"knowyourcourts.com"

10 thoughts on ““knowyourcourts.com””

1.   Here’s one fine example: According to complaints and court documents available on KnowYourCOURTS.com, attorney Herman “Hal” Lohse was having a relationship with his female client during the divorce proceedings and he assisted in severing any meaningful contact between the ex-husband and his daughter.  According to the complaints, Lohse was on very good terms with the magistrate in that case and the two met privately during a hearing. A few moments later, the ex-husband allegedly was arrested at the direction of the magistrate and taken into custody for over a week on non-existent charges and where there had been no warrant issued. His arrest and subsequent absence from further proceedings in the custody case allegedly were relied upon to make a restraining order permenent and, eventually, to abolish any contat between the ex-husband and his daughter.
     Allegedly, a few months after the divorce was concluded, Lohse married his client and, once that became official, he had to withdraw.  After his withdrawal, the woman continued to file pleadings supposedly pro se. However, any reasonable person would conclude, upon reading those pleadings, that attorney Lohse was ghostwriting them for her, in violation of Rule 11.
     During and after all of these alleged events, the ex-husband file numerous complaints with various agencieis, including the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel. He was told to screw off.
     All of the court documents and actual comlaints & transcripts pertaining to these alleged events are located on KnowYourCOURTS.com

   Log in to Reply

   1. Go to the Attorney Regulation Counsel page to see the complaints filed against Lohse (these aren’t found in Marriage of Thorup docket page).

      Log in to Reply

   2. If I can read that kind of crap online now, I guess I can stop watching all my soap operas.

      Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our dockets…

      Log in to Reply

      1. Obviously you are sympathetic to the plight of the corrupt court officials who now risk exposure or you are one.

         Log in to Reply

         1. because why else would I waste good sarcasm other than to expose myself to you.

            Log in to Reply

            1. And these fella’s are taking you to task for using a word they admittedly never would have even thought to use in discussin of the courts or lawyers; “dockets!” How dare you be intelligent of enough to know what a docket is and use it in such a witty manner.

               You must be a lawyer who needs to be stomped out for exhibiting knowledge of the court system.
               http://thecoloradoin…

               Kids, beware. Dellusions will even make you hate knowledge.

               Log in to Reply

               1. …now THOSE can be scary.

                  Log in to Reply

               2. That made my snowy day much warmer.

                  Log in to Reply

      2. maybe not.

           Sure, the drama of attorney Lohse in the Thorup divorce case may seem boring. Whether the attorney regulation counsel prosecutes anything other than misappropriation of client funds (despite its protestations to the contrary) is also boring. So, too, is whether the Medical Examiners Board is a specious, illusory agency  –quite boring, that is, until it’s your mother or your husband who died on the operating table because of a simple oversight or because a nurse put the wrong medication in the IV drip. Then, all of the sudden, you care about what kind of job the Medical Examiners Board or Nursing Board is doing (and not doing).  And like a fool, we’ll find you standing on the steps of the capital building carring some silly sign or else writing silly memos to state officials, who have better things to do, or authoring some quasi-blog to call attention to what you perceive is a farcical problem.  Of course, there will always be those casual readers to remind you that the story of your dead father or wife is about all the entertainment you can handle for one day.
           Here are some other equally boring stories: the stolen laptop worth only $1,500 allegedly found in the home of a former judge.  Another boring one is that some Colorado judges falsified some affidavits and claimed they were attending CLEs for credit when, instead, they were golfing. (I’ve posted the 12/30/2002 story below, b/c it’s no longer online).  These are the same honest, hardworking, competent and impartial folks that Cuervo says have all the facts of a given case, and we have no place to second guess them or whine about the outcome of our (or any) case.  Are you sure you want your future fate decided by these people?

           – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

         Two veteran Colorado judges had admitted they signed inaccurate affidavits in the wake of an exclusive 7NEWS investigation.

         7NEWS looks closer at the decisions made by individuals whose honesty and integrity are considered cornerstones to their credibility, and we focus on the state’s highest court refusing to take action, apparently allowing judges to falsify legal documents without a reprimand, sanction or penalty.

         7NEWS Investigator Tony Kovaleski broke the story. His investigation began with judges’ decisions at the taxpayer funded judicial conference held back in September. Judges regularly work with legal affidavits in their courtrooms. They are a standard component of the legal system. They are required to include the facts and the truth. 7NEWS video tape from that conference brings both into question.

