Introduction To Citizen's Review Of Colorado Judges
Introduction To Citizen's Review Of Colorado Judges| Home | Abstract | Contents | Site Map | Tables | Index | Bibliography |
| Comments? | Get Newsletter | Help the EJF |
| Chapter 9 — Colorado Judges — Citizen's Review |
| Next — Colorado Supreme Court |
Submitting your case for listing
Start with a timeline of events
An outline of what we will need
Service in the Armed Forces of the United States is not a crime
Judges are appointed by the Colorado Governor, generally on the basis of political favoritism. Should the governor fail, or decline to appoint a judge from the candidates presented to him, after a time the chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court may appoint a judge under the Colorado Constitution, a provision that is seldom used.
Despite the political appointee process, we are quite aware that most judges are competent, honest, fair, and do the best job they possibly can to administer justice to those who appear before them. We would very much appreciate hearing from our readers about such judges, and you will note in the following pages many comments about fair and honest ones. But there are many judges who are a daily horror show to the litigants, defendants, and jurors who appear before them. It is the latter we hope to expose and encourage to step down with your help.
Many of the cases presented here are also documented in the book Exposed! Tyranny On The Bench In Colorado. For additional information on corruption in Colorado courts we recommend that book.
In any profession we might reasonably estimate that at least 10% of its practitioners are incompetent. However, with attorneys we have it on the authority of no less a personage than former Chief Justice Warren Burger of the US Supreme Court that "75 to 90 percent of American trial lawyers are incompetent, dishonest, or both." As is true in any profession, there are many incompetent, dishonest, corrupt, lazy, uneducated, mentally-disturbed judges. Whether real or perceived, it appears that many judges in the latter group have migrated to our family courts. It is also our perception that in too many courtrooms today the emotions and feelings of the numbskull sitting on the bench take precedence over the state and federal Constitutions, the law, logic, and reason. If you should doubt that occurs may we suggest you look at the experience of Laura Kriho who was convicted of a felony because she voted her conscience while serving on a jury in Gilpin County (Judge Henry Nieto, First Judicial District, Case No. 96 CR 91).
You will note that in the cases listed here the judge has violated the applicable law, court rules, or Constitution (either state or Federal, and often both) in an egregious and willful fashion. If that has happened to you, we would like to hear from you. However, there is a basic amount of information we need before we can post your story and some way to verify the events you describe.
It is suggested that you look at the format of other cases documented here for examples of what is needed. If you have questions about your case please contact us at comments@ejfi.org or by telephone at (719) 520-1089.
A timeline of events is essential because this is the best way to avoid any suggestion that the material posted is simply from a "disgruntled" litigant. Given a timeline, the reader can understand what happened when, to whom, and verify events as necessary. In other words, when the material is presented in a way that is easily substantiated due to specific dates, records, pleadings, and court identities then there is little possibility of misrepresentation.
We will also need a list of the parties involved in the case, where they are located, and a brief description of what role they played. The names and locations of all attorneys, guardian ad litems, special advocates, child evaluators, Dept. of Human Services employees, private investigators, psychologists, treatment providers of any type, etc. who are or were involved in the case is essential to documenting your case.
Giving the EJF a box of pleadings to assemble into a narration for posting is beyond our resources and the capabilities of our volunteers. You know your case, the circumstances, events, and who was involved why and when much better than we ever will. We can't do it without your active participation and it is never fast or easy to put these narrations together.
Note that we are not interested in cases where you simply didn't like the way the judge ruled.
At a minimum we will need the following from you and electronic format is strongly preferred. Most, or all of this information should be available from your timeline.:
• Last name of Plaintiff v. Last Name of Defendant (or People in criminal cases) — (Case year) (type code) (case number) — This is the original case number. Give case numbers for any appeals below.
• (Number of) Judicial District — County where the case was heard, e.g., First Judicial District — Jefferson County. For municipal courts this would of course be the city and county.
• Magistrate or municipal judge (if applicable, fill in if one or more magistrates were involved in the case).
• County Judge (if applicable, fill in if one or more county judges were involved in the case).
• District Judge (if applicable, fill in if one or more district judges were involved in the case. If you appealed a magistrate or county court judges ruling give the name of the district court judge who heard your appeal).
• Court of Appeals Judges (if you appealed the case to the Colorado Court of Appeals provide names of judges who ruled on the case and the case number).
• Colorado Supreme Court Judges (if you appealed the case to the Colorado Court of Appeals provide names of judges who ruled on the case and the case number).
