Judy A. Brannberg v. John A. Cimino, et al.

The questions presented are:

1. Whether the “finality” clause in C.R.S. § 22-30.5- 108(3)(d), which bars judicial review of charter school application denials, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments when those denials resulted from con­ stitutional violations.

2. Whether a state civil rights agency (CCRD) vio­ lates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by refus­ ing to assert jurisdiction over third-party religious employment discrimination and retaliation claims by the Authorizer in charter school applications, in direct conflict with binding EEOC policy and federal prece­ dent.

3. Whether Colorado’s unreviewable attorney regu­ lation — under which the Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (“OARC”) deci­ sions are final and non-appealable under Chessin v. OARC, 2020 CO 9 — shields attorney misconduct, RICO, fraud, forgery, bribery, sabotage of counsel, re­ ligious discrimination, and Unauthorized Practice of Law by a disbarred attorney from discipline, thereby violating First and Fourteenth Amendments. * It * This Petition arises from more than a decade of whistleblowing and retaliation involving 17 charter school denials, a fraudulent $14.6 million CECFA bond, RICO coverup by regulatory agencies and school districts et al. Nearly one hundred Defendants are named, including Boards and 25+ attorneys, operat­ ing under coordinated subjugation of AG Philip J. Weiser. Petitioner Judy A. Brannberg, a charter school founder and education entrepreneur, submitted 17 charter applications to DCSD and Jeffco, each denied in retaliation for exposing bond fraud, religious em­ ployment discrimination, and/or legal and judicial cor­ ruption. Petitioner warned Respondents of the fraud­ ulent $14.6 million CECFA Bond executed and/or cov­ ered up by 25+ attorneys, (including named Defend­ ant STEM School Bond Counsel Barry K. Arrington, (now Acting Chief of U.S. DOJ Civil Rights Division’s Second Amendment Section), et al. creating preventa­ ble safety risks that caused the May 7, 2019 STEM School Shooting. Petitioner made two Material Event Disclosures in 2017 and 2018 (two years before the school shooting) to UMB Bank and CECFA, (for EMMA disclosure) which detailed STEM’S cata­ strophic financial failure, issuance of the fraudulent low interest BB+ $14.6 million CECFA bond that STEM could not qualify for because of their $2 million deficit, failure to meet 4 of 7 safety mile stone s/contingencies, including employment discrimination, and an illegal firewall preventing parent warnings. DCSD Board President Meghann Silverthorn secretly co­ signed for the fraudulent bond without Board resolu­ tion, minutes, or full Board approval. Silverthorn pub­ licly called Petitioner a “religious epithet.” On May 7, 2019, after these warnings were suppressed, a mass STEM School shooting occurred. When Petitioner and Whistleblower Judy A. Brannberg exposed the racket­ eering behind this Public Education Monopoly RICO Cartel Enterprise, DCSD and Jeffco retaliated, blocked testimony, denied charter applications, and obstructed evidence. The ringleader, DCSD Chief Officer/Union President/Sterling Ranch Employee Pat McGraw, executed the fraudulent CECFA bond, forged documents, orchestrated bribes/buy-outs of Pe­ titioner’s attorneys, and stopped Petitioner from locat­ ing her schools in Sterling Ranch. Regulatory agencies and judiciary, all subjugated by AG Weiser and charged with oversight, shielded the RICO Cartel En­ terprise and covered up the fraudulent $14.6 million CECFA Bond. Unconstitutional legal barriers erected to shield accountability include:

4. The "finality" clause in C.R.S. § 22-30.5- 108(3)(d) barring judicial review - Question, One;

5. CCRD's refusal to assert jurisdiction over thirdparty discrimination - Question Two; and

6. CSC OARC's unreviewable power to block attorney discipline - Question Three. DCSD, Jeffco, and the State Board of Education re­ taliated against Petitioner for exposing the RICO Car­ tel Enterprise and denied her 17 schools. She now seeks review of unconstitutional, statutory, and RICO violations and asks this Court to restore judicial re­ view, enforce civil rights protections, and dismantle/break the unlawful Public Education Monopoly RICO Cartel Enterprise.