XPost: misc.legal, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns, sac.politics   
   From: nospam@ix.netcom.com   
      
   It has been five years since the Colorado Supreme Court under the then-   
   leadership of Chief Justice Nathan Coats was rocked by a pay-for-silence   
   scandal that would pay a high-ranking member of the State Court   
   Administrator Office $2.5 million to remain silent about judicial   
   misconduct that took place during her watch. The administrator was facing   
   discipline for allegations of financial misconduct.   
      
   The unraveling of the scandal through the reporting of David Migoya,   
   investigative reporter for The Gazette, subsequently brought to light many   
   instances of subpar performance and ethical concerns surrounding the   
   Supreme Court Nominating Commission, The Judicial Performance Commission   
   and the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline. The three commissions   
   are essential to the meaningful public oversight of the Colorado   
   judiciary.   
      
   The scandal resulted in the first and only public discipline of a chief   
   justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, Coats. While Coats’ discipline was   
   pending, I submitted a Request for Evaluation concerning the judicial   
   conduct of the other justices. The Commission of Judicial Discipline   
   recognized my request as a valid complaint pursuant to the judicial code.   
      
   And acknowledged there was a reasonable basis to suspect that Coats’   
   successor, Chief Justice Brian Boatright, and the other justices violated   
   the code for commenting on pending or impending cases, namely judicial   
   discipline proceedings against Coats and the other justices themselves.   
   Ultimately, the allegations were arbitrarily dismissed by the Commission   
   of Judicial Discipline “with an expression of concern.” More on that topic   
   later.   
      
   After the bombshell report, Coats’ successor, Boatright, authorized the   
   expenditure of $350,000 of taxpayer money to conduct what he called an   
   “independent investigation ” into the workplace culture within the   
   judicial department. The results of the self-serving investigation   
   predictably downplayed the Supreme Court’s obvious misdeeds.   
      
   It was recently disclosed that the judicial department paid $155,000 to   
   settle cases against two now-retired judges, John Scipione, a former   
   Arapahoe County district judge, and Robert Kiesnowski, a former Adams   
   County district judge, who had been disciplined for judicial misconduct   
   occurring during Boatright’s tenure as chief justice. Both judges received   
   their full monthly salaries prior to their retirements   
      
   The justices ordered Scipione to pay the Commission of Judicial Discipline   
   $51,189.50 in attorney fees and Kiesnowski to pay $4,966.95 in attorney   
   fees. The Commission of Judicial Discipline’s 2024 annual report does not   
   disclose whether 21 judges who failed to file financial disclosures in   
   violation of the code and statutory law were required to pay attorney fees   
   including 15 judges who received a dismissal with “an expression of   
   concern.” It is obvious the Supreme Court justices feel free to fritter   
   away the taxpayers’ money in violation of the fiduciary responsibility it   
   has to the taxpayers.   
      
   New chief, same game   
   Chief Justice Monica Marquez was selected to succeed Boatright upon the   
   completion of his term and was mentored by him during that time. She was   
   aware of the circumstances surrounding the pay-for-silence scandal but   
   like the other justices failed to report it to the Commission of Judicial   
   Discipline as required. Marquez frequently praised Boatright’s service and   
   committed that she would be following his lead in lockstep.   
      
   In yet another exhibition of fiscal irresponsibility, Marquez recently   
   presented her annual budget request to the Legislature, requesting an   
   additional 29 judges who claim to be overworked. One of the members of the   
   Joint Budget Committee took the judicial department to task for requesting   
   increases in a tight budget year but not offering suggestions where cuts   
   might be made.   
      
   Not to be dissuaded, Marquez is requesting an additional appropriation of   
   upwards of $52 million. The executive director of the judicial performance   
   commission and the judicial discipline commission testified on behalf of   
   the excessive budget request in a show of fealty to their master.   
      
   During the 2024 general election, the judicial performance commissions   
   which are charged with providing accurate and substantive information to   
   the voters concerning judges who are up for retention were heavily   
   criticized for favoring judges and neglecting to report negative behavior.   
   Included were the vast number of judges who failed to file compulsory   
   financial information as required by law. A violation of the law is a   
   misdemeanor and punishable by a fine up to $5,000.   
      
   Nevertheless, Marquez recently granted senior judge status to a retired   
   judge despite the state’s appellate court overturning convictions and   
   sentences in numerous cases the judge handled due to her errors.   
      
   The cases involved the following: allowing prosecutors to give a false   
   impression to jurors about DNA evidence in a sex assault case; permitting   
   multiple defendants to represent themselves without ensuring they had   
   validly given up their right to counsel; blocking a defendant from telling   
   the jury his alibi; allowing a defendant’s lawyer to withdraw without   
   informing the defendant of her rights; subjecting a defendant to lifetime   
   sex offender registration without explaining why; allowed a biased juror   
   to serve in a drunk driving case; declining to correct a prosecutor who   
   misstated the law to jurors; barring crucial testimony for a vehicular   
   homicide case which enabled the prosecutors to misrepresent the facts to   
   the jury, and twice failing to require defendants to pay restitution   
   within the required period including one judge commenting that she   
   “recharacterized history” by including language in an order that was not   
   supported by the evidence.   
      
   Additionally, the same retired judge was one of the judges who failed to   
   file financial disclosures for several years in violation of judicial   
   ethics and state law.   
      
   The retired judge’s history was easily verifiable by Marquez. However,   
   consistent with the dereliction of the judicial performance commissions,   
   it was seemingly ignored. When Marquez was asked why she believed the   
   judge was fit to serve despite her appellate record, she declined to   
   comment.   
      
   As with any scandal, Watergate comes to mind. The cover-up that ensues is   
   as damaging as the scandal if not worse. What is inexplicable during the   
   number of years the scandal has breathed life is the failure of the   
   Supreme Court leadership and the previously mentioned commissions to   
   embrace transparency and full disclosure of judicial misconduct.   
      
   The recent passage of Amendment H — restructuring the judicial discipline   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)