1/24/2017

Joint hearing of Colorado House and Senate Judicial Committees

concerning reset of CRS 13-5.5-101 et. Seq.; Judicial Performance.
HOUSE JUDICIARY
Representative
Pete Lee
Chair
Representative
Joseph A. Salazar
Vice Chair
Representative
Adrienne Benavidez
Representative
Terri Carver
Representative
Mike Foote

Mike Weissman
Representative
Yeulin Willett
Representative
Cole Wist

SENATE JUDCIARY
Senator
Bob Gardner
Chair

Representative
Leslie Herod

Senator
John Cooke
Vice Chair

Representative
Paul Lundeen

Senator
Don Coram

Representative
Jovan Melton

Senator
Rhonda Fields

Representative

Senator
Daniel Kagan

Page 1 of 5 Judicial Performance Recommendations

1-24-2017
Good morning:
My name is Peter Coulter and I represent an organization that is dedicated to
Transparency and Accountability in our Colorado Courts. A minimum of 51% of all
civil litigants are now pro-se with upwards of 72% in some of our family courts. The
reality is that these litigants get one shot at redressing their grievances and rely
heavily that the judge is honest and upholds their constitutional rights.
The prefix of these honest judges lies in their retention through the Judicial
Performance Evaluation Statute which is set to expire in June of 2019. Sadly, and
shamelessly this system has been compromised and corrupted through the survey
system, leading to propaganda being fed to the voters instead of precise and honest
recommendations.
Let me be clear, to date I have found no hard evidence that any of the
Commissioners themselves are involved but that is difficult to ascertain as the
Judiciary as self-exempted out of CORA and Mr. Wagners first line in correspondence
is that he doesnt have to respond to questions because he is a member of the
judiciary.and therefore exempt from CORA.
There is hard evidence that there are 3 persons in the judiciary that are
directly responsible for the corruption: Chief Justice Nancy Rice, Esq. who is also the
sole head of the Colorado Supreme Court Administrative Division that distributes
Judicial Performance surveys; Gerrald Maronney, Esq., director of the Colorado
Supreme Court Administrative Division that distributes Judicial Performance surveys;
and Kent Wagner, Esq. director of the Judicial Performance Commission.
These 3 have corrupted the system by manipulating the survey distribution
through a system of unlawful parameters that, according to Mr. Wagner, began in
2004 when he was an employee of the Administrative Division. Succinctly, the way
it works is these three collude to arbitrarily eliminate certain sections of survey
participants that they believe will disrupt either the Retention or Non-Retention of
respective judges, i.e. Rule 120 litigants. Contrary to the mandates of the statute,
they have eliminated their surveys believing that they would return adverse surveys
and lead to unfavorable retention advisements by the respective commissions.
Another example is the unfavorable retention advisement of County Judge Karolyn
Moore where all 29 Boulder District Attorneys did not receive surveys. They all then
signed affidavits that had they received the survey, they would have given Judge
Moore accolades!
We need a new Judicial Performance Statute that instills confidence in the
litigants that are in front of these judges; not some political system that is currently
in use. Below is an amended letter I gave the Judicial Performance on January 11,
2017:

Of key importance is Transparency and Accountability. Commissioner Gessler

asked me what I meant by that and I would like to expand my thoughts here. The US
Supreme Court just issued a decision concerning the recusal of a Judge. The Court
recognized the importance of avoiding even the appearance of bias or impropriety
stating that a judge must recuse himself/herself if there is the slightest chance that
there could be an appearance of bias.
That is the threshold we would require from any reset of the Judicial
Performance Statute; no question that any facet of the system could possibly be
tainted or biased resulting in erroneous retention and non-retention of our judges. I
would like to think that this is also the goal of the Commission members
We also believe it important to incorporate the KISS rule; Keep It Simple,
Stupid, so that there can be no question as to what must be done and who must do
it. It is important to reiterate to the Commission that according to a 2014 Colorado
Supreme Court sanctioned study, 51% of all civil litigants are pro-se with some
divisions of the court reach 72%. This majority of litigants depends heavily on the
Judge and his oath to uphold the Constitution. The reality is that most pro-se
litigants get one shot to redress their grievances in our County and District Courts
because they lack the acumen to file an appeal. The corrupted judges know this and
intentionally abuse the litigants knowing there is no accountability or transparency
to week them out.
We believe the following suggestions will drastically improve the Judicial
Department and bring it back in line with the thinking of Patrick Henry, the Father of
our Judiciary:
COLLECTION OF SURVEYS:
The simplest way to get surveys would be to issue a Quick Response Code
[QR Code] to each party to any lawsuit. Each case with have a code no as would
each survey recipient. Names would remain anonymous. And parties would be
directed to the net to respond to a set of survey questions and/or a short 200-word
survey. You could have an 800 number also available for those who dont have
access to the net. While the Court would distribute the mandatory surveys; the
Audit Division of the Legislative Branch or the Secretary of State through the
Executive branch would collect and collate the surveys in-house without 3 rd party
intervention.
It does no good if the collection of the surveys is corrupted. Leaving it up to
the Judiciary to supervise that system would leave the same type of appearance of
corruption that is present today.
COMPILATION AND PUBLISHING
The obvious reason for having Commissions when the Statute was enacted
was because that was the easiest way to disseminate the information and funnel it
down into a recommendation. The issue with that method has shown its weakness
in recent year is the ability to manipulate results by unscrupulous parties. We now

