Colorado Secretary of State Bernie Buescher yesterday failed in his duty to provide legal clarity and forestall an ongoing series of harassing attacks (er, campaign finance “complaints”) launched by his roundly rebuked ideological ally “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) against judicial accountability organization Clear The Bench Colorado.  Rather than formalize the adoption of a draft rule circulated over a year ago (and on which Clear The Bench Colorado has relied, along with other guidance issued by the Secretary of State’s office, for over a year - the legal term is “estoppel“), Secretary of State Buescher’s decision not to back the reasoned conclusions of his own professional staff and allow a flagrant attempt by CEW to retroactively change the rules “in the middle of the game” to go forward undermines reliance on the rule of law by individuals and grassroots groups participating in civic activity, and calls his professional qualifications and integrity into question.

The Secretary of State’s letter denying Clear The Bench Colorado’s request for legal clarity by merely formally adopting the draft rule previously discussed and recommended by the office’s professional staff over a year ago even (again) documented the fact that the SOS office had issued specific guidance to file as an Issue Committee (the CEW complaint alleges that Clear The Bench Colorado should have filed as a Political Committee instead and should be held retroactively liable for fines despite reliance on the Secretary of State’s guidance):

… the Secretary of State provided informal guidance to Clear The Bench that the group might more appropriately register as an issue committee.

Clear The Bench submitted another [amended] committee registration in June of 2009, registering as an issue committee.  This registration was accepted by the Secretary of State, and Clear The Bench has since been registered as an issue committee. [emphasis added]

If citizens and grassroots groups wishing to participate in the civic and political process cannot rely on the guidance issued by the Secretary of State - either due to ignorance, incompetence, or ideological leanings - and are left open to “frivolous, groundless, and vexatious” attacks by groups such as CEW which exist solely to tie up their resources, who will be left able to participate?  Only the entrenched special-interest groups and “big-money” political groups that are tied in with established incumbents - leaving the average citizen out in the cold.

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.”  Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions - and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

For perhaps the first time in our state’s history, an increasing number of Colorado Citizens are taking an interest in the Colorado Supreme Court  judicial retention elections - our only opportunity, as Citizens, to hold the officeholders in our 3rd branch of government (the judiciary) accountable (to the rule of law generally, to the Constitution specifically, and ultimately to We The People, in whom ultimate political authority is constitutionally vested).

Some voices - notably professional politicians such as Susan Thornton, as expressed in her Denver Post article (”Criticism of retiring Judge (sic) Mullarkey unfair“), or other legal professional advocacy groups (such as the Grueskin group formed to defend Colorado Supreme Court incumbents and oppose the growing influence of Clear The Bench Colorado) believe that Citizens have no place in the process.  Their message?   ”Trust us, the elite political insiders, not your lying eyes. We know better.”

Others - spearheaded by Clear The Bench Colorado, but also including a large number of legal reform groups, transparency and good-government advocates - believe that Citizens not only have the right (as clearly expressed in the Colorado Constitution) but even the responsibility and duty to get informed and act (”vote “NO on unjust justices!“) accordingly. (Responding to Thornton’s attack on independent critiques of the judiciary -  Accountability, Transparency apply to the Colorado Supreme Court, too - we defend the constitutional right of Colorado Citizen participation in the process).

The following article, published in the August edition of The Constitutionalist Today, expands upon that point:

Restoring Accountability and Transparency to Colorado Courts -

Why Citizen participation in judicial selection and retention is vitally necessary

A number of years ago, Colorado embarked upon an experiment in government that was touted as a great reform. Attempting to “take the judges out of politics” our state did away with direct, contested elections of judges in favor of the “merit selection and retention process” pioneered by the State of Missouri (the “Missouri Plan”), under which judges and supreme court justices are nominated by commissions, appointed by the governor, and only subjected to checks and balances by the citizens of the state in periodic “retention” elections (posed as a simple yes/no question on the ballot).  For Colorado Supreme Court justices, the opportunity to hold them accountable comes around only once every TEN years, posed as a ballot question: “Should Justice [name] be retained in office?” (Yes/NO)

In theory, the system looked like a good idea; after all, selecting judges and supreme court justices on the basis of “merit” instead of “ability to win an election” - putting professional qualifications ahead of political ones - appeals to our common desire for fair play and “equal justice before the law” and removes some of the most direct and obvious temptations for corruption via “quid pro quo” campaign contributions.

In practice, however, the “Missouri Plan” systems in place in several states seem to have merely shifted the potential for undue influence to well-connected interest groups (particularly the “in-crowd” of bar associations, other attorney groups, lobbyists, and others directly involved with the courts) operating largely outside of public scrutiny.  Lack of transparency - in both the up-front selection and back-end review & retention processes - has actually led to an utter lack of accountability for Colorado Supreme Court justices in Colorado.

