U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 02, 2007 09:24 PM UTC

The \\\"judicial accountability\\\" joke

  • 88 Comments
  • by: thecoloradokid

My first diary, I want to address the tripe that is being thrown around about so-called \\\”judicial accountability\\\” by some on this blog. What they mean by it is that they did not like a decision they want to go after the judge. But they are far, far too impotent to really do anything about it.

Riogrande for example came out weeks ago with his so called Judicial Accountability 2008 or whatever plan. Just another disgruntled litigant or a mad dad, possibly both, he did not get his way in court and is now throwing a temper tantrum. And like any temper tantrum it amounts to nothing. According to the Secretary of State, the piece of garbage has never been submitted.

See for yourselves:

Big talk. NO action. Like I said: impotent. And when they tried this in North Dakota, they lost like 99-1%. Voters know exactly what these people are.

Is every judge perfect? No. Do judges make mistakes? Sure, that is why we have appeals. Is the answer JAIL for Judges or whatever else it is these guys are trying to spread around in an effort to get the judges who ruled against their harebrained lawsuits or against them in a divorce or custody case? Heck no.

Those demanding "judicial accountability" by trying to put judges in jail and whatnot are probably

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Comments

88 thoughts on “The \\\”judicial accountability\\\” joke

  1. Kid, it is difficult for me to fathom what shocking incident in your past might have precipitated the sheer rabidness of your response.  Your computer is practically foaming…. 🙂

    Of course, JAA-2008 hasn’t been submitted yet.  We have until next March, and it is important to get the language right (as we have seen from Am41).

    JAA draws a distinction between willful judicial misconduct (which should never be condoned) and mere judicial mistakes (which, at least in theory, should generally be corrected on appeal). The notion that any judge should be able to vent his spleen on a litigant with impunity is foreign to the rule of law; if the judge is free to rule one way on Tuesday and another on Wednesday on the same legally salient facts, there is no rule of law left to save.

    The ultimate question here is one of who bears the costs of State action violating a citizen’s fundamental rights.  If it is a gang of cops on the beat beating the snot out of a suspect (e.g., Rodney King), we have no problem with holding them personally accountable.  Why should a gang of judges be any different?

    The grant of immunity in tort for public officials is merely another way of saying, “The King can do no wrong.”  And in a country where there has never been a king, that notion is an anachronism.  The rule that the State is primarily liable for injuries to the constitutional rights of its citizens has achieved the status of jus cogens international law, as evidenced not only by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but a long strand of Commonwealth (beginning with Maharaj v Attorney-General of Trinidad & Tobago (No. 2) [1979] AC 385) and recent European Union (Case C-224/01, Kobler v Austrian Republic [2003] 3 CMLR 28) precedent.  Importantly, these cases hold that it is a claim in public law, as opposed to one sounding in tort, along the line of reasoning offered in Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978) (procedural due process violation a separate and distinct injury of constitutional magnitude).  Some jurisdictions allow for concurrent liability (e.g., Italy, Spain, Iran); others hold that the State is liable alone (e.g., France, Poland).  Why should it be that civilised nations fairly compensate their citizens for wrongs committed by State actors, but America does not?

    As for the thirst for judicial accountability in Colorado, I need only point to John Andrews’ Am40.  It was rather poorly conceived and had a host of unintended consequences, but yet it managed to garner 40% of the vote.  J.A.I.L. had over 60% support in polls done a month before the election in South Dakota, but ultimately failed because its scope was way too broad.  If we learn from those mistakes, we should be able to prevail — as no one can defend the concept that a judge ought to be free to disregard the law whenever it becomes inconvenient.

    1. \”willful judicial misconduct\”, which means \”Disagreeing with RioGrande\’s lawsuits.\” And let\’s me clear, riogrande\’s lawsuits, all of them, have been tossed out of court. He\’s nothing more than a sore loser. He doesn\’t want \”accountability\”, he wants judges to do what HE tells them, to interpret the law as HE does, or else he\’ll file more lawsuits against them or claim their are violating disciplinary codes or whatever.

      And citing to a bunch of European courts does you no good. This is AMERICA pal, in case you had not noticed.

      No one is defending the idea that \”a judge ought to be free to disregard the law whenever it becomes inconvenient\”, but I applaud the little strawman you put up. No, what I am defending is the notion that just because you lost in court does NOT give you the right and SHOULD NOT give you the right to sue the judge or put the judge in jail.

      In every case, at least one party walks away unhappy and convinced the judge \”disregarded the law\” as that party thought it read. Andrews\’ plan was bad, but the worst it would have done to the judges would be to force them out of office through term limits.

      YOUR plan and that of those like you would subject every judge who rules against one party, or rules for another party but not to the complete and full extent they wanted, to lawsuits, criminal prosecutions, loss of their jobs, homes, property, etc.

      Giving disgruntled litigants the power to sue the judge who ruled against them would unleash anarchy. South Dakota (not North Dakota, sorry) saw it. So too will Colorado. Of course, I doubt you\’ll actually submit it and even if you do, you don\’t have the money or the signature power to actually get anywhere with it.

      Go file another frivolous lawsuit.

      1. First and foremost, the proposed legislation would not have a foreseeable impact on my situation, as most laws are designed to have prospective effect.  All I am trying to do is fix the problem, so that no one else has to endure what I have had to in my quest for justice.

        Second, while you and Cuervo might not possess the requisite skill set to tell the difference between willful judicial misconduct and mere error, widely-respected law professors like Alan Dershowitz, Karl Llewellyn, and Monroe Freedman and experienced attorneys like David Lane can usually spot it in an instant.  It really is that obvious.

        That my suits have been thrown out of court does more to establish the pressing need for judicial reform than refute it.  After all, it is black-letter law that bar applicants have the right to challenge the facial constitutionality of bar admission statutes, that properly brought federal civil rights claims must be heard in a state’s courts of general jurisdiction, and a judge can’t decide his own case where other judges are empowered by law to hear it.  As we have a due process and equal protection right to assume that every judge will dutifully follow hidebound SCOTUS precedent (as SCOTUS has said, only it has the authority to overturn one of its own precedents), a judge’s knowing defiance of same necessarily constitutes willful misconduct, and would cause any rational litigant to be “disgruntled.”

