langfield.

It was under this rubric that Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller managed to prevent Chas Clements from filing suit against Marleen Langfield, Donald Estep and Gary Clyman until the two-year statute of limitations on a 42 U.S.C. §1983 suit had expired. Then, on 4 March 2004 Attorney Miller informed Chas Clements and Steve Gartin that he was ‘welshing’ on the agreements he had made and did not have the funds to return the retainer.

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller continued his fraudulent, criminal and tortuous actions against Chas Clements, by accepting payment for other legal issues which he refused to pursue and refused to refund the retainer that Mr. Clements had paid, so Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller ended up as a named Defendant in Federal Action # 04-RD-2455.

On 16 May 2004, Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller after being served with Frank Pugliese’s suit on 6 May 2004 and Steve Gartin’s suit on 10 May 2004 made the conscious decision to violate Rule 1.9 by providing patently false and slanderous information to Marleen Langfield and Gary Clyman, defendants in Federal Civil Rights case # 01-ES1145 in which Steve Gartin was Plaintiff, by fraudulently instigating a criminal prosecution in order to gain advantage in a civil matter, which is a patent violation of Rule 4.5 and the lies Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller told are violative of Rule 4.1 and 3.3.

      Rule 3.2.Expediting Litigation

      A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller neglected every responsibility charged to him. There was no case or issue that Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller committed to that he followed through on and completed. The Official Record stands as evidence of that ultimate fact.

      Rule 3.3.Candor Toward the Tribunal

      (a)A lawyer shall not knowingly:

      (1)make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal;

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, in full knowledge that case #97M811 went to jury trial and resulted in a conviction, never-the-less tendered a motion to the Honorable Court in a completely unrelated case, including an Exhibit "B" that denied that ultimate fact and formed the graveman for the information in the current case #04CR2541. Including that information in that pleading served absolutely no legitimate purpose. None-the-less that is the foundation of the charges in the case wherein Attorney Miller’s former client, Steve Gartin was convicted of a felony.

      (2)fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller’s testimony under oath in case #04CR2541 on 22 & 23 February, 2006 confirms the fact that he knew that the motion he tendered to the court was false before he filed it, but in spite of the fact that Marleen M. Langfield wrote him a personal note informing him of his inaccuracies two weeks before the hearing, Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller stormed forward with lies and deception before the Honorable Stephen Munsinger in open court. "If" Attorney Miller knew there was a problem with his ‘original’ submission, it was his duty to retract that motion and exhibits. That frivolous motion served no purpose even if it were not filled with lies.

      (3)fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller was fully informed by the opposition, to-wit: Marleen M. Langfield that the legal authorities he had relied upon in his ‘novel’ Motion for Forgiveness were incorrect and adverse to the position he touted, yet Attorney Miller refused to yield to truth and blazed forward in Shakespearian fervor to the disgust of all present, including the Honorable Judge Munsinger, who requested that he cease and desist.

      (4)offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and later learns that the evidence is false, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures.

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller knew, or should have known, for at least two years prior to his fraudulent submission to the court that the purported ‘evidence’ that he was submitting was not accurate. Attorney Miller made no attempt to Certify the Record and made no investigative trips to the record room in order to confirm the ‘evidence’ that he was presenting. Even after being informed by Marleen Langfield that his information was incorrect, Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller refused to relent. After being provided accurate information repeatedly by his client, Steve Gartin, Attorney Miller refused to correct his inaccuracies and published his ‘work of art’ to the detriment of his client, who has now been convicted of Attempting to Influence a Public Official based upon Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller’s fraudulent Motion for Forgiveness and Petition to Seal.

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller has grievously damaged his client through lies, deceit and deception.

      (c)A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller testified under oath in open court on 22 and 23 February, 2004 that he knew the filing, to-wit: Motion for Forgiveness and Petition to Seal was false, "before, during and after" filing the motion.