A recent Wall Street Journal article (”Voters vs. George Soros - Taking judicial selection away from the lawyers guild“) highlighted some of the concerns with the judicial selection and retention process under the “Missouri Plan” used by Colorado:

“Designed to take politics out of the courtroom, the plan has in practice handed disproportionate influence over the judiciary to lawyers and bar associations. The effect has been to give a single profession control over a third of state government, with little political accountability.”

As with many things brought to us by the “good idea fairy”, the devil is in the details. Colorado’s Judicial Performance Review Commission (JPRC) “performance” reviews are heavily biased in favor of judicial incumbents (over the last several decades, issuing only 15 recommendations for non-retention resulting in only 7 judges being voted out of office) and provide little substantive information for citizens trying to decide how to vote on judges, especially supreme court justices. These JPRC review “narratives” (published at taxpayer expense in the “Blue Book” voter guides) focus almost exclusively on qualifications (essentially, have they checked all the right boxes) instead of performance (have supreme court justices, for instance, properly carried out their duties - and lived up to their oaths and obligations, or not).  The most important judicial quality of all - upholding the law, as written (not fabricated or “interpreted” according to a personal or political agenda) - is given short shrift or even no consideration at all.  (Additional information on the shortcomings of Colorado’s Judicial Performance Review process is available in a pair of Denver Post articles: “Demand accountability from judges, too” July 2nd CTBC guest commentary; and “Evaluating the performance of justices“, Feb. 13th [non-CTBC] guest commentary).

The recently announced impending retirement of Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey - who decided to quit rather than be held accountable by voters this November - has also raised interest in how Colorado appoints and evaluates judges (and particularly supreme court justices), in the first place.  The process is not merely of “academic” interest.  From an Institute for Legal Reform publication reviewing “merit selection” systems and best practices across several states:

“The procedures that determine how state judges are selected and placed on the bench, particularly those in the highest courts, are central to the ultimate quality of justice in our courts. Every American has a stake in the way state judges are chosen.(emphasis added) Some states that select their judges through a commission-based appointive system have been criticized for the absence of public input into the process, lack of transparency, secretiveness in their procedures, and the political cronyism that can occur when commissions and the governor operate in what is essentially a closed system.”

The common theme in critiques of the “Missouri Plan” system of “merit selection & retention” is the lack of transparency in commission deliberations (both during front-end judicial selection, and in back-end judicial performance review and retention) and lack of meaningful opportunity for public participation and comment.  This lack of transparency leads to a lack of public confidence in our judiciary and ultimately to a lack of accountability for the increasingly active and powerful Third Branch of our government.  Our judicial system depends more than any other branch of government on public trust and confidence that the law is being applied fairly and impartially for all citizens - that our supreme court justices are fulfilling their proper roles as referees upholding the rules rather than players attempting to score for their “team’s” agenda.  In sports, referees who violate the rules and demonstrate a consistent bias for one team lose their jobs.  In government, because Colorado Supreme Court justices wield so much power, the stakes are much more important than an athletic contest.

Of course, the biggest political “players” are well aware of this - they naturally prefer the closed-door, non-transparent, unaccountable, political insider-dominated process that allows them enormous influence behind the scenes.  The usual suspects include the “lawyers guilds” and similar groups.  The WSJ article also singles out another powerful and well-connected cabal:

“The system has powerful defenders, however, including groups connected to the George Soros-funded Justice at Stake.”

Soros’s group would be more aptly named “Justice put to the Stake”.

Here in Colorado, a new pressure group of apologists was recently formed by politically influential and well-connected attorneys (led by Democrat super-lawyer and frequent Colorado Supreme Court litigator, Mark Grueskin) specifically to counter the growing supreme court reform and accountability movement spearheaded by Clear The Bench Colorado.  (Story broken by Law Week Colorado, “Group aiming to defend Colorado judiciary comes to light“, followed up in Westword and on Clear The Bench Colorado (”More details emerge on group formed to oppose accountability for Colorado Supreme Court incumbents“).

Along with articles published in mass media outlets (for example, a recent Denver Post article calling “Criticism of retiring Judge Mullarkey unfair“), these groups are attempting to maintain the crony system of political insiders picking and preserving in power supreme court justices who rule against the rights of the people in favor of big government - putting you in your place as a subject, not protecting your rights as a citizen.  They can get away with it only as long as they succeed in keeping voters in the dark.

That is why public participation - not just by a select few politically connected individuals put on commissions, but by fully informed public discussion and debate - is so critically important to maintaining good government (and accountability) in our judiciary.  Become an informed citizen - review sources such as Clear The Bench Colorado and get to Know Your Courts to get “the rest of the story”.

