|
Colorado's Commission on
Judicial Discipline
(known here as the Commission for the
Abolition of Judicial Discipline)
We have deduced that "Dr. Rick" Wehmhoefer would have us believe that we are limited as to what we are permitted to
post here. Although Wehmhoefer concludes nearly all of his correspondence to complainants with, "Please be
reminded that this matter is strictly confidential pursuant to Article VI, Section
23(3)(g), Colorado Constitution, and
sections
24-72-401
and
402, Colorado Revised Statutes," we are not so circumscribed.
See also Wehmhoefer, Confidentiality of
Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings,
17 Colo.Law. 1043 (1988).
|
What becomes of written complaints
filed against judges by ordinary
citizens?
According to the "July
2006 Colorado Judicial Institute"
newsletter,
"Accountability is already built into
the system, with regular retention
elections when the public has the right
to remove any judge with a simple
majority of votes, performance reviews
by the
Judicial Performance Commission,
and a Commission on Judicial Discipline
that can remove judges for improper
conduct." Id. at 2.
Perhaps, someone should ask, "How many
judges have been removed from office by
the retention system that the Institute
claims has served us so well? In fact,
how many voters know anything at all
about the judges on the ballot box that
they are asked to retain with a Yes/No
vote? While we're on the subject, how
could voters learn much at all about
these judges, given that entire
categories of cases are now sealed from
public view (see our
Public Access to Court Records page)?"
At our urging, Rocky Mountain News, Ivan
Moreno has asked the same question with
his June 18, 2007 article,
Judges' conduct: A veil of secrecy.
A few other inquiring minds want to
know, too:
See
June 19, 2007 ColoradoPols blog entry
here; see
also the
4-part series on the Colorado Index, (part
I part
II
part III
part IV)
A cursory examination of the complaints
and responses, hereinbelow, provides the
answer. Additionally, we encourage
readers to review the
(2005) Annual Report
of the Commission on Judicial Discipline
with the following question in mind: How
many judges were removed from office for
improper conduct? (Allow us save you
some time. The answer is zero). In fact,
out of the 179 unique matters allegedly
reviewed by the Commission, only three
(3) resulted in any discipline, which
discipline was "private" (simply meaning
that the public was prevented from
learning about the offense[s] or the
alleged discipline). |
Ken Smith has posted
a comprehensive editorial
Web page
(apparently modeled after
KnowYourCOURTS.com)
regarding alleged corruption
within Colorado's judicial
oversight mechanisms.
|
Here's an
unheard-of declaration: "Judicial tyranny is
eroding the rights of the citizens," said a
legislator and several critics of
Minnesota's bench and bar on April 18, 2007.
Rep. Dan Severson, R-Sauk Rapids argued
that oversight and discipline of Minnesota's
judiciary should be taken from judges and
lawyers and given to a reconstituted Board
on Judicial Standards dominated by citizen
volunteers: "
"We
in the Legislature have abdicated a lot of
authority over to judges to police
themselves, and it's not working . . .
We need to give the power back to the
Legislature and the people." Under a bill
introduced by Severson and Sen. Michelle
Fischbach, R-Paynesville, the standards
board's current composition of four judges,
two lawyers and four nonlawyers appointed by
the governor would change to eight citizen
applicants chosen at random who would then
appoint two legislators. The new board could
remove judges from office directly. Under
existing law, only Minnesota's Supreme Court
can do that.
>>Star Tribune
article text>>
>>St.
Cloud Times article text>>
Of course, Colorado's judicial discipline
system is much better than Minnesota's,
right?
|
(reminder
- it is site visitors' responsibility to verify authenticity,
accuracy, applicability of statutes, rules, regulations, etc.
-see
Disclaimer) |
|
The Standard of Review used in Evaluating
Grievances Submitted to the Commission for
the Abolition of Judicial Discipline
In
this complaint
to Chief Justice Mullarkey on unrelated
issues and, which was drafted by a
KnowYourCOURTS.com
contributor,[n.1] the complainant
inadvertently reveals the Standard of Review
that Rick Wehmhoefer uses.
According to
his account of the telephone call, he claims
that Wehmhoefer debated him about the merits
of the divorce case from which his complaint
arose: He claims that Wehmhoefer asked him,
“If
I were [sic.]
to talk to your wife, what would she say
about you? . . . What do the blogs say about
you? . . . Are[n’t] there two sides to every
story? Just answer the question –Are[n’t]
there?”
