Published by Webmaster on 15 Apr 2009 at 09:00 am
Sound Off!
This page is a forum for visitors to the site to contribute your own stories about how YOU have been adversely affected by the rulings of Colorado’s rogue supreme court. Have your property taxes gone up because of the recent Mill Levy Tax ‘Freeze’ ruling? Has your business or other property been seized by abuse of eminent domain sanctioned by this court? Or have you been affected in some other way?
Colorado Supreme Court rulings aren’t just dry, academic legal decisions - they impact real people, causing real pain. Take our surveys, and/or write your own comments below:
1. Given the flagrant disregard for the Colorado Constitution repeatedly exhibited by Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey and the current majority on the Colorado Supreme Court, how will you vote (in 2010) on retaining those justices who upheld the Mill Levy Tax Freeze (resulting in a net tax revenue increase) in violation of the clear wording of the state constitution? (Take the Survey)
2. Try the “New Tax Lottery” - brought to you courtesy of the Colorado Supreme Court’s 16 March 2009 ruling upholding “Backdoor Bill” Ritter’s “Mill Levy Tax Freeze”. (View the list, then take the survey)
Write your story below…
Bennett Rutledge on 07 Apr 2009 at 11:11 AM #
The most outrageous ruling that affected me personally was when the Colorado Supreme Court ruled, “en banc” to allow the Bolshevik Ballot to stand in Colorado. I say that when there is only a single candidate on the ballot, and the voter has the “choice” of voting for the majority party candidate, or not voting in that race at all, we are NOT talking about an election! (bolshevik: russian for majority party) Yet the Constitution of Colorado requires that, among other officials, the Sheriff has to be elected every four years. A lot of people I talked to are surprised that you were not allowed to write in anyone else. A lot of people are unaware that in 2006, Arapahoe County Sheriff Robinson had his buddy Clerk and Recorder Doty, shove a perfectly good candidate off the ballot so that once again we the people had the choice of voting for that candidate, or not voting in that race at all. (see District 18, Waters vs Doty, 2006) And to top it all off, those in power in Las Animas, Colorado, no longer feel they need to have elections at all! Any guesses how the CSC will go when that gets to them?
Attorney in Denver on 21 Apr 2009 at 12:30 PM #
The Supreme Court Justices are judges in a very unique position. Unlike trial judges in the lower courts, who wade through facts and “pick a side”, the Justices who sit on our Supreme Court actually have a client themselves that they must zealously represent: the Colorado Constitution. This means that they cannot simply be judges “picking a side”, but must continue, in many respects, to act like lawyers. Lawyers are bound to pursue and defend the interests of their clients. Lawyers cannot pursue their own agendas or interests in a client’s case and they must always make sure their client’s interests are paramount and are protected. A lawyer might not like their client or their client’s case, preferring a different outcome than the one their client wants or needs, but must go forward regardless of their own desired outcome and represent their client to the best of their ability.
Unfortunately, Justices may believe they should act only as judges – deciding which side has the better case or argument, and then justifying the outcome by referring to the Constitution in ways that compromise it. They are compromising their client. Good lawyers and good Justices would not listen to cases, “pick a side” they prefer and then see if it’s “OK” with their client…instead, they would consult their client, the Constitution, first and at each step in the case, letting their client’s interests be paramount and drive the outcome of a case. The Justices may not like their client or the outcome their client demands, but again, their client’s interests must be more important and must prevail. It is their job to make sure that the Constitution, their sworn client, wins every time.
I believe this “attorney- client” relationship is what the people of Colorado expect, which is why amendments to the Constitution are so hotly debated and so sought after. The people expect that there are Justices to pursue and defend the interests of those mandates in a way that makes those mandates immutable and timeless. It is a travesty that our Constitution is now a client looking for decent representation – it places not only our Constitution at risk, but the faith of the people.
Living under mob rule in Colorado on 24 Apr 2009 at 9:57 AM #
The very foundation of our system of “self-government”, was based on the theory of checks and balances between three co-equal branches of that government and all constrained by a constitution. This is largely the structure that the states have taken as well.
This system falls apart in a dramatic fashion when each of the three branches of government is “controlled” by one party of our political process and they refuse to recognize the constitution’s power to constraint their activities.
In Colorado that is precisely what has happened. The members of the Colorado Supreme Court have put the political interests of their party and themselves ahead of the Colorado Constitution. This is actually grounds for impeachment. However, the powers that be have so poisoned that process that it is invoked so rarely that it is virtually worthless. Which brings us back to the fact that the same party controls the State House and Senate and the concept of impeachment is moot.
So, our only method of defending our state constitution, and by extension, the residents of Colorado, is the vote. In the case of judges, this is particularly challenging. Most people do not go through the effort of educating themselves on the judges, their decisions, etc. and therefore don’t vote on them. Or, out of some misplaced sense of respect for the court, will simply vote to retain all of them rationalizing that if one of the judges had done something really bad they would have heard about it.
That is why the work being done by “Clear the Bench Colorado” is so important. The people of Colorado must be educated about the role the court played in undermining our individual rights in recent years, and about their role in rectifying that situation through their votes.
So, in 2010, let’s CLEAR THE BENCH, COLORADO!!
James Powers on 28 Apr 2009 at 4:59 PM #
I’m tired of our constitutions (State and National) being chipped away by judges with an agenda. Most Americans are too busy living their lives to notice how our rights are being diminished day by day by men and women in black.
We need to educate the public about these rogues. Clear the Bench Colorado is a platform from which to do just that.
Get involved!
George on 05 May 2009 at 12:24 PM #
Walking in the imagination of their own hearts, doing what’s right in their own eyes, activist judges are destroying America from the bench of the Supreme Court of the U.S., to the lowliest county court.
Concerned Citizen on 13 May 2009 at 8:40 AM #
Because it does appear that the majority of the Colorado public is asleep as it pertains to their responsibility to oversee our government officials - I applaud this webmaster’s attempt to find a method of correction. I believe that unless one’s “ox is gored” - one is deceived into thinking we have a “just” system in place. (Heck - we have a “Judicial Review Commission ” to keep judges honest. Who, but an aware citizen, would know that such commission exists only to provide the public with a (false) sense of security but in truth, merely protects the status quo).
Family Law touches the most lives - and has become an industry out of control. More people are discovering that they CANNOT rely on law to anticipate their position. Hopefully, the public will realize that it is up to us to exercise our responsibility to DEMAND compliance with the Rule of Law. Without such compliance, we abrogate our place in government and suffer the consequences. After all - the Colorado Constitution says, “The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States”.
Seems our judges are “altering and abolishing” our constitution because NO ONE is stopping them - therefore the people are acquiesing.
I will direct as many as I can to this issue. For anyone interested, an excellent webpage that documents judicial abuse of power, see http://www.KnowYourCourts.com - check out the “Article of the Month” (left side of homepage) and select Feb / March / April for starters.
Richard Oliver on 05 Jun 2009 at 12:42 PM #
I am involved in a case that I can’t talk about because it’s in the middle of litigation. But it involves and inadvertent purely accidental “spill” (their words not mine) of one piece about 5 inches square partial asbestos floor tile. It tested at 7%. I found out anything above 1% is called a spill. Anyway, OSHA is going ballistic over this and has issued 23 violations of several OSHA regulations and of course massive fines. Most of the violation are like this: you didn’t have a “mask fit examination” to determine if your mask fit correctly; $2,000 fine, etc. But you get the idea.
Anyway the crux of the matter is that any settlement that is attained can now be used against you as fact in a civil case that may arise. You can’t dispute it, it comes into evidence as fact that you were “convicted” of that even though it was a settlement. We are only one of five states that the Supreme court has allowed this to take place.
What this does is almost assures a civil court case no matter what the settlement with OSHA or CDPHE or any other government agency is. And it just about forces you to not settle with any agency but to take it to court which is an adminj judge that is stacked against you too. This you have to spend lots of money with …guess what Trial Lawyers ! So again our Supreme court has sided with trial lawyers and made it almost fool proof that litigation will continue in almost any case settled by a government agency.
Upset on 11 Jul 2009 at 8:52 AM #
This sounds like a great class-action case - and one that would go down in history.
Natalie on 12 Jul 2009 at 1:36 PM #
I appreciate your efforts, Clear The Bench Colorado. I checked into judges before voting this last Nov. 08, was told Allison Eid only deserved a yeah vote. I know four Supremes can be ousted this next 2010 election. I still need confirmation on what justices voted yes on the 50% rule on property takings and OUST every one of them.
In general, vote out Colorado Supreme Court Justices Mary Mullarkey, Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice in the 2010 election.