“The original purpose of using a commission-based merit selection system was to reduce the politicization of the judiciary system. As such, it is imperative that merit selection systems not simply hide the politics behind the closed doors of a Commission but drive out destructive influence through a system that is transparent and accessible to the public.”

“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

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.”  Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions - and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

After Sunday’s Denver Post editorial (”Unintended consequences in judicial push“) missed the point of Clear The Bench Colorado (hint: it’s not about selecting replacements for the incumbent justices; it’s about holding the current justices accountable to the Colorado Constitution, the rule of law, and the citizens whose rights they are sworn to uphold) and ended up by spinning an implausible scenario of justices “retiring” after being voted out this November (the ol’ “you can’t fire me; I quit! routine), the remainder of the week brought out more serious news coverage related to Clear The Bench Colorado and the Colorado Supreme Court.  (Unfortunately, none of the actual news appears to have been covered by the Denver Post - although they did publish the important stories such as the “supporting roles” of Romanoff’s family on his campaign, Bennet’s time spent with his daughters, and the theft of “more than 100 gnomes” in Arvada.  Yep, hard-hitting investigative reporting and “serious” journalism…)

Meanwhile, other more topically substantive publications have been following the unraveling of the “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) “frivolous, groundless, and vexatious” campaign finance “complaint” against Clear The Bench Colorado.

This week’s coverage of the story opened up with Monday’s radio news segment on 1310AM KFKA with Face The State managing editor Brad Jones discussing how “liberal litigation shop Colorado Ethics Watch is ordered to pay up for a misfired lawsuit.”  (The “Colorado Ethics Watch” - CEW, pronounced “sue”, it’s what they do - segment begins at 10:45 on this audio clip).  A few highlights:

“Colorado Ethics Watch in particular exists solely to tie up conservative causes in court… and that is an established campaign tool.  Mark Grueskin, a major Democratic attorney who takes up a lot of these kinds of cases… basically admits as such.  Litigation is now an expense, both in prosecution and defense, for campaigns…

The part that’s really important to note here is that… in Colorado, an attorney being forced to pay the opposing counsel’s attorneys fees is a very rare event indeed, because under Colorado’s judicial rules, when a lawyer signs that complaint, they are certifying that it is a legitimate question of law… and in this case, the judge said that ‘you have no business filing this complaint because you knew that the facts were not with you and that you had no chance of prevailing, but you pursued it anyway…

On Tuesday, Law Week Colorado picked up the story of last week’s ruling by Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer which not only dismissed CEW’s frivolous, groundless, and vexatious “complaint” against Clear The Bench Colorado but also took the rare step of directing CEW to pay thousands in legal fees because the “complaint” was so completely without merit.  Law Week’s article (”Denver Administrative Judge Upbraids Colorado Ethics Watch“) noted that the judge soundly rebuked ”Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) in his written order (published Monday), which the article also included in full.  Some excerpts:

An administrative law judge has chastised a Denver-based ethics-watchdog group, calling a recent complaint filed by the group “substantially groundless and frivolous.”  …

In the written order, Spencer said Ethics Watch “was in possession of facts putting it on notice that its claim was groundless but at no time did it seek to voluntarily dismiss its claim.”

Today, Law Week also covered Clear The Bench Colorado’s request (filed Tuesday) for the Secretary of State’s office to provide legal clarity (and foreclose CEW’s plans for an endless cycle of additional “complaints” in their ongoing efforts to harass our grassroots movement) by issuing a definitive ruling which codifies the guidance issued by that office to Clear The Bench Colorado over a year ago:

Clear The Bench wants the Secretary of State to adopt a rule that says “a committee whose purpose is the support or opposition of the retention of a judicial seat shall register as an issue committee…” The group, which all state Supreme Court justices now up for retention, registered as an issue committee on the advice of the Secretary of State’s office.

Clear The Bench Colorado also received coverage in the context of the controversy currently surrounding the Colorado governor’s race.  In addition to the Denver Post editor’s misguided assumptions about what constitutes a “good outcome” for CTBC’s efforts to hold our incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices accountable to the law (hint: it’s not dependent on who’s governor), Clear The Bench Colorado received national exposure in the latest Human Events article by Colorado correspondent Ross Kaminsky (”GOP in Disarray in Colorado Governors Race“) which highlights the importance of the Colorado Supreme Court vote in upholding the principles of constitutional limits on government power, in Colorado and beyond:

In addition to the redistricting following the results of this year’s census, there is also a grassroots movement called Clear the Bench Colorado which aims to get Coloradoans to vote out three ultra-liberal state Supreme Court justices.

