The discussion continues…

More readers (including a vehement critic of citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights to evaluate judicial officeholders) have weighed in on our article (published on Friday, July 2nd under the “My Turn” header as “Demand accountability from judges, too”) in response to a June 11th article defending incumbent judges and attacking critiques of the court (“Criticism of retiring Judge (sic) Mullarkey unfair”).

Clear The Bench Colorado previously excerpted some of the most interesting comments (since Post readership is declining, you may have missed it) and invite additional comment here or on the Post’s website.  Also, the full version of the original article (the Post’s version was heavily edited for space) is available for comparison (Accountability, Transparency apply to the Colorado Supreme Court, too).

Below is our response to the several comments submitted thus far on the Denver Post website:

Judging from the overwhelming tenor of responses posted as comments to this article, a majority of Colorado citizens who are paying attention to the issue of judicial performance reviews and retention elections in this state “get it” – our courts (particularly the incumbent justices on the Colorado Supreme Court) are out of control, and need to be held accountable – to their oath to support the Constitution, uphold the rule of law, and defend (not eviscerate) the constitutional rights of Colorado citizens.

The tone of the responses and comments posted – by my count, commenters (some with multiple postings) include a dozen favorable, one opposed, one neutral-ish, and one paid hatchetman (c’mon, “Paul W.” – come clean on who hires you to troll the site and post comments – at least have the courage to post your actual name and stand behind the attacks) reflect what I’ve encountered over the last several months speaking to various civic-minded groups around the state: there’s a HUGE unrequited thirst for substantive information about the performance of our unelected (and heretofore largely unaccountable) judiciary, the critically important 3^rd branch of our system of government.

Some of the comments (particularly the attacks on Clear The Bench Colorado and its supporters, but also a few of the supportive comments) have gotten off-track, so I’ll attempt to recap the issues and address some major points.

First, to clarify: Clear The Bench Colorado is not advocating for any radical changes to our current system of judicial selection and periodic retention elections at this time.  Despite serious concerns expressed from a number of perspectives that the current system (the “Missouri Plan”) undermines accountability (and there is some merit to that argument), it is our hope that with minor reforms and (most importantly) active civic participation in the process – including information and critiques from a variety of sources and perspectives – we can defend and improve upon our existing institutions.

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” – Abraham Lincoln

Second, the CTBC article specifically counters the view (expressed by Thornton and other defenders of incumbent justices and the status quo) that citizens and independent groups have no right to express an opinion or critique concerning judicial performance.  Such a view runs counter to the very idea of the Citizen as sovereign that is the basis of our form of government (and our nation’s philosophical core).  Criticizing an alternative perspective as “morally and intellectually flawed” and devolving into ad hominem attacks on the messenger betray the hollowness and lack of substance of the attacker’s message.  There’s just no “there” there.

Finally, even the critics – paid attackers and otherwise – have not been able to answer my challenge to provide an example of how the “Blue Book” reports – the Judicial Performance Review Commission narratives – are in any way helpful or informative to voters in deciding how to “judge the judges.”  Citizens are advised to either uncritically accept the black-box recommendations by the closed-door, non-transparent, unaccountable, political insider-dominated process that generates the JPRC and “Blue Book” reports, or (essentially) devote their lives sitting in courtrooms and/or poring over every last one of the myriad rulings of the justices in question.  (It’s no fun, I can assure you).

The fact remains: our institutions may be worthy of preservation, but the system of judicial performance reviews has consistently failed to provide the substantive evaluations needed to inform the public.  Consideration of alternative, independent views – including critiques – is vital to ensuring accountability.  Why are CTBC’s critics so threatened by the light of this independent review?  Because they know that the citizens of Colorado, when presented with good information, will exercise their right to vote “NO” on the unjust justices of the Mullarkey Court this November.

Clear The Bench, Colorado!

Clear The Bench Colorado very much appreciates the interest and engagement demonstrated by so many of the comments submitted to the Denver Post website, and encourages further discussion – after all, it’s YOUR rights that are at stake.  Join the discussion – right here and/or on the Denver Post site.