Charles on 12 Aug 2009 at 10:06 PM #
The effort to “clear the bench n 2010″ is commendable but falls short of a constitututional answer to a rising consitutional problem– openly partisan courts immune from public constraints. That deeper problem cannot be addressed by removing one set of partisan judges. The solution is to accept the political nature of the state Supreme Court and amend the state constitution, and in due course the federal one as well, to end the practice of life tenure for judges. A single twelve year term is sufficient.
Rick on 13 Aug 2009 at 12:10 PM #
The license tag “TAX” or FEE is outrageous. They are penalizing people if they pull the vehicle off the road for service or repair or in our case we were not using it.
If someone buys a new car - a project (classic) - they get screwed as well.
Truly a worthless decision and another instance of GOVERNMENT getting what they can.
I doubt it has affected the initial problem efficiently. How about just enforce the laws we have and we would get better results.
ARGGHHH!!!!
Alison Whipple on 27 Aug 2009 at 3:49 PM #
Has anyone noticed the “Fees” that are charged for your children to attend Government schools in Colorado’s District 51? They have been charging fees for years and adding new ones every year. The Registration Process is just a scam to get you to come through the line and pay the fees and if you don’t show up they punish your child by not giving them their schudule. I have rufused to pay the “fees” for 3 years now. It’s always an argument but I always tell them my taxes are supposed to pay for science fees and math book fees and now that art is a required course, art fees as well. They have waived the fees so far because all the other sheep might notice that you shouldn’t have to pay for Government run education. Our taxes were supposed to pay for it remember? And people actually want Government run health care!
Bruce Cairns on 12 Sep 2009 at 3:36 PM #
Freedom is most important.
Judges must decide using the law, not empathy!
Let the people speak; unretain them by pulling the lever to say that these judges
shall not be retained.
Let the people take control, if judges will not uphold the constitution
or laws, then we are not beholden to them. Vote them out!
I have seen them claim legislative powers from the bench.
Bruce Cairns
Former State Senator
J Mac on 01 Dec 2009 at 1:49 AM #
This is silly. They’re not activist judges.
Dueno on 15 Dec 2009 at 1:06 PM #
ACTIVIST JUDGES??? What ever happened to enforcing & upholding existing laws making identity theft illegal? “Operation Numbers Game” identified well over a hundred identity thieves in Weld County who will now walk off scott free as a result of these “Activist Judges” who believe they have the authority to change laws that our legislators (who are accountable to the voters of Colorado) put on the books.
“Operation Numbers Game” was struck down by the Colorado Supreme Court in a 4-3 split decision. I say, let’s make these four “Activist Judges” accountable to the voters of the State of Colorado by voting them off of the Colorado Supreme Court. Spread this news to your friends and encourage them to vote these wannabe legislators off of the bench and make them earn a living as attorneys. (which I’m sure they had a hard time doing in the first place) In 2010, please vote to “not retain” Activist Supreme Court Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey.
J in CO on 02 Jan 2010 at 11:48 AM #
I think you should also focus on the theft of property by way of illegal foreclosures in this state as well. A very large percentage of all foreclosures come from entities that masquerade as parties of interest when they do not have a legal interest.
The judicial system does not seem to care and even when disputed and rules that the petitioners have “done enough or shown enough” with unsworn statements and photocopies of instruments that randomly end up in their possession for enforcement.
It is noted that over 30% of all promissory notes have been lost and most due to fraud are unenforceable regardless. If the homeowner doesn’t argue, they lose. When they do argue, they get absolutely no access to due process and the judicial doesn’t even require the lenders to provide the challenged documents.
This “because I say so” mentality and trust by the judicial of the banking institutions has got to stop. It is specifically why this country is in this mess.
No need to worry about property taxes when your property is stolen.
ray martinez on 03 Jan 2010 at 6:16 PM #
Matt Arnold was on the radio with me, Jan 2, 2010, at KFKA radio studio. He did an excellent job in explaining what his mission was all about and why it is important to clear the bench. One of the bloggs noted: “the Justices who sit on our Supreme Court actually have a client themselves that they must zealously represent: the Colorado Constitution.” I think we all know that our client is not being represented.
Ron Bella on 01 Feb 2010 at 12:57 PM #
It should not matter whether a person is liberal or conservative, democrat or republican when they don their robe because justices are supposed to leave their ideology at the door and rule on the basis of what is in the law. It is not for them to determine policy. That is the job of our legislature. When justices begin to rule on the basis of what they regard to be fair, it is then that citizens have the right, no, we have the obligation, the duty, to remove them from office so they might be replaced with someone who will honor their oath of office.
John on 05 Feb 2010 at 12:40 AM #
It’s Friday, 1:11a and Matt just finished testimony on the illegal tax hikes!
Thanks you good sir!
John on 05 Feb 2010 at 12:42 AM #
It’s Friday, 1:11a and Matt just finished testimony on the illegal tax hikes!
They are goring the citizen’s of Colorado with illegal acts of new taxation.
Thank you good sir!
Peter Coulter on 18 Feb 2010 at 8:20 AM #
I have found that the Justice System in Colorado is based on a “country club” mentality. You join the club by passing the bar and from then on, as long as you go along, you get along. It has put attorneys in a precarious position of continually compromising their integrity in order to survive in the system.
The founders of our country would be horrified at the plundering of the Judicial branch by self-serving elitists with hidden agendas. I recognize that there are decent and honest advocates in the system, but they are such a minority and face continued unspoken “winks” from other members of the “club”, that the only thing they can do is stand on the sideline, keep their mouth shut and try to keep from being falling into the abyss. Eventually it will collapse as a majority of common citizens come to the realization that the “safe harbor” of the courts has been decimated. The corruption has been like a cancer spreading to all parts of the system from top to bottom without prejudice to good or bad intentions. If you have a family and you depend on the “club” for your livelihood, one is compelled to compromise one’s honor to put food on the table.
10 years ago the Supreme Court asked for public comment concerning the grievance procedure for attorneys. Out of 50 or so people in the chambers, all were attorneys except myself. I listened to attorneys who believed they had been unfairly disciplined by the Supreme Court committee and others who seemed like puppets pouring accolades onto the Court (like jesters) on how well the system worked. I spoke to one issue which still exists till today, the proverbial “gatekeeper”. The Supreme Court Grievance committee reminds me of some dark midieval tribunal where members of the “club” are admonished (or not) behind closed doors without rhyme or reason; depending and determined only by one’s stature amongst colleagues. I have seen both sides of the fence and it is a bizarre drama to witness. It begs the question, “Why aren’t attorneys disciplined in open court like the rest of us?” And I am afraid the sad answer is that the Supreme Court would then lose control of it’s “members.” And what chance does a citizen have of filing a grievance against an attorney? One must get through the gatekeeper first. A delegate whose job is to filter out grievances that he believes meets the subjective criteria called for by the “club” rules. The problem being that if a guest (read “the public”) files a legitamate grievance that one of the members i.e. “stole your golf ball” the gatekeeper can keep your grievence from being heard by declaring that i.e. “your golf ball is pink, which is illegal,” and proceedes to close the gate on your case. It is all carefully orchestrated to appear legit to the public; until one somehow actually becomes involved in it.
And at the other end of the spectrum where magistrates are used to save money, injustices and politics run rampant. This is where most pro-se litigants are introduced to the Judicial system to hear their grievances. These are the court rooms where it is imperative that the Judge/Magistrate must be very carefull to fulfill his/her sworn job of upholding the Constitution of the United States. Undoubtedly, everyone at this level of the justice system is completely over-worked and probably underpaid. But the fact remains that they took the job and must still fullfill their sworn duty to the letter of the law. It is imperative that judicial decisions at this level not be based on personal feelings or corruption. These are the foundations of the justice system that mainstream America depends on. If/when the majority loses confidence in it; the entire system will come tumbling down. How bad is it today? Unbelievably, I have witnessed a county court magistrate go into the district court and remove a district court jury demand that was properly paid for. You would think that would be easy to prove but it was done in such a fashion that if you look at the official record of the case it looks like a jury trial was never requested contrary to a cash receipt from the clerk for $190 (marked district court jury trial Arap. County 2008CV202587) that indicates it was. And when brought to the attention of the Colorado Supreme Court, again my basic Constituional right to a jury trial was denied en banc. And if you look at the “Official Court Record” again then is no indication that a writ to the Supreme Court ever happened. It was electronically removed defying the fact it ever happened.
