Jump to content
The Education Forum

Fred Bauder


David Collins
 Share

Recommended Posts

ArbCom is the equivalent of a kangaroo court on Wikipedia. Even though there are elections, it is not democratic, since King Jimbo has a final say in selecting the candidates because for him the site is about a "cult of personality" and power games, so democracy is not what he wants.

The main person in Arbcom is his friend Fred Bauder who is a disbarred lawyer and not allowed to practise law anymore and Wikipedia is his revenge. Since disbarred lawyers are pretty much unelectable, he calls himself retired and has deleted and banned everybody who mentioned that he was disbarred, so Wikipedia contains no mentioning whatsoever of his little personal problems. This of course means that he is highly corruptable and that is exactly what Jimbo wants and therefore he is the first choice as "Supreme Judge."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...25a&invol=1

Fred has been involved in many controversies, like trying to delete the John F. Kennedy assassination theories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...nation_theories

This gives some idea to what he probably is, yet another disbarred lawyer with CIA connections.

If you look at the MONGO case, you'll also notice that Fred tries very hard to keep Mongo from getting desysoped:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ration/Seabhcan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main person in Arbcom is his friend Fred Bauder who is a disbarred lawyer and not allowed to practise law anymore and Wikipedia is his revenge. Since disbarred lawyers are pretty much unelectable, he calls himself retired and has deleted and banned everybody who mentioned that he was disbarred, so Wikipedia contains no mentioning whatsoever of his little personal problems. This of course means that he is highly corruptable and that is exactly what Jimbo wants and therefore he is the first choice as "Supreme Judge."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...25a&invol=1

The contents of this link have already been removed. Do a Google search for Fred Bauder and you will find the empty link is ranked 3rd.

Anyway, I took the precaution of copying what this page originally said:

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO

No. 98SA447

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

January 25, 1999

IN THE MATTER OF FRED BAUDER

EN BANC ATTORNEY SUSPENDED

Linda Donnelly, Attorney Regulation Counsel

James C. Coyle, Assistant Attorney Regulation Counsel

Denver, Colorado

Fred Bauder, Pro Se

Crestone, Colorado

PER CURIAM

In this lawyer discipline case, a hearing panel of the supreme court grievance committee approved the findings and recommendation of the hearing board. The board and the panel recommended that the respondent, Fred Bauder, be suspended for thirty days, be required to petition for reinstatement, and pay certain costs before again being allowed to practice law. We accept the recommendation.

I.

Fred Bauder was licensed to practice law in Colorado in 1976. He failed to answer the formal complaint filed in this case and the hearing board entered a default against him. The allegations of fact contained in the complaint were therefore deemed admitted. See C.R.C.P. 241.13; People v. Paulson , 930 P.2d 582, 582 (Colo. 1997). Based on the default and the evidence presented, the hearing board found that the following had been established by clear and convincing evidence.

On July 14, 1997, we publicly censured Bauder for soliciting for prostitution during a phone call with the wife of a dissolution of marriage client. See People v. Bauder , 941 P.2d 282, 283 (Colo. 1997). Bauder was ordered to pay the costs of that proceeding in the amount of $2,058.97 within thirty days of the date on the opinion. See id. at 283-84. He did not pay the costs as ordered, however, or file a motion for an extension of time to comply with our order. Moreover, Bauder failed to respond to a letter from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and has not explained or justified his noncompliance with the order. As a result, a request for investigation was filed against him. Bauder did not respond to the request for investigation.

The hearing board concluded that Bauder knowingly disobeyed an order of this court in violation of Colo. RPC 3.4©; and that his conduct also violated Colo. RPC 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and C.R.C.P. 241.6(7) (failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation).

II.

The hearing panel approved the board's recommendation that Bauder be suspended for thirty days, be required to petition for reinstatement, and as a further condition of reinstatement, demonstrate that he has paid the costs incurred in the 1997 proceeding.

Under the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991 & Supp. 1992) (ABA Standards ), "uspension is appropriate when a lawyer knowingly violates a court order or rule, and there is injury or potential injury to a client or a party, or interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding." ABA Standards 6.22. However, disbarment is warranted when a lawyer "(a) intentionally or knowingly violates the terms of a prior disciplinary order and such violation causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession." Id. at 8.1(a).

The 1997 public censure is an aggravating factor for analyzing the proper level of discipline. See id. at 9.22(a). Other aggravating factors include Bauder's refusal to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his conduct, see id. at 9.22(g); his substantial experience in the practice of law, see id. at 9.22(i); and his indifference to making restitution, see id. at 9.22(j). Because Bauder did not appear at the hearing or offer any evidence, no mitigating factors were found.

The lawyer respondent has defaulted and apparently ignored the disciplinary proceedings. We elect to accept the board's recommendation. See People v. Rishel , 956 P.2d 542, 544 (Colo. 1998). We are satisfied that the requirement that the respondent undergo reinstatement proceedings and demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he is again fit to practice law will adequately protect the public. Accordingly, we accept the recommendations of the hearing board and panel. One member of the court, however, would impose more severe discipline.

III.

It is hereby ordered that Fred Bauder is suspended from the practice of law for thirty days, effective thirty days after the issuance of this opinion. It is further ordered that, prior to seeking reinstatement and as a condition thereof, Bauder shall pay the costs of his 1997 disciplinary proceeding in the amount of $2,058.97 plus statutory interest from August 14, 1997, to the Attorney Regulation Committee. Bauder is further ordered to pay the costs of this proceeding in the amount of $124.11 within thirty days after this opinion is announced to the Attorney Regulation Committee, 600 Seventeenth Street, Suite 200 South, Denver, Colorado 80202-5432. Bauder shall not be reinstated until after he has complied with C.R.C.P. 251.29.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...