We The People can (indeed, as citizens, we must) hold our public officials – both elected and appointed – accountable.  Be a citizen, not a subject – get informed, then exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, three remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority”- (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice – soon to be minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and your contributions – and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

After a few weeks (and a Face The State article - ”Supreme Court’s temporary digs draw a dart from court critics“ - noting the Denver Post’s lack of critical coverage of the Colorado Supreme Court, and the issue of judicial retention elections, since the Colorado Supreme Court began paying the Denver Newspaper Agency $1.6 million in annual rent for office space in the Denver Post building) the Denver Post published our response this Friday (July 2nd) to a June 11th article defending incumbent judges and attacking critiques of the court (“Criticism of retiring Judge (sic) Mullarkey unfair”).

The guest commentary (published under the “My Turn” header as “Demand accountability from judges, too”) generated a fair amount of response and reader comments, considering its appearance at the start of the 4th of July holiday weekend.  We’ve excerpted some of the most interesting comments below (since Post readership is declining, you may have missed it) and invite additional comment here or on the Post’s website.  Also, the full version of the original article (the Post’s version was heavily edited for space) can be viewed here for purposes of comparison (Accountability, Transparency apply to the Colorado Supreme Court, too).

Comments on the Post website opened up with the obligatory salvo from the paid “trolls” who surf the comments section attempting to “spin” the message to their side:

Article Discussion: Demand accountability from judges, too

by Corndogsaredelicious on July 2nd, 2010, 9:17 am

“CTBC’s message is: Get informed, using a variety of sources. Then do your duty as citizens.”

This is inaccurate. And it exposes CTBC’s political agenda. “Clear the Bench” would otherwise be named “Get Informed Before You Vote”. All appellate court decisions are published and available for review by the public. CTBC focuses on one or two of hundreds, and hopes that you will side with its disgruntled founder’s self-interested attacks on judges that he doesn’t agree with. CTBC’s arguments are intellectually and morally flawed, and should be ignored.

The commenter (Paul W., or “corndog”) works for one of the organizations supporting the current incumbents.  Although he (correctly) points out that “all appellate court decisions are published and available for review by the public” (Clear The Bench Colorado also links to those decisions and other references in the interest of an informed electorate) he fails to mention that it is VERY difficult to find any useful information on the Colorado Supreme Court site unless you already know what you’re seeking. Clear The Bench Colorado does focus on a subset of the “hundreds” of Colorado Supreme Court cases –  we have highlighted several (not “one or two”) decisions that have the most impact on Colorado citizens and the state as a whole, and that have most blatantly and egregiously violated the clear language of the Colorado Constitution.  The fact that the “Supremes” might get it right on several cases of interest only to the parties involved does NOT excuse the fact that on the most consequential cases, dealing with core issues of constitutional law and affecting the entire population of the state, the current majority has repeatedly come down on the wrong side of the law and violated your rights.

The Colorado Supreme Court – and particularly, the Chief Justice – exercises enormous power (”clout”) over the lives of Colorado citizens.  The current majority has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not exercise this power with restraint or consideration for your constitutional rights – ruling consistently against individual protections and in favor of expanded government power.  Upholding tax increases (such as the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” property tax increase, or the “Dirty Dozen” new tax laws) imposed without the required vote of the people, enabling taxes to be collected under the guise of “fees” (such as the Colorado Car Tax), expanding eminent domain abuse to seize people’s property, and grabbing the (legislative) power to draw up voting districts (aided by the recent “Mary-mandering” bill) – this court is acting like rulers, with you as the subjects; re-writing the laws, instead of upholding them.

Other comments reflected citizen interest in and understanding of the importance of the judiciary in our system of government and the need for citizens to take seriously their responsibility to hold these officials accountable:

Article Discussion: Demand accountability from judges, too
by infossh on July 2nd, 2010, 11:02 am

In general, judges have become complacent and often see themselves as lifetime justices. They also assume that their role is to change the semantics of laws to accommodate what they perceive in changes of social order and understanding.

That is certainly the case in Colorado’s Supreme Court. It’s time for a renewal of commitment to the wisdom of the rule of law rather than the vagaries of whim that have come to determine judicial ruling.

