JUSTICES OF THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT AS THE STATUTORY RULES
REVIEW BOARD FOR THE COLORADO JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION,
Chief Justice Nancy Rice[1],
Justice Gregory Hobbs,
Justice Ben Coates,
Justice Allison Eid,
Justice Monica Marquez,
Justice Brian Boatright,
Justice William Hood III,
2 East 14th Ave.
Denver, Colorado 80203
Registered Mail #7010 3090 0002 5659 0119
RE: Judicial Performance Rules
November 4, 2014
Dear Chief Justice Rice and other distinguished members of the Judicial Performance Rule Review Body:
I write to you as the judicial body responsible to approve the rules implemented by the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission (CJPC) in accord with C.R.S. 13-5.5-101 Commissions on Judicial Performance. It has come to my attention in the last month that the JPC in conjunction with the Supreme Court Administrative Division has set "parameters" used to determine who receives surveys for Judicial Performance. Mr. Wagner, director of the JPE, has indicated to me that since they are parameters and not rules, they do not need your approval. That is in direct conflict with the Statute which mandates that the process be "fair" and "statistically valid".
This premise has been admitted by Mr. Wagner and it is well accepted by experts that to be "statistically valid", there can be no judgmental filters limiting the statistical pool, i.e., a judgment call (parameter/rule/filter) to eliminate all Rule 120 litigants from the survey. If that were allowed, it would further allow the JPE to make an unpublished parameter stating that only white people could survey white judges and because of Mr. Wagner’s stance that the JPC is not subject to CORA; it would never have to be revealed. Yes, it is an extreme example, but it serves the point well that the JPC may not set any parameters that statistically invalidate the results of the survey.
Further, the parameters are not published and while Mr. Wagner has been cooperative with information, he has also identified the JPC as a member of the Judicial Branch and therefore immune to CORA requests.[2] The result being that I feel that I am being impeded from necessary information that actually should be published; to affirm the mandates of the Statute that the surveys and the process be "fair".(While Mr. Wagner provided "parameters" for civil cases, he has not yet provided requested "parameters" which he has for criminal cases.)
Additionally, his explanations on why multiple years were left out in certain District Court Judges’ surveys makes no sense whatsoever and leaves the impression that the Commission is further biased in their endeavors.
Lastly, it is apparent that these "parameters" are actually cleverly disguised rules orchestrated so they don't need to be published or need statutory approval by you. (As professed by Mr. Wagner.) This fact is supported by a "Freudian slip" where in the parameters themselves; they are referred to as "RULES" not “PERAMETERS” and as such must be approved by this body.
In conclusion, I would state that because the surveys are statistically invalid as the result of biased, illegal and judgmental filters placed by the JPC[3]; all the surveys, “parameters” recommendations, blue book, voting, and judicial retentions of 2014 are illegal and therefore invalid. This argument is further validated and supported by the "DO NOT RETAIN" recommendation directed to Judge Moore of Boulder County. Mr. Wagner has brushed it aside in local newspapers as an "anomaly" that all 29 Boulder County District Attorneys were left out of the pool of included survey recipients.
I had a mathematical statistician review the figures and the possibility of this happening are in excess of 7 Billion to 1. This was not an anomaly, but a conscious corrupt decision to manipulate the survey results. It would be judicial suicide for Judge Moore to raise to much of a stink for fear of retaliation and retribution by the same powerful person(s) that orchestrated these corrupt and criminal acts.
I am sure that you would agree that the respective Judges must not have even the appearance of bias that these illegal procedures necessarily dictate. This is especially important to a pro-se litigant as myself.
I would therefore request that you forthwith invalidate the retention results of 2014, and deny every judge subject to said retention the ability to be sworn to office until such time as a statistically valid Judicial Performance Review can be properly administered in strict accordance with the Statute and a new vote be had by the citizens of Colorado.
Retired Supreme Court Justice, Kourlis writes in reference to Judicial Performance Reviews[4], that the process must have:
“TRANSPARENCY, FAIRNESS, THOROGNESS AND SHARED EXPECTATION”
The process as it stands does not meet any of these standards. Please fix it forthwith.