        As for the “persuasive value” of European and Commonwealth courts [memo to Kid: Trinidad and Tobago is not in Europe]:  “International law is a part of our law,” The Paqueete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 700 (1900), and has been an integral part of our law since the dawn of the Republic. E.g., Pennington v. Coxe, 6 U.S. 33 (1804).  International human rights law is invariably recognized in our courts, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2739, 2004.SCT.0000127, В¶ 100 (2004) (Versuslaw), with at least the status of federal common law.  Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.3d 876 (2d Cir. 1980).  The United States Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this principle again in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. ___ (2005), in holding the juvenile death penalty to be unconstitutional.  (If you think it is a good idea for our country to thumb our collective nose at the world, feel free to have that debate with Yev.)

        You claim that what is proposed would result in “anarchy.”  Yet, what I propose works everywhere in the civilised world, including Ahmedinejad’s Iran (where judicial liability for willful misconduct is written into the constitution).  As I am sure you know, your ‘parade of horribles’ is largely the figment of your imagination, as the rest of the world seems to be getting along just fine, thank you very much.

        As for the supposedly catastrophic ramifications of such a law, I would expect this law to precipitate more principled and higher-quality judicial decision-making, for the same reasons that the threat of malpractice liability makes us all better doctors, lawyers, certified public accountants, and drivers.  If this Amendment puts ‘the fear of God’ into our out-of-control judges, that kind of subtle intimidation can only be a good thing.  As Justice Powell writes:

        The petitioners’ brief speaks of “an aura of deism which surrounds the bench . . . essential to the maintenance of respect for the judicial institution.” Though the rhetoric may be overblown, I do not quarrel with it. But if aura there be, it is hardly protected by exonerating from liability such lawless conduct as took place here. And if intimidation would serve to deter its recurrence, that would surely be in the public interest.

        Given that what judges do often has as much or even more importance to our lives than what even doctors do, we have both a right and a collective need to insist that their work be of the highest caliber.  That it has fallen far short of the minimum standard which can be tolerated in civilized society is manifest on its face; everyone from Senators (e.g., Chuck Grassley) to academicians to average citizens recognize that corrective action must be taken.

        What I don’t hear from the anti-court-reform crowd is some sort of practical solution.  You either insist that there isn’t a problem because it hasn’t affected you yet (which is like saying “I don’t have a problem with concentration camps like Guantanamo, as long as they contain only terrorists”), or haughtily declare that the citizen should bear the costs of willful government misconduct.  Given that our system of judicial discipline is obviously in tatters, and that every criminal prosecution has become political in nature (thank you, AG Seedy Gonzales, for ‘raising the bar’!), the only remedy available to the aggrieved citizen under your regime is the Bart Ross Solution.  Most of you will understand when I say that I think we can do better.

        Can we get the signatures?  Who knows?  There are a lot of people in the Republican Party who want to see court reform in the worst way, and who have expressed interest in this kind of legislation.  Some version of this proposal might even be proposed next session as referred legislation. 

    2. I have absolutely no criminal record in any state.  On 5/10/07 I was removed from my home at gunpoint based on a federal warrant, a preprinted form,  that was blank in the fill in the blank portion in which an Act of Congress was supposed to be cited:

      “No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.” Title 18 part 3 chapter 301 В§ 4001.

      Based on the blank warrant, I was held at gunpoint for 3 weeks, strip searched, and transported in chains across state lines to Colorado where, in less than 24 hours and without any conditions,  I was released by the same judge who had ordered me taken into custody and transported to him, (Edward Nottingham). 

      The U.S. Marshals showed me their transport papers.  These are preprinted forms and include a space marked “U.S.C. В§”.  However, that was crossed out and “failure to appear in a civil matter” was written in ink.

      Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Anderson stated in court that the U.S. government was not a party to this seizure. 

      “If a Justice Department attorney pursued a contempt prosecution for violation of an injunction benefiting any client of that attorney involved in the underlying civil litigation, that attorney would be open to a charge of committing a felony under В§ 208(a)…. “[a] scheme injecting a personal interest, financial or otherwise, into the enforcement process may bring irrelevant or impermissible factors into the prosecutorial decision…The exercise of supervisory authority is especially appropriate in the determination of the procedures to be employed by courts to enforce their orders, a subject that directly concerns the functioning of the Judiciary. We rely today on that authority to hold that counsel for a party that is the beneficiary of a court order may not be appointed as prosecutor in a contempt action alleging a violation of that order.” YOUNG V. UNITED STATES EX REL VUITTON,  U.S. Supreme Court, 107 S. Ct. 2124, 481 U.S. 787 1987.

      1. Kay, I don’t mean to be harsh, here, but, as with many of your posts describing your personal situation, I’m just trying to figure out what this has to do with ColoradoKid’s comments about the motives of those seeking judicial accountability?

        1. The anti-court-reformers refuse to acknowledge that “the Men in Black” routinely violate the law, or otherwise attribute it to “a few bad apples.”  The average German didn’t think that concentration camps were bad things (as long as they contained Jews, “queer dudes,” Gypsies, and other social undesirables), and many of our fellow citizens seem to have no problem with Guantanamo.

          My question to all of you: What should our moral stance be?  Should we side with ColoradoKid, or Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

          But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their “thus saith the Lord” far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I. compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

          Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

          If it happens to one of us, it happens to all.  If my rights are taken away without recourse, yours become insecure.

          Should we side with ColoradoKid, or ask the question of Elie Wiesel:

          And our only miserable consolation was that we believed that Auschwitz and Treblinka were closely guarded secrets; that the leaders of the free world did not know what was going on behind those black gates and barbed wire; that they had no knowledge of the war against the Jews that Hitler’s armies and their accomplices waged as part of the war against the Allies.

          If they knew, we thought, surely those leaders would have moved heaven and earth to intervene. They would have spoken out with great outrage and conviction. They would have bombed the railways leading to Birkenau, just the railways, just once.

          And now we knew, we learned, we discovered that the Pentagon knew, the State Department knew. …

          I don’t understand. Roosevelt was a good man, with a heart. He understood those who needed help. Why didn’t he allow these refugees to disembark? A thousand people — in America, a great country, the greatest democracy, the most generous of all new nations in modern history. What happened? I don’t understand. Why the indifference, on the highest level, to the suffering of the victims?

          What is the right thing here?  Should we tolerate tyranny until Gerry Spence’s wolf comes to your door?