• Additional courts and judges may be involved, e.g. a Federal court and judge or magistrate. Provide same information for them.
• Hearing dates (provide dates of all significant hearings or trials in this matter).
• Matter before the bar: Brief one or two sentence statement summarizing what the case is about, e.g., dissolution of marriage. and why it is important.
Supplementary text, figures, or tables. The summary should be about one page in length if possible. Supplementary material should usually not exceed ten pages.
• Court of Appeals (if applicable) — Case (case year) CA (case no.).
Supplementary text, figures, or tables. Generally this should not exceed ten pages.
• Colorado Supreme Court (if applicable) — Case (case year) SC (case no.).
Supplementary text, figures, or tables. Generally should not exceed ten pages.
• Additional material, courts and judges, or appeals (if applicable).
Supplementary text, figures, or tables generally not to exceed ten pages.
If you have questions about your case and how to submit it please don't hesitate to email us, or call (719) 520-1089, before sending it. We are quite aware that the Colorado courts ignore and, in effect, condone perjury and the subornation of perjury and documentation of egregious examples of that are sought. However, he said/she said testimony is of little value.
We do not have the resources to retype your transcripts, hearings, etc. If you wish any of those to be posted we ask that you submit them in electronic format. Court clerks will usually provide electronic copies of transcripts, etc., if asked when requesting the documents. Your attorney should be able to give you an electronic copy of any filings or documents he has done for you as well. Many copy facilities can scan and convert your paper documents to electronic format if you do not have time or energy to retype them.
We can scan in and convert to PDF format a few pages of arrest warrants, restraining orders, etc. where necessary and essential to proving judicial misconduct.
All of this may seem like a great deal of work and you may simply want to forget the whole nightmare. But, if undocumented, these injustices will continue unchecked. We can't win the war against judicial tyranny alone, we must have your help.
First, what officially constitutes judicial misconduct:
• Willful misconduct by a judge, including misconduct which, although not related to judicial duties, brings the judicial office into disrepute or is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
• Willful or persistent failure of a judge to perform judicial duties, including the incompetent performance of judicial duties;
• Intemperance, including extreme or immoderate personal conduct, recurring loss of temper or control, abuse of alcohol, or the use of illegal narcotics or dangerous drugs;
• Any conduct on the part of a judge that constitutes a violation of the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct; or
• A disability, which is or is likely to become permanent, that interferes with the performance of judicial duties.
But what we most commonly see are judges who either ignore, or are ignorant of the law, or manipulate it for their own ends or purposes. Aside from wholesale, blatant disregard of due process, if they even understand the concept, and commonplace acceptance of brazen perjury and subornation of perjury while treating it as "harmless error," we have documented evidence of judges who:
• Conduct star chamber proceedings and deny admission to parties in the case;
• Allow witnesses and evidence to be entered at trial in both criminal and civil proceedings that has not been previously disclosed as required by court rules, thereby condoning "trial by ambush;"
• Conversely, arbitrarily refuse to admit evidence in both criminal and civil proceedings even though properly discovered to opposing party, or admit evidence from one party that has not been produced prior to trial.
• Refuse to allow pertinent testimony by witnesses even when proper notice given, or allow witnesses to testify about whom prior notice has not been given, i.e., conduct "trial by ambush;"
• Allow testimony only from one party in the issue before the bar, i.e., you may be prohibited from testifying in your own defense or verbally presenting your case;
• Demonstrate complete lack of familiarity with the case before the bar and the applicable laws and precedents;
• Ignore or refuse to consider and rule on properly filed motions;
• Put docket management above justice and reschedule hearings without proper notice;
• Give preferential treatment on the basis of gender or to specific attorneys;
• Take no notice of those who flout court orders;
• Discriminate against pro se or pro per litigants;
• Refuse to allow the case to be heard and decided by a jury;
• Rule on the basis of emotions and feelings without regard to evidence, the Constitution, the law, court rules, logic, reason, or common sense;
• Make rude or demeaning comments from the bench, e.g., in one case a Colorado judge referred to a defendant before him as an "overeducated nigger;"
• Assume jurisdiction in cases and disputes where they have no legal authority to intervene or rule;
• Refuse to recuse themselves despite glaring conflicts of interest, biases and prejudices, or personal acquaintance, relationships, and business dealings with one or more of the parties in the case before them;
• Routinely appoint cronies as conservators, guardian ad litem (GAL), special masters, child custody evaluators, and to other picked, hugely expensive, and commonly unnecessary positions. Such brassy effrontery is particularly noted in probate cases; and
• Ignore findings from experts they haven't handpicked or appointed.