      Rule 3.4.Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel

      A lawyer shall not:

      (a)unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller was ordered by Judge Enquist to provide to defense attorney Renee Cooper the ‘complete’ Gartin File. Attorney Miller refused to comply. He initially provided only 9 FAXed pages, the day before the jury trial of 22 & 23 February, 2006. Judge Enquist again ordered compliance at the end of the first day of trial. Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller then provided a small, disorganized pile of papers void of communications between Attorney Miller and client Steve Gartin. Steve Gartin’s records and the records of Private Investigator Frank Pugliese confirmed that Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller had deliberately and intentionally concealed exculpatory evidence in an effort to obstruct justice and gain an unlawful conviction for the prosecution.

      (b)falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify

      falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law;

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller knew that his submission entitled ‘Exhibit B’ handwritten in juvenile scrawl was erroneous, was informed by Marleen Langfield that it was erroneous, but refused to retract or withdraw that exhibit. That exhibit formed the graveman for convicting his innocent client, Steve Gartin.

      (c)knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists;

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller knew that his complete Gartin File had been requested and ordered by the Court and Attorney Miller refused to comply.

      (d)in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or fail to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party;

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller continued to refuse to comply with Discovery Orders and failed to provide exculpatory evidence which resulted in the inappropriate conviction of his former client, Steve Gartin for a motion that Attorney Miller refused to show Mr. Gartin before or after it was filed. (See Exhibits #1,5, 6,7, 8, & 9)

      (e)in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused; or

In testimony in case #04CR2541 Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller introduced copious statements of irrelevant opinions that unduly affected the jury. Transcripts will be ordered on Appeal and those issues will be further documented.

      Rule 3.5.Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal

      A lawyer shall not:

      (a)seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or other official by means prohibited by law;

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller sought to gain favor in the Colorado State Attorney General’s Office and secure a job therein by exhibiting control of his client, Steve Gartin and by preventing him from seeking First Amendment Petition for Redress of Grievance in the form of civil rights litigation. Attorney Miller and Colorado State Deputy Attorney General Marleen M. Langfield agreed, in a meeting of the minds, that Attorney Miller should verbally state that Mr. Gartin was precluded from filing or maintaining litigation for the period of two years. Attorney Miller refused to provide a copy of the actual ‘Probation Agreement’ until a month before the end of the two year Probationary period.

      (b)communicate ex parte with such a person except as permitted by law; or

This we will probably not know until the Discovery phase of the Federal Litigation currently pending.

      (c)engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.

On 22 February, 2006 attorneys Miller and Massaro conducted a dog & pony show in open court, including Miller entering in a wheelchair after gawking over the six foot high window in the interview room overlooking the court room. Prior to Miller’s extravagant entrance into the court room, I observed him jiving with the guards at the metal detector, fully ambulatory.

      Rule 3.7.Lawyer as Witness

      (a)A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness except where:

      (1)the testimony relates to an uncontested issue;

      (2)the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or

      (3)disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client.

      (b)A lawyer shall not act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the lawyer's firm is likely to be called as a witness unless the requirements of Rule 1.7 or Rule 1.9 have been met.

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller acted as the ONLY prosecution witness in case #00CR2541. Client, Steve Gartin never waived attorney client privilege.

      Rule 4.1.Truthfulness in Statements to Others

      In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

      (a)make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or

      (b)fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller knowingly and deliberately lied concerning receiving ‘exhibits’ from his client Steve Gartin. All the information received from Steve Gartin is contained within court documents, is available on the internet, and Attorney Miller’s version of that information does not conform with the facts.

(2) Any act or omission which violates accepted rules or standards of legal ethics;

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller has lied, misrepresented his client, failed to do due diligence, failed to rise to minimal standards of professional performance and has deliberately and intentionally violated attorney/client privilege for his benefit in a civil action and the benefit of the Colorado State Attorney General’s Office who harbor a well documented invidious discriminatory animus against Steve Gartin.

(3) Any act or omission which violates the highest standards of honesty, justice, or morality;

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller has repeatedly committed criminal acts against his clients such as the unlawful distribution of prescription drugs in order to induce suicide. Stolen vast sums of money from his clients. Taken loans and refused to repay his clients. Threatened his clients with prison if they don’t pay him more money. Taken drugs in payment for services. Deserted and abandoned clients who have pre-paid his services. Deliberately and intentionally worked against his clients in favor of the opposition and refused to read case files, case law, statutes or procedures in order to competently represent his clients.