So should the 4 justices be removed; absolutely. They have compromised the Constitution and brought shame to a Judicial Branch rife with corruption that affects each and every one of us in some fashion. The only way to kill a snake is to cut his head off and the only possibility of saving our system will be accomplished in the same fashion. My fear then is that they will be replaced by other tainted members of the same club……… A better option would be to amend the constitution with a mandate to replace 1/2 of the Supreme Court with non-attorneys. /pc
Kirk on 20 Feb 2010 at 10:40 AM #
It is the opinion of this tax slave that the 2010 Colorado supreme court justices are all compromised: The judges’ benefits are good wages, sweet perks, and wonderful retirements gained directly from the wages of tax slaves. Of course they are going to “commit crimes” that benefits them and their government employed friends. They did not do the people’s work and never will. They saw money that they wanted and then colluded with each other to make it appear legal to take our wages. The only differences between these justices and any other thieves are they wear a robe instead of a mask and they used law enforcement instead personal weapons to rob the people. I will vote “not to retain” any of this scab. As a side note I did not capitalize “supreme court” on purpose.
Kirk on 22 Feb 2010 at 12:08 PM #
I would also like to mention a conversation I had with Senator Kevin Lundberg and appointed Representative B.J. Nikkel at a Wellington town meeting. They were just elected and were meeting their new tax slaves. We talked about a lot of things concerning government corruption and I was wearing my, “JUST SAY NO TO GOVERNMENT” ball cap.
I asked Senator Lundberg a direct question, “With the house prices dropping, do you believe that my unconstitutional property taxes will be reduced accordingly or do you think the state will come up with some scam to keep steeling from me at higher and higher rates.” Senator Lundberg then explained that the assessment is on a two year cycle so I would expect that if your house goes down in value that it will be fairly assessed and you would see a tax reduction.” I then chuckled because I realized that these two have no clue what they are up against in this country and they had no intention of getting rid of any taxes that pay their wages.
He also read a blurb out of the local newspaper about TABOR and then read from the actual law to show how the paper was clearly wrong about the true meaning of the TABOR law. I then asked him why he would still take seriously such a disinformation rag as our local newspaper.
The USA is in a lot of trouble. As long as representatives believe it is OK to steal my wages for their good cause to support a huge and growing government employed body, we will all be squarely under the boot of socialist tyranny and can expect no mercy or redress of grievances.
Vincent on 04 Mar 2010 at 10:19 AM #
I remember well James Madison’s caution against the “tyranny of the judiciary.” Consequently, I have NEVER voted to retain a judge at any level. This is perhaps the most critical issue facing us today and always, but the least appreciated and understood. Thank you Matt for what you are doing. I look forward to assisting in your efforts.
Bill Schurman on 23 Mar 2010 at 9:35 AM #
You folks are extreme right wing republicans who know nothing about the third branch of government. I and others will vote no, do not remove. The courts must remain independent.
CTBC Director on 23 Mar 2010 at 9:37 AM #
Well, Bill -
you are certainly entitled to your opinion - but I’d submit to you that we know a great deal about the third branch of government.
In fact, I’d agree - emphatically - that the courts must be independent.
Where you and I apparently disagree is on the current status of our courts - at least, the Colorado Supreme Court. It’s become abundantly clear that the current majority on the Colorado Supreme Court is NOT independent - but has chosen to become part of the political process - “players” - instead of fulfilling its proper role as an independent and unbiased “referee” applying the law as written, not ignoring it or re-writing it to suit a personal agenda (”legislating from the bench”).
“Independent” does NOT mean “unaccountable” - and the legally mandated method to hold our judges, up to and including our Supreme Court justices, accountable is via the retention election process.
By all means, vote “NO” on these justices if that is YOUR assessment of the proper way to vote; I will likewise make my own determination, and vote accordingly. That is our shared right and responsibility.
Matt Arnold
Director, Clear The Bench Colorado
Ralph on 10 Apr 2010 at 7:05 AM #
I can’t help but wonder how Bill Schurman would respond to one of these judges completely ruining his life with one of their illegal rulings. Why is it only “right wing extremists” want these judges off the bench? I wonder if there might be just a few on the left that also want these judges removed, is it even possible? can the Bill’s of the world ever make a comment and leave the personal attacks out? I can only hope.
Mari Matson on 21 Apr 2010 at 9:30 AM #
I own a small (very small) business in Denver. When I received my Personal Property Tax bill there was a $43 “fee”. When I questioned the fee I was told it was an administrative fee. When I inquired where the $$$ went I was told into the General Fund. When I commented that if that’s the case, it is a tax, I was hung up on. Then came the $50 registration fee I am now required to pay in order to pay the required $48 Occupational Tax each year for the privilege of working in Denver. Guess Colorado has thrown out the Tabor laws!
Cindy L. on 07 May 2010 at 7:11 PM #
I have known Matt Arnold to be an honest and informed man. I believe that he speaks only what he has read and seen himself. Any attack against him is lowball and cheesy. But in politics we know that not all people will play fair or honest. I am very grateful to his informing us of what the judicial branch in Colorado has been doing in side-skirting TABOR, etc. All one has to do is read this website and review all the links provided and see for oneself that we do need to vote “NO” to not retain these judges. When we do, we can increase the chances that 4 new judges will replace the suspect ones. Why take the chance?
But we also need to elect a Governor that will appoint fair and impartial judges. I am confident that Dan Maes will appoint non-Progressive judges. As far as McInnis is, I haven’t heard him on this issue. But I would not trust in Hickenlooper at all. I believe he would give us more of the same increased taxation that TABOR prohibits except by vote of the people of Colorado.
Jim Jay on 13 May 2010 at 11:54 AM #
I’ve not heard of Madison’s commentary on the ‘tyranny of the judiciary”. He spoke of the “tyranny of the majority” in Federalist #10 and the need for a sepration of powers in #47 touching upon the limits of the judiciary, executive, and the legislative branches of government. Perhaps Vince or Matt could enlighten us.
Hamilton addresses the issues of a permanent and independent Judiciary in Federalist 78 and I agree with him.
It comes down to whether or not one accepts the complaints of Clear the Bench against the Colorado Supreme Court justices. I do not and will vote to retain the justices in question. Until I see solid evidence of any willfull misconduct or intemperate behavior on the part of the current members of the Supreme Court, I will vote yes to retain them and NO to Clear the Bench and any proposal to term limit state judges terms in office.
I agree with the comments of Mr. Schurman.
Jim Jay on 13 May 2010 at 2:55 PM #
I’m curious. Just what constitutes a “fair and impartial judge” to Cindy L’s way of thinking. Sorry Cindy. There is no such thing. Judges are human and bring their life experiences to the bench just as you or I would if we were judges. The law is there as a roadmap, a guideline, and a historical record of case history that can help guide them through the legal process. In the end Justices Alito and Sotomayor have it right when they testified before Congress their life experiences have an influence on their decisions.
With that said I remind Cindy that two of the Colorado Supreme Court justices were appointed by Bill Owens. The four justices Clear the Bench want ousted were appointed by Roy Romer a Democratic governor.
Mr. Arnold and Clear the Bench and those of you who support his views are entitled to your opinions. But that is all they are opinions and nothing more. These are my opinions and nothing more.
The governor under the state Constitution appoints the justices to the state Supreme Court. Its the luck of the draw just how many opportunities arise for each governor to make such appointments.
As I mentioned in my previous post, until I see any evidence of willfull misconduct or derilection aof duty by any of the justices in question I will vote to retain each of them. I believe knowledge and the practice of the law requires the education, legal credentials, and many years of experience sitting on the bench. I believe Hamilton has it right. “Nothing contributes so much to the judiciary’s firmness and independence as permanency in office. Permanency in office can be regarded as indespensible and to a great measure as the citadel of public justice and public security”. Alexander Hamilton. Federalist #78.
You may not agree Cindy. There are many of who do and oppose Mr. Arnold. We will leave all this to the voters in keeping with our liberties as American citizens.
Alison Maynard on 20 May 2010 at 10:14 AM #
It is time I weigh in with what I know. I strongly urge everyone to vote “No” on all the justices up for retention. I only wish Greg Hobbs were on the list, as well. I advocated for a “No” vote for him in 2008, but got no publicity about my charges anywhere. I provided inch-thick documentation to The Colorado Statesman and The Denver Post, and press releases to a number of other outlets about this man’s misconduct, and–not one word.