It is in the interest of every citizen to root out these black-robed monsters and end the destruction they inflict daily on children, families, and citizens from every walk of life.
Cronyism is rampant in the Colorado courts. Such favoritism is particularly odious in the area of family law where judges hire the attorneys who are supposed to defend parents who have somehow come afoul of the Department of Human Services, or who appoint oft-unneeded special advocates, guardian ad litem (GAL), or a host of other court hangers-on and parasites who depend on the judge for their income. It is a virtual certainty that a court crony is far from a top performer in their field and will tell the judge only what he wants to hear.
As a good lawyer is both a valuable asset and rare, as evident above, competent counselors command a premium in the marketplace, and are naturally loath to take a lower paying and more restrictive position, e.g., a judgeship.
For the remainder, add a bar, or protective association that makes teacher's unions look competent and unprotective. Then provide a disciplinary system for lawyers that acts on the whole to ensure that the incompetent and dishonest members cannot be weeded out. From that cesspool use a system where judges are appointed by the Governor, generally on the basis of political favoritism, rather than on the basis of competence, education, and intelligence.
Competent attorneys are usually too busy to play politics or curry favoritism. Also, those lawyers who defend freedom and civil rights, and insist upon due process, tend to be politically unpopular.
So, in general, we usually take politicians and judges from the "75 to 90 percent of American trial lawyers [who] are incompetent, dishonest, or both," because these are the individuals whose incompetence or other faults generally don't allow them to succeed in private practice. Thus, they often seek a political appointment as a judge.
No attorney is going to be politically palatable for an appointment as a judge if they have ever expressed an unpopular opinion or resisted the majority. Thus, they must be "politically correct" to a fault to be appointed.
Provide judicial immunity to isolate these individuals from any responsibility whatsoever for their actions. Add in, as a presumed "control" of judges, an election that has more in common with Stalin's Russia than democratic America wherein once every six years these black-robed dangers stand unopposed, and one finds the basis for courts in Colorado.
Citizens are left with a system whose practitioners consider themselves untouchable. In effect, they are.
We are particularly disgusted and revolted by the increasing use of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States as a factor to condemn and convict a man in our courts. Far, far too often we have heard the term "trained killer" used to describe both active-duty military and veterans in our courts. It is impossible to think such denigration is simply an aberration.
A claim by a woman, sustained by the courts, that she is in "fear" of a man simply because of his service in the military, as a police officer, or in any other dangerous occupation, is a mockery of the rule of law. Such traitorous behavior by judges must be stopped.
More and more we find ourselves using the phrase: "Dumb as a judge!"
The citizenry have every right to expect a judiciary who are familiar with the mechanics of our technological society as well as the finer points of the law. Such men and women must also be familiar with both the federal and state constitutions and hold those documents as the supreme law of the land.
Instead, all too commonly in our courts we find arrogant, ignorant, black-robed dunces next to whom a jackass would be a Mensa candidate.
The general decline in educational standards has not exempted the judiciary and it is rare to find a judge who has the education one would reasonably expect of a sophomore science or engineering student. So instead of learned counsel what one typically encounters in both attorneys and judges today is an arrogant ass with the education a college freshman would have scoffed at in the nineteenth century.
There is a simple litmus test for these statements:
A sophomore science or engineering student will almost certainly have had:
• Differential and integral calculus.
• Deductive, inductive, and symbolic logic (Philosophy 101).
• Basic physiology and anatomy.
• And have a better grasp of history, English, computers, and physics than virtually any judge we know of.
So enquire of any judge in question as to their education in these basic subjects.
Where Thomas Jefferson studied Newtonian mechanics (requires calculus, differential equations, and vectors and tensors as prerequisites) before becoming an attorney, today the typical judge cannot accurately divide by two.
So what fundamental education should the average judge have in addition to a broad knowledge of the law? We would suggest the following undergraduate studies as a minimum requirement for anyone aspiring to a judicial position in our technological society:
• A course in deductive, inductive, and symbolic logic including the use of truth tables. Oh what a wonderful difference the use of truth tables would make in many cases.
• At least one semester of economics. Some grasp of why capitalism works and socialism doesn't is essential. All too often judges work on the principle of from each according to his ability, to each according to their need, which is, of course, the Marxist anthem.
• A minimum of one year of American and world history. Don't you think a judge should know where that seditious Declaration came from and why? And how the Constitution came into existence and why it, not their personal opinion or their emotions and feelings, is the overriding law of the land.
