So Justice Bender, in her letter Chief Bailin states that she is always concerned if her judges are not functioning properly, but when I called her office, dealing with dishonesty by judges 'is just not how she handles things'. If you disagree that is complete hypocrisy, send me a statement. In the absence, I will assume you agree with me. Given that, is 'hypocrisy as the standard of ethics' the message you want to send to the public to inspire public confidence in the judiciary?
At a 2007 IAALS youtube post* some 'renowned experts' state that "the chief justices and judges are working hard to improve the system and listening hard to the people...they want to know that we are a self correcting system that has the capacity to analyze itself and improve the system for the good of the public..."
I guess Bailin, Bender, and Carparelli don't fall into that 'self correcting' category. Let's see if Lael Montgomery can meet the vision of the renowned experts.
Off the subject a bit, I suggest anyone finding themselves in court including lawyers stop the medieval practice of calling judges 'Your Honor'. When you get a judge job the Wizard of Oz doesn't hand you a superior wisdom and ethics diploma. You want that title? Earn it.
Surely Bailin, Bender, and Carparelli have been called 'your honor' many times. Considering their absolute opaque disinterest in the truth and the rules on the issues presented here, do you think they deserve it?
Since I have received no answers from Bender, Bailin, or Carparelli, here is my closing argument:
If the Colorado Supreme, Appeals, and District courts are unwilling to admit the truth, how in good conscience can they expect to demand the truth from anyone?
I got a letter from the SCAO that Carparelli considers my questions 'unwanted and inappropriate'. I guess the CJI definition for 'extraordinary courage and tenacity for the best possible legal system' is different from mine.
No matter, I will just ask the same questions to the IAALS. I mean, the IAALS wouldn't publicly state 'working together we must remake the system with a new commitment to transparency and accountability if they didn't really mean it right?
02SA18 describes a pro se injunction as 'impinging on constitutional rights'.
Question to Bender: if you are writing a borderline unconstitutional order is evidence, accuracy, and a grasp of case law important?
Klein/Terry/Furman/Casebolt didn't produce a single pleading that meets the standard* of 02SA18, i.e. 'not to vindicate his rights but to harass and intimidate his adversaries by repeatedly filing groundless and vexatious claims against them.'
Klein cited 02SA18 and stated that I had inundated the court with motions, but didn't list any motion as groundless or vexatious. 02SA18 states that "Mere litigiousness is not grounds to prohibit a person from proceeding pro se", i.e. 'inundating the court with motions' is irrelevant.
Is it a problem that Klein didn't understand the case law he cited? No because that is a competence issue and as noted by the JDC judges don't get disciplined for incompetence; only people in other jobs.
Still no answers from Bender/Bailin/Howell. I wonder what they are afraid of? At least Campbell was willing to talk to me; more character than simply hiding from the truth.
Question for Bender. Terry/Furman/Casebolt stated they would consider my arguments 'to the extent we are able to discern them'. Impartial? Show me an appeal opinion that states 'We will consider his arguments to the extent we are able to discern them' prior to reviewing an attorney written appeal.
The Boulder County Bar Association* has described my claims as 'too serious and egregious' for them to deal with. 'Because of the egregiousness of the many claims this should be dealt with at a higher level'.
*(check my Boulder County Bar Association 2 part post)
Let's see if too serious for a local bar association makes them serious enough for the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court.
So I sent a letter to Justice Bender providing documentation of my claims from the record, and I have asked him to submit to a one hour interview. We will see what happens.
Will the highest judicial officer in the state submit to one hour of complete candor under public scrutiny to inspire public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary?
Or from the Code: 'A judge should participate in activities for the
purpose of promoting public confidence in the administration of justice.'
Appeals judges Terry, Furman, and Casebolt found it 'troubling' that I failed to comply with CAR 28 in some unspecified way, and threatened to strike my appeal on that basis.
They made no comment on the fact that Klein's order was based on the false ex parte issue, or that Sandstead's order was written by a litigant and based on numerous false statements.
Question to Justice Bender: Which is more fundamental to justice; document formatting or analyzing whether the judge told the truth?
Question to Justice Bender: Is allowing lawyers to write lengthy court orders a good practice, or rather runs substantial risk of signing off on something biased or false one of the parties may try to claim? Considering the impact on peoples lives, shouldn't judges be careful enough to write their own orders?
So Justice Bender, in her letter Chief Bailin states that she is always concerned if her judges are not functioning properly, but when I called her office, dealing with dishonesty by judges 'is just not how she handles things'. If you disagree that is complete hypocrisy, send me a statement. In the absence, I will assume you agree with me. Given that, is 'hypocrisy as the standard of ethics' the message you want to send to the public to inspire public confidence in the judiciary?
cowgirlradio22 1 month ago
At a 2007 IAALS youtube post* some 'renowned experts' state that "the chief justices and judges are working hard to improve the system and listening hard to the people...they want to know that we are a self correcting system that has the capacity to analyze itself and improve the system for the good of the public..."