That the four up for retention were appointed by Roy Romer (as was Hobbs) is actually the best argument for a “No” vote this fall. Romer was and is owned by the MDC Holdings/Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck law firm complex, which was a key player in the savings & loan and junk bond frauds of the late 1980’s. Every analyst I have ever read of the S&L crisis has concluded it was orchestrated by organized crime–and key players and orchestrators of the fiasco were this very bunch. Since they managed to relieve the American taxpayers of billions of dollars through the S&L fiasco, the Brownstein/Mizel crowd has pre-selected for us, and then controlled while in office, every important public official in Colorado, as well as Denver. Romer took huge campaign contributions from these interests in each of his campaigns. They bought him the governorship and then he selected these judges (and others) precisely because he knew they would, in turn, do the bidding of the same interests. The MDC/Brownstein complex also put Ken Salazar in office, as well as Wellington Webb, who have done (and continue to do) enormous damage to the public interest. MDC/Brownstein unfortunately is pretty much an identity with the Colorado Democratic Party, and has also funded an outfit called Reiter & Associates which I litigated against in election fraud cases in Castle Rock. Reiter is there to stuff the ballot box.
In a nutshell, therefore, the Mullarkey Five are there to do the mob’s bidding. You don’t hear about what Ms. Mullarkey and her henchmen on the Court have really been doing because the press is also controlled by MDC/Brownstein: Dean Singleton, the publisher of the Denver Post, is “good friends” with Larry Mizel. They were introduced by Michael Milken. That is reported in a book by Pete Brewton, “The Mafia, CIA, and George Bush,” from 1992. (Brownstein and Mizel’s criminal activities in the S&L frauds, and additional mob links, are also reported in that book in excruciating detail.)
I have, for instance, brought several important, even earth-shaking, cases to the Colorado Supreme Court for determination, and got NOTHING determined. The Court has issued one-line summary affirmations of the lower court in the last four appeals I have brought to it, and one it dismissed on a pretext. It then buries the summary dispositions: it does not publish these “decisions,” in violation of what I always understood to be the policy that ALL Supreme Court appeals resulted in published decisions, and they are obviously not published because it’s clear that there has been no decision on the merits, no weighing of the law or the evidence.
Case 06 SA 388 was the appeal dismissed on a pretext: I was denied a last four-day extension on my opening brief in this case, despite the fact that the project had been sitting around for 50 years, and my appeal was dismissed. This was the Animas-La Plata diligence case (water rights). I revealed numerous instances of fraud in my brief, including alteration of court records by the judge and other judicial corruption. Participating in the dismissal was Greg Hobbs, a water lawyer who is close friends with my opponents in A-LP. I learned after the dismissal that Hobbs had advocated publicly for the Animas-La Plata project; been with my opponents on numerous occasions in various settings, where I was not present, while our appeal was pending, because he is always “out there” exposing himself to policy discussions instead of remaining sequestered as a judge ought; and accepted gifts and money from them, including opposing counsel David Robbins and his wife. Justice Eid also had a conflict by marriage to Troy Eid, who was then the U.S. Attorney for Colorado, a party in the case.
I moved to recuse Hobbs (and Eid) and reinstate my appeal after learning this stuff, and Mullarkey denied my motion, acting on her own. I moved, under another rule, to have the whole Court reconsider the dismissal en banc, and I read that rule as mandatory if you make the request, and she denied THAT motion acting on her own, as well.
I had a companion appeal, the ALP reserved rights case, pending at the same time. It was a seminal case in its own right, in which I established that a prior U.S. Supreme Court decision directly on point had been violated by the water court in decreeing the project water rights in 1986 (by the prior crooked water court judge); that two Acts of Congress were violated in the granting of this decree; and that this “prior decree” had been entered entirely ex parte, with the interests of 100 objectors in the case excluded. It was nothing but a backroom deal among a handful of powerful interests, rubberstamped by the judge. The objectors were not copied on anything in the case! THAT appeal, after full briefing, was disposed of with another summary affirmation of the water court. THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED NONE OF MY ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL AND DID NOT PUBLISH WHAT IT DID. IT BURIED ITS “OPINION.” This is misconduct and establishes that the Court is ruling not on the basis of the law and the evidence, but on the basis of impermissible considerations. And obviously, I intuit that those considerations have to do with the need of the developers–again, the Brownstein law firm–to control the Colorado River in its entirety and pass on to the taxpayers all the costs of this speculative project. Brownstein lawyer Jim Lochhead has been intimately involved in A-LP, and the Brownstein firm in fact now, through mergers, controls the whole of the Colorado River. (The Schreck law firm of Las Vegas has its own mob connections.) David Robbins, who represented the applicants in my ALP appeal, is close buds with both Hobbs and Mullarkey. These influences–NOT the law or the evidence–controlled the outcome of my ALP appeals.
I haven’t mentioned yet that I have been, since moving to recuse Greg Hobbs, the subject of ongoing, neverending disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary prosecutor, April McMurrey (nee Seekamp), told the defendant in another one of my cases, former Bronco Bob Swenson, that “the Supreme Court is going to get Maynard” and that “the Supreme Court is tired of Maynard filing these cases and these motions.” What it is “tired” of is the fact that I have exposed judicial corruption. That appears to be the big no-no which brings discipline down on you. In particular, I have characterized what I have litigated against in several of my cases as “judge-enabled asset stripping,” whereby innocent persons who own property are targeted by unscrupulous development interests; taken to court on a trumped up charge; and then had their property stripped from them by the judge, who transfers it to the developers without any color of right. It’s terrifying beyond belief to realize what I have come to realize, which is that that’s what the judges are there for: to enable theft and legitimate fraud. That is what happened in ALP: a fraudulent stripping of the water supply from 6,000 vested users, in order that Robbins and Brownstein and their clients can have it all.
So, although OARC goes forward on only about 50 of the 5,000 complaints filed with it every year, I have been the preoccupation and obsession of this crowd for the past 3-1/2 years, having to defend against eight different grievances, three of which have gone to full-blown hearing. And I am not winning these things–the system is rigged to deliver convictions–but I digress, because, although the OARC is an arm of the Colorado Supreme Court…
Jim Jay on 24 May 2010 at 2:09 PM #
With all due respect for Ms Maynard I find much of the foregoing consistent with her tendencies to see the world conspiring against her. I’m all for protecting the environment and agree with her in many ways. But the above is a little over the top in my opinion.
Justices doing the “mob’s” bidding, not making decisions on the merits or weighing the evidence, enabling fraud and theft? Alison needs to take a deep breath and lighten up. She certainly doesn’t help her cause accusing Justice Hobbs of taking the money and running or water court justices being crooked and making “back room” deals. Sounds like Glen Beck and Sarah Palin paranoia to me.
All in all I think she is a little obsessed to claim “lawyers for the state and Justice Department and a cast of thousands are engaged in a racket”. Then again I salute her for putting the odious John Caldara in his place a few years back when he invited her to debate. I think she used the term “imperious” to describe Caldara’s invite. She was right on the money.
I respectfully disagree with Ms Maynard and do not see solid evidence of “judicial corruption” she claims in her above comment. I will vote to retain all the justices in question unless I see solid evidence of willfull mis conduct or dereliction of duty.
Murray on 26 May 2010 at 2:41 PM #
Clear the bench!
Vote yes on proposition 101, amendment #60 and amendment #61. 18B State spending (wasting) plus billions more County, City, district and enterprise spending.
Peter Coulter on 31 May 2010 at 10:09 AM #
I find “Murray’s” comments very provocative in light of the Denver Post article last Saturday (May 29th) concerning amendment 60, 61 and proposition 101 and the aggressive attempts by attorney Mark Grueskin to keep the citizens of Colorado from voting on them. I think the answer is quite obvious. Undoubtedly they will all pass despite his desperate plea that the sky is falling. What he really means to say is that the powers that be are watching their control slip away.
And what does this have to do with the necessary expulsion of Supreme Court Judges? Mr. Grueskin and Mrs. Dubofsky are the same people heading the organization promoting the retention of Mullarkey, Martinez, Bender and Rice. Had it not been for their unfounded, unsupported, biased and shameless decisions on these matters, these amendments to our constitution wouldn’t have to be brought before the people, ….. for the second time!
Mr. Grueskin, Mrs Dubofsky and associates have shown their hand. That is to say, whatever it takes to stay in control and vanquish the voice of Colorado citizens is their mantra. The Colorado Supreme Court is their backstop where the Constitution is being used as a doormat to wipe their dirty elitist values. The only way to stop them is to get rid of them. As punishment, let them and their families live with the disgrace of being booted out of office for the rest of their lives. Let that be the consequence for violating their oath to uphold the Constitution.
And if Mr. Jay is looking for the corruption in the Supreme Court as Ms. Maynard has rightfully indicated; I would submit that one must not go far for the answer. I would suggest that you look deep into the background of Ms. Dubofsky and her history with the Supreme Court where you will find their true colors. It is a disgusting untold story showing the demise of the Colorado Judicial branch.