He also claims that Wehmhoefer advised him
that he should not have dismissed his
appeal, which sounds like the rendering of
legal advice and, which may have established
an attorney-client relationship.
[n.1] The contributor has
asked to remain anonymous because of fear of
retaliation from the divorce court judge
with respect to his parenting time. |
|
Wehmhoefer also asserts in most of his
responses that:
The Commission of Judicial Discipline
reviews complaints about ethical Conduct
by state judges. However, because it is not a[n
appellate] court, it does not have the
authority to review legal or factual aspects
of a person's case. It also does not have
the authority to review the rulings, orders
or decisions that a judge may make [or
refrain from making] when presiding over a
person's case. All of those matters can be
reviewed only through appellate process."
Some may interpret Wehmhoefer's boiler-plate
statement as pretextual, specious and, perhaps,
insulting to the intellegence of the
complainant. If nothing else, it is predictable,
as Elana Sassower explains in Without Merit:
The Empty Promise of Judicial Discipline,
4 Massachusetts School of
Law, The Long Term View 1
at 90:
These [judicial discipline commissions]
frequently dismiss, out-of-hand, complaints
of on-the-bench misconduct, including
abusive courtroom behavior and fabricated
judicial decisions. They do this on the
pretense that they have no authority to
review "the merits of matters within a
judge's discretion, such as the rulings and
decisions in a particular case," which they
assert can only be reviewed by an appeal to
an appellate court.
Id. at 92 |
One
page, found
here, hosted by Chuck Corry, lists various
Colorado agencies and resources including the
following:
"Judicial
discipline commission - This is widely
regarded as a joke."
At another location
on the same page, there is the following entry:
"Commission
on Judicial Discipline - Complaints about
judges. Mostly what the EJF hears are complaints
about this useless and ineffective commission."
Is the Judicial Discipline Commission, under the
charge of Rick Wehmhoefer, truly a joke - a
useless and ineffective commission?
Readers will decide for themselves.
|
|
See also
http://www.court-house.com/StewartPerjury.htm
(where complainant alleges that he, "has tried to
appeal to Mr. Wehmhoefer Executive Director and
General Counsel for Commission, Colorado Commission
on Judicial Discipline without success. I
guess charges against a Judge have to reach a few
degrees below murder before this agency will react"). |
|
|
We note
that
Dr. Rick
has the "distinction" of being the first male
telephone operator in the Bell system. (Read about
it
here). However,
`though Dr. Rick only rarely answers his own office
phone these days and, while some may question what
Dr. Rick has actually been doing these past 20+
years in his position as Executive Director of the
Judicial Discipline Commission (other than mailing
out pro forma denial letters), we
understand that he is available for
interviews to tell, "tales
of stardom and seventies sexiness." |
|
|
|
Elsewhere on
this Web site, we have
a page dedicated to the unjustified
sealing of court records from the public.
Here
is a memorandum signed by a division
clerk, "Todd," to his district court
judge and regarding a pro se litigant's efforts to unseal a domestic
case that had been sealed by this same
judge. Todd wrote,
"if
you ignore problems long enough, they
often go away," and
attached an order he had drafted for the
judge to sign. Todd scribbled on the
memorandum,
"I
wrote an order -see if you like it."
Indeed, if
you spend enough time looking through
cases on this site (e.g., district court, El Paso County,
# 01DR2408;
Jefferson County combined court
# 99DR3717,
inter alia),
you might discern a pattern of judges
ignoring the good faith motions and
applications for relief by pro se parties, seemingly expecting that they
will eventually go away.
Ensuring
that judges are in compliance with Canon
3(A) and C.R.S. § 13-5-135, we thought,
falls to the Commission on Judicial
Discipline. However, it may appear to
the reasonable person that the
Commission does not act on such
complaints, despite representations to
the contrary in
their Annual Report. |
|
Richard Wehmhoefer and the
Commission on Judicial Discipline Defies the
Will of the General Assembly
We know that
citizens may not defy the will of the
legislature (violate the statutes).n.1
We are often told that public officials are not
above the law, `though that assertion appears to
have been placed in dispute by evidence found
throughout this Web site.