(4) Any act or omission which constitutes gross negligence, if committed by a lawyer in his capacity as a lawyer;

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller placed the entire case file in case #00CR3371 out on the public street for ‘recycling’ two years before the conclusion of the case. That case spawned this case #04CR2541, so the files are yet germane to current events and Attorney Miller has no files available. Attorney Miller destroyed, lost or misplace the files of other clients as well: to-wit; Thomas Garcia, Kevin Brown, Benjamin Haley, Monique Hawkins, Chas Clements, Dr. Pamela Hadas, Rich Wyatt, Joel Costello, and William Godbey. All of these clients have complained that Attorney Miller has refused to return their legal files after they fired him for non-performance.

(5) Any act or omission which violates the criminal laws of the state or any other state, or of the United States;

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller has traded legal services for marijuana, as observed by Private Investigator Frank Pugliese. Attorney Miller deliberately forced un-prescribed paxil on Dr. Pamela Hadas in order to induce suicidal inclinations so that he could take over her estate. Dr. Hadas filed a criminal complaint against Attorney Miller with the Boulder Police. Attorney Miller stole $120,000 from Dr. Pamela Hadas’ checkbook by writing checks to Judith Phillips. Attorney Miller never reported that extra $120,000 on his income tax reports. Attorney Miller has never made arrangements to repay Dr. Hadas. Attorney Miller unlawfully imprisoned Dr. Hadas under the rubric of an unlawful ‘intervention.’ Attorney Miller threatened Tal Jones with a knife. Attorney Miller accepted a $5000 retainer from Chas Clements to pursue 42 USC 1983 actions, strung him along until the statute of limitations expired and then ‘welshed’ on the deal. Attorney Miller took $30,000 from the elderly William Godbey to negotiate debt settlement when Attorney Miller knew that Mr. Godbey was the victim of a scam and the credit card companies would not hold him liable. Attorney Miller attempted to extort Harold Brown, Joel Costello, Chas Clements and Rich Wyatt for money by threats of imprisonment.

(6) Any act or omission which violates these Rules or which violates an order of discipline or disability;

Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller deliberately and intentionally refuses to read and study the rudiments of his profession and proudly boasts about it. Any one who hires Attorney Miller will be sadly, and perhaps criminally, disappointed.

Background

Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire was assigned to act in the capacity of Advisory Counsel, by Judge Leland Anderson in Jefferson County Case #00-CR-3371, on or about 4 March, 2002 during the time that I was held as a political prisoner in the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office's jail.   

At that time, I had been held without arraignment for over 11 months, denied motions hearings, reasonable bond, had court-ordered psychological evaluations and forced to live in deplorable, overcrowded prison conditions, and although un-tried and un-convicted, forced to co-habit a 7' x 13' jail cell with transient felons. 

Thomas Cecil Miller, Esquire coerced me into accepting a plea under threat of being forced to remain in prison for another year while he studied the case and 'came up to speed' for trial. 

In a meeting of the minds and by agreement Thomas Cecil Miller and Marleen M. Langfield, Esquire of the Colorado State Attorney General's Office then conspired to prevent me from continuing the Four Federal Civil Rights Actions against criminal Government officials by making it a condition of a 'probation agreement' that I would drop the current suits and not file anymore actions during the two year probation period.  42 U.S.C. 1983 {the Anti Ku Klux Klan laws} has a two-year statute of limitations. 

Private Investigator Frank Pugliese filed his final report with Judge Anderson revealing the criminal conspiracy between Attorney Miller and State Attorney General Marleen M. Langfield on 2 April, 2004.  Although Attorney Langfield continues to deny the agreement of 14 March, 2002, Attorney Miller confessed, under oath, on 7 June 2005. (See Exhibit #24)

This enumeration of acts and omissions constituting grounds for discipline is not exclusive, and other acts or omissions amounting to unprofessional conduct may constitute further grounds for discipline.