Mike Spalding on 03 Jun 2010 at 8:45 PM #
Yay!! Thanks to your Clear the Bench campaign Mary Mullarkey is GONE!! One down! Thanks for running this. As a Libertarian I’ve gritted my teeth as these ‘judges’ have worked with the legislature to expand the government. Thanks again. I’ll send another donation tonight.
Sara on 20 Jun 2010 at 1:53 AM #
Go to business school if you people are just now realizing that our judicial system is a business in its entirety. Wow. What a revelation. So do something about it…become PRO-ACTIVE, not argumentative for the sake of arguing. It doesn’t make you look or sound smarter. Selecting, I mean, electing our governing officials is a process of elimination. One has to pick the lesser of all evils, period. Get a grip. Donate all your money now!!!!@!!!!!!
PETER COULTER on 03 Aug 2010 at 5:50 PM #
Today, the Judicial Performance Commission has shown itself to be a joke which will ultimately be proven this November. Blair and Gilmore, prosecutors turned judges, withheld evidence and cost Mr. Masters 10 years of his life; left the taxpayers $10,000,000 dollars short and left Colorado with an unsolved murder. Even more despicable was after taunting Tim’s family by raising their fists in victory; they refuse now to offer an apology. Yet the JPC gave them both rave reviews equivalent to Oscar nominations. The weakness in the JPC, as exemplified by X Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubofsky, ( http://law2.fordham.edu/publications/articles/400flspub8522.pdf )
is it’s failure to be transparent, political subversions of despotic power and refusal to take public comment into account. It is nothing more than a country club where accolades are embellished on the board members in an effort to make the palace shine from the outside. The reviews for Supreme Court Justices Rice, Martinez and “Bend-Me-Over” Bender are no different than for Blair and Gilmore.
18th century attorney and democratic historian Alexander Tytler published a 200 year “fatal sequence” for every Democracy since the beginning of time. History has proven that “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. [fees/taxes] After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.”
Rice, Martinez and Bender have promoted these truths by their shameless activism and failure to abide by their oath to the Constitution. We can’t stop the fatal cycle but we can slow it down with the expulsion of these 3 Constitutional Traitors.
Pat in Denver on 17 Sep 2010 at 10:17 AM #
What happens after they are tossed out? Will the next Govenor not just appoint more of the same or even worse if as it looks now Hickenlooper will hold the position?
Perhaps the devil you know might be better then the one you don’t.
I would love to be convinced otherwise, but for now I’m going to vote to retain.
CTBC Director on 17 Sep 2010 at 10:36 AM #
Pat in Denver -
the attitude you expressed reminds me of a battered spouse in an abusive relationship.
The beatings are guaranteed to continue, as long as you don’t kick ‘em out…
Also, it’s not possible to get any worse (they may be as bad, but you can’t go down from a perfect zero for 15 on upholding our constitutional rights).
Simple math…
More simple math:
The incumbent justices are seeking retention for another TEN year term (10 YEARS!).
Replacements only serve for TWO years before being on the ballot subject to voter approval (for example, Ritter’s recent pick will be on the ballot in 2012).
Anyone else think that the rulings of any replacement justices might be a bit more observant of constitutional language once they know that their JOBS are on the line?
Plus, there is a process to weed out the clearly unqualified and hyperpartisan:
http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/2010/06/10/selecting-the-next-colorado-supreme-court-justices-post-mullarkey-retirement-and-retention-elections-who-decides/
Really, Pat - there is NO downside to voting “NO” on these incumbent unjust justices.
Granted, the upside is unknown - but we CAN hold them accountable.
Be a Citizen, not a subject - vote “NO” on these unjust justices.
Clear The Bench, Colorado!
Phillip on 28 Sep 2010 at 2:54 PM #
These justices have engaged in demonstrable harm to our great state and inflicted perhaps permanent damage to the judicial institutions comprising vital roles in our society.
We, as tax-paying, concerned citizens of Colorado, have not only a moral imperative but an obligation to ourselves, our families and, indeed, our posterity, NOT to retain any such justice who fails in their responsibility to adhere strictly to Law.
Thank you, Matt. Thank you, Clear The Bench, for the service you perform on behalf of all of us. We are grateful.
Mary on 02 Oct 2010 at 10:21 AM #
When researching justices in order to make an informed decision, I learned that the rulings made by the justices is not allowed to be posted. The judges would prefer that voters base their decision NOT on their judicial history. Really? Its because if you knew how these justices are ruling you will choose to vote them off the bench. I know and I am voting to CLEAR THE BENCH!
Thank you for raising the awareness of this insidious attack on our liberty.
Liz on 10 Oct 2010 at 5:04 PM #
I sent this in to the Post Oct 3:
One aspect of the judicial race you did not touch on in your article “Justices face stiff retention criticism” is that the Colorado Supreme Court is the only and final arbiter of attorneys behaving badly. They protect bad attorneys to an unreasonable extent.
What I look for in a judge, (not that I get to choose one except at election time), is any indication of integrity: is he or she able to look at the facts and the law and make a decision.
Take Judge Bender’s decision in Dworkin, Chambers & Williams v. Provo — please. Voters can find this on line by googling those keywords. It’s also known as Case number 02SC792 in an alternate universe.
The upshot of that decision was to exonerate a lawyer who was accused of violating the law. Bender said the law should not apply to the lawyer. See particularly footnote 12, which says: “Although neither Provo nor the court of appeals analyzed the ‘any other person’ class in detail, we are not persuaded that an attorney falls into that class.” Okay, maybe he has a point, but the conclusion is still questionable.
I encourage voters to read Judge Bender’s decision in Chambers, for themselves, and then decide if this is a lawyer to whom they wish to give unbridled power, or whether he should be returned to private practice where he will earn as much if not more, since now he will be sought out for his ‘judicial experience.’
That’s why we should not just sheep-like vote to retain judges this year.
I’ve read the voter information Blue-book and admired Judge Bender’s resume. I want to like these judges; it’s natural for us to want to believe that our judges are good and fair people, but face it, not all of them are.
I don’t think I could be more politically different from the Clear the Bench people, but this year I’m voting ‘no’lot.
Ron Hagmeyer on 12 Oct 2010 at 1:40 PM #
I was flabbergasted when I saw that the Bluebook recommended a retain vote for Judge Stephen M Munsinger of Jefferson County District Court! Our homeowner’s association had a terrible experience with Judge Munsinger. He may be okay on criminal cases but he is a terrible judge on civil law cases. He either cannot read the plain English of a civil law statute and determine what it says, OR he has already made up his mind and deliberately just totally disregards it. He was extremely rude, arrogant, insolent and short tempered to our Counsel and gave him no time at all to call our witnesses after the cross examination of our opponents. He also demanded thousands of personal emails from Directors and general Members of the association that had no bearing, or anything to do with Board of Director actions, a GROSS invasion of privacy. PLEASE, PLEASE VOTE NO ON THE RETENTION OF Judge Stephen Munsinger. He favors prosecution, and you will not be happy ending up in his court.
finer299 on 12 Oct 2010 at 2:35 PM #
This snippet is taken from the 2010 State Ballot Information Booklet. Honorable Alex J. Martinez as printed in this official publication was on the board of directors of Servicios De La Raza. No wonder the illegals have no fear of our laws.
Go here: http://www.coloradojudicialperformance.gov/retention.cfm/ret/598
Commissions on Judicial Performace - Judicial Performance Reviews - 2010 - sup Martinez
http://www.coloradojudicialperformance.gov
Skylane on 14 Oct 2010 at 3:46 PM #
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:33 AM, wrote:
About 1990, plus or minus 3 or 4 years, I can’t remember exactly, a judge’s name from the 19th Judicial District (Greeley-Weld County) was erroneously placed on the 18th Judicial District Ballot (Arapahoe County). He was retained by voters in the 18th!!!! (I believe his name was also on the 19th Judicial District ballot as well). So much for the effectiveness of the retention system.
A Denver District judge, Lyn Hufnagel, an excellent and fair judge, was tough and demanding on attorneys who abused the rules of the court. The attorneys, through the Bar Associations, were able to use their influence on the Judicial Performance Commission to retaliate, and effect a low performance rating score against the judge, who was not retained. The Judicial Performance Commission is a self-serving body with its own agenda.
Quote: Judges are the weakest link in our system of justice, and they are also the most protected. - Alan Dershowitz, 1978
Patricia J Finley on 16 Oct 2010 at 7:50 AM #
In 31 years as a lawyer, I have never publically advocated voting “NO” (do not retain) on any judge. However, I have never seen a judge as arrogant, uncaring, ignorant of the law and vicious as Judge C. Jean Stewart.
