Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Amended Proposed Amendments To HB17-1303
Amended Proposed Amendments To HB17-1303
Amended Proposed Amendments To HB17-1303
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Link to Colorado HB17-1303
4/21/2017
COLORADO LEGISLATURE; HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, HB17-1303
Dear Legislators:
We are a group of Colorado citizens that pride ourselves in giving the pro-se
litigants in the State of Colorado a voice in the Judiciary. As I am sure you are aware,
pro-se litigants are the largest number of parties in our courts and according to the
/s/Peter Coulter
/s/Luanne Fleming
/s/Robin Austin
/s/Ruth Sadler
/s/ Cliff Battista
AND thousands of pro-se litigants that are depending on us to get this
right.
REASONS:
Page 6 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303
Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
We have absolute proof that up to this point, surveys have
NOT been distributed per the mandates of the present Statute.
We have written documents from Mr. Wagner indicating that
Justice Rice, Mr. Gerry Marroney and Kent Wagner set
parameters as to whom should receive a survey. And because
the parameters were not considered rules by these 3, [Mr.
Wagner, Mr. Marroney and Justice Rice] the parameters were
unknown both to the Commission and the Colorado Supreme
Court. The present day statute is clear that every litigant should
receive a survey, but Mr. Wagner provided me a set of
parameters where they excluded certain sections of litigants
including Rule 120 persons. We believe they did this in a
concerted effort to get higher survey scores for judges they
wanted kept on the bench. Using a qr code would maximize
survey results and would also provide an easy way for the public
and the Commission to track that every litigant received a survey.
It would be simple and inexpensive to set up:
Every Judge/Clerk would have a qr code generator software
setup and when anyone came in that was an interested party to a
case, they received the qr code which they then scanned with
their phone or computer; leading them to a survey which they
then filled out and hit the send button. There would be provisions
for persons who did not have a way to read the qr code; perhaps
a reader in the courthouse, or by mail. To the best of knowledge
and belief, according to Mr. Wagner, return rates are presently
less than 20%; this method should bring it up to at least 70% or
higher providing a much more accurate survey result of the
litigants for the commission to base its recommendations.
REASONS:
OPENING UP THE MEETINGS TO THE PUBLIC WILL
SHOW TRANSPARENCY RUSULTING IN A RESURGANCE OF
CONFIDENCE THAT THE SYSTEM IS NOT BIASED AND/OR
CORRUPTED.
REASONS:
In retired Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Kourlis book,
Transparent Courts, she points out the importance of not having
the Judicial Performance Commission associated and housed in
the judicial branch because of the possible appearance of
impropriety. We heard Judge Samour indicate how difficult it is to
do reviews on Senior judges; this movement would help eliminate
perceived or real conflicts of interest and again help to bring back
confidence in the courts for the individuals of this state which is
designed to protect.
REASONS:
There is a significant issue in the current format where the
Director, Kent Wagner; the director of the Supreme Court
Administrative Division, Jerry Marroney and Chief Justice Nancy
Rice as sole head of the Administrative Division have set what
they call parameters which arbitrarily limit who receives a
survey. Because they have tagged them as parameters, they then
surmise and state that they do not need any State Commission or
Supreme Court approval like Rules are required to have.
Currently, they have set a parameter that disallows Rule 120
litigants from receiving a survey which the statute mandates they
should receive. Before we brought it up to the State Commission
a couple of months ago; we dont believe they were aware of the
situation and we are not sure that the entire Supreme Court was
Page 10 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303
Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
aware either. This provision would stop this type of actions by the
Director.
REASONS:
The best reason for this amendment is a past example. In
the 2014 retention election, County Judge Carolyn Moore of
Boulder County was up for retention. She was given a do not
retain vote by the Boulder District JPC. Soon after the do not
retain vote was announced; District Attorney Stan Garnett came
forward in the newspapers and indicated that none of the 29
Deputy District Attorneys had received a survey. Further, they all
published affidavits that if they had received surveys, they would
have unanimously asked that Judge Moore be retained. Mr.
Wagner then came forward and stated in the Boulder Times that
the survey distribution was an anomaly. Putting his own words
into common language; he was stating that he, through
Page 12 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303
Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
parameters set by himself, Jerry Marroney and Chief Justice
Rice decided not to include 29 Attorneys that they knew would
submit surveys to retain Judge Moore! I had a sampling statistical
expert run the numbers. It was a 7.2 Billion to 1 odds that this
could have happened randomly as necessitated by statistically
valid sampling of a pool. His explanation is suspicious at best.
At one of the last Commission meeting where they
suggested amendments to this bill before it was submitted; it was
Mr. Wagner who suggested disposal of the words statistically
valid surveys in the new bill. These words are essential in order
to make sure that any survey that doesnt include the entire pool
[all litigants, attorneys, etc. mandated by the bill] are still
statistically valid samples. As the wording is now, a single survey
submittal of a Judge or Justice could be considered to comply
with the bill/statute. These two critical words MUST BE
REINSTATED INTO THE BILL to assure the public that the
system is fair and unbiased in any manner.