          1. Rio, like the rest of us, Kay didn’t choose a vocation of “court reform.”  Her very reasoning for contributing extends from some very acrimonious and protracted litigation out of Steamboat Springs.  According to a few newspaper reports of her situation (which, admittedly, is all I’ve researched it), she filed numerous cases in several counties and several different states all relating to the same causes of action.  Although some have tried to deter her from posting her entire life story on ColoradoPols and, notwithstanding the fact that Edward Nottingham’s specific rulings in her case seem consistent with the fact that he’s perceived as a petty tyrant, I haven’t seen or read anything (yet) to persuade me that Kay should have prevailed in some or all of her cases and that the reason she has not was attributable to “willful misconduct.”  Perhaps it is but, the mere fact that she’s upset about what happened doesn’t make her case[s] a proud example of why reform is needed.  That’s all I’m saying.

            1. My underlyiing case in Steamboat Springs CO involved CO judge James Garrecht.  He issued a restraining order on me for “molesting” Jane Bennett.  However, I wasn’t accused of that by Jane Bennett or the d.a. There was no testimony that I molested her and no complaint.  Judge Garrecht came up with that after testimony was closed and Mrs. Bennhett’s lawyer Randall Klauzer then said it was undisputed.  He said that in front of Jane Bennett who did not disagree although she had previously testified under oath in front of Judge Joel Thompson that there was no offensive touching and we were never alone and never had sex.  I am a faithful married woman.  Mrs. Bennett then followed me around town calling the police every time she saw me until we gave up and moved away.  When we sold our house the only person who would buy it was one of the Bennett’s lawyers and we sold it for $100,000 less than appraised.  Also, Kevin Bennett threatened to shoot an investment banker and his family who wanted to buy our lot and we ended up selling it for 50% less to the father of the former assistant city attorney.  We itemized economic costs of $400,000 plus personal damages. 

              In our complaint, we advanced the theory that the Colorado Bar Association and the ABA were proximate causes of our vulnerability to extortion.  I made a table of causal factors causing liability. I took the list directly from the CO case of U of Denver v. Whitlock and practically every factor was there.  If you read law journals in the 1920’s about why the bar associations were formed they were supposed to be for reform and protection of citizens not just a private club.  The American Institute of Certified Planners will directly investigate and expel members who don’t conform to their ethics guidelines whereas the CBA and ABA now say that the Attorney Regulation Counsel should be your only option.  The Attorney Regulation Counsel doesn’t provide procedural due process to complaining citizens because they are solely funded by and solely responsible to those they fund.

              When I filed in federal court I expected that the rules of civil procedure would be followed as they were written.  They are laws and I had an equal protection right to them.  That involved going throught the “trier of evidence” so that a decision on the merits would result.  That involves having listed facts to which they other side is supposed to either stipulate or dispute.  They didn’t concede nor dispute my listed facts either from the complaint or from my motions for summary judgment.  The court was supposed to award summary judgment to me because the defendants didn’t dispute the facts in my motions for summary judgment and the undisputed facts matched up with known and standard causes of action–malicious prosecution, abuse of process, conspiracy to damage reputation, first amendment retaliation etc.  If there were disputed facts then we were supposed to have case management which would involve depositions and subpoenas to get the information necessary to prove the facts but we didn’t have case management.  If there were still disputed facts then there was supposed to be a jury trial but that was skipped to. 

              Everything in every court referred back to former Colorado Magistrate Schlatter’s report and recommendation, to which we objected.  That report misstated both the facts and the laws.  Before the case even started, on 1/11/03, the magistrate filed an order for a hearing in which he said that he had already discussed the case with David Brougham who would be the defense counsel.  Then Anthony Lettunich sent me a verified bill for a three way long distance ex parte conference with David Brougham and Magistrate Schlatter.  Then David Brougham sent me bills for 25 ex parte conferences with unspecified court personnel about motion status etc.  Judge Nottingham was supposed to do a “de nova” review but when I asked him why he dismissed the case all he would say was that there were Colorado court proceedings. He was apparently referring to cases that I had paid to file but then not served because I decided to rewrite them. The U.S. Supreme Court in Semteck v. Lockheed said that rule 41 voluntary dismissals don’t cause claims preclusion.  Under rule 12 it is the defendants’ duty to prove that res judicata applies and that involves them showing that somethings was actually decided and what it was.  In those cases nothing was decided because the defendants didn’t file anything.  I just paid $150 to rewrite.

              My complaint involved a conspiracy to deprive rights that involved a number of lawyers.  The defense lawyers argued in my case that there was immunity for lawyers and the legal source that they cited was Magistrate Schlatter.  There is no law giving lawyers immunity and I cited a whole lot of cases and law books saying that lawyers can be liable for fruadulent and tortious conduct within litigation,.  The Law of Torts by Dan Dobbs said that the liability for malicious prosecution is the same as if a lawyer ran down a 3rd party in the parking lot of the court. 

              The Bennetts were motivated to force us to leave town because they had converted the road to private use, used malicious prosecution to force us to give up our rights to the road and built in violation of the development code.  If you want to verify that you can just drive to 701 Princeton Ave in Steamboat Springs.,  There you can see 4 buildings from the street and obviously new construction.  The last time I checked the Routt county assessors report online it said there was one house on the property and that it was built in 1956. 

              Our case did have an element of judicial reform in that we sought to hold the CBA and ABA responsible in tort for their actions.Legislative reforms usually follow tort law suits.  The government regulated auto safety after lawsuits against car manufacters not before.  I suggested that the bars could limit their liability by getting the government to license them.  That would involve standards and public hearings.  I tried to get the bars to post on their web sites that lawyers are liable and have a use net group about attorney misconduct and crimes.  Right now the code of professional conduct says they are not supposed to seek criminal and administrative sanctions to gain advantage in a civil matter (rule 4.5) but they did it anyway.  The same thing happens when a woman seeks unjustified restraining orders in order to get a better financial or custody deal in divorce.  I complained to the Col Attorney Regulation counsel that Chris Beall, Dave Brougham and Tracy Van Plet asked Judge Nottingham to put me in jail in order to force me to withdraw my D.C. cases and they said that was OK but U.S.C. tile 18 section 1512 says that use of force and threat of force to deter or delay presentment in any court is a felony.

              I complained to the Co Attorney Regulation Counsel that Dave Brougham had sent me bills for ex parte conferences and he filed in the 10th Circuit that that was OK because the Colorado Attorney Regulation Counsel said so but obstruction of justice is a crime. There isn’t supposed to be any private conferences in civil matters–the decisions are supposed to be made entirely in public.

              Another whole issue is why David Brougham sent me a bill to Lloyds  of London with a claim number and everything when Lloyds is not registrered to sell insurance in Colorado.  Under rule 26(a) he was supposed also to provide the policies but he refused to.