In the case I had the misfortune to have had before her, in violation of Colorado law and without notice or an opportunity to be heard, she took child support away from the mother of a disabled young man. Child support was withheld (and continues to be withheld) for now over two years. The DR Court has ruled that all held and future child support is to be paid to the custodial parent. However, Judge Stewart refuses to release the money that she has withheld. It was uncontested in this case that the mother had perfectly cared for her son for the (then) 25 years that she had been his sole custodial parent. Judge Stewart however simply decided that child support should be “saved” for this disabled young man’s future. Judge Stewart made it clear that how the mother was supposed to pay for current medical bills, medical insurance, food, clothing and shelter for this profoundly disabled young man was not her problem.
Eventually, I recommended that my client replace me with a male attorney for it was clear that Judge Stewart did not appreciate me advising her repeatedly that Colorado law did not support her ever more erratic decisions.
I have spoken to other attorneys and it is clear from their comments that my client’s case is not the only one in which Judge Stewart has arrogantly ignored the law and the facts and done incalculable harm to those she is charged with protecting. Those attorneys are unable to speak out publically for they still practice law before her. They cannot take the chance that she will punish their existing or future clients for their comments. I no longer run that riskfor I am retired from the practice of law.
It is not only the disabled who are at risk before Judge Stewart. Our elderly in Denver are also at risk due to Judge Stewart. Judge Stewart is the Presiding Judge of the Denver Probate Court. In her capacity as Presiding Judge, she is directly responsible for the incredible and consistent failures of Denver’s Probate Court to protect our elderly from rapacious guardians and conservators. The Denver Post recently investigated the Denver Probate Court (February 2010). The Post’s expose of the Denver Probate Court can be found at: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14442041.
In view of these facts, I strongly urge you to vote “NO” on Judge C. Jean Stewart, Denver Probate Court. We can AND MUST do better than Judge C. Jean Stewart.
Sincerely,
Patricia J Finley
Sarah on 18 Oct 2010 at 4:41 PM #
Vote “NO” on
JUDGE C. JEAN STEWART
DENVER PROBATE COURT
Numerous articles describe why Judge Stewart should NOT be retained, however, and very little has changed since these reports were released.
Here are six articles you can review for yourself:
“Stewart declined to discuss the court’s decision to fire Cammack, who contends she is a whistle-blower terminated one month after she started complaining about the court’s failure to monitor a ward with the AIDS virus.”
“Probate court rife with lapses in training, oversight” ~ The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14442041
“Steenrod never listed her house for sale. Instead, his office took a call from an investor, Ridgemoor Realty, with a special offer. Ridgemoor would pay whatever Steenrod’s appraiser thought the house was worth, plus $2,000. In return, nobody else would get a chance to buy it.
Steenrod followed an expedient and well-worn path that cleared an estate sale but fell short of getting the maximum price a buyer was willing to pay. He sold the house to Steven Snyder, Ridgemoor’s owner, for $266,000.”
“Three days later, Snyder sold it for $315,000.”
“Last month, at his request, Denver probate Judge Jean Stewart accepted [Steenrod’s] resignation, appointed his partner Melissa Schwartz as his successor and Steenrod as Schwartz’s deputy. In a letter, the judge wrote that she did so ‘only because I am entirely confident that your successor will serve the city and county of Denver with the dedication and professionalism that has marked your tenure.’”
Asked whether the Denver probate court sought applications from others interested in succeeding Steenrod, court administrator Lee Cole said Stewart ‘responded that no others have ever expressed an interest in becoming the public administrator.’”
“Denver’s public estate manager frequently sold house to the same buyer” ~ The Denver Post
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_15000268
“Petrie and Campbell claim that Judge Stewart not only violated Letty’s rights, but also Colorado’s Probate Code and Code of Judicial Conduct. Of primary concern, they argue, is not just the closed hearing, but a secret visit Stewart paid to Letty on May 23, in which she interviewed the elderly woman ‘in lieu of testimony’ at the hearing. And then Stewart took it upon herself to act as ‘counsel, expert witness and fact finder’ as well as judge, the lawyers charge. ‘I’ve never seen anything like it,’ adds Campbell. ‘Everyone I talk to can’t believe it.’”
“To Grandmother’s House We Go” ~ Westword http://www.westword.com/1997-06-12/news/to-grandmother-s-house-we-go/
“‘Denver Probate Court has always been an informal, insular court, specially created, with a circle of attorneys and professional fiduciaries and one judge,’ Denver attorney [Chris] Campbell said. ‘It engenders an old boys’ network. That couldn’t happen in a worse place than a court where vulnerable elderly people are in danger of losing all their rights.’”
“‘Since I’m an outsider, I don’t want to go there with important things because that outside status would affect me. It’s not a level playing field,’ attorney John Holland said. ‘There’s the sense that there’s a lot of informal decision-making and things are prejudged based on politics or connections between people.’”
“The Probate Pit” ~ The Rocky Mountain News http://www.estateofdenial.com/2009/01/09/rmn-probate-series-part-1/
“Secrecy has been a hallmark of this case, particularly when it comes to the judge and her appointees. Two nurses sent by the Denver Police Department to check on Letty were turned away at the door by guardian Florence Jones’s aides. When one nurse complained in a deposition that she believed the judge was participating in a coverup and said she was going to demand an investigation, the judge had the deposition sealed. Stewart’s visit to Letty’s home was kept quiet. She said she didn’t want Judi or John to interfere–nor, apparently, Letty’s would-be lawyers or anyone else outside the court. The transcripts from that meeting were sealed.”
“Changing of the Guard” ~ Westword http://www.westword.com/1997-12-18/news/changing-of-the-guard/7/
“Under Colorado law, the courts are supposed to follow a hierarchical list when choosing a guardian: Spouses, adult children and family friends all rank higher on that list than professional guardians. . . . Stewart followed none of these procedures . . . . ‘It’s criminal what they’ve done to me and my son,’ Letty said. ‘How could this go on in America? All my rights have been taken away. . . . They’ve taken my money and keep me from seeing my son when he’s done nothing wrong.’”
“Mommy Dearest” ~ Westword http://www.westword.com/1997-05-22/news/mommy-dearest/
Karl Burgeson on 19 Oct 2010 at 8:02 AM #
Agape VS Agape Case # 2009CV2425
My wife and I own a local roofing company, Agape Construction & Roofing, we have been in business in Colorado for 19 years. We obtained a trademark for our business in Feb 2006. Last year a company with the same name entered out market and created confusion with our customer base as to who was who. The other Agape was taking our customers away from us. Storm chaser from Tulsa Oklahoma.
We hired legal counsel to force this other company from the state. Jesse Crow, the owner of the other “Agape” did not respone to the legal demands to leave the state so we had to sue in civil court. Arapahoe County Judge “Carlos Armando Samour Jr”
made my wife and I pay for all of our attorney fees and made us pay for his too. 40K-50K in legal fees so far. The case was presented to him (Carlos) and he made his ruling within a day or to, he did not read the case. Trademark laws prevent this from happening to companies like us.
Vote this Judge out, ( “Carlos Armando Samour Jr “) he is young and making bad mistakes already!!!!
Karl Burgeson
Agape Construction & Roofing
Mary Beth on 19 Oct 2010 at 11:11 AM #
A website of some help for reviewing District & County Judges in Colorado:
http://www.dvmen.org/dv-79.htm#pgfId-1427671
Pissedoffincolorado on 19 Oct 2010 at 5:05 PM #
Us, Coloradoans need to quit being lazy and get rid of the money hungry people who don’t get a damn about us people, our rights.
There is a reason there is a voting system. They need to LISTEN to the voter!!
Jeff Sacco on 20 Oct 2010 at 1:50 PM #
Jeffco Voters and Friends,
I could use your help! Other than Clearing the Bench at the Colorado Supreme Court level, do you have any strong convictions or are you aware of any activist judges up for retention in Jeffco or at the Court of Appeals level? Yes, I do support our constitutional judges and appreciate your assistance.
I have had personal experience with two Jeffco judges. Unfortunately, Judge Oeffler is not up for retention and will continue to overstep her boundaries as a judge, IMHO.