REASONS:
Under current conditions no one knows for sure whether
surveys are being distributed and compiled according to the
mandates of the statute. While Mr. Wagner states that over
20,000 surveys have been distributed to pro-se litigants; in the
past 4 years we have not found 1 pro-se litigant that has received
a survey. And because everything is done behind closed doors;
we have no way of knowing what is going on with the surveys.
By transferring that duty to the State Auditor instead of an
out of State private company; the citizens of Colorado can be
assured that the surveys are being handled in the manner
mandated by the statute; re-instilling confidence of the litigants in
their legal system. The overall cost for appropriations should
remain neutral with the money appropriated for outside
compilation instead being transferred to the State Audit to run the
system.
REASONS:
In Chief Justice Rices state of the Judiciary last year, she pointed
out the difference between Judges and Justices indicating
persons acting by themselves are considered Judges; while more
than one person acting to decide a case are referred to as
Justices. The new bill is unclear as to whether Appellate Court
Justices are included in retention. Also unclear is whether or not
the Attorney Regulation Judge is to be included in Judicial
Retention. We absolutely believe that Appellate Court Justices
should face retention and the OAR Judge should also face
retention.
REASONS:
This gives a Judge/Justice a chance to improve his survey
results and voter approval. It also allows litigants the opportunity
to say we will give the Judge/Justice another chance but we dont
want him on the bench for the Constitutional time frame until s/he
has improved their Judicial temperament and approval rating.
REASONS:
AS WAS NOTED IN THE COMMITTEE HEARING, BY THE
TIME THAT VOTERS GET TO THE JUDGES THEY HAVE
BALLOT BURN OUT. HAVING THEM IN ODD NUMBER YEARS
WILL PUT THEM BY THEMSELVES AND HAVING ELECTRONIC
VOTING SHOULD INCREASE VOTER TURNOUT
DRAMATICALLY AT THE SAME TIME SUBSTANTIALLY
REDUCING ELECTION COSTS.
WE DONT BELIEVE THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD
BE PROMOTING THEIR OWN RETENTION
RECOMMENDATIONS.
REASONS:
Currently, violators of the statute face no repercussions for their
acts. Adding teeth will make those parties think twice before
trying such efforts under this bill. We cannot ever forget that this
bill frames the quality of our Judges/Justices and therefore frames
the quality of justice that we all receive. We have seen atrocities
under the current system that need to be eliminated by the
expulsion and prosecution of rogue actors.
REASONS:
We receive complaints across the State of Colorado
about Judges [and also Justices] that have abused pro-se
litigants because those Judges know that there is no
accountability. We know that if the Judges and Justices
were made accountable for their actions and the system
made completely transparent; many issues across the
court spectrum of cases would diminish substantially. As
we have stated before; we believe that 90-95% of all
Colorado Judges have the best interests of the litigants
before them. But those percentages are not high enough.
Page 21 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303
Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
Every person needs a fair redress of their complaint and it
is the responsibility of the Judicial Performance
Commission, the Judicial Discipline Commission and the
Colorado Supreme Court to enforce rules and provisions
to obtain 100% compliance so that confidence is again
instilled in the Judiciary.
AMENDMENT 13
SENIOR JUDGES
SENIOR JUDGES SHALL FACE RETENTION EVERY TWO
YEARS.
NO SENIOR JUDGE MAY BE ON THE BENCH MORE
THAN 60 DAYS IN ANY ONE YEAR.
ANY SENIOR JUDGE OVER THE AGE OF 75 MUST
RETIRE.
ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEEN APPOINTED A SENIOR
JUDGE FOR HIS OR HER CASE MAY REQUEST A NON-
SENIOR JUDGE INSTEAD. SUCH REQUEST SHALL NOT BE
DENIED.
REASONS:
Fees charged by the Judiciary are substantial and
therefore the litigants are entitled to have Judges that are
fully cognizant in their Judicial Actions.
We currently have Judges on the Appellate Court that are
over 84 years old and working over 60 days a year
through a loophole created in the rules. No disrespect,
but litigants are entitled to judges with ages within the
framework of our Constitution, i.e.72 years old. We
understand the necessity of Senior Judges as pointed out
Page 22 of 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR COLORADO HOUSE BILL 2017-1303
Presented by FACEUS, TRANSPARENT COURTS & thousands of pro-se litigants across the state of
Colorado
by Judge Samour to help out in emergency situations and
therefore would agree that Senior Judges must retire over
the age of 75 years old.
REASONS:
While we understand that no person wants to divulge their
financials; we believe that any person in the position of our
Judges and Justices who have complete control over civil litigants
lives where copious amounts of money are involved, must submit
to financial disclosure. We know that there is under the table
money being implemented in Colorado as has been proven in
other states in recent months. [See Nevada where 6 attorneys
were indicted by a grand jury for fraudulent financial transactions
with client monies and the investigation is being expanded now to
Judges]
Pro-se civil litigants dont have the acumen or knowledge to
track these bad actors; so as Judge Samour pointed out, they
must be filtered out so that the end product is the best, most
transparent, most accountable Judicial branch in the country.
/s/Peter Coulter
/s/Luanne Fleming
/s/Robin Austin
/s/Ruth Sadler
/s/Cliff Battista
And thousands of pro-se litigants across the State of Colorado