              Lloyds is now advertising contractors and architects insurance in addition to lawyer’s insurance. 

              Brougham’s bills to Lloyds discuss them discussing case assignment issues after which my case was transferred from Judge Masch to Judge Nottingham.  But case assignment is supposed to be secret and random.  Judge Masch did not recuse himself and continued to take new cases.

        2. Those who seek judicial accountability have varying motives.  Most people don’t think about constitution until their rights are violated.  Some people lost custody of their children.  I lost my freedom, my body privacy, my access to courts–which involves not only filing but having a decision on the merits and having the rules of civil procedure being followed exactly as written

    3. Conspiracy Against Rights: “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same…They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned ”  (U.S. Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 13 В§ 241)

      “Acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority, provided that in order for unlawful acts to be done under “color of any law”, the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties.  This definition includes, in addition to law enforcment officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council Persons, Judges…etc…persons who are bound by laws, statutes, ordinances, or customs.  Punishment varies from a fine…threatened use of a dangerous weapon…kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years ”  (FBI Civil Rights Section Web site U.S.C. Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 13 Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law)

        1. We have a system in place for disciplining judges who violate the law.  Problem is, it has become utterly feckless, as the prosecutors who are supposed to be protecting our rights are invariably choosing to look askance at even obviously criminal behavior, because they need favors from the judiciary.

          1. That is one reason why pro se litigation should be supported and encouraged.  Pro se litigants do not have a vested interest in maintaining the system as it is.  Most commercial lawyers will not confront a judge because their mentality is win a few lose a few.  The issues are much more important to the pro se litigant then to a paid agent just like the sales price of a home is more important to the owner than to the real estate agent. Thus a pro se litigant can be more aggressive in establishing rights for themselves, that are then extended to other people.  Rights for racial minorities were not established by commercial legal counsel but required the greater commitment of minorities acting to defend their own rights.

        2. Colorado kid post says “No, what I am defending is the notion that just because you lost in court does NOT give you the right and SHOULD NOT give you the right to sue the judge or put the judge in jail.”

          The fact is that in written law we already have the rights to pursue criminal prosecution of judges. 

          Judges aren’t exempted from any of the federal criminal laws. 

          The Minnesota FBI office told me they would never pursue a federal judge no matter what he does or does not do.  However, an ex- MN state judge was giving interviews recently about a book he wrote after doing 5 years for theft.

          What it says in American Jurisprudence is that U.S.C. title 18 section 241 gives citizens broad protection.  Under the bad man’s theory, some people do whatever they can get away with.  The Justice for All Act of 2004 gives you a right to protection whether or not criminal charges have been brought.  It’s not that having someone put in jail brings me direct personal benefit, but I’ve already been jailed three times without a government prosecutor, evidentiary hearing, or law being cited.  How do I get them to stop?  You’ve heard people say that they better not do this or that because they will get sued or it is against the law.  If nothing happens it’s as if the speed limit says 55 but everyone knows no one gets tickets.  When they see the cruisers pulling people over, they slow down, otherwise many people speed and some people get hurt in speed related driving accidents.  The federal court in W Wisconsin filed a form saying they were turning me over for “no charges”. 

        3. He said they should be criminally liable, I said they already are for acts committed in their work according to the written laws passed by Congress.

          75 years ago whites were criminally liable for killing blacks but they weren’t prosecuted so there were a lot of lynchings. 

      1. I know that like you, I once believed that we lived in a fair and just society ruled by law but now I know for a fact that we do not.  I provided enough evidence to the FBI and Justice Department in a detailed, formal complaint several years ago to support the issuance of Grand Jury indictments against multiple members of the Colorado Bar Association.

        Their response was that they did not have jurisdiction (to enforce habeas corpus, due process, and the constitutional rights of citizens of this Country). Their lack of response, along with the failure of the Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel to investigate over 90% of the formal complaints that it receives annually in it’s “haystack”, and similar failure of the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline to find “jurisdiction” to punish any judge in Colorado have left the citizens of this state at the mercy of corrupt court officials operating in secrecy and with impunity. 

        Many individuals have attempted to educate the public, and government, regarding the corruption in Colorado Courts and the lack of any credible oversight of the legal profession at KnowYourCourts.com.  I, for one, still welcome a Grand Jury investigation into my detailed complaint.

        1. I think that government and judicial corruption is like weeds.  You can say that there has always been corruption but in some places at some times it is less and sometimes more. That has to do with policies of enforcement.  I think that once corruption gets going it increases really fast because anyone who knows about it but does nothing is vulnerable to blackmail.

          The degree of government corruption affects the economy.  The U.S. and Mexican economies used to be similar.  Corruption I read one place costs the general public $100 for every $1 of benefit to the corrupt party.  Where the courts and the government is perceived as corrupt people are less likely to invest in businesses.  The federal courts are involved with patent litigation and securities.  Why would you invest in a business if you thought that the money would be misappropriated and the courts would offer no redress.

          The Chicago Trib had a big article on Sunday about a new housing development where the houses blew down when the wind blew.  They weren’t built to code.  Are you going to invest in new construction in Colodao if you think that if you sue the contractor for building in a substandard manner that the insurance company will make a private deal with the judge to dismiss your case?

  2. In your post, you wrote, “Is every judge perfect? No. Do judges make mistakes? Sure . . .”  The tired argument that “there are a few bad apples in every bunch,” is not persuasive. Contemplate the reality that, if you, “Take all the robes of all the good judges that have ever lived on the face of the earth and they would not be large enough to cover the iniquity of one corrupt judge.” -Henry Ward Beecher  (1887)

    Yet, the inclusion of the phrase, “mad dads,” in your scurrilous, angry post is enough to undermine any credibility you may have had (which, otherwise, is one valid (albeit pedestrian) viewpoint out there on this debate). The fact that there is a public debate on it throughout the country is enough to counter your assertion that everyone (except the “disgruntled litigant” minority) has adopted your viewpoint. 

    I’m going to turn the tables on some phrases you’ve used in your post:  I’ve been to recent appellate CLE’s where judge speakers, like you, have declared that, “When they talk about ‘judicial activism’ what they really mean is they don’t like what I did in their case'”  The judge smugly chuckles and all the appellate attorneys (possibly except myself) chuckles along with him.  However, while you may think it’s a “joke,” nobody on either side of the court reform public debate is laughing (except, perhaps, some of Rio Grande’s ColoradoPols adversaries).

    In fact, it seems that whenever the “third branch” perceives that it’s “independence” (read: unaccountability) is threatened, they stop chuckling; they get rather nervous; and they go on a massive media blitz/campaign about the need for independence/unaccountability.