I guess Bailin, Bender, and Carparelli don't fall into that 'self correcting' category. Let's see if Lael Montgomery can meet the vision of the renowned experts.
cowgirlradio22 3 months ago
Off the subject a bit, I suggest anyone finding themselves in court including lawyers stop the medieval practice of calling judges 'Your Honor'. When you get a judge job the Wizard of Oz doesn't hand you a superior wisdom and ethics diploma. You want that title? Earn it.
Surely Bailin, Bender, and Carparelli have been called 'your honor' many times. Considering their absolute opaque disinterest in the truth and the rules on the issues presented here, do you think they deserve it?
cowgirlradio22 3 months ago
Since I have received no answers from Bender, Bailin, or Carparelli, here is my closing argument:
If the Colorado Supreme, Appeals, and District courts are unwilling to admit the truth, how in good conscience can they expect to demand the truth from anyone?
cowgirlradio22 3 months ago
I summarized my questions to the IAALS on these issues on the 'Questions to the IAALS' page of: abettercourtsystem.
cowgirlradio22 3 months ago
I got a letter from the SCAO that Carparelli considers my questions 'unwanted and inappropriate'. I guess the CJI definition for 'extraordinary courage and tenacity for the best possible legal system' is different from mine.
No matter, I will just ask the same questions to the IAALS. I mean, the IAALS wouldn't publicly state 'working together we must remake the system with a new commitment to transparency and accountability if they didn't really mean it right?
cowgirlradio22 4 months ago
02SA18 describes a pro se injunction as 'impinging on constitutional rights'.
Question to Bender: if you are writing a borderline unconstitutional order is evidence, accuracy, and a grasp of case law important?
Klein/Terry/Furman/Casebolt didn't produce a single pleading that meets the standard* of 02SA18, i.e. 'not to vindicate his rights but to harass and intimidate his adversaries by repeatedly filing groundless and vexatious claims against them.'
No evidence, No problem?
cowgirlradio22 5 months ago
Klein cited 02SA18 and stated that I had inundated the court with motions, but didn't list any motion as groundless or vexatious. 02SA18 states that "Mere litigiousness is not grounds to prohibit a person from proceeding pro se", i.e. 'inundating the court with motions' is irrelevant.
Is it a problem that Klein didn't understand the case law he cited? No because that is a competence issue and as noted by the JDC judges don't get disciplined for incompetence; only people in other jobs.
cowgirlradio22 5 months ago
Still no answers from Bender/Bailin/Howell. I wonder what they are afraid of? At least Campbell was willing to talk to me; more character than simply hiding from the truth.
Question for Bender. Terry/Furman/Casebolt stated they would consider my arguments 'to the extent we are able to discern them'. Impartial? Show me an appeal opinion that states 'We will consider his arguments to the extent we are able to discern them' prior to reviewing an attorney written appeal.
cowgirlradio22 5 months ago
The Boulder County Bar Association* has described my claims as 'too serious and egregious' for them to deal with. 'Because of the egregiousness of the many claims this should be dealt with at a higher level'.
*(check my Boulder County Bar Association 2 part post)
Let's see if too serious for a local bar association makes them serious enough for the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court.
cowgirlradio22 6 months ago
So I sent a letter to Justice Bender providing documentation of my claims from the record, and I have asked him to submit to a one hour interview. We will see what happens.
Will the highest judicial officer in the state submit to one hour of complete candor under public scrutiny to inspire public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary?
Or from the Code: 'A judge should participate in activities for the
purpose of promoting public confidence in the administration of justice.'
cowgirlradio22 6 months ago
Appeals judges Terry, Furman, and Casebolt found it 'troubling' that I failed to comply with CAR 28 in some unspecified way, and threatened to strike my appeal on that basis.
They made no comment on the fact that Klein's order was based on the false ex parte issue, or that Sandstead's order was written by a litigant and based on numerous false statements.
Question to Justice Bender: Which is more fundamental to justice; document formatting or analyzing whether the judge told the truth?
cowgirlradio22 6 months ago
Same questions to Bender as to Howell and Bailin:
1. Inkblot test in the courtroom; useful? CFI testimony, reliable?
2. 6am wake up time for infant 7 days a week, good call?
cowgirlradio22 6 months ago
Question to Justice Bender: Is allowing lawyers to write lengthy court orders a good practice, or rather runs substantial risk of signing off on something biased or false one of the parties may try to claim? Considering the impact on peoples lives, shouldn't judges be careful enough to write their own orders?
cowgirlradio22 6 months ago