Re: Article Discussion: Demand accountability from judges, too
by jpa11074 on July 2nd, 2010, 11:24 am

CTBC does a great service to those of us that believe we should be an informed electorate. Finding information on judges has historically been very difficult, and for the life of me I don’t understand why some would want to silence anyone trying to get detailed information out to the public so they can make informed decisions. That is, of course, unless they don’t want that information made available to the voters. “Yup, just tell me how to vote and don’t get me mired any of the detail.” Right.

The many, not just “one or two” decisions, CTBC has highlighted clearly show why these 4 justices should not be retained. The light of day disinfects much, and in this case, hopefully our supreme court. I just wish we had similar information easily available (judges decision records) for all of our judges….

Many comments focused on the need for transparency and accountability, with information from a variety of sources:

I Can “Judge” Just Fine, Thanks
by throatwarbler on July 2nd, 2010, 11:45 am

The remedy for speech that you don’t like is your own speech! Anyone who doesn’t like CTBC’s message is free to create their own web-site. Retainthesegoodjudges.com is probably available. By all means, go for it. I’ll be the first to go read it. I’m sure it will be interesting.

Regardless of where I get my information, I consider the source. If I get info from a lawyers group, I think about the fact that they have to work with these judges (at their mercy). I can also evaluate the “disgrunt” factor of other sources. For once, I GET TO BE THE JUDGE!

Article Discussion: Demand accountability from judges, too
by polygirl on July 2nd, 2010, 12:53 pm

It seems to me that we “the people” have the right to retain or not retain judges who make decisions that affect all of our lives. Our political system is one of accountability through the electoral process. We should know as much about these judges as we do about any other candidate for office and make an informed choice in the voting booth. Clear the Bench is doing something that should have been done a long time ago — giving more scrutiny to politically appointed lifetime judges that we have the people have a right to retain or oust.

Re: Article Discussion: Demand accountability from judges, too

by jpa11074 on July 2nd, 2010, 12:58 pm

Somehow it just doesn’t ring true that hearing from a citizen’s group highlighting judicial decisions and sharing opinions as to whether the judges are good for us, will harm us and then jump to the conclusion we’ll have only judges “hired by the most money.” Considering how typically difficult and time consuming it is to sort through court decisions, I’m delighted to have someone do some of the work for me, then follow through with my own analysis of their opinions and recommendations.

Instead of generalizations from Corndogsaredelicious, maybe he would simply tell us what his substantive argument(s) is(are) with Mr. Arnold’s and CTBC’s opinions on these justices. That would be helpful. Is it only CTBC that Corndogsaredelicious does not want to air their synthesis in public, or is it any or all citizen groups? Or just some groups? Or should we just allow the State Commission on Judicial Performance decide who to retain, and not have the voters “bother” having opinions or retention votes?

Some readers also fired back at the attacks on the notion of outside citizen’s groups having a say in evaluating the judiciary:

Re: Article Discussion: Demand accountability from judges, too

by H J Ledbetter, J.D. on July 2nd, 2010, 12:51 pm

I have done far more than research Matthew Arnold, as Paul W suggests. Paul W has clearly never met Mr. Arnold, nor informed himself of what has been going on in the Colorado Supreme Court for the last few years. I know Matt Arnold. He is a gutsy man who doesn’t mind some sniping from positions of ignorance. He has done his research, and so have I. I read the cases that these folks decided. I didn’t read them as an uninformed observer either. I read them with the foundation of more than 35 years of the practice of law behind me, including a fair number of appellate cases. What’s more, even the justices themselves are identifying some of the worst aspects of what these justices are doing. Please refer to Justice Eid’s dissent in Mesa County v Ritter. She tells it like it is. She shows just how far the majority opinion went to make sure that no vestige of TABOR remains in Colorado. The will of the people of Colorado is being tossed aside like a dirty tissue.