    Whenever they talk about attacks on the “independence of the judiciary,” what they’re really concerned about is attacks on their vast power-base and unaccountability.  In fact, some treatises in support of judicial unaccountability are so bold as to recognize that this really is a debate about “accountability” and that there are valid reasons why judges should not be “accountable.”  Others lie to us and claim that our retention system, judicial performance commissions and Commission on Judicial Discipline are effective means of accountability (when, in fact, these it is well-established in the literature that these straw agencies are illusory, specious and toothless, by design). See, e.g., my recent post on this same subject.

    Why would you have observed or suspected that the “disgruntled litigant” bunch (sometimes referred-to on ColoradoPols as the “court bashers”) are usually a collection of “mad dads?”  Is it because women aren’t likely to express their dissatisfaction with either the system or individual rulings?  Is it because women are less likely to be subject to adverse rulings than men, because they are a more “reasonable” gender?  Or is it because there is a gender bias in divorce cases?

    I hope that it’s obvious that it is because there is a gender bias in divorce cases.  In my view, it is attributable to a carryover of the supposedly abolished tender-years doctrine and also because of few militant feminist judges (e.g.,, Jane Tidball, Roxanne Bailin,  Juanita Rice, et al.), who appear to have dedicated their lives to affecting their own grande ideas of social change (i.e., redistribution of wealth, empowering women unequally, etc.) upon society through “their” courtrooms, rather than exercising judgment.  More to the point, they have lost sight of the fact that “their” courtrooms belong to the people and that their roles are not as individual duchesses, countesses and land ladies of serfdoms but, rather, are roles of public service.  In so doing, they have become petty tyrants.

    Not so obvious?  Well, let’s forget about all the dozens of anecdotal Web sites out there (like Chuck Corry’s so-called Equal Justice Foundation, dedicated to exposing the alleged gender bias in Colorado courts) and, instead, look to the fact that, in Colorado, it was found necessary to institute a Colorado Supreme Court Task Force on Gender Bias (1990),[1] which was revisited with the 2000 Colorado Gender & Justice Annual Report (finding, for example, that “a mother will refuse the father’s request for additional parenting time so her child support payment will not be reduced” and, separately, with a special focus on increasing the number of women judges) and the Colorado Governor’s Initiative on Responsible Fatherhood (noting that “Complaints about the court system are difficult to substantiate because the response of the courts depends so heavily upon the nature of the case . . . However, the large number of complaints — by both men and women — about the perceived inertia in the legal system against men as fathers is difficult to discount”).

    Let me wrap this up by saying this isn’t about “mad dads,” and it isn’t about militant feminist judges. It’s about all judges, who have reduced themselves to petty tyrants. The victims of their tyranny are both men & women, parents and non-parents (as many of the profiled cases on KnowYourCOURTS.com represent).  The fact that you’ve improvidently characterized this debate in these terms seems indicative that you’ve got a real problem with men and you’d like to perpetuate and immortalize the status quo.

    The next time you decide to post a spurious post condemning individuals, who promote legal ethics reform, please at least take the time time to back up the rhetoric with something other than your own vitriol.

    [1] Note that, in 1980, the National Organization for Women and the National Association of Women Judges formed the National Judicial Education Program to Promote Equality for Women and Men in the Courts (NJEP). In 1986, NJEP wrote “Operating a Task Force on Gender Bias in the Courts: A Manual for Action,” which became the manual used by gender-bias task forces nationwide. The manual opens by stating that gender bias operates more frequently against women and that it is not a contradiction for task forces to focus primarily on bias against women in courts.  As one might guess, this is exactly what the task forces do.  None of the commissions study bias against men.

    1. …we should have smooth sailing.  Judicial tyranny is like child pornography and global warming: no one can make a credible argument for it.  The question is more one of what to do about it, and the status quo ante is unacceptable to an ever-growing segment of the populace.  Everyone knows that even if it hasn’t happened to you yet, it could happen in relatively short order.

      As long as we don’t make the mistakes of J.A.I.L. (too broad) and Amendment 40 (too indiscriminate), this should be a winner.

      1. the written procedures of the Col Attorney Regulation Counsel are supposed to be similar to a lawsuit involving numbered facts to which the parties are supposed to admit or deny followed by an evidentiary hearing.  However, they try to override that by having the staff decide whether or not to use the evidentiary procedure.  If there was no override and the procedure was public for both complaints against lawyers and complaints against judges that would help.

        There is a big dispute in Wisconsin involving Annette Ziegler who was recently elected as a Republican to the State Supreme Court.  She hasn’t started yet.  Her busband was getting $20,000 per year to be on the board of directors of a bank and I think they also owned real estate they rented to the bank.  She ruled on some 40 cases involving the bank without recusing herself.  She said that no one proved that those cases were not decided right but written law says it is the appearance of propriety that is decisive.  The idea is that if you believe that you will get a fair and open hearing in court that you won’t take justice in your own hands and resort to a duel.

        There are discussions about the importance of an impartial judiciary in Deutoronomy. Where things are potentially different now is because of the Internet.  Complaints about judges could be put on the Internet not just as a rant on a web site but in a formal way where the judge would have to admit or deny.

        I think that Electronic Case Filing is the biggest best hope to reduce all forms of corruption.  That system can be expanded to anything that can be adjudicated.  There are drop down menus for the various categories. 

        ECF is basically a way to implement a flow chart in which delimiters can be set.  For instance, when deciding whether or not government immunity should be invoked, if then statements about job descriptions, personal contact and financial benefits can be put in. Then the complaining party could plead that a job description wasn or was not violated and whether there was any change in behavior after the first complaint.

    2. …but it seems weird that Kid would be so incensed, unless he was a judge who was deliberately trying to give the appearance that he was terminally stupid.  I tend to not get upset about things that don’t affect me (e.g., Am41), and that is true of all of us — it’s just human nature.

      1. There’s a lot of evidence, on this blog and all around us, that people often get very upset about things that don’t directly affect them. People get upset about abstractions, about being bested in an argument that has no material consequence, about others’ ethnic identity and the ways in which that identity is reinforced, and about ultimately irrelevant injuries to their pride and self-image…. And those are just the examples you yourself have provided us with in recent days! Add in others’ skin color, pomposity, weight, country of origin, religious beliefs, and you begin to get a sense of how broad is the spectrum of things over which people get very, very upset, though they don’t affect them in any way whatsoever. And people very definately get upset about the perceived stupidity of others. Thus, there is nothing anomalous about Kid’s response, and nothing about it which suggests anything about his identity or profession.