1) During the month of March, 2002, the Respondent, Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire committed misfeasance and failed to rise to minimal standards of the legal profession by a lack of due diligence. Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire failed and neglected to read the Court File and Discovery in case #00CR3371. Attorney Miller later confessed to this fact in the presence of Caroline Stapleton, Esquire, Dr. Pamela Hadas, Chas Clements and Investigator Frank Pugliese.

2) On, or about, 14 March 2002 Attorney Miller and Investigator Frank Pugliese met with Deputy Colorado State Attorney General Marleen M. Langfield, Esquire and CSAG Investigator Gary Clyman in Ms. Langfield’s office. Attorney Miller and Deputy CSAG Langfield agreed to probation terms for Steve Gartin including a stipulation that Mr. Gartin would drop all Civil Rights and R.I.C.O. actions against all State Actors represented by the Colorado State Attorney General’s Office and not institute any new actions during the period of probation, to-wit: two years.

3) Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire has committed malfeasance and failed to rise to minimal standards of the legal profession by giving undue help to the prosecution by raising the potential charges from civil to criminal in nature in case #04CR2541.

4) Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire has used his position and training as an attorney to obstruct justice and to mislead the Court by failing to present a competent and professional defense of Steve Douglas Gartin in case #00CR3371.

5) Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire has used his position and training as an attorney to improperly impede the proper progression of the due process of the law and to abuse that process in case #04CR2541.

6) Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire has committed misfeasance and failed to rise to minimal standards of the legal profession by colluding with Assistant District Attorney Dennis Hall to mislead the Court and perpetrate a fraud upon the Court and to abuse the process administered by the Court in case #04CR2541.

7) Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire has committed malfeasance and failed to rise to minimal standards of the legal profession by knowingly and deliberately breaking the attorney client privilege in case #04CR2541. Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire improperly discussed privileged information with Assistant District Attorney Dennis Hall, Colorado State Deputy Attorney General Marleen M. Langfield, Colorado State Attorney General Investigator Gary Clyman and such others in order to abuse the process, obstruct justice and to perpetrate an improper influence on Federal cases pending against such Defendants of the Jefferson County CourtHouse Enterprise.

8) Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire has committed misfeasance and failed to rise to minimal standards of the legal profession by putting the political and social needs of his job position before the needs and necessities of her client Steve Douglas Gartin. Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire knew that the pending Federal Civil Rights actions were potentially embarrassing to Government Defendants represented by the Colorado State Attorney General. In his conferences with his clients, Steve Douglas Gartin and Chas Clements, he proposed to assume legal representation for those cases once the ‘probationary period’ had expired. Attorney Miller lied. One month before the end of the probationary period Attorney Miller announced that he was ‘welshing’ on all agreements.

9) Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire has committed misfeasance and failed to rise to minimal standards of the legal profession by putting the political and social needs of his job position before the needs and necessities of his client Steve Douglas Gartin by refusing to pursue the legal interests of his client.

      Rule 8.4. Misconduct

      It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

      (a) violate or attempt to violate the rules of professional conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the act of another;

      (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

      (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

      (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

      (f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law;

      (g) engage in conduct which violates accepted standards of legal ethics; or

      (h) engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.

9) Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire has committed malfeasance and failed to rise to minimal standards of the legal profession by improperly assisting the District Attorney’s Office and the Jefferson County Judiciary in a retaliatory and malicious prosecution of his client, Steve Douglas Gartin. Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire assisted in the vindictive retaliation against his client by the Defendants in Federal R.I.C.O. case # 01-ES-1145 Dennis Hall, Marleen Langfield, Donald Estep and Gary Clyman.

10) Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire violated attorney/client confidentiality by sharing information with Walter Eugene Barrett against his client’s protest. Walter Eugene Barrett then disseminated that information to C.S.A.G. Investigator Gary Clyman, known to exhibit an invidious discriminatory animus against Steve Gartin.

11) Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire has committed malfeasance and failed to rise to minimal standards of the legal profession, and obstructed justice, by refusing to bring forward exculpatory information about his client into evidence that is embarrassing and possibly incriminating against members of the legal profession and the judiciary.

12) Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire has committed misfeasance and failed to rise to minimal standards of the legal profession by putting the political and social needs of his job position before the needs and necessities of her client Steve Douglas Gartin in District Court cases 97M811 & 97M812 and Appellate Case # 01CV3011 both for fear of retribution and for personal gain.

13) Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire has committed malfeasance and failed to rise to minimal standards of the legal profession by improperly and deliberately failing to bring attention to the misfeasance and malfeasance of the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department. Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire failed to give due diligence to the examination of search warrants, SWAT team reports, the affidavit of warrantless arrest and such other work product of Marleen M. Langfield, Don Estep and Gary Clyman as was untruthful, improper and insufficient in case #00CR3371.

14) Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire has committed malfeasance by deliberately refusing to comply with Court-ordered Discovery of all Records relative to his client, Steve Douglas Gartin in case #04CR2541. In particular, Attorney Miller refused to provide numerous E-mail communications from his client, Mr. Gartin, requesting a copy of the Motion for Forgiveness that Attorney Miller was about to file with Jefferson County District Court. After filing that Motion for Forgiveness, Attorney Miller continued to refuse to tender Mr. Gartin a copy of the Motion that had been filed, despite numerous E-mail communications from Mr. Gartin requesting a copy of the filed motion.

15) Petitioner, Steve Gartin, was convicted of a felony on 23 February 2006 as the direct result of Attorney Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire’s lies, malfeasance, criminal acts, and violations of the Ethical Rules. Damages are accruing.

      Rule 1.6. Confidentiality of Information.

      (a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, and except as stated in paragraphs (b) and (c).

      (b) A lawyer may reveal the intention of the lawyer's client to commit a crime and the information necessary to prevent the crime.

      (c) A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceedings concerning the lawyer's representation of the client.

      (d) A lawyer shall exercise reasonable care to prevent the lawyer's employees, associates, and others whose services are utilized by the lawyer from disclosing or using such information, except that a lawyer may reveal the information allowed by paragraphs (b) and (c) through such persons.

      The lawyer is part of a judicial system charged with upholding the law. One of the lawyer's functions is to advise clients so that they avoid any violation of the law in the proper exercise of their rights.

      The observance of the ethical obligation of a lawyer to hold inviolate confidential information of the client not only facilitates the full development of facts essential to proper representation of the client but also encourages people to seek early legal assistance.

      Almost without exception, clients come to lawyers in order to determine what their rights are and what is, in the maze of laws and regulations, deemed to be legal and correct. The common law recognizes that the client's confidences must be protected from disclosure. Based upon experience, lawyers know that almost all clients follow the advice given, and the law is upheld.

      A fundamental principle in the client-lawyer relationship is that the lawyer maintain confidentiality of information relating to the representation. The client is thereby encouraged to communicate fully and frankly with the lawyer even as to embarrassing or legally damaging subject matter.

      The principle of confidentiality is given effect in two related bodies of law, the attorney-client privilege (which includes the work product doctrine) in the law of evidence and the rule of confidentiality established in professional ethics. The attorney-client privilege applies in judicial and other proceedings in which a lawyer may be called as a witness or otherwise required to produce evidence concerning a client.

      The rule of client-lawyer confidentiality applies in situations other than those where evidence is sought from the lawyer through compulsion of law. The confidentiality rule applies not merely to matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to all information relating to the representation, whatever its source. A lawyer may not disclose such information except as authorized or required by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

      The attorney-client privilege is more limited than the ethical obligation of a lawyer to guard confidential information of the client. This ethical precept, unlike the evidentiary privilege, exists without regard to the nature or source of information or the fact that others share the knowledge. A lawyer should endeavor to act in a manner which preserves the evidentiary privilege; for example, the lawyer should avoid professional discussion in the presence of persons to whom the privilege does not extend. A lawyer owes an obligation to advise the client of the attorney-client privilege and timely to assert the privilege unless it is waived by the client.

Judge Lucero, there is a lot more to tell about the nefarious and criminal activities of Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller and I feel it my duty to offer any assistance I can to rid the legal community of people of this ilk, who blatantly take advantage of their special position of power to harm their fellowman. Thomas Cecil "Doc" Miller, Esquire is a disgrace to the legal profession and inevitably causes irreparable harm to his clients. You certainly have access to his client list, a simple inquiry of his past clients will confirm my allegation.

