Comments by "" (@psychcowboy1) on "Forbes Breaking News"
channel.
-
9
-
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
-
I have the below questions to COLORADO JUDICIAL OFFICIALS at IAALS, Ingrid Bakke and 20th Judicial District, State Court Administrator Office, CBA and BCBA
The embarrassing thing is that I even have to ask these questions; but even more embarrassing is none of these judicial authorities will have the integrity to answer them, pointing to the fundamental problem with the judiciary; it is staffed by lawyers. Imagine if judges were chosen from a pool of people whose livelihood would go out of business if they refused to answer client questions and took months to complete jobs that could be done in an hour.
We would have something unrecognizable from the present system if judges were picked from a field of plumbers, electricians, and auto mechanics. As one example in the recent King Soopers case; after 3 hours of presenting evidence, the judge would say 'that is enough, give us your closing argument, it is undisputed who the killer is and what he did. I am not going to let you spend days proving something that it already known by everyone in the courtroom'. Instead, we have a week or more of testimony with over 100 motions; any plumbing company with that level of inefficiency would quickly go out of business.
Now to my PENDING QUESTIONS:
TO IAALS: Does IAALS agree with Brian Boatright, the ABA, and the Colorado legislature?
TO INGRID BAKKE AND 20TH DISTRICT; Does anyone on your district management team or any of your judges agree with Dea Lindsey?
TO SCAO: Does the SCAO have a mechanism to identify an honest judge or judicial official in Colorado?
TO CBA AND BCBA: Have any of you seen a worse more capricious and biased court order than the one by Dea Lindsey?
BOATRIGHT:
Where there was wrongdoing, we will address it. Where there was an abuse of power, we will stop it. Where our policies are deficient, we will change them. We want to know the truth. I do want to put a face to the system and let people know that we're human beings and care about the public, and we are doing our best to do the job. So, it's putting a human voice to the system. It bears repeating that we will make public the results and recommendations of the investigations, including steps to ensure accountability, fairness and transparency throughout Colorado’s judicial branch...We will think anew and we will act anew...I want to assure you that we, as the judicial branch, will bring the clear-eyed perspective, energy and determination to tackling the challenges that face the branch … during these trying times. We are committed to lifting the clouds over the branch.
IAALS AND COLORADO LEGISLATURE
CRS 13-5.7-101
(1) The general assembly finds and declares that:
(a)Access to justice is a basic principle of the rule of law, and it ensures that all persons, institutions, and entities, public and private, including the state itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated. In the absence of access to justice, people are unable to have their voice heard, exercise their rights, challenge discrimination, or hold decision makers accountable.
(b)Lack of access to justice is a problem that has serious social, legal, economic, and political consequences;
(c)Since 2003, the Colorado access to justice commission has collaborated with organizations concerned about the gap in access to justice in Colorado to develop and support a range of tools, policies, and services to address this gap. The commission has served as a hub for the many stakeholders working on access to the civil legal process without statutory acknowledgment.
(d)From 2003 to the present, the need for access to justice and the importance of improving access have grown, but the challenges of access to justice in Colorado and around the nation have become more acute;
(e)A study by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the university of Denver found that access to justice is a broad societal problem, with sixty-six percent of the American population experiencing at least one legal problem in the past four years and with less than half of those problems being completely resolved;
(i)There is an intersection of need and opportunity with respect to access to civil justice for all Coloradans, such that the commission’s ongoing work merits statutory recognition, informing the governor and general assembly through regular, systematic input from the commission.
(2) Therefore, the general assembly recognizes that access to civil courts is a pillar of democracy and enacts this article 5.7 to codify the Colorado access to justice commission and affirm its commitment to equitable access to the civil legal process.
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
ABA MODEL RULES AND MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
Rule 2.6 of the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Code of Judicial Conduct (Model Code) requires a judge to “accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding . . . the right to be heard according to law.” Model Code Rule 2.2 requires the judge to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the . . . impartiality of the judiciary.” The most fundamental mistake trial judges make is failing to guarantee the right “to be heard according to law” out of fear of losing their “impartiality.” The ABA Standards Relating to Trial Courts, promulgated in 1976, give predominant weight to ensuring the right to be heard: “When litigants undertake to represent themselves, the court should take whatever measures may be reasonable and necessary to insure a fair trial.” Echoing the earlier trial court standards, in 2007 the ABA amended the Model Code, adding the following commentary to Rule 2.2 on impartiality: To ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be objective and open minded; It is not a violation of this Rule for a judge to make reasonable accommodations to ensure pro se litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly heard.
ABA: … the strength of the fabric of our society depends on the active participation of its members. The Preamble to the Model Rules exhorts lawyers to “seek improvement of the law, access to the legal system, the administration of justice and the quality of service rendered by the legal profession . . .” and to “further the public’s understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system because legal institutions in a constitutional democracy depend on popular participation and support to maintain their authority”
1
-
1
-
1