CTBC has put enough pressure on the judges that the chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, a woman who has demonstrated no respect for the rule of law or the will of the people, announced her retirement a few weeks ago rather than face the voters.  If CTBC is successful in causing the removal of one or more justices, the next governor will appoint the replacement(s).  As important as Kagan or Sotomayor is on a national level, these vacancies will be at least as important within our state. [emphasis added]

Also today, the Face The State radio minute (broadcast on a variety of stations across Colorado) focused on the unethical practices of “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) conducting legal harassment of opposing groups.  The broadcast segment (entitled “Names can be deceiving”) called CEW to task for its habit of filing harassing “complaints” without legal merit:

Would a group called Colorado Ethics Watch ever do something out-of-bounds? Names can be deceiving…

Political attack ads are often funded by some group with a name like, “Coloradans for fluffy bunnies” or “The campaign for rainbows and sunshine.” Names can be deceiving. Take for example Colorado Ethics Watch, which purports to use the courts to pursue unethical political behavior. Well, so long as the target is a conservative, that is. Despite their intentions, the group has every right to access the legal system. But last week, CEW was slapped with attorneys fees for filing a complaint it knew had no merit. In Colorado, fees are assessed sparingly, and only in clearcut cases like this. It’s the second time in four years CEW has been rebuked like this. Legal harassment doesn’t sound very “ethical” to me.

Finally, in news breaking later in the day, Law Week also published the number of applicants (31 people applied) for the impending vacancy on the Colorado Supreme Court that will be created once the announced retirement of Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey (who announced her intent to retire rather than be held accountable by voters in the November elections) becomes effective (currently scheduled for November 30th).  In keeping with current practice and tradition (but not as a statutory requirement), the Judicial Nominating Commission has NOT released the names of the would-be Colorado Supreme Court justices to the public.  (Clear The Bench Colorado is pursuing that information in the interest of public accountability and government transparency - stay tuned for upcoming announcements).

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.”  Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions - and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

A few days ago - following the announcement of Clear The Bench Colorado’s resounding win against the frivolous, groundless, and vexatious “complaint” filed by the legal attack group “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do), with the judge even going the extra mile and awarding Clear The Bench Colorado ‘tens of thousands’ in legal fees payable by CEW attorneys - Editor Dan Haley of the Denver Post left me a cryptic message stating that he “had a question” for me (unrelated to ‘this’).  On returning to my computer that evening, I replied with my cellphone number and asked for the question - but didn’t hear back.

Today’s (Sunday) Denver Post provided some clues as to what Dan Haley’s question(s) might have been: his editorial in the “Perspective” section purports to address “Unintended consequences in judicial push” (meaning, of course, Clear The Bench Colorado).

Unfortunately, Haley probably would have benefited from first getting the answer(s) to his question(s) of Clear The Bench Colorado, as his editorial contains a few errors of both fact and interpretation.

Although Haley starts out with a reasonably accurate summation of the “judicial push” (to vote “NO” on the unjust justices of the Colorado Supreme Court subject to voter approval this November) he misses the mark on “unintended consequences”:

A conservative group called Clear the Bench Colorado wants Coloradans to clear the Supreme Court bench this November and oust three Supreme Court justices who are up for retention.

(They originally had four justices in their sights, but earlier this summer Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey announced her retirement as of Nov. 30.) [Ed. quitting rather than facing voters]

In Colorado, judges and justices are appointed by the governor, but they must be retained every few years by voters.

The justices’ crimes, according to the group’s website, include “aiding and abetting . . . unconstitutional property tax increases; the unconstitutional elimination of tax credits and exemptions; and unconstitutionally re-defining taxes as fees,” among other things.

Those three rulings, of course, came after controversial decisions by Gov. Bill Ritter - decisions many on the right derided as unconstitutional but the court upheld nonetheless.

Actually, those were only two rulings (the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” property tax increase ruling also created the loophole the legislature exploited with the “Dirty Dozen” new tax laws; another ruling enabling taxes to be collected under the guise of “fees” led to the Colorado Car Tax and other “fees”) among many.  Other key rulings expanded eminent domain abuse to seize people’s property, grabbed the (legislative) power to apportion legislative district boundaries (aided by the recent “Mary-mandering” bill) and set the state up for fiscal disaster by grabbing the power to set school funding levels (Lobato v. Colorado) for unelected judges away from elected legislators and school boards.

The Denver Post editorials have been appropriately critical of these rulings (neatly summarized in Vincent Carroll’s excellent piece, “Mary Mullarkey’s Troubling Legacy - Mullarkey Court altered Constitution’s true meaning“) so it is unfortunate that, until recently, the Post has given scant coverage to the very important issue of judicial retention elections for the authors of those rulings.

