Colorado Court of Appeals
Colorado Court of Appeals| Home | Abstract | Contents | Site Map | Tables | Index | Bibliography |
| Comments? | Get Newsletter | Help the EJF |
| Chapter 9 — Colorado Judges - Citizen's Review |
| Next — First Judicial District |
| Back — Colorado Supreme Court |
Established under Section 1 of Article VI of the Colorado Constitution and Section 13-4-101, et seq., C.R.S. (Colorado Revised Statutes), the Court of Appeals has initial jurisdiction, with exceptions, over appeals from the Colorado District Courts, Denver Probate Court, and Denver Juvenile Court. In addition, the Court of Appeals has specific appellate jurisdiction over decisions originating from a number of state administrative boards and agencies, including the Industrial Claim Appeals Office.
Reviews of the Court of Appeals' decisions are directed to the Colorado Supreme Court.
The Colorado Court of Appeals, consisting of 16 judges who serve eight-year terms, is the state's intermediate appellate court. The Court sits in three-member divisions to decide cases. The Chief Judge, appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, assigns judges to the divisions and rotates their assignments.
The mission of the Court of Appeals is to provide the citizens of Colorado with clear, impartial, and timely resolutions of appealed orders and judgments as provided by law. The Court of Appeals was created by statute; accordingly, jurisdiction is limited to the areas specified by state statute, together with the inherent powers granted to all courts.
In practice, however, the Colorado Court of Appeals largely functions to rubber stamp the more idiotic decisions made by district court judges, especially in family law cases. To conceal their mostly irrational rulings and avoid setting disastrous and destructive precedents they don't publish most of their decisions. One of the objectives of the Equal Justice Foundation is to expose the tyranny and destruction rained down on citizens by the multiple failures of the Court of Appeals to uphold the state constitution and the law. Thus, we especially welcome examples of unpublished bilge and balderdash from this court.
|
Upheld rulings entered by magistrate who did not know the law and was not qualified to sit on the bench (not a licensed attorney). Sanctioned petitioner for "frivolous argument" and forbade her to appear again pro se in any court. |
|||
|
Affirmed fraud — even stating in the order that there was of evidence of such. |
|||
|
Upheld ruling in 97DR1971 that discovery need not be completed before hearing despite court orders compelling such discovery. |
|||
|
Upheld rulings entered by magistrate who did not know the law and was not qualified to sit on the bench (not a licensed attorney). |
|||
|
Upheld ruling in 97DR1971 that discovery need not be completed before hearing despite court orders compelling such discovery. |
|||
|
Affirmed an eviction procedure for which the lower court had no jurisdiction, then misrepresented the facts in the written order to cover up the abuses committed by the lower court — set a precedent holding that purchase of a tax lien at an auction conveys all property rights without need for foreclosure or any prior court procedure in violation of established law. |
|||
|
Affirmed fraud — even stating in the order that there was of evidence of such. |
|||
|
Affirmed an eviction procedure for which the lower court had no jurisdiction, then misrepresented the facts in the written order to cover up the abuses committed by the lower court — set a precedent holding that purchase of a tax lien at an auction conveys all property rights without need for foreclosure or any prior court procedure in violation of established law. |
|||
|
In a Kafkaesque scenario a citizen was charged with felony perjury for what she didn't say in response to questions that were never asked in voir dire during jury selection. |
|||
|
Upheld ruling in 97DR1971 that discovery need not be completed before hearing despite court orders compelling such discovery. |
|||
|
Affirmed fraud — even stating in the order that there was of evidence of such. |
|||
|
Appointed August 1, 1990 Reversed Henry Nieto in case 96 CR 91 and restored the rights and integrity of jurors. |
|||
|
Appointed March 4, 1994 Affirmed an eviction procedure for which the lower court had no jurisdiction, then misrepresented the facts in the written order to cover up the abuses committed by the lower court — set a precedent holding that purchase of a tax lien at an auction conveys all property rights without need for foreclosure or any prior court procedure in violation of established law. |
|||
|
Appointed December 31, 1997 Upheld rulings entered by magistrate who did not know the law and was not qualified to sit on the bench (not a licensed attorney). |
|||
| Home | Abstract | Contents | Site Map | Tables | Index | Bibliography |
| Comments? | Get Newsletter | Help the EJF |
| Chapter 9 — Colorado Judges - Citizen's Review |
| Next — First Judicial District |
| Back — Colorado Supreme Court |
This site is supported and maintained by the Equal Justice Foundation.