Commissions on Judicial Performance Reviews
JUSTICES OF THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT AS THE STATUTORY RULES
REVIEW BOARD FOR THE COLORADO JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE COMMISSION,
Chief Justice Nancy Rice[1],
Justice Gregory Hobbs,
Justice Ben Coates,
Justice Allison Eid,
Justice Monica Marquez,
Justice Brian Boatright,
Justice William Hood III,
2 East 14th Ave.
Denver, Colorado 80203
Registered Mail #7010 3090 0002 5659 0119
RE: Judicial Performance Rules
November 4, 2014
Dear Chief Justice Rice and other distinguished members of the Judicial Performance Rule Review Body:
I write to you as the judicial body responsible to approve the rules implemented by the Colorado Judicial Performance Commission (CJPC) in accord with C.R.S. 13-5.5-101 Commissions on Judicial Performance. It has come to my attention in the last month that the JPC in conjunction with the Supreme Court Administrative Division has set "parameters" used to determine who receives surveys for Judicial Performance. Mr. Wagner, director of the JPE, has indicated to me that since they are parameters and not rules, they do not need your approval. That is in direct conflict with the Statute which mandates that the process be "fair" and "statistically valid".
This premise has been admitted by Mr. Wagner and it is well accepted by experts that to be "statistically valid", there can be no judgmental filters limiting the statistical pool, i.e., a judgment call (parameter/rule/filter) to eliminate all Rule 120 litigants from the survey. If that were allowed, it would further allow the JPE to make an unpublished parameter stating that only white people could survey white judges and because of Mr. Wagner’s stance that the JPC is not subject to CORA; it would never have to be revealed. Yes, it is an extreme example, but it serves the point well that the JPC may not set any parameters that statistically invalidate the results of the survey.
Further, the parameters are not published and while Mr. Wagner has been cooperative with information, he has also identified the JPC as a member of the Judicial Branch and therefore immune to CORA requests.[2] The result being that I feel that I am being impeded from necessary information that actually should be published; to affirm the mandates of the Statute that the surveys and the process be "fair".(While Mr. Wagner provided "parameters" for civil cases, he has not yet provided requested "parameters" which he has for criminal cases.)
Additionally, his explanations on why multiple years were left out in certain District Court Judges’ surveys makes no sense whatsoever and leaves the impression that the Commission is further biased in their endeavors.
Lastly, it is apparent that these "parameters" are actually cleverly disguised rules orchestrated so they don't need to be published or need statutory approval by you. (As professed by Mr. Wagner.) This fact is supported by a "Freudian slip" where in the parameters themselves; they are referred to as "RULES" not “PERAMETERS” and as such must be approved by this body.
In conclusion, I would state that because the surveys are statistically invalid as the result of biased, illegal and judgmental filters placed by the JPC[3]; all the surveys, “parameters” recommendations, blue book, voting, and judicial retentions of 2014 are illegal and therefore invalid. This argument is further validated and supported by the "DO NOT RETAIN" recommendation directed to Judge Moore of Boulder County. Mr. Wagner has brushed it aside in local newspapers as an "anomaly" that all 29 Boulder County District Attorneys were left out of the pool of included survey recipients.
I had a mathematical statistician review the figures and the possibility of this happening are in excess of 7 Billion to 1. This was not an anomaly, but a conscious corrupt decision to manipulate the survey results. It would be judicial suicide for Judge Moore to raise to much of a stink for fear of retaliation and retribution by the same powerful person(s) that orchestrated these corrupt and criminal acts.
I am sure that you would agree that the respective Judges must not have even the appearance of bias that these illegal procedures necessarily dictate. This is especially important to a pro-se litigant as myself.
I would therefore request that you forthwith invalidate the retention results of 2014, and deny every judge subject to said retention the ability to be sworn to office until such time as a statistically valid Judicial Performance Review can be properly administered in strict accordance with the Statute and a new vote be had by the citizens of Colorado.
Retired Supreme Court Justice, Kourlis writes in reference to Judicial Performance Reviews[4], that the process must have:
“TRANSPARENCY, FAIRNESS, THOROGNESS AND SHARED EXPECTATION”
The process as it stands does not meet any of these standards. Please fix it forthwith.
Respectfully submitted this Nov. 4, 2014,
/Peter Coulter
151 Summer Street #654
Morrison, Colorado, 80465
Email: [email protected]
Web: Coloradojudicialperformancecommission.com
cc: Governor Hickenlooper
Mr. John Suthers, Colorado Attorney General
Members of the Colorado Legislature
Mr. Wagner, Director of Colorado Judicial Performance Commission
Retired Colorado Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Kourlis
Coloradojudicialperformancecommission.com