Comments by "" (@psychcowboy1) on "ABC News"
channel.
-
13
-
5
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have effectively challenged Colorado SC justice Melissa Hart to debate the below issues. Hart is magna cum laude from Harvard Law. I have never taken a class in the practice of law. What could she possibly be afraid of?
1. ABA standards are that failure to render reports of lawyer dishonesty are 'a disservice to the public and the legal profession'. Not only did Lindsey refuse comment on the extensive pattern of dishonesty by a state paid lawyer lying on behalf of a state funded university, she in fact signed her name to dishonest proposed statements and orders by Megan Clark. There is no evidence judge Lindsey even read my complaint, and as to the pro se injunction, the only substantial difference between the filings by me and Clark, is that I tell the truth and Clark doesn't.
The ALJ order by Tyburski is capricious, irrational, biased and with no basis in fact or law. It wasn't frivolous to appeal it; it was in fact a necessity to address judicial bias and complete indifference to the facts and the law, most notably the refusal of Tyburski to comply with CRS 24-50-101, CRS 13-5.5-107, and CRS 13-5.7-101.
The failure in conduct and credibility of Tyburski is undisputed by three state personnel directors and the Board of Ethics, who are the responsible parties to analyze conduct and performance of SPB ALJ. Not only did Tyburski fail to comply with the single assignment the legislature has given her; determine what is fair, she even failed to comply with SPB rules, e.g.:
SPB Rule 7.2 Board Rule strongly encourages the governor, the state personnel director, and all appointing authorities to apply “progressive employment practices” and “alternatives to minimize or avoid layoffs of employees in the state personnel system.”
2. Denver judge Jill Dorancy dismissal misinterpreted mandamus CRCP 106 rule:
a) Her statement that CU refusal to comply with CRS 24-50-101 is 'not contemplated by the rule' is false as can be confirmed from the Civil Rules Committee. State officials refusing to comply with statutory duties, as CU has clearly done, is the entire purpose of CRCP 106.
b) Dorancy decided not to address the CRS 24-50-101 violation because similar issues with different defendants were pending in the COA. She was relying on the exhaustion doctrine that she misinterpreted. The exhaustion doctrine requires the exhaustion of administrative remedies before proceeding to the courts. I had clearly exhausted administrative remedies.
3. The COA order by Grove/Furman/Yun misinterpreted the protection of Classified tenure in XII Sec. 13. They dismissed my case because I didn't provide SPECIFIC language protecting Classified tenure. The case I provided stated that Classified tenure is protected by IMPLIED language in XII, Sec.13. I don't need to provide specific protection if the protection is implied.
Similarly, judge Elizabeth Brodsky statement that 'the COA confirmed there is no policy that would grant Greene the relief he requests', is also false. They didn't confirm that; they misinterpreted the case law, and they failed to even mention the governing statute in this case; CRS 24-50-101, which makes the university president 'responsible and accountable' for policy directives from the state personnel director. Brodsky also violated civil procedure by granting defendant's motion to dismiss on the same day she received it.
4. The statements by COA judges Berger/Brown/Johnson are a violation of the code of judicial conduct, and CRS 13-5.7-101; I am not permitted to ask them questions, and they are dismissing my case on the claim that my brief was not structured properly. I asked them how it was not substantially compliant; they declined comment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1