What about State
agencies? Specifically, is Rick Wehmhoeffer and
the Commission on Judicial Discipline free to
disregard the law? For example, may
the Commission disregard or deny the
substantiated and truthful complaints of a
citizen-petitioner, which complaints contain
allegations that a judge has failed to timely
rule on a motion, pleading or matter before him,
as required by Colo.R.Civ.P. 97, Colo.Rev.Stat.
§
13-5-135
and Canon 3A)?
We know, according
to the Commission's
most recent report, that it allegedly issued
private letters of discipline for, "Delayed
issuing decisions in cases pending before the
judges, violations of Canon 3 A. (5), Colorado
Code of Judicial Conduct" (Id. at 10)
under it's stated responsibility and power to,
"investigate and act upon allegations of a
judge's . . . willful or persistent failure to
perform judicial duties . . . [or] . . . Any
conduct that constitutes a violation of the
Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct." Id.
at 2.
We have learned
that writing the Commission members will result
either in no response from nine out of ten of
the members and a hostile response from the
Chair, Mike Norton, husband of the former
lt. Governor (see infra).
Well, perhaps the
other remedy is a law-suit for prospective,
injunctive relief, alleging a "procedural
injury," for the agency's failure to follow
agency rules, state statutes and the applicable
constitutional provisions? Wrong, again: the
Colorado Supreme Court ruled in Higgins v.
Wehmhoefer,
13 P.3d
837, 838 (Colo. App. 2000)
that, "district courts do not have subject
matter jurisdiction to compel the Commission or
its Executive Director to investigate a
complaint alleging judicial misconduct."
Therefore, unless
you conclude that a remedy may be available in
the nature of mandamus (under Rule 21, original
jurisdiction, Colorado Supreme Court), it does
appear that, "Yes," the Commission on Judicial
Discipline and Rick Wehmhoefer may defy the will
of the General Assembly and there's very little
that can be done about it. As such, it appears that sections
13-5-135
and
13-5-136
are
unenforceable.n.2
|
|
|
What happens if Rick Wehmhoefer ignores [a]
complaint[s], disregards the statute[s] and the complainant redirects the
complaint/concerns to the Chair of the Commission on Judicial Discipline?
Click
here
to find out.
|
|
Complaints |
Response (if any) |
|
March 30, 2007
Complaint to all
ten members
of the Commission of
Judicial Discipline |
No Response |
|
January 4, 2007
Complaint |
No Response |
|
October 23rd, 2006
petition to the Commission on Judicial
Discipline |
No Response |
|
July 11, 2006
supplement
to follow-up
July 3, 2006
follow-up
March 31, 2006
Reply
in support of complaint
March 10, 2006
Reply
in support of complaint
February 2, 2006
Complaint
|
July 12, 2006
Response
April 12, 2006
Response
February 10, 2006
Response
|
|
May 19, 2004
Complaint
|
March 24, 2004
Acknowledgment
|
|
May 5, 2004
Complaint
|
May 12, 2004
Response
|
|
unavailable at this time (we're working on it) |
March 14, 2004
Response
|
|
March 11, 2004
Reply in support of
complaint
March 3, 2004
Complaint
|
March 08, 2004
Response
|
|
August 18, 2003
Complaint
August 15, 2003
Complaint
August 15, 2003
Complaint
August 14, 2003
Complaint
August 12, 2003
Complaint
|
August 19, 2003
Response
|
|
March 22, 2003
Reply in support of
complaints
Original two
complaints unavailable at this
time
(we're working on
it) |
March 10, 2003
Response
January 9, 2003
Acknowledgment
December 30, 2002
Acknowledgment
|
|
March 27, 2001
Reply in support of
complaint
Original complaint
unavailable at this time
(we're working on
locating it) |
April 2, 2001
Response
March 12, 2001
Response
|
|
June 6, 2000
Complaint
|
unavailable at
this time (we're working on locating it) |
|
n.1 For the sake of this
article, we assume that violations of civil
statutes may result in injunctive relief; that
violations of injunctions may result in fines or
jail time under Rule
107 (contempt); and that violations
of criminal statutes may result in any number of
penalties, including jail time, fines and a
panoply of other creative sentencing remedies.
n.2 If you become aware
of any instance where 13-5-136
(forfeiture of salary for failure to timely
rule) has been enforced in Colorado, please
contact
tipline@KnowYourCOURTS.com. We are aware of
none.
|
back to Documents Main
page
last updated:
07/13/2007
|