On the other hand, I find that Judge Munsinger is respectful, patient, fair, and that he will follow the rule of law. Once again, IMHO, I urge Jeffco voters to vote “yes” on Judge Munsinger. My personal experience suggests that Judge Munsinger is a proponent of transparency and the rule of law – enough said.
mimi crist on 20 Oct 2010 at 4:35 PM #
Judges in Pueblo need to be removed. Especially Judge Crockenberg, Judge Rayes, and Judge Mayes. Many judges in colorado come out of the law firm of Peterson and Fonda. The politics is all criminal with these men. We can’t get a fair trial when these judges are criminally linked to protect their friends. Judge Crockenberg refused to allow to me discovery in a rape case and Judge Rayes backed him up, as did the appeals and supreme court. The doctor had been molesting and raping women for years and women were afraid to stand up. He is a registered sex molester now and everyone who stood up to him is afraid. Judges don’t back up women. Clear the court in Denver. Then clear the court in Pueblo.
Bennett Rutledge on 20 Oct 2010 at 9:38 PM #
Please keep this link as a resource when 18th District Court Judge Hannen comes up for retention. Hannen thinks it is fine for officials of the Ruling Party to shove candidates off the ballot in order to punish them for bolting said Ruling Party in order to run against an incumbent. One who, by the way, has returned to office time and again because not a single vote CAN be cast against him … 2010 is the first time he can’t get back in by just voting for himself!
Mike C on 23 Oct 2010 at 3:42 PM #
The biggest problem I have in my business is the fact that there is no penalty for
people who don’t pay or don’t perform. People can do what they want because
the worst they have to do is pay what they owe or perfomr what they were supposed to in the first place.
The courts have no empathy for this and have treated me as a plaintiff as if I were the criminal. Judges are asleep on the bench with their eyes open. They are more respondent to those who kiss their butts then findings of fact or rules of law.
Burden of proof is set so high that if you don’t have every “I” dotted and “T” crossed
you lose automatically, regardless of the justice.
This is no secret and many people take advantage of these facts and that you don’t want to go to court and will try and beat you up or where you down so that some of the biggest costs never see a court room in terms of settling out or eating losses
in order to avoid litigation.
The result is that the bad guys hold the cards in our system of “justice”.
Most judges I have encountered are mostly arrogant and/or apathetic, unknowledgable, havetheir own agenda etc.
I think that the majority of people keep retaining judges because they don’t have much first hand experience in a courtroom ( such as the self employed who must chase money) . They believe the brainwash about “liberty and justice for all”.
Even though that is an ideal, and life is never that perfect, the system is out of control. It’s up to the people to maintain “liberty and justice” by keeping after the numerous bad judges and magistrates.
To accomplish this vote “no” on all judges and shake up the whole system. Even if they are “good” judges they should be “team players” and putting peer pressure on their colleagues. Just vote “no” on all judges unless you know the judge is good.
Mike C on 23 Oct 2010 at 3:46 PM #
So many judges are arrogant and incompetent because they answer to no one.
Make them answer by voting “No” on retention.
Sarah on 26 Oct 2010 at 8:40 AM #
Check out the new article about Denver probate court judge C. Jean Stewart in today’s Denver Post and VOTE NO on her retention: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16433519
Go to http://www.removecjeanstewart.com/ for more information.
PETER COULTER on 31 Oct 2010 at 9:46 AM #
There is no rebuttal argument for the fact that had not Mary Mullarkey* and her supporters gutted the intent and purpose of Tabor, she wouldn’t have been able to borrow the $280M to build a new courthouse. The current cost for having the Supreme Court in the Denver Post building is $1.1M per year. At that rate; it would take over 250 years to equal just the cost of construction of the new memorial. What is so ironic about this is that if the Judiciary continues down this path; there will be no purpose for a Supreme Court. Attorney and democratic historian Alexander Tytler, found that democracies are not linear but circular and all eventually degrade (because of corruption within) into Dictatorships. And dictators have no need for such demcratic nuances as a $280M Court building.
Thank you Matt for all your tireless work in exposing these elitist and shameless judges who continue their hidden agendas resulting in Treason on the Constitution.
Greg Hagen on 31 Oct 2010 at 4:14 PM #
Thanks for what you folks are doing. Many people contributing to the conversations in Colorado talk radio are not aware of the analysis and conclusions of CTBC. Although they are expressing many of the frustrations addressed in the CTBC literature, they are stating that they will vote no to all judges. I am surprised that even hosts (KOA) that interviewed CTBC earlier in the campaign have not brought the organization up in a response. I appreciate the fact that you are being outspent in this campaign, but it is just as important to retain good, Constitutionally mindful judges as it is to throw out the bad ones. This may work out fine in theory since they may put the no votes of Clear the Bench over the top, but in this unique election season, the number of no votes out of frustration with the status-quo could dangerously imperil a good judge. I just want to say your message is NOT getting out there as effectively as it could be, even if only to have Clear the Bench representatives contact these hosts, or even call in to the shows in this all-critical last few hours before the election.
TheWatcher on 12 Nov 2010 at 12:15 PM #
I notice the Denver Post says that 96% of the vote is in and the Supreme Court is retained by approx. 60% Yes votes to 40% No votes. The Appeals Court is a little higher…65% Yes votes and 35% No votes. A surprising turnout for the NO vote.
Charles O McVey Sr SFC E7 USA Retired CO on 16 Nov 2010 at 8:05 AM #
What is needed is not just a vote yes or no, but rather a Constitutional Amendment that would force ALL Judges to have to seek election and/or re-election to the Bench with an Opponent. Thereby giving WE THE PEOPLE a true choice. This Nation is a Constitutional Republic, and it is time WE THE PEOPLE took back our rights to include selecting who will be our Judges, not have them choosen by their fellow members of the legal profession who will then in turn handle cases before them.
Clear the Bench Colorado, should be advocating an Amendment to the State Constitution that gives the Citizens of Colorado a real choice, and that is simply electing the people we want as judges, or continue under a Judicial Dictatorship.
Julie Allen on 11 Mar 2011 at 10:16 PM #
I am the wife of a person who has been wronged by the Denver County court system. Unfortunately, we are from another state and only have had this experience because we were doomed to fly through Denver on our way home. My husband was NEVER given a lawyer (violation of his 6th Amendment right to effective counsel). He has been lied to and about. The city atty, Peter Frigo (imho a devil worshipping scienctologist with his biggest accomplishment being the “inventor” of the “personal hand held noise maker” whatever that is) calling my house, not identifying himself and behaving in a threatening manner (I recognized his voice). After I filed a motion for dismissal with Judge Satter, this city atty. WAITED until the DAY BEFORE COURT to address this, KNOWING there was NO way for us to get 2 states away for court (not only that, but I did not write to him, I wrote to the JUDGE). They also said they offered my husband a plea bargain at arraignment. How could that be when he never said a WORD at that hearing? Furthermore, I have NEVER been in a situation where the cops taken someone’s WORD w/o any other evidence and take a person to jail and the person only being identified by “witnesses” when he is already in handcuffs. But that’s what happened in Denver County. Not only that, those officers (if you can call them that) were downright MEAN to my CHILDREN! How can you justify telling a 9 yr old little girl who is crying over seeing her Daddy being led off in handcuffs “you need to get it together”? If cops just take people’s word for these things, then I can send anyone I want to jail just by accusing them. I guess in Colorado, you are GUILTY until, somehow by the grace of God Himself, you are proven innocent. Not only that, but to have these same officers LIE in their reports. One sentence says that my husband refused to speak or cooperate with this investigation and in the next one, they said he said this or that. So which is it?? I have never been treated like this by any public officials as I have been by the city and county of Denver, Co. No wonder Dog the Bounty Hunter has to come and help all the bounty hunters in Colorado. Nobody wants to go to court!!!!!!!!!! Every person I spoke (or tried to), with the exception of 2, were so rude and hostile. One woman actually hung up on me! And these are the public officials that are representing the state of Colorado. Believe me, I will NEVER walk, fly, swim, crawl, whatever through that state ever again in my ENTIRE life! This BS has single handedly destroyed our family as we knew it. Our 9 yr. old turns 10 in a couple of weeks and her Daddy, who has NEVER missed a b-day since she’s been born cannot even come to her party! I have tried everything to fix this, but nobody would help us or listen to us. A YEAR for disturbing the peace??? You gotta be KIDDING me! In our state it’s a $35 fine. Whoever oversees this site can show this to Mr. Frigo: My husband will return to your state to answer to your false allegations is, if you’re still around in a hundred years and you bring him out of the cemetery in a body bag. Sorry, for this being so long. I appreciate you having this site so that others can see what is really going on in the courts of Colorado. I only wish we’d have known this BEFORE we flew through this state. We are law abiding folks who, despite being both disabled, are trying to raise our family the best we can with what we have. We pray every day, that someone will help us and we can put this awful experience behind us. OUr children have been traumatized and frankly have lost all respect for law enforcement. How can they have any when they see what they did to their Daddy, and were treated badly by them for no reason whatsoever. The worse thing that happened, was that these same officers looked our children right in the eye and said “don’t worry your Dad will be right behind you tomorrow”. They knew damn good and well that wasn’t going to happen, yet they had no problem LYING to children. I’m for getting rid of all your public officials and starting over. At least the ones who do whatever they want at the expense of others. Thank you and God bless.