Where Haley most seriously misses the mark (and misstates the facts) in his editorial (which could have been avoided with that follow-up message or phone call) comes in his review of the process in the aftermath of a “NO” vote for the incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices in the upcoming elections.  Although he starts out on solid ground,

If voters choose not to retain a justice, and the judge finishes out his term, the next governor would appoint the successor.

Haley then veers off into some tenuous territory:

Here’s the rub: Should a justice decide to resign after not being retained, it would trigger a 30-day clock for the Supreme Court nominating commission to propose replacements.

Three names would then be sent to Ritter for each vacancy, and he would have 15 days to appoint someone. If he failed to appoint someone, the Supreme Court chief justice would appoint someone within 15 days.

That strict timeline is laid out in the Colorado Constitution. So if an ousted justice resigns within nine days of the retention vote, Ritter would appoint the successor.

This is an implausible and, frankly, silly scenario.  Once voted out, the justices have no office to resign - like any other lame-duck politician, they would serve out their terms (which, for the incumbent justices up for a vote this NOvember, expire the 2nd Tuesday in January) but lack authority to dispose of their office in such fashion.  Otherwise, every officeholder losing a vote would “retire” instead…

Any attempt to repudiate the will of the voters in such blatant fashion would not only “look nakedly political” - it would likely trigger a constitutional crisis, if not “torches & pitchforks.”

Haley’s mention of such a ridiculously implausible scenario is most likely an attempt to “poison the well” for those few Republican backers of Clear The Bench Colorado who might allow a narrowly partisan view to cloud their judgement.  It won’t work - Colorado voters are smarter than that.  The prospect of ten more years of “the devil you know” - three Colorado Supreme Court justices with a consistent record of violating the constitutional rights of Colorado citizens, who would lock in a Democrat majority via their lock on the state-level legislative reapportionment and congressional redistricting process IF (but only if) the current majority remains in power to elect the next Chief Justice after that office comes vacant following retirement of the current chief - balanced against the chance to give a new governor the chance to appoint three replacements who will be subject to another vote in only TWO years (instead of TEN) will serve to remind Colorado voters that the MOST important votes on this year’s ballot are “NO” votes on the remaining three ‘unjust justices” who seek their approval for another decade’s leave to violate their rights.  No matter who becomes governor, Clearing The Bench of these three incumbents is a net win for Colorado.

“Unintended consequences?”  No.  ”Intentional disinformation?”  Perhaps.

It’s nice to know, at least, that the Denver Post and editor Dan Haley “have no problem with groups like Clear the Bench trying to educate voters about judges and justices” - we’re looking forward to our opportunity to discuss these vital votes with the Denver Post editorial board and express the hope that they will (finally!) step up their coverage of this critically important issue on the news pages as well.

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.”  Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions - and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

Clear The Bench Colorado wins!

Yes, it’s still more than three months until the judicial retention elections in November, when Colorado citizens will be able to exercise their right to vote “NO” on the three remaining ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s incumbent ‘Mullarkey Majority’ who have declared their intent to allow themselves to be held accountable (minus, of course, Chief Justice Mullarkey herself, who last month announced her intent to retire rather than be held accountable by voters in the November elections).

Earlier today, however, Clear The Bench Colorado won a stunning victory when Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer not only dismissed the frivolous, groundless, and vexatious “complaint” by self-proclaimed watchdog (actually, attack dog) “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) - which we have been predicting for weeks - but also ordered CEW to pay ‘tens of thousands’ in attorney’s fees to Clear The Bench Colorado because the complaint was so completely without merit.  Face The State broke the story earlier today (”Self-styled ethics watchdog ordered to pay ‘tens of thousands’ to judicial-reform campaign“):

For the second time in its four-year history, the group Colorado Ethics Watch has watched one of its trademark ethics complaints backfire after it was ordered to pay attorneys’ fees to one of its targets. An administrative law judge today threw out the group’s claims against Clear The Bench Colorado, an issue committee that seeks to oust three state Supreme Court justices on this November’s ballot.

The monumental nature of Clear The Bench Colorado’s victory in this case - particularly the award of attorney’s fees - is difficult to overstate.  It is rare (indeed, almost unheard of - though not totally unprecedented) for attorney’s fees to be awarded to the defendant in this type of case, as Face The State had pointed out in an earlier article (”Judicial-reform group lashes back at ‘frivolous, groundless’ complaint“):

Attorneys fees are awarded sparingly by Colorado judges, largely because those requesting the sanction must prove opposing counsel pursued legal action knowing they had little chance of prevailing or failed to do basic research before filing.