         Two experienced Colorado judges are struggling to explain two signatures. Decisions made after attending the state’s mandatory judicial conference in Vail.

         Tony Kovaleski/7NEWS: With all due respect, you are not really telling me the truth are you?

         Judge Norman Arends/3rd Judicial District: No. I’m telling you the truth.

         Kovaleski: Did you lie on this affidavit?

         Judge Frank Martinez/Denver District Judge: No, I absolutely did not.

         Kovaleski: If a judge accepts taxpayer money is the expectation they attend the conference?

         Justice Alex Martinez/Colorado Supreme Court: Yes, the judges are required to attend the conference.

         Supreme Court Justice Alex Martinez organized the state’s judicial conference. Taxpayers funded a majority of the 3-day legal summit. It’s a conference so vital that legislators made it a law. So important that for 72-consecutive hours each year courtrooms go dark throughout Colorado.

         Kovaleski: The requirement of attending the conference does not mean just being at the location, it means attending programs.

         But despite what Justice Martinez says 7NEWS Investigates discovered the state’s highest court looking the other way as several judges chose to avoid the seminars, electing to leave the classrooms and checking into the health spa, peddling down bike paths, working their way up hiking trails and driving down fairways.

         Justice Alex Martinez/Colorado Supreme Court: We don’t take attendance at any of those functions.

         It’s an honor system, in some cases, with no honor. In many other states, judges are required to sign in and sign out but in Colorado there is no proof of who did and who did not attend.

         Justice Alex Martinez/Colorado Supreme Court: We don’t treat them like school children.

         But this investigation is about more than just attendance and sign-in sheets, it’s about judges apparently allowed to submit inaccurate affidavits.

         On a 7NEWS videotape Denver District Judge Frank Martinez is seen hiking the mountains around Vail. Our camera found him here instead of attending a conference seminar.

         Kovaleski: Judge Martinez?

         Judge Frank Martinez/Denver District Judge: Nice to meet you.

         Kovaleski: Tony Kovaleski from 7NEWS Investigates. Do you have a moment?

         Martinez: No, I don’t. I am busy.

         We wanted to talk to Judge Frank Martinez about a signature on an affidavit — a legal document claiming he earned 10 general credits for attending conference classes.

         Kovaleski: Can you explain why you submitted an affidavit that wasn’t accurate to the Supreme Court?

         Judge Frank Martinez/Denver District Judge: I totally disagree.

         Three days after 7NEWS aired video of Martinez hiking in the mountains, Judge Frank Martinez amended his affidavit removing four credits from the original sworn statement.

         Kovaleski: Is that a coincidence?

         Judge Frank Martinez/Denver District Judge: What I submitted is a matter of public record. I have nothing to add or subtract from that.

         Judge Frank Martinez attached this letter to his amended affidavit saying, “I may have miscalculated the number of credits I submitted.”

         Kovaleski: Did you lie on that affidavit?

         Judge Frank Martinez/Denver District Judge: No, absolutely not. I was more than accurate on that.

         7NEWS Investigates has video of Judge Norman Arends at the Vail golf course.

         Judge Norman Arends/3rd Judicial District: I think judicial conference is very important. I take it seriously.

         He’s the acting chief judge of the state’s third judicial district, with two decades of experience on the bench. 7NEWS spoke with him at the end of October, six weeks after the conference concluded.

         Judge Norman Arends/3rd Judicial District: I think it’s a wonderful way to help judges be better judges.

         Judge Arends’ conference registration detailed his intention to attend 14 sessions and classes at the conference between Monday and Wednesday. After the conference he confirmed his attendance with his signature on a legal affidavit stating he attended all 14 sessions.

         Kovaleski: That’s your list. Did you attend those classes?

         Judge Norman Arends/3rd Judicial District: I attended those classes.

         But that’s not what our 7NEWS cameras found. On the first day of the conference, instead of sitting in this classroom, 7NEWS found Judge Arends in the parking lot at the Vail Golf Club at 2:19 p.m. changing shoes. And at 2:47 he was on the first tee, beginning his round of golf.

         At 4:24 while the conference sessions were wrapping up, the judge’s car remained in the golf course parking lot.

         Kovaleski: Everything on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday you attended.

         Judge Norman Arends/3rd Judicial District: Yeah, I went to my classes.

         On the conference’s second day Judge Arend’s schedule shows he planned to attend a full day including two afternoon judicial seminars.