        1. While there are a lot of things that upset people — like the staggering hypocrisy of the defenders of our out-of-control, corrupt courts — this just isn’t a horse that any reasonable man without a personal agenda would be inclined to ride.  It’s just extremely weird.

          YEV: “People get upset about abstractions, about being bested in an argument that has no material consequence,

          You did appear to go a trifle nutz there, Steve.  We agreed to end the discussion, but you couldn’t leave it alone … which, in your rabid lapdog Cuervo’s eyes, is a clear sign that YOU felt that you lost the discussion, and needed desperately to continue it.  (In the alternative, it would simply mean that Cuervo applied a double-standard once again; that his only standard is a double-standard is not at all surprising.)

          1. I have no idea what you’re talking about: No such “agreement” ever occurred (feel free to copy and paste it to a reply, in which we exchanged messages agreeing to end the discussion -I have absolutely no recollection of any such exchange).

            “You did appear to go a trifle nutz there, Steve”

            I copied and pasted your above comment, thinking of all of the crap rolled up in it, and think, “oh, god, I’m just too exhausted.” Congratulations: You finally wore me out. Read other people’s responses to your posts in our exchange (or in general), and to mine, and make a comparison. If you still don’t get it after that, then you still don’t get it. I give up.

            Though I included a little jab in my response here, it was relevant to the substance of the post to which I was responding: Whether people get upset at things that don’t affect them. Obviously, they do. That’s the topic, and it’s the only one I’ll talk about, until another one comes along that interests me.

          2. No, it’s not weird at all. It’s completely normal. People respond to the substance, tone, and style of what others say. It is very common for people to argue against someone else’s position without having a personal agenda or personal stake in the issue, if one or all of the three factors above provokes a such a response. Arbitrarily claiming otherwise, flailing around for rhetorical advantage, just contributes to the reasons why one would choose to do so.

              1. …is a defense of a regime of judicial tyranny.  Even if the record didn’t speak for itself (it does), Judge Kane speaks authoritatively.  Professor Rotunda writes in the WashPost:

                a federal judge, John Kane (who gave me permission to quote his e-mail), wrote, “I’ve been a district judge for 29 years and think the federal judicial house has brought this legislation on itself.” He sat on the 10th Circuit Judicial Council when the first complaint about a judge came up for consideration: A district judge was trying to coerce counsel into establishing a library on product liability cases in honor of the judge.

                Judge Kane’s e-mail is worth quoting at length. He voted for discipline. The vote was 3 to 3, “and so the Chief Judge voted against sustaining the complaint because it was the first such complaint and he thought a close vote was too slender a reed upon which to proceed. As we were leaving the meeting, one of the judges who had voted to dismiss collared me and said, ‘John, think about it. The next time it could be you or me. We’ve got to stick together.’ “

                Kane added, “I’ve recently heard of a number of judges who ruled on cases involving companies in which they owned an interest, yet nothing was done about it. The point is that the current system is a ‘kiss your sister’ operation that hasn’t worked and won’t as long as judges are covering one another’s butts.  The present system is ineffectual and I think that could be demonstrated by the very sorry record.”#

                1. I think there remains just one response to anything and everything you write:

                  We’ve all seen a copy of your play-book by now. 1) Invent non-existant support (and then invent dialogues between you and your fictional supporters, using chummy language like “dude,” so that we all know how real they are, and how likeable you are); 2) Refer back to non-existant agreements with, and statements by, those who have argued against you, 3) Argue against non-existant positions that you attribute to your opponents, in order to avoid the inconvenience of addressing their actual arguments, 4) Flame your opponents as often and humorlessly as possible, and, best of all, 5) Accuse your opponents of all of the above (ocassionally accurately, more often fictitiously), while claiming for yourself the moral high ground of one who would never stoop to such tactics.

                  Number 3 seems to be your favorite in this thread. From now on, I’ll just respond with the appropriate number, or add numbers when necessary.

                  1. We’ve all seen a copy of your play-book by now:

                    1) Invent non-existant support (and then invent dialogues between you and your fictional supporters, using chummy language like “dude,” so that we all know how real they are, and how likeable you are);

                    2) Refer back to non-existant agreements with, and statements by, those who have argued against you,

                    3) Argue against non-existant positions that you attribute to your opponents, in order to avoid the inconvenience of addressing their actual arguments,

                    4) Flame your opponents as often and humorlessly as possible, and, best of all,

                    5) Accuse your opponents of all of the above (ocassionally accurately, more often fictitiously), while claiming for yourself the moral high ground of one who would never stoop to such tactics.

                    And one more:

                    6) Replace reason with hyperbole, always striving for a (Thomas) Paine-esque affectation, but achieving only Pain-ful humiliation (painful to onlookers, in any case).

                    1. “Little Trickle’s Playbook

                      […]

                      4) Flame your opponents as often and humorlessly as possible, and, best of all,

                      5) Accuse your opponents of all of the above (ocassionally accurately, more often fictitiously), while claiming for yourself the moral high ground of one who would never stoop to such tactics.”

                      “Little Trickle?”  That’s DEFINITELY a Number 4, with hints of Number 5.  He who is without sin, Mr. Harvey, may cast the first stone.

                    2. Do you consider “Show yourself, worm!” to be witty?

                      And thanks for helping to explore the boundaries of #6, with nifty biblical references like “He who is without sin, Mr. Harvey, may cast the first stone.” I think it’s fair to say that, except in the rare instance when it actually serves some purpose other than to showcase your, uh, “talents,” Latin and French phrases, snippets of archaic English, and ostentatious invocations of a glorious history upon whose summit your heroic windswept figure stands, all securely belong to #6.

                      Besides, I LOVE sin! Why would I want to be without it?

                2. Of course! How could I have missed number 6 in your playbook (numbers 1-5 discussed below)?!

                  6) Replace reason with hyperbole, always striving for a (Thomas) Paine-esque affectation, but achieving only Pain-ful humiliation (painful to onlookers, in any case).

                  1. If a judge can decide to disregard the law whenever he damn well feels like it … and more specifically, can deny you a proper hearing in his courtroom, Exactly what is left of the Bill of Rights?  Keith Olbermann goes through the analysis during the sixth minute

                    What part of this are you simply too obdurate to acknowledge?

                    1. (Other bloggers: see my post, titled something like “without even reading the above post,” found on Coloradokid’s diary concerning the issue, or non-issue, of judicial misconduct).