The award indicates that the judge not only thought that CEW’s case (or “complaint”) was bad - he thought it was SO bad that he took the unusual step of slapping CEW with the entire bill (which, as noted, runs into the ‘tens of thousands’).

CEW’s attacks against Clear The Bench Colorado fit an ongoing pattern of unsuccessful, politically motivated “ethics” complaints designed to distract, disorient, and sling mud in the (vain) hope that something might stick.  Ultimately, they don’t care if they win or lose the case (their lopsided loss-win ratio bears this out), since their priorities are (1) smear, (2) frame the media debate and gain attention, (3) divert resources & attention, (4) intimidate, and (5) maybe (if they get lucky) occasionally win a case.  As many publications noted at the time, CEW’s attack was just another cheap political stunt.  Even the Secretary of State’s office called CEW Director Toro’s statements “disingenuous” (which is a polite way of saying, ‘lying through your teeth’).

Sadly, “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) doesn’t seem to know when to quit.  Even after being definitively slapped down, CEW Director Luis Toro announced his intent to file an amended or “supplemental” complaint and continue CEW’s harassment of the judicial accountability group Clear The Bench Colorado.  And why not?  It’s not as if they’re spending their own money - not only are they well-funded by Colorado’s own “4 horsemen” - multi-billionaire activists Tim Gill, Jared Polis, Rutt Bridges, and Pat Stryker (as documented in the excellent book  The Blueprint by former Rep. Rob Witwer & 9News Reporter Adam Schrager) but also by their parent organization in Washington D.C. (with a reported 2008 revenue of $1.35M - that’s million).  That’s if they’re even spending money at all - apparently Toro’s co-attorney (Aaron Goldhamer of Sherman & Howard, LLC) is working the case pro bono (donating his time, and the firm’s resources, for free).  Perhaps Sherman & Howard clients might wish to ask about how their money is being spent?

Even with all that money, power, and legal talent (when mentioning “talent”, I’m talking about Goldhamer, and other attorneys working behind the scenes - not Toro, who’s pretty much a legal hack, not even capable of doing the most basic legal research before attacking) lined up against Clear The Bench Colorado -  we still win!

Comes from doing the right thing (as previously noted, CTBC registered in a timely manner, fulfilling all reporting requirements, in accordance with the Secretary of State’s guidance and established campaign finance regulations and procedures) - but still, score one for the underdog!

It should come as no surprise that the allies of those on the courts abusing the constitutional rights of Colorado citizens would themselves attempt to abuse the courts to achieve their goals.  What may have come as a surprise to CEW is that this time, the good guys fought back - effectively.

Fortunately, they can be stopped - by citizens with the courage to fight back.  Show your support today - stand up to unethical attorneys and sleazy solicitors, and contribute to help provide the resources for Clear The Bench Colorado to prevail against what are ultimately attacks on YOUR freedom.  Also, since sweet success is the best revenge - spread the word about why the four (er, three remaining) incumbent justices of the Mullarkey Majority (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and soon to be minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) deserve a “NO” vote in November (and why CEW has been sicced on Clear The Bench Colorado to cover for special interests who benefit from keeping them on the bench).  Remember, they 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 from against eminent domain abuse, your right to fair representation in government, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.” Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and your contributions - and exercise your right to vote ”NO“ on retaining these unjust justices on the bench for another 10-year term!

The politically motivated attack (er, “complaint”) by complaint factory “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) against Clear The Bench Colorado reached a new low this week when CEW (pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) Director Luis Toro attempted to file a subpoena (appearance to testify) for a date on which he knew in advance of filing that the subject (Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold) would be unavailable due to performance of military service out of state.  Such behavior is utterly despicable and beneath contempt - and may constitute harassment and breach of legal ethical standards.

How did CEW (pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) Director Luis Toro know this in advance of filing?  Simple - because we told him, at the conclusion of nearly three hours of being harangued in a deposition this Monday (mentioning that I would be out of town the following week for my annual military training obligation).  Toro’s co-counsel Aaron Goldhamer (of Sherman & Howard, LLC) graciously expressed his thanks for my service, while Toro was conspicuously silent (apparently, my hearing was insufficiently acute to pick up on the gears grinding behind his beady little eyes as he devised his next opportunity for harassment).

For those of our readers who have never experienced the dubious pleasure of being the subject of a legal ‘deposition’ (hopefully most of you), allow me to briefly describe the process (somewhat akin to an EPW interrogation, but without forced sleep deprivation (other than any prep time) or stress positions, (other than wearing a coat & tie).

Like an interrogator, the opposing attorney gets to ask all the questions.  Often the attorney will ask the same question, repeatedly (perhaps changing the phrasing, or putting it in a different context) in an attempt to catch (or create) an inconsistency in the response.  The respondent is not allowed to challenge the line of questioning, or ask “why do you want to know?” (although the respondent’s attorney may raise objections as to relevance and scope of particular questions or line of argument).  Also like an interrogation, the respondent can be compelled to answer (albeit by legal, rather than physical, force).