Beyond that, I have had a personal conversation with Justice Bender, who told me (while looking me right in the eye), that the purpose of the Colorado Supreme Court was to "make Colorado law". So, if you are a left-leaning person who believes that the justice system should be as active at law-making as the legislature, he is your guy. But if you think that laws should be made in the legislature, and applied by the courts, then maybe it is time that these four (now three) justices should find new jobs where they can be less "active" in making Colorado law that neither you nor I want.

It is about time that someone started pulling back the curtain on the mysteries that surround us in government. Thanks Matt for doing so!

Finally, some commenters provided their own analysis of several court cases (particularly the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” case which unconstitutionally increased property taxes without a vote of the people and ripped open a loophole through which the legislature rammed through the “Dirty Dozen” tax increase bills this year) and provided additional insight into the Judicial Performance Review Commission that was the subject of the dueling Denver Post articles:

Re: Article Discussion: Demand accountability from judges, too

by PETERCOULTER on July 3rd, 2010, 9:40 am

In order to fairly assess the results of the Judicial Performance Commission (JPC) one must be familiar with it’s rules (http://www.coloradojudicialperformance.gov/) and whether they comply with their respective State Statute. (CRS 13.5.501 ) Of importance here are the rules complete absence of real public input concerning the selection of appellate and supreme court justices. In fact, in an article (http://law2.fordham.edu/publications/ar … ub8522.pdf) about the JPC, ex-Supreme Court Judge, Jean Dubofsky wrote. “The primary structural problem with the JPC is that the appointing authorities have complete control over the political make-up of the commissions, as there is no requirement for partisan balance. Thus, the commission membership depends upon the political affiliation of the appointing authorities.” followed by “Experienced commissioners tend to think that the public hearings are a waste of time.” The result being that the public now feels that activist judges are being evaluated by activist (read political) commissions. This point is highlighted by Democrat’s reaction to Mr. Arnold and the CTBC organization. Democratic party attorney Mark Grueskin has teamed up with Democrat Jean Dubofsky in an effort to offset the increasing influence of CTBC. (http://www.lawweekonline.com/tag/jean-dubofsky/) They are prohibited from doing it directly so instead they have implemented a strategy to convince the public that they can trust the recommendations of the JPC. In order to do so one has to overlook that the commissioners were appointed by a majority Democrat Legislature, Democrat Governor, and Democrat Supreme Court Justice Mullarkey*.
The results of these actions are an activist Judiciary that holds no accountability to the citizens of Colorado, a self serving “country club” mentality. It should be of no surprise then that when it gets out of control, someone like Matt Arnold and CTBC pushes back. Another example of this are ballot questions 60, 61 and 101 which in reality restore the provisions of the TABOR amendment. If not for the activist Supreme Court gutting the intent of TABOR and the citizens of Colorado; these questions would not be before the voters again. In questioning by US Senator Whitehouse, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan defined the relationship of politics to the Court, ”the people need to trust the Court as a non-political body.” The outcome of retention voting for justices Bender, Martinez and Rice (and also Gilmore and Blair who acted as shameless prosecutors of Tim Masters) will not only indicate the voter’s confidence in the respective judges; but also their confidence in the objectivity and recommendations of the status quo Judicial Performance Commission or those of Clear the Bench Colorado. /Peter Coulter/

Clear The Bench Colorado very much appreciates the interest and engagement demonstrated by so many of the comments submitted to the Denver Post website, and encourages further discussion – after all, it’s YOUR rights that are at stake.  Join the discussion – right here and/or on the Denver Post site.

We The People can (indeed, as citizens, we must) hold our public officials – both elected and appointed – accountable.  Be a citizen, not a subject – get informed, then exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, three remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority”- (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice – soon to be minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and your contributions – and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

Clear The Bench Colorado is always willing to give credit where credit is due – even if the credit was earned grudgingly and under pressure.

Accordingly, we commend the Denver Post for publishing (albeit weeks after submission and in greatly abbreviated form) our article in today’s (Friday) newspaper in response to a guest commentary published June 11 (“Criticism of retiring Judge (sic) Mullarkey unfair”) which attacked efforts (unnamed, but clearly implied, meaning Clear The Bench Colorado) to provide Colorado voters with substantive information and objective reviews of judicial performance in order to hold the incumbent officeholders on the Colorado Supreme Court accountable to the law and to the citizens of our state.

