[continued from previous message]   
      
   process — by an overwhelming majority of voters is evidence that the   
   public does not trust the judicial department to monitor the behavior of   
   judges through the Colorado Supreme Court. Amendment H resulted in   
   removing that authority from the Supreme Court.   
      
   Playing favorites?   
   A major discovery uncovered by the scandal was that the Colorado Supreme   
   Court had departed in some instances from the requirement that complaints   
   of judicial misconduct must be reported to the Commission of Judicial   
   Discipline. There were repeated instances where complaints were handled   
   directly by the Supreme Court amidst allegations that preferential   
   treatment was provided to certain judges. It remains extremely concerning   
   that the highest court in the state would intentionally ignore the law   
   pertaining to judicial discipline.   
      
   Indeed, instead of requiring compliance with the law Boatright required   
   that he be kept abreast of judicial discipline matters on an ongoing   
   basis. This was and is contrary to the law. Confidentiality of proceedings   
   before the Commission of Judicial Discipline is required to protect the   
   integrity of the investigation. Chief Justice Marquez is apparently   
   following the same path contrary to the law and in violation of the   
   requirement that preliminary proceedings before the Commission of Judicial   
   Discipline are confidential. The Supreme Court and the justices are not   
   exempt from the confidentiality requirement.   
      
   The Commission of Judicial Discipline recently released its 2024 annual   
   report which raises serious concerns surrounding its methodology when   
   examining and determining appropriate disciplinary action once a Request   
   for Evaluation is deemed meritorious to conduct further investigation.   
      
   Of interest was the explanation of the process the commission used in   
   examining the numerous complaints of judges who failed to comply with the   
   law requiring judges to file personal financial disclosures. While it was   
   enlightening that the commission would provide such transparency —   
   especially in light of the public reporting of the many failures — it begs   
   the question why more thorough explanations of the commission’s   
   undertakings are not subject to public examination.   
      
   Instead, theCommission of Judicial Discipline hides behind the broad and   
   largely self-defined concept of “confidentiality” (but for the exceptions   
   carved out by Boatright and Marquez) which is the department’s way of   
   protecting its robed servants.   
      
   For example, the report went through great lengths to explain why the   
   commission did not adopt a one-size-fits-all in its response to the   
   individual judges’ responses as to why they failed to follow the law. Yet,   
   it ignored addressing a judge who was a member of the commission and who   
   ignored the reporting requirements.   
      
   The same commission member was also reported to have recused herself from   
   certain commission deliberations without a public explanation of the   
   reason for her recusal. Judges should be required to explain why they are   
   recusing to assure the public they are not presiding over a matter that   
   presents an appearance of impropriety. I am unaware of any law that   
   prohibits a judge from providing reason(s) for recusal.   
      
   The Commission of Judicial Discipline annual report provided a report of   
   the commissioner recusals but does not address Supreme Court justices’   
   recusals as required by CRJD Rule 41 (a) (b) (1). It has been reported   
   that an extensively detailed anonymous request against the justices of the   
   Supreme Court was filed in October requesting the disqualification of the   
   Commission of Judicial Discipline and Supreme Court justices. The filing   
   and request should have triggered Rule 41 and the required reporting of   
   the Commission of Judicial Discipline’s disqualifications in the 2024   
   annual report. Neither the anonymous RFE nor the Commission of Judicial   
   Discipline’s response were included. Consistent with this apparent   
   nondisqualification and efforts to suppress the anonymous RFE I, also, was   
   never provided with notice of recusals in the RFE I filed against   
   Boatright and the justices, contrary to the rule and the Commission of   
   Judicial Discipline’s statutory notification requirements.   
      
   Ducking discipline   
   An additional area of concern is the commission’s use of dismissing a   
   substantiated complaint “with a statement of concern.” The Commission of   
   Judicial Discipline issued 18 dismissals with concern in 2024, one of   
   which involved my RFE and the Commission of Judicial Discipline’s   
   recognition of a complaint against Justice Boatright.   
      
   The commission’s claims it typically issues a “dismissal with concern”   
   where it believes discipline is not necessary or appropriate believing   
   “that personalized communication with a judge regarding their ethical   
   obligations would be illuminating or helpful” and offering suggestions to   
   assist the judge.   
      
   Previous annual reports explained the conduct addressed that resulted in   
   the “statement of concern” without identifying the judge. The most recent   
   report lacks transparency by neglecting to define the behavior or   
   circumstances involved.   
      
   A dismissal “with a statement of concern” apparently does not provide the   
   gravitas that would statutorily disqualify an individual from entrance   
   into the senior judge program pursuant to statute. If it were otherwise,   
   judges who failed to file financial disclosure statements would be   
   prohibited from serving.   
      
   Because the complainant and the public were not provided with the   
   Commission of Judicial Discipline’s determination, they are unaware   
   whether the allegation(s) were sustained or not. The complainant should be   
   entitled to know but isn’t because of the commission’s arbitrary   
   confidentiality shield.   
      
   The Colorado Supreme Court is not serious about providing a comprehensive   
   and transparent method for informing the public about judicial misconduct.   
   It continues to take a dismissive attitude toward the subject in spite of   
   the shame it has brought upon the judiciary.   
      
   Amendment H should be the beginning of providing public insight into the   
   disciplinary process involving judges. Further reform would endorse the   
   belief that no one, including judges, is above the law.   
      
   Dennis Maes served 24 years as a 10th Judicial District judge in Pueblo   
   and was chief judge for 17 of those years. He served as director of Pueblo   
   County Legal Services as a public defender and as an attorney in private   
   practice.   
      
   Dennis Maes served 24 years as a 10th Judicial District judge in Pueblo   
   and was chief judge for 17 of those years. He previously served as   
   director of Pueblo County Legal Services as a public defender and as an   
   attorney in private practice.   
      
   https://gazette.com/opinion/perspective-colorado-s-unaccountable-   
   judges/article_f3d35206-ef95-11ef-9c4c-ffa9e6de4393.html   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)