                    2. If a judge can arbitrarily deny you access to court, what remains of the Bill of Rights?

                    3. The only rights we have are the ones that cannot be taken away by the government and by implication, can be enforced as a matter of right.  If you can’t enter a courtroom to enforce those rights, are they really rights?

                    4. then so would be your conclusion. But since they aren’t, it isn’t.

  3. Never experience having your children taken from you with no reason other than having gone through a divorce.  I must be one of your “Mad Dads” that you trivialize in your post.  I have a right to be mad.  I have had my children taken away from me despite being a very, very involved father.  Through three custody battles all instigated by my X I have had my time with my children whittled down to less than 53 days a year.  All this has been done with no charges of impropriety on my fatherhood just that my X was willing to badger the courts to get her wishes done.  I hope that you never experience the courts disregard and disrespect.  Ask any divorce lawyer who has the upper hand in a divorce and if they are honest with you the answer will be that the women do in the state of Colorado.  The appeals process is very costly and often bears no fruit because judges do stick together and tend to cover each others asses.  We need reform and true judicial accountability.  If you do not see the need than all I can say is that you must be in fear of your job as all members of the judiciary are whenever reform or accountability are mentioned.  What is so wrong with having judges accountable?  Are they so bad or corrupt at their jobs that it would bring down the judiciary if there was accountability?  There is a grassroots movement across this nation for judicial reform and it will come.  I hope that you are not on the wrong side of the issue. 

    1. …and frankly, Cuervo and the rest deserve a similar fate — as they would learn for themselves the lesson of Pastor Niemoller:

      In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.

      Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to relive it.

        1. “Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.”

          “Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.”


            — Abraham Lincoln

            1. I don’t want to seem argumentative but, is it okay if I use “dude” from time-to-time in my posts without getting on your shit list?

                  1. How good of you, sir, to finally join in!!  Why don’t you ever contribute something to these alleged “court bashing” threads.  I feel like I’m out here dyin’ on the vine!

                    1. Did we cross paths?

                      As a person who tries to read everything that is posted here, and as a person who is adamantly opposed to just about everything John Andrews advocates, I guess I feel like the overall court bashing, while possibly true is overgeneralized and lumps in the good with the bad.

                      I read the Jail4Judges amendment that was being pushed in SD. I also read many articles that interviewed the main proponent and his california backer (names are escaping me). I cant remember where you fall on that amendment, if you have ever stated a position, but I seem to remember riogrande saying s/he was in favor. I am, of course, opposed. This would be a digression on the topic at hand.

                      I guess I dont comment, because a) I dont know that much about the issue, b) think that there are bigger fish to fry, and c) trying to sift through all the posts is really draining (and in my heyday I wrote ridiculously long posts).

                       

                    2. No, we haven’t crossed paths.  Really, what I was trying to illustrate was that, a lot of people are reading these threads, despite the fact that only a few are contributing.

                      As you noted, I never stated a position on Amendment 40 or the South Dakota initiative, because I haven’t read am not informed about either.  I avoid pontificating about specific subjects that I have little knowledge about.  I’m not certain that term limits is a substitute (or band aid) for a lack of a meaningful or effective legal ethics enforcement.

                      Although, I do disagree that the problem is overgeneralized,A I can see how folks, who haven’t been exposed to the system, might assume that.  It’s natural to assume that vocal complainants are exaggerating their plights.

                      That said, I know of a number of fine consciensious attorneys and judges in Colorado and I feel badly for them that their efforts and example are stained by the others about, whom I have previously spoken.

                1. The hosting software used at ColoradoPols, SoapBlox, recognizes some or all of HTML tags.  There may be simpler ways to format text w/o using HTML tags but, that’s all I know  that’ll work.

                  To embed or attach a URL to a word or phrase, you use the href attribute.

                  (a href = “http:\\whateverWebSite.com”) the phrase you want to be a link (/a)

                  I couldn’t figure out how to “escape out” HTML tags in SoapBlox, so I used parens () in place of the HTML brackets <>, above, to illustrate.  So, for the example to work, substitute the () in my example with <> characters.

                  Check out this Web site for more.  There, you’ll see how to do bold, strikeouts, italics, etc., etc.

                  1. Like tiltawhirl I will use () in place of <> when typing tags. When you use these tags, be sure to use <>. And always PREVIEW before you post when using HTML to make sure you got it right.

                    The rule in HTML is that you place tags on both ends of the text you want to mark up. The closing tag always has the slash  in it to close it out.

                    (b) and (/b) for bold
                    (i) and (/i) for italics
                    (strike) and (/strike) for strikethru

                    And one that should be used when quoting a lot:
                    (blockquote) and (/blockquote)
                    This indents the text, like in a Pols diary that quotes a newspaper article.

                    If you’re using multiple tags on the same text (e.g, bold and italic) the closing tags go in the opposite order: (b)(i)text(/i)(/b). It won’t work if it’s (b)(i)text(/b)(/i).

                    The site Tilt liked to is good, but I thought I’d post these anyway. At Tilt’s site (or a lot of other good ones you can google) you can find out how to change fonts too (remember when Ruthie did that all the time last fall?)

      1. Part of what predisposed me to intellectualize about our problems in Steamboat is that before I got married I was engaged to and lived with the son of a man who spent 5 years in Auschwitz.  When it comes to rule of law things can go downhill fast.  In 1930 most people weren’t expecting genocide.

        There was a recent study that said that the U.S. is now # 20 out of 186 countries in government corruption. I think that is really related to the lack of effective regulation of lawyers.

  4. Are all attorneys, magistrates, and judges honest, ethical, and beyond reproach?  Obviously “yes” in your unregulated opinion.  Is there a need for credible oversight and regulation of the legal profession in Colorado?  Obviously “no” in your opinion.  Things are just fine as far as your concerned and there is no need to upset the status quo.

    I challenged Elizabeth Starr, President of the Colorado Bar Association recently and am now challenging you to read my legal affidavit at:

    http://www.knowyourc

    I was denied habeas corpus, due process, and any investigation into my subsequent formal detailed complaints filed with the Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel, Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, and Denver County Court Judicial Review Committee as they obviously were thrown into their “haystacks” and forgotten.  So much for finding the proverbal “needle.”

    If you want further evidence to support my “Affidavit”, I can only supply you and a Grand Jury with approximately 350 pages. If you choose to not read my “Affidavit” and respond,then I will dismiss your comments here as the rantings of another unregulated and contented CBA mouth!