         Tony Kovaleski/7NEWS on hidden camera: I am looking for Mr. Arends, A-R-E-N-D-S.

         Golf shop employee: Norman Arends?

         Kovaleski: Yes.

         Golf shop employee: They went out at 11:45.

         But for the second straight day judge Arends checked out of the conference and checked in at the golf course.

         Golf shop employee: There was just three of them. They teed off at 11:51 so they are probably on the 14th or 15th hole.

         A few minutes after 3 p.m., 7NEWS’ cameras found judge Arends on the 15th tee.

         Kovaleski: With all due respect, you are not really telling me the truth are you?

         Judge Norman Arends/3rd Judicial District: No. I’m telling you the truth.

         Kovaleski: Sir, you played golf on Monday and Tuesday at the Vail golf club.

         Judge Norman Arends/3rd Judicial District: That’s right.

         Kovaleski: You said you attended all the classes?

         Judge Norman Arends/3rd Judicial District: Well, I did go to basically most of the classes.

         Kovaleski: Tell me if this looks familiar?

         Judge Norman Arends/3rd Judicial District: Yeah.

         Kovaleski: That’s Monday.

         Judge Norman Arends/3rd Judicial District: OK.

         Kovaleski: Is that you?

         Judge Norman Arends/3rd Judicial District: Um huh, that’s really me.

         After watching the videotape, the judge changed his story.

         Judge Norman Arends/3rd Judicial District: I elected to play golf a couple of times at this conference. And was that a good decision in that respect? No. It probably wasn’t.

         But perhaps the judge’s most problematic decision is his signature on the affidavit claiming he attended the classes, claiming he earned credits required to keep his law license.

         Kovaleski: As you sit here today, is that affidavit accurate?

         Judge Norman Arends/3rd Judicial District: If you count being there for 100 percent of the session, no, it wouldn’t be accurate.

         In the days following this interview, Judge Arends’ petitioned the court to correct his affidavit and refunded taxpayers the money they spent for him to attend the conference.

         Kovaleski: Sir, you’ve made a career of judging people. Over the past 45 minutes, your story has changed two or three different times. If you were judging, what you’ve said to me, would you consider it credible testimony?

         Judge Norman Arends/3rd Judicial District: Probably partially credible, partially not credible.

         Monroe Freedman/Distinguished Professor of Legal Ethics: I would consider it a serious violation.

         Monroe Freedman is a distinguished professor of legal ethics at Hofstra University.

         Freedman: Lying about it, not on the affidavit but also publicly on television, which is also considered a serious matter because it has a tendency to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

         Freedman says both Judge Arends and Judge Frank Martinez clearly crossed the line of legal ethics. Pointing to the state’s judicial code of conduct, which states, “A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all the judge’s activities.”

         Freedman: They turned an official duty into a vacation, a paid vacation. I would say it’s disgraceful conduct, and I am no less concerned frankly, from everything I have heard. no official action has been taken.

         Six weeks after seeing these pictures and learning judges submitted inaccurate affidavits Colorado’s Supreme Court has refused to respond apparently ignoring the evidence, choosing to disregard the issues and failing to correct the problems.

         Freedman: I am calling on the appropriate authorities to take action.

         Supreme Court Justice Mary Mullarkey declined our request to discuss the issues of this investigation. Responding in this letter she said in part, “I ask that you review this matter and call an end to it.”

         Freedman: Whatever the punishment is, it should take into account the importance of protecting the public from lawyers and judges who are demonstrated to be untrustworthy.

         To date, Colorado’s Supreme Court and the judges and lawyers’ disciplinary bodies have taken no action against either judge. And to date the Supreme Court has taken no action to change its systems at its taxpayer-funded conference. In other states like Arizona, Utah and New York, there is no honor system. Checks and balances are in place to hold judges accountable.

         Finally, our legal ethics expert said the people of Colorado should expect better in administration of justice.

         Log in to Reply

2. Here’s a news item that I’m posting later tonight on our Commission for the Abolition of Judicial Discipline Page (yes, I’m coming up with new names for some of my pages, if I can do so without sacrificing any credibility.  I’m naming my other favorite page the Attorney Deregulation Council page):

   “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. http://www.startribu…  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 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. Of course, Colorado’s judicial discipline system is much better than Minnesota’s and is in need of so such reforms, right?

   Log in to Reply