The Denver Post version of the article (heavily edited for space) – appeared in today’s (Friday) paper under the title “Demand accountability from judges, too” after a couple of weeks delay (and possibly precipitated into print- say that three times, fast) by Wednesday’s Face The State article (”Supreme Court’s temporary digs draw a dart from court critics“) highlighting the Post’s lack of coverage of any criticism of the Colorado Supreme Court since they took up offices in the Denver Newspaper Agency building (worth $1.6 million annually to the Post publisher’s bottom line).  The original version (taking up precisely 500 words – coincidentally the exact same as the limit for the judicial performance review  ”narratives” published in the “Blue Book”) appears below.  Compare and contrast the coverage!

Accountability, Transparency apply to Courts, too

“Move along, people. Nothing to see here.” (Officer Barbrady, South Park)

The defenders of the status quo are nothing if not predictable.

Last Friday’s guest commentary by career politician Susan Thornton attempted to characterize any critique of incumbent state Supreme Court justices as “attacks” and “over-the-top charges.”

Her selective use of incendiary and emotional language to characterize any critique of the performance of the state Supreme Court justices subject to a vote in the upcoming elections as “attacks” seeks to deny the right of individual citizens or independent groups to express their views under the First Amendment to hold government officials – our judicial branch – accountable to the people in an open, transparent manner.

Her alternative?  The closed-door, non-transparent, unaccountable, political insider-dominated process that is the Judicial Performance Review Commission “evaluation” of judicial branch officeholders:

“[V]oters in Colorado learn about individual judges’ records from nonpartisan citizen panels that evaluate the judges and make recommendations about whether they should be retained.”

Chief Justice Mullarkey herself – who began making public appearances shortly after the judicial accountability organization Clear The Bench Colorado was formed – made the same argument:

“The judicial performance review commission reports tell you everything you need to know.”

But do they?

The reports issued on each judicial officeholder by the commissions (and appearing in the “Blue Book”) take the form of a “narrative” which by rule “shall consist of 5 short paragraphs totaling not more than 500 words” – only one of which (paragraph 4) may even address “description of the performance of the justice or judge” at all!  The remaining paragraphs (the bulk of the “evaluation”) list the commission recommendation, including vote (1); describe “biographical data” (2); list “previous employment” (3); and conclude with a catch-all mostly devoted to survey statistics (5).

The narratives are heavily biased towards retention of incumbents; rules restrict the recommendations based on results of questionnaires distributed to a select group (predominantly other judges, attorneys, and a very limited number of people actually appearing before the highest court).  Also, the incumbents under “evaluation” have the opportunity to respond to the draft narrative and request changes prior to publication (wouldn’t you like the chance to re-write your own job review?)

What does eventually appear in the “Blue Book” is so watered down and lacking in substance that it’s almost impossible to make any distinction between ‘excellent’ and ‘poor’ judicial performance.  In fact, if anyone thinks that these reviews are helpful in evaluating appellate court judges and justices, please let me know – and explain how they helped you “judge the judges.”

Thornton’s message to the voters was: “trust me – trust us, the elite political insiders – not your lying eyes.  We know better – pay no attention to the man behind (actually, lifting) the curtain.”

The CTBC message: get informed, from a variety of sources; then assume your responsibility as citizens.

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” – Abraham Lincoln

Clear The Bench Colorado has noted for several months now an apparent bias in the Denver Post’s coverage (more accurately, lack of coverage) of the very newsworthy fact that for the first time in over forty (40!) years (since the system of judicial retention – i.e. yes/no – elections in Colorado replaced contested – i.e. competitive – elections for judges) the citizens of Colorado are being provided with substantive information on the performance in office of our Colorado Supreme Court justices – and reasons why voters should strongly consider their removal from office (“vote NO“) this November.