Julie Allen on 11 Mar 2011 at 10:31 PM #
I did forget to ask one question of your readers: has anyone had any experience with either Judge Raymond Satter or City Atty Peter Frigo? I would love to hear about it whether it be fair or unfair treatment by either or both. Thank you.
Rob Q on 29 Jun 2011 at 8:49 PM #
A Denver judge has thrown out a lawsuit
challenging a law that lowers cost-of-living increases in pensions
for state retirees.
The Denver Post reports that District Judge Robert Hyatt tossed
the lawsuit Wednesday before it could go to trial. He disagreed
with the argument that a law cutting the increases nullifies the
contract with the Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association.
Wyatt ruled the retirees have a contractual right to their
pension, but not to a specific formula for cost-of-living raises.
Last year, the Legislature passed a bill aimed at ensuring the
pension fund’s long-term solvency by reducing the increases,
expected to be 3.5 percent last year. Budget officials had warned
that without changes, the plan would go broke in 20 years.
The pension programs covers more than 400,000 public employees.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_18380410
kay sieverding on 03 Jul 2011 at 6:56 AM #
I also had a terrible experience with the Colorado courts and John Gleason.
I lived on Princeton Ave in Steamboat Springs across from a convicted drug dealer who was president of the city council.
http://www.exploresteamboat.com/news/2009/sep/30/candidates_divided_financing_issue/
I was criminally prosecuted because I complained that the Bennetts built extra buildings that violated the zoning. City and county officials tried to pass off a detached two story 2000 sq foot plus building with heating and plumbing that parked only two vehicles as a two car attached garage. They allowed a civilian Jane Bennett to sign a police summons and complaint that can only be signed by a police officer who actually witnesses a crime in progress. There was no crime in progress and she wasn’t a police officer. The police report shows only that I complained about zoning violations while I was standing on the street in front of my home and she was with 4 men at a distance. There was no warrant, no probable cause hearing, and no prosecutor’s signature. Jane Bennett claimed under oath that I went on her property and scared her construction workers but their testimony under oath was that they only saw me on my own property or coming and going and that they weren’t scared of me. The prosecutor violated state law by dismissing the prosecution without an oral hearing, which I requested. Then she issued a public statement that Jane Bennett was my victim but a trial was too expensive. The prosecutors’ husband was a real estate speculator and Bennett helped him get a permit for a new ski area which he tried to sell in the WSJ classified for $20 million, a big profit.
The Routt County judge James Garrecht issued a restraining order on me without a statutory basis. He claimed in court that he was doing it because there was a pending criminal prosecution and that it would go away when the criminal prosecution ended but then he refused to take it away. Jane Bennett followed me around town asking the police to arrest me whenever she could get near me. She filed a police report saying that she followed me trying to take my picture to prove I was near her and therefore I should be arrested. Her lawyer Randall Klauzer agreed with Judge Garrecht that I molested Jane Bennett even though she stated under penalty of perjury that there was no offensive touching, I hadn’t been following her around town, and it had been years since I had called her.
I was also forced to give up my rights to Princeton Ave, as an adjoining property owner, and to sell the Bennetts’ land for $1 under threat of criminal prosecution in municipal court, with the judge reporting to the city council, because my employee trimmed without a trimming permit, even though the city never ever issued a trimming permit to anyone and didn’t have a trimming permit form. The assistant city attorney sent threatening letters.
I complained to OARC about these events and they thought the lawyers acted perfectly fine.
Ian on 05 Jul 2011 at 12:59 PM #
Ok CBC, you have a combat proven United States Special Forces soldier who’s served multiple deployments in his career. He has a vindictive ex-girlfriend who had a restraining order issued to him by her. The ex claims to be oh so intimidated and threatened by him, even though he lives in Washington, DC. She has continued to contact him and his family regardless of the restraining order. The ex continues to coerce him into meeting up with her and continuing contact with him. Now his career and livelihood is in jeopardy because Judge Johnny Barajas doesn’t have the testicular fortitude to address and rectify this issue with this woman who’s going out of her way to make my life a living hell. Your honor, I no longer reside in the state of Colorado and she still contacts me. I’m a Green Beret, not some hoodlum off the street. Now, you wish to take a man of my application, knowledge, skillset and resourcefulness and turn me into a man with nothing to lose because your lack the testicular fortitude to blow the whistle on this woman’s word?
Kasey Wakula on 08 Aug 2011 at 5:13 AM #
I am not sure where you’re getting your info, but good topic. I needs to spend some time learning more or understanding more. Thanks for great info I was looking for this info for my mission.
Kristen Burroughs on 05 Nov 2011 at 2:44 PM #
This has nothing to do with Colorado … yet … but I’m wondering if you would write about the possible responses the US legislature has to the executive branch’s refusal to obey the request for documents dealing with the Solandra debacle.
Can the executive simply refuse to comply?
If so, what recourse does the legislature have?
Is it appropriate for the legislature to go to the Supremes at this point?
What happens if the executive destroys the docs or refuses to obey the Supreme Court ruling, assuming they rule that the WH must turn over the documents?
If the WH stonewalls the SC and the Leg, is impeachment the last recourse?
Just wonderin’
Scott on 11 Nov 2011 at 3:33 PM #
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (in this case liberal judges).
Thomas Jefferson
Jeanne on 05 Dec 2011 at 12:55 PM #
If only I could vote out Larimer County Judges! (I live in Jefferson County and not in the 8th District)
Judge Julie Field (8th District Court/Larimer County Justice Center Courtroom 3A) threw me out of a public (custody) hearing because of something someone else did in the courtroom: They gasped when the judge ordered a grandfather to give his daughter and grandson’s address in open court. This was after the grandfather testified under oath that the “father” of his grandson had repeatedly threatened the life of his daughter and grandson. The judge ordered the man to answer the question and half a dozen people gasped in disbelief. “Officers! Clear the courtroom!” said Judge Field. Thankfully, despite a $25 per day contempt charge handed down by the judge the grandfather refused to supply the address.
If only that was the worst. The grandfather hadn’t even been subpoenaed and was forced out of the audience to testify by the petitioner’s attorney and judge. Then the judge refused ALL of the Respondents witnesses who had been properly served.
The judge also ordered the Respondent to give names of clients and how much they paid the Respondent in her line of work. (Respondent’s profession is that of Investigative Journalist). The Respondent successfully argued that she was bound by confidentiality and the Judge did relent on that one, but only after threatening the Respondent with Jail for contempt on that and the “address issue”. The Respondent finally wrote the coveted address on a piece of paper and handed it to the Judge. In my humble opinion, if ANYTHING happens to that Respondent, the JUDGE will be guilty as an accomplice, in reality even if she is protected “legally”. Then the JUDGE issued an order that the Respondent was not to leave Larimer County indefinitely, putting the Petitioner in a position of not being able to WORK, as her job regularly requires travel outside the county. The Respondent has never threatened in any way, shape or form that she would leave the county with her son. In fact she has emphatically stated that she intends to stay and fight for her son and against the unimaginable DISJUSTICE that Larimer County (where a prominent attorney has gone on record saying he charges double to work in that county due to pervasive corruption) has wrought against her and her son.
The case is question is 11DR444 in Larimer County (8th District) if you want to check it out. But good luck getting a transcript. One person was quoted $150 per page for a written transcript and denied an audio version. This is AFTER the Judge ordered all phones and recording devices turned off at the beginning of trial assuring any and all spectators they could easily obtain transcripts or the audio transcript. This was before she threw everyone out. However, its a good bet that there won’t be anything in the record about the four Larimer County Sheriff’s Deputies that “attended” the Respondent (intimidation under the Color of Law - hmmmmph!) whilst onlookers were forbidden access to the courtroom.**
Judge Julie Kunce Field. And she’s a mother herself. Go figure.
** - As a compare and contrast: I recently attended a sentencing hearing in Denver County Court. There were all manner of “lowlife” types there at that sentencing mill more than a dozen scruffy looking people (get over it). For the first hour there was one Denver Sheriff’s Deputy in the Courtroom. But in Larimer County they needed FOUR to guard a petite woman who I doubt weighs even 1 and a quarter.
I get a funny taste in my throat every single time I “say the pledge”. Especially that part about Liberty and Justice for All.