• One year of English composition and spelling with demonstrated competency in writing and spelling.
• One year of differential and integral calculus. A technological society is incomprehensible unless one has mastered calculus.
• An introductory course in electronics and computer theory with an introduction to vectors and tensors. In an electronic age of information don't you think a judge should have some idea how a radio works? What a transistor is? What a flip-flop or an and gate is?
• Proficiency in at least one computer programming language. Courts are becoming increasingly automated and a judge really ought to know something about the process.
• A minimum of one semester of physics with calculus, preferably using computers as part of the coursework.
• One semester minimum of chemistry with calculus, preferably using computers as part of the coursework. Increasingly chemistry plays a role in criminal cases.
• At least two courses in the biological sciences, e.g., physiology, anatomy. If the judge ever tries a criminal case involving violence they will surely need these courses.
• At least one course in mechanics, in addition to physics, that introduces the engineering principles of internal combustion engines, rockets, structures, thermodynamics, and other principles that underlie a technological society.
• Completion of law school, successful completion of the bar examination, and a member of the Colorado bar in good standing.
Can you think of any valid reason why we should not demand the highest educational and professional standards of our judges and magistrates?
So if you get a chance, look at the educational background of most any judge against these criteria. Our guess is you will be shocked at the general level of ignorance of these subjects the average judge possesses. Conversely, any judge that has most or all of these subjects in their background is almost certainly widely and highly respected.
Worse, most judges have very little knowledge of the law or court rules, as is painfully evident in their rulings. Or if they do have such knowledge, all too commonly they pervert it for corrupt purposes.
Judges aren't usually born with the wisdom of Solomon but, with experience, some of them improve. However, appointments are made at all levels of individuals with basically no experience. Consider a recent example in the 4 th Judicial District of Colorado. In September, 2002, Patrick Kennedy was appointed a district judge, midway up the judicial ladder. His previous position was as a county clerk and his legal training was in Oklahoma. His total experience as a practicing attorney was as an assistant district attorney, and he hadn't even done that for nearly a decade. Short, overweight, opinionated, and arrogant, suddenly he is making life and death decisions.
Rocky Mountain News, Opinion, p. E5
June 24, 2007 — So the executive director and general counsel of the state Commission on Judicial Discipline thinks it's good policy to keep investigations of judicial misconduct secret.
"The nice thing about Colorado is that the judges choose to go away if they misbehave," said Rick Wehmhoefer.
Well, yes, it may be nice that they go away without a fight if they think that the commission will uphold a complaint against them, although we don't see why a judge who believes a complaint is unfounded should hesitate to contest it if the commission disagrees.
But it is not nice at all that they are able to leave without the public ever finding out that they were being investigated for misconduct or whether the nature of the misconduct might be relevant to the cases that have come before them. Only if the commission recommends that the Colorado Supreme Court discipline a judge are its findings public, and the last time that happened was in 1986. The commission was established in 1966, and in 41 years it has never recommended that a judge be removed for misconduct.
Lawyers don't enjoy the protection of such secrecy. Not only is the fact that disciplinary hearings are being held a matter of record, but the hearings themselves are open to the public, and have been since 1998.
Wehmhoefer points out that most complaints — the commission investigated 179 in 2006 — are unfounded, most are related to criminal rather than civil cases, and more than 80 percent are from inmates unhappy with something a judge has done. Perhaps that's a reason for investigations to remain confidential in the early stages, but in 34 states findings become public at some point in the process, while in Oregon disclosure is triggered by commission hearings.
Last year, Wehmhoefer said, the commission sent letters of reprimand privately to two judges. Two others retired while their cases were pending before the commission. Once judges have left the bench, the commission has no further authority over them and the complaints against them are never disclosed. Even though the number of incidents is small, as a matter of principle the public ought to know about them.
Changing the system, which is part of the state constitution, will require an amendment. We'd like to see the legislature put an amendment on the 2008 ballot, as a means of bringing greater transparency to the justice system. We agree with the American Judicature Society, which has been advocating a more open system since 1996, that "confidentiality can undermine the public confidence in the judicial discipline process."
When judges can escape the consequences of misconduct simply by resigning, indeed it can. And does.
| Home | Abstract | Contents | Site Map | Tables | Index | Bibliography |
| Comments? | Get Newsletter | Help the EJF |
| Chapter 9 — Colorado Judges — Citizen's Review |
| Next — Colorado Supreme Court |
This site is supported and maintained by the Equal Justice Foundation.