Although the Denver Post did note (accurately) back in February that the Colorado Supreme Court justices (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and – at the time – Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) subject to being held accountable in November faced a “tough vote” in retention elections, since that time – despite the growing momentum of the judicial accountability movement spearheaded by Clear The Bench Colorado – there’s been scarcely a word in print on the subject.  For that matter, there’s been scarce mention of the role of the Colorado Supreme Court in aiding and abetting several highly unpopular (and unconstitutional) legislative and executive actions undermining the constitutional rights of Colorado citizens.

A recent article (“Supreme Court’s temporary digs draw a dart from court critics“) notes that the Post’s coverage of the Colorado Supreme Court (or, more to the point, lack of coverage of any criticism of the court) might be influenced by the fact that the Post is being paid $1.6 million per year as the court’s current landlord:

Might the Colorado Supreme Court wind up with some pretty good press now now that it has set up shop in the Denver Newspaper Agency building, home of the Denver Post, at Colfax and Broadway?

At the end of April, both the Supreme Court and the Colorado Court of Appeals moved from their former digs at the state justice center, which is slated to be demolished this year to make way for a new judicial complex. They now occupy two full floors of the DNA building, and hold court on the first floor, right next to Heidi’s Deli.

Of course, the Post’s editors vociferously deny any conflict of interest – editor Greg Moore said it was “ridiculous” to think that the Post would allow $1.6 million a year to influence their coverage, and courts spokesman Rob McCallum asserted that “the court hasn’t gotten any kind of break from the Post.”

Perhaps.  On the other hand, the Post’s (lack of) coverage of the Colorado Supreme Court (and absent coverage of the growing momentum of this year’s judicial accountability movement) differs remarkably from that of other media (print or broadcast) around the state.

For instance, many media outlets around the state noted the role of the Colorado Supreme Court in enabling the “Dirty Dozen” tax increases – from the Fort Collins Coloradoan up north (”Citizens should get to vote on taxes“) to the Pueblo Chieftain in the south (“Clear the Bench” editorial published March 1st), in the mountains (Summit Daily News - ”Smaller government = more power to the people“) and the southwestern corner of the state (Durango Herald, “State lawmakers battle it out over tax breaks“) – but you couldn’t “read it in the Post.”

Interested in how the Colorado Supreme Court will influence how you are represented in Congress and the General Assembly by shaping legislative districts?  How about the legislature’s move to abdicate their constitutional responsibility and give even more power to the courts with the “Mary-mandering” bill at the close of the session?  You could get informed by reading other newspapers around the state (“Chief justice wields clout over reapportionment”), listening to radio (here, for example), and perusing coverage by a host of other media outlets – but again, hardly a peep from the Post.

Even the Post’s coverage of the recent announcement by Chief Justice Mullarkey that she would retire rather than be held accountable by Colorado voters – in which a majority of media noted that her decision to retire was likely influenced, if not precipitated outright, by the existence of the judicial accountability movement spearheaded by Clear The Bench Colorado – only contained an oblique reference to the existence of “a vigorous campaign by critics to persuade voters not to retain her on the court in November.”  No further information or name of the organization provided, of course (what am I, Voldemort?)

Most recently, the Post published a defense of Chief Justice Mullarkey (and incumbent judges in general) against any criticism or independent review of their performance outside of the lawyer-and-political-insider-dominated Judicial Performance Review Commission (“Criticism of retiring Judge (sic) Mullarkey unfair”).  Attacking the very idea that the judiciary – particularly Colorado Supreme Court justices – may be held accountable by the citizens on who’s behalf they supposedly hold office, the guest commentary published by the Post runs contrary to the spirit of transparency and accountability at the core of our system of democratic, representative government.  Despite a strong response from a number of comments and letters to the editor in opposition to the thrust of the piece, the Post had rebuffed our request for a rebuttal article (indeed, not responding at all to several communications).

Until today – when, following publication of the article raising the issue of the appearance of a conflict of interest, the Post informed me that they would be publishing my (short and limited in space) response (originally submitted over two weeks ago) this coming Friday.

Coincidence?

We The People can (indeed, as citizens, we must) hold our public officials – both elected and appointed – accountable.  Be a citizen, not a subject – get informed, then exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, three remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority”- (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice – recently minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and your contributions – and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!