I remain available to you, or your investigators, at your volition. The most reliable means of communication is by email, since Attorney Miller and his associates have destroyed my financial consortium.

Thank you for your kind assistance in this regard,

 

 

_____________________________________ Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Steve Gartin

P.O. Box 70185

Albuquerque, NM 87197

Email: sheriffsteve@justice.com

www.vindictiveprosecution.com

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

Index to Exhibits

Exhibit #1 Email from Gartin to Miller 4-5-04 = Doc’s Anger Management Issues

Exhibit #2 Supreme Court Brief ~ Page

Exhibit #3 Supreme Court Brief ~ Page 17

Exhibit #4 Supreme Court Brief ~ Page 60

Exhibit #5 Email from Gartin to Miller 3-13-04 = BLACKwall of NONcommunication

Exhibit #6 Email from Miller to Gartin 4-7-04 = Doc’s Anger Management Issues and preparation for the April 8th Hearing

Exhibit #7 Email from Gartin to Miller 3-18-04 = Communication

Exhibit #8 Email from Gartin to Miller 4-3-04 = Protective Seclusion

Exhibit #9 Email from Gartin to Miller 3-18-04 = The upcoming hearing and planning stage

Exhibit #10 Discovery case #04CR2541 page 13 = Miller breaches Attorney/Client confidence

Exhibit #11 Discovery case #04CR2541 page 16 = Miller’s perjured Motion for Forgiveness

Exhibit #12 Discovery case #04CR2541 page 18 = Miller mis-states the purpose of the Motion

Exhibit #13 Discovery case #04CR2541 page 19 = Miller quotes wrong statutes

Exhibit #14 Discovery case #04CR2541 page 40 = Miller’s "Exhibit B" resulting in prosecution of Steve Gartin

Exhibit #15 Discovery case #04CR2541 page 57 Case # 01CV1311 ~ Appeal of 97M811 ~ Miller fails to prosecute and results in Dismissal

Exhibit #16 Discovery case #04CR2541 page 62 = Miller fails to prosecute case 01CV1311

Exhibit #17 Gartin letter to Miller demanding return of evidence and files

Exhibit #18 Gartin letter to Miller concerning trial vs. plea bargain

Exhibit #19 FAX to Fatzinger reporting civil suit regarding fee-splitting = 04C1779 May 14, 2004

Exhibit #20 FAX to Sapakoff reporting fee-splitting in Brown Case (Grievance #03-03413)

Exhibit #21 Discovery case #04CR2541 page 86 = Miller’s retaliatory letter to Langfield

Exhibit #22 Discovery case #04CR2541 page 87 = Massaro’s letter to Clyman

Exhibit #23 Gartin note to Miller outlining legal issues Miller agreed to pursue

Exhibit #24 04C1779Transcript-Page74 - Miller confesses to Langfield Agreement

Exhibit #25 Miller’s Handwritten note admitting he had Dr. Hadas’ financial records

Exhibit #26 Dr. Pamela Hadas’ suit against Miller for theft of $120,000

Exhibit #27 Investigator Pugliese’s suit against Miller for extortion and slander

Exhibit #28 Chas Clements’ letter to John Gleason concerning dismissal of grievance

Exhibit #29 Chas Clements’ letter to Judge Lucero complaining about Grievance personnel

Exhibit #30 Email from Chas Clements to Investigator Frank Pugliese concerning extortion attempt

Exhibit #31 Chas Clements’ suit against Miller for abandonment and breach of contract

Exhibit #32 Marleen Langfield’s personal note to Attorney Miller concerning 97M811

Exhibit #33 Judge Munsinger orders Miller to File 35C Motion

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________

Certificate of Mailing

____________________________________________

I, Steve Gartin, oversigned hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above Attorney Grievance was placed this day, April 26, 2004 in the United States Mail in a Priority Mail Package and sent with sufficient postage to:

Judge William Lucero

1560 Broadway, Suite 675

Denver, CO 80202