    1. The U.S. Supreme Court wrote in Jones v. Cunningham that the writ can be used anytime a party is denied the right to do what in this country free men are allowed to do.  That includes a right to not testify unless there is law cited such as testifying about a crime, a right to not be in parole uless the legal conditions are met, a right to travel etc.  I think that a right to see your children could be challenged through habeas. What the writ is supposed to do is to make the judge point to the law.

      Before I was last taken into custody I filed for habeas corpus in the 10th Circuit.  That was in December.  I attached the warrant to it–the exact same warrant for which I was just jailed.  The 10th ordered Judge Nottingham to respond by 1/7 and he just did not do so.  I asked him in court on Friday June 1 why he didn’t respond and he said that he thought the defense counsel would do so for him. But the habeas law (a federal statute) says that it is the judge who is supposed to respond.

      I think you could use this writ to challenge a judge to cite both the law and the evidence for denying custody or visitation.

    2. In some courts there is a time limit on response to a motion and setting hearings.

      In my D.C. cases I served the U.S. Judiciary with a freedom of information act question as to what a party should do if there is no response to a motion or if the response doesn’t cite facts and laws but they didn’t respond.

      ECF could be programmed as to when a response is required and could schedule oral hearings.  The judges could be forced to cite a statute and they could be forced to itemize reasons.

      If there were a lot more judges it would be cost effective if the result is a more equitable society.  Tort litigation is supposed to promote efficiency in society. 

      At the time of the American Revolution there was much more litigation per capita then now.  Practically everyone went to court at one time or another.

      If I had been able to get adjudicative relief in Steamboat when the Bennetts blockaded and fenced off the road in front of our home, they probably wouldn;’t have done it or the problem would have been resolved before all these damages were incurred.  That could have been done just through a government insurance or complaint program involving independent case hearings.  There could have been a travelling complaint handler that was not from Steamboat and had no financial involvement. 

      I don’t see any reason why there couldn’t be some sort of secondary review of child custody issues.

      One red flag is when the assigned judge is replaced.  That is part of what happened to Marvin Heermeyer.  He had paid $50,000 to the Boulder firm of Dietze to file a complaint involving defamation by the newspaper, conspiracy to deny rights by the Grandby city council, and his neighbors getting the zoning changed from commercial light industrial to heavy industrial, for a cement manufacturing facility, which adversely affected his muffler shop, which adjoined a trailer park.  The only media that claimed to have any first hand knowledge were under the same ownership as the newspaper he sued, and subsequently attacked with his backhoe before committing suicide by cop. I don’t understand why it wasn’t investigated.  His case was dismissed by a judge named Doucette who had worked in Routt County–the 14th judicial district..  When I first complained in Routt County, then Judge Joel Thompson said he might appoint a sepecial prosecutor to see why sometimes the zoning is enforced and sometimes not.  However when I submitted a motion for a special prosecutor, Judge Doucette responded not Judge Thompson.

      Judge Thompson lost his job after the DEA investigated his girlfriend for being a cocaine trafficker.  According to the Steamboat Pilot, DEA agent Sperry said that the judge’s live in girlfriend, Vreeman, introduced him to a seller of cocaine so he could buy some cocaine. This was exposed one year after my request for a special prosecutor was denied and after Thompson issued a TRO on me.  According to the Steamboat Pilot, Charles Feldman in the Routt County d.a.’s office knew that the DEA was investigating Judge Thompson around the same time that he hurt me.  So part of my complaint was that Judge Thompson could have been blackmailed.  According to the Steamboat Pilot, Charles Feldman was fired by the D.A’s office for cheating on his expense account.

      I was friendly with the jailers in the Georgetown County jail where I was held for 4 months.  One of them told me that he escorted an inmate to a county court hearing.  While he was waiting there was another hearing and the criminal charges against another defendant were dismissed. He told me that he knew the other defendant from high school and asked him why the charges were dismissed and the other derfendant said it was becuase he was the judge’s drug dealer.  Of course, this is heresay. 

      But blackmail could be a bigger motivator than bribery.  There are some writings on Corruption that suggest that in some parts of the country the entire judicial system has been corrupted by drug issues, which do involve a lot of people and a lot of money. 

      1. But, are you representative of the anti-court-crusaders?  Maybe.

        Perhaps you and riogrande/Kenneth Smith should print up t-shirts declaring that you are the face of the “court reform” movement.  That would be sweeeeeet.

        1. But, are you a representative of our corrupt courts?  Maybe.

          You are little more than an amateur-class Sean Hannity — long on jingles and distressingly short on substantive argument.

          Perhaps you should come out from under that toilet, declare your sorry self to the world, and print up t-shirts declaring that you are the face of the “anti-court-reform movement?”  That would even be sweeter.

              1. Is this

                a) a well-reasoned argument, or
                b) a clever and humorous retort, or
                c) a remedy to the impolite discourse in this country which you’ve claimed to uniquely transcend, or
                d) none of the above?

                And if d, how do you justify it, and why do you keep doing it?

        2. I read that some insurance companies pay anonymous bloggers to go on web sites and pretend to be citizens and to plant the idea that there are people who file in court just for fun?  They try to spread the idea that going to court for redress of grievances is somehow “bad”, that good citizens suffer in silence. 

          The only way things have changed in 500 years of law is the Internet.  We need our Magna Carta rights:

          “The scope for extortion and abuse in this system, if it were not benevolently applied, was obviously great and had been the subject of complaint long before King John came to the throne. Abuses were, moreover, aggravated by the difficulty of obtaining redress for them, and in Magna Carta the provision of the means for obtaining a fair hearing of complaints, not only against the king and his agents but against lesser feudal lords, achieves corresponding importance.”

          “45) We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.”

          “(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.”

          “(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice”

          “(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.”

          “We will not seek to procure from anyone, either by our own efforts or those of a third party, anything by which any part of these concessions or liberties might be revoked or diminished. Should such a thing be procured, it shall be null and void and we will at no time make use of it, either ourselves or through a third party.”

        3. Instead of poking fun at earnest people, why don’t you print up a shirt saying “I am paid by Lloyds of London, TIG Insurance of Canada, Mutual Insurance of Bermuda or other unregistered insurance company to stop U.S. citizens from having reliable access to honest and unbiased judges?  Sweet money for me, sorrow for you.

          1. …albeit a “sorrowful” deal for me.  Oh, woe is me!  I should start a diary and cram it with 10,000-word posts.  That will solve everything!

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

147 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!