Going through CEW’s interrogation (er, deposition) was an interesting experience. CEW (pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) Director Luis Toro did indeed spend a lot of time asking questions to which he already knew (or had previously received) the answer; over the course of the deposition, his frustration with my consistent responses (including documented references) became increasingly apparent.  Toro then resorted to the ol’ “restate the answer the way I want it” game (”So what you said was X” when the actual statement was Y or Z).  I called him on this trick on several occasions and stated my objections to his attempts to put (false) words in my mouth (wonder how Toro’s tactics will sit with the judge reviewing the transcript?). Toro also attempted on several occasions to “go fish” for information outside the scope of what was allowable in the deposition. When he did, my attorney (I have possibly the best campaign law attorney team in the state - Scott Gessler and Mario Nicolais - in my corner) challenged Toro, who backed down each time he was invited to “call the judge” to resolve the dispute. (In poker, that’s referred to as “calling his bluff”).

The bigger picture here, however, is the abuse of campaign finance rules and regulations via suits and “complaints” by a secretly funded attack group (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do), unaccountable to the public, with a pattern of filing frivolous, groundless, and vexatious lawsuits and “complaints” against grassroots groups and citizen initiatives in an attempt to deny popular participation in civic activity.  Attacks such as these - abusing the courts and the legal “complaint” process to drive up the cost of civic participation - further tilts the balance in favor of entrenched big-money interests and violates the constitutional rights of citizens to exercise free speech (particularly in the political arena, where those protections are most precious).

CEW’s attacks against Clear The Bench Colorado fit an ongoing pattern of unsuccessful, politically motivated “ethics” complaints designed to distract, disorient, and sling mud in the (vain) hope that something might stick.  Ultimately, they don’t care if they win or lose the case (their lopsided loss-win ratio bears this out), since their priorities are (1) smear, (2) frame the media debate and gain attention, (3) divert resources & attention, (4) intimidate, and (5) maybe (if they get lucky) occasionally win a case.  As many publications noted at the time, CEW’s attack was just another cheap political stunt.  Even the Secretary of State’s office called CEW Director Toro’s statements “disingenuous” (which is a polite way of saying, ‘lying through your teeth’).

So why is “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) still in business, despite their abysmal success rate in winning judgments? Shouldn’t they have run out of (other peoples) money by now?

Not when the “other people” funding CEW (pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) include multi-billionaire activists Tim Gill, Pat Stryker, Jared Polis, and Rutt Bridges - facilitated by political operatives Al Yates and Mark Grueskin - and a host of other well-heeled  attorneys and politically-connected powerhouses who’s identities are kept secret because CEW won’t open their financial records to public scrutiny (in contrast to the open financial records of citizen-led accountability efforts such as Clear The Bench Colorado). Operating at the edges of public awareness (skirting transparency, public accountability, and the ragged edges of campaign finance and other laws), groups like CEW (pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) coordinate their actions towards advancing the “progressive” agenda statewide (with significant success so far; read The Colorado Model (by Fred Barnes) and, more recently, The Blueprint (by former Rep. Rob Witwer & 9News Reporter Adam Schrager) for an analysis of the success of these groups in Colorado - and beyond).

Unfortunately, even when they lose, they win - by tying up time & talent, diverting resources, and discouraging honest people from participation in the civic arena.  Groups such as the grossly misnamed “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) are a blight on the body politic, an insult to everyone who believes that citizens should be able to speak freely.

Fortunately, they can be stopped - by citizens with the courage to fight back.  Show your support today - stand up to unethical attorneys and sleazy solicitors, and contribute to help provide the resources for Clear The Bench Colorado to prevail against what are ultimately attacks on YOUR freedom.  Also, since sweet success is the best revenge - spread the word about why the four (er, three remaining) incumbent justices of the Mullarkey Majority (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and soon to be minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) deserve a “NO” vote in November (and why CEW has been sicced on Clear The Bench Colorado to cover for special interests who benefit from keeping them on the bench).  Remember, they 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 from against eminent domain abuse, your right to fair representation in government, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.” Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and your contributions - and exercise your right to vote “NO” on retaining these unjust justices on the bench for another 10-year term!

No Friday Funnies this (last) week - instead, Clear The Bench Colorado joins millions of Americans across the country in somber remembrance of the 9/11 attacks on our nation.