have the net, so I see no real need for the Commissions. Follow along with my
example please:
A pro-se litigant, attorney, juror, clerk bailiff, or whomever has contact with
a respective judge gets a QR code each time they come into Court. They observe
the judges actions, demeanor, temperament, etc. and after they leave the
courtroom they take the QR Code, go to the net and fill out the survey imputing the
code they were given. The names remain anonymous if they want. The survey
takers are divided into groups, i.e. pro-se litigants, represented litigants, attorneys,
clerks, witnesses, jurors, etc. Each persons survey is grouped into one of these
categories, reviewed quickly for inappropriate language and uploaded immediately
to the net under a respective Judges name. The judge will get the last word if s/he
wants by having the ability to review all the results on the net and write his/her own
response of 500 words immediately before voting ballots are sent out.
Blue book recommendations would be eliminated. People would make up
their own minds based on the surveys. If the voter thought that the attorney
surveys would be more accurate; they could take that into consideration. Or if they
thought say clerks would give biased opinions they could eliminate them in their
selection. There would be no court watchers, as every survey recipient will see the
judge every day; not just when they know they are being watched and on their best
behavior. There is no need for a submittal of their decisions and opinions either. Of
course, they always turn in their best job; not the ones that got reversed or ended
up being a minority opinion in the Appellate or Supreme Court. And there would be
no need to do interviews with any of the judges where again they are on their best
behavior. As noted above, they will be able to review all the surveys for their court
online and they will have the last word to give to the voters. Budgets for the Judicial
Performance Commissions have run more than $700,000 per year. Implementing
the above system will guarantee transparency and accountability. More importantly,
it will restore trust in the system, especially for civil litigants and families.
Additionally, cost should be substantially lower; even if review is part of the
framework to make sure no corruption has again metastasized into the system.
There also needs to be some other changes made to make sure we have the
best Judges in Colorado sitting on the bench:
1. Every person who acts in a judicial manner be it Judges, Magistrates, Senior Judges,
Administrative Law Judges, Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Judge and even
home rule municipal judges and magistrates should face retention. And not in
increments of every 2,4,6,8 or 10 years, but every 2 years at the general election.
This makes sure that everyone has a judge that follows his/her constitutional oath
and we have a fair way of redress inspired by the Father of our Judiciary, Patrick
Henry.
2. The Supreme Court has made rules that make a mockery of the original
intention of Senior Judges. They have made shameless bizarre rules that
allows a judge that is only supposed to practice 60 days a year maximum;
practice every day of every year they are under contract including an 84year-old judge on the Court of Appeals. (Judge Leonard Plank) Our

3.

4.

5.
6.

Constitution puts the limit age of 72 years old for a reason and the citizens of
Colorado should have the right to have their cases heard by Judges 72 yrs. or
younger. It is no secret that the Colorado Supreme Court uses these judges
on cases where there are problems; leaving the litigants with no ability to
survey them. Bottom line, get rid of senior judges.
KISS rule. Keep it Simple Stupid. There is no need for any long statute or plethora of
rules in this day of the internet. People can make up their own minds about the
judges they want on the bench. And the above system assures the public that while
they may not win their respective case; they will not have a biased judge on the
bench.
Many of us as pro-se litigants have faced hearings where the recorder has been
conveniently being turned off to hide unscrupulous behavior or respective judges. It
is an easy fix. Allow recording by the parties in the Courtroom as a backup that can
be usedjust in case.
Or, better yet is Commissioner Habas suggestion that there be cameras in every
court to make sure judges are behaving and to make sure surveys are distributed.
And finally, there needs to be some teeth added to the statute that makes it a
criminal felony act to in any manner corrupt the system to determine our judges.
Thank you for your time and consideration in these important matters.
We want a bill introduced this legislative session. Too many people are being hurt by
the present system. These are not criminal litigants; they are civil litigants and
families that are being abused by corrupted judges who know they have no
accountability for their actions. We know there are a majority of good judges on the
bench. We believe they should welcome these changes so they are not intimidated
into playing the get along to go along mentality that is being forced upon them
now.
This Commission will go down in history either as the group that
allowed the status quo of corruption; or were instrumental in making the best
Judiciary in the Country, a model for other states to follow.
Sincerely,
/s/Peter Coulter
TransparentCourts@gmail.c
om
Sirs/Madams of the respective
Judicial committees; thank you for the opportunity to present
these suggestions. /pc