Comments by "" (@psychcowboy1) on "Man breaks into Colorado Supreme Court overnight and opens fire, police say" video.

  1. IAALS founded by former Colorado SC justice Becky Kourlis. Let's see if IAALS as the go to authority in transparency in judicial performance access to justice will be transparent about access to justice and judicial performance, at the forefront of judicial improvement. Stay tuned. The only thing I have noticed is lengthy papers that could all be titled 'It's good when good judges do good stuff', followed by self-congratulating themselves. IAALS experts Jordan Singer, Danielle Kalil, Janet Drobinski, I understand that you support transparency in judicial performance, as does the Colorado legislature in CRS 13-5.5-101, 107, and IAALS has the leading legal minds in the nation with profound changes to improve access to justice, to make the legal system supported by all. Obviously the most transparent mechanism is for judges to be questioned directly on their performance in a judicial performance hearing. Given that you are the go-to group for recommendations as to what works well in judicial performance, what do you think about my proposal to the Colorado performance commissions that I be allowed to question a judge directly on her orders, considering that her orders are in violation of CRS 13-5.5-107, and a violation of the code of judicial conduct? Our judicial performance director Kent Wagner and my district chief oppose judges being directly questioned in performance hearings, and our discipline director Chris Gregory thinks judges signing their names to false statements by lawyers is not misconduct, and our SC clerk Cheryl Stevens has decided that if a pro se litigant doesn't pass her screening for the SC jurisdiction, she can keep the fee and dismiss the case. What does the IAALS think? Since opening its doors in 2006, IAALS has been at the forefront of efforts to improve and expand programs for evaluating the on-the-bench performance of judges, and we have earned a reputation as the “go to” group for research, recommendations, and practical assistance in the judicial performance evaluation (JPE) field. Based on our extensive work in this area over the last decade, the research IAALS and others have conducted, and our interactions with JPE programs around the country through our JPE Working Group, we have learned much about what works well—and what does not work as well—in evaluating judges’ performance. In 2016, we felt it was time to update the JPE blueprint we first offered in 2006 in our Transparent Courthouse publication. Transparent Courthouse Revisited: An Updated Blueprint for Judicial Performance Evaluation provides that update, offering a menu of recommended practices and tools for designing and implementing a judicial performance evaluation program that fosters legitimacy in the eyes of the public and the judges.
    1