What does this have to do with holding our Colorado Supreme Court justices accountable to the rule of law and the Colorado Constitution?  Quite a lot, actually…

As a proud veteran of the U.S. military (including service in the Colorado Army National Guard), I take my oath of enlistment - “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of Colorado [emphasis added] against all enemies, foreign and domestic”  - seriously; very seriously.

Many of our elected (and unelected) officials seem to have a much more cavalier attitude towards their own oath of office.

Our Supreme Court justices also swear an oath on taking office, which begins:  “I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Colorado.”

Note that the oath of office does not state that ”I will support only those parts of the Constitution I like or with which I personally agree or empathize.”

Yet the Mullarkey Court has consistently ruled against the Colorado Constitution’s Article X, Section 20 (TABOR) in every case it has heard - despite the clear intent and letter of the law that “[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government.”

The Mullarkey Majority (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) are oathbreakers - and dishonor the service of the men and women of the United States military and law enforcement agencies who put their lives on the line to support and defend our Constitution.  They have proven themselves unworthy of the high office they occupy, and must NOT be retained in that office following the November 2010 elections.  Vote “NO” on these unjust justices!

Another important lesson of 9/11 is that individuals matter - and fighting to defend your rights, and your lives, is the only way to preserve your rights (and your life, in extremis) when under attack.  The true heroes of that day were not only the firefighters but also the ordinary citizens who acted to save lives - and the brave passengers on Flight 93 who fought back against the hijackers on the 4th plane and died not as victims, but as American heroes.

We can no longer be under any illusion - as the passengers on Flight 93 discovered - that our rights and lives are NOT under attack and threatened by enemies both foreign and domestic.  The nature of the threat (and appropriate response) are different, but the need to take action, to defend your rights - are the same.

Freedom isn’t Free - Defend YOUR Constitution, and exercise YOUR right to vote “NO” on retaining the four unjust justices of the Mullarkey Majority (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and 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 homes and business from seizure by rapacious governments, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, not rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!), your contributions, and your “NO” vote on retaining these unjust justices in 2010!

Welcome to another edition of the Clear The Bench Colorado Friday Funnies - this week, a change of pace from the August “Dog Days of Summer” series (featuring cute & cuddly Colorado canine spokespup Nola) with a view from inside the courtroom.

Although the casual viewer may dismiss this clip as a mere farcical parody of real courtroom procedure, the judges in this sketch display about the same level of legal logic and respect for the rule of law as our own Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority” in many of their recent decisions.

How else to explain the clear violation of the Colorado Constitution’s explicitly worded prohibition of tax increases without a vote of the people in the notorious “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” case just last March, justified with ridiculous re-wording, tortured terminology and semantic shenanigans?

And just as “nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition“, nobody expected - or even much noticed, at the time - the Mullarkey Court’s “November Surprise” ruling that allowed new taxes to be re-designated as “fees” in order to bypass TABOR (and that pesky requirement to allow people to have a say in tax increases).  Like the late arrival of the inquisitors in this sketch, it’s taken some time for the implications of that case to “make the scene” - but the quadrupling of the “marriage fee”, substantial increase in “vehicle registration fees” along with punitive (and unconstitutional) “late fees” due to the “FASTER” Colorado Car Tax, and of course Governor Ritter’s recent proposal to impose a new Gun Tax as part of his plan to “balance the budget” - are certainly torturing Colorado wallets.

Colorado, it’s time to get up out of the “comfy chair“ and exercise YOUR right to vote “NO” on retaining the four unjust justices of the Mullarkey Majority (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and 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 homes and business from seizure by rapacious governments, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, not rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!), your contributions, and your “NO” vote on retaining these unjust justices in 2010!

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold made a special studio appearance on Thursday’s 850 KOA Mike Rosen show (hosted by Tom Tancredo).

Listen in to learn more about the grassroots movement to restore accountability to Colorado’s judiciary.  The four unjust justices of the Mullarkey Majority (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) need YOUR approval to continue taking away your rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your homes and business from seizure by rapacious governments, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, not rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your voice (Sound Off!), your contributions, and “NO” vote on retaining unjust justices in 2010!

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold appeared on the Independent Thinking television program with host Jon Caldara and fellow guest John Andrews for a discussion on ”Voter Approval of Supreme Court Justices” at 8:30 last Friday on KBDI Channel 12 - a CTBC broadcast television debut.  The show will be re-broadcast Tuesday, August 4th at 5PM.

For the impatient or more techno-savvy among you, the show can also be viewed (in 3 segments) on YouTube:

Watch the show Tuesday at 5PM on KBDI Channel 12, or view the video clips, to  learn more about the grassroots movement to restore accountability to Colorado’s judiciary.  Ditch the Mullarkey Majority (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) by voting “NO” to retain these unjust justices in 2010! Let’